How would you write about a river? By studying the Romantic writers William Wordsworth, Lord Byron, and Charles Lamb, one sees that each one would have handled this topic in a different manner. Wordsworth would have focused on the greatness of nature, Byron on man’s lack of power, and Lamb on the mischievous fun found in a river. All masters of their craft, the three would have woven their tales skillfully to each produce a masterpiece.
William Wordsworth had a very high respect for nature and “her” beauty. He would have viewed a river as a magnificent example of natural perfection, as it meandered peacefully through forest glades, flowing harmoniously past green banks and colourful flowers. Because of Wordsworth’s pantheistic leanings, he would have viewed the river as an extension of God, and spending time on its banks would have been a deeply spiritual experience for him. When writing about a river, Wordsworth would have used everyday diction, but in an elegant fashion. The words emerging from his pen would not have been generated by a disciplined mind, but would instead have flowed naturally from the wonder he experienced while sitting by the river, drinking in its splendor. He would have used imagination, and possibly followed the river backwards in his mind, seeing through its eyes all the marvels it had passed by. His tone would have been idealistic, overlooking unsightly details such as mud or leeches. Wordsworth’s poem would have emphasized the perfection of the river and the harmony of nature, all in the “spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings.”[1]
Not content to deal with a river alone, Lord Byron would have included his characteristic “Byronic hero,” a rebellious and haughty man, haunted by past sins. Perhaps in a poem about rivers, this hero would have been swept away in the current, unable to fight the power of untethered nature. As the waves crashed over him, so would the regrets of a wasted life. The fury of the elemental forces would have destroyed his mere human life in one sweep, showing Byron’s belief in the unimportance of man in the grand scheme of things. Byron would have used the river as a metaphor to direct satire at his opponents, accusing them of simply floating along with the river, and never striking out on their own initiative. The tone of Byron’s poem would have been dark and pessimistic, with few opportunities to grant the reader a smile.
Charles Lamb, loving the bustle of the city, would perhaps have chosen a canal in Venice as his setting, where gondolas traveled day and night. Rows of colourful houses would have flanked the active “street”. The mood of the story would have been lighthearted and humourous. Maybe the rich, oppressive mayor of the town would have tumbled headlong into the freezing waters of the river. This poetic justice would have been characteristic of Lamb’s compassion for the common people. Rather than following a fixed poetry form, Lamb would have written in the familiar essay style, without constraint. This would have given his writing a friendlier, more down-to-earth style, like a casual conversation. His river would have had a frolicking playfulness to it, splashing up on unsuspecting bystanders, and swirling joyously around the piers.
William Wordsworth and Lord Byron were similar in that they would both have handled the topic in a serious way, though Wordsworth’s idealism would have contrasted with Byron’s pessimism. Charles Lamb would have taken a more carefree approach, without the soberness of the other two. Each had his own individual way of writing, differentiating his work from all the rest. However, they all shared the common characteristics of the Romantic Age. Their usage of everyday, understandable language to describe nature drew them together under the same banner.
[1]
William Wordsworth
Preface to Lyrical Ballads