Browning’s Dilemma in Romantic Inheritance:
Dramatic Monologue and the Sense of Poetic Career
Kyu shu In stitut e of Techn ology
Kei NIJIBAYASHI
Bro wnin g is o ften con sidered to b e on e of the major successors of Romanticism,
especially in any consideration of his versatile h andling o f lo ve po etry, as in “Love
amon g the Ruins”, or in his apocalyptic, Goth ic po ems like “Ch ild e Roland to th e
Dark To wer Came” and the lon g, con cep tual poems from early in his career: Pauline,
Paracelsus and So rd ello. Ho wever, as Britta Martens argues in Browning, Victorian
Poetic and the Romantic Legacy, his inh eritan ce o f Ro manticism does no t en able a
straightforward analysis of the specific techn iqu es, themes and styles h e adop ted.
Marten s p ays close attention to Brownin g’s ambivalen ce to wards his po etic and
private selves, and d escrib es a frau gh t artistic stru ggle in th e po et’s attach ment to and
gradual estran gement fro m Ro man ticism.
On e o f the causes for Browning’s ambiguity abou t Ro man ticism was his urgent
need to establish a p ro fessional p oetic career, unlike the Romantics.
1
(Wordsworth
stands as the major exception.) In th e creation o f th e Ro man tic universe, th e sense o f
career cu riou sly diverged from the business world in favour o f th e imagin ation, and
triu mph an t posthumous visions in which th e po ets gain ed their artistic and so cial
apotheosis. Their belief in the absolute b ehind ph eno menon auto matically end orsed
careers remo ved fro m an d tran scendin g practical exigen cies. Th is was to be
recon firmed b y th e h agio graphic pub lic mythmaking after their early deaths, or in the
cases of Colerid ge and Wo rdsworth , b y th eir early accomplishments.
Bro wnin g struggled in his relation both to th is d efinition o f a poetic career and
the rap idly growing publishing business. As Britta Martens discu sses, it became a
pressin g con cern for Browning to realize th e b est mod e o f po etic co mmunication with
the public to secure social recognition. This p ap er will focu s on Bro wnin g’s sen se o f
career as th e chief dynamic in the creation an d develop ment o f his po etry, su ggesting
that the departure fro m Ro manticism was self-con scio usly d ramatized throu ghou t his
oeu vre. By emphasizing the relation between his d eviation fro m Ro mantic tradition
2
Kei NIJIBAYASHI
and his reco gnition of a new type of poetry career, I also aim to defin e Bro wn in g as a
foreru nner o f the modern professional poet whose writing institutes a critical distance
fro m h is private identity. Browning contrived radical techniqu es to make his po etry
differ significantly fro m that o f th e p recedin g era, and in th is p aper d rama tic
monolo gue and h istorical settin g will be emphasized as particular means of
sub mergin g the individual into the objective and th e matter-of-fact. As Herb ert F.
Tu cker
claims,
2
Bro wnin g
tran smuted
and
established
a
new
mode
for
contextualizin g the personal into the historical, fortifyin g th e n arrator ’s voice as
grounded in th e actu al rath er th an the vision ary. His career, bo th as a reno wn ed p oet
and a “lion” in London society, was achieved throu gh an altern ative man ipulation o f
poetic sub jects, styles and forms; half addressin g and h alf shunn in g society b ecame a
means to engage with th e impo ssible dreams and asp irations o f a residu al Ro man tic
yearn in g wh ile also forging pieces for justified public appraisal. In this, h e is to be
distin guish ed from Romantic tradition, and it might well b e argu ed that Bro wnin g was
the greatest b en eficiary o f Ro man tic in fluen ce.
I
Between 1829 and 1834, although he compo sed po etry under th e stron g in flu en ce o f
Romanticism,
and esp ecially in th e wake o f an 1827 readin g o f Shelley’s
Miscellaneous Poems, Browning was not co mpletely unavailab le to other poten tial
careers, notab ly con sid erin g his fath er ’s profession of banker. He also wondered,
especially after th e public disregard o f Pauline in 1833, if he cou ld b eco me a
playwright, writing five plays between 1836 and 1 846, in cludin g his first play,
Straffo rd. Unlike poetry, writing for the stage cou ld b e con sidered as a p ro fessio n.
Neverth eless, Browning made efforts not only to court popularity but to create
artistically fin e pieces, and blamed William Ch arles Macread y, th e actor and director,
for bein g ho stile to Th e Return o f th e Dru ses, believing its unpopularity and ultimate
failu re h ad d erived fro m Macread y’s un enthusiastic attitude towards it: “I did rather
fan cy th at you would h ave ‘symp athized ’ with Djabert in the main scenes of my play:
and your failing to do so is the more decisive again st it” (679).
3
Total failure in the
theatre pro fession led h im to th e exclu sive composition of poetry in exile after
elop in g with Elizab eth Barrett. In this wa y, at the outset his career as a poet can be
contextualized by his ambitions for a publicly ackno wl ed ged career, and h is attitu de
is furth er understandable in relation to th e pub lishin g indu stry o f th e 18 30s:
publishers were unanimously anxious about th e b ad sales to b e exp ected fro m an
3
Browning’s Dilemma in Romantic Inheritance: Dramatic Monologue and the Sense of Poetic Career
individu al po et’s work.
4
That Browning acquired the techniqu es o f d ramatic writin g
in this p eriod was to prove significant. His first poems in th e dramatic mon olo gu e
style – “Porphyria’s Lover” and “Johannes Agricola in Meditatio n” – were written in
1836, just a year before Strafford was accep ted and p erfo rmed . In Bro wn in g’s mind,
dramatic mono lo gu e was d eeply related to the business of theatre, and the strong
sense o f public app rob atio n to ward s h is poetry is latent through all his works and
sometimes app ears on the surface, as in his address to the En glish pub lic in Th e Ring
and th e Boo k.
Bro wnin g’s early works, Paulin e, Pa racelsus and So rdello, clearly d erive fro m
Ro man tic poetics, casting idealistic protagon ists as mou thpieces, and d epicting
failu re in th e pu rsu it o f a transcend ent vision or policy: the ideal being (Pauline),
ultimate knowled ge (Pa racelsu s), and a p erfect political philo soph y (Sordello). On
the on e h and, this is an attempt to continue th e Ro mantic mod e o f writin g in imitation
of Shelle y, and can be considered as an exp eriment in the validity o f su ch an act in
rapidly changin g Victo rian so ciety. Con versely, it b ears witn ess to an unpreced ented
obscurin g o f ambition and message, while main tainin g Ro mantic th emes and
characters. Th e majo rity o f his poems end in d isillusio n ment, thou gh th ere is a clear
differen ce b etween th e final ton e o f Ro mantic poems and that to be found in
Bro wnin g’s early poems. Romantic poets n ever d esert the ideal o f th e ab solute, while
Bro wnin g’s p rotagon ists are willin g to do so in th e wake o f failu re. It was acu te of
John Stu art Mill to criticize the pro tagonist Pauline for lacking actuality.
5
Yet, it
seems th at Bro wnin g’s aim was to represent his own complex Romantic ideals while
simultaneously communicating a receding b elief in Ro manticism.
In Pau lin e, imitatin g Sh elley’s vision ary po ems, such as The Alastor and
Epip sych idion, Bro wnin g d escrib es a d ejected narrator imagining his unattainable
ideal wo man. Unintentionally un -Ro man tic in essen ce, it p rep ares an u nreliable
narrator as a p roleptic p erson a o f th e later d ramatic monolo gu es. It totally lacks
so ciopolitical faith, and places alternative stress on the minute vicissitud es o f a
mental state, ab andonin g an y organic totalit y, one o f th e cen tral features o f Ro man tic
poetry.
6
Th ese ab sen ces ma y be con sid ered in relation to Browning’s anxiety about
public reception, and his excessive negative capability in relation to a protagonist’s
mental state.
The narrator o f Pau lin e in Ro mantic style attemp ts un su ccessfully to p en etrate
natu ral and human secrets, wishing to transcend to an ideal wo rld . Bro wn in g echo es
Shelley in vocabulary like “quivering lip”, “en ch antment”, “bro w burned ”, and “the
4
Kei NIJIBAYASHI
spell” calling up “th e d ead :”
. . . so me wo e wou ld light o n me;
Nature would point at one whose quiverin g lip
Was b ath ed in h er en ch antments, whose brow burned
Ben eath th e cro wn to wh ich her secrets kn elt,
Who learn ed th e sp ell wh ich can call up th e d ead,
And then departed smiling like a fiend
Who h as deceived Go d, – (17-23)
Affinities with Shelley are h eigh tened in the complaints of the inadequacy of
lan gu age as a too l for articu latin g tran scendence (“Words are wild and weak, / Believe
them not, Pauline!” (904 -905)). Shelley depicts th e in effectuality o f lan gu age both in
Epip sych idion and in A Defen ce of Po etry,
7
and, sup erficially, Bro wnin g seems to
acquiesce to transcendence through imagin ation. While Shelley’s narrator laments his
inab ility to reach an id eal but con siders it as still distantly attainable, Browning’s
despair o f lan gu age eschews th e tran scendental for obtaining the ideal state of mi nd
necessary for the creation of Pauline. Con foundin g phantasmagoria, he forms an
altern ative narrative indiffe rence to his own idealistic vision, at once b oth d isclosed
and disgraced. Solely depending on the po wer o f lan gu age, kno wled ge and lo ve in
investigatin g n atu re, h e creates the id eal figure of Pauline, bu t con centration on her
sickens his mind as self-ind ulgen t id ealism:
Oh, Pauline, I am ruined who believed
Th at though my soul had floated fro m its sph ere
Of wide dominion into the dim orb
Of self – that it was strong and free as ever! (89-92 )
Although only vision s and me mories o f Paulin e gu aran tee the n arrator th e existen ce o f
the ideal wo rld, they are arbitrary and unstab le becau se th ey are subject to his o wn
mental cond ition. He never believes in his o wn p sych olo gical po wer to sustain h er,
and this lack o f faith rend ers impo ssib le his contact with th e id eal imagin ar y wo man,
in con trast to Sh elley’s Th e Ala sto r o r Epipsychid ion. He analyzes his impressions of
her rath er th an pursu es full attain ment o f the ideal. While Shelley identifies his ero tic
exp erience with the id eal as tru th, Bro wning objectively observes his creation at some
5
Browning’s Dilemma in Romantic Inheritance: Dramatic Monologue and the Sense of Poetic Career
distan ce, allo win g analysis o f his mental state as his artistic goal. For Shelley,
idealism is the purpose of poetry;
8
fo r Browning, it is the scrutiny of psychology.
Bro wnin g is never enthusiastic about natural ob jects, which play an immen sely
impo rtant role in th e po etry o f Wo rd sworth, Coleridge, Shelley and Keats when
intimatin g the existen ce o f the id eal. Bro wning’s interest resides in the depiction of
humanity and the min d in the context o f co gn ized rath er than sen suous exp erien ce. It
is th erefo re lo gical th at h e does not sho w great attachment to the ideal in Pauline, and
he even in vestigates th is detach ment in detail. For instance, when the narrator
despairs o f further inspiration, he is describ ed as cynically p leased b y this tragic
failu re:
I h ave felt this in dreams – in dreams in wh ich
I seemed the fate fro m which I fled; I felt
A stran ge deligh t in cau sin g my decay. (96 -98 )
Th is kind o f sarcasm never happens in Shelley’s po ems about id eal b ein gs, and might
be considered as a d econ struction o f the th ematic coh eren ce o f th e po em. The n arrator
is indifferent to h is id ealistic perception being shattered as long as he is able to
continu e indulging in the contemplation of h is imp ressions. This inten se ob servation
of the self throu gh imp ressions anticip ates Walter Pater ’s assertion at “The
Conclu sion ” of Th e Rena issance: “. . . some mood o f p assion or in sight or intellectual
excitement is irresistibly real and attractive to us, -- for th at mo ment only. Not the
fruit o f exp erience, but experience itself is th e end ” (Pater 152 ). Contemp lation is
emphatically d escrib ed in Paulin e with an emphatic disregard for its moral nature; the
narrato r accepts, ho wever, th at the fruit is bitter. Objectively staring at the
vicissitud es o f h is p sycho lo gical state in reaction to his own fantastic imagination, he
loses a larger an d greater vision o f th e id eal and his po ssible, more con su mmate self,
and easily lapses in to pessimistic d esp eration. Here, h is cynicism to ward s Ro man tic
idealism does no t seem totally in co mpatib le with so me Victo rian co mmen tato rs su ch
as Matthew Arno ld. It would receive fu rth er in dulgen ce in Rossetti’s decad ent,
self-to rmented po etry. Bro wnin g o ffers an indicative but faint sign here, and as in his
early po ems, h e is aware o f th e d an ger of solipsism inherent in Romantic poetry.
Paulin e is no t ju st an imi tation o f but a satire on public criticism o f Ro man tic
idealism, and Bro wnin g’s amb iguity to wards Romanticism can be considered in
relation to both his developing aesthetic pursuit and his an xiety ab out pub lic
6
Kei NIJIBAYASHI
accep tance.
The n arrator ’s an alytical mind is fatal to his Romantic pursuits, while his ambition
to understand and assist human beings (to “loo k and learn / Man kind, its cares, ho pes,
fears, its woes and joys” (line 443)) gradu ally declines:
First wen t my hop es o f p erfectin g mankind,
Next – faith in th em, and th en in freedo m’s self
And virtue’s self, then my own motives, end s
And aims and loves, and human lo ve wen t last. (458-46 1)
But, un like Romantic poets who are often revitalized th rou gh disappoin tmen t and loss,
the n arrator d evelop s h is o wn p essimism until his aspirations are in verted and
cond en sed in to a kin d o f nih ilistic d esp eration. His observation is separate from moral
judgment as h e ind ifferently loo ks at h is men tal state, even to its crisis. He fin ally
defin es his analytical min d as to tally different from those teleologically aspiring
towards the id eal, as h e b eco mes almo st cyn ical about himself:
. . . how I envy him who se soul
Turn s its whole energies to some on e end,
To elevate an aim, pursu e success
Ho wever mean ! (604 -607)
This con fession proves that he cannot form his ph ysical exp erien ce and thou gh t in to a
synthetic totality, wh ere Ro manticism would h ave ab so rbed h is failu res and mistakes
and tran sformed th em into a fo rce to ward s the absolute. This narrator has nothing to
do with th e ab solu te but with his mo mentarily changing mental state.
9
Bro wn ing
negates th e Ro mantic pursuit o f th e in finite within the finite self by depicting the
process in which the finite suffers from aspiration to ward s the in finite and gradu ally
collapses upon itself. Focusing on the fin ite rath er th an th e in finite, Bro wnin g
en gages with the struggle with and deviation fro m Ro manticism again in Paracelsus,
especially with regard to the social role of poets.
Paracelsu s qu estion s in tellectu alism as opposed to love, as in Faust or Manfred,
and d ep icts a protagonist who has lost an y mean ingful so cial relationsh ip, and
accordin gly the meaning of his intellectual quest. On ly at th e last mo ment, do es he
discover that lo ve is ind isp en sab le to an y human activity: “All this I knew not, and I
7
Browning’s Dilemma in Romantic Inheritance: Dramatic Monologue and the Sense of Poetic Career
failed ” (lin e 885). Bro wnin g again relies on the metaphor of an ideal woman:
I seek her now – I kneel – I shriek –
I clasp h er vesture – but sh e fades, still fades;
And sh e is gon e; sweet human lo ve is gon e! (2 13-215 )
Th is id eal wo man fun ction s symbolically in the same way as in Pauline. Bro wn ing
focu ses on th e protagonist’s psychological state at th at mo ment rath er th an his regret
itself, ju st as h e is on ly in terested in self-satisfaction with intellectual discoveries,
not the disco veries th emse lves. Th e erotic metaph or again migh t seem to su ggest
Bro wnin g’s negative recapitulation of the lo ve th eme in Shelley, and a return to the
impo ssib ility o f Ro mantic con su mmation of knowledge and love attained by
Prometheus and Asia in Prometheus Unbound.
10
In fact, Paracelsus does not have a
chance to learn about lo ve fro m Ap rile un til th e last mo ment as Pro meth eu s do es fro m
Asia. Ho wever, Bro wnin g d oes no t d escribe him as a failed Romantic, like the Maniac
in Ju lian an d Maddalo, who m th e reader is suppo sed to save b y h elpin g similar actu al
poetic figures through the enlightenment o f th e po em.
11
Bro wnin g do es not exp ec t
an y retrieval in reality fo r su ch h ypoth etical experiments in the imagination. If any
reward can b e given to Paracelsu s o r to Browning himself, it has be total public
appreciation of his career. If this can b e thought of as a kind of love, in his
representation o f th e n egative case o f Paracelsus, Bro wnin g seems to demand lo ve in
the fo rm o f popularity. Confirming P aracelsus as a sp irit o f th e age, Bro wn ing
expected pub lic symp ath y for his state o f mind rath er th an fo r his so ciopolitical
beliefs, half id en tifyin g himself with P aracelsus.
12
Indeed , h e men tion s his
exp ectation o f public acceptan ce in th e preface to Paracelsus (later discarded): “I
have ven tured to display somewhat minutely the mood itself in its rise and progress,
and have suffered th e agen cy b y wh ich it is in flu en ced and determin ed, to b e gen erally
discern ible in its effects alone, and su bord inate throu ghou t, if not alto gether
exclud ed: and this for a reason. I have endeavoured to write a po em, not a d rama . . . a
work like min e dep end s more immed iately on th e in telligen ce and symp ath y o f the
read er fo r its su ccess . . .” (735). Bro wning’s attitude in inviting the reader to
emp athize with the poet’s view, as opposed to th at of the n arrato r o r ch aracters, is an
attemp t to make himself understood as an in stan ce o f contempo rary p sycholo gy: the
observin g eye witnessin g variou s asp ects of the finite (in relation to the infinite) in
variou s careers o f life. This tend en cy is clearly d etermin ed in his use o f drama tic
8
Kei NIJIBAYASHI
monolo gue, but actuall y starts in his earlier po ems. As Marten s says, it is an attempt
both to tran sform the public perception and establish his o wn career: “He either
attempts a tran sfo rmation o f his aud ien ce’s taste and exp ectations, in th e hop e of
transforming his statu s an d literary repu tation , or h e seeks a self-transformation
throu gh self-reflection which h elp s to (re)define his poetic identity” (Martens 16).
Romantic poets and ch aracters lo se th emselves in th eir soliloquies while Bro wn ing
detaches them fro m himself, and this d istan ce enables h im to dep lo y a variet y o f
possible careers as characters in his po etry, and to objectively and minu tely
investigate their mental states. Miller con figures an alternative in “life”: “Th ere is no
othern ess, no mystery, in his world. Ever y p erson is immediately co mpreh en sible to
him because each man lives a life Bro wnin g h imself migh t h ave lived ” (Miller 11 6).
Paracelsu s marks the beginning of multiple representation s o f possible selves
objectified in dramatic monologues such as An drea d el Sa rto , Fra Lippo Lippi, and
Abt Vogler. The characters in these poems, like Paracelsus, d iscu ss th eir o wn thou ghts
about art, and th eir unreliab le attitud es greatly affect the artistic qualit y of the poems.
Th eir ambiguity allo ws us to evalu ate th eir sincerity and significance only relatively.
Paracelsu s’s theme of love, therefore, does not in vo lve Ro mantic yearnin g, bu t his
utterance of it is valuab le as an in stan ce of artistic self-consciousness. Browning is
interested neither in describing the failure o f an ideal figure nor in social betterment
throu gh po etr y, u nlike th e Ro man tics. No one would confound Paracelsus for Faust,
an active en tit y in fluen cin g th e actual. Browning’s emphasis on observation may be
clearly d istin gu ish ed fro m Ro mantic self-abso rption , and is lib erated fro m the
enthusiastic creeds and b eliefs o f Ro mantic id ealism. Bro wnin g’s relativism might
reflect his stru ggle in modifyin g th e Ro man tic mod e and balan cin g it with th e actual.
As a result, he resorts to the historical settin gs o f the Middle Ages and the
Renaissance. So rd ello seems to treat the theme of the irreconcilable gap between the
imaginative and the social for the first time, and in this sense marks Bro wn in g’s final
verdict on the impo ssibility o f maintain in g a pure Ro mantic id ealism in th e Victorian
age.
Sord ello fu rth er exp lain s Bro wnin g’s adaptation of Romantic poetry in a negative
wa y. So rdello first appears as a typical vision ary Ro mantic, wand erin g about the
wood s and imagining gods and demi-gods as the most desirable companions. His
natu re is defined by his lack of social consciou sn ess; his po etry is unp remeditated and
imp ro vised, and is created intuitively and for its o wn sake. In th e contest with
Eglamor, he is so absorbed in his impro mptu recitation th at h e on ly realizes his
9
Browning’s Dilemma in Romantic Inheritance: Dramatic Monologue and the Sense of Poetic Career
victory after his work’s completion: “And wh en h e wo ke ’t was man y a fu rlong
then ce, . . . but his front / Was crowned – was crowned!” (2. 110-113)
13
When
Sord ello finally realizes his o wn so cial role, it is so vagu e th at h e con flates his dream
with its feasibility:
“. . . and though I mu st abide
With dreams now, I ma y find a thoro u gh vent
For all myself, acquire an instru men t
For acting what these people act; my soul
Hunting a body out ma y gain its whole
Desire so me d ay!” (1. 832-837)
His “d esire” in usin g po etic po wer fo r politics portends to be fatal because it comes
and go es according to unreliable inspiration , and never remain s for immediat e
practical application. In a sense, his expectations repeat those of the narrator in
Paulin e, who aspires to create stability fro m an un stable imagination. Sord ello’s
fan tastic vision is irretrievably shattered wh en h e encounters th e reality o f the court
in Man tu a: “He lo st th e art o f dreamin g” (2. 850), and, like the solipsistic narrator in
Paulin e, his failure seems to qu estion rath er th an defend ad ap tab ility to so cial
demands and th e exp ectatio ns o f id ealistic poets.
Sord ello also co vers th e th eme in Paracelsus of applying poetic wisdom to so cial
goodn ess. Browning describes the clear divergen ce b etween the epistemic and the
pragmatic, su ggestin g th is inevitable dilemma for idealistic schemes. When Sordello
relinqu ish es th e id ea o f pu rsu in g his po etic career and determines to be politically
involved for the sake of humanity and fo r the futu re, he simply tries to apply his
poetic measure to th e en tan gled prob lem of th e Gu elf and th e Ghib ellin e oppo sition.
Like a Ro mantic, h e tries to disseminate his idealism among the public. In his mind,
this strategy is almo st the same as givin g tan gib le fo rm and a feasible system to his
poetic creed: “— supply a body to his sou l / Th en ce, and b eco me eventu ally wh ole
with th em as he had hoped to be without – ” (4. 20 3-205). Sord ello d escrib es his
attemp t to use people as a canvas on which to d raw a pictu re o f an id eal fu ture:
Wh ile our Sordello only cared to kno w
About men as a mean s wh ereb y he’d sho w
Himself, and men h ad mu ch or little worth
10
Kei NIJIBAYASHI
According as they kept in or drew forth
Th at self; th e oth er ’s cho icest instruments
Surmised him shallow. (4. 620-625)
Paracelsu s’s self-righteou sn ess is rep eated h ere as po etic elitism, wh ich limits rath er
than lib erates Sord ello’s ab ility to h and le political ma tters. He tries to set an ideal
target (like th e reborn Ro me in h is dream) as an u ltimate goal, wh en h e n eeds to
negotiate for both political sides. Naturally, su ch a vagu e message is no t h eard o r
accepted by th e pu blic, as is th e case with Paracelsus’s elitist sch emes fo r so cial
progress. Sin ce h is id ealism is end an gered, he is req uired to take a n ew, different
point o f view to balance his poetic vision with his surround in gs, and is gradu ally
reconciled to multi-faceted reality and to relative wa ys of thinking:
“So mu ch is truth to me. What Is, th en? Sin ce
One object, viewed diversely, ma y evince
Beauty and ugliness – th is wa y attract,
That ma y rep el, -- why gloze upon th e fact?
Why must a sin gle o f th e sides b e right?
Wh at bids choose this and leave th e opp osite?
Where’s ab stract Right fo r me? (6 . 441 -447)
Th is virtu ally d ecid es So rd ello’s final acknowledgeme nt of loss, and the final verdict
on the defeat o f Ro mantic id ealism is expressed as his in ad equ ate n ature for
contempo ran eou s n eeds an d atmo sph eres. His recognition of his ideological defeat
strikes him decisively, assaulting body and soul: “On ce this und erstood, / As sudd enly
he felt himself alon e, / Qu ite ou t o f Time and this world: all was known” (6. 484-48 6).
Yet all is not kno wn: he is merely left with a relative acceptance of ongoing
phenomena. All he can do is accept his o wn imp ressions and und erstand in g as
tempo rarily available and valid, and modify his idealism into a publicly digestible and
feasib le fo rm. Forced to comply with contemporan eo us so cial cod es, his id ealism
becomes comp atib le with o pportunism, which is explained as the con trast b etween the
finite and th e in fin ite, and with th e imp lication that Victorian society is a totally
unsuitab le b ackground for a Romantic idealist like So rd ello:
Let th e emp lo yer match th e thin g employed,
11
Browning’s Dilemma in Romantic Inheritance: Dramatic Monologue and the Sense of Poetic Career
Fit to the fin ite h is in fin ity,
And thus proceed for ever, in degree
Changed but in kind the same, still limited
To the appointed circumstance and d ead
To all beyond. A sphere is but a sphere;
Small, Great, are merely terms we b and y h ere;
Sin ce to th e spirit’s abso luten ess all
Are like. (6. 498-506)
Just as Tenn yson d efines th e earth as a limited sphere, seeing it from outer space in In
Memoriam, Bro wnin g con ceives o f this world as a sphere in which the infinite has to
be modified to achieve its best possible but finite effect. Though he realizes that
phenomena are evan escent, Sord ello still applies his idealism to u nreliab le media in
order to witn ess even its faintest effect, but without su ccess. In his view, th e id eal has
to exist beyond the present and the real, and h e extend s this ambition into mo ral and
political contexts. With his alienation from this world co mes th e kno wled ge th at his
beliefs will n ever b e wid ely sh ared amon g th e pub lic. Th e id eal has to b e reco vered
for the present and the real to coexist, and Sord ello finally h as this intimation at the
very end o f h is life. However, such a different view with its p recariou s mo rals and
valu e jud gments threatens his idealism, and d eprives him o f his life. Ultimately, the
pure Ro man tic spirit dies alon g with him. As a Ro ma ntic p rotagonist, h e h as to die
confronted by a rad ical p arad igm shift, with a con co mitant fiction al d eath fo r the
Ro man tic Browning, and a declaration for the end o f Ro man tic po etry. Althou gh the
narrator describ es via Palma, “A triu mph lin gering in the wide eyes, / Wider than
some spent swimmer ’s if he spies / Help fro m abo ve in h is extreme d esp air” (6.
615-617), it is h ard to b elieve th at Sordello’s final realization at his death is
triu mph an t. Browning had to kill Sordello to inau gu rate his own distinct poetic mode,
b y radically developing the dramatic monolo gu e fo rm, and d efinin g his differen ce
fro m th e Ro mantics, as Martens points out: “Dramatic monolo gues do no t pretend to
be the sincere self-expression of their autho rs, who replace th eir own voice with that
o f a dramatic speaker whose identity and con text are significantly different fro m their
o wn. Th e po et thu s escap es the d an gers o f solipsism and self-exposu re inh erent in the
Romantic con fession al mo de” (Marten s 8 ). So rd ello ’s relativism annihilates his
ab solutism, and directs responsibility for und erstan din g th e significan ce o f the
in fin ite in th e fin ite to ward s th e read er. How appropriate is Sordello’s idealism to a
12
Kei NIJIBAYASHI
contempo rary public, and will they respond in th e same way as th e fictional public? A
particular question persists for the reader in dramatic monolo gues: ho w sin cere is the
narrato r in his asp iration s? At th e end o f the poem, the Romantic teleology of life is
rejected as too restrictive, and a relativistic embrace of the ordin ary is reco mmend ed:
“Mu st life be ever just escaped, which should / Have b een enjo yed ?” (6 . 561-62)
Rigo rous id ealism is compromised by life, and is at od ds with the vain but vigo ro us
pro gress o f Victorian so ciety. Bro wn in g answers this by enacting a synthesis of the
ideal and the secular in th e vital articu lation s o f d ramatic mon olo gu e.
14
II
Histo ry’s
ch ronolo gy
guaran tees
a
certain
matter-of-factness
to
a
persona’s
self-expression, wh ile lo cation in po etic form grants the status of artefact.
15
Main tainin g an aesthetic distance from his p rotagonists’ so ciopo litical thou ghts and
discu ssion s, Browning records an historical individu al’s veracity, while art can be
harn essed to expose the contradictions of histo rical voices. Fra Lippo Lippi, An drea
del Sarto , and Abt Vogler differ in their views on art, and do no t share b elief in o ne
ideological or ph ilo sophical s ystem. Religiou s views also place ch aracters in contrast,
notwith standin g th eir diffe ren t sects, as in “The Bishop Orders His Tomb at Saint
Praxed’s Church,” “Bishop Blougram’s Apolo gy” an d “Rab bi Ben Ezra”. All the
ch aracters state th eir o wn b eliefs as tru th s based on their experience, and Browning’s
representation o f th ese truth s reflects h is d eep in terest in th e plays alread y mentio n ed.
However stran ge th e ch aracters’ word s and deeds are, they are alwa ys expected to be
understood or even supplemented by th e aud ien ce’s reaction and in terp retation.
Cuttin g an h istorical scene, eith er actual or ima gined, Browning applies the
fragmentary n atu re of dramatic monologue to rend er th e p rotagon ists’ relative view o f
“truth s” con vin cin g. Acco rdin g to Lawrence Poston III, limited human perception is
affirmed in artistic con cen tration on th e mo ment:
If it is only in sho rt “facet-flash es” th at we p erceive the un ch an gin g realm
beyond the time-bound wo rld in which we live and act, then that limitation
of our p ercep tion is b etter dramatized in a co mpressed form which focu ses
on a d ecisive mo ment in th e life of a speaker than it is in a five-act play or a
discursive narrative in which expo sition ma y tend to diminish th e d ramatic
force of those moments of illumin ation. (Poston 81)
16
13
Browning’s Dilemma in Romantic Inheritance: Dramatic Monologue and the Sense of Poetic Career
If we interpret his u se o f “mutu al n egation” as “limitation,” Miller similarly suggests
the su rfacin g of truths through fragmentary bu t multip le representation:
Th e multiplication of points of view beco mes a kind o f elaborate obliqu e
incantation which evokes the divine tru th at th e cen ter o f each finite p erson
or event. The proliferation of persp ectives on th e story has as its go al by a
kin d o f mu tu al n egation to make something else appear, something which
can never be faced directly or said d irectl y in wo rd s. (Miller 152 )
For example, Browning’s most ambitious d ramatic mon olo gue, Th e Ring and th e Book,
narrates the same in cid ent o f mu rd er several times, but all the n arrative rep orts
embod y fragments of the total fact, only b rin gin g its variou s asp ects to ligh t, and
revealing the truth o f th e ab yss o f life’s mysteries. Th e n arrative is in terested n either
in in stru ction no r in p ro vid ing moral judgmen t. In con trast to The Cenci, a Ro mantic
murd er tragedy, Browning’s poem never reassures th e read er with a con clu sion nor
with a certain mo ral statement. His con ception o f th e “dramatic” do es no t fo llo w the
Aristotelian rules of drama or the extend ed expo sitions o f th e Ro man tic clo set
dramas.
Bro wnin g’s fragmentary representation pu ts the read er in an un easy su sp ense
because it d isregards not only absolute valu es but also app aren t mo ral jud gments. Th e
protagonists’ emotions and thoughts are so temporaril y rep resen ted, en cu mbered with
preoccupied matters and incid en ts, th at th ey preven t th e reader fro m obtain ing
con clu sive p ersp ectives with which to judge personality and morality, despite the
invitation al ton e o f th e po ems to do so . Th e cases o f Fra Lippo Lipp i and Andrea del
Sarto typically sho w th e d ivergen ce b etween th eir aesth etic and secular do main s,
rend erin g th eir behaviour morally dubious and, th erefore, und erminin g the Ro ma ntic
ideal o f id entifying life with art. The more apparent crimin al cases in “Porph yria’s
Lo ver,” “The Last Duch ess”, and The Ring and th e Boo k, are p resen ted as o nly
understand able in the adherent context, withou t an y d efinitive co mmen t. Vivienne J.
Rundle notes within The Ring and the Bo ok a persistent delaying of “the eth ical
moment” (Rundle 109 ), wh ich d efin es th e reader as a high ly en gaged arb iter: “The
Ring a nd the Book in sists o n th e pro cess o f judging – insists that the reader actively
and con tinu ally p articip ate in th e pro cess of judgment – but this is not the same as
insistin g th at absolute judgment be attained ” (Rund le 104). Bro wnin g end eavours to
divid e th e id eal and the secular, which can be co existent bu t n ever id en tifiable. He
14
Kei NIJIBAYASHI
shifts the po et’s role fro m th at o f a va te, b esto win g wise maxims (as in Carlyl e’s
mod el) to th at o f a presenter o f th e actual, offering the reader the privilege of
interpretation.
17
Abt Vogler performs this tran sition in persp ective, and can feel th e
prevalence o f God in artistic creativity, as if h e is in a tran ce while in motion to war ds
the id eal: “th e pinn acled glory reach ed , and the pride of my soul was in sight” (line
24). Ho wever, he never intends to submerge his o wn entity in to th e id eal, bu t on the
contrary, emph asizes th e sign ifican ce o f th e (artistic) ab so lute grou nded o n earth:
“th e emu lou s h eaven yearn ed do wn , mad e effort to reach the earth” (line 27). For the
sensitive few, God “whispers in the ear” (lin e 87 ). In th e pro tagonist’s in volvement in
the secu lar (the finite) an d in th e id eal (the infinite), art is never ascribed as
transcend ent, while it is the elements of th e sublun ary which gain th e ascend ant. The
read er, su sp end ed b etween the two realms, is indu ced to d efin e the ab solute and the
sacred as arbitrary.
Such a radical alternative relation sh ip with the reader would have been hard to
accep t b y those nurtured on Romantic poetry, ju st as Jo hn Ru skin exp ressed d ifficu lty
in understanding “Popularity” in his letter to Bro wn in g on 2 Decemb er 1855 . Ru skin’s
criticisms and Browning’s reply might be interpreted as th e opposition b etween the
read ability an d the originality of poetry, or b etween art for en lighten ment and art for
art’s sake. Wh ile Bro wnin g emplo ys symbols for their own sake - the star, the fe ast
master, the fish er as a po et – and out of th eir h istorical and biblical contexts, Ruskin
insists on a poet’s tran sparen t seman tic integrity, and is critical of linguistic
ambigu ity. In his letter to Ruskin on 10 Decemb er 1855, Bro wn in g veh emently
retorted th at his poetry was never intended for public u nderstand in g, and defend ed his
symbolism and po etic licen se:
I cannot begin writing poetry till my imaginary read er h as con ced ed licences
to me wh ich you d emur at altogeth er. I kn ow th at I don’t make out my
con ception b y my lan guage, all poetry being a putting the infinite within the
finite. […] Do you think poetry was ever gen erally und ersto od – or can be?
Is th e bu sin ess o f it to tell people what they know already, as they know it,
and so precisely th at th ey shall b e ab le to cry out – ‘Here you shou ld suppl y
this – tha t, you evidently pass over, and I’ll h elp you fro m my o wn sto ck? It
is all teaching, on the contrary, and th e people hate to be taught. They say
otherwise; -- make foo lish fables about Orpheus enchanting stocks and
ston es, poets standing up and b ein g worsh ipp ed, -- all non sen se and
15
Browning’s Dilemma in Romantic Inheritance: Dramatic Monologue and the Sense of Poetic Career
impossible dreaming. A poet’s affair is with God, -- to who m h e is
accountable, and of whom is his reward; loo k elsewh ere, and you find
misery enough. Do you believe p eople u nderstand Hamlet? (691 -93)
Th is might sou nd imitative o f a Ro man tic preface such as Shelley’s for Prometheus
Unbound, su ggestin g th e in vio lable supremac y of poetic inspiration , public ignorance
and denial in th e face o f d idactic po etry. But Bro wning clearly n egates an y liaison
with so ciety in prop agatin g his sen sibility and beliefs, without expecting the public to
sh are his con ception o f th e id eal. (Even Shelley expected understanding only fr om
“the select few.”) Here Bro wnin g’s aesth eticism is align ed with a disregard fo r the
so cial sign ificance of his poetry. In the context o f his worship o f B yron, Word swo rth
and Scott, Ruskin must have felt that Brownin g was as different and d istant fro m the
Romantics as Whistler ’s p aintin gs were fro m tho se o f the Pre-Raph aelites.
18
Browning’s symbo lism wo rks relatively, creatin g th e ambigu ities which p erp lexed
Ruskin. For Browning, a poem’s mystique is obtained in its co mmunion with God, but
its meanin g is n ever to be fu lly revealed because its power lies in its ultimate
inco mp rehen sibility. In fact, wh at Bro wning implies as “the infinite” does not exist as
a con stan t, b ut is a new extraordinary presentation o f “the fin ite”, only ap pearing at a
certain time on a specific occasion in a co mp arab le wa y to th e P aterian imp ression
co min g “for th at mo men t o nly” (Pater 152 ). Once the reader experiences poetry, its
purpose has b een co mp leted, irresp ective o f an y mo ral an d so ciopo litical message.
19
Bro wnin g d emonstrates a concern fo r th e representation of the unfa miliar aspects in
the fa miliar, and by so doing, how to disclo se the psycholo gical varieties o f hu man
bein gs h idd en under social codes and custo ms. Th is aim implies an ambition for
objectivity, but Browning’s art foregrounds emp ath y with his ch aracter ’s vo ices and
multiple viewpoin ts as well as en actin g a great artistic command over them. Howeve r,
in th e same correspondence with Ruskin , his sense o f po ssession reveals ano ther
dilemma retain ed fro m th e Ro man tic inh eritance: the presence of autobiography.
Ruskin is especially critical of the autobio graphical n atu re o f Bro wn in g’s po etry
in Pip pa Pa sses:
And in the second place, I entirely d en y th at a po et o f your real dramatic
po wer ought to let himself come up, as you con stantly do , throu gh all
mann er o f ch aracters, so th at every now and then poor Pippa herself shall
sp eak a long piece of Robert Bro wnin g. (690 )
16
Kei NIJIBAYASHI
Ruskin is referrin g to th e Epilo gu e o f Pippa Pa sses in which Pippa d iscloses the fact
that she h as been controlling, or so she imagin es, th e other ch aracters’ voices or
thou ghts, lo catin g h erself as an o mnipo tent viewpoint through which all the incidents
of the drama are exp licable:
I h ave ju st b een th e ho ly Monsignor;
And I was you too, Luigi’s gentle moth er,
And you too, Luigi! . . .
And I was Ju les th e sculpto r ’s bride,
And I was Ottima b esid e,
And now what am I ? (Epilogue. 42-44 , 51-53 )
Together with th e fact th at the oth er ch aracters take Pippa’s sin gin g voice as a kind of
providence and con scien tiously red ress th eir d eed s, it is unden iable th at Pippa
function s as an en gin e to constru ct th e d rama’s plot, contrasting her innocence with
their stru ggles and predicaments.
20
(Seb ald , for example, regrets h is d eed s and
determin es to p art with Ottima, listenin g to Pippa’s voice: “Th at little p easant’s vo ice
/ Has righted all again” (1. 261-62).) As the characters are represented as the prey of
circumstance, and d efinitely emergin g fo rm Pipp a’s vo ice, sh e is con sid ered to b e an
act o f ventriloquy on Browning’s part, embod yin g h is will: “No w, one thin g I sho uld
like to really know; / How near I ever might appro ach all these / I only fan cied being,
this lon g da y” (Epilogue. 99-101).
In rep ly to Ru skin, Bro wnin g asserted : “I may put Robert Bro wn in g in to Pippa an d
other men and maids. If so, pecca vi: but I don’t see myself in them, at all even ts”
(692). In an equivocal tone, Browning both con ced es an d denies self-in volvement. But,
ho wever he defend s h imself, it seems ob vious that his occasional self-revelation is
inevitable, with the reader expected to ackno wled ge su ch a habit as taken for granted.
In “One Word Mo re,” addressed to and p erh ap s en couraged b y Elizab eth Barrett, h e is
more exp licit about his own voice as interwo ven in th e voices o f his fictio nal
ch aracters: “Let me speak this once in my tru e p erso n, / No t as Lippo, Roland or
Andrea” (137-38). Contrary to his retort to Ru skin , h e implies th at h e intention ally
ventriloquized his thoughts and feelings th rou gh different ch aracters with his partial
self
reflected
in
th em.
Th is
makes
Browning’s
poetics
problematic.
Such
self-id en tification with his personae undermin es th e effect o f his po etic technique,
17
Browning’s Dilemma in Romantic Inheritance: Dramatic Monologue and the Sense of Poetic Career
and compromises th e objectivity o f dramatic monologu e. If on e has to imag ine
Browning himself etern ally behind all his characters, o ne is led to ask wh ich asp ects
o f his p sychology are in play, and how mu ch on e is allo wed to b elieve in th eir
words.
21
In loo kin g at his p erson ae with their widely differing creeds and actions,
one cannot be convinced of Browning’s thou ghts as latent, while a con cep tion o f
relativized fragmen tary selves is h ard to maintain .
Bro wnin g’s p ro clamatio n o f o wnership of his personae’s voices on ce mo re calls
into qu estion the autobiographical mode with wh ich he experimen ted in Pauline,
Paracelsus and S ordello, and it is po ssib le to see his early attempts as traditionally
con fession al and as simulacra of his own con sciou sness. Throu gh a distan ced con trol
o f th e p ersonae’s voices, he could avoid total self-identification with them an d,
therefore, criticism.
22
Yet it is still qu estionable wh y this strategy was necessary.
Perhaps it testifies to the remn an ts o f Browning’s ambivalent preo ccup ation with
Ro man ticism.
His d esire to co ntro l h is p ersonae’s voices shows both his wish to be
con gruen t with th em throu gh emp ath y (o r “negative capability”) and his intimac y with
Ro man tic p erception from an egoistic point o f view. Th e world, after all, shou ld be
grasp ed sub jectively. Th is p hilo soph y in fact powerfully helped consolidate his career
as a po et. Simu latin g various careers (for example, artists like Fra Lippo Lippi,
Andrea d el Sarto, and Abt Vogler, or the religiou s figu res in “Th e Grammarian’s
Funeral” and “Rabbi Ben Ezra”), h e evaluates th e po ssible resu lts o f so me unch osen
careers as “th e road not taken.” But his idea remains relative: he h as to con tro l the
person ae’s voices in order to demonstrate th at th e career o f control is sup erlative,
both in imagination and in real life.
For Ro mantics, to be a poet is an ab solute co mmission with the id eal and the
beyond, and is, therefore, incomparable.
23
Ho wever, un able to emb race su ch a view,
Bro wnin g cho se th e career o f poet without the guarantee o f th e ab solute, relyin g on
comparison as a mean s to secure his ambition. He exp erien ced multiple careers in the
imagination , assessin g them in co mp arison with the life of the poet. Miller puts it as
follo ws: “He can approach an absolute vision o nly b y attemptin g to relive, on e b y on e,
all th e po ssib le attitud es o f th e hu man spirit” (Miller 107). This seems adequate,
except th at h is ab solu te vision
autob io graph ical
traits
resid in g
also
b ehind
includes having a perfect
the
personae’s
voices
career.
The
reconfirm
the
o mnipo ten ce o f Bro wn in g’s po etic career in comparison to the other possibilities
conju red in different periods and lands; and the y are presen ted p recisely b ecau se the y
can be created and con tro lled in th e imagination . In a great literary p arado x, b y
18
Kei NIJIBAYASHI
relinqu ish in g Ro mantic id ealism Bro wnin g re-evalu ated and mad e ab solu te th e po etic
career as supreme, and ironically stren gth en ed Ro manticism’s elitist trajectory.
Bro wnin g’s beliefs are distinct from the Ro mantic mon olith o f the po et as p roph et, but
his relativism still enco mp asses th e so cial significance of the poet who ma y provide
the pub lic with truths superintended by a po werful intellect. Dramatic monolo gue
lib erated po etry fro m the mystical id ealism of the select fe w. With this new
autob iographical techniqu e, Bro wnin g o vercame rath er than su ccu mb ed to Ro man tic
poetry. This paradigm shift towards an au tobio graphical co mmission in p oetry has
mad e his inh eritan ce o f Ro manticism idio syncratic but successful. His love of poetry
finally enabled th e so lution fo r o verco min g his Romantic dilemma, both fortifying a
new po etic mode and gaining professional popu larity. In Th e Ring and th e Bo ok,
Bro wnin g emphasizes “Lyric Love” as th e po wer to persu ad e p eople o f the
sign ifican ce o f po etry and o f his o wn poetic mod e beyond differen t cultu res: “Might
min e but lie ou tsid e th in e, Lyric Lo ve, / Thy rare gold ring of verse (the poet praised)
/ Lin kin g ou r England to his Italy! (12. 868-870).”
24
19
Browning’s Dilemma in Romantic Inheritance: Dramatic Monologue and the Sense of Poetic Career
Works Cited
Ar mst r on g, Is ob el. “B r ownin g and th e Gr ot esqu e St yle. ” The Major Victor ian Poe ts:
Reconsideration. Ed. Is ob el Ar mst r ong. London : R out ledge, 1969.
-- -.
“The
Ring
and
the
B ook:
Th e
Us e
of P roli xit y. ”
The
Major
Victo rian
Po ets:
Reconsideration. Ed. Is ob el Ar mst r ong. London : R out ledge, 1969.
Br ownin g, R ob ert. The Ring a nd the Book. New York : W. W. Norton & C ompan y, 1961.
-- -. Robert Browning. Th e Oxf ord Author s. Ed. Ad am R ob ert s. Oxford Universit y Press , 19 97.
-- -. The Wo rks of Robert Brow ning: Volume I. 10 vols. New York : Ba rn es & Noble, 1966.
Br ownin g, R ob ert and E li zab et h Barrett Ba rrett. The Lett er s of Robert Browning and Elizab eth
Barrett Ba rrett : Volume I. 2 vols. Lond on : S mith, E ld er, & C o., 1899.
Colerid ge, S amu el Ta ylor. Le ctures 1808-1819: On Literat ure: Volume I. 2 vols. Ed. R. A.
Foak es. P rinc et on Uni ver sit y Pr ess , 1987.
Christ, Ca rol T. Victorian and Modern Poetic s. Th e Uni versit y of Chica go Pres s, 1984.
Cr onin, Richa rd. Reading Vi ct orian Poetry . Oxford : Wi le y-B lack well, 2012.
Fr ou la , Chri stin e. “Br ownin g’s Sordello and th e Pa rab les of M od ernist P oetic s.” C riti cal
Essay s on Robe rt Browning. E d. Mar y E llis Gibs on. G. K. Ha ll & C o. : New York, 1992.
Ha rri s on, Ant on y H. Victoria n Poets and Ro mantic Poe ms: Int ertextuality and Ideolo gy.
Char lott es vi lle: Univer sit y Pr ess of Virginia, 1990.
Ki llham, J ohn. “Br ownin g’s ‘ Mod ernit y’ : The Ring and the Book, and R elati vi sm. ” The M ajor
Victorian Poet s : Recons iderati on. Ed. Is ob el Arm st ron g. Lon don : R out led ge, 1969.
Mart ens, B ritta. Browning, Victorian Poetic s and the Ro mantic Legacy. Farnha m, Su rrey:
Ash gat e, 2011.
Martin, Loy. “Th e Divid ed S ubject.” C ritical Es says on R obert Browning. Ed. Ma ry E lli s
Gibs on. New York : G. K. Ha ll & Co., 1992.
Ma yna rd, J ohn. “R eadin g th e Read er in R ob ert Brownin g’s Dramatic M on ologu es.” C ritic al
Essay s on Robe rt Browning. E d. Mar y E llis Gibs on. New York: G. K. Ha ll & C o., 1992.
Mer edith, Micha el. “B r owning and the P rinc e of Pub li sh ers.” Browning Institute Studies. Vol.
7, 1979 (1-18 ).
Miller, J. Hi llis. The Di sappearance of God: Five Nine teenth-Century Write rs . Ha r vard
Uni ver sit y Pr es s, 1975.
Pat er, Wa lt er. The Renais sance: Studies in A rt and Poet ry . Ed. Adam Phi llips. Oxford
Uni ver sit y Pr es s, 1986.
Post on, III, La wr enc e. “B r owning’s Ca r eer t o 1841 : Th e Th em e of Tim e and Th e P rob lem of
For m.” Browning Insti tute Studies. Vol. 3, 1975 (79-100 ).
20
Kei NIJIBAYASHI
Ried e, Da vid G. “Gen r e and Poetic Auth orit y in Pippa Passe s.” Critical E ssay s on Robert
Browning. Ed. Ma r y E lli s Gib s on. New York : G. K. Ha ll & C o., 1992.
Rundle, Vi vi enn e J . “‘ Wi ll you let th em murd er m e?’ : Guid o and th e R ead er in The Ring and
the Book.” Vic torian Poet ry. Vol. 27, Numb ers 3 -4, 1989 (99 -114).
Sh elley, P erc y B ys sh e. Shelle y’s Poet ry and Prose . Eds . Dona ld H. R ei man and Sha ron B.
Power s . New York : W. W. Nort on, 1977.
S linn, E. War wick. “Lan gua ge and Truth in The Ring and the Book.” Victo rian Poet ry. Vol. 27,
Numb ers 3 -4, 1989 (115-133).
Tuck er, Herb ert F. “Dra matic Monologu e and th e Overh ea ri ng of Lyr ic. ” Criti cal Es says on
Robert Browning. Ed . Mar y E lli s Gibs on. New York : G. K. Hall & C o., 1992.
* Thi s pap er , bas ed on th e a lr ead y pub lish ed pap er b y th e sa m e tit le in Bulletin of The Kyu shu
Institute of Te chnology, has b een p eer -r evi ewed t o b e n ewl y publish ed a s a di fferent a rt ic le
with additi ons and c or r ecti on s . It wa s a lso supp ort ed b y J SP S KAKE NHI Grant Numb er
22520253.
1 In t hi s pa per, u nles s s pec i fie d, Roman ti cs or Roman ti c poet s re presen t major
Roman tic poe ts like Wor ds worth, Coler i dge, Byron, S helley an d Kea ts.
2
Tuck er a r gu es f or a pu r er lyr i cism in B r owning c reat ed a lon gsid e R omantic lyrici sm, and
suggests th e imp ortanc e of th e hist ori ca l back ground for its developm ent : “Th e h yb rid
dramati c m on ologu e, a s a result of it s ai m t o mak e th e wor ld and subj ecti vit y saf e for each
oth er in th e int er ests of chara c ter, had p r oved a stu rd y gra fti ng s tock for flowers of lyricis m;
and the governin g pr essu r es of the gen r e, just b ec aus e th ey govern ed s o fi rm ly, had bred
hoth ous e lyr ic va ri eti es of uns urpas s ed int ensit y” (Tuck er 29).
3 All qu otati ons f r om R ob ert B r ownin g’s wr itin gs are from th e f ollowing ( exc ept th os e f r om
Sordello and The Ring and the Book) and sh own in parenth es es with pa ge or lin e numb ers :
Robert B rowning, Ed. Adam R ob erts ( Oxf ord Uni versit y P res s 1997).
4
Richard C r onin af fi rm s th e sa m e: “ It is , I think, signi ficant that the dra matic m onologu e
shou ld fi rst have b een d evelop ed in th e 1830s, wh en p oets en joyed such sm a ll s a les, wh en
publish ers wer e s o r eluctant t o issu e th eir work (Ed ward M oxon was in that d ecad e th e on ly
Lond on pub lish er pr epa r ed to bring out volum es writt en b y a sin gle p oet , and h e did s o usu ally
on th e ba sis that th e p oet b or e the c osts ) that th ey can on ly h ave susp ect ed that th ey wer e
talkin g, lik e s o man y sp eak ers of d ramati c m on ologu es, to th ems elves” (C ronin 49 ).
5
As “Not es” t o Pauline sh ows, Mill criti ci zes th e p oem ’s sup er ficia lit y and in sinc erit y in
pr es entin g an id ea l f ema le fi gur e: “ I know n ot what t o wi sh for hi m but that h e ma y m eet with
a real Pau lin e” (731) .
6
For exa mp le, C olerid ge a rgu es for “organic” p oet r y, exp la ining of Shak esp ea r e: “Th e
organic f or m on th e oth er han d is innat e, i t shap es a s it d evelops its elf f r om within, and th e
fu lln es s of its d evelopm en t is on e & th e sa m e with th e p erf e ction of it s out wa rd Form. Suc h is
the Lif e, such th e f or m— Natu re, th e pri m e Genia l Ar tist, in exhaust ible in di vers e p owers, is
equa lly in exhau stib le in f or ms ” (C olerid ge, 495 ).
7
Sh elley d esc rib es th e fa ll in t he na r rat or’ s j ou rn ey t owa rds the t ran sc end ent in
Epipsychidion : “Woe is m e ! / Th e win ged word s on which m y sou l wou ld pi erc e / Int o th e
hei ght of love’s ra r e Uni vers e, / Ar e chain s of lead a round it s flight of fi re” (587 -590). Th e
sam e id ea is r ep eat ed in d es cri bing th e inc ons tant visit of in s pirati on in A Def ence of Poet r y:
“. . . wh en c ompositi on b egins , inspi rati on is a lread y on th e dec lin e, and th e m ost glori ous
poet r y that ha s ever b een c om municat ed t o th e world is p rob ably a feeb le shad ow of th e
ori gina l c onc epti on of th e p oet ” ( Sh elley 504) .
8
Br ownin g’s summ ati on of Sh elley’ s poetr y in “Es sa y on Sh elley” sp eci fi es a r each f r om t he
ph ysica l t o th e ab stract : “ I wo uld rath er c onsid er Sh elley’ s p oet r y a s a subli m e f ra gm enta r y
essa y t owa rds a pr es entm ent of th e c or r esp ond enc y of th e un ivers e t o Deit y, of th e natu ra l to
21
Browning’s Dilemma in Romantic Inheritance: Dramatic Monologue and the Sense of Poetic Career
the spir itua l, and of th e a ctua l to th e id ea l . . .” (589 ).
9
Cf. “Th e dra matic m onologu e has fai r ly well aband on ed th e proj ect of ‘pres entin g’ an
under lyin g wh olen ess. It r ecognizes th e s elf-d est r oyin g qua li t y of th e id ea of wh olen ess, an
idea tha t can on ly b e r ea li zed in disc our s e” (Ma rtin 81).
10
J. Hi llis Mi ller a ls o d efin es t he t ra gic fai lu r es in Pa racelsu s as P r om eth ean : “Th e d ram ati c
cli ma x of Br ownin g’s th ree ea rli es t p oem s is th e fai lur e of r omanti c P r om eth eanis m” (Mi ller
97).
11
Rundle’ s eva luati on of Guido thr ough r e- r eadin g ma y add s om e si gni ficanc e t o Guid o’s rol e
in the overa ll nar rati ve of The Ring and the Book. However, t he r ead er ’s int er est in Guid o
never p rovid es a s ens e of m eta ficti ona l resonanc e t oward s th e a ctua l a s exp ect ed in R oman ti c
poet r y. In this s ens e, Rund le’s savin g of Guido i s quit e different from that of th e Maniac in its
expansi on of th e cir cum f er en c e of th e fict iona l t o overp ower the actua l: “ If Guido’s st ory i s
not r er ead, h e wi ll b e c ond emn ed t o a p erp etua lly rep eat ed executi on : b eh ead ed f or th e fi rst
tim e in actua lit y and ever af t er in the c onsci ousn ess of hi s rea ders. If, on th e oth er hand, Gui do
can con vinc e hi s read er t o rein terp ret events , his li f e wi ll b e vi ewed dif f er ent ly. Of c our s e, the
r ead er cann ot era s e Guido’s executi on, but h e or sh e can revi s e Guid o’s s ent enc e, in th e
Jam esian s en s e of revisi on as revi ewin g and rewritin g. In th e r ead er ’s r evi si on of Guid o’s
stor y, h e can b e vi ewed n ot on ly a s a wolf or a mu rd er er but als o as a gi ft ed st or yt eller”
(Rundle 111).
12
In h er lett er of 20 Ma rch 1845, E li zab eth Ba rrett ca lls R ob ert B rownin g Pa rac elsus
half -jokin gly: “You a r e Pa rac elsus, and I a m a rec lu s e” (Lett ers 43 ).
1 3 All qu otati ons f rom So rdello are from th e f ollowin g and sh own with b ook and lin e numb er s
in par enth es es : R ob ert B r owni ng, The Wor ks of Robert Brow ning: Volume I , 10 vols. (New
York : B arn es & Nob le, 1966).
14
Christin e Fr ou la su ggests tha t dram atic m on ologu e puts th e them e of Sordello int o a m or e
comp r eh en sib le form : “His lat er tu rn t o d ramati c m on ologu e can b e und er st ood as a
developm ent f r om th e imp os si ble So rdello, t rans lat ing Sorde llo’s p roj ect into a di fferent a nd
fa r m or e ac c es sib le f or m” ( Fr oula 180 ). Her c om m ent, h owev er, i mp li es that B rownin g’s
Romanti c ambiti on ha s n ot ent ir ely d rain ed a wa y, a s in hi s at tachm ent t o th e p r ota gonist s’
voic es as I wi ll discu ss lat er.
15
Post on su ggests that Br ownin g pu rpos ely ch os e figu res wh o are ha rd ly kn own s o a s t o
maxi mi ze hi s p oetic lic ens e in cr eatin g th eir p er s ona liti es an d deed s : “For thi s pu rpos e, wh at
s er ves him b est a r e fi gu r es lik e Pa rac elsus and S ord ello wh o have hi st orica l id entiti es but
about wh om litt le is hi storic a lly kn own; in th em we s ens e th e pr essu r es of an a ge, whi le at t he
sam e ti m e we pa rticipat e i ma ginatively in th e p oet ’s f r eed om to r ec onst ruct th em as p er son s , a
r ec onst ructi on unt ram m elled b y an exc ess of bi ographica l dat a” (P ost on 86 ). Ma rt ens simi la rly
points out Br ownin g’ s us e of f orged hi st or y: “Th e sp eak er thus s eem s to i mp ly that th e b ook’s
mat er ia lit y i s a gua rant ee for t he auth enticit y of th e fact s and his fai thfu l pr es entati on of th em,
alth ou gh th e auth or mu st have been a ll too a wa re that his sou rce did of c ours e n ot c ontain fa cts
in an empi rica l s ens e but on ly wri tt en int erpr etati ons of even ts” (Mart en s 180).
16
S linn d esc rib es Br ownin g’ s r ep r es ent ati on of “truth s” in li fe a s a proc ess : “Th rou gh
f or egr ounding this th ematic in terp la y, B r own ing emphasi zes not t ruth as product, but truth as
proc es s, t ruth in th e makin g, a nd in that pr oc ess t ruth i s b oth subvert ed b y langua ge and
produc ed b y it” (S linn 118 ).
17
Mart ens d esc rib es B r owning’ s st ru ggle with th e pub lic a s t he p roc es s of his c omp romis e in
balancin g r ea li sm and id ea lis m “t r yin g to app ea l b oth t o r ea ders wh o on ly va lu e empir ica l
fact s and dis mis s lit eratu re a s a li e and t o th os e r ead er s wh o sti ll adh er e t o th e R omantic
conc ept of th e p oet as a vatic m ediat or of t ran sc end enta l t rut hs” (Ma rt en s 167). Demand for
r ea li sm, h owever , s eem s t o c om e not on ly f r om th e pub lic b ut als o from B rownin g’s st ron g
s ens e of s elf-d efenc e throu gh t he matt er- of -fact.
18
Christin e Frou la s ees in Ru sk in’s criti cis m a s ens e of R om a ntic aver si on t o th e d etach ed
ton e of m od ernist poetr y: “Rus kin’s c omp laint of B rownin g’s untra versab le, glacia l
word scap es anticipat es th e c omm on cha r ge of th e m etaph ysi cal c oldness of m od ernist p oet ics,
the ba r en ess and scantin ess of the ga rm ent s it s word s supp ly” (Frou la 182 ).
19
Ant on y H. Ha r ris on of f ers an other ins tanc e in Cleon b oth a s Pat erian and, in a s en s e,
anti-R omantic in th e p r ota goni st’ s “inabi lit y t o attain Word s worthian ‘j oy’” (Harri s on 62):
22
Kei NIJIBAYASHI
“Fr om C leon ’s p oint of vi ew, t hen, c on sci ousn ess b en efit s m an, not b ecaus e i t a llows for t he
perc epti on of m ora l or spiritua l t ruth, but b ec aus e, as ‘th e s ense of s en s e’ (l. 224), it enab les
man t o sa vor s ensati on s in th e fashi on of th e Pat erian a esth et e, f or wh om ‘ exp eri enc e it s elf is
the end, ’ b ein g p r es ent ‘a lwa ys at th e f ocus wh er e th e gr eat est numb er of vita l f or c es unit e in
thei r pu r est en ergy. ’ Pat er d efi nes ‘succ ess in lif e’ as C leon defin es it : a ‘quick en ed,
multip li ed c onsci ousn ess ’ gen erat ed b y ‘ f or ever . . . c ourtin g n ew [s en s ory] i mpressi on s’”
(Har ri son 54). It is c ertain tha t Br own ing wa s m ore s ensit ive to chan gin g c ont emporan eou s
thou ghts and eth os than, for example, Tenn ys on, wh o wa s rea d y t o resp ond t o va ri ous kinds of
event s but was reluctant t o acc ept st range id eas as an asp ec t of li ved r ea lit y.
20
Som e c ritic s dist ingui sh Pipp a’s inf lu enc e f rom provid enc e, and try t o int erp ret h er a s
anoth er pupp et cha ract er lik e t he oth ers in th e p la y. For exa mple, Da vid G. Ri ed e suggest s
authoria l c ont rol ra th er than th at of p rovid enc e: “Th e cha ract ers in Pippa Pas ses a r e n ot in f act
trans f orm ed b y Pippa ’s s on gs – ea ch cha ract er ac c epts Pippa ’s s on g a s s om eh ow authoritati ve,
but interp r ets i t in such a wa y as t o auth o ri ze his own li mit ed and s elf-aggrandi zin g
s elfh ood. . . . sh e s ounds fa r m or e lik e th e author of Sordel lo than an adolesc ent si lk - wea ver”
(Ri ed e 194, 199 ). Alth ough h e r em oves th e t er m “p rovid enc e ,” his a rgum ent even tua lly
r ec onf ir ms th e omnip ot enc e of the author in in f lu encin g and r egu latin g th e p r ota gonist s on e
wa y or an oth er .
21
John Ma yna rd d eni es that B r own ing’s p er s ona e rep res ent his va riou s s elves. Th e rep res en t
thos e of th e r ead er s : “But wha t a pr odi gy of ma ssi ve and mi ght y s ensibi lit y we ha ve th en t o
appr eciat e in our int erp r etati on of that p oem !” (Ma yna rd 73 ) In oth er word s, h e ga ve up
pr es entin g th e kind of p oet r y which c orr esp onds with th ei r c om m on s en sibi lit y. Inst ead, h e
pr epar ed th e t echniqu e which can r ef lect an y kind of s ensibi lit y in i ts r ep res ent ati on of th e
pers ona e: “Onc e we s ee th e p oem workin g in thi s wa y t o en gage th e r ead er as pa rt of it s
exi st enc e/p erf orm anc e, we n ec essa ri ly read ou rs elves and ou r man y s elves, th e r ead er s b ef or e
us. In st ead of t ooting ou r s lu ghorn s in th e wi ld ern es s, we wi ll b e di rectin g an enti re orch est ra ”
(Ma yn ard 78 ).
22
Thi s is a ls o a c ontri vanc e t o conc ea l his p ri vat e s elf, and M art ens discu ss es h ow Brownin g
distincti vely s epa rat ed his pub lic f r om hi s p oetic s elf : “h e vi gor ou s ly maint ain that th e
authentic s elf ( for Tri lling th e individua l s elf ind ep end ent of s oci et y) cann ot b e p res ent ed i n
poet r y, which is a lwa ys a pub lic per f ormanc e” (Ma rt en s 232). However, B rownin g kn ew tha t
such a dich ot om y wa s n ot t ota lly grant ed in th e latt er ha lf of t he nin et eenth c entury. His th eor y
too shows his int er est and f ea r in owin g his p ers ona e’s voic es.
23
Richard C r onin d esc rib es a t ypical attitud e of th e R om antic poets c onc erning car eer -makin g
thr ough busin ess , citing Word s worth ’s c as e: “Th e bu sin es s of bec omin g a p oet is m ad e to s eem
all but indep end ent of th e busi nes s of wr iting poems , and c omplet ely ind ep end ent of th e
business of ha ving th em publi s hed (a p ostur e r einforc ed b y th e lon g-d ela yed pub licat ion of t he
Prelude it s elf)” (C r onin 31 ). With or with out an appar ent intenti on for succ ess in th e
publishin g busin ess , it i s appa r ent ly a matt er of ta lent t o b e strai ght forwa rd ly a cc ept ed b y the
public, and n ot of c ont ri ved m anoeu vr es with which t o hand le th e public .
2 4 All qu otati ons f r om The Ring and the Book a re from th e f ollowing and sh own with b ook an d
lin e numb er s in pa r enth es es : R ob ert B r ownin g, The Ring and the Book ( New York : W. W.
Nort on & C ompan y, 1961 ).