“So, how do you see Wordsworth's empiricism working its influence in
the 20th century (one example, please--I know it won't cover the whole
but it can lead to further clarification)?”
Again there is no clear-cut list I can give that would make sense. I
could make a developmental chain from T.E. Hulme to Pound’s ABC of
Reading to Georgian poetry to Amy Lowell and Imagists but that would
be a caricature and there are so many cross-influences also. I mention
it all in chapter 4.
“And perhaps a list of poets that you take as typical in chapter four on
the one hand and chapter five on the other might help ground the
discussion. In fact, if you gave us your chapter four list one could
ask "you include x. How and where do you see Wordsworth's empiricism
in x's work?"
From chapter 4 all I can give is a very brief outline: Georgian poets, the
Imagists, I. A. Richards, F. R. Leavis, Raymond Williams, Philip
Hobsbaum, The Movement, The Group, Ted Hughes, Seamus Heaney
etc. There are very few individual poets mentioned as by and large it
was the critics who formed the poetic taste.
I have adapted chapter five into an article for Jacket magazine:
http://jacketmagazine.com/36/side-j-essay.shtml
What you are looking for will be there.
On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 14:06:23 -0400, Mark Weiss
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>OK, for a non-specialist like me who has never
>had any problem accepting the first three
>chapters as presented here (hey, I studied this
>stuff with Wasserman at Johns Hopkins, which in
>the sixties may have been the most empiricist
>place on earth) the only thing needing
>clarification is the last two chapters. It's what
>you've said about these that's inflamed sentiment
>on the list. So, how do you see Wordsworth's
>empiricism working its influence in the 20th
>century (one example, please--I know it won't
>cover the whole but it can lead to further
>clarification)? And perhaps a list of poets that
>you take as typical in chapter four on the one
>hand and chapter five on the other might help
>ground the discussion. In fact, if you gave us
>your chapter four list one could ask "you include
>x. How and where do you see Wordsworth's empiricism in x's work?"
>
>Otherwise we're left dealing with "empiricist
>bad, transcendentalist good," which is not so
>much a subject for reason as for belief.
>
>Mark
>
>At 01:47 PM 8/27/2009, you wrote:
>>Wordsworth’s Empiricist Poetic and its Influence in the Twentieth
>>Century
>>
>>
>>This thesis has two connected aims. Firstly, it claims that it is
>>meaningful to describe Wordsworth’s aesthetic, and his beliefs about
>>the subject-object relationship, as substantially empiricist. However,
it
>>is not claimed that Wordsworth is consistently empiricist in the way
>>that a philosopher might aspire to be: indeed, there is a place to be
>>found within this argument for the recognition of his
transcendentalism.
>>While it is granted that the word “empiricist” is not always used in
the
>>most rigorous philosophical sense, the influence of philosophical
>>empiricism on Wordsworth naturally figures in the argument.
Secondly,
>>the thesis demonstrates that the continued influence of Wordsworth
in
>>the twentieth century has to be understood primarily as the
influence of
>>his empiricist aesthetic. The thesis concludes by suggesting that
there
>>are wider possibilities for poetry than are encouraged by this
aesthetic.
>>The importance of undertaking this project does not lie only in
>>objections to Wordsworth’s theory or practice, but arises also from a
>>consideration of his continuing influence.
>>
>>Chapter One argues that on the basis of his poetry and criticism of
the
>>period 1787 to 1805, the description “The Empirical Wordsworth” is a
>>meaningful one. This is established through an examination of
>>Wordsworth’s writings, his sister’s journal entries, his
correspondence,
>>his poetry and contemporaneous literary reviews of The Prelude.
>>
>>Chapter Two, in order to demonstrate the antecedents of
Wordsworth’s
>>empiricist beliefs, is a study of his philosophical development from
the
>>influences of Hartley, Burke and Berkeley.
>>
>>Chapter Three examines the influence of Coleridge on Wordsworth.
This
>>is predominantly an empiricist one contrary to received notions of it
>>being transcendentalist.
>>
>>Chapter Four reviews the reading of Wordsworth in the twentieth
>>century. This has to be understood in terms of the reaction to
>>Romanticism in the twentieth century.
>>
>>Finally, Chapter Five looks at twentieth-century poetry that largely
>>avoids the empiricist influence of Wordsworth. It also introduces the
>>concept of “Empirical Identifiers”: an analytic tool for literary
criticism.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>How about you post
>>
>> >your abstract and we get to ask for clarification?
>> >
>> >At 01:31 PM 8/27/2009, you wrote:
>> >>To analyse a single poem would be difficult as the analysis would
>>have
>> >>to be seen in light of what I say elsewhere in the thesis, some of
>>which
>> >>is, in turn, dependent on a discussion of Coleridge's philosophical
>> >>influences on Wordsworth, which in itself involves a discussion on
>>David
>> >>Hartley's influence on Coleridge. If it was a simple matter of
posting
>> >>convincing soundbites here, I would have done so.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 12:56:30 -0400, Mark Weiss
>> >><[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Jeff: It doesn't seem all that convoluted. Throw
>> >> >us the analysis of one poem. Or not. As I told Darwin, I've got
a
>>lot to
>> >>do.
>> >> >
>> >> >Mark
>> >> >
>> >> >At 12:46 PM 8/27/2009, you wrote:
>> >> >>Certainly, Wordsworth's empiricism is tempered by his
>> >> >>transcendentalism in the minds of most people, but my thesis
>>argues
>> >> >>that it was his transcendentalism which, seemingly
paradoxically,
>> >> >>inspired his empiricism. It is a closely argued issue and many
>> >> >>commentators come down on one side or the other--he is an
>> >>empiricist,
>> >> >>he is a transcendentalist. My thesis takes note of these
positions
>> >>and
>> >> >>accommodates both but in doing so offers a third possibility,
that
>> >> >>philosophically he was a transcendentalist but that for him to
>>convey
>> >> >>the insights he gathered from this view of reality he had to
>>adopt an
>> >> >>empirical writing mode, as he saw this as the only way these
>>insights
>> >> >>could be communicated.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Yes, the dividing line between romanticism and modernism is
not
>> >>clear-
>> >> >>cut. Yes, Pound and Williams are empiricist, as much of what
>>they
>> >>say
>> >> >>and wrote would have pleased Wordwsworth. What us
Imagism,
>>after
>> >> >>all, but a focusing on phenomena? Where the modernists
differ
>>from
>> >> >>Wordsworth is in the use of fragmentation and elision, which
>>renders
>> >> >>imagist elements less concrete or descriptive.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>As I have said it is a convoluted topic. That’s why I can't
argue it
>> >> >>effectively in the context of a forum such as this.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 08:53:01 -0700, David Latane
>> >> >><[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >I'm put off I think by the notion of "development of high
>> >>modernism."
>> >> >>And that this development is "significant." Isn't it part of the
>> >> >>impossible narrativity of literary history. (See perhaps David
>>Perkins,
>> >> >>_Is Literary History Possible?_) By empirical measurements
(e.g.,
>> >> >>representation in anthologies and textbooks) the high
>>modernists in
>> >> >>America are getting smaller and smaller each year. Pound is
>>banned;
>> >> >>Zukofsky nonexistent; Eliot a man of two poems; H. D. and
Stein
>> >> >>factors mostly because of gender.
>> >> >> >I don't see why Wordsworth should have a "sell by date"--a
>>cliché
>> >>that
>> >> >>doesn't make sense to me. Good poets will always cycle back
into
>> >>the
>> >> >> mix; rotten milk, never.
>> >> >> >Wordsworth's writings about poetry, especially (perhaps)
the
>>essay
>> >> >>supplementary, are foundational for modern and modernist
>>poetry--
>> >>he's
>> >> >>a shrewd one, keenly aware of language as poetry's
medium, "a
>>thing
>> >> >>subject to endless fluctuations and arbitrary associations." In
>>this he
>> >> >>might be read alongside Coleridge--including late works like
the
>>Aids
>> >>to
>> >> >>Reflection.
>> >> >> >I have in fact read Wordsworth critically, and every which a
way
>> >>else
>> >> >>too. It appears to me that Jeffrey has sided with certain
>>Modernists
>> >> >>without having really gotten Wordsworth (which is separate
from
>>the
>> >> >>question of whether his influence was deleterious or not).
>> >> >> >Jeffrey seems now to be saying that British poets have
>>followed
>> >> >>W's "man speaking to men" notion and write clearly and
>>descriptively
>> >> >>when they should be doing something else--and that
American
>>poets
>> >> >>cottoned on to this something else. But is this true? No ideas
>>but in
>> >> >>things, etc. In those things of the here and now, "in the very
>>world,
>> >> >>which is the world / Of all of us,--the place where in the
end / We
>> >>find
>> >> >>our happiness, or not at all!"
>> >> >> >As for your sensory train wrecks--I can't say Rimbaud has
>>much to
>> >>do
>> >> >>with American modernism. It's true Pound's American History
>>Cantos
>> >> >>can give one a good whack, but it's a different thing.
>>Unfortunately.
>> >>And
>> >> >>why doesn't Jeffrey like Sordello? And why should he like
Keats?
>>More
>> >> >>happy love, more happy happy love?
>> >> >> >David Latané
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>>
>>
>>

>>Send copy of message to
>>[log in to unmask]
>>

>>
>>
Back
>>to:
|