Victorian Poetic Theory and Criticism

What did the Victorians think poetry was for? You’ll find no single answer here, but rather a lively tangle of arguments, defenses, and provocations. Some, like John Stuart Mill, sought to define poetry in philosophical terms; others, like Matthew Arnold, insisted on the critic’s duty to raise cultural standards. Arthur Henry Hallam wrote passionately in defense of a young Tennyson, while Robert Buchanan attacked Rossetti’s “fleshly” poems with such vigor that Rossetti himself—and his allies—could not resist answering back. Nothing like a little critical drama.

But notice, too, the way class and social position shape these conversations. Gerald Massey, a working-class poet, uses his preface not simply to introduce his poems but to assert the legitimacy of laboring-class creativity. Amy Levy, turning her attention to the marginalized James Thomson, critiques the very categories of “major” and “minor” poets, exposing how such hierarchies silence certain voices. Their presence in this section complicates what might otherwise look like a tidy lineage of canonical critics.

Together, these selections remind us that Victorian poetic theory was never only about style or taste. It was also about morality, authority, social rank, and who gets to decide what counts as poetry. As you read, I invite you to listen for both the familiar arguments and the unexpected ones—the claims that shaped Victorian literary culture and the voices that strained against its boundaries.