William Wordsworth - Upon Westminster Bridge - Analysis. Poetry Lecture by Dr. Andrew Barker 

Good Day! Dr Barker, i like your style and the language explanation, especially the slow intonation and clarity of your speech, for the non-native speakers, which makes me understand each and every one of your lecture. i have listened to all your lectures and i am a fan of yours and look forward for lectures on many more topics from you which are yet to be covered by you, the lecture of philip larkin and seamus heaney are really very good!.., ...comparitively you are excellent Dr.Barker, thank you!

I agree with you in saying that the poem is not about Wordsworth’s love of London’s city scene in general, but rather his love of it the one time when he saw it at a specific place - upon Westminster Bridge - on a specific date - September 3rd 1802 - and at a specific time - in the morning. I think the specification of date and place in the title has made the poem very diary-like, which perhaps suggests that the ‘fair’ sight of London is an unusual encounter that deserves recording down. Also, Wordsworth’s emphasis - in both the octave and the sestet - on the time such ‘fair’ sight is seen - in the morning - (‘the beauty of the morning’ / ‘his first splendour’) hints that the sight is fleeting, transient; and his use of garment as a metaphor for the morning light, coupled with the word he uses in the last line of the poem - ‘lying’ - as you suggest, may as well be an indication of such view to be an illusion, a mirage if you like, that is bound to be dispelled as the day passes. I think we can safely assume that Wordsworth’s admiration for the sight he saw in London at that particular time and place to be genuine. But I am inclined to believe that there’s a hint of resentment in the poem about the on-going industrialisation in the city. In the poem, I think Wordsworth has deliberately avoided mentioning the products of industrialisation, such as workers, factories and shops (except one of its negative impacts, namely air pollution by factory smokes); and what’s included in the ‘touching’ London sight are inventions and architectures of the pre-Industrial Revolution period: ‘ships, towers, domes, theatres, and temples’ that are ‘bare’ - untainted by the smokes of factories - and are bathed in the sun like ‘valley, rock, or hill’ in rural areas that makes them look ‘so bright and glittering in the smokeless air.’ Also, I really like Wordsworth’s use of two words that carry similar meanings - ‘majesty’ and ‘mighty’ - to compare and contrast the ‘silent’ and ‘fair’ sight of London he saw once with the hustle and bustle of the city as usual: that the majestic sight of London could only be seen when ‘the mighty heart is lying still.’

Having worked in London many years ago, I understand how beautiful it is in the early hours of the morning when everything is still and the sun is rising. The line about the mighty heart lying still, to me, just means the peaceful heart of the city before the onslaught of the day. Wordsworth seems to me to just be embracing the feelings of the moment.

Excellent analysis, keep up the great work!

In third grade I picked Wordsworth's poem "The Daffodils" to recite in front of class ( we all had to pick a poem). Almost 50 years later, I could not get that poem out of my head if I tried. I've loved this poem "On Westminster Bridge" for many decades, but after seeing your lecture, I think this poem is going the way of "The Daffodils." Beautiful lecture! PS: As for Mike Tyson biting the ear, right after it happened the SF Chronicle drew a picture joke with the title above Mike Tyson does Shakespeare: Tyson is pictured in a Roman toga saying "Friends, Romans, countrymen: Lend me your ears."

Thank you Dr Barker.❤️

Thank you very much for your videos!

This really helped me understand the historical context of the poem. I was very much stuck on my essay till a friend linked me this! Went from hating this poem to finding it accessible and interesting.

Amazing analysis Dr. Parker

Wonderful!

Touching explanation sir. I m pleased.Thanks.

very good explanation.

He personifies the city as wearing the garment of beauty. It is not bare as it contains towers, ships, domes and theaters. Because he says it is "silent, bare" I believe it is bare of people as he is viewing it before the hustle and bustle. The air is smokeless bc the days activities haven't started. It's those moments when u feel like a scene has been created just for you or one that only you are enjoying. As a romantic poet it would be surprising that he would elevate man-made structures over nature. Thus, I agree that it is about morning rather than London bc he is saying that morning can overtake any landscape and shine to be the most beautiful. That is the beauty of the romantics is that they can bridge the majesty of nature to the common man. What a gift to humanity.

Its really helpful for me thanks a lot for ur explanation .

Clear analysis of the poem....👍👍👍👍

I think I had a similar feeling of Wordsworth before when I stayed over night in Central during the umbrella movement. It decided to leave at 5:30am and that Central was so peaceful and calm without any people or a car, but only the rising sun with golden ray. However, I did not have the poetic dexterity to write a poem of the scene. I think the reason that I had that strong emotions is that it breaks the impression of mine on that place. Similarly, I think the sudden positive impact that hits Wordsworth to write this poem is similar to this experience, because the silence and calmness of London was rare and different from the London that most people thought about. I think the poem is about the love to London's morning but not morning only. It is because this spontaneously strong emotion appeared when he was staring at the Thame. Even though he seemed to dislike the London after the sun rises, surely the spontaneous pleasure of his could only be brought at that time and at that place. Therefore, I think the Morning of London is the target that he really loves, but not simply the natural sunrise.

Nice explain 👍👍

Very good lecture. Please upload some more lectures on famous poems

Solved all my queries Thanks Sir

Helped a lot

Blessing to have to as an ENGLISH ONLINE TEACHER... BEST TEACHER AWARD GOES TO YOU GENTLEMAN!!❤🗿

Thank you .

Thanks so much, you are brilliant. Poetry needs a sharp brain, a deep heart and soul, a hard criticism and a good family background. Your explanation is very good, I really highly appreciate it. Thanks again. Greetings Andrew, from Hungary. I translated for you, one of the bitter poems of nearly the greatest poet of Hungary, a real talented, sad and brilliant man, Attila József, a poem written by him to his dead mother: ATTILA JÓZSEF LATE WEEPING I am always burning in 36 degree Celsius fever And Mommy, you don't nurse me. Like a flimsy, slight girl, When having waved by them You stretched yourself at the side of Death. I am trying so hard to compose you again From tender autumnal countryside And lots of lovely women, But for now I see, my time has gone for that, I burn away in Fire, a concentrated.

It's wonderful explanation..i was only wondering if the word steep could mean something else besides to rise

"The city is wearing the beauty of the morning" but bare of pedestrians as it is silent,maybe.. M.p.o.v. nice lecture ,enjoying and listening from URuguay.

Great

I am from India and I impressed your video

Thank you 💚

I am impressed by your detailed explanation! Thank you for sharing this lecture.

it really help me to understand the historical content of the poem.thanks but the voice is very unclear

The poem that launched a thousand titles! "On the bridge between IFC and HSBC bank"

IAM from takatak maidan Dir lower Pakistan I forgot all the poem for years

This help me to understand the poem.

I think it is rather implausible to argue that this poem is a hate poem solely by looking at the ambiguity of the words that Wordsworth used. This first few lines of the poem are still a very genuine description of what Wordsworth saw and they are undoubtedly beautiful. I think it is rather hard for us to overturn the whole feeling of the poem just by the fact that some of the words are ambiguous. I think this is still a great love poem to the city of London.

A thought provoking analysis of this poem. Greatly appreciated. Thank you.

I agree with you that this poem is not about how beauty and a great place of city of London is, rather, it is more a poem address to the beauty of morning. In the beginning of the poem, Wordsworth has expressed his subjective feeling about how beauty of those sceneries are. At the first sight, it seems that those impressive and extraordinary views he depicted are the city of London. But, this kind of beauty might in fact only appears in the morning. He might realize what he is astonishing at is not about the view of London city, but the beauty of morning. The beauty of the morning is too temporal, and that’s why most of people might just walk by without noticing this kind of beauty. The beauty of the morning will in the end vanish when the days continues or the life of the London city starts. Put it in another way, the beauty of the morning will no longer exist once people go to work, factories start their operation, and so on. In a nutshell, we might say that the beautiful sceneries Wordsworth at the moment appreciates can be attributed to the beauty of morning,

If you are interested check out this is sonnet "The Holidaymaker's Sunset".ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-gV69gcF80J8.html It can be easily contrasted with Wordsworth "Westminster Bridge," and contains a clear quote from the Master's original.

Thank you, Dr. Barker 🌹🌹🌹🌹

Re TheDisexists. Grateful as always for your comments. Brilliant as always. I’ll reply as best I can. 1 I’m going to take issue with several points here: I'd have been inclined to think of the garment as a transparent silk nightie rather than a "cloak." Firstly, thank you for your interest. I have a bit of time so I’ll reply as best I can. I think it’s a bit of a stretch to imagine a ‘transparent’ garment in “the city doth now like a garment wear the beauty of the morning.” Feel free to of course, but why would the poet use a simile here? What work is like a garment doing? Why say ‘wears the beauty of the morning like a garment?’ Why not say, The city is beautiful? We don’t know what kind of garment it would be, it could be a beautiful garment or an ugly one, as some clothes look good and some look bad, but no matter what the garment is the point here is that a garment can be removed. The silent beauty of the morning is something that will “like a garment” come off, and reveal the reality beneath. 2 Also, I disagree with your definition of "steep" as a verb meaning to "go up". The correct definition is "surround or fill with a quality or influence." Well that’s certainly a definition of steep as in “Wordsworth was steeped in the romantic poetic tradition”, but another definition is “rising or falling very sharply.” In a poem about a sunrise the second would certainly be the more obvious use of the word, though perhaps your definition here of steeped as influenced gives more texture to the verse, gives us more to chew on. . . In fact I’d say it does. And as you say this doesn’t change the meaning of the poem. I do like ‘steeped’ as ‘influenced’ here. Steeped as influenced? Well worth considering as an extra meaning. As to the ‘glittering’ being cause by the first rays of sunlight or caused by candles? Once again I think we can have it both ways without our appreciation of the scene being changed at all. In defense of ‘glittering’ referring to candles in the near dark of dawn I would say that the sunrise itself would not cause the city to glitter in the same way as candles lit in the predawn would make the coty appear to glitter, but this is a small point. 3 Finally, I don't think your discussion of Wordsworth's definition of poetry is working well here or really adding much, if anything, to the analysis of the poem. I’d have to respectfully disagree there. Westminster Bridge is a clear and easy example of what Wordsworth is talking about in his definition. (I would concede though that the poem is used to illustrate the definition more than the definition used to illuminate the poem.) I’ll add an extended discussion of Wordsworth’s “Poetry is . . .” quote in the attached lecture notes, but believe that part of the confusion here is that poetry has come to mean two things. One is, as you say, the actual artifact of a written, or spoken, poem and the other is the, once again as you say, ‘Ah! Poetry, elusive abstract concept.’ And people certainly do use the word poetry to mean that second thing. With this second definition the poem on the sunrise is called a piece of poetry, but so is the sunrise itself, so is great pass in football, so is the design of a keyboard, so is anything that anyone claims to be poetry because the quality that makes something poetry is elusive and abstract so who can say the person calling it poetry is wrong? Even a murder can be called poetry, or as you say someone biting someone’s ear off incensed with an overflowing of powerful feeling during a boxing match, though for me that’s an extremely debatable example. I don’t see a difference between emotion and feeling here. The problem here is that if everything is poetry, to someone, then nothing is poetry. The word poetry comes to have no useful meaning for us beyond, ‘Something someone says they like, or that caused them to feel deeply.’ The slight inconvenience here is that the word formed thing and the elusive abstract concept thing are often conflated when definitions of poetry are given. Poetry clearly means two different things. A limerick which is certainly poetry, doesn’t cause us, or at least me, to feel very deeply. The point here is whether or not Wordsworth is talking about the first or the second in “Poetry is the spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings: it takes its origin from emotion recollected in tranquility.” Certainly the second part, ‘takes its origins from . . . ‘ would to me suggest he’s talking about the composition of the words on the page thing, even if in the first part he’s talking about the ‘Ah Poetry!’ thing, in the second part he’s talking about getting those words down. The point I make here is that he is talking, quite accurately I think, about the type of poetry he likes to get down and what inspires it. This is useful, or at least interesting, for us in a discussion of his work but it’s worth pointing out that as a blanket definition of poetry it is, to say the least, not universally applicable. 4 Your decision to interpret 'powerful' as 'positive' doesn't make sense to me. I don’t interpret powerful as positive, I say Wordsworth would seem not to consider negative emotions to fall within his definition of poetry. One could argue here of course, “How would I know that?” I hope all that is useful. Incidentally, I have a theory, unsubstantiated as yet, that the reason for the existence of the ‘Ah Poetry, elusive abstract concept’ thing being given the same word as the ‘written or spoken collection of words’ thing is down to poets like Wordsworth being very concerned with the ‘Ah Poetry elusive abstract concept’ thing in their written or spoken works. The works of the Romantics were very popular and their definitions and concerns have carried on in our symbolic everyday definition of poetry. When someone says, ‘That baby is poetry’ or in football ‘that pass was poetry’ I tend to think, whose poetry are you thinking about? Larkin’s? Wilfred Owen’s? Spike Milligan’s? Those using the word poetry here are thinking of the ‘elusive abstract concept’ poetry of the Romantics, of Wordsworth, the influence of who is still with us in the way we use the word ‘poetry’ figuratively today. And since usage is the final arbiter of language who is to say those using the word that way are wrong to do so? That IS what the word means now. It is also not a necessary component of all the written down or spoken aloud stuff that we also call poetry. We can allow though that, for many of us, it is a desirable component.

Since the poem is named with a specific date and time, it is convincing to say that this is not a love poem to London itself, just to express his fascination to a specific morning scene upon the Westminster Bridge. I think the word “bare” does not seem contradict to me with the phrase wearing a garment of the morning beauty. As you said, it is probably a choice to fit in the rhyme scheme. I think “bare” can be interpreted as unpretentious; the original scenery of London.

Yes it's a poem that was written before Industrial revolution wrecked London, but it was left bare afte Jhonsonian coffee houses.

The whole poem is to suggest how nature can be beautiful in the early morning without any human activities. He expressed how impressive and extraordinary these sceneries are, by saying that "earth has not anything to show more fair" and "never did sun more beautifully steep" and all the usage of words like "bright", "sweet"... These directly suggest the beauty of London without human destruction, which is quite like an illusion.

Wordsworth begins the poem with a subjective statement on the beauty of a beautiful morning in London city. On first reading, it seems that Wo is simply describing what he is seeing and that he loves seeing. However, it becomes ambiguous of his love to this city when the city is depicted as lifeless whereas motion is only found in the natural movement of the river. I wonder the significance for Wordsworth to choose to write about Westminster Bridge in 1802 to make his poem symbolic and in the form of a romantic poem.

How is it an expostulation? Doesn't that mean expressing disapproval?

sir i am arobindo from india i wanto go to your country adn want to learn literature

I think Wordsworth’s poem depict London that after the baptism of the industrial revolution. At this time, he uses personification, he likened London to a sleepy man, I think there are two of meaning, one is that “London” is too tired, because they have had a very difficult time, so they are immersed in their own sweat dreams now. Second is in his eyes, he is only to depict the wonderful scene in the morning which are a developed, modern, optimistic and active metropolis. I prefer the explanation of the former.

We must be clear as to weather at 6am in September the sun is rising or not. When commenting the line starting with "Dear God!" you said that the sun was rising over the city of London, however, when you talked about the bright and glittering houses you presumed that it was still dark and that the sun hadn't risen yet

The poem begins with a shocking statement, especially for a Romantic poet: "Earth has not anything to show more fair." This statement is surprising because he is not speaking of nature, but of the city. He goes on to list the man-made things, such as "Ships, towers, domes, theatres and temples." In fact, nature's influence isn't described until the 7th line, when the speaker relates that the city is "open to the fields, and to the sky." While the city itself may not be a part of nature, it is certainly not in conflict with nature. This becomes even more clear in the next line, when the reader learns that the air is "smokeless" (free from pollution). Wordsworth continues by personifying the scene, giving life to the sun, the river, the houses, and finally to the whole city, which has a symbolic heart. By using personification in his poem, Wordsworth brings a kind of spirit to the city. Therefore, I would say it is a poem which glorify the nature beauty of London, rather than its man-made construction of London.

My class poem Arunodoi academy

That 'Ear Biting' Example though!

The way I see this poem is that it was about the love of London's morning. I do not think that he dislked or even hated London when she's busy. He just like the morning in London where it was calm and beautiful and the huge contrast of emptiness in the morning. Because why would he want to change that line "bare" before his death? I think he consided that it was a fact that London had already wore that garment cloak. It cannot be bare so he would want to change that to avoid misrepresentation. He just like the morning in London. So I think that the fact that people view this as a love poem to the city still stands. I have a question about what you have said in the lecture that powerfull emotions had to be positive. can it ot be? I do not think all powerful emotions have to be positive. Most of the time, the sadness struck people more when it comes to poem. Then what is the truth definiton of poem? I think most people has different opinions but what is the true meaning of it?

Prof .Andrews is of course trying his best to interpret, appreciated. But emotions are not feelings.

Mighty heart lying still....never really thought before this line to be so naughty

🥂🍾

I agree that it is a love poem to London. But if I work it backwards, it is also a hate poem to the people of London, who tainted the beautiful scenery and nature of London. I think the persona prefers the London without human activity. I don't understand the relationship/connection between the sonnet structure and the theme of the poem.

Did he (for shame ) say anythinK

One totally irrelevant question, please, Dr. Barker: What do you think of Manley Hopkins' poetry?

Text and Experience 2020.

For me it is a perfect laudatory to the city of London, especially sun rise in the city of London. If it was just a love poem to the morning, I'm not so sure why he had to use Westminster Bridge as the title. Throughout the poem, the poet really vividly depicts the sun rise in city of London. If it was a love poem to the morning, I think he would more focus on the instant moment of sun rising and it doesn't have to be London. The poet says that nothing on earth can be more beautiful than this that he's watching and describes the beauty of the city. I won't deny that he likes the city in the morning but that doesn't necessarily mean he likes the morning, not the city itself. He is focusing and describing how the city of London is amazing in the morning. As the sun rises, everything glitters like the city is wearing the beautiful garment and because it's in the early morning everything seems asleep, silent and bare (it's right before the moment when the city is wearing the beauty of the morning). Sun rises everywhere and it's all the same sun but he is specifically using and portraying the features and things in the city of London; ships, towers, domes, theatres, and temples, river, valley, rock and hill in London. And I have a question about William Wordsworth's definition of poetry that "poetry is the spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings: it takes its origin from emotion recollected in tranquility." . Can we interpret his words here as 'poetry is a recollected tranquil form of spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings'? You mentioned in the lecture that the powerful feelings perhaps will be positive feeling but I don't think it has to be positive. Poetry doesn't always have to be beautiful but it can also be a written form of crazy, dirty, or disgusting feelings, does it?

I liked how you turned the poem around to show that it was about nature and the morning, rather than London. That was good, but I'm going to take issue with several points here: I'd have been inclined to think of the garment as a transparent silk nightie rather than a "cloak." Also, I disagree with your definition of "steep" as a verb meaning to "go up". The correct definition is "surround or fill with a quality or influence." This doesn't really change the meaning of the poem & your analysis, except where you claim there were candles burning & it was still dark out, which I think is wrong. The sun has risen, or partly risen, and the brightness and glittering comes from those early rays of light that the sun has "steeped" the city in. Finally, I don't think your discussion of Wordsworth's definition of poetry is working well here or really adding much, if anything, to the analysis of the poem. You're actually quoting Wordsworth incorrectly: "poetry is the spontaneous overflow of powerful feeling" is correct - you keep saying "emotion" and I think there's a subtle but important difference. Your decision to interpret 'powerful' as 'positive' doesn't make sense to me. When Wordsworth makes this statement, I tend to wonder if by "poetry" he means not the end product/physical artefact of a written poem, but rather some elusive abstract concept (Ah! poetry!) which means Mike Tyson biting Evan Hollander's ear is "poetry" after all. This is an endlessly debatable topic and I don't want to type an essay in a youtube comments box so I'll sign off here.

Lifewriting 2020

During the age of Industrialisation, romanticists like Wordsworth instead write poems about peaceful scenery and nature because he didn't like the exploitation of nature due to human constructions and industrial development. In the first stanza, I think using the word "garment" there means something silky and comfy which is like how the river flows and like the morning unpolluted refreshing air. And many more of the descriptions show how he appreciates and glorifies nature.

Can you speak in hindi Dr Barker

I don't suppose my comments will be popular, nevertheless, here they are. Barker is misreading this deeply romantic poem through the eyes of the modern cynic. To interpret the phrase "Dull would he be..." as "Boring," egregiously cheapens the meaning for the sake of making it understandable to the modern mind. Has Barker such a low opinion of the mind of the younger generation? He could have used words such as "insensitive" or "unfeeling". As for the final word in the phrase "Never did sun more beautifully steep..." I'm surprised that he missed the poet's double meaning. Yes, the sun rises steeply in the sky, but its bright rays also drive away the inkiness of the night in the way that a garment may slowly change colour as it is steeped in hot water containing dye. A magnificent choice of a word. Mostly, I disagree entirely with Barker's dystopian interpretation of the final lines, once again, I believe he's reading the early 19c mind of a romantic with the cynical modern mind. Wordsworth was struck - as many of us have been - by the tranquil flow of quiet water in the early morning, captured by him with the beautiful phrase, "glideth at his own sweet will." No double meaning, underlying bitterness, just the sensitive observation of beauty, typical Wordsworth. The reverent "Dear God" expression is once again diminished by the modern mind to simply mean, "Wow!" The minds of earlier generations, however, were more prone to be aware of the Deity and I see no reason to doubt that the poet was inspired to praise God at this transcendent moment. Finally, Barker mangled the final line by making Wordsworth say that the City was full of lies and, as far as he was concerned, dead! No, no, no, I totally disagree, the simple reading is the truest, the poet was under the spell of the City's tranquillity.

Hello Mr. Barker. For the most part I did like your way of explaining the poem, the connection you made to the poem London especially. I however think you could have explained it in a more authentic way, in a way that we could relate to it more, indulge with us as your audience. I have a great teacher for Literate who did this poem justice, but sadly I did not write it down at that time, so I came here to see if I could boost my memory. I am a bit disappointed, you did not pay attention as to why the ships, towers, domes, theaters and temples were there, they aren't just a coincidence, they stand for smth, like the theater stands for art, the temple for religion etc. All you did was explain the lines, which I feel was not needed, its nothing complex, he is not Shakespeare thank God. Anyway, am sorry to be leaving a bad review on this video, and hope you are more authentic next time. And do practice your presentations if you are lost at words sometimes, it does not give off a good impression.

This sounds like a Monthy Python farce

omg please talk faster

একটু বাংলা পড়ো, রবীন্দ্রনাথ পড়ো, ধন্যহবে।

Wordsworth. for plonkers

too long can you give a shorter explanation