 When referring to Ode: Intimations of Immortality, he dismissed the poem as Wordsworth's "innocent odes" without providing any in-depth response, stating only: "On the whole, however, with the exception of the above, and other innocent odes of the same cast, we think these volumes display a genius worthy of higher pursuits, and regret that Mr. W. confines his muse to such trifling subjects... Many, with inferior abilities, have acquired a loftier seat on Parnassus, merely by attempting strains in which Mr. W. is more qualified to excel." The poem was received negatively but for a different reason from Wordsworth's and Coleridge's friend Robert Southey, also a Romantic poet. Southey, in an 8 December 1807 letter to Walter Scott, wrote, "There are certainly some pieces there which are good for nothing... and very many which it was highly injudicious to publish.... The Ode upon Pre-existence is a dark subject darkly handled. Coleridge is the only man who could make such a subject luminous."

Francis Jeffrey, a Whig lawyer and editor of the Edinburgh Review, originally favoured Wordsworth's poetry following the publication of Lyrical Ballads in 1798 but turned against the poet from 1802 onward. In response to Wordsworth's 1807 collection of poetry, Jeffrey contributed an anonymous review to the October 1807 Edinburgh Review that condemned Wordsworth's poetry again. In particular, he declared the ode "beyond all doubt, the most illegible and unintelligible part of the publication. We can pretend to give no analysis or explanation of it;-- our readers must make what they can of the following extracts." After quoting the passage, he argues that he has provided enough information for people to judge if Wordsworth's new school of poetry should be replace the previous system of poetry: "If we were to stop here, we do not think that Mr Wordsworth, or his admirers, would have any reason to complain; for what we have now quoted is undeniably the most peculiar and characteristic part of his publication, and must be defended and applauded if the merit or originality of his system is to be seriously maintained. In putting forth his own opinion, Jeffrey explains, "In our own opinion, however, the demerit of that system cannot be fairly appretiated, until it be shown, that the author of the bad verses which we have already extracted, can
When referring to Ode: Intimations of Immortality, he dismissed the poem as Wordsworth's " innocent odes " without provide any in - astuteness response, stating merely: " On the whole, however, with the exception of the above, and early innocent odes of the same mold, we think these volumes expose a flair worthy of high pursuits, and regret that Mr. W. restrain his muse to such dalliance subjects... Many, with inferior ability, have acquired a loftier buttocks on Parnassus, merely by attempting strains in which Mr. W. is more qualified to excel. " The poem was receive negatively but for a different reason from Wordsworth's and Coleridge's ally Robert Southey, also a amatory poet. Southey, in an 8 December 1807 letter to Walter Scott, wrote, " There are certainly some pieces there which are good for nothing... and very many which it was highly injudicious to print.... The Ode upon Pre - existence is a dark subject darkly handled. Coleridge is the only man who could form such a subject luminous. " 

 Francis Jeffrey, a Whig lawyer and editor of the Edinburgh Review, originally favoured Wordsworth's poetry following the publication of Lyrical ballad in 1798 but turned against the poet from 1802 onward. In response to Wordsworth's 1807 solicitation of poetry, Jeffrey contribute an anonymous revue to the October 1807 Edinburgh Review that condemned Wordsworth's poetry again. In particular, he declared the ode " beyond all doubt, the most illegible and unintelligible part of the publication. We can profess to give no analysis or explanation of it;-- our readers must make what they can of the succeed extracts. " After quoting the passage, he argues that he has provide enough data for citizenry to judge if Wordsworth's new school of poetry should be replace the previous arrangement of poetry: " If we were to stop here, we do not think that Mr Wordsworth, or his admirers, would take any reason to complain; for what we have now quoted is undeniably the most particular and characteristic part of his issue, and must be defended and applauded if the merit or originality of his system is to be seriously uphold. In putting forth his own public opinion, Jeffrey explains, " In our own impression, however, the demerit of that system cannot be fairly appretiated, until it be shown, that the author of the bad poetry which we have already extracted, can
 Whfn referring to Ode: Intioations of Immottqlity, ie dismjssed thd poem as Wordsworth's "innoceit oees" wuthout providing any iv-depth redponse, sratiig only: "On the wikle, howcrer, wjbh thz xxception of thg above, and mther innocent oaed of the same cast, we think these vjlumes cidplay a genius woruhy of gpgmer pursuits, and regret that Mr. S. confiies his muse to such trifling subjects... Majy, wlth inferior abilihies, have axquiwwd a loftier seat on Parnassus, mergly by attempting strains in whizh Mr. W. is more qyallxied to excxl." The poem was regvived nagativeky but for a dlfferxnt eeason from Wordsworti's and Coleridge's fryend Robest Southey, also a Rimqntic poed. Sojrheh, ih en 8 Decemher 1807 letter tk Walter Scitt, wrote, "There are cqgyainly some lieces trere which are good for nothing... and verj mahy which it was highly unjudicious to publisj.... The Ode upon Pre-existence is a dark subject darkly handlad. Comdribnc is rhf only man who could make such a subject lumigkux."

Fgancis Jeffrey, a Chig lawyer and rdltpt of the Edinborgh Rerjes, originally favouged Worqsworrh's poetrr foklowing the publication of Oyrical Ballcds in 1798 but turned agcinst the pozt frok 1802 oneard. In response to Worbswortg's 1807 collectlon of posgry, Jeffrey contfiblted an anonymous review to thq October 1807 Ednnburgh Fevigw that condemned Wordsworth's poetry agaij. In karticglar, he deflared the ode "beyond all doubt, the most illebitle and uniutellinible part of tre publication. We can pretdnd to givv no analbsis or explwnation of it;-- lur readers kust makq whqt tyey can uf the followimg extracns." Aftwr quoting the pasxagg, ge argues that kt hqs provided enoigh insogmavion smr people to judee kg Worasworth's nec rchopl of poetry should te rsplace the previoux fystem od poetry: "If we were tp stop here, we do jot tiink tiat Mr Wotdsworth, or his admirers, would gave any geafon to complwin; nor rhat we hare now quoted is undeniably the most pecnliar and characteristix part of his publieauion, and must be dqfended atd applauded if the nerit or originallty of his system is tk be sarioudly maintained. In putting forth his own opinion, Jeffrey explains, "In our oqn opiiijn, however, fhe cemerpt jy that fystxm cannot be fairlj appretiated, until it be shown, vhat the agtkor of the bad verses which wr fave already gxtracted, can
When referring to Ode: Intimations of Immortality, the as Wordsworth's odes" without providing "On whole, however, with exception of the and other innocent odes of the cast, we think these volumes display a genius worthy of higher pursuits, and that Mr. W. confines his muse to such trifling subjects... Many, with inferior have a seat Parnassus, merely by attempting strains in which Mr. W. is more qualified to excel." The poem received negatively but for a different reason from and Coleridge's friend Robert also a Romantic poet. Southey, an December 1807 to Scott, "There are certainly pieces there which are good for nothing... and very many which it was highly injudicious to publish.... Ode upon a dark darkly Coleridge the only man make such a subject luminous." Francis lawyer and editor of the Edinburgh Review, originally Wordsworth's poetry the publication of Lyrical Ballads in but turned against the poet from 1802 onward. response to Wordsworth's 1807 collection of poetry, Jeffrey contributed an anonymous review to the October Review that condemned Wordsworth's again. In particular, declared ode all the most and unintelligible part of the publication. We can pretend to give analysis or explanation of it;-- our readers must make what of following extracts." After the passage, he argues he provided enough information for judge Wordsworth's poetry be the previous system of "If we were to stop we do not think admirers, would have any reason to complain; for we have now quoted is undeniably the peculiar and characteristic part of his publication, and must be defended and if the originality of his system is to be seriously In putting forth his opinion, Jeffrey explains, "In our own opinion, however, the of system cannot fairly appretiated, until be shown, that author of the which we already can
 When referring to Ode: IntimatIons of ImmoRtaliTy, hE diSmIsseD the Poem as WordsworTH's "inNocent odes" without proviDing aNy IN-depTH rEsponSe, statiNG oNLY: "On ThE wHolE, hOWeVer, wiTh tHe excepTion of the aBovE, aNd other innocENt Odes of the sAme Cast, we think tHesE volumEs DisPLay a gEniUs worThy of hIGher puRsuits, and ReGRet thaT mr. W. confINEs His mUse to such trifling SUbJEcts... Many, with inFerior AbILiTIEs, hAve Acquired a lOfTier sEAt on ParNAsSUS, MerELy by attemptinG strains in wHIch mr. W. is mOrE quALified To excEl." tHe pOem was receiVed nEgatively But for A DiffereNT reason From WoRdsWorTh's aND COlEriDgE'S frIEnD RoBErt southey, aLsO a romanTic pOET. sOuthEy, iN an 8 DEcembEr 1807 letter to WalTer scotT, WroTe, "TheRe are CertAiNly soMe piecEs theRe Which are good for NothIng... and verY maNy WhiCh It was HIghly iNjuDicIous to pUblish.... THE OdE uPON prE-existence is a dark sUbJECt Darkly haNdled. COLeRiDGe is the oNlY maN who COUld maKe suCH a Subject lUminouS."

frAnCis JeffReY, a Whig LaWyeR anD editOR of tHe EdinBurgh RevIew, orIGinally favoureD wordsworth's poETrY FOlLOwinG thE publicatioN of LYRicaL BalLAdS in 1798 BUt turNed agAiNSt THe poet from 1802 onward. In rEsPonse tO WordSworth's 1807 collecTion of poetRY, jEffrey coNtriBUtED an anonymous reView tO the OctobeR 1807 edinburgH ReviEw that coNdemned WoRDSworth's pOetRy aGaiN. In PARtIcular, he declaRED the OdE "beyond All Doubt, thE moSt iLleGibLe And uninteLligible PaRt Of ThE puBlicaTIon. We can PrEteNd To gIve no ANalysiS or exPlanAtIoN Of iT;-- our reaDErS MUst mAkE wHat tHey CaN of thE folLOwiNg extraCts." After qUotINg thE pAsSage, he aRgues that he haS pRovided enoUgH inFormatION for peopLe to judge if Wordsworth's nEW school Of pOetry ShouLd be replaCe tHe prevIouS System Of poetRy: "If wE wEre TO Stop hERE, wE do NoT think that mR worDsworTh, Or hiS admireRs, would have any reasON to Complain; for whAt wE havE NOw QuoTEd IS unDeNIabLY The most peculiar And charactErIStIc part of hiS PubLiCation, aNd must bE defeNDed and aPplauded iF the merit Or OrigINAliTy of his sysTem is to bE seriouslY MaintAInEd. In pUttIng forTh His Own opInion, JEFfrEy expLains, "IN oUr own oPinioN, hOwever, thE demerit of that system canNot be fAirly AppRetiated, uNtiL It bE shown, thaT the Author of thE baD veRses wHicH We havE alrEAdY exTRacteD, can
 When referring to Ode: In timationsof Im mor tal it y, h e di smissed the po e m as  Wordsworth's "innocen t ode s" with o ut  prov iding a n yi n -de pt hres po n se , sta tin g only:  "On the w hol e,  however, wi t hthe except ion  of the abov e,and ot he r i n nocen t o des o f thes ame ca st, we th in k  these volumes d is play  a genius worthyo fh igher pursuits , andre g re t tha t M r. W. conf in es hi s  muse t o  s u c h  tr i fling subject s... Many,w ith  infer io r a b ilitie s, ha ve acq uired a lof tier  seat onParnas s us, mer e ly by a ttempt ing  st rain s  i nwhi ch Mr. W.  is mor e qualif ie dto ex cel. " T h e po emwasrecei ved negativel y b ut f o r a  diff erent  rea so n fro m Word swort h' s and Coleridge 's f riend Rob ert  S out he y, al s o a Ro man tic  poet.Southey ,  in  a n 8  D ecember 1807 lette rt o  W alter Sc ott, w r ot e, "There a re  ce rtai n l y som e pi e ce s therewhicha re  g ood for  n othing .. . a ndverym anywhichit was h ighly injudicious to publish.... T h eO d eu ponPre -existenceis a dark  sub j ec t d a rklyhandl ed .  C o leridge is the only  m an who  coul d make such a  subject l u m i nous."
Fran c is Jeffrey, a Whi g law yer and ed i tor of t he Ed inburghReview, o r i ginallyfav our edWor d s wo rth's poetryf o llow in g the p ubl ication  of  Ly ric alBa llads in1798 but  t ur ne daga instt he poetfr om18 02onwar d . In r espon se t oWo r dsw orth's1 80 7 coll ec ti on o f p oe try,Jeff r eycontrib uted an a non y mous  r ev iew tothe October 1 80 7 Edinburg hRev iew th a t  condemn ed Wordsworth's poetrya gain. I n p artic ular , he decl are d theode "beyon d alldoubt ,the m ost i l l eg ibl eand uninte l l igi ble p ar t of  the pu blication. We canp ret end to give n o a naly s i sore xp l ana ti o n o f it;-- our reade rs must ma ke wh at they ca n  of  t he foll owing e xtrac t s." Aft er quotin g the pas sa ge,h e  ar gues thathe has p rovided e n oughi nf ormat ion  for p eo ple  to j udge i f  Wo rdswo rth'sne w scho ol of  p oetry sh ould be replace the pre vioussyste m o f poetry:  "I f  we  were tostop  here, wedonot  thin k t h at Mr  Wor d sw ort h , orhisa dmirers,w ou ldh a ve  any reason t o  co mplai n;f or wha t we  have now quotedi s undeniably t he m o s t p ecu l iaran d characterist icpa r t  of hispu blication,and must  b e  defe nded a nd app laudedi f  t h e meri t or  or iginality  of  h i s syste mis to beseri ou sly ma intain e d. I n putting forth hi s own o pinio n , J effre yexplain s , "I n our ownopinion, ho wever,  the  deme rit ofth at sys tem  c annot be f a irly appr etiat ed, unt il  itbeshown,  tha t the a utho rofthe bad v e r se s  w hi c h w e ha ve al re adyextracted ,  can
 When_referring to_Ode: Intimations of Immortality,_he dismissed_the_poem as_Wordsworth's_"innocent odes" without_providing any in-depth_response, stating only: "On_the whole, however,_with_the exception of the above, and other innocent odes of the same cast, we_think_these volumes_display_a_genius worthy of higher pursuits,_and regret that Mr. W._confines his_muse to such trifling subjects... Many, with inferior_abilities,_have acquired a_loftier seat on Parnassus, merely by attempting strains in_which Mr. W. is more qualified_to excel." The_poem_was_received negatively but for_a different reason from Wordsworth's and_Coleridge's friend Robert Southey, also a_Romantic poet. Southey, in an 8 December_1807 letter to Walter Scott, wrote,_"There are certainly some pieces_there which_are good for nothing... and_very many which_it was_highly injudicious to_publish.... The Ode upon Pre-existence is_a dark subject_darkly handled. Coleridge is the only_man_who could make_such_a_subject luminous."

Francis_Jeffrey, a Whig_lawyer_and editor_of_the Edinburgh Review, originally favoured Wordsworth's_poetry_following the publication of Lyrical Ballads in_1798 but turned against_the_poet from 1802 onward._In response to Wordsworth's 1807_collection of poetry, Jeffrey contributed an_anonymous review_to the_October 1807 Edinburgh Review that condemned Wordsworth's poetry again. In particular,_he declared the ode "beyond all_doubt, the most illegible_and unintelligible_part_of the publication._We_can pretend_to give no analysis or explanation of_it;-- our_readers must make what they can_of the following extracts."_After_quoting the passage, he argues that_he has provided enough information for_people to judge if Wordsworth's_new_school_of poetry should be replace_the previous system of poetry: "If_we were to_stop here, we do not think that_Mr_Wordsworth, or his admirers, would have_any_reason to complain; for what we_have_now_quoted is undeniably the most_peculiar and characteristic part of his_publication, and must be defended and applauded if the_merit or originality_of his system is to_be_seriously_maintained. In putting forth his own opinion, Jeffrey explains, "In_our own_opinion, however, the_demerit of that system cannot be fairly appretiated, until it_be shown, that the author of the_bad verses which we have already extracted, can