ABSTRACT
In the history of Thomson criticism, the terms 'diction', 'style', and 'language' are used separately, together, or interchangeably to explain 'force' in poetry; 'forcefulness' or 'vigour' remains a constant in criticism despite the different examples of it. Each of the terms calls forth some method of verification—language innovation or imitation or Miltonic diction or obscurity of reference or relation of philosophy to particular descriptionand such verification can be examined with reference to the range of its applicability. In distinguishing between theories which identified 'style' with particular traits of a writer, and those which identified it with a particular kind of writing, it is significant to inquire what it would mean 'to be deficient in style'. As late as 1924, Thomas Quayle in poetic diction, while trying to be sympathetic to the poetic language of the eighteenth century, nevertheless judged it by 'suggestiveness', by 'spontaneity', by the language of romantic poetry.
