Form in Modern Poetry
Form in Modern Poetry. By Herbert Read. (Shoed and Ward. 2s. 6d.)
Ma. HERBERT READ calls his " Essay in Order " Form in Modern Poetry. It could have been called " Personality in Poetry," since its theme is primarily psychological and not aesthetic, and concerns less the shaping than the generation of verse. The argument briefly is this : Art has two kinds of forni ; " organic," " when a work of art has its own inherent laws, originating with its very invention and fusing in one vital unity both structure and content " ; and " abstract," when " the intention of the artist . . . . seeks to adapt con- tent to predetermined structure." The categories " romantic and " classical" (used in their historical sense) correspond with " organic " and" abstract respectively ; and the form of modern poetry is " organic inasmuch as it obeys " the laws of its own origination."
But form depends on the nature of the poet's personality ; and here we have the crux of the essay. Mr. Read, turning to psychology, identifies " personality" with Freud's " Ego " —" a coherent organization of mental processes." " Per- sonality " is, in fact, made up of " the conscious flow of our thoughts, the impressions we receive, the sensations we expe- rience " ; it is " the general-cominon-denominator of our sen- timents and emotions," the whole controlled by an innate judgement which " emerges from the history of our sensa- tions " and " is elected by them." In opposition we have " character," " an impersonal ideal which the individual selects and to which he sacrifices all other claims, especially those of the sentiments or emotions." All true poetry is " the product of the personality, and therefore inhibited in a character." " The one thing an artist must avoid is the fixity of character."
Mr. Read now goes on to describe the process of poetry, which consists in maintaining in its integrity an original " act of intuition " and expressing it in words. He does not seem to stray far from the theory of poetic creation put forward by Mr. Eliot in The Sacred Wood until he comes to particularize ; then suddenly we find him using his thesis to discredit poets whom Mr. Eliot values. Dryden and his school, he says, are " wit-writers " ; they are the apostles of " character " as opposed to " personality," of " abstract " as opposed to " organic " form. For poetic form should be as intuitive as the original " act of vision " which produces poetry. Mr. Read, in fact, would seem to subscribe to the romantic theory of poetry, did he not at the last save himself by asserting the ultimate supremacy of thought.
The essay commands respect for its grave and careful approach to a major problem. Mr. Read is one of the few critics who can be taken seriously ; but it is only to be expected
that various questions should be left unanswered. For instance, what evidence have we that Pope's form was not as intuitive to Pope as Wordsworth's was to Wordsworth ? How are we to know that Dryden's poetry was not the result of looking into Dryden's personality and writing ? Are we to suppose that an age will suddenly produce no writers save men of character ? Does prose also proceed from the personality ? If not, why not ? If so, what except form separates prose from poetry ? Mr. Read talks vaguely about essence, and leaves unexplained the poetic prose of yesterday and the prosaic poetry of to-day. Once more the hungry sheep look up and are not fed.
DONS POWELL.
Previous page
