^{page 239 note 1} Indiana University Bookman, 5 (1960), 41Google Scholar. Letter to Frederic Melcher, 10 June 1927.

^{page 240 note 1} Tietjens, Eunice, ‘Vachel Lindsay's books’, The Little Review, 1 (11 1914), 57Google Scholar.

^{page 240 note 2} Lindsay, Vachel, Every Soul is a Circus (New York, 1931), p. 110Google Scholar. The limitations of critical approval of Lindsay may be seen in, for example, Conrad Aiken, A Reviewer's ABC; Fred B. Millett, Contemporary American Authors; Louis Untermeyer, Modern American Poetry; Bruce Weirick, From Whitman to Sandburg; T. K. Whipple, Spokesmen. The works by Masters and Ruggles, cited below, sample journalistic reactions. Lindsay was most seriously treated by a variety of reviewers in the New Republic, for which he intermittently wrote movie criticisms.

^{page 240 note 3} Armstrong, A. J. (ed.), ‘Letters of Nicholas Vachel Lindsay to A. J. Armstrong’, The Baylor Bulletin, 43, iii (1940), 25Google Scholar.

^{page 240 note 4} Masters, E. L., Vachel Lindsay (New York, 1935), p. 385Google Scholar. No solely critical assessment of Lindsay has appeared. The most recent study, by Yatron, Michael in America's Literary Revolt (New York, 1959)Google Scholar, inaccurately treats Sandburg, Masters and Lindsay as cityhating populists. The most satisfactory book on Lindsay—Harris, Mark, City of Discontent (Indianapolis, 1952)Google Scholar—conveys Lindsay's interest in social reform and cities; but its mixture of novel and biography makes it impossible for a non-specialist on Lindsay to distinguish fact from fiction.

^{page 242 note 1} Lindsay, Vachel, A Letter for Your Wicked Private Ear Only, pamphlet (Springfield, 1920?), p. 6Google Scholar.

^{page 242 note 2} Lindsay, Vachel, ‘To Reformers in Despair’, Collected Poems (New York, 1962), p. 335Google Scholar. All subsequent verse quotations are from this edition, and are paginated in the text.

^{page 242 note 3} See Wright, Frank Lloyd, When Democracy Builds (New York, 1945)Google Scholar, and The Living City (New York, 1958)Google Scholar.

^{page 243 note 1} His familiarity with these men was apparent from his much-annotated library, as well as being sometimes implicit, and sometimes explicit, in his writings.

^{page 243 note 2} Lindsay, Vachel, The Art of the Moving Picture (New York, 1922), p. 263Google Scholar.

^{page 243 note 3} Ruggles, Eleanor, The West-going Heart (New York, 1959), p. 261Google Scholar. She and Masters had privileged access to Lindsay's diaries.

^{page 243 note 4} Lindsay was brought up, and remained, a Campbellite, though he acquired oecumenical, supra-denominational loyalties.

^{page 244 note 1} Masters, op. cit. p. 66. At this early stage of culturization Lindsay thought uniform taste should be created; but he expected that ultimately the faculty of appreciation would show itself to be equally powered, but differently constructed and routed.

^{page 244 note 2} Ruggles, op. cit. p. 211.

^{page 245 note 1} For the stimulus of Yeats on Lindsay see Nichols, Robert's introduction to General William Booth… (London, 1919)Google Scholar; for Lindsay's theory of recitation see his own introduction to Every Soul is a Circus (New York, 1931)Google Scholar.

^{page 246 note 1} Rittenhouse, Jessie B., My House of Life (Boston, 1934), p. 312Google Scholar (a letter from Lindsay to Jessie Rittenhouse, 1916). McLean, Albert F. Jr, in a stimulating reappraisal of American Vaudeville as Ritual (University of Kentucky Press, 1965)Google Scholar, argues that, in style and content, vaudeville was reaffirming the American dream of success, glamour and perpetual novelty; that it attracted an audience of ‘New Folk’—city dwellers and immigrants; that it was a folk-culture, and both the creation and the instrument of Americanization. Such a view could be implied from Lindsay's work, though he wished to replace vaudeville's dream with his own. It was certainly his view of the motion picture (below, §V).

^{page 246 note 2} Lindsay, Vachel, A Letter for My Four Committees in Correspondence, pamphlet (Springfield, 1916?), p. 4Google Scholar.

^{page 247 note 1} A Letter for Your Wicked…, p. 6.

^{page 247 note 2} A Letter for My Four Committees…, p. 6.

^{page 247 note 3} Rittenhouse, op. cit. p. 312.

^{page 247 note 4} The Little Review, 4 (07 1918), 54–5Google Scholar; 4 (September 1918), 6.

^{page 248 note 1} McLean, op. cit. p. 11. Lindsay also came to subscribe to the convention of prose for socio-political themes. The Golden Book of Springfield was disastrously distilled in ‘Bob Taylor's Birthday’ [pp. 410–22].

^{page 249 note 1} The Kind of Visit I Like to Make, broadside (Springfield, 1920)Google Scholar.

^{page 249 note 2} Armstrong, op. cit. p. 69.

^{page 250 note 1} Lindsay, Vachel, The Village Magazine (Springfield, 1910)Google Scholar. Read on microfilm; no apparent pagination.

^{page 250 note 2} Armstrong, op. cit. pp. 30, 95.

^{page 250 note 3} Poetry, 13 (10 1918–03 1919), 329Google Scholar. See also Lindsay, Vachel, ‘Walt Whitman’, New Republic, 27, no. 2 (12 1923), 3–4Google Scholar.

^{page 250 note 4} The Art of the Moving Picture, p. 1.

^{page 251 note 1} Ibid., ch. iii and passim; ‘The Queen of My People’, New Republic, 11, no. 2(1917), 280Google Scholar. Gilbert Seldes, in The Seven Lively Arts and The Great Audience, cited and supported Lindsay's views.

^{page 251 note 2} American pop art, many-stranded, can only be tentatively characterized. I have drawn on Lippard, Lucy, Pop Art (London, 1966)Google Scholar. Readers can piece together their own collages from Lindsay's poems; mine was taken from ‘The Santa-Fé Trail’, ‘Billboards and Galleons’ and ‘Dr Mohawk’.

^{page 251 note 3} The Art of the Moving Picture, p. 224.

^{page 251 note 4} His execution of hieroglyphics did not live up to his theory. For his theory see The Art of the Moving Picture, ch. xiii, and Collected Poems, pp. xvii–xlvii, 17–18; for his practice see Going-to-the-Sun (New York, 1923)Google Scholar, Going-to-the-Stars (New York, 1926)Google Scholar: ‘interchangeable’ pictures and text, from which he hoped the text would one day wither away.

^{page 252 note 1} Mencken, H. L., Prejudices, first series (New York, 1919), p. 94Google Scholar.

^{page 252 note 2} Armstrong, op, cit. p. 70.