Forty years after publication, M.H. Abrams's Structure and Style in Greater Romantic Lyric (1965) remains a touchstone of literary criticism. (1) Abrams's account of introspective and meditative aspects of Romantic lyric remains a model of concision and elegance that continues orient study of Romantic poetry. This paper revisits Structure and Style in Greater Romantic Lyric elaborate some of its implications. (2) Within Abrams's paradigm of Greater Romantic Lyric, I argue, is an alternative poetics, a shadow-paradigm, which privileges conversational speech over votive, colloquial diction over elevated, a linear, serially-unfolding structure over a cyclical, autotelic one, and rhetorical figures of anecdote and digression--Well--over apostrophic O! of ode.Concentrating on two nightingale poems that Abrams finds compatible, Keats's Ode a Nightingale and Coleridge's Nightingale: A Conversation Poem, (3) my reading reveals their conflicting, even antithetical priorities. Whereas Keats's ode prizes solitude and solicits a mournful Psyche (Now more than ever seems it rich die [55]), Coleridge's conversation prizes sociability and joie de vivre (In nature there is nothing melancholy [15]). Keats's is figurative and symbolic; Coleridge's is quotidian and particular. one is formally strict, organized by strophes of identical shape and length; other is relaxed, organized by irregular blank-verse paragraphs. These differences reveal sociability, conversational rapport and wit of Romantic lyric with which Abrams was not concerned. Structure and Style, Abrams traces lineage of Romantic lyric from such mid-seventeenth and eighteenth-century verse as Denham's Cooper's Hill (1642/55) and Gray's Ode on a Distant Prospect of Eton College (1747), establishing continuity of Romantic lyrics with tradition and defining their unique attributes. Thus, while he alerts reader loco-descriptive traits of many Romantic poems, he believes that to label [them] simply nature lyrics is not only inadequate, but radically misleading (201-202). Romantic according Abrams, synthesizes descriptions of external world and internal states of consciousness, expresses a union of mind with nature, of mind over nature, defeating what Coleridge in another context called despotism of eye (Biographia Literaria, 107). Instead of being organized by a series of perceptions ('First I see a, then b,' and so on), descriptive proceeds by a complex process of perception, recollection, and association whereby the lyric speaker achieves an insight (201), or, as Wordsworth said in Prelude, The mind is lord and master--outward sense / obedient servant of her will (XII, 222-223 [1850]). In fully developed Romantic lyric, Abrams says, the description is structurally subordinate meditation, and meditation is sustained, continuous, and highly (224). greater Romantic lyric is defined by its repeated out-in-out process, in which mind confronts nature and their interplay constitutes poem (202). Abrams's analysis emphasizes shaping capacity of mind, a formalism Sarah Zimmerman describes as an alignment of lyricism and subjectivity, so that mode comes be defined less by formal features than by formlessness of effusion (Romanticism, 17). Effusion, sublime and unchecked overflow of powerful feeling, also aligns Romantic lyric with Pindaric ode, a form which is unacknowledged legislator of Abrams's formal scheme. While Abrams acknowledges importance of ode as an ancestor of greater Romantic he raises question whether ode is merely its generic predecessor or its quintessential embodiment: Some of poems are called odes, while others approach ode in having lyric magnitude and a serious subject, feeling-fully meditated (201). …
Read full abstract