Robert Southey- The Ruined Cottage

As the title implies, Southey's piece relates to William Wordsworth's poem of the same name. At first glance, it appears as a poorly done copy of Wordsworth's version. For example, Southey's poem lacks the dialogue that occurs between the speaker and the Wanderer. Instead, the speaker relates the history of the cottage to Charles; a man that is never given the opportunity to say anything. Furthermore, the speaker himself has a different relationship to the cottage. We are given very little description of the cottage and it's previous inhabitants in comparison to Wordsworth. He describes the previous owner's story as "a simple melancholy tale", and notes how common it is by saying "there's scare a village but can fellow it" (228). Like the speaker in Wordsworth's poem, the sight of the cottage makes the speaker feel "a transient sadness" (231). However, Southey denies his speaker the opportunity for enlightenment which Wordsworth provides his speaker through the Wanderer. Instead, he is left with the sadness that "will not pass away" (232). The differences continue when we look at the description of the cottage. It should also be noted that what details we do get of the cottage are more concerned with how the cottage appeared prior to its ruination. Furthermore, Southey's version lacks the process of deterioration that was in its predecessor. The reader is only told what the cottage looked like before it fell apart, and what it looks like after. The lack of dialogue among the speaker and Charles, comparatively little explanation about the cottage and its inhabitants, and the lack of closure for the speaker at the end initially give this poem a watered-down appearance. However, I would like to argue that these details were done intentionally in order to critique the relationship between objects and poetry..

By stripping down his poem in multiple ways, Southey points out poetry's tendency to rely on objects. Much of his poem is merely a list of the things that made up the cottages and the people that lived in it (note how the speaker points out the woman's "dark-rimm'd spectacles" and "the ivory handle of her stick") (229). Even Charles is little more than something for the speaker to talk at, who has little interest in opening a dialogue with his walking companion. In this manner Charles is similar to the woman in Wordsworth's poem, who only seems to exist for the sake of being the means by which the speaker achieves enlightenment. Because Southey leaves out the chance for enlightenment in his poem, it amounts to little more than a listing of objects. I believe this is what's at the heart of what Southey is trying to do with this poem. By removing the opportunity for enlightenment, he brings to light its importance within poetry. Unless it provides its reader with a chance to learn in some form or another, poetry amounts to little more than the listing of objects.

Questions:
-Dr. Porter informed me that Charles could be an allusion to Charles Lamb, who was a friend of both Wordsworth and Southey. Unlike the two men, Lamb lived in London and would have been considered an urbanite. If he is in fact a character in the poem, what is the significance of him being the person whom the speaker walks with?

-Why would Southey choose to write a response to this poem, and not another one of Wordsworth's pieces?

-What is the significance of removing the details which describe how the cottage deteriorated over time?