I WOULD LIKE TO BEGIN BY RECONSIDERING A WELL-KNOWN DISAGREEMENT between F. R. Leavis and Robert Bridges concerning poetry of Gerard Manley Hopkins. In 1918, Bridges published first edition of Poems of Hopkins and appended Preface to Notes where he denounced Hopkins' unusual mannerism and style. According to Bridges, Hopkins' poetry problematic because it both extravagant and obscure. He accuses poems of occasional affectation in metaphor, of human feeling, and exaggerated Marianism and deplores the naked encounter of sensualism and asceticism in Golden Echo as well as Hopkins' efforts to force emotion into theological or sectarian channels. In Bridges' opinion, such poetic tactics constitute rude shocks of purely artistic wantonness. They do not contribute to an overall poetic purpose, but make for and Obscurity, aberrations in Bridges' mind that not part of [the poet's] intention since Hopkins is serious and always ha s something to say. Elsewhere, Bridges expresses his perplexity over the mixture of passages of extreme delicacy and exquisite diction with passages where in jungle of rough root-words, emphasis seems to oust euphony (Preface, p. 99). Bridges' theory of poetics implied here, but it also abundantly clear. Poetry must be part of continuous literary decorum (p. 96). It must follow poetics of intelligibility, striking balance between all extremes. Affectation and perversion must be cast out and replaced with genuineness and normality. Oddity and obscurity must give way to familiarity and clarity. Coherence must be favored over paradox. In short, poetry must follow official rules of convention, semantics, and common-sense. Bridges comments on of Deutschland in similar vein: The labour spent on this metrical experiment must have served to establish poet's prosody and perhaps his diction: therefore poem stands logically as well as chronologically in front of his book, like dragon folded in gate to forbid all entrance, and confident in his strength from past success. This editor advises reader to circumvent him and attack him later in rear; for he himself shamefully worsted in brave frontal more easily perhaps because both and were to (Preface, p. 114) While stating that poem experimental and, therefore, premature in Hopkins' poetic development, Bridges does not tell us what makes poem great dragon folded in gate. He says that he was himself shamefully worsted in brave frontal assault, but he does not tell us how or why. Nor does he explain what caused subject and treatment of poem to be distasteful to him. It clear, however, that, for Bridges, poem something to be overcome rather than enjoyed. In associating Wreck with forbidding dragon, Bridges prepares reader for very specific experience of poem. We are not only led to anticipate grave semantic difficulties, but are encouraged to negotiate these difficulties through type of interpretive assault. For Bridges, Wreck threatens to devour readers who make frontal assault because it catches them off their hermeneutic guard; it discovers them as helpless prey, drifting within a galaxy of signifiers rather than a structure of signifids. (2) Subsequently, poem must be read only after it has been vanquished by readerly invasion from rear. Perhaps most significant of Bridges' comments in terms of their relation to his theory of poetics his discussion of Hopkins' various grammatical deviations: Here ... another source of poet's obscurity; that in aiming at condensation he neglects need that there for care in placing of words that are grammatically ambiguous. …