 |
 |
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: