Talk:Metaphysical poets

Metaphysicial poet sometimes has a capital M and sometimes lower case within this article. In some of the cases, it should be lower-case because it's not referring to this school of poets; in some because it in a quotation (to whose author the use of lower-case is thereby attributed), but if it should be capitalized, then it should be done consistently, and if lower-case is used, that should be consistent. Michael Hardy 20:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I changed them all to lower case. One runs across both—personally I feel that the name shouldn't be capitalized since it's not a formal, or even particularly well-defined, group (unlike, say, the Beats). If someone disagrees, that's OK too, but please be consistent and please comment on this page to explain your rationale. Chick Bowen 21:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I just looked at the Beat article and that one is also hopelessly inconsistent. Ah well. Chick Bowen 21:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Robert Southwall

Saint Robert Southwell is arguably the founder of the Metaphysical school of poetry, a designation argued by his biographer, The Rev. Scott R. Pilarz, in his definitive study: Robert Southwell and the Mission of Literature, 1561-1595: Writing Reconciliation. Whether he merits this particular designation, he definitely ranks among the "most important" of them.

Adriano Bulla

I've removed the reference to Adriano Bulla, for two reasons. First, since the article is explicitly about the seventeeth century poetic movement, it seems erroneous to include a 'twenty-first century' poet; this is, however, only a minor point. Second, the link that is drawn between Bulla and the metaphysical poets is based solely on an online review of Bulla's poetry. Frankly, it smacks of Wikiganda (and if that ain't a phrase, it is now). I don't think that this can thus be counted as a reliable source - I'd be happy to replace the lost lines, if a proper reference can be found. 91.125.50.12 (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

the metaphysical poets use of nature imagery

"Their poetry diverged from the style of their times, containing neither images of nature nor allusions to classical mythology, as were common.[5] " This is a quotation from the one of the subsections, "Characteristics". This is not true, as anyone who has read any Vaughan will know that his poetry is completely saturated with nature imagery. Google his collection Silex Scintillans to see the repetition of the images of 'dew' and 'flowers', and more generally anything ranging from springs, hills, trees, and just about any other image the mind can conjure. Herbert was also quite frequent in his use of nature imagery. For just one example, one may examine the way he uses the flower to symbolise death in "Life" or "The Flower" or many of the other poems in which the image is reused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.126.21.75 (talk) 04:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

John Milton

I'm no expert in the field, so i can't contribute to the article, but I'm pretty sure John Milton belongs in this article in some shape or form. I say this because my English Literature textbook categorizes him as a metaphysical poet. If anyone who is knowledgeable in this field could add him to the article, I'm sure it would help to make the article more complete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.102.54.89 (talk) 23:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Origin of the Name

The following is incorrectly read/paraphrased: "Furthermore, Burrow argues that the 'metaphysical poets' conceit was an attempt by twentieth-century writers to impose a 'high Anglican and royalist literary history' on seventeenth-century English poetry.[4] Such an imposition has been resisted by scholars.[4]" Burrows does NOT argue that the metaphysical poets conceit was an attempt to impose a high Anglican, etc. He mentions, in a tone dripping with sarcasm, one argument (not his) which suggested that "the reappraisal of metaphysical poetry in the 1920s was politically suspect" and that the reappraisal had to do with a high-Anglican agenda of T.S. Eliot and F.R. Leavis to exclude Milton as the most radical poet of the period and to promote Anglo-Catholics and to depoliticize the 17th Century. Burrows mentions this argument to counter it and show evidence of the political and religious diversity among the metaphysical poets. He also debunks the notion that Eliot was conservative in his artistic tastes and practices, and therefore would be unlikely to have an artistic conservative agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoot717 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I've just looked at the referenced text and you're right. I've updated the article. Celuici (talk) 21:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Clean up 2015

I have tried to bring the article as it now stands more into line with encyclopaedic style. I am amazed that the objection made here in 2010 to the characterisation of the metaphysical style has not been addressed. It was quite plainly nonsense and a close look at the date of the reference supplied explains why: 1917, before the poets concerned had become the subject of proper critical scrutiny. The validity of references supplied on WP needs to be checked to make sure that they are abreast of the latest research and that views are accepted by peers. We cannot even be sure that the editor concerned has not misunderstood the source in this instance.

I deleted the list of minor poets which had been without the citation asked for since 2009. Again, it probably arose from a misunderstanding. Inclusion in Helen Gardener's anthology is no evidence, since she is gathering poetry with stylistic affinities. Shakespeare is there, and the very early poetry of John Milton (as noted above) could well have been too, but no one would claim either as Metaphysical poets.

The article does not include consideration of alternative approaches to the poets of the period which needs to include at least Alvarez's The School of Donne (1961) and Segel's The Baroque Poem (1974). Without them, and the contextual characterisation of the contemporary European and American style, the article will remain superficial and unbalanced. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 12:29, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

A revision along these lines has now been completed. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 13:02, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Metaphysical poets. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080314220349/http://personal.centenary.edu/~dhavird/TSEMetaPoets.html to http://personal.centenary.edu/~dhavird/TSEMetaPoets.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:09, 9 December 2017 (UTC)