On Lowell Pound And Imagism Essay Research

On Lowell, Pound, And Imagism Essay, Research Paper On Imagism from Amy Lowell, Tendencies in Modern American Poetry (New York: Macmillan Company, 1917).

On Lowell, Pound, And Imagism Essay, Research Paper

On Imagism

from Amy Lowell, Tendencies in Modern American Poetry

(New York: Macmillan Company, 1917).

We are now to deal with the work of the small group of poets

known as Imagists. Later, I shall explain just what are the tenets of the Imagist School,

but before beginning on the work of the two poets whose names stand at the head of this

chapter, it is proper to state that they only represent a fraction of the Imagist group.

Of course, any one who writes poetry from the same point of view might be said to write

Imagistic verse, to be an Imagist, in short; but, in speaking of the Imagists as a group,

I shall confine myself to those six poets whose work has appeared in the successive

volumes of the annual anthology, "Some Imagist Poets." These poets are exactly

divided in nationality, three being American, three English. The English members of the

Imagist group are Richard Aldington, F. S. Flint, and D. H. Lawrence, and I regret that

this book, being confined to American poets, leaves me no opportunity to discuss the work

of these Englishmen. The three American Imagists are the lady who writes under the

pseudonym of "H.D.," John Gould Fletcher, and myself. In this chapter,

therefore, I shall consider only the work of "H.D." and John Gould Fletcher.

However individual the work of the six Imagist poets is (and any one of who has read

their anthology cannot fail to have observed it), the poems of "H.D." and Mr.

Fletcher are enough in themselves to show the tendencies and aims of the group.

I suppose few literary movements have been so little understood as Imagism. Only a

short time ago, in the "Yale Review," Professor John Erskine confessed that he

had no clear idea of what was Imagist verse and what was not, and in unconscious proof of

his ignorance, spoke of robert Frost and Edgar Lee Masters as Imagists.

To call a certain kind of writing "a school," and give it a name, is merely a

convenient method of designating it when we wish to speak of it. We have adopted the same

method in regard to distinguishing persons. We say John Smith and James Brown, because it

is simpler than to say: six feet tall, blue eyes, straight nose—or the reverse of

these attributes. Imagist verse is verse which is written in conformity with certain

tenets voluntarily adopted by the poets as being those by which they consider the best

poetry to be produced. They may be right or they may be wrong, but it is their belief.

Imagism, then, is a particular school, springing up within a larger, more comprehensive

movement, the New Movement with which this whole book has had to do [Tendencies in

Modern American Poetry]. This movement has yet received no convenient designation. We,

who are of it, naturally have not the proper perspective to see it in all its historical

significance. But we can safely claim it to be a "renaissance,’ a re-birth of

the spirit of truth and beauty. It means a re-discovery of beauty in our modern world, and

the originality and honesty to affirm that beauty in whatever manner is native to the


I have shown Edwin Arlington Robinson and Robert Frost as the pioneers of the

renaissance; I have shown Edgar Lee Masters and Carl Sandburg plunging forward in quest of

change and freedom, hurling themselves against the harshness and materialism of existing

conditions, shouting their beliefs, sometimes raucously, but always honestly and with

abounding courage. Now, I am to show a condition, not changing, but changed. These poets

not only express themselves differently, they see life and the universe from a different


It is not over; the movement is yet in its infancy. Other poets will come and,

perchance, perfect where these men have given the tools. Other writers, forgetting the

stormy times in which this movement had its birth, will inherit in plentitude and calm

that for which they have fought. Then our native flowers will bloom into a great garden,

to be again conventionalized to a pleasance of stone statues and mathematical parterres

awaiting a new change which shall displace it. This is the perpetually recurring history

of literature, and of the world.

I have chosen the Imagists as representing the third stage of the present movement

advisedly, for only in them do I see that complete alteration of point of view necessary

to this third stage. An alteration, let me add, due solely to the beliefs -moral,

religious, and artistic -inherent in the characters of these poets. Honest difference of

opinion leads to honestly different work, and this must not be confused with the absurd

outpourings of those gadflies of the arts who imitate the manners of others without an

inkling of their souls; nor with those nefarious persons who endeavour to keep themselves

before the public by means of a more or less clever charlatanism.

The spoken word, even the written word, is often misunderstood. I do not wish to be

construed as stating that poets in the third stage are better, as poets, than those in the

other two. Fundamental beliefs change art, but do not, necessarily, either improve or

injure it. Great poetry has been written at every stage of the world’s history, but Homer

did not write like Dante, nor Dante like Shakespeare, nor Shakespeare like Edgar Allan

Poe. So, in literary criticism, one may assign a poet his place in a general movement

without any attempt to appraise his individual merit by so doing.

Before taking up the work of "H.D." and John Gould Fletcher in detail, I

think it would be well to consider, for a moment, what Imagism is, and for what those

poets who style themselves " Imagists" stand.

In the preface to the anthology, "Some Imagist Poets," [1916] there is set

down a brief list of tenets to which the poets contributing to it mutually agreed. I do

not mean that they pledged themselves as to a creed. I mean that they all found themselves

in accord upon these simple rules.

I propose to take up these rules presently, one by one, and explain them in detail, but

I will first set them down in order:

1. To use the language of common speech, but to employ

always the exact word, not the nearly-exact, nor the merely decorative word.

2. To create new rhythms -as the expression of new moods

— and not to copy old rhythms, which merely echo old moods. We do not insist upon

"free-verse" as the only method of writing poetry. We fight for it as for a

principle of liberty. We believe that the individuality of a poet may often be better

expressed in free-verse than in conventional forms. In poetry a new cadence means a new


3. To allow absolute freedom in the choice of subject.

It is not good art to write badly of aeroplanes and automobiles, nor is it necessarily bad

art to write well about the past. We believe passionately in the artistic value of

modem life, but we wish to point out that there is nothing so uninspiring nor so

old-fashioned as an aeroplane of the year 19 11.

4. To present an image (hence the name:

"Imagist"). We are not a school of painters, but we believe that poetry should

render particulars exactly and not deal in vague generalities, however magnificent and

sonorous. It is for this reason that we oppose the cosmic poet, who seems to us to shirk

the real difficulties of his art.

5. To produce poetry that is hard and clear, never

blurred nor indefinite.

6. Finally, most of us believe that concentration is of

the very essence of poetry.

There is nothing new under the sun, even the word, "renaissance," means a

re-birth not a new birth, and of this the Imagists were well aware. This short creed was

preceded by the following paragraph:

These principles are not new; they have fallen into

desuetude. They are the essentials of all great poetry, indeed of all great literature.

It is not primarily on account of their forms, as is commonly supposed, that the

Imagist poets represent a changed point of view; it is because of their reactions toward

the world in which they live.

Now let us examine these tenets and see just what they mean, for I have observed that

their very succinctness has often occasioned misunderstanding.

The first one is: "To use the language of common speech, but to employ always the exact

word, not the nearly-exact, nor the merely decorative word."

The language of common speech means a diction which carefully excludes inversions, and

the cliches of the old poetic jargon. As to inversions, we only need to remember

Matthew Arnold’s famous parody on this evil practice in his essay, "On Translating


Yourself, how do you do,

Very well, you I thank.

But, until very recently, it persisted in our poetry. One of the tenets

in which all the poets of the present movement, Imagists and others, are agreed, however,

is this abhorrence of the inversion.

" Cliche"’ is a French word and means "stamped," as a coin, for

instance. In other words, it is something in common use, and not peculiar to the author.

Old, faded expressions like "battlemented clouds," and "mountainous

seas," are cliches. Excellent the first time, but so worn by use as to convey

no very distinct impression to the reader. As an example of the old poetic jargon, take

such a passage as this:

To ope my eyes

Upon the Ethiope splendour

Of the spangled night.

It will at once be admitted that this is hardly the language of common speech. Common

speech does not exclude imaginative language nor metaphor but it must be original and

natural to the poet himself, not culled from older books of verse.

The exact word has been much misunderstood. it means the exact word which

conveys the writer’s impression to the reader. Critics conceive a thing to be so and so

and no other way. To the poet, the thing is as it appears in relation to the whole. For

instance, he might say:

Great heaps of shiny glass

Pricked out of the stubble

By a full, high moon.

This does not mean that the stones are really of glass, but that they so appear in the

bright moonlight. It is the exact word to describe the effect. In short, the

exactness is determined by the content. The habit of choosing a word as unlike the object

as possible, much in vogue among the would-bemodern poets, is silly, and defeats its own

object. One example of this kind which was brought to my attention some time ago was

"a mauve wind." That is just nonsense. It is not exact in any sense, it

connotes nothing. "Black wind," "white wind," "pale wind,"

all these are colours and therefore do not exactly describe any wind, but they do describe

certain windy effects. "Mauve wind," on the other hand, is merely a straining

after novelty, unguided by common-sense or a feeling for fitness.

So much for the first Imagist tenet. The second: "To create new rhythms-as the

expression of new moods-and not to copy old rhythms which merely echo old moods. . .

cadence means a new idea."

This, of course, refers to the modern practice of writing largely in the free forms. It

is true that modern subjects, modern habits of mind, seem to find more satisfactory

expression in vers libre and "polyphonic prose" than in metrical verse.

It is also true that "a new cadence means a new idea." Not, as has been stated

by hostile critics, that the cadence engenders the idea; quite the contrary, it means that

the idea clothes itself naturally in an appropriate novelty of rhythm. Very slight and

subtle it may be, but adequate. The Imagist poets " do not insist upon free-verse as

the only method of writing poetry." In fact, the group are somewhat divided in their

practice here.

This brings us to the third tenet: "To allow absolute freedom in the choice of

subject." Again, over this passage, misunderstandings have arisen. "How can the

choice of subject be absolutely unrestricted ? "—horrified critics have asked.

The only reply to such a question is that one had supposed One were speaking to people of

common-sense and intelligence. To make this passage intelligible to any others, it would

be necessary to add "within the bounds of good taste." Of course, what one

person might consider good taste another might think the reverse of it; all that the

passage intends to imply is that this group restricts itself to no particular kind of

subject matter. Old, new, actual, literary, anything which excites the creative faculty in

the individual poet, is permissible; they are equally Imagists and poets if they write

about ancient Greece, or about a cluster of chimney-stacks seen out of the window.

Number four says: "To present an image (hence the name ‘Imagist’). We are not a

school of painters, but we believe that poetry should render particulars exactly, and not

deal in vague generalities, however magnificent and sonorous."

This paragraph has caused a great deal of confusion. It has been construed to mean that

Imagist poetry is chiefly concerned with the presentation of pictures. Why this should

have come about, considering that the words, "we are not a school of painters,"

were intended to offset any such idea, I do not know. The truth is that

"Imagism," " Imagist," refers more to the manner of presentation than

to the thing presented. It is a kind of technique rather than a choice of subject.

"Imagism" simply means — to quote from the second anthology, " Some

Imagist Poets, 19 16 " " a clear presentation of whatever the author wishes to

convey. Now he may wish to convey a mood of indecision, in which case the poem should be

indecisive; he may wish to bring before his reader the constantly shifting and changing

lights over a landscape, or the varying attitudes of mind of a person under strong

emotion, then his poem must shift and change to present this clearly." Imagism is

presentation, not representation. For instance, Imagists do not speak of the sea as the

"rolling wave" or the "vasty deep," high-sounding, artificial

generalities which convey no exact impression; instead, let us compare these two stanzas

in a poem of Mr. Fletcher’s called "The Calm ":

At noon I shall see waves flashing,

White power of spray.

The steamers, stately,

Kick up white puffs of spray behind them.

The boiling wake

Merges in the blue-black mirror of the sea.

That is an exact image; but here is another from "Tide of Storms," in which

the exactness of the image is augmented by powerful imaginative connotations:

Crooked, crawling tide with long wet fingers

Clutching at the gritty beach in the roar and spurt of spray,

Tide of gales, drunken tide, lava-burst of breakers,

Black ships plunge upon you from sea to sea away.

This vivid "presentation of whatever the author wishes to convey " is closely

allied to the next tenet of the Imagist manifesto, which is: "To produce poetry which

is hard and clear, never blurred nor indefinite." It must be kept in mind that this

does not refer to subject but to the rendering of subject. I might borrow a metaphor from

another art and call it "faithfulness to the architectural line." Ornament may

be employed, so long as it follows the structural bases of the poem. But poetical jig-saw

work is summarily condemned. That is why, although so much Imagist poetry is metaphorical,

similes are sparingly used. Imagists fear the blurred effect of a too constant change of

picture in the same poem.

The last rule is very simple, it is that " concentration is of the very essence of

poetry." A rule, indeed, as old as art itself, and yet so often lost sight of that it

can hardly be too often affirmed. How many works of art are ruined by a too great

discursiveness! To remain concentrated on the subject, and to know when to stop, are two

cardinal rules in the writing of poetry.

We see therefore that these canons boil down into something like the following succinct

statements: Simplicity and directness of speech; subtlety and beauty of rhythms;

individualistic freedom of idea; clearness and vividness of presentation; and

‘concentration. Not new principles, by any means, as the writers of the preface admit, but

"fallen into desuetude. "

One characteristic of Imagist verse which was not mentioned in this preface, is:

Suggestion — the implying of something rather than the stating of it, implying it perhaps

under a metaphor, perhaps in an even less obvious way.

This poem of Mr. Fletcher’s is an excellent example of Imagist



The well is not used now

Its waters are tainted.

I remember there was once a man went down

To clean it.

He found it very cold and deep,

With a queer niche in one of its sides,

From which he hauled forth buckets of bricks and dirt.

The picture as given is quite clear and vivid. But the picture we see is not the poem,

the real poem lies beyond, is only suggested.

Of the poets we have been considering in these essays, Mr. Robinson is most nearly

allied to the Imagists in the use of suggestion; but the technique he employs is quite

unlike theirs. In Mr. Sandburg’s " Limited," which I quoted in the last chapter,

suggestion again is the poem, and hi’s treatment of it there is almost Imagistic.

It must not be forgotten that however many rules and tenets we may analyze, such

mechanical labour can never give the touchstone to style. That must lie in a sense which

is beyond reason. As Matthew Arnold said of the grand style, "one must feel it."

It is possible to determine the work of different painters by their brush strokes, but

such knowledge is for the expert alone, and then only for purposes of authenticity. The

layman who had no way of telling the work of Titian from that of Watteau by any other

method than that of brush strokes, would make a poor connoisseur.

I could go minutely into the work of these poets and show how each differs from the

other — the varying modes of expression, the individual ways of using words, the changing

progression of the phrases, the subtle originality of rhythms — but any one who could

intelligently follow such an analysis would have no difficulty in determining Imagist work

per se; and those who could not tell it at a glance, would find such hair-splitting

dissection totally incomprehensible.

A few broad lines, then, shall serve us here, and I trust that, before I have finished,

the reader will be incapable of making the blunder of that recent critic, who placed Mr.

Frost and Mr. Masters in the Imagist group.

I have shown certain aspects of the Imagist idiom, but we must not lose sight of the

fact that all these barriers are arbitrary, and fade somewhat into each other. Much of

this idiom is applicable to the other poets whom we have been considering, as well; some

of it is peculiar to the Imagists. But it is principally in their manner of dealing with

the idiom that we shall find the difference to lie. Let me insist once more that Imagism

is only one section of a larger movement to which the six poets of these essays all

belong. (pp. 235-249)Timothy Materer

In 1914 D. H. Lawrence told Amy Lowell that Ezra Pound’s imagism

was "just an advertising scheme." He might have added, "but what an

advertising scheme!" As we will see, his suspicions of Pound the propagandist were

justified. But Amy Lowell appreciated the importance of imagism better than Lawrence did

because she was still a relatively unknown artist. Pound coined the term imagism in

1912 to help market some poems by H.D. (Hilda Doolittle) that he was sending to Poetry

magazine. Since H.D. had published nothing to date, Pound shrewdly reasoned that her work

would be more readily accepted if she were identified with a group of poets. Pound

appended to the manuscript the words "H.D., Imagiste" and explained to Poetry’s

editor, Harriet Monroe, that H.D.’s poems were written "in the laconic speech of the

Imagistes." When Amy Lowell read H.D.’s poems in the January 1913 Poetry, she

felt her own identity as a poet had been defined. Not only Lowell but all aspiring poets,

including some hostile to Pound’s movement such as Conrad Aiken, now had to define

themselves in relation to this new literary phenomenon. Harriet Monroe referred to the

"battle for Imagism" to indicate the central importance the movement had in the

pages of her journal. More important to Pound, however, was the larger battle to establish

what he called "our modern experiment." The rapid rise and fall of imagism

provided the context in which Pound developed his conception of modernism.

In addition to inventing a catchy name for the movement, Pound used two additional

advertising strategies. When Lowell first heard of the movement, she was intrigued that

its name was French. She was thus seduced by an old but still powerful technique for

publicizing cultural movements using the cachet of a French name. Pound intended the term les

Imagistes to help distinguish the movement from the "mushiness" of les

Symbolistes, but to Amy Lowell and others the name instead suggested a glamorous

association with French poets such as Baudelaire and Mallarm?. The second additional

strategy was to suggest that the movement had a secret or mysterious ingredient or quality

(as advertisers may refer to "secret ingredient X," "xylitol," or

"Fahrvergn?gen") that only the user of the product can appreciate. In imagism

the secret ingredient was referred to in the March 1913 Poetry as a "certain

‘Doctrine of the Image,’" which the imagists had not "committed to writing"

and which "did not concern the public."

Pound’s definition of the image as "that which presents an intellectual and

emotional complex in an instant of time" takes nothing away from the intriguing

mystery of the imagist secret doctrine. Pound explains that he uses the term complex

"rather in the technical sense employed by the newer psychologists, such as

Hart." For even the best-informed reader, this hint that complex is being used in a

psychological sense (as in the term Oedipus complex) would have clarified nothing

about the nature of the image–but it would imply its modernity. Moreover, the generality

of the term thing in the imagist principle of "Direct treatment of the ‘thing’

whether subjective or objective" is even more mysterious or obscure than

"complex." Whether this obscurity was calculated to intrigue, or whether it was

just a product of Pound’s natural ability to mystify, these product descriptions were

brilliantly successful.

From the success of imagism as a movement, however, there emerged a problem that even

Pound’s advertising genius could not surmount. He had invented a name for a new poetic

technique, but of course he could not patent, franchise, or in any way control its use.

Would-be imagists who wrote bad verse were more of a problem for the movement than those

who attacked it for its obscurity or free-verse rhythms. Again, Amy Lowell illustrates the

dynamics of the movement. Armed with an introductory letter from Harriet Monroe, Lowell

sailed to England in 1914 principally to meet Pound and learn about the imagists. Pound

initially welcomed her, introducing her to W. B. Yeats and Ford Madox Ford, and publishing

one of her poems in his anthology Des Imagistes (1914). But Pound did not

feet that Lowell’s poetry was direct and concise enough to exemplify imagist technique.

Nevertheless, to give a sense of a new and influential "movement" Pound was

willing to expand the original imagist group of Richard Aldington, H.D., F. S. Flint, and

himself. The expansion was a mistake because it gave anyone who appeared in the anthology,

including mediocre poets such as Lowell, Skipwith Cannell, and John Cournos, an

authoritative claim to the title of imagist poet. (The title of Pound’s next collection, The

Catholic Anthology of 1915, was meant to suggest no specific literary orientation.)

With the authority of appearing in Des Imagistes, Lowell next used her wealth and

literary connections to publish further imagist anthologies and take over leadership of

the movement. Pound could not match the resources Lowell put into play when she invited a

writer like D. H. Lawrence to dine at her first-class hotel and offer to pay him for a

contribution to a new anthology. Pound admitted her superior propaganda ability when he

conceded to Margaret Anderson in 1917 that she "would advertise us like HELL. It is

her talent." As William Pratt put it, "at the crucial stage of Imagist

development one master propagandist was vanquished by another."

Pound dropped the term imagism and dubbed Lowell’s movement "Amygism," rudely

dismissing her as a "hippopoetess.’ He of course refused to contribute to Lowell’s

proposed second "imagiste" anthology. Lowell’s suggestion that a committee

choose the poems increased rather than lessened Pound’s opposition because, as he wrote to

her, he wanted "the name ‘Imagisme’ to retain some sort of meaning. It stands, or I

should like it to stand for hard light, clear edges. I can not trust any democratized

committee to maintain that standard." Ignoring Pound’s suggestion that her anthology

be called "Vers Libre or something of that sort," Lowell published Some

Imagist Poets (1915), which included a publisher’s blurb implying that she was

leader of the imagist movement. In a complaining letter, Pound rejected Lowell’s apology

for her publisher’s advertisement, noting that it was still appearing: "I don’t

suppose any one will sue you for libel; it is too expensive. If your publishers ‘of good

standing’ tried to advertise cement or soap in this manner they would certainly be


Yet it was not the Madison Avenue ruthlessness of Amy Lowell that soured him on imagism

as much as his realization that by expanding the number of imagists he had lost, to use

another marketing term, quality control over the new poetic product. He changed the title

of an article he was writing in 1914 from "Imagism" to "Vorticism"

once he decided the earlier movement no longer served his purpose. Vorticism publicized

the newest developments in painting and sculpture as well as literature. But Pound’s

description of literary vorticism in BLAST, the vorticist journal, demonstrates

that the new movement was simply an improved version of imagism. Although he now describes

the image in painterly terms as the "primary pigment" of verbal art, the imagist

principles of "hard light, clear edges" (which well describes Lewis’s geometric

paintings) are the same; and once again he presents H.D.’s poetry as the epitome of the

movement. As Hugh Kenner has observed, the real difference between imagism and vorticism

was that the latter movement distinguished Pound from the mediocre artists that had

overtaken imagism. Vorticism "implied his alliance with his own kind," which

included a brilliant sculptor like Henri Gaudier-Brzeska and the painter Wyndham Lewis. He

rejected Lowell’s "democratized committee" because it would mean accepting

"a certain number of people as my critical and creative equals" who didn’t

deserve the honor. Although World War I spoiled his plans by dispersing his allies, he was

by 1914 determined to keep what he called "our little gang" an elite group.

From "Make It Sell! Ezra Pound Advertises Modernism." In Marketing

Modernisms: Self-Promotion, Canonization, Rereading. Ed. Kevin J.H. Dettmar and

Stephen Watt. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1996. Copyright ? 1996 by The

University of Michigan Press.