THE LANGUAGE OF AMERICAN POETRY, 1900-1910 DISSERTATION Prasantad in Partial Fulf111mant of tha Raqulrastants for tha Dagraa Dootor of Philosophy In ths Graduata Sohool of Tha Ohio Stata U n iv a rs ity By FREDERICK WILUS EC KM AN, B .A ., M .A. Tha Ohio Stata Uhlvarslty 1954 Approvad by: QJhkJhJss±se& A d vlsar' Poll What do you road, my lord? IfiBi Words, vorda, words. Or an sorlvaln. un posts, un StiUfiSOjBbWa Ji& iifiHM r a t i o n s Intsllsotasllsa 11*0 an*tins patriot ■a la n g u s . —R&ny do Gourmont m n o - 11 - Pago INTRODUCTION.................................................................................. 1 I* Background# In Theory*......................................................• 10 II* Tha Available Paat ...................... * ................ 44 III. Tha Conservatives* Woodberry, Sterling, Santayana*••••••*•* 86 IV* Tha Transition: Moody, Lodge, Stlokney....................... 138 V* A Maw Language * Robinson and Pound .................. 196 VI* Other Voices ...........................* ........................................... 851 VII* A Note on Poetic Language After 1910.............. 870 NOTSS* .............................................. 880 WORKS CITED..................................................................................... 515 INTRODUCTION "Why do you want to wrlta poetry?" If tha young man anawara: "I hava Important thlnga I want to say," than ha la not a poat. If ha anawara: "I Ilka hanging around worda llsten- lng to what they say," than mayba ha la going to ba a poat.1 Auden's remark la not without Ita touoh of whimay# but aa a oharactarlatlo modarn attitude It la unmistakably clear. Both acholarahlp and crltlolam (to make a familiar and convenient, If not altogether real distinction) hava turned increasingly In our time to a consideration of tha poem aa linguistic object. This tendency la In part a literary extension of tha modarn praoocupatlon with lin­ guistics and semantics, which In turn are an extension of auch scientific disciplines aa sociology, physiology, and phyaioa. It has roots in tha literary past as wall, for it can ba seen as a reaction against what was fait to ba a tradition of lingulstlo indifference in poetic theory and practice of tha nineteenth century. What la significant for our purposes here is that the study of poetry can no longer be maintained apart from the study of language. And at this point we begin. This work aspires neither to the documentary thorough­ ness of Spitser or Richards or Josephine Miles, nor to the originality of Bateson or Cleanth Brooks or fctapson. I pro­ pose here no more than a small, but definite, addition to tha same field of knowledge which thaaa wrltara (and sev­ eral distinguished others) hava oontrlbutad ao greatly to. Specifically, my taaic haa baan an examination of tha uaa of language In Amarloan poatry during tha dacada batwaan 19UU and 1910. In aoopa thla examination la broad and general, a aurvay rathar than an exhaustive tabulation. Tha main portion la conoarnad with aight poata whoaa work aaama to ma to rapraaant rathar accurataly tha full ranga of achiavamant during that decade, and to apan tha axtramaa of languaga practioa aa vlawad hiatori©ally• Tha flrat two ohaptara provlda a background in nineteenth-century thaory and practioa of poatlc languaga. Tha final chaptara dlacuaa brlafly othar work In tha parlod and summarize tranda In languaga thaory and practlca aftar 1910. Several baalc aaaumptlona muat ba mantlonad. Flrat la my ballaf that tha languaga thaorlaa and practlcaa of Romantlclam wara tha only hlatorloally significant onaa of tha nlnataanth cantury and that thay hald a firm grip on tha lltarary mind for wall ovar a cantury, Into tha twen- tlath. Thla aaaumptlon haa aavaral affacta. Ona la that I hava not attamptad to diatlngulah batwaan homantlo and Victorian poatry; for my purpoaaa, tha dlvlalon la arbitrary and unimportant• ® Another oonaaquanoa la that ay atudy of orlglna in Chaptar Ona had to ba oarrlad back an antira cantury, rathar longar than stoat background studies. A “3 * second, and related, assumption la that British precept and example domlnatad American poatry of tha ninataanth century (which doaa not, however, naan that American po- atrj was only an imitation of British). Hanca In tha back­ ground chapters I hava drawn fraaly from British sources and in later chapters continue to make Bngllsh poatry as much a point of reference aa American. Tha historical approach involves certain beliefs about poatry and languaga that may not ba held by all readers. Tha first, of course. Is simply a belief that poetic tradition exists—that poets sharing a oosunon lang­ uage also share, through the passage of time, certain common methods of using that language. Geoffrey Bullough*s statement that "changes in poetic technique are due not merely to individual genius in contact with a resistant medium, but also to changes in the social and Intellectual environment"4 seems applicable here. Nor do I by any means suggest that the historical method is the only adequate dlsolpllne for studying poetry; it Is merely the one I have ohosen ae best for the present material. Its choice, in any event, oreates a limitation: the historical critic must trace the literary mainstream; he cannot be overly concerned with unique Individual achievements which often transcend the tradition but do not immediately affect it. A corollary to this belief In poetic tradition Is the con­ cept of the cycle: the idea that a new tradition, arising -4 out of tho immediate past, undergo#* an organic procaas of growth, maturity, and decline. In thla dissertation I maintain consistently a belief that by tha beginning of tha twentieth century tha Romantic tradition of poetlo language had reached an advanced stage of decline, that It was no longer a stimulating, fruitful tradition, and that from Its senescence was beginning to arise a new set of theories and practices which would contribute to the forming of a new poetic manner* Hence I have, more often than not, used the terms Romantic and Romanticism in a pejorative sense; and I must advise the reader that I am by no means insensitive to the great poems written in Roman­ ticism 's prime* Numerous brief comments throughout the dissertation will support this claim* That I also believe oertaln features of Romantic language to have been inher­ ently faulty will be made clear elsewhere* The matters discussed in this paragraph are elementary, I am aware; but they are also axiomatic and thus demand to be stated* Chapter One attempts to demonstrate oertaln principles whloh become guiding assumptions through the rest of the dissertation* One Is that a powerful element of Romantio literary theory believed poetry to have Its source In inspiration and its highest purpose in the expression of moral idealism* The proper tone of poetry was thought to be emotional; hence a language of strong affeotive conno­ tations came to be sanctioned* Sinoe the doctrine of Inspiration was essentially hostile to any serious notions of oraftamanshlp, this already indefinite language of con­ notation gradually became even more vague (as well as more conventional) by reason of indifference to careful word choice and sentence structure* But within the complex scope of Romanticism were views contradictory to these* One championed a deliberate return to plain, colloquial speech; another favored a language strongly concrete; an­ other held forth for a language of auditory beauty* All three were concerned, in any case, with the poet's careful attention to language* The second chapter attempts to outline the practical results of Romantic language theory* Four modes of poetry are isolated, defined, and analyzed in some detail* I have named these the emotional mode, the euphonic mode, the concretlve mode, and the Idiomatic mode* They are Intended to be not water-tight compartments, but conven­ iently loose groupings* I have sought to demonstrate with poems which seem to me typloal of these modes; the conclu­ sions I reach about any poem do not extend generally to the entire work of Its author* An important assumption at this point is that the four Romantic modes, with emotion­ alism dominant, oontlnued to form the basis of most poetic practice In the decade 19U0-191O and beyond* Sinoe these four modes are constant points of reference throughout the dissertation, 1 have found It advisable to demonatrate - 6 - thera In rather ooploua detail* My separation of theory from practice In the first two chapters, incidentally, was made for oonvenlence in handling two large bodies of data; 1 hope to have made clear the faot of their inter­ dependence. Tha third, fourth, and fifth chapters are the core of my study. In them I have made a detailed examination, according to principles set forth in Chapters One and Two, of eight poeta who wrote non-dramatlo verse4 during the decade 1900-1910. These I have grouped under historical labels, placing George hdward Woodberry, George Sterling, and George Santayana in the oategory of "conservatives1'; William Vaughn Moody, George Cabot Lodge, and Trumbull Stickney in the category of "transitlonals”;L. A. Robinson and Kzra Pound In that of "now poets." With each poet I have followed this procedure: brief, relevant biographical data by way of Introduction; the poet's views of language; his practice of metric, especially as It relates to the euphonio mode; his vocabulary and syntax; his imagery and Its place within the conoretlvo mode; relevanoe of his work to the Idiomatic mode, whenever the relationship