"We Are Two": The Address to Dorothy in "Tintern Abbey"

Abstract

FEW READERS DOUBT THE PROMINENCE OF TINTERN ABBEY IN THE Wordsworth canon; yet despite an almost uninterrupted flow of critical interest since 1798, this poem continues to challenge readers to extent Alan Grob has recently described poem as that dark and bloody ground over which so many of battles of Romantic New Historicist historiography have been fought. (1) The contested presence of Tintern Abbey in Wordsworth scholarship oscillates at present between two critical poles: one group considers poem Wordsworth's most articulate expression of egotistical sublime, based on selfish exclusion of anything else might impede his privileged vision into the life of things (49); another reads poem as all-embracing, impassioned ode to joy of wise speaker who has heard and incorporated still, sad music of humanity (92) in his argument. (2) The disparaging critics are outraged by what Wordsworth excludes from his self-aggrandizing prophecy (the poor, Dorothy), while affirmative readers tend to understate how bewildered and disillusioned speaker is in favor of reading which emphasizes abundant recompense. Both disparaging and affirmative critics largely read poem as if it is all about one particular character, an individual Self, closely identified with Wordsworth himself, who tries to come to terms with something, either by ignoring or belittling others, or, put positively, by incorporating Dorothy into his own picture. A reading of poem according to this model makes good sense, particularly since it ties in closely with definition of genre we have come to associate with this kind of romantic poem: Greater Romantic Lyric. In M. H. Abrams' now classic definition speaker starts out in particular landscape, and in sustained colloquy, which parallels meditation triggered by landscape, he achieves an insight, faces up to tragic loss, comes to moral decision, or resolves an emotional problem. (3) However, focus on individual in this definition (and in modern readings of romanticism in general) and lack of emphasis on a silent human auditor, present or absent (Abrams 77) have led to certain neglect or an individual-biased reading of final section of Tintern Abbey, address to Dorothy. Not all critics, of course, celebrate or condemn poem without qualification, but even those critics, like Susan J. Wolfson, who recognize tension and almost desperate sense of determination in poem have not elaborated very much on address to Dorothy. (4) Recently, presence of Dorothy in Tintern Abbey has received most attention in an article by James Soderholm, who has pointed out disagreement about Dorothy's place in poem encapsulates positions of major critics of romantic poetry. (5) It may be timely to explore address to Dorothy further by considering generic links of Tintern Abbey and position of Tintern Abbey within Lyrical Ballads volume as whole. The web of interconnection among poems in collection is helpful for our recognition of importance of Dorothy as chosen conversation partner and companion to speaker. Charles Taylor emphasizes how our obsession with individual difference has to some extent ruled out Other: Modern culture has developed conceptions of individualism which picture human person as, at least potentially, finding his or her own bearings within, declaring independence from webs of interlocution which have originally formed him/her, or at least neutralizing them. It's as though dimension of interlocution were of significance only for genesis of individuality, like training wheels of nursery school, to be left behind and to play no part in finished person. (6) I would like to suggest Dorothy's part in Tintern Abbey is not to serve as speaker's nursery training wheels en route to individual selfhood. …