Failed Instruments: Abolition and the Lyric in Antebellum America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation on the evolution of the nineteenth-century American lyric poetry and the abolition of slavery in the United States describes the perceived need to promote political action in antebellum reform poetry as 'poetic instrumentality.' It focuses on how two schools of antebellum poets, the one comprised of abolitionist reformers (like Phillis Wheatley, William Lloyd Garrison, Lydia Maria Child, James Russell Lowell, John Greenleaf Whittier, Frances Ellen Watkins Harper, Thomas Wentworth Higginson, Frederick Douglass, and William Wells Brown) and the other of Transcendentalist literary theorists and proto-modernist poets (like Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau, Herman Melville, Walt Whitman, and Emily Dickinson) were haunted by mutually constitutive 'anxieties of reform.' The reformers feared that, in deigning to preach instead of sing, they had abandoned the realm of the Beautiful and set aside the true commitments of poetry. While the Transcendentalists, despite their insistence on self-reliance and rustic independence, could not escape the lingering recognition that they had abandoned the central Practical imperative the reformers had established for poetry in their era—the need to free the slaves. The Romantic imperative for poets to produce original imaginative insight codified in part in Emerson's essays is, the project argues, itself responsive to the demotic, practical poetics deployed during the peak of the American antislavery movement. The anxieties of reform can be traced within the age's antislavery rhetoric, poetic theory, and, of course, within the poetry itself. Reform rhetoric was poeticized, while, at the same time, Transcendentalist poetic theory was 'reform-itized,' with Transcendentalist writers developing a new, ontologically expansive 'poetics of action' in response to the reformist impulse. Consequently, the dissertation tells the story of what poetry did to American abolitionism, and what abolitionism did to, and perhaps for, American poetry. The project builds on the work of Virginia Jackson, Yopie Prins, Max Cavitch, Meredith McGill and others in the field of Historical American Poetics even as it develops critiques of the historicization of the lyric offered by scholars like Paul Fry, Jonathan Culler, Cristanne Miller, and Elissa Zellinger. The dissertation's most significant overarching argument is that abolitionist poetry and rhetoric played a foundational, though hitherto overlooked, role in the process of nineteenth-century lyricization.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".