Table Of Content2*nE pw&IxCAi-. ioiisjiilP
vie'
Uht-Cu^sxju 1 HOX'XvXxMiSy
CuVe.Arrk.jL PAi'x^vcvE., -*i.w
£' fuix* C Xo TnOikiPo Q In
A jjlssertatlon
Pr Inc #^r/^/nlversity
2fttood|^ja«S£ jyyp 1/fip &r e e
or voctoi' or Piillosopiiy
Joiin iv• mci
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
M J. * * X- /iv .1. x -i. X wiS> "i *£3X1X
'w
'Xx ~ - t wi J IV *itt X *4, 1. JL-/1X i'Atil v'w Q
»'xOCl^loA Wfl X C«X 0*'i.«/X %
nolJjsJxsaalu
IjZfc-ffoiwiMftfr ruv o^\os^ g |*jt|S*»t#
v JI a x e v on i •£ <i
id"ftpti :
•^nqoaoli.ri'i ‘xo iojouu iu
vO
Vk^^i^q_aa,L,j’-ioiu. ,ji± nnoL
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
In connection witn tnis study there are tnree
cnlef debts I snoula like to acknowledge. ihe first is to
j?roi'essor Hoyt n. Hudson In discussions witn whom the iaea
of tne stuay was aevelupea. ine second is to Professor
entries ».. nenneay, wno supervised ;.ne writing of it. ne
devoted much tine ana eri'oit to me 1ping me in every part
of tne work, in tme numerous conferences we had on the
subject his suggestions ana recoaaenaati j.ns, ana nls questions,
were always of tne greatest help, iuira, to Professor juonald
a. Stauffer i aia inaeotea for- nelp in portions of tne thesis
wnere nis own specialized stuaies were of great value. io
tnese tnree men i wisn to express my gratitude and acknow-
leabs tneir aid.
iiry use of tne wr-itings of nerbert rvead is explained
in tne last cnapter. becoming to the plan of tnat chapter
it was necessary to examine tne poems according to some one
system.' I follower trie principles of r.ead, as. particularly
suitea to my purposes, ana consequently tnere had to be mucn
reliance on nis writings in tnat cnapter.
of tne works of mouern pros odists I snoula like to
mention particularly general xdusuay. a doctoral alssertation
cy alaer olson, suuhttea to tne faculty of tne university ox
unicago, and »>rrat is nny tnm, Oj H. A. Honnenscnein.
tQ
/X cJ? ^
xJ
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
In referring to tne tnree volumes of Hopkins*
correspondence, letters of tterard Manley Hoptrtaa to robert
^ri ti arreapo^ ^ 11^ of Gerard Manley Hopkins and
^ r>^ aauon uixon. and Partner .betters of Geraid Manley
aookina. inciuuink nis correspondence witn Coventry Patmore,
I nave used tde snoxt forms. To Bridges. aitn JuliQB* and
Purtner Matters aa indicating moat briefly and clearly the
volume in union anj lettex could be found.
Xbo page references to tda poems of Patmore are to
tne one volume collected edition of 1906* witn an Introduction
by Basil CJdampneya. references to tne works of Prancis
inompson are to tne taxed volume definitive edition of 1913*
of anion Wilfrid ueynell was tne editor.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
a m qpsih
This study attempts to indicate tnat through a
joint study of tne poetry of Hopkins, Patmore, ana Thompson we
will find basic similarities in tneir idea of poetry and
in tneir method of writing, wnlcn will illuminate tne
poetry of eacn, ana pernaps by implication otHer poetry as
well, nut in order to establlsn grounds for supposing mat
tnls attempt would nave interest and value, first tne bio
graphical relatlonsnip among tnese men is discussea.
'Ine friendsnip of Hopkins ana Patmore is snown,
cniefly by means of tne corresponaence of tne two men. in
tne large number of letters wnlcn tney wrote to eacn other,
and wnlcn are preserved, we see tnelr serious Interest in
eacn otner and in eacn other's work. We find, for example,
tnat Patmore submitted all nis poetry to Hopkins for sug
gestions for revision, before publishing a final collectea
edition, ttucn of tne corresponaence is taken up in dis
cussion of tnls matter and in otner critical and poetical
discussion. Hut tbe letters snow, too, tnat tne friendship
was not purely literary. The first chapter also considers
tne friendship of Patmore and Thompson. Here correspondence
plays some rfcle, but otner biographical evidence, comments
of mutual frienas, and remarks ox tne poets themselves to
otner friends, ana tne amount of time they spent in each
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
other's compare, testifies to the deep xegard Patmore and
taoiupaon dad lor eacn otner.
Because or the Important biographical connection
between a opkins ana Patmore, ana between Patmore and
Thompson, It oecomes interesting (Part II; to go furtner,
and maUrft a serious examination of tne critical views of
all tnree, to see in what respects tney agree, and in wnat
tnej differ, ine similarity of tneir views, botn on the
function of poetry, and on tne stanaards of a good poem
aesthetically, is very marked. All tnree thought that
poetry dad an Important public function, but scorned alike
tnose who thought tnat poetry should be didactic, and
tnose wno advocated art for art's sake. All three tnougnt
tnat every poem snould be a unique, organic whole, should
possess in Hopkins' words 'indlvldually-distinctlve beauty',
or in Patmore's, have 'distinction' from all otners. Both.
Xnouipson and Hopkins lnvelgn against literary echoes or
borrowed mannerisms.
All tnree stress tne need of artistic integrity,
tnat is, tne consldexatlon of tne needs of tne wnole poem
at all times, and tne refusal to sacrifice tne poem as a
wnole to passing ornaments or beauties. Tney furtner Insist
on tne use of all prosodic devices, and all imagery, as
means of furtnering tne poem as a wnole, and not as incidental
ornament. Metrically, tne studies of Hopkins and Patmore were
remarkably similar, tnougn largely independently pursued, and
consequently tne applications of tneir tneoiles in prac
tice naa similar effects. After Thompson had become acqualnteu !$s
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
with Patmore's poetry, ana nis metrical theories, he adopted
Patmore's metrical tne01% and practice In Its entirety. All
tnree recotnized. the Importance of quantity (varying syllable
length) In English verse, as well as in tne verse of otner
languages, though at no time making the mistake of trying
to reproduce (ireeit or •uatin meters In English.
After tne close similarity of tne critical beliefs
of the three men n&s been snown, by an examination of all
tne critical writinc hopmins has left (primarily in his
corresponaence with mluges, Patmore, Dixon, and others; he
published no critical writing) and of all that Patmore and
Thompson wlsnea to be consiaered as tneir final beliefs
(periodical criticism wnlcn they either reprinted In 000k
form or dlrectea to be so reprinted) it becomes evident
that combined examination of the poetry of the three men
Should prove Interesting, not only to see to what extent
close friendship and marked similarity In critical views
may be expected to result in similar poems, but chiefly
to see how much the poems actually do have In common.
is’or this purpose (In Part III) individual poems
of the three are in turn examined,, each as a whole and in
its parts. This method was considered preferable to that
of examining various features Of tne whole body of their
verse together, because all these men insisted firmly on
the unique, self-sufficient character of any good poem,
and because the purpose of this study "as to compare the
poena as poems, and not as in any way biographical or
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Historical documents. macH poem Is examined as to form,
organic versus abstract, tne first or wnlcn terms Indicates
form created simultaneously witn tne poem as a wnole,
wnereas abstract form is pre-existent lsonnet, neroic couplet)
and may be used a^aln ana a^aln lor apy material. Tne poems
in Patmore's Unknown kx-os are all organic in form. Altnougn
botn Inompson and Hopkins use abstract i’orms at times, tney
too most cnaracterlstically develop tne form as part ox' tne
creative act.
second tne poems are considered on tne basis of
lengtn, wnetner essentially lonfe or snort. BrieX'ly we may
say tnat snort poems are tnose wpose unity may be compared
to tnat of a lake, poems in wnlcn tne wnole may be taken in
at one time, wdlle tne long poem (regardless of number of
lines) is tne one wnose unity may be considered as analogous
to tnat of a river. All tne poems of tnese men may wltnout
doubt be considered as essentially snort.
we come tnlrd to tne use of language, botn for
sound and sense, in txre works of tnese poets, language too
is used organically; none of tne devices of sound is used
for itB own sake, for ornamentation, but always for tne sake
of tne poem as a wnole, to enuance its ’meaning'; and for
tnls purpose tne advanced metrical tneorles and consequent
practice of tne tnree poets were very nelpful, in free
dom tney gave for tne exact adjustment or meter to particular
demands. tvnyme, alliteration, etc., were used in tne same
way. Tnese poets also molded vocabulary and syntax to suit
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
tneir own purposes; tney din not aajust tneir Intentions to
establlsned vocabulary » estabi-isnad sentence patterns.
tfouitn, exaMilfxlcit, tneli metnob of using imagery, we
find it analogous to txiat in wnlcn tney used form, and
language for meaning and sound, ine figures do not adorn, but
are an integral part of tne poem.
finally an attempt is made to surest tne pxoper
final poetic effect of eacn poem considered, ine effect
naturally differs for eacn poem.
After examining, poems of eacn man in its parts and
as a wnole, an attempt is made to compare tnem. Tde conclusion
Is tnat wnlle tne flnisned poems do not resemble eacn otner
in final total effect, tnere are striding similarities in
poetic metnoa evident in tnem. Jjrom tne nature of tne
fundamental critical beliefs of tne poets, tne individual poems
woula necessarily vary greatly, since, tney neld, a good poem
dan to be a unique, dlstinctlve, organic wnole, dad to
possess Individually-distinctive' beauty.
In an appendix furtner evidence is provided to
substantiate tne assertions ana conclusions found in Cnapter
V .
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
XAHLk On OGATAiiTo
section I
The Siographlcal HeXatlonship of _
Coventry Patmore, Gerard Hanley Hopkins,
and rrancis Thompson
Cnapter I. Coventry Patmore as a friend of Gerard Manley
Hopkins and of Francis Thompson . ........
Section XX
The Poetic Theories of Hopkins,
Patoore, and Thompson
Cnapter XX. Tne poetic Theory of Gerard M. Hopkins . • 41
Cnapter III. Tne Poetic Theory of Coventry Patmore • • 109
Cnapter XV. Tne Poetic ineory of Pranois Thompson • • 166
Section III
Tne Poetry of Hopkins,
Patmore, and Thompson
cnapter V. An Analysis and Comparison of Poems by
Hopkins, Patmore, and Thompson . . . . . . 204
Appendix • • • . . .................. 266
Hiblio&rapny............................ 312
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
