• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

This dissertation has been microfilmed exactly as received ® 8-15,324 GOOD, Donald William, 1933- THOMAS LOVELL BEDDOES: A CRITICAL STUDY OF fflS MAJOR WORKS. The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1968 Language and Literature, general University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan Copyright by Donald William Good 1968 THOMAS LOVELL BEDDOES : A CRITICAL STUDY OF HIS MAJOR WORKS DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor ef Philosophy in the Graduate Scheel ef The Ohl® State University By Denald William Good, B.A., M.A, -Sr The Ohio State University 1968 Approved by AW. Tj Adv I ser * Department ef EngEngli 1ish VITA August 13, 1933 Born, Winchester, Virginia. 1955 B.A., Berea College, Berea, Kentucky. 1956 Teaching Assistant, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge. 1957 M.A., Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge. 1958-1962 Teaching Assistant, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio* 1963-1966 Instructor, The Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio. 1 9 6 6 - Assistant Professor of English, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio TABLE OF CONTENTS Page VITA.............................................................................................................................il INTRODUCTION................................................................................................... 1 CHAPTER I. THE IMPROVISATORE...........................................................................10 11 . TOE BRIDES* TRAGEDY AND TWO FRAGMENTS ..........................37 1H. DEATH*S JEST-BOOK .........................................................................107 IV. A SUMMARY.............................................................................................179 BIBLIOGRAPHY.......................................................................................................195 i n INTRODUCTION Thomas Lovell Beddoes, who, according to S. C. Chew, "was a good poet and ought to have been a great one,"*was perhaps the most promising of the poets that represent the period between the decline of the Romantics and the flourish­ ing of the Victorians. From his first appearance in print to the present day he has stirred Interest, provoked contro­ versy, and prompted many an ’’appreciation,” but he has re­ mained somehow elusive. Because Beddoes* life was eccentric and many details are not known, the approaches to his work have been speculative and often narrowly particular. Studies have been written on his alleged Darwinism, on his ’’father fixation,” on his position as "the last of the Elizabethans," and although not without some value, such approaches tend to emphasize various aspects of his life and work at the expense of others equally or more important. Most of these brief studies tend to isolate him from his own time, from other writers, and from the nineteenth-century milieu. The very earliest nineteenth-century criticism, brief reviews in the London Magazine, the Ed Inburgh Rev lew, and Blackwood * s , emphasized Beddoes* shortcomings: "There is a want of earnestness very often In his play";^ "our author frequently makes his huntsmen and servants talk good courtly 1 2 language”;-' "he does not subdue his scenes sufficiently to the end and purpose of the play";^ "he has evidently never once attempted to make his characters speak n atu rally "^ "no power whatever in character delineation."^ Years after his death in 18 JI4.9 , critics were s t i l l enumerating the same shortcomings: no proportions in dramatic structure, plots too involved, no character delineation. But in all of the criticism there was a briefly mentioned but real appreciation for Beddoes* strength of language and the power of his imagery. The comment that "he strews flowers in our path, and sets us bright images for our admiration" is an example of this early praise of Beddoes* style and diction.? In all of this criticism there is no attempt to get at the cause of the generalized impression, no attempt, unless a single quoted line is an attempt, to understand just what it is that has fascinated the succeeding readers of Beddoes. One might think that a man of such interests and eccen­ tricity would be explored fully in the twentieth century, what with our interest in Freud and the unconscious life and the progression of our own literary movements with their marked attention to symbolism and imagism. But once again the emphasis has been on Beddoes* peculiar behavior, his travels, his connections. There have, of course, been brief and segmented treatments that bear more directly on Beddoes as a poet. They are usually one of three types: the influ­ ence of other writers and of other philosophies on particular 3 passages in Beddoes; plot and character analyses aimed at proving a preconceived thesis; or brief studies ir. singular themes, i.e. revenge, horror, death, father-son conflict. Such studies are well represented by Mrs. Crosse's doting Q comments, Lytton Strachey's claim for Beddoes as the last of the Elizabethans,*^ Oliver Elton's concern for Beddoes* fatalism ,*0 Edmund Blunden's comparison of Beddoes with the great Romantics,*1 G* R. Potter's inquiry regarding Beddoes* belief in the evolution of species,and F. L. Lucas' article claiming, if dubiously, that "no one since Dryden has so recaptured the splendor of blank verse as a medium for dialogue, freeing it from that marmoreal s t i f f ­ ness which Milton imposed. Since 19U3* the greater part of the criticism has pro­ vided glimpses into the "man behind the poetry." We have claims of sadism and grandiose egoism,1^ of a retreat to a completely surreal world,of homosexuality,1^ of a general spiritual m alaise,and of a father fixation.1^1 All of these studies have drawn, for one reason or another, on the major biography written in 1935 by H. W. Donner: Thomas Love 11 Beddoes: the Making of ji Poet (a biography which su­ perseded Royali Snow's more interestingly written although less complete biography of 1928). Often dogmatic, certainly tiring, and apparently with not much sympathy for the Roman­ tics or Romanticism, Donner has nonetheless drawn together many of the facts about Beddoes* life, a difficult task in k light of the poet’s travels, his strong sense of independence, and the mysterious handling of his papers after his death. A good part of the biography, necessarily, is an account of Beddoes1 childhood and schooling, his self-imposed exile to Germany, his many political activities, and his suicide. Beddoes as poet is, of course, the raison d1etre for the biography; yet the many tasks of the biographer prohibit Donner from concentrating mainly on the poetry. The dis­ cussions of poetry are most often limited to analyses of prosody and to summaries of narrative and dramatic plots. Some of Donner's final judgments seem to overstate the case for Beddoes and do him more disservice than would a more restrained and precise appraisal: for example: "It may, therefore, be seriously questioned whether Beddoes does not deserve a place among the great Romantics, side by side with Blake, Wordsworth, Coleridge, Lord Byron, Shelley and Keats." And "There is in his later poetry no morbidity, no skeleton complex, no flaw" [Italics m ine].^ The most recent study of Beddoes is a dissertation by C. A. Hoyt (Studles in Thomas Love 11 Beddoes, Columbia University, 19&1). Once again, however, we have a narrowed study regarding the influence of the Gothic and Elizabethan traditions of Beddoes’ work. Hoyt not surprisingly discovers a resemblance between the plots and characters of Beddoes and those of Maturin, Beckford, Beaumont and Fletcher, and Harston. He then attempts to account for the differences 5 between Beddoes and his predecessors on psychological grounds: "In all probability, the father's death coming when Beddoes was only five, was not apprehended by the child other than as abandonment or betrayal.Ergo: the central theme of Beddoes1 work is a father-son conflict. Other assumptions, seemingly exaggerated, would tend to limit the effectiveness of the dissertation. For example 1) that the markedly gro­ tesque early poetry (with melting flesh, spouting blood, lovers fondling ghastly skulls--all very serious) is "expressive of a thoroughly normal and familiar childish P 1 glee in the presence of the horrible." And 2) that, "in his later life and in a new spirit of stoical acceptance, Beddoes made a gradual reconciliation with death." 22 It seems to me that the evidence will not support this. Both the poetry--which becomes more probing, more ambiguous--and his suicide suggest that we are not dealing with a stoic who was finally "celebrating the peace and happiness to be found in the grave. From this review of previous criticism, then, it seems clear that the markedly disparate conclusions are the result of over-particular preconceptions on the part of scholars; and while almost all such conclusions are inter­ esting and some downright ingenious, 1 believe there are yet other important approaches which are as valid, which are certainly more relevant, and which, in the end, would come nearer to explaining the literary value and genuine appeal of his work. 6 The purpose of this present study is to examine and interpret, in light of his own changing and developing thought, a large part of the Beddoes canon, to investigate the major problems that confronted Beddoes as a working poet, and, finally, to provide a critical estimate of his measure of success. To date,the scholarly studies have made serious use of the poetry only where it might illuminate the Beddoes

Load more

  200

Copy Link