∞∞∞∞∞∞∞
This essay, chiefly in its later form, has been much criticized. Arthur Hobson Quinn, for example, noted: “This essay is a revelation of the manner in which one of the most skilful artists in verse could go astray when he discussed the nature and laws of English versification. He was uanware of the history of English versification, made clear fifty years later by Eduard Sievers, and his discourse upon ‘long’ and ‘short’ syllables, which do not occur in English, and fails to recognize the accentual basis of English verse” (A. H. Quinn and Eward H. O‘Neill, eds., The Complete Poems and Stories of Edgar Allan Poe, With Selections from His Critical Writings, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1946, p. 1087). Floyd Stovall stated, “The one great weakness in Poe's theory — a weakness that is almost incomprehensible in the light of his practise — is that it tries to force poetry into a Procrustean frame of time limitations borrowed from music. The only significant contribution he makes in this essay to the understanding of poetry, including his own early verse, is his new interpretation of the caesura as a monosyllabic foot, but even that is impaired by the overemphasis on time” (Floyd Stovall, “Mood, Meaning, and Form in Poe's Poetry” in Edgar Poe the Poet: Essays New and Old on the Man and His Work, Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1969, p. 194). Sherwin Cody introduces the essay with, “It is fortunate that a ‘science of verse’ is not required by a poet to write poetry, any more than a 'science of grammar’ is required by you and me to speak our language correctly, for both prosody and grammar have long been in the utmost confusion, every writer contradicting every other, and claiming to be the first and only one to offer a logical system. . . . Poe's essay on the Rationale of Verse has been sneered at by nearly every writer upon this subject; and it must be confessed that it is by no means a complete exposition of the subject. However, we may look on it as the first effective attempt toward developing a real 'science of English Verse.’ . . . The two important points that Poe makes are, 1. that verse is based on (musical) time, not accent (intensity), accented syllables being, for the purposes of verse, merely those on which the voice dwells a long time; 2. that a natural reading of verse should correspond to the scanning, or rather the scanning to a natural rhythmical pronunciation. He neglected two points of great importance — or rather, he did not carry his analysis far enough to incude them. They are — 1. he took insufficient account of pauses, or rests, in calculating time in scanning; 2. he took no account of accent (intensity) in marking the culmination of the rhytmical wave-movement in each foot” (Sherwin Cody, Poe—Man, Poet, and Creative Thinker, New York: Boni and Liveright, 1924, pp. 324-327). More recently, Christopher Aruffo has been a strong advocate for the essay, calling it “ill-treated” and “an important compoent of his [Poe's] critical theory” (Aruffo, p. 69). Although Aruffo accepts some of the claims that there are genuine problems in Poe's presentation, he defends the substance of Poe's theory, and cites modern studies in lingistics that vindicate many of the same assertions for which Poe has previously been ridiculed.
∞∞∞∞∞∞∞
∞∞∞∞∞∞∞
∞∞∞∞∞∞∞
∞∞∞∞∞∞∞
∞∞∞∞∞∞∞
∞∞∞∞∞∞∞
[S:0 - JAS] - Edgar Allan Poe Society of Baltimore - Works - Essays - The Rationale of Verse