Darkening the Subject of Hopkins' Prosody

Abstract

Hopkins' Preface (hereafter AP) is an essential resource for .anyone wishing to glean theory of his prosody. (1) It cannot stand alone, however. Its terms and concepts are unfamiliar and inadequately defined: flurry of references to hangers, outrides, rove lines, sprung rhythm, counterpoint, running, rocking, rising, falling, and reversed rhythms disorient reader. As Coventry Patmore complained to Hopkins of a parallel difficulty in Hopkins' poetry, any of these several novelties would be startling and productive of distraction. (2) Coming as they do in AP, effect is overwhelming for first-time reader. No wonder, then, that on May 10, 1919, Spectator found effects Hopkins describes, worth pains bestowed on them. Not only is AP confusing and insufficient for reader who is ignorant of Hopkins' other writings on prosody, it is misleading as well. Yet, too it is first and last primary source consulted on matter of his metrical theories; or at least, which amounts to same thing, it remains authoritative account. There are good historical reasons for this. Hopkins' correspondence with Bridges and Dixon was not published until 1935. The journals and papers were not published for two more years; and it was not until year after this that further letters became available. For about twenty years after 1918 edition of Poems appeared with AP, therefore, there was no other ready resource for critic who wished to grapple with theoretical basis for his poems. This exclusive reliance on AP in critical studies set a strong precedent. Even now that Hopkins' complete correspondence, journals, and papers have been in print for well over half a century, this loyalty persists. This can, in part, be accounted for by fact that criticism tends to be dialectical. Critics criticize other critics' criticism. And since literary commentator first seized on AP (because no other sources were readily available), dependency stuck. The other obvious reason for continued disproportionate focus on AP is that there is still no comparative summary of Hopkins' remarks on prosody in one volume. They remain scattered within five editions, if one includes his complete poems. Clearly, neither of these explanations for why AP is almost always privileged over all Hopkins' other comments on prosody amounts to much more than critical slovenliness: it is taken as authoritative because to do so is convenient and what has always been done. There is a stronger claim for authority of AP, but even that, I should like to suggest, is, ultimately, misguided. Consider Paull Baum's expression of this claim: It might be interesting to follow chronologically various attempts of Hopkins to clarify and put in order his theories. But to do so would only entangle us in his conflicting [sic] statements as he tried to convince Bridges and Dixon. I prefer therefore to start with formulation, incomplete as it may be, in Author's Preface.(3) To follow Hopkins' attempts to clarify and put his theories in order could only be justified, Baum suggests, in so far as it might prove interesting. But theories are far more relevant and important than this, for very reason he dismisses them: because they are (or appear to be) often conflicting. He ignores them on this basis, when he should do opposite. He should scrutinize them to try to identify some underlying consistency or, at least, some thread of critical development to inform his reading. Baum does concede that AP is incomplete, but settles for it as definitive nonetheless--because it is the formulation. Being latest might suggest that it is most evolved, which in turn might suggest that it is most accurate source, but this logic is specious. …