{"id":3439,"date":"2013-07-13T01:48:31","date_gmt":"2013-07-13T01:48:31","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost\/?p=3439"},"modified":"2013-12-02T02:21:41","modified_gmt":"2013-12-02T10:21:41","slug":"52-sri-aurobindos-letters-on-savitri-vol-03-savitri-1954","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/01-works-of-sri-aurobindo\/02-other-editions\/01-savitri\/03-savitri-1954\/52-sri-aurobindos-letters-on-savitri-vol-03-savitri-1954","title":{"rendered":"-52_ Sri Aurobindo’s letters on Savitri.htm"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/p>\n

     <\/font>LETTERS ON "SAVITRI"<\/font>  <\/font><\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

I<\/b><\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nTHERE is a previous draft, the result of the many retouchings<\/p>\n

of which somebody told you; but in that form it would not<\/p>\n

have been a "magaum opus"<\/i> at all. Besides, it would have been<\/p>\n

a legend and not a symbol. I therefore started recasting the<\/p>\n

whole thing, only the best passages and lines of the old draft will<\/p>\n

remain, altered so as to fit into the new frame.<\/font>  <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nNo, I do not work at the poem once a week; I have other things<\/p>\n

to do. Once a month perhaps, I look at the new form of the<\/p>\n

first Book and make such changes as inspiration points out to<\/p>\n

me\u2014so that nothing shall fall below the minimum height which<\/p>\n

I have fixed for it.<\/font> <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n(l931)<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n**<\/font><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\nSavitri…. is<\/i> blank verse without enjambment except rarely\u2014<\/p>\n

each line a thing by itself and arranged in paragraphs of one,<\/p>\n

two, three, four, five lines rarely a longer series, in an attempt<\/p>\n

to catch something of the Upanishadic and Kalidasian movement,<\/p>\n

so far as that is a possibility in English. You can’t take that as<\/p>\n

a model\u2014it is too difficult a rhythm-structure to be a model.<\/p>\n

I shall myself know whether it is a success or not, only when<\/p>\n

I have finished two or three Books. But where is the time now<\/p>\n

821<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 821<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

for such a work? When the supramental has finished coming<\/p>\n

down, then perhaps.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

(1932)<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n**<\/font><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

What you write about your inspiration is ‘very interesting.<\/p>\n

There is no invariable how\u2014except that I receive<\/p>\n

from above my head and receive changes and corrections<\/p>\n

from above without any initiation by myself or labour of the brain.<\/p>\n

Even if I change a hundred times, the mind does not work at<\/p>\n

that, it only receives. Formerly it used not to be so, the mind<\/p>\n

was always labouring at the stuff of an unshaped formation.,..<\/p>\n

The poems come as a stream beginning at the first line and ending<\/p>\n

at the last\u2014only some remain with one or two changes, others<\/p>\n

have to be recast if the first inspiration was an inferior one.<\/p>\n

Savitri<\/i> is a work by itself unlike all the others. I made some<\/p>\n

eight or ten recasts of it originally under the old insufficient<\/p>\n

inspiration. Afterwards I am altogether rewriting it, concentrating<\/p>\n

on the first Book and working on it over and over again with the<\/p>\n

hope that every line may be of a perfect perfection\u2014but I have<\/p>\n

hardly any time now for such work.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

(1934)<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n**<\/font><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Savitri<\/i> was originally written many years ago before the Mother<\/p>\n

came, as a narrative poem in two parts. Part I Earth and Part II<\/p>\n

Beyond these two parts are still extant in the scheme,<\/font>1<\/sup><\/font> each of<\/p>\n

four Books\u2014or rather Part II consisted of three Books and an<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

1 In the present version, there are three parts.<\/font>
\n<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 822<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

epilogue. Twelve Books to an epic is a classical superstition,<\/p>\n

but the new Savitri<\/i> may extend to ten Books\u2014if much is added<\/p>\n

in the final revision it may be even twelve.<\/font>1<\/sup><\/font> The first Book has<\/p>\n

been lengthening and lengthening out….As for the second Part,<\/p>\n

I have not touched it yet. There was no climbing of planes there<\/p>\n

in the first version\u2014rather Savitri moved through the worlds of<\/p>\n

Night, of Twilight, of Day\u2014all of course in a spiritual sense\u2014<\/p>\n

and ended by calling down the power of the Highest Worlds of<\/p>\n

Sachchidananda. I had no idea of what the supramental World<\/p>\n

could be like at that time, so it could not enter into the scheme.<\/p>\n

As for expressing the supramental inspiration, that is a matter<\/p>\n

of the future.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

(1936)<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n**<\/font><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Savitri is represented in the poem as an incarnation of the<\/p>\n

Divine Mother.. This incarnation is supposed to have taken place in<\/p>\n

far past times when the whole thing had to be opened, so as to<\/p>\n

"hew the ways of Immortality".<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

(1936)<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n**<\/font><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

The poem was originally written from a lower level, a mixture<\/p>\n

perhaps of the inner mind, psychic, poetic intelligence, sublimised vital, afterwards with the Higher Mind, often illumined<\/p>\n

and intuitivised, intervening. Most of the stuff of the first<\/p>\n

Book is new or else the old so altered as to be no more what it<\/p>\n

was; the best of the old has sometimes been kept almost intact<\/p>\n

because it had already the higher inspiration. Moreover, there<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

1 As is<\/i> actually the case now.<\/font>
\n<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 823<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

have been made several successive revisions each trying to lift<\/p>\n

the general level higher and higher towards a possible Overmind<\/p>\n

poetry. As it now stands there is a general Overmind influence,<\/p>\n

I believe, sometimes coming fully through, sometimes colouring<\/p>\n

the poetry of the other higher planes fused together, sometimes<\/p>\n

lifting any one of these higher planes to its highest or the<\/p>\n

psychic, poetic intelligence or vital towards them.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

(1936)<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n**<\/font><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

I don’t think about the technique because thinking is no<\/p>\n

longer in my line. But I see and feel for it when the lines are<\/p>\n

coming through and afterwards in revision of the work. I don’t<\/p>\n

bother about details while writing, because that would only hamper the inspiration. I let it come through without interference;<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font>only pausing if there is an obvious inadequacy felt, in which case<\/p>\n

I conclude that it is a wrong inspiration or inferior level that has<\/p>\n

cut across the communication. If the inspiration is the right<\/p>\n

one, then I have not to bother about the technique then or afterwards, for there comes through the perfect line with the perfect<\/p>\n

rhythm inextricably intertwined or rather fused into an inseparable and single unity; if there is anything wrong with the expression that carries with it an imperfection in the rhythm,<\/p>\n

if there is a flaw in the rhythm, the expression also does not carry<\/p>\n

its full weight, is not absolutely inevitable. If on the other<\/p>\n

hand the inspiration is not throughout the right one, then there<\/p>\n

is an after examination and recasting of part or whole. The<\/p>\n

things I lay most stress on then are whether each line in itself is<\/p>\n

the inevitable thing not only as a whole but in each word; whether<\/p>\n

there is the right distribution of sentence lengths an immensely<\/p>\n

important thing in this kind of blank verse; whether the lines<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 824<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

are in their right place, for all the lines may be perfect, but they<\/p>\n

may not combine perfectly together\u2014bridges may be needed,<\/p>\n

alterations of position so as to create the right development and<\/p>\n

perspective etc., etc. Pauses hardly exist in this kind of blank verse;<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font>variations of rhythm as between the lines, of caesura, of the<\/p>\n

distribution of long and short, clipped and open syllables, manifold constructions of vowel and consonant sounds, alliteration,<\/p>\n

assonances, etc., distribution into one line, two line, three or<\/p>\n

four or five line, many line sentences, care to make each line tell<\/p>\n

by itself in its own mass and force and at the same time form a<\/p>\n

harmonious whole sentence\u2014these are the important things.<\/p>\n

But all that is usually taken care of by the inspiration itself, for<\/p>\n

as I know and have the habit of the technique, the inspiration<\/p>\n

provides what I want according to standing orders. If there is<\/p>\n

a defect I appeal to headquarters, till a proper version comes<\/p>\n

along or the defect is removed by a word or phrase substitute<\/p>\n

that flashes\u2014with the necessary sound and sense. These things<\/p>\n

are not done by thinking or seeking for the right thing\u2014the two<\/p>\n

agents are sight and call. Also feeling\u2014the solar plexus has to<\/p>\n

be satisfied and, until it is, revision after revision has to continue.<\/p>\n

I may add that the technique does not go by any set mental rule<\/p>\n

\u2014for the object is not perfect technical elegance according to<\/p>\n

precept but sound-significance filling out the word-significance.<\/p>\n

If that can be done by breaking rules, well, so much the worse<\/p>\n

for the rule. "<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

(1936)<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n**<\/font><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

I can never be certain of newly written" stuff I mean in this<\/p>\n

Savitri<\/i> until I have looked at it again after an interval. Apart<\/p>\n

from the quality of new lines, there, is the combination with<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 825<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

others in the whole which I have modified more than anything:<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font>else in my past revisions.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

(1936)<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n**<\/font><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Allow me to point out that whatever I did in a jiffy would<\/p>\n

not be any more than provisionally final. It is not a question<\/p>\n

of making a few changes in individual lines, that is a very minor<\/p>\n

problem; the real finality only comes when all is felt as a perfect<\/p>\n

whole, no line jarring with or falling away from the level of the whole though some may rise above it and also all the parts in<\/p>\n

their proper place making the right harmony. It is an inner<\/p>\n

feeling that has to decide that… .Unfortunately the mind can’t<\/p>\n

arrange these things, one has to wait till the absolutely right<\/p>\n

thing comes in a sort of receptive self-opening and calling-down<\/p>\n

condition. Hence the months.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

(1936)<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n**<\/font><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

I have been kept too occupied with other things to make much<\/p>\n

headway with the poem\u2014except that I have spoilt your beautiful<\/p>\n

neat copy of the "Worlds" under the oestrus of the restless<\/p>\n

urge for more and more perfection; but we are here for World-improvement, so I hope that is excusable.<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

(1938)<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n**<\/font><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

…I… have pulled up the third section to a higher consistency<\/p>\n

of level; the "Worlds" have fallen into a state of manuscript<\/p>\n

chaos, corrections upon corrections, additions upon additions,<\/p>\n

rearrangements on rearrangements out of which perhaps some<\/p>\n

cosmic beauty will emerge! <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

(1938)<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n**<\/font><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 826<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

You will see when you get the full typescript of the first<\/p>\n

three Books that Savitri<\/i> has grown to an enormous length so that<\/p>\n

it is no longer quite the same thing as the poem you saw then.<\/p>\n

There are now three Books in the first part. The first, the<\/p>\n

Book of Beginnings, comprises five Cantos which cover the same<\/p>\n

ground as what you typed but contains also much more that is<\/p>\n

new. The small passage about Aswapathy and the other worlds<\/p>\n

has been replaced by a new Book, the Book of the Traveller of<\/p>\n

the Worlds, in fourteen Cantos with many thousand lines. There<\/p>\n

is also a third sufficiently long Book, the Book of the Divine<\/p>\n

Mother. In the new plan of the poem there is a second part consisting of five Books: two of these, the Book of Birth and Quest<\/p>\n

and the Book of Love, have been completed and another, the<\/p>\n

Book of Fate, is almost complete. Two others, the Book of Yoga<\/p>\n

and the Book of Death, have still to be written, though a part needs<\/p>\n

only a thorough recasting. Finally, there is the third part consisting of four Books, the Book of Eternal Night, the Book of the Dual<\/p>\n

Twilight, the Book of Everlasting Day and the Return to Earth,<\/p>\n

which have to be entirely recast and the third of them largely<\/p>\n

rewritten. So it will be a long time before Savitri<\/i> is complete.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

In the new form it will be a sort of poetic philosophy of the<\/p>\n

Spirit and of Life much profounder in its substance and vaster<\/p>\n

in its scope than was intended in the original poem. I am trying<\/p>\n

of course to keep it at a very high level of inspiration, but in so<\/p>\n

large a plan covering most subjects of philosophical thought<\/p>\n

and vision and many aspects of spiritual experience there is bound<\/p>\n

to be much variation of tone: but that is, I think, necessary for<\/p>\n

the richness and completeness of the treatment.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

(1946<\/font>)<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 827<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

2<\/font><\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

As to the many criticisms<\/font>1<\/sup><\/font> contained in your letter I have a<\/p>\n

good deal to say; some of them bring forward questions of the<\/p>\n

technique of mystic poetry about which I wanted to write in an<\/p>\n

introduction to Savitri<\/i> when it is published, and I may as well<\/p>\n

say something about that here.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

…Rapid transitions from one image to another are a constant<\/p>\n

feature in Savitri<\/i> as in most mystic poetry. I am not here<\/font>2<\/sup><\/font> building a long sustained single picture of the Dawn with a single<\/p>\n

continuous image or variations of the same image. I am<\/p>\n

describing a rapid series of transitions, piling one suggestion<\/p>\n

upon another. There is first a black quietude, then the<\/p>\n

persistent touch, then the first "beauty and wonder"<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

1 The nature of these criticisms must not be misunderstood. Just<\/p>\n

as the merits of Savitri<\/i> were appreciated to the utmost, whatever seemed a shortcoming no matter how slight and negligible in<\/p>\n

the midst of the abundant excellence was pointedly remarked upon so<\/p>\n

that Sri Aurobindo might not overlook anything in his work towards<\/p>\n

what he called "perfect perfection" before the poem came under the<\/p>\n

scrutiny of non-Aurobindonian critics at the time of publication. The<\/p>\n

commentator was anxious that there should be no spots on Savitri’s<\/i> sun.<\/p>\n

The purpose was also to get important issues cleared up in relation to the sort of poetry Sri Aurobindo was writing and some of his<\/p>\n

disciples aspired to write. Knowing the spirit and aim of the criticisms<\/p>\n

Sri Aurobindo welcomed them, even asked for them. On many occasions\u2014and these provide most of the matter collected here\u2014he<\/p>\n

vigorously defended himself, but on several he willingly agreed to introduce small changes. Once he is reported to have smiled and said; "Is<\/p>\n

he satisfied now?" Unfortunately, the opportunity to discuss every part<\/p>\n

of the poem did not arise and we have, therefore:, only a limited number<\/p>\n

of psychological and technical elucidations by him of his art.<\/font>  <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

2 PP. 5, 6.<\/font> <\/font>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 828<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

leading to the magical gate and the "lucent comer". Then<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font>comes the failing of the darkness, the simile used "a falling<\/p>\n

cloak" suggesting the rapidity of the change. Then as a<\/p>\n

result the change of what was once a rift into a wide luminous<\/p>\n

gap,\u2014if you want to be logically consistent you can look at the<\/p>\n

rift as a slit in the "cloak" which becomes a big tear. Then all<\/p>\n

changes into a "brief perpetual sign", the iridescence, then the<\/p>\n

blaze and the magnificent aura. In such a race of rapid transitions<\/p>\n

you cannot bind me down to a logical chain of figures or a classical<\/p>\n

monotone. The mystic Muse is more of an inspired Bacchante<\/p>\n

of the Dionysian wine than an orderly housewife.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

….Again, do you seriously want me to
\ngive an accurate scientific description of the earth half in darkness and half
\nin light so as to spoil my impressionist symbol<\/font>1<\/font><\/sup>
\nor else to revert to the conception of earth as a flat and immobile surface? I
\nam not writing a scientific treatise, I am selecting certain ideas and
\nimpressions to form a symbol of a partial and temporary darkness of the soul and
\nNature which seems to a temporary feeling of that which is caught in the Night
\nas if it were universal and eternal. One who is lost in that Night does not
\nthink of the other half of the earth as full of light;<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font>to him all is Night and the earth a forsaken wanderer in an enduring darkness. If I sacrifice this impressionism and abandon the<\/p>\n

image of the earth wheeling through dark space I might as well<\/p>\n

abandon the symbol altogether, for this is a necessary part of it.<\/p>\n

As a matter of fact in the passage itself earth in its wheeling does<\/p>\n

come into the dawn and pass from darkness into the light. You<\/p>\n

must take the idea as a whole and in all its transitions and not<\/p>\n

press one detail with too literal an insistence. In this poem I<\/p>\n

present constantly one partial view of life or another temporarily<\/p>\n

as if it were the whole in order to give full value to the experience<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

1 P.4.<\/font> <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 829<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

of those who are bound by that view, as for instance, the materialist<\/p>\n

conception and experience of life, but if any one charges me with<\/p>\n

philosophical inconsistency, then it only means that he does not<\/p>\n

understand the technique of the Overmind interpretation of life.<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

….I come next to the passage which you so violently attack,<\/p>\n

about the Inconscient waking Ignorance. In the first place, the<\/p>\n

word "formless" is indeed defective, not so much because of any<\/p>\n

repetition but because it is not the right word or idea and I was<\/p>\n

not myself satisfied with it. I have changed the passage as<\/p>\n

follows:<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Then something in the inscrutable darkness stirred;<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

A nameless
\nmovement, an unthought Idea <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Insistent, dissatisfied, without an aim, <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Something
\nthat wished but knew not how to be, <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Teased the Inconscient to wake Ignorance.<\/font>1<\/font><\/sup><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

But the teasing of the Inconscient remains and evidently you think<\/p>\n

that it is bad poetic taste to tease something so bodiless and unreal<\/p>\n

as the Inconscient. But here several fundamental issues arise.<\/p>\n

First of all, are words like Inconscient and Ignorance necessarily<\/p>\n

an abstract technical jargon? If so, do not words like consciousness, knowledge etc. undergo the same ban? Is it meant that<\/p>\n

they are abstract philosophical terms and can have no real or<\/p>\n

concrete meaning, cannot represent things that one feels and<\/p>\n

senses or must often fight as one fights a visible foe? The Inconscient and the Ignorance may be mere empty abstractions and can<\/p>\n

be dismissed as irrelevant jargon if one has not come into collision with them or plunged into their dark and bottomless reality.<\/p>\n

But to me they are realities, concrete powers whose resistance is<\/p>\n

present everywhere and at all times in its tremendous and boundless<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

1 P. 4.<\/font> <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 830<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

mass. In fact, in writing this line I had
\nno intention of teaching philosophy or forcing in an irrelevant metaphysical
\nidea, although the idea may be there in implication. I was presenting a
\nhappening that was to me something sensible and, as one might say,
\npsychologically and spiritually concrete. The Inconscient comes in persistently in the cantos of the First Book of Savitri: e.g.<\/i><\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Opponent of the glory of escape,<\/p>\n

<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

The black Inconscient swung its dragon tail<\/p>\n

<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Lashing a slumberous Infinite by its force<\/p>\n

<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Into the deep obscurities of form.<\/font>1<\/font>
\n<\/font><\/sup><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

There too a metaphysical idea might be read into or behind<\/p>\n

the thing seen. But does that make it technical jargon or the<\/p>\n

whole thing an illegitimate mixture? It is not so to my poetic<\/p>\n

sense. But you might say, "It is so to the non-mystical reader<\/p>\n

and it is that reader whom you have to satisfy, as it is for the<\/p>\n

general reader that you are writing and not for yourself<\/p>\n

alone." But if I had to write for the general reader I could<\/p>\n

not have written Savitri<\/i> at all. It is in fact for myself that I have<\/p>\n

written it and for those who can lend themselves to the subject-matter, images, technique of mystic poetry.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

This is the real stumbling-block of mystic poetry and specially<\/p>\n

mystic poetry of this kind. The mystic feels real and present,<\/p>\n

even ever present to his experience, intimate to his being, truths<\/p>\n

which to the ordinary reader are intellectual abstractions or<\/p>\n

metaphysical speculations. He is writing of experiences that<\/p>\n

are foreign to the ordinary mentality. Either they are unintelligible to it and in meeting them it flounders about as if in an<\/p>\n

obscure abyss or it takes them as poetic fancies expressed in<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

1 P.90.<\/font> <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 831<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

intellectually devised images. That was how a critic in the Hindu<\/p>\n

<\/i>condemned such poems as Nirvana<\/i> and Transformation.<\/i> He<\/p>\n

said that they were mere intellectual conceptions and images<\/p>\n

and there was nothing of religious feeling or spiritual experience.<\/p>\n

Yet Nirvana<\/i><\/font>1<\/font><\/sup> was as close a transcription of a major experience<\/p>\n

as could be given in language coined by the human mind of a<\/p>\n

realisation in which the mind was entirely silent and into which<\/p>\n

no intellectual conception could at all enter. One has to use<\/p>\n

words and images in order to convey to the mind some perception, some figure of that which is beyond thought. The<\/p>\n

critic’s non-understanding was made worse by such a line as:<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Only the illimitable Permanent<\/p>\n

<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Is here.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Evidently he took this as technical jargon, abstract philosophy.<\/p>\n

There was no such thing; I felt with an overpowering vividness<\/p>\n

the illimitability or at least something which could not be described by any other term and no other description except the<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

1 All is abolished but the mute Alone.<\/font>  <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

The mind from thought released, the heart from grief<\/font>  <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Grow inexistent now beyond belief;<\/font>  <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

There is no I, no Nature, known-unknown.<\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

The city, a shadow picture without tone,<\/font>  <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Floats, quivers unreal, forms without relief<\/font>  <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Flow, a cinema’s vacant shapes; like a reef<\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Foundering in shoreless gulfs the world is done.<\/font>  <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Only the illimitable Permanent<\/font>  <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Is here. A Peace stupendous, featureless, still<\/font>  <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Replaces all,\u2014what once was I, in It<\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

A silent unnamed emptiness content<\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Either to fade in the Unknowable<\/font>  <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Or thrill with the luminous seas of the Infinite.<\/font>
\n<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 832<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

"Permanent" could be made of That which alone existed. To<\/p>\n

the mystic there is no such thing as an abstraction. Everything<\/p>\n

which to the intellectual mind is abstract has a concreteness,<\/p>\n

substantiality which is more real than the sensible form of an<\/p>\n

object or of a physical event. To me, for instance, consciousness<\/p>\n

is the very stuff of existence and I can feel it everywhere enveloping and penetrating the stone as much as man or the animal.<\/p>\n

A movement, a flow of consciousness is not to me an image but<\/p>\n

a fact. If I wrote "His anger climbed against me in a stream",<\/p>\n

it would be to the general reader a mere image, not something<\/p>\n

that was felt by me in a sensible experience; yet I would only<\/p>\n

be describing in exact terms what actually happened once, a<\/p>\n

stream of anger, a sensible and violent current of it rising up<\/p>\n

from downstairs and rushing upon me as I sat in the veranda<\/p>\n

of the Guest-House, the truth of it being confirmed afterwards<\/p>\n

by the confession of the person who had the movement. This<\/p>\n

is only one instance, but all that is spiritual or psychological in<\/p>\n

Savitri<\/i> is of that character. What is to be done under these<\/p>\n

circumstances? The mystical poet can only describe what he<\/p>\n

has felt, seen in himself or others or in the world just as he has<\/p>\n

felt or seen it or experienced through exact vision, close contact<\/p>\n

or identity and leave it to the general reader to understand or<\/p>\n

not understand or misunderstand according to his capacity.<\/p>\n

A new kind of poetry demands a new mentality in the recipient<\/p>\n

as well as in the writer.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Another question is the place of philosophy in poetry or<\/p>\n

whether it has any place at all. Some romanticists seem to<\/p>\n

believe that the poet has no right to think at all, only to see and<\/p>\n

feel. This accusation has been brought against me by many that<\/p>\n

I think too much and that when I try to write in verse, thought<\/p>\n

comes in and keeps out poetry. I hold, to the contrary, that<\/p>\n

philosophy has its place and can even take a leading place along<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 833<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

with psychological experience as it does
\nin the Gita.<\/font>1<\/font><\/sup>
\nAll depends on how it is done, whether it is a dry or a living philosophy, an
\narid intellectual statement or the expression not only of the living truth of
\nthought but of something of its beauty, its light or its power.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

The theory which discourages the poet from thinking or at<\/p>\n

least from thinking for the sake of the thought proceeds from<\/p>\n

an extreme romanticist temper, it reaches its acme on one side<\/p>\n

in the question of the surrealist, "Why do you want poetry to<\/p>\n

mean anything?" and on the other in Housman’s exaltation<\/p>\n

of pure poetry which he describes paradoxically as a sort of<\/p>\n

sublime nonsense which does not appeal at all to the mental<\/p>\n

intelligence but knocks at the solar plexus and awakes a vital<\/p>\n

and physical rather than intellectual sensation and response.<\/p>\n

It is of course not that really but a vividness of imagination<\/p>\n

and feeling which disregards the mind’s positive view of things<\/p>\n

and its logical sequences; the centre or centres it knocks at<\/p>\n

are not the brain-mind, not even the poetic intelligence but<\/p>\n

the subtle physical, the nervous, the vital or the psychic centre.<\/p>\n

The poem he quotes from Blake is certainly not nonsense, but<\/p>\n

it has no positive and exact meaning for the intellect or the<\/p>\n

surface mind; it expresses certain things that are true and real,<\/p>\n

not nonsense but a deeper sense which we feel powerfully with<\/p>\n

a great stirring of some inner emotion, but any attempt at exact<\/p>\n

intellectual statement of them sterilises their sense and spoils<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

1 This dictum about the role of thought should not be taken as contradicting any implication of the sentence in an earlier letter: "Thinking is<\/p>\n

no longer in my line." What comes from "overhead" through the mystic’s<\/p>\n

silent mind, as in Sri Aurobindo’s later poetry, can very well assume a<\/p>\n

philosophical form. It is the presence of thought-form in poetry that is<\/p>\n

spoken of here, not the source from which it ultimately derives or the process by which it enters a poem.<\/font>
\n<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 834<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

their appeal. This is not the method of Savitri.<\/i> Its expression<\/p>\n

aims at a certain force, directness and spiritual clarity and reality.<\/p>\n

When it is not understood, it is because the truths it expresses<\/p>\n

are unfamiliar to the ordinary mind or belong to an untrodden<\/p>\n

domain or domains or enter into a field of occult experience:<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font>it is not because there is any attempt at a dark or vague profundity or at an escape from thought. The thinking is not intellectual but intuitive or more than intuitive, always expressing<\/p>\n

a vision, a spiritual contact or a knowledge which has come by<\/p>\n

entering into the thing itself, by identity.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

It may be noted that the greater romantic poets did not shun<\/p>\n

thought, they thought abundantly, almost endlessly. They<\/p>\n

have their characteristic view of life, something that one might<\/p>\n

call their philosophy, their world-view, and they express it.<\/p>\n

Keats was the most romantic of poets, but he could write "To<\/p>\n

philosophise I dare not yet"; he did not write "I am too much<\/p>\n

of a poet to philosophise." To philosophise he regarded evidently as mounting on the admiral’s flag-ship and flying an<\/p>\n

almost royal banner. The philosophy of Savitri<\/i> is different but<\/p>\n

it is persistently there; it expresses or tries to express a total<\/p>\n

and many-sided vision and experience of all the planes of being<\/p>\n

and their action upon each other. Whatever language, whatever<\/p>\n

terms are necessary to convey this truth of vision and experience<\/p>\n

it uses without scruple or admitting any mental rule of what<\/p>\n

is or is not poetic. It does not hesitate to employ terms which<\/p>\n

might be considered as technical when these can be turned to<\/p>\n

express something direct, vivid and powerful. That need not<\/p>\n

be an introduction of technical jargon, that is to say, I suppose,<\/p>\n

special and artificial language, expressing in this case only abstract ideas and generalities without any living truth or reality<\/p>\n

in them. Such jargon cannot make good literature, much less<\/p>\n

good poetry. But there is a ‘poeticism’ which establishes a<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 835<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

sanitary cordon against words and ideas which it considers as<\/p>\n

prosaic but which properly used can strengthen poetry and<\/p>\n

extend its range. That limitation I do not admit as legitimate.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

I have been insisting on these points in view of certain criticisms that have been made by reviewers and others, some of<\/p>\n

them very capable, suggesting or flatly stating that there was<\/p>\n

too much thought in my poems or that I am even in my poetry<\/p>\n

a philosopher rather than a poet. I am justifying a poet’s right<\/p>\n

to think as well as to see and feel, his right to "dare to philosophise". I agree with the modernists in their revolt against the<\/p>\n

romanticist’s insistence on emotionalism and his objection to<\/p>\n

thinking and philosophical reflection in poetry. But the<\/p>\n

modernist went too far in his revolt. In trying to avoid what I may<\/p>\n

call poeticism he ceased to be poetic; wishing to escape from<\/p>\n

rhetorical writing, rhetorical pretension to greatness and beauty<\/p>\n

of style, he threw out true poetic greatness and beauty, turned<\/p>\n

from a deliberately poetic style to a colloquial tone and even<\/p>\n

to very flat writing; especially he turned away from poetic rhythm<\/p>\n

to a prose or half-prose rhythm or to no rhythm at all. Also he<\/p>\n

has weighed too much on thought and has lost the habit of<\/p>\n

intuitive sight; by turning emotion out of its intimate chamber<\/p>\n

in the house of Poetry, he has had to bring in to relieve the<\/p>\n

dryness of much of his thought too much exaggeration of the<\/p>\n

lower vital and sensational reactions untransformed or else<\/p>\n

transformed only by exaggeration. Nevertheless he has perhaps<\/p>\n

restored to the poet the freedom to think as well as to adopt a<\/p>\n

certain straightforwardness and directness of style. <\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Now I come to the law prohibiting repetition. This rule<\/p>\n

aims at a certain kind of intellectual elegance which comes into<\/p>\n

poetry when the poetic intelligence and the call for a refined<\/p>\n

and classical taste begin to predominate. It regards poetry as a<\/p>\n

cultural entertainment and amusement of the highly civilised<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 836<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

mind; it interests by a faultless art of words, a constant and<\/p>\n

ingenious invention, a sustained novelty of ideas, incidents,<\/p>\n

word and phrase. An unfailing variety or the outward appearance of it is one of the elegances of this art. But all poetry is<\/p>\n

not of this kind; its rule does not apply to poets like Homer or<\/p>\n

Valmiki or other early writers. The Veda might almost be<\/p>\n

described as a mass of repetitions; so might the work of Vaishnava poets and the poetic literature of devotion generally in<\/p>\n

India. Arnold has noted this distinction when speaking of<\/p>\n

Homer; he mentioned especially that there is nothing objectionable in the close repetition of the same word in the Homeric<\/p>\n

way of writing. In many things Homer seems to make a point<\/p>\n

of repeating himself. He has stock descriptions, epithets always<\/p>\n

reiterated, lines even which are constantly repeated again and<\/p>\n

again when the same incident returns in his narrative: e.g. the<\/p>\n

line,<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Doup\u00easen de pes\u00f4m arab\u00ease de teuche’ ep’
\naut\u00f4.<\/i><\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

"Down with a thud he fell and his armour clangoured<\/p>\n

upon him."<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

He does not hesitate also to repeat the bulk of a line with a<\/p>\n

variation at the end, e.g.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

B\u00ea de kat’ oulumpoio kar\u00ean\u00f4n ch\u00f4\u00f6menos
\nk\u00ear.<\/p>\n

<\/i><\/font><\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

And again the<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

B\u00ea de kat’ oulumpoio kar\u00ean\u00f4n \u00e2\u00efx\u00e2sa.<\/i><\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

"Down from the peaks of Olympus he came, wrath vexing his<\/p>\n

heart-strings" and again, "Down from the peaks of Olympus she<\/p>\n

came impetuously darting." He begins another line elsewhere<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 837<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\nwith the same word and a similar action and with
\nthe same
\nnature of a human movement physical and psychological in a
\nscene of Nature, here a man’s silent sorrow listening to the
\nroar of the ocean: <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nB\u00ea d’ake\u00f4n para th\u00eena
\npoluphlois boio thalass\u00eas\u2014<\/i> <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n"Silent he walked by the shore of the many-rumoured
\nocean." <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nIn mystic poetry also repetition is not
\nobjectionable; it is
\nresorted to by many poets, sometimes with insistence. I may
\ncite as an example the constant repetition of the word Ritam,
\n<\/i>truth, sometimes eight or nine times in a short poem of nine
\nor ten stanzas and often in the same line. This does not weaken
\nthe poem, it gives it a singular power and beauty. The repetition
\nof the same key ideas, key images and symbols, key words or
\nphrases, key epithets, sometimes key lines or half lines is a
\nconstant feature. They give an atmosphere, a significant structure, a sort of psychological frame, an architecture. The object
\nhere is not to amuse or entertain but the self-expression of an
\ninner truth, a seeing of things and ideas not familiar to the
\ncommon mind, a bringing out of inner experience. It is the
\ntrue more than the new that the poet is after. He uses āvritti,
\n<\/i>repetition, as one of the most powerful means of carrying home
\nwhat has been thought or seen and fixing it in the mind in an
\natmosphere of light and beauty. This kind of repetition I have
\nused largely in Savitri.<\/i> Moreover, the object is not only to
\npresent a secret truth in its true form and true vision but to
\ndrive it home by the finding of the true word, the true phrase,
\nthe mot juste,<\/i> the true image or symbol, if possible the inevitable
\nword; if that is there, nothing else, repetition included, matters <\/font>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 838<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n
\nmuch. This is natural when the repetition is
\nintended, serves a
\npurpose; but it can hold even when the repetition is not deliberate
\nbut comes in naturally in the stream of the inspiration. I see,
\ntherefore, no objection to the recurrence of the same or similar
\nimage such as sea and ocean, sky and heaven in one long passage
\nprovided each is the right thing and rightly worded in its place.
\nThe same rule applies to words; epithets, ideas. It is only if the
\nrepetition is clumsy or awkward, too burdensomely insistent, at
\nonce unneeded and inexpressive or amounts to a disagreeable and meaningless echo that it must be rejected.
\n<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n. ..I think there is none of your objections
\nthat did not occur to me
\nas possible from a certain kind of criticism when I wrote or I
\nre-read what I had written; but I brushed them aside as invalid or as irrelevant
\nto the kind of poem I was writing. So you must not be surprised at my disregard
\nof them as too slight and unimperative. <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n(1946)<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n**<\/font><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\nWhat you have written as the general theory of
\nthe matter seems
\nto be correct and it does not differ substantially from what I wrote.
\nBut your phrase about unpurposive repetition might carry a suggestion which I
\nwould not be able to accept; it might seem to indicate that the poet must have a
\n"purpose" in whatever he writes and must be able to give a logical account of it
\nto the critical intellect. That is surely not the way in which the poet or at
\nleast the mystic poet has to do his work. He does not himself deliberately choose or arrange word and rhythm but only sees it as it comes
\nin the very act of inspiration. If there is any purpose of any kind,
\nit also comes by and in the process of inspiration. He can criticise
\nhimself and the work; he can see whether it was a wrong or an <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 839<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

inferior movement, he does not set about correcting it by any<\/p>\n

intellectual method but waits for the true thing to come in its<\/p>\n

place. He cannot always account to the logical intellect for what<\/p>\n

he has done: he feels or intuits, and the reader or critic has to do<\/p>\n

the same.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Thus I cannot tell you for what purpose I admitted the repetition of the word "great" in the line about the "great unsatisfied<\/p>\n

godhead",<\/font>1<\/font><\/sup> I only felt that it was the one thing to write in that<\/p>\n

line as "her greatness" was the only right thing in a preceding line;<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font>I also felt that they did not and could not clash and that was<\/p>\n

enough for me. Again, it might be suggested that the "high"<\/p>\n

"warm" subtle ether of love was not only the right expression but<\/p>\n

that repetition of these epithets after they had been used in<\/p>\n

describing the atmosphere of Savitri’s nature was justified and had<\/p>\n

a reason and purpose because it pointed and brought out the identity of the ether of love with Savitri’s
\natmosphere. But as a matter<\/p>\n

of fact I have no such reason or purpose. It was the identity which<\/p>\n

brought spontaneously and inevitably the use of the same epithets<\/p>\n

and not any conscious intention which deliberately used the repetition for a purpose.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Your contention that in the lines which I found to be inferior<\/p>\n

to their original form and altered back to that form, the<\/p>\n

inferiority was due to a repetition is not valid. In the line<\/p>\n

about "a vastness like his own"<\/font>2<\/sup><\/font> the word "wideness"<\/p>\n

which had accidentally replaced it would have been inferior<\/p>\n

even if there had been no "wide" or "wideness" anywhere<\/p>\n

within a hundred miles and I would still have altered<\/p>\n

it back to the original word. So too with "sealed depths" and<\/p>\n

so many others…. These and other alterations were due to inadvertence <\/font> <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

1 P.19.<\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

2 ibid.<\/font> <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 840<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

and not intentional; repetition or
\nnon-repetition had nothing to do with the matter. It was the same with "Wisdom
\nnursing Chance":<\/font>1<\/font><\/sup>
\nif "nursing" had been the right word and not a slip replacing the original
\nphrase I would have kept it in spite<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font>of the word "nurse" occurring immediately afterwards: only<\/p>\n

perhaps I would have taken care to so arrange that the repetition<\/p>\n

of the figure would simply have constituted a two-headed instead<\/p>\n

of a one-headed evil. Yes, I have changed several places where<\/p>\n

you objected to repetitions but mostly for other reasons: I have<\/p>\n

kept many where there was a repetition and changed others<\/p>\n

where there was no repetition at all. I have indeed made modifications or changes where repetition came at a short distance at<\/p>\n

the end of a line, that was because the place made it too conspicuous. Of course where the repetition amounts to a mistake, I<\/p>\n

would have no hesitation in making a change; for a mistake must<\/p>\n

always be acknowledged and corrected.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

(1946)<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

1P.47.<\/font> <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 841<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

3<\/font><\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Obviously, the Overmind and aesthetics cannot be equated<\/p>\n

together. Aesthetics is concerned mainly with beauty, but more<\/p>\n

generally with rasa,<\/i> the response of the mind, the vital feeling and<\/p>\n

the sense to a certain "taste" in things which often may be but<\/p>\n

is not necessarily a spiritual feeling. Aesthetics belongs to the<\/p>\n

mental range and all that depends upon it; it may degenerate into<\/p>\n

aestheticism or may exaggerate or narrow itself into some version<\/p>\n

of the theory of "Art for Art’s sake". The Overmind is essentially<\/p>\n

a spiritual power. Mind in it surpasses its ordinary self and rises<\/p>\n

and takes its stand on a spiritual foundation. It embraces beauty<\/p>\n

and sublimates it; it has an essential aesthesis which is not limited<\/p>\n

by rules and canons; it sees a universal and an eternal beauty while it takes up and transforms all that is limited and particular. ;<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font>It is besides concerned with things other than beauty or aesthetics. It is concerned especially with truth and knowledge or rather<\/p>\n

with a wisdom that exceeds what we call knowledge; its truth goes<\/p>\n

beyond truth of fact and truth of thought, even the higher thought<\/p>\n

which is the first spiritual range of the thinker. It has the truth of<\/p>\n

spiritual thought, spiritual feeling, spiritual sense and at its highest<\/p>\n

the truth that comes by the most intimate spiritual touch or by<\/p>\n

identity. Ultimately, truth and beauty come together and coincide, but in between there is a difference. Overmind in all its<\/p>\n

dealings puts truth first; it brings out the essential truth and<\/p>\n

truths in things and also its infinite possibilities; it brings out<\/p>\n

even the truth that lies behind falsehood and error; it brings out<\/p>\n

the truth of the Inconscient and the truth of the Superconscient<\/p>\n

and all that lies in between. When it speaks through poetry, this<\/p>\n

remains its first essential quality; a limited aesthetical artistic aim<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 842<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

is not its purpose. It can take up and uplift any or every style<\/p>\n

or at least put some stamp of itself upon it. More or less all that<\/p>\n

we have called Overhead poetry has something of this character<\/p>\n

whether it be from the Overmind or simply intuitive, illumined<\/p>\n

or strong with the strength of the higher revealing Thought,<\/p>\n

even when it is not intrinsically Overhead poetry, still some touch<\/p>\n

can come in. Even Overhead poetry itself does not always deal<\/p>\n

in what is new or striking or strange, it can take up the obvious,<\/p>\n

the common, the bare and even the bald, the old, even that which<\/p>\n

without it would seem stale and hackneyed and raise it to greatness. Take the lines:<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

I spoke as one who ne’er would speak again<\/p>\n

<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

And as a dying man to dying men.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

The writer is not a poet, not even a conspicuously talented versifier. The statement of the thought is bare and direct and the<\/p>\n

rhetorical device used is of the simplest, but the Overhead touch<\/p>\n

somehow got in through a passionate emotion and sincerity and<\/p>\n

is unmistakable. In all poetry a poetical aesthesis of some kind<\/p>\n

there must be in the writer and the recipient, but aesthetics is of<\/p>\n

many kinds and the ordinary kind is not sufficient for appreciating<\/p>\n

the Overhead element in poetry. A fundamental and universal<\/p>\n

aesthesis is needed, something also more intense that listens, sees<\/p>\n

and feels from deep within and answers to what is behind the<\/p>\n

surface. A greater, wider and deeper aesthesis then which can<\/p>\n

answer even to the transcendent and feel too whatever of the<\/p>\n

transcendent or spiritual enters into the things of life, mind and<\/p>\n

sense.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

The business of the critical intellect is to appreciate and judge<\/p>\n

and here too it must judge; but it can judge and appreciate rightly<\/p>\n

here only if it first learns to see and sense inwardly and interpret.<\/p>\n

But it is dangerous for it to lay down its own laws or even laws<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 843<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

and rules which it thinks it can deduce from some observed practice of the Overhead inspiration and use that to wall in the inspiration; for it runs the risk of seeing the Overhead inspiration step<\/p>\n

across its wall and pass on leaving it bewildered and at a loss.<\/p>\n

The mere critical intellect not touched by a rarer sight can do<\/p>\n

little here. We can take an extreme case, for in extreme cases<\/p>\n

certain incompatibilities come out more clearly. What might be<\/p>\n

called the Johnsonian critical method has obviously little or no<\/p>\n

place in this field,\u2014the method which expects a precise logical<\/p>\n

order in thoughts and language and pecks at all that departs from<\/p>\n

a matter-of-fact or a strict and rational ideative coherence or a<\/p>\n

sober and restrained classical taste. Johnson himself is plainly<\/p>\n

out of his element when he deals crudely with one of Gray’s delicate trifles and tramples and flounders about in the poet’s basin<\/p>\n

of goldfish breaking it with his heavy and vicious kicks. But also<\/p>\n

this method is useless in dealing with any kind of romantic poetry.<\/p>\n

What would the Johnsonian critic say to Shakespeare’s famous<\/p>\n

lines,<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Or take up arms against a sea of troubles<\/p>\n

<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

And by opposing end them?<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

He would say, "What a mixture of metaphors and jumble of<\/p>\n

ideas! Only a lunatic could take up arms against a sea! A sea of<\/p>\n

troubles is too fanciful a metaphor and, in any case, one can’t<\/p>\n

end the sea by opposing it, it is more likely to end you." Shakespeare knew very well what he was doing; he saw the mixture<\/p>\n

as well as any critic could and he accepted it because it brought<\/p>\n

home, with an inspired force which a neater language could not<\/p>\n

have had, the exact feeling and idea that he wanted to bring out.<\/p>\n

Still more scared would the Johnsonian be by any occult or<\/p>\n

mystic poetry. The Veda, for instance, uses with what seems like<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 844<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

a deliberate recklessness the mixture, at least the association of<\/p>\n

disparate images, of things not associated together in the material<\/p>\n

world which in Shakespeare is only an occasional departure.<\/p>\n

What would the Johnsonian make of this Rik<\/i> in the Veda: "That<\/p>\n

splendour of thee, O Fire, which is in heaven and in the earth<\/p>\n

and in the plants and in the waters and by which thou hast spread<\/p>\n

out the wide mid-air, is a vivid ocean of light which sees with a<\/p>\n

divine seeing"? He would say, "What is this nonsense? How<\/p>\n

can there be a splendour of light in plants and in water and how<\/p>\n

can an ocean of light see divinely or otherwise ? Anyhow, what<\/p>\n

meaning can there be in all this, it is a senseless mystical jargon."<\/p>\n

But, apart from these extremes, the mere critical intellect is likely<\/p>\n

to feel a distaste or an incomprehension with regard to mystical<\/p>\n

poetry even if that poetry is quite coherent in its ideas and well-appointed in its language. It is bound to stumble over all sorts<\/p>\n

of things that are contrary to its reason and offensive to its taste:<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font>association of contraries, excess or abruptness or crowding of<\/p>\n

images, disregard of intellectual limitations in the thought, concretisation of abstractions, the treating of things and forces as if<\/p>\n

there were a consciousness and a personality in them and a hundred other aberrations from the straight intellectual line. It is not<\/p>\n

likely either to tolerate departures in technique which disregard<\/p>\n

the canons of an established order. Fortunately here the modernists with all their errors have broken old bounds and the mystic<\/p>\n

poet may be more free to invent his own technique.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Here is an instance in point. You refer to certain things I<\/p>\n

wrote and concessions I made when you were typing an earlier<\/p>\n

draft of the first books of Savitri.<\/i> You instance my readiness to<\/p>\n

correct or do away with repetitions of words or clashes of sound<\/p>\n

such as "magnificent" in one line and "lucent" in the next. True,.<\/p>\n

but I may observe that at that time I was passing through a transition from the habits of an old inspiration and technique to which<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 845<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

I often deferred and the new inspiration that had begun to come.<\/p>\n

I would still alter this clash because it was a clash, but I would<\/p>\n

not as in the old days make a fixed rule of this avoidance. If lines<\/p>\n

like the following were to come to me now,<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

His forehead was a dome magnificent,<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

And there gazed forth two orbs of lucent truth<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

That made the human air a world of light,<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

I would not reject them but accept "magnificent" and "lucent"<\/p>\n

as entirely in their place. But this would not be an undiscriminating acceptance; for if it had run<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

His forehead was a wide magnificent dome<\/p>\n

<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

And there gazed forth two orbs of lucent truth<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

I would not be so ready to accept it, for the repetition of sound<\/p>\n

"here occurring in the same place in the line would lack the just<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font>-rhythmical balance. I have accepted in the present version of<\/p>\n

Savitri<\/i> several of the freedoms established by the modernists<\/p>\n

including internal rhyme, exact assonance of syllable, irregularities<\/p>\n

introduced into the iambic run of the metre and others which<\/p>\n

would have been equally painful to an earlier taste. But I have<\/p>\n

:not taken this as a mechanical method or a mannerism, but only<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font>-where I thought it rhythmically justified, for all freedom must<\/p>\n

have a truth in it and an order, either a rational or an instinctive<\/p>\n

and intuitive order. <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

(1946)<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 846<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

4<\/font><\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

…the cosmic drowse of ignorant Force<\/p>\n

<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Whose moved creative slumber kindles the suns<\/p>\n

<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

And carries our lives in its somnambulist
\nwhirl. <\/font><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

1<\/font> <\/font><\/sup><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

I am not disposed to change "suns" to "stars" in the line about<\/p>\n

the creative slumber of the ignorant Force; "stars" does not<\/p>\n

create the same impression and brings in a different tone in<\/p>\n

the rhythm and the sense. This line and that which follows it<\/p>\n

bring in a general subordinate idea stressing the paradoxical<\/p>\n

nature of the creation and the contrasts which it contains, the<\/p>\n

drowsed somnambulist as the mother of the light of the suns and<\/p>\n

the activities of life. It is not intended as a present feature in the<\/p>\n

darkness of the Night. <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

(<\/font>1946)<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n**<\/font><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

As if a childlike finger laid on a cheek<\/p>\n

<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Reminding of the endless need in things<\/p>\n

<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

The heedless Mother of the universe,<\/p>\n

<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

An infant longing clutched the sombre
\nVast.<\/font>2<\/font><\/sup><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Your objection to the "finger" and the
\n"clutch" moves me only to change " reminding" to "reminded" in the second line.
\nIt is not intended . that the two images "finger laid" and "clutch" should
\ncorrespond exactly to each other; for the "void"<\/font>3<\/font><\/sup>
\nand the "Mother of the universe" are not the same thing.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

1 P. 3 <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

2 P. 4<\/font>  <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

3 Sri Aurobindo has somehow come to use "void" instead of the<\/p>\n

"Vast" that is actually there in the line. It may be mentioned that<\/p>\n

in the passage where this line and the other three occur, the Vast<\/p>\n

is also called the void.<\/font> <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 847<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

The "void" is only a mask covering the Mother’s cheek or face.<\/p>\n

What the "void" feels as a clutch is felt by the Mother only as a<\/p>\n

reminding finger laid on her cheek. It is one advantage of the<\/p>\n

expression "as if" that it leaves the field open for such variation.<\/p>\n

It is intended to suggest without saying it that behind the sombre<\/p>\n

void is the face of a mother. The two other "as if" ‘s<\/font>1<\/sup><\/font> have<\/p>\n

the same motive and I do not find them jarring upon me.<\/p>\n

The second is at a sufficient distance from the first and it is not<\/p>\n

obtrusive enough to prejudice the third which more nearly follows.<\/p>\n

…Your suggestion "as though" for the third does not appeal to<\/p>\n

me: it almost makes a suggestion of falsity and in any case it<\/p>\n

makes no real difference as the two expressions are too much<\/p>\n

kin to each other to repel the charge of reiteration. <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

(<\/font>1946)<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n**<\/font><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

As if solicited in an alien world<\/p>\n

<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

With timid and hazardous instinctive grace,<\/p>\n

<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Orphaned and driven out to seek a home,<\/p>\n

<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

An errant marvel with no place to live,<\/p>\n

<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Into a far-off nook of heaven there came <\/font>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

A slow miraculous gesture’s dim appeal.<\/font>2<\/sup><\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

You have made what seems to me a strange confusion as<\/p>\n

regards the passage about the "errant marvel" owing to the<\/p>\n

mistake in the punctuation which is now corrected. You<\/p>\n

took the word "solicited" as a past participle passive and this<\/p>\n

error seems to have remained fixed in your mind so as to distort<\/p>\n

the whole building and sense of the passage. The word "solicited"<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

1 As if a soul<\/i> long dead were moved to live…<\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

As if solicited in an alien world…<\/font>  <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

2 P. 5<\/font> <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 848<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

is the past tense and the subject of this verb is "an errant marvel"<\/p>\n

delayed to the fourth line by the parenthesis "Orphaned etc."<\/p>\n

This kind of inversion, though longer than usual, is common<\/p>\n

enough in poetical style and the object is to throw a strong emphasis and prominence upon the line, "An errant marvel with<\/p>\n

no place to live." That being explained, the rest about the gesture<\/p>\n

should be clear enough.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

I see no sufficient reason to alter the passage; certainly, I could<\/p>\n

not alter the line beginning "Orphaned…", it is indispensable to<\/p>\n

the total idea and its omission would leave an unfilled gap. If I<\/p>\n

may not expect a complete alertness from the reader,\u2014but how<\/p>\n

without it can he grasp the subtleties of a mystical and symbolic<\/p>\n

poem?\u2014he surely ought to be alert enough when he reads the<\/p>\n

second line to see that it is somebody who is soliciting with a timid<\/p>\n

grace and it can’t be somebody who is being gracefully solicited;<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font>also the line "Orphaned etc" ought to suggest to him at once that<\/p>\n

it is some orphan who is soliciting and not the other way round:<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font>the delusion of the past participle passive ought to be dissipated<\/p>\n

long before he reaches the subject of the verb in the fourth line.<\/p>\n

The obscurity throughout, if there is any, is in the mind of the<\/p>\n

hasty reader and not in the grammatical construction of the<\/p>\n

passage.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

(1946)<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n**<\/font><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

A slow miraculous gesture dimly came.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Man alive, your proposed emendations<\/font>1<\/font><\/sup>
\nare an admirable exposition of the art of bringing a line down the steps<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

1 The emendations suggested of the original line which belonged<\/p>\n

to the 1936 version but apropos which the comments by Sri Aurobindo are very pertinent in general to his art were:<\/font>  <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n\n\n
\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Miraculous and dim <\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Miraculously dim <\/font><\/p>\n

  <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Dimly miraculous  <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Miraculous and slow <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

(<\/span><\/p>\n

)<\/span><\/p>\n

(<\/span><\/p>\n

)<\/span><\/p>\n

(<\/span><\/td>\n

\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\ta gesture came<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

The emendations were not suggested as improvements in any way<\/p>\n

on the line which was splendid though Sri Aurobindo himself subsequently altered it to<\/font>  <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

A slow miraculous gesture’s dim appeal<\/font>  <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

because of a new interrelation in the final expanded recast of his<\/p>\n

poem. They were only a hypothetical desperate resort in the<\/p>\n

interests of a point which is made clear in the footnote at the end of<\/p>\n

the next item. The object was to see if a certain change in the<\/p>\n

manner of adjective-use was possible so that a technical variety might<\/p>\n

be introduced in the passage of which the line in question was a part,<\/p>\n

The emendations unfortunately involved, among other things, the omission of one or another of the descriptive terms used by Sri Aurobindo.<\/p>\n

But variants not involving this were also offered for discussion, as the<\/p>\n

footnote already referred to will show.<\/font> <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 849<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

till my poor "slow miraculous" above-mind line meant<\/p>\n

to give or begin the concrete portrayal of an act of some hidden<\/p>\n

Godhead finally becomes a mere metaphor thrown out from its<\/p>\n

more facile mint by a brilliantly imaginative poetic intelligence.<\/p>\n

First of all, you shift my "dimly" out of the way and transfer it to<\/p>\n

something to which it does not inwardly belong, make it an epithet<\/p>\n

of the gesture or an adverb qualifying its epithet instead of something that qualifies the atmosphere in which the act of the Godhead takes place. That is a preliminary havoc which destroys<\/p>\n

what is very important to the action, its atmosphere. I never<\/p>\n

intended the gesture to be dim, it is a luminous gesture, but<\/p>\n

forcing its way through the black quietude it comes dimly. Then<\/p>\n

again the bald phrase "a gesture came" without anything to<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 850<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

psychicise it becomes simply something that "happened", "came"<\/p>\n

being a poetic equivalent for "happened", instead of the expression of the slow coming of the gesture. The words "slow" and<\/p>\n

"dimly" assure this sense of motion and this concreteness to the<\/p>\n

word’s sense here. Remove one or both whether entirely or<\/p>\n

elsewhere and you ruin the vision and change altogether its<\/p>\n

character. That is at least what happens wholly in your penultimate version and as for the last its "came" gets another<\/p>\n

meaning and one feels that somebody very slowly decided to let<\/p>\n

out the gesture from himself and it was quite a miracle that it<\/p>\n

came out at all! "Dimly miraculous" means what precisely or<\/p>\n

what "miraculously dim"\u2014it was miraculous that it managed<\/p>\n

to be so dim or there was something vaguely miraculous about<\/p>\n

it after all? No doubt they try to mean something else\u2014but these<\/p>\n

interpretations come in their way and trip them over. The only<\/p>\n

thing that can stand is the first version which is no doubt fine<\/p>\n

poetry, but the trouble is that it does not give the effect I<\/p>\n

wanted to give, the effect which is necessary for the dawn’s<\/p>\n

inner significance. Moreover, what becomes of the slow<\/p>\n

lingering rhythm of my line which is absolutely indispensable?<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

(1936)<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n**<\/font><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Then a faint hesitating glimmer broke.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

A slow miraculous gesture dimly came,<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

The persistent thrill of a transfiguring touch<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Persuaded the inert black quietude<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

And beauty and wonder disturbed the fields of God.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

A wandering hand of pale enchanted light<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

That glowed along a fading moment’s brink<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Fixed with gold panel and opalescent hinge<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

A gate of dreams ajar on mystery’s verge.<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 851<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Can’t see the validity of any prohibition of double<\/p>\n

adjectives in abundance. If a slow wealth-burdened movement<\/p>\n

is the right thing, as it certainly is here<\/font>1<\/font><\/sup> in my judgment, the<\/p>\n

necessary means have to be used to bring it about\u2014and<\/p>\n

the double adjective is admirably suited for the purpose….<\/p>\n

Do not forget that Savitri<\/i> is an experiment in mystic poetry,<\/p>\n

spiritual poetry cast into a symbolic figure. Done on this<\/p>\n

rule, it is really a new attempt and cannot be hampered by<\/p>\n

old ideas of technique except when they are assimilable. Least<\/p>\n

of all by a standard proper to a mere intellectual and abstract<\/p>\n

poetry which makes "reason and taste" the supreme arbiters,<\/p>\n

aims at a harmonised poetic intellectual balanced expression of<\/p>\n

the sense, elegance in language, a sober and subtle use of imaginative decoration, a restrained emotive element etc. The attempt at<\/p>\n

mystic spiritual poetry of the kind I am at demands above all a<\/p>\n

spiritual objectivity, an intense psychophysical concreteness. I<\/p>\n

do not know what you mean exactly here by "obvious" and<\/p>\n

"subtle". According to certain canons, epithets should be used<\/p>\n

sparingly, free use of them is rhetorical, an "obvious" device, a<\/p>\n

crowding of images is bad taste, there should be subtlety of art<\/p>\n

not displayed but severely concealed\u2014Summa ars est celare artem.<\/p>\n

<\/i>Very good for a certain standard of poetry, not so good or not<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

1 The first two lines here are different from those that in the present<\/p>\n

version precede the rest of the passage  p. 5. The version on which<\/p>\n

Sri Aurobindo commented is that of 1936. But the comment which is<\/p>\n

concerned with the use of double adjectives does not lose its essential<\/p>\n

force when the place in which the passage now stands demands that it<\/p>\n

should begin:<\/font>  <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Into a, far-off nook of heaven there came<\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

A slow miraculous gesture’s dim appeal.<\/font>  <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Only one pair of adjectives out of four closely occurring "doubles"<\/p>\n

drops out.<\/font> <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 852<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

good at all for others. Shakespeare kicks over these traces at every<\/p>\n

step, Aeschylus freely and frequently, Milton whenever he<\/p>\n

chooses. Such lines as<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

With hideous ruin and combustion, down<\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

To bottomless perdition, there to dwell<\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

In adamantine chains and penal fire<\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

or<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Wilt thou upon the high and giddy mast<\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Seal up the shipboy’s eyes and rock his brains<\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

In cradle of the rude imperious surge<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

(<\/font>note two double adjectives in three lines in the last\u2014are not<\/p>\n

subtle or restrained, or careful to conceal their elements of powerful technique, they show rather a vivid richness or vehemence,<\/p>\n

forcing language to its utmost power of expression. That has to<\/p>\n

be done still more in this kind of mystic poetry. I cannot bring<\/p>\n

out the spiritual objectivity if I have to be miserly about epithets,<\/p>\n

images, or deny myself the use of all available resources of sound-significance. The double epithets are indispensable here and in<\/p>\n

the exact order in which they are arranged by me. You say the<\/p>\n

rich burdened movement can be secured by other means, but a<\/p>\n

rich burdened movement of any kind is not my primary object,<\/p>\n

it is desirable only because it is needed to express the spirit of<\/p>\n

the action here, and the double epithets are wanted because they<\/p>\n

are the best, not only one way of securing it. The "gesture" must<\/p>\n

be "slow miraculous"\u2014if it is merely miraculous or merely slow,<\/p>\n

that does not create a picture of the thing as it is, but of something quite abstract and ordinary or concrete but ordinary\u2014it is<\/p>\n

the combination that renders the exact nature of the mystic<\/p>\n

movement, with the "dimly came" supporting it, so that "gesture"<\/p>\n

is not here a metaphor, but a thing actually done. Equally a<\/p>\n

pale light or an enchanted light may be very pretty, but it<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 853<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

is only the combination that renders the luminosity which is<\/p>\n

that of the hand acting tentatively in the darkness. That darkness<\/p>\n

itself is described as a quietude, which gives it a subjective spiritual character and brings out the thing symbolised, but the double<\/p>\n

epithet "inert black" gives it the needed concreteness so that the<\/p>\n

quietude ceases to be something abstract and becomes something<\/p>\n

concrete, objective, but still spiritually subjective….Every word<\/p>\n

must be the right word, with the right atmosphere, the right<\/p>\n

relation to all the other words, just as every sound in its place<\/p>\n

and the whole sound together must bring out the imponderable<\/p>\n

significance which is beyond verbal expression. One can’t chop<\/p>\n

and change about on the principle that it is sufficient if the same<\/p>\n

mental sense or part of it is given with some poetical beauty or<\/p>\n

power. One can only change if the change brings out more perfectly the thing behind that is seeking for expression\u2014brings out<\/p>\n

in full objectivity and also in the full mystic sense. If I can do<\/p>\n

that, well, other considerations have to take a backseat or seek<\/p>\n

their satisfaction elsewhere.<\/font>1<\/sup><\/font> <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

(<\/font>1936)<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n**<\/font><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

1 The point discussed by Sri Aurobindo is a genuine and important one<\/p>\n

but it may be mentioned that the question which elicited the discussion<\/p>\n

gave rise to this precise point by some carelessness of phrasing. As Sri
\nAurobindo himself was informed later, the slight suspicion of "obviousness<\/p>\n

Of method" referred not to the closely repeated use of double adjectives but to the manner in which two epithets had been thus used\u2014that<\/p>\n

is, without any separation of one from the other and immediately before<\/p>\n

a noun. An alternative\u2014"A gesture slow, miraculous, dimly came"\u2014<\/p>\n

Was suggested, but admittedly the revelatory suspense in Sri Aurobindo’s<\/p>\n

fine was spoiled by the "gesture" being mentioned too soon. Also, "Miraculous, slow, a gesture dimly came" would blurt out things in its own way.<\/p>\n

"Yes, that is it," wrote Sri Aurobindo. And his general remark was:<\/font>  <\/font>"The epithets are inseparable from the noun, they give a single impression<\/p>\n

Which must not be broken up by giving a separate prominence to either<\/p>\n

noun or epithets."<\/font> <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 854<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

In the passage about Dawn your two suggestions I find unsatisfying. "Windowing hidden things"<\/font>1<\/sup><\/font> presents a vivid image and<\/p>\n

suggests what I want to suggest and I must refuse to alter it;<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font>"vistaing" brings in a very common image and does not suggest<\/p>\n

anything except perhaps that there is a long line or wide range of<\/p>\n

hidden things. But that is quite unwanted and not a part of the<\/p>\n

thing seen. "Shroud" sounds to me too literary and artificial<\/p>\n

and besides it almost suggests that what it covers is a corpse which<\/p>\n

would not do at all; a slipping shroud sounds inapt while "slipped<\/p>\n

like a falling cloak"<\/font>2<\/sup><\/font> gives a natural and true image. In any case,<\/p>\n

"shroud" would not be more naturally continuous in the succession of images than "cloak". <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

(<\/font>1946)<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n**<\/font><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

I am afraid I shall not be able to satisfy your demand for<\/p>\n

rejection and alteration of the lines about the Inconscient<\/font>3<\/sup><\/font> and<\/p>\n

the cloak any more than I could do it with regard to the line<\/p>\n

about the silence and strength of the gods.<\/font>4<\/sup><\/font> I looked at your<\/p>\n

suggestion about adding a line or two in the first case, but<\/p>\n

could get nothing that would either improve the passage or<\/p>\n

set your objection at rest. I am quite unable to agree that<\/p>\n

there is anything jargonish about the line any more than<\/p>\n

there is in the lines of Keats,<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty\u2014that is all<\/p>\n

<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Ye know on earth and all ye need to know.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

That amounts to a generalised philosophical statement or enunciation and the words "beauty" and "truth" are abstract metaphysical <\/font>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

1 P. 6   2. ibid  <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

3 P. 4   4. P. 19<\/font>
\n<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 855<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

terms to which we give a concrete and emotional value<\/p>\n

because they are connected in our associations with true and<\/p>\n

beautiful things of which our senses or our minds are vividly<\/p>\n

aware. Men have not learnt yet to recognise the Inconscient<\/p>\n

on which the whole material world they see is built, or the Ignorance of which their whole nature including their knowledge<\/p>\n

is built; they think that these words are only abstract metaphysical jargon flung about by the philosophers in their clouds or<\/p>\n

laboured out in long and wearisome books like The Life Divine.<\/p>\n

<\/i>But it is not so with me and I take my stand on my own feeling<\/p>\n

and experience about them as Keats did on his about truth<\/p>\n

and beauty. My readers will have to do the same if they want<\/p>\n

to appreciate my poetry, which of course they are not bound<\/p>\n

to do.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Is it really a fact that even the ordinary reader would not be<\/p>\n

able to see any difference between the Inconscient and Ignorance<\/p>\n

unless the difference is expressly explained to him? This is not<\/p>\n

a matter of philosophical terminology but of common sense<\/p>\n

and the understood meaning of English words. One would say<\/p>\n

"even the inconscient stone" but one would not say, as one<\/p>\n

might of a child, "the ignorant stone". One must first be conscious before one can be ignorant. What is true is that the<\/p>\n

ordinary reader might not be familiar with the philosophical<\/p>\n

content of the word Inconscient and might not be familiar with<\/p>\n

the Vedantic idea of the Ignorance as the power behind the<\/p>\n

manifested world. But I don’t see how I can acquaint him with<\/p>\n

these things in a single line, even with the most illuminating<\/p>\n

image or symbol. He might wonder, if he were Johnsonianly<\/p>\n

minded, how an Inconscient could be teased or how it could<\/p>\n

wake Ignorance. I am afraid, in the absence of a miracle of<\/p>\n

inspired poetical exegesis flashing through my mind, he will<\/p>\n

have to be left wondering. I am not set against adding a line if the<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 856<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

miracle comes or if some vivid symbol
\noccurs to me, but as yet none such is making its appearance.<\/font>1<\/font><\/sup><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

In the other case also, about the cloak, I maintain my position. Here, however, while I was looking at the passage an<\/p>\n

additional line occurred to me and I may keep it:<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

The darkness failed and slipped like a falling cloak<\/p>\n

<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

From the reclining body of a god.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

But this additional line does not obviate your objection and it<\/p>\n

was not put in with that object. You have, by the way, made a<\/p>\n

curious misapplication of my image of the careful housewife;<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font>you attribute this line to her inspiration.<\/font>2<\/sup><\/font> A careful housewife<\/p>\n

is meticulously and methodically careful to arrange everything<\/p>\n

in a perfect order, to put every object in its place and see that<\/p>\n

there is no disharmony anywhere; but according to you she<\/p>\n

has thrust a wrong object into a wrong place, something discordant with the surroundings and inferior in beauty to all<\/p>\n

that is near it; if so, she is not a careful housewife but a slattern.<\/p>\n

The Muse has a careful housewife,\u2014there is Pope’s, perfect<\/p>\n

in the classical or pseudo-classical style or Tennyson’s, in the<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

1 What the commentator wished for was some symbolic suggestion as<\/p>\n

in other phrases of Sri Aurobindo’s that made the Inconscient a black<\/p>\n

dragon or a black rock. As an alternative he desired a further touch of<\/p>\n

vividness to drive home the distinction between the Inconscient and Ignorance, as in another line in Savitri:<\/i> "And the blind Void struggles to<\/p>\n

live and see."<\/font>  <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

2 The line meant is not the additional but the original single one,<\/p>\n

.and the image Sri Aurobindo refers to is in his statement: "The mystic<\/p>\n

Muse is more of an inspired Bacchante of the Dionysian wine than<\/p>\n

-an orderly housewife".<\/font> <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 857<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

romantic or semi-romantic manner, while as a contrast there<\/p>\n

is Browning’s with her energetic and rough-and-tumble dash<\/p>\n

and clatter.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

You ask why in these and similar cases I could not convince<\/p>\n

you while I did in others. Well, there are several possible explanations. It may be that your first reaction to these lines was<\/p>\n

very vivid and left the mark of a samskar<\/i> which could not be<\/p>\n

obliterated. Or perhaps I was right in the other matters while<\/p>\n

your criticism may have been right in these,\u2014my partiality<\/p>\n

for these lines may be due to an unjustified personal attachment:<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font>founded on the vision which they gave me when I wrote them.<\/p>\n

Again, there are always differences of poetical appreciation due<\/p>\n

either to preconceived notions or to different temperamental<\/p>\n

reactions. Finally, it may be that my vision was true but<\/p>\n

for some reason you are not able to share it. For instance, you<\/p>\n

may have seen in the line about the cloak only the objective image<\/p>\n

in a detailed picture of the dawn where I felt a subjective suggestion in the failure of the darkness and the slipping of the<\/p>\n

cloak, not an image but an experience. It must be the same with<\/p>\n

the line,<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

The strength, the silence of the gods were hers.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

You perhaps felt it to be an ordinary line with a superficial<\/p>\n

significance; perhaps it conveyed to you not much more than<\/p>\n

the stock phrase about the "strong silent man" admired by<\/p>\n

biographers, while to me it meant very much and expressed with<\/p>\n

a bare but sufficient power what I always regarded as a great<\/p>\n

reality and a great experience. <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

(<\/font>1946<\/font>)<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n**<\/font><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 858<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Then through the pallid rift that seemed
\nat first <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Hardly enough for a trickle from the suns <\/font>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Outpoured the revelation and
\nthe flame.<\/font>1<\/font><\/sup><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Your "barely enough", instead of the finer and more suggestive "hardly," falls flat upon my ear; one cannot substitute one<\/p>\n

word for another in this kind of poetry merely because it means<\/p>\n

intellectually the same thing, "hardly" is the mot juste<\/i> in this<\/p>\n

context and, repetition or not, it must remain unless a word not<\/p>\n

only juste<\/i> but inevitable comes to replace it…. On this point I<\/p>\n

may add that in certain contexts "barely" would be the right<\/p>\n

word, as for instance, "There is barely enough food left for two<\/p>\n

or three meals", where "hardly" would be adequate but much<\/p>\n

less forceful. It is the other way about in this line. <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

(<\/font>1946)<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n**<\/font><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

A lonely splendour from the invisible goal<\/p>\n

<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Almost was flung on the opaque Inane.<\/font>2<\/font><\/sup><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

No word will do except "invisible". I don’t think there are too<\/p>\n

many "I’s"\u2014in fact such multiplications of a vowel or consonant<\/p>\n

assonance or several together as well as syllabic assonances in a<\/p>\n

single line or occasionally between line-endings e.g. face-fate<\/p>\n

are an accepted feature of the technique in Savitri.<\/i> Purposeful<\/p>\n

repetitions also, or those which serve as echoes or key notes in<\/p>\n

the theme. <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

(1936)<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n**<\/font><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

1 P. 6<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

2 ibid<\/font> <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 859<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Air was a vibrant link between earth and heaven.<\/font>1<\/sup><\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

No, it is because "link twixt", two heavy syllables heavy because ending with two consonants with the same vowel, makes an<\/p>\n

awkward combination which can only be saved by good management of the whole line\u2014but here the line was not written to suit<\/p>\n

such a combination, so it won’t do.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

(1936)<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n**<\/font><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

I think you said in a letter that in the line<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Our prostrate soil bore the awakening ray<\/font>2<\/sup><\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

"soil" was an error for "soul". But "soil" is correct; for I am<\/p>\n

describing the revealing light falling upon the lower levels of the<\/p>\n

earth, not on the soul. No doubt, the whole thing is symbolic,<\/p>\n

but the symbol has to be kept in the front and the thing symbolised<\/p>\n

has to be concealed or only peep out from behind, it cannot come<\/p>\n

openly into the front and push aside the symbol. <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

(<\/font>1946)<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n**<\/font><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

The former pitch<\/font>3<\/font><\/sup>
\ncontinues, as far as I can see, up to Light, then it begins to come down to an
\nintuitivised Higher Mind in<\/font> <\/font> <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

1 P. 7. The question was: I notice that you have changed "f<\/p>\n

to "between" when substituting "link" for "step" in the line,<\/font>  <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Air was a vibrant step twixt earth and heaven.<\/p>\n

<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Is it merely because twelve lines earlier "twixt" has been used?<\/font>  <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

2 P.7<\/font>  <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

3 The question referred to the whole shorter and somewhat
\ndifferent<\/p>\n

1936 version of the opening of Savitri<\/i> and sought to compare<\/p>\n

the planes of two passages concerned solely with the Dawn, in the<\/font>
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

first of which a direct luminosity was discerned and in the second<\/p>\n

a shift to the Higher Mind. Sri Aurobindo’s answer is quoted because it<\/p>\n

seems applicable in general wherever in Savitri<\/i> the Higher Mind comes
\ninto play. <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 860<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

order to suit the change of the subject, but it is only occasionally<\/p>\n

that it is pure Higher Mind\u2014a mixture of the intuitive or illumined is usually there except when some truth has to be stated<\/p>\n

to the philosophic intelligence in as precise a manner as possible,<\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

(<\/font>1936)<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n**<\/font><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

[<\/font>"Its passive<\/i> flower of love and doom it gave".] Good Heavens
\n <\/i>how did Gandhi come in there? Passion-flower, sir\u2014passion,<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font>not<\/i>
\npassive.<\/font>1<\/font><\/sup> <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

(<\/font>1936)<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n**<\/font><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Draped in the leaves’ vivid emerald
\nmonotone.<\/font>2<\/font><\/sup><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Five feet, the first being taken as a dactyl. A little gambol like<\/p>\n

that must be occasionally allowed in an otherwise correct<\/p>\n

metrical performance <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

(<\/font>1936)<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n**<\/font><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Miltonism? Surely not. The Miltonic has a statelier more<\/p>\n

spreading rhythm and a less direct more loftily arranged language.<\/p>\n

Miltonically I should have written not<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

The gods above and Nature sole below<\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Were the spectators of that mighty strife<\/font>3<\/font><\/sup><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

but<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

1 P. 9.  2 P. 17  3 ibid.<\/font>
\n<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 861<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Only the Sons of Heaven and that executive She<\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Watched the arbitrament of the high dispute.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

(1936)<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n**<\/font><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Never a rarer
\ncreature bore his shaft.<\/font>1<\/font><\/sup><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Yes, like Shakespeare’s<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

…rock his brains<\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

In cradle of the rude imperious surge.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Mine has only three sonant r’s, the others being inaudible\u2014 Shakespeare pours himself 5 in a close space. <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

(<\/font>1936)<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font> <\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n**<\/font><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

All in her pointed to a nobler kind.<\/font>2<\/font><\/sup>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

It is a "connecting" line which prepares for what follows. It is<\/p>\n

sometimes good technique, as I think, to intersperse lines like<\/p>\n

that provided they do not fall below standard, so as to give<\/p>\n

the intellect the foothold of a clear unadorned statement of<\/p>\n

the gist of what is coming, before taking a higher flight. This<\/p>\n

is of course a technique for long poems and long descriptions,<\/p>\n

not for shorter things or lyrical writing.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

(1936)<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

I refuse entirely to admit that that is poor poetry. It is not only<\/p>\n

just the line that is needed to introduce what follows but it is<\/p>\n

very good poetry with the strength and pointed directness, not<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font> <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

1 P. 18. The question asked was: Is the r-effect deliberate?<\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

2 P. 18<\/font> <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 862<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

intellectualised like Pope’s, but intuitive, which we often find<\/p>\n

in the Elizabethans, for instance in Marlowe supporting adequately and often more than adequately his "mighty lines".<\/p>\n

But the image must be understood, as it was intended, in its<\/p>\n

concrete sense and not as a vague rhetorical phrase substituted<\/p>\n

for a plainer wording,\u2014it shows Savitri as the forerunner or<\/p>\n

first creator of a new race. All poets have lines which are bare<\/p>\n

and direct statements and meant to be that in order to carry their<\/p>\n

full force; but to what category their simplicity belongs or<\/p>\n

whether a line is only passable or more than that depends on<\/p>\n

various circumstances. Shakespeare’s<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

To be or not to be, that is the question<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

introduces powerfully one of the most famous of all soliloquies<\/p>\n

and it comes in with a great dramatic force, but in itself it is a<\/p>\n

bare statement and some might say that it would not be otherwise written in prose and is only saved by the metrical rhythm.<\/p>\n

The same might be said of the well-known passage in Keats<\/p>\n

which I have already quoted:<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty\u2014that is all<\/p>\n

<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Ye know on earth and all ye need to know.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

The same might be said of Milton’s famous line,<\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Fall’n Cherub! to be weak is miserable.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

But obviously in all these lines there is not only a concentrated<\/p>\n

force, power or greatness of the thought, but also a concentration of intense poetic feeling which makes any criticism impossible. Then take Milton’s lines,<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 863<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Were it not better done, as others use,<\/p>\n

<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

To sport with Amaryllis in the shade<\/p>\n

<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Or with the tangles of Neaera’s hair?<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

It might be said that the first line has nothing to distinguish it<\/p>\n

and is merely passable or only saved by the charm of what follows;<\/font><\/p>\n

but there is a beauty of rhythm and a bhava<\/i> or feeling brought<\/p>\n

in by the rhythm which makes the line beautiful in itself and<\/p>\n

not merely passable. If there is not some saving grace like<\/p>\n

that then the danger of laxity may become possible. I do not<\/p>\n

think there is much in Savitri<\/i> which is of that kind. But I can<\/p>\n

perfectly understand your anxiety that all should be lifted to<\/p>\n

or towards at least the minimum Overhead level or so near as<\/p>\n

to be touched by its influence or at the very least a good substitute for it. I do not know whether that is always possible in<\/p>\n

so long a poem as Savitri<\/i> dealing with so many various heights<\/p>\n

and degrees and so much varying substance of thought and<\/p>\n

feeling and descriptive matter and narrative. But that has been<\/p>\n

my general aim throughout and it is the reason why I have<\/p>\n

made so many successive drafts and continual alterations till<\/p>\n

I felt that I had got the thing intended by the higher inspiration<\/p>\n

in every line and passage. It is also why I keep myself open to<\/p>\n

every suggestion from a sympathetic and understanding quarter<\/p>\n

and weigh it well, rejecting only after due consideration and<\/p>\n

accepting when I see it to be well-founded. But for that the<\/p>\n

critic must be one who has seen and felt what is in the thing<\/p>\n

written, not like your friend who has not seen anything and.<\/p>\n

understood only the word surface and not even always that; he<\/p>\n

<\/i>must be open to this kind of poetry, able to see the spiritual<\/p>\n

vision it conveys, capable too of feeling the Overhead touch<\/p>\n

-when it comes,\u2014the fit reader. <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

(<\/font>1947)<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n**<\/font><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 864<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Near to earth’s wideness, intimate with heaven,<\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Exalted and swift her young large-visioned spirit<\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Voyaging through worlds of splendour and of calm<\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Overflew the ways of Thought to unborn things.<\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Ardent was her self-poised unstumbling will;<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Her mind, a sea of white sincerity,<\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Passionate in flow, had not one turbid wave.<\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

As in a mystic and dynamic dance<\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

A priestess of immaculate ecstasies<\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Inspired and ruled from Truth’s revealing vault<\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Moves in some prophet cavern of the gods,<\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

A heart of silence in the hands of joy<\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Inhabited with rich creative beats<\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

A body like a parable of dawn<\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

That seemed a niche for veiled divinity<\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Or golden temple door to things beyond.<\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Immortal rhythms swayed in her time-born steps;<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Her look, her smile awoke celestial sense<\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Even in earth-stuff and their intense delight<\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Poured a supernal beauty on men’s lives.<\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

The great unsatisfied godhead here could dwell:<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Vacant of the dwarf self’s imprisoned air<\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Her mood could harbour his sublimer breath<\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Spiritual that can make all things divine.<\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

For even her gulfs were secrecies of light.<\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

At once she was the stillness and the word,<\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

A continent of self-diffusing peace,<\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

An ocean of untrembling virgin fire.<\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

In her he met a vastness like his own,<\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

His high warm subtle ether he refound<\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

And moved in her as in his natural home.<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 865<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

This passage<\/font>1<\/font><\/sup> is, I believe, what I might call the Overmind<\/p>\n

Intuition at work expressing itself in something like its own<\/p>\n

rhythm and language. It is difficult to say about one’s own<\/p>\n

poetry, but I think I have succeeded here and in some pages,<\/p>\n

later on in catching that very difficult note; in separate lines or<\/p>\n

briefer passages (i.e. a few lines at a time) think it comes in not<\/p>\n

unoften.<\/font>2<\/sup><\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

(<\/font>1936)<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n**<\/font><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

I am unable to accept the alterations you
\nsuggest<\/font>3<\/font><\/sup>
\nbecause they<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

1 This description of Savitri in whom the God of Love found "his<\/p>\n

perfect shrine" was subsequently expanded from its original 31 lines<\/p>\n

of the 1936 version to 51 pp. 18-20.<\/font> <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

2 The statement was in reply to the question: "Are not these lines<\/p>\n

which I regard as the ne plus ultra<\/i> in world-poetry a snatch of the<\/p>\n

sheer Overmind?" Considering Sri Aurobindo’s remark in 1946 about<\/p>\n

his attitude ten years earlier\u2014"At that time I hesitated to assign anything like Overmind touch or inspiration to passages in
\nEnglish or other<\/p>\n

poetry and did not presume to claim any of my own writing as belonging<\/p>\n

to this order"\u2014and considering also that several lines of other poets<\/p>\n

which he had hesitated about were later adjudged by him to be from the<\/p>\n

Overmind, it seems certain that this passage which he had ascribed to<\/p>\n

the Overmind Intuition, a plane defined by him as not Overmind<\/p>\n

itself but an intermediate level, would have been traced by him to<\/p>\n

the supreme source if he had been privately asked about it again.<\/font>  <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

3 The alterations were suggested with reference to an additional<\/p>\n

passage between lines 20 and 21<\/i> in the description of Savitri as<\/p>\n

originally written in 1936. The passage was more or less the same as<\/p>\n

at present on p. 19, between lines 3 and 22 there, except that after<\/p>\n

line 9 and before line 16 stood the following:<\/font>  <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

As to a sheltering bosom a stricken bird<\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Escapes with tired wings from a world of storms,<\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

In a safe haven of splendid soft repose<\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

One could restore life’s wounded happiness,<\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Recover the lost habit of delight,…<\/font> <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 866<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

are romantically decorative and do not convey any impression of<\/p>\n

directness and reality which is necessary in this style of writing. A<\/p>\n

"sapphire sky" is too obvious and common and has no significance in connection with the word "magnanimity" or its idea and<\/p>\n

"boundless" is somewhat meaningless and inapt when applied<\/p>\n

to sky. The same objections apply to both "opulence" and "amplitude", but apart from that they have only a rhetorical value and<\/p>\n

are not the right word for what I want to say. Your "life’s<\/p>\n

wounded wings of dream" and "the wounded wings of life" have<\/p>\n

also a very pronounced note of romanticism and do not agree<\/p>\n

with the strong reality of things stressed everywhere in this<\/p>\n

passage. In the poem I dwell often upon the idea of life as a dream,<\/p>\n

but here it would bring in a false note. It does not seem to me that<\/p>\n

magnanimity and greatness are the same thing or that this can be,<\/p>\n

called a repetition. I myself see no objection to "heaven" and<\/p>\n

"haven"; it is not as if they were in successive lines; they are divided by two lines and it is surely an excessively meticulous ear<\/p>\n

that can take their similarity of sound at this distance as an offence.<\/p>\n

Most of your other objections hang upon your overscrupulous<\/p>\n

law against repetitions…! consider that this law has no value in<\/p>\n

the technique of a mystic poem of this kind and that repetition of<\/p>\n

a certain kind can be even part of the technique; for instance, I<\/p>\n

see no objection to "sea" being repeated in a different context in<\/p>\n

the same passage or to the image of the ocean being resorted to in<\/p>\n

a third connection. I cannot see that the power and force or inevitability of these lines is at all diminished in their own context<\/p>\n

by their relative proximity or that that proximity makes each<\/p>\n

less inevitable in its place.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Then about the image about the bird and the bosom I understand<\/p>\n

what you mean, but it rests upon the idea that the whole passage<\/p>\n

must be kept at the same transcendental level. It is true that all the<\/p>\n

rest gives the transcendental values in the composition of Savitri’s<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 867<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

being, while here there is a departure to show how this transcendental greatness contacts the psychic demand of human nature in its<\/p>\n

weakness and responds to it and acts upon it. That was the purpose of the new passage and it is difficult to accomplish it without<\/p>\n

bringing in a normal psychic instead of a transcendental tone.<\/p>\n

The image of the bird and the bosom is obviously not new and<\/p>\n

original, it images a common demand of the human heart and does<\/p>\n

it by employing a physical and emotional figure so as to give it a<\/p>\n

vivid directness in its own kind. This passage was introduced<\/p>\n

because it brought in something in Savitri’s relation with the<\/p>\n

human world which seemed to me a necessary part of a complete<\/p>\n

psychological description of her. If it had to be altered, \u2014which<\/p>\n

would be only if the descent to the psychic level really spoils the<\/p>\n

consistent integrality of the description and lowers the height<\/p>\n

of the poetry\u2014I would have to find something equal and better,<\/p>\n

and just now I do not find any such satisfying alteration.<\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

As for the line, about the strength and silence of the Gods,<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

The strength, the silence of the gods were
\nhers1<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

that has a similar motive of completeness. The line about the<\/p>\n

"stillness" and the "word"<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

[<\/font>At once she was the stillness and the
\nword,]<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

gives us the transcendental element in Savitri, for the Divine<\/p>\n

Savitri is the word that rises from the transcendental stillness;<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font>the next two
\nlines<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

[<\/font>A continent of self-diffusing peace,<\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

An ocean of untrembling virgin fire]<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

1 P. 19.<\/font> <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 868<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

render that element into the poise of the spiritual consciousness;<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font>this last line brings the same thing down to the outward character<\/p>\n

and temperament in life. A union of strength and silence is insisted upon in this poem as one of the most prominent characteristics of Savitri and I have dwelt on it elsewhere, but it had to be<\/p>\n

brought in here also if this description of her was to be complete. I do not find that this line lacks poetry or power; if I did,<\/p>\n

I would alter it. <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

(<\/font>1946)<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n**<\/font><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

I doubt whether I shall have the courage to throw out again<\/p>\n

the stricken and "too explicit" bird into the cold and storm<\/p>\n

outside; at most I might change that one line, the first, and<\/p>\n

make it stronger. I confess I fail to see what is so objectionable<\/p>\n

in its explicitness; usually, according to my idea, it is only things<\/p>\n

that are in themselves vague that have to be kept vague. There<\/p>\n

is plenty of room for the implicit and suggestive, but I do not<\/p>\n

see the necessity for that where one has to bring home a physical<\/font> <\/p>\n

image. <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

(<\/font>1946)<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n**<\/font><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

I have altered the bird passage and the repetition of "delight"1 at the end of a line; the new version runs\u2014<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

As might a soul fly like a hunted bird,<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Escaping with tired wings from a world of storms,<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

And a quiet reach like a remembered breast,<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

1 An earlier line, not far from the one ending with the
\nword "delight" in<\/p>\n

the fast version of the Bird passage, had been pointed out as ending with<\/p>\n

the same word\u2014<\/font> <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Even in earth-stuff, and their intense delight…<\/font>
\n<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 809<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

In a haven of safety and splendid soft repose<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

One could drink life back in streams of honey-fire,<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Recover the lost habit of happiness,<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Feel her bright nature’s glorious ambiance,<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

And preen joy in her warmth and colours
\nrule, <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

(<\/font>1946)<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n**<\/font><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

The suggestion you make about the "soul"
\nand the "bird" may have a slight justification, but I do not think it is fatal
\nto the passage.<\/font>1<\/font><\/sup>
\nOn the other hand there is a strong objection to the alteration you propose, it
\nis that the image of the soul escaping from a world of storms would be impaired
\nif it were only a physical bird that was escaping: a "world of storms" is too
\nbig an expression in relation to the smallness of the bird, it is only with the
\nsoul especially mentioned or else suggested and the "bird" subordinately there
\nas a comparison that it fits perfectly well and gets its full value.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

The word "one" which takes up the image of the "bird" has<\/p>\n

a more general application than the "soul" and is not quite<\/p>\n

identical with it; it means any one who has lost happiness and<\/p>\n

is in need of spiritual comfort and revival. It is as if one said: "as<\/p>\n

might a soul like a hunted bird take refuge from the world in<\/p>\n

the peace of the Infinite and feel that as its own remembered<\/p>\n

home, so could one take refuge in her as in a haven of safety<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

1 The suggestion was: "Although your new version carries a subtle<\/p>\n

multiform image more in tune, in my opinion, with the general vision of<\/p>\n

the rest of the description of Savitri, ‘one’ who is himself a soul is compared to ‘a soul’ acting like a bird taking shelter, as if to say: ‘A soul who is<\/p>\n

doing so-and so is like a soul doing something similar’\u2014a comparison<\/p>\n

which perhaps brings in some loss of surprise and revelation."<\/font>
\n<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 870<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

and like the tired bird reconstitute one’s strength so as to face<\/p>\n

the world once more." <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

(<\/font>1947)<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n**<\/font><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

My remarks about the Bird passage are written from the<\/p>\n

point of view of the change made and the new character and<\/p>\n

atmosphere it gives: I think the old passage was right enough<\/p>\n

in its own atmosphere, but not so good as what has replaced<\/p>\n

it: the alteration you suggest may be as good as that, but the<\/p>\n

objections to it are valid from the new viewpoint.<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

(1947)<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n**<\/font><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

As to the sixfold repetition of the indefinite article "a" in this<\/p>\n

passage, one should no doubt make it a general rule to avoid any<\/p>\n

such excessive repetition, but all rules have their exception and<\/p>\n

it might be phrased like this, "Except when some effect has to<\/p>\n

be produced which the repetition would serve or for which it<\/p>\n

is necessary." Here I feel that it does serve subtly such an<\/p>\n

effect; I have used the repetition of this "a" very frequently in<\/p>\n

the poem with a recurrence at the beginning of each successive<\/p>\n

line in order to produce an accumulative effect of multiple<\/p>\n

characteristics or a grouping of associated things or ideas or other<\/p>\n

similar massings. <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

(1947)<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n**<\/font><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Almost they saw who lived within her light<\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Her playmate in the sempiternal spheres<\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Descended from its unattainable realms<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

In her attracting advent’s luminous wake,<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 871<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

The white-fire dragon bird of endless bliss<\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Drifting with burning wings above her days.<\/font>1<\/sup><\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Yes; the purpose is to create a large luminous trailing<\/p>\n

repetitive movement like the flight of the Bird with its dragon<\/p>\n

tail of white fire. <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

(<\/font>1936)<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n**<\/font><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

All birds of that region are relatives.<\/font>2<\/font><\/sup> But this is the bird
\nof<\/p>\n

eternal Ananda, while the Hippogriff is the divinised Thought<\/p>\n

and the Bird of Fire is ‘the Agni-bird, psychic and tapas. All<\/p>\n

that however is to mentalise too much and mentalising always<\/p>\n

takes most of the life out of spiritual things. That is why I say<\/p>\n

it can be seen but nothing said about it. <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

(<\/font>1936)<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n**<\/font><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

One dealt with her who meets the burdened
\ngreat.<\/font>3<\/font><\/sup><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

1 P. 20. The question was: "Is an accumulating grandiose effect<\/p>\n

intended by the repetition of adjective-and-noun in four consecutive<\/p>\n

line-endings?"<\/font>  <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

2 The question was: "In the mystical region, is the dragon bird any<\/p>\n

relation of your Bird of Fire with ‘gold-white wings’ or your Hippogriff<\/p>\n

with ‘face lustred, pale-blue-lined’? And why do you write: What to<\/p>\n

say about him? One can only see’?"<\/font>  <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

3 The context of the line  p. 21 is:<\/font>  <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

One dealt with her who meets the burdened great.<\/font>  <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Assignor of the ordeal and the path<\/font> <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Who chooses in this holocaust of the soul<\/font>  <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Death, fall and sorrow as the spirit’s goads,<\/font>  <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

The dubious godhead with his torch of pain<\/font>  <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Lit up the chasm of the unfinished world<\/font>  <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

And called her to fill with her vast self the abyss…<\/font>
\n<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

The question was: "Who is ‘One’ here? Is it Love, the godhead mentioned<\/p>\n

before? If not, does this ‘dubious godhead with his torch of pain’ correspond to ‘the image white and high of godlike Pain’ spoken of a little earlier?<\/p>\n

Or is it Time whose ‘snare’ occurs in the last line of the preceding passage?"<\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 872<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Love? It is not Love who meets the burdened great arid<\/p>\n

governs the fates of men! Nor is it Pain. Time also does<\/p>\n

not do these things\u2014it only provides the field and movement of<\/p>\n

events. If I had wanted to give a name, I would have done it,<\/p>\n

but it has purposely to be left nameless because it is<\/p>\n

indefinable. He may use Love or Pain or Time or any of<\/p>\n

these powers but is not any of them. You can call him the<\/p>\n

Master of the Evolution, if you like. <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

(<\/font>1936<\/font>)<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n**<\/font><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

This truth broke in in a triumph of fire.<\/font>1<\/sup><\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

The line you object to on account of forced rhythm "in a<\/p>\n

triumph of fire" has not been so arranged through negligence.<\/p>\n

It was very deliberately done and deliberately maintained. If it<\/p>\n

were altered the whole effect of rhythmic meaning and suggestion<\/p>\n

which I intended would be lost and the alterations you suggest<\/p>\n

would make a good line perhaps but with an ordinary and inexpressive rhythm. Obviously this is not a "natural rhythm,"<\/p>\n

but there is no objection to its being forced when it is a forcible<\/p>\n

and violent action that has to be suggested. The rhythm cannot<\/p>\n

be called artificial, for that would mean something not true and<\/p>\n

genuine or significant but only patched up and insincere: the<\/p>\n

rhythm here is a turn of art and not a manufacture. The scansion<\/p>\n

is iamb, reversed spondee, pyrrhic, trochee, iamb. By reversed<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

1 P. 25.<\/font> <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 873<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

spondee I mean a foot with the first syllable long and highly stressed and the second stressed but short or with a less heavy ictus,<\/p>\n

In the ordinary spondee the greater ictus is on the second syllable<\/p>\n

while there are equal spondees with two heavy stresses, e.g.<\/p>\n

"vast space" or in such a line as<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

He has seized life in his resistless hands.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

In the first part of the line the rhythm is appropriate to<\/p>\n

the violent breaking in of the truth while in the second<\/p>\n

half it expresses a high exultation and exaltation in the<\/p>\n

inrush. This is brought out by the two long and highly stressed<\/p>\n

vowels in the first syllable of "triumph" and in the word "fire"<\/p>\n

which in the elocution of the line have to be given their full<\/p>\n

force, coming after a pyrrhic with two short syllables between<\/p>\n

them. If one slurs over the slightly weighted short syllable in<\/p>\n

"triumph" where the concluding consonants exercise a certain<\/p>\n

check and delay in the voice, one could turn this half line into a<\/p>\n

very clumsy double anapaest, the first a glide and the second<\/p>\n

a stumble; this would be bad elocution and contrary to the natural<\/p>\n

movement of the words. <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

(1946)<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Certainly, Milton in the passages you quote<\/font>1<\/sup><\/font> had a<\/p>\n

rhythmical effect in mind; he was much too careful and<\/p>\n

conscientious a metrist and much too consummate a master of<\/p>\n

rhythm to do anything carelessly or without good reason. If he<\/p>\n

found his inspiration stumbling or becoming slipshod in its<\/p>\n

rhythmical effects, he would have corrected it. <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

(<\/font>1947)<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n**<\/font><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

1 And they bowed down to the Gods of their wives…<\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Burned after them to the bottomless pit…<\/font>
\n<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 874<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

In the two passages ending with the same word "alone"<\/font>1<\/sup><\/font> I<\/p>\n

think there is sufficient space between them and neither ear<\/p>\n

nor mind need be offended. The word "sole" would flatten<\/p>\n

the line<\/font>2<\/sup><\/font> too much and the word "aloof" would here have no<\/p>\n

atmosphere and it would not express the idea. It is not distance<\/p>\n

and aloofness that has to be stressed but uncompanioned<\/p>\n

solitude. <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Beyond life’s arc in spirit’s immensities.<\/font>3<\/font><\/sup><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

" ‘Spirit’ instead of ‘spirit’s’ " might mean something else, the<\/p>\n

word "spirit" as an epithet is ambiguous\u2014it might be spiritistic<\/p>\n

and not spiritual. <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

(<\/font>1936<\/font>)<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n**<\/font><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

1 P. 37:<\/font>  <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

There knowing herself by her own termless self,<\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Wisdom supernal, wordless, absolute<\/p>\n

Sat uncompanioned in the eternal Calm,<\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

All-seeing, motionless, sovereign and alone.<\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

With a gap of 61 lines occurs the passage p. 39:<\/font>  <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

The superconscient realms of motionless peace<\/p>\n

<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Where judgment ceases and the word is mute<\/p>\n

<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

And the Unconceived lies pathless and alone.<\/font>  <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

The point raised was that, though "alone" was very fine in both cases,<\/p>\n

the occurrence of both in the context of a particular single whole of spiritual experience might slightly blunt for the reader the revelatory edge in<\/p>\n

the second case.<\/font>  <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

2 All-seeing, motionless, sovereign and alone.<\/font>  <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

3 P. 51. It may be noted that Sri Aurobindo’s comment here is<\/p>\n

related only to a certain type of context, as is evident from the line<\/p>\n

apropos which the very next comment is made.<\/font> <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 875<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

The calm immensities of spirit Space.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

"Immensities" was the proper word because it helped to<\/p>\n

give the whole soul-scape of those worlds\u2014the immensities of<\/p>\n

space, the plateaus of fire, the oceans of bliss. "Infinities" could<\/p>\n

just replace it, but now something has to be sacrificed. The only<\/p>\n

thing I can think of now is<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

The calm immunity of spirit Space…<\/font>1<\/font><\/sup><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

"Immunities" in the plural is much feebler and philosophically<\/p>\n

abstract \u2014one begins to think of things like "quantities"\u2014 naturally it suggested itself to me as keeping up the plural sequence,<\/font>2<\/font><\/sup><\/p>\n

but it grated on the sense of spiritual objective reality and I had<\/p>\n

to reject it at once. The calm immunity was a thing I could at<\/p>\n

once feel. With immunities the mind has to ask: "Well, what<\/p>\n

are they?" <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

(1937<\/font>)<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n**<\/font><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

And of the Timeless the still brooding face,<\/p>\n

<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

And the creative eye of Eternity.<\/font>3<\/font><\/sup><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

1 Owing to the close occurrence of the
\nword "immensities" in another<\/p>\n

line, "immunity" was here used. At present the original word has been<\/p>\n

restored in a new context p. 54 and the line comes at the end instead<\/p>\n

of at the beginning of the sequence:<\/font>  <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Still regions of imperishable Light,<\/font>  <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

All-seeing eagle-peaks of silent Power<\/font>  <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

And moon-flame oceans of swift fathomless Bliss<\/font>  <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

And calm immensities of spirit Space.<\/font>  <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

2  The golden plateaus of immortal Fire,<\/p>\n

<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

The moon-flame oceans of unfallen Bliss.<\/font>  <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

3  P. 48.<\/font>
\n<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 876<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

As to the exact metrical identity in the first half of the two lines,<\/p>\n

it was certainly intentional, if by intention is meant not a manufacture by my personal mind but the spontaneous deliberateness<\/p>\n

of the inspiration which gave the lines to me and an acceptance<\/p>\n

in the receiving mind. The first halves of the two lines are metrically identical closely associating together the two things seen as<\/p>\n

of the same order, the still Timeless and the dynamic creative<\/p>\n

Eternity both of them together originating the manifest world:<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font>the latter halves of the lines diverge altogether, one into the slow<\/p>\n

massiveness of the "still brooding face", with its strong close,<\/p>\n

the other into the combination of two high and emphatic syllables<\/p>\n

with an indeterminate run of short syllables between and after,<\/p>\n

allowing the line to drop away into some unuttered endlessness<\/p>\n

rather than cease. In this rhythmical significance I can see no<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font>weakness. <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

(<\/font>1946)<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n**<\/font><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

As if the original Ukase still held back.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

I have accented on the first syllable as I
\nhave done often with words like "occult", "divine". It is a Russian word and
\nforeign words in English tend often to get their original accent shifted as far
\nbackward as possible. I have heard many do that with "ukase".<\/font>1<\/font><\/sup> <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

(<\/font>1937)<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n**<\/font><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Resiled from poor assent to Nature’s
\nterms.<\/font>2<\/font>
\n<\/font><\/sup><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

1 This note of Sri Aurobindo’s has been entered here for its intrinsic<\/p>\n

interest. The line in question runs at present p. 86:<\/font>  <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

He read the original ukase kept back.<\/font>  <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

P. 87. Sri Aurobindo’s note apropos this line was written when the<\/p>\n

line occurred in a context which contained no other phrase elaborating<\/p>\n

its sense. At present a further line follows:<\/font> <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 877<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

It ["resiled"] is a perfectly good English word, meaning originally<\/p>\n

to leap back, rebound like an elastic\u2014so to draw back from,<\/p>\n

recoil, retreat in military language it means to fall back from a<\/p>\n

position gained or to one’s original position; but it is specially<\/p>\n

used for withdrawing from a contract, agreement, previous<\/p>\n

statement. It is therefore quite the just word here. Human<\/p>\n

nature has assented to Nature’s terms and been kept by her to<\/p>\n

them, but now Aswapathy resiles from the contract and the assent<\/p>\n

to it made by humanity to which he belonged. Resiled, resilient,<\/p>\n

resilience are all good words and in use. <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

(<\/font>1937)<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n**<\/font><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

The incertitude of man’s proud confident
\nthought.<\/font>1<\/font><\/sup><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

"Uncertainty" would mean that the thought was confident<\/p>\n

"but uncertain of itself, which would be a contradiction.<\/p>\n

"Incertitude" means that its truth is uncertain in spite of its<\/p>\n

proud confidence in itself. <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

(1<\/font>936)<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n**<\/font><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Aware of his occult omnipotent source,<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Allured by the omniscient Ecstasy,<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

He felt the invasion and the nameless joy.<\/font>2<\/sup><\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

The harsh contract spurned and the diminished lease.<\/font>  <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

1 P. 89.<\/font>  <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

2 These lines, to a comment on which Sri Aurobindo has replied, are<\/p>\n

the 1937 version. At present p. 90 the third line joins up with a<\/p>\n

passage immediately preceding the other two, thus:<\/font>  <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

A force came down into his mortal limbs,<\/font>  <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

A current from eternal seas of Bliss,<\/font>  <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

He felt the invasion and the nameless joy.<\/font>
\n<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

And the other two begin a new passage which continues after them:<\/font>  <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

A living centre of the Illimitable<\/font>  <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Widened to equate with the world’s circumference,<\/font>  <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

He turned to his immense spiritual fate.<\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

But Sri Aurobindo’s remarks do not lose their essential pertinence<\/p>\n

and force or their larger general implications.<\/font> <\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 878<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

I certainly won’t have "attracted" in place of "allured"\u2014there<\/p>\n

is an enormous difference between the force of the two words and<\/p>\n

surely "attracted by the Ecstasy" would take away all my<\/p>\n

ecstasy in the line\u2014nothing so tepid can be admitted. Neither<\/p>\n

do I want "thrill" in place of "joy" which gives a false colour<\/p>\n

\u2014precisely it would mean that the ecstasy was already touching<\/p>\n

him with its intensity which is far from intention.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Your statement that "joy" is just another word for "ecstasy" is<\/p>\n

surprising. "Comfort", "pleasure", "joy", "bliss", "rapture",<\/p>\n

"ecstasy" would then be all equal and exactly synonymous terms<\/p>\n

and all distinction of shades and colours or words would disappear<\/p>\n

from literature. As well say that "flashlight" is just another word<\/p>\n

for "lightning"\u2014or that glow, gleam, glitter, sheen, blaze are<\/p>\n

all equivalents which can be employed indifferently in the<\/p>\n

same place. One can feel allured to the supreme omniscient<\/p>\n

Ecstasy and feel a nameless joy touching one without that joy<\/p>\n

becoming itself the supreme Ecstasy. I see no loss of expressiveness by the joy coming in as a vague nameless hint of the<\/p>\n

immeasurable superior Ecstasy. <\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

(<\/font>1937)<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

That ["to blend and blur shades owing to
\ntechnical exigencies"]<\/p>\n

might be all right for mental poetry\u2014it won’t do for what I am<\/p>\n

trying to create\u2014in that, one word won’t<\/i> do for the other. Even<\/p>\n

in mental poetry I consider it an inferior method. "Gleam"<\/p>\n

and "glow" are two quite different things and the poet who uses<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 879<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

them indifferently has constantly got his eye upon words rather<\/p>\n

than upon the object. <\/font>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

(1937<\/font>)<\/font> <\/p>\n

 <\/font>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n**<\/font><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

And driven by a pointing hand of light <\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Across his soul’s unmapped immensitudes.<\/font>1<\/font><\/sup><\/p>\n

 
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

I take upon myself the right to coin new
\nwords. "Immensitudes" is not any more fantastic than "infinitudes" to pair <\/p>\n

"infinity".<\/font>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

["Would you also use ‘eternitudes’?] <\/i>Not likely! I would think<\/font><\/p>\n

of the French \u00e9ternuer<\/i> and sneeze.<\/font>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

(1936)<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n**<\/font><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

The body and the life no more were all.<\/font>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

I still consider the line a very good one and it did perfectly <\/p>\n

express what I wanted to say. I don’t see how I could have said it <\/p>\n

otherwise without diminishing or exaggerating the significance. <\/p>\n

As for "baldness," an occasionally bare and straightforward line <\/p>\n

without any trailing of luminous robes is not an improper <\/p>\n

element. E.g.<\/font>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

This was the day when Satyavan must die,<\/font>2<\/sup><\/font>
\n<\/font><\/sup>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

which I would not remove from its position even if you were to <\/p>\n

give me the crown and income of the Kavi Samrat<\/i> for doing it. <\/p>\n

If I have changed here, it is because the alteration all round<\/font>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

1 P. 91. The word "immensitude" occurs also on pp. 268 and 595:<\/font>
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

A little gift conies from the Immensitudes… <\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

In their immensitude signing infinity…<\/font> <\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

2 P. 13.<\/font> <\/font>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 880<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

it made the line no longer in harmony with
\nits immediate environment.<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Not at all ["bareness for bareness’s sake"]. It was bareness for <\/p>\n

expression’s sake, which is a different matter….It was "juste"<\/i> for <\/p>\n

expressing what I had to say then in a certain context. The context <\/p>\n

being entirely changed in its sense, bearing and atmosphere, it was <\/p>\n

no longer juste<\/i> in that place. Its being an interloper in a new house <\/p>\n

does not show that it was an interloper in an old one. The colours <\/p>\n

and the spaces being heightened and widened this tint which was <\/p>\n

appropriate and needed in the old design could not remain in the <\/p>\n

new one. These things are a question of design, a line has to be <\/p>\n

seen not only in its own separate value but with a view to its <\/p>\n

just place in the whole.<\/font>1<\/sup><\/font> <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

(1937)<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n**<\/font><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

1 The passage originally stood:<\/font>
\n<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

A cosmic vision looked at things through light:<\/font>
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Atomic now the shapes that loomed so large. <\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Illusion lost her aggrandising lens:<\/font> <\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

The body and the life no more were all, <\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

The mind itself was only an outer court, <\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

His soul the tongue of an unmeasured fire.<\/font> <\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

The passage then became:<\/font>
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

A cosmic vision looked at things through light:<\/font>
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Illusion lost her aggrandising lens,<\/font>
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Atomic were her shapes that loomed so large<\/font>
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

And from her failing hand her measures fell:<\/font>
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

In the enormous spaces of the Self<\/font>
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

The living form seemed now a wandering shell,<\/font>
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Earth was one room in his million-mansioned house,<\/font>
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

The mind a many-frescoed outer court,<\/font>
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

His soul the tongue of an unmeasured fire.<\/font>
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

At present some of the lines have changed places in the poem and the <\/p>\n

passage as it stands on page 93 is not quite the same. <\/p>\n

56<\/i><\/font> <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 881<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

As to the title of the three cantos about the Yoga of the King,<\/font>1<\/font><\/sup> <\/p>\n

I intended the repetition of the word "Yoga" to bring out and <\/p>\n

emphasise the fact that this part of Aswapathy’s spiritual development consisted
\nof two Yogic movements, one a psycho spiritual transformation and the other a
\ngreater spiritual trans formation with an ascent to a supreme power. The
\nomission which you suggest would destroy this significance and leave only
\nsomething more abstract. In the second of these three cantos there is a pause
\nbetween the two movements and a description of the secret knowledge to which he is led and <\/p>\n

of which the results are described in the last canto, but there <\/p>\n

is no description of the Yoga itself or of the steps by which this <\/p>\n

knowledge came. That is only indicated, not narrated; so, to <\/p>\n

bring in "The Yoga of the King" as the title of this canto would <\/p>\n

not be very apposite. Aswapathy’s Yoga falls into three parts. <\/p>\n

First, he is achieving his own spiritual self-fulfilment as the <\/p>\n

individual and this is described as the Yoga of the King. Next, <\/p>\n

he makes the ascent as a typical representative of the race to <\/p>\n

win the possibility of discovery and possession of all the planes <\/p>\n

of consciousness and this is described in the Second Book:<\/font><\/p>\n

but this too is as yet only an individual victory. Finally, he aspires <\/p>\n

no longer for himself but for all, for a universal realisation and <\/p>\n

new creation. That is described in the Book of the Divine <\/p>\n

Mother. <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

(<\/font>1946)<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n**<\/font><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

1 Book I. Canto 3: The Yoga of the King: The Yoga of the Soul’s <\/p>\n

Release.<\/font> <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Canto 4: The Secret Knowledge.<\/font>
\n<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Canto 5: The Yoga of the King: The Yoga of the Spirit’s Freedom <\/p>\n

and Greatness.<\/font> <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 882<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Largior hie campos aether et lumine vestit <\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Purpureo, solemque suum, sua sidera norunt.<\/font>1<\/font><\/sup>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

I don’t know ["what plane is spoken of by Virgil"], but purple is <\/p>\n

a light of the Vital. It may have been one of the vital heavens <\/p>\n

he was thinking of. The ancients saw the vital heavens as the <\/p>\n

highest and most of the religions also have done the same. I <\/p>\n

have used the suggestion of Virgil to insert a needed line.<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

In griefless countries under purple suns.<\/font>2<\/sup><\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

(<\/font>1936)<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n**<\/font><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Here too the gracious mighty Angel poured <\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Her splendour and her swiftness and her thrill, <\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Hoping to fill this new fair world with her joy.<\/font>3<\/sup><\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

No, that ["pours" instead of "poured"] would take away all <\/p>\n

meaning from "new fair world"\u2014it is the attempted conquest <\/p>\n

of earth by life when earth had been created\u2014a past event though <\/p>\n

still continuing in its sequel and result. <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

(<\/font>1936)<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n**<\/font><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

The Mask is mentioned not twice but four times in this opening <\/p>\n

passage<\/font>4<\/sup><\/font> and it is purposely done to keep up the central connection <\/p>\n

of the idea running through the whole. The ambassadors wear <\/p>\n

this grey Mask, so your criticism cannot stand since there is no <\/p>\n

separate mask coming as part of a new idea but a very pointed <\/p>\n

return to the principal note indicating the identity of the influence<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

1 "Here an ampler ether spreads over the plains and clothes them <\/p>\n

in purple light, and they have a sun of their own and their own stars." <\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

2 P. 136.<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

3 Pp. 146-7.<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

4 Pp. 230-31.<\/font> <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 883<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

throughout. It is not a random recurrence but a purposeful touch <\/p>\n

carrying a psychological meaning. <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

(<\/font>1948)<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n**<\/font><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

And overcast with error, grief and pain <\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

The soul’s native will for truth and joy and light.<\/font>1<\/sup><\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

The two trios are not intended to be exactly correspondent;<\/font><\/p>\n

"joy" answers to both "grief" and "pain" while "light" is an <\/p>\n

addition in the second trio indicating the conditions for "truth" <\/p>\n

and "joy".<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

(1948)<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n**<\/font><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Here again the same word "face" occurs a second time at the <\/p>\n

end of a line2 but it belongs to a new section and a new turn of <\/p>\n

ideas. I am not attracted by your suggestion, the word "mien" <\/p>\n

here is an obvious literary substitution and not part of a straight <\/p>\n

and positive seeing: as such it sounds deplorably weak. The only <\/p>\n

thing would be to change the image, as for instance,<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

All evil creeps from that ambiguous source.<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

But this is comparatively weak. I prefer to keep the "face" and <\/p>\n

insert a line before it so as to increase a little the distance between <\/p>\n

the two faces:<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Its breath is a subtle poison in men's
\nhearts. <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

(<\/font>1948)<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n**<\/font><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

1 P. 230. <\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

2 P. 233. The first occurrence is on p. 232:<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

All beauty ended in an aging face.<\/font>
\n<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 884<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

As to the two lines with "no man’s land"1 there can be no capital <\/p>\n

in the first line because there it is a description while the capital is <\/p>\n

needed in the other line, because the phrase has acquired there <\/p>\n

the force of a name or appellation. I am not sure about the hyphen;<\/font><\/p>\n

it could be put but the no hyphen might be better as it suggests <\/p>\n

that no one in particular has as yet got possession. <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

(<\/font>1948)<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n**<\/font><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

The clich\u00e9 you object to…'he quoted
\nScripture and Law <\/p>\n

was put in there with fell purpose and was necessary for the <\/p>\n

effect I wanted to produce, the more direct its commonplace the <\/p>\n

better. However, I defer to your objection and have altered it to<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

He armed untruth with Scripture and the Law.<\/font>2<\/sup><\/font> <\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

I don’t remember seeing the sentence about <\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Agreeing on the right to disagree<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

anywhere in a newspaper or in any book either; colloquial it is and <\/p>\n

perhaps for that reason only out of harmony in this passage. So <\/p>\n

I substitute<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Only they agreed to differ in Evil's
\npaths.<\/font>3 <\/sup><\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

(<\/font>1946)<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n**<\/font><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Often a familiar visage studying…<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

His vision warned by the spirit’s inward eye<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Discovered suddenly Hell’s trademark there.<\/font>4<\/sup><\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

1 Pp. 234, 239.<\/font>
\n<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

2 P. 235.<\/font> <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

3 P. 236. <\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

4 P. 244.<\/font> <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 885<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

It is a reference to the beings met in the vital
\nworld, that seem like <\/p>\n

human beings but, if one looks closely, they are seen to be Hostiles; often assuming the appearance of a familiar face they try to <\/p>\n

tempt or attack by surprise, and betray the stamp of their origin <\/p>\n

there is also a hint that on earth too they take up human bodies <\/p>\n

or possess them for their own purpose. <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

(<\/font>1936)<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n**<\/font><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Bliss into black coma fallen, insensible.<\/font>1<\/sup><\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Neither of your scansions can stand. The best way will be <\/p>\n

to spell "fallen" "fall’n" as is occasionally done and treat "bliss <\/p>\n

into" as a dactyl. <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

(<\/font>1948)<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n**<\/font><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Bliss into black coma fallen, insensible, <\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Coiled back to itself and God’s eternal joy <\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Through a false poignant figure of grief and pain <\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Still dolorously nailed upon a cross <\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Fixed in the soil of a dumb insentient world <\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Where birth was a pang and death an agony, <\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Lest all too soon should change again to bliss.<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

This has nothing to do with Christianity or Christ but only with <\/p>\n

the symbol of the cross used here to represent a seemingly eternal <\/p>\n

world-pain which appears falsely to replace the eternal bliss. It <\/p>\n

is not Christ but the world-soul which hangs here. <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

(<\/font>1948)<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n**<\/font><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

1 P. 250.<\/font> <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 886<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Performs the ritual of her Mysteries.<\/font>1<\/sup><\/font>
\n<\/font><\/sup>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

It is "Mysteries" with capital M and means "mystic symbolic <\/p>\n

rites" as in the Orphic and Eleusinian "Mysteries". When written <\/p>\n

with capital M it does not mean secret mysterious things, but has <\/p>\n

this sense, e.g., a "Mystery play". <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

(<\/font>1936)<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n**<\/font><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

An evolution from the Inconscient2 need not be a painful one if <\/p>\n

there is no resistance; it can be a deliberately slow and beautiful <\/p>\n

efflorescence of the Divine. One ought to be able to see how <\/p>\n

beautiful outward Nature can be and usually is, although it is <\/p>\n

itself apparently "inconscient"\u2014why should the growth of consciousness in inward Nature be attended by so much ugliness and <\/p>\n

evil spoiling the beauty of the outward creation? Because of a <\/p>\n

perversity<\/i> born from the Ignorance, which came in with Life <\/p>\n

and increased in Mind\u2014that is the Falsehood, the Evil that was <\/p>\n

born because of the starkness of the Inconscient’s sleep separating <\/p>\n

its action from the secret luminous Conscience that is all the time<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

1 P. 251.<\/font> <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

2 The question was in reference to a passage in the 1936 version <\/p>\n

which in the present one is much enlarged and runs from "It was <\/p>\n

the gate of a false infinite" to "None can reach heaven who has not <\/p>\n

passed through hell" pp. 250-257: "The passage suggests that there was <\/p>\n

an harmonious original plan of the Overmind Gods for earth’s evolution, <\/p>\n

but that it was spoiled by the intrusion of the Rakshasic worlds. I should, <\/p>\n

however, have thought that an evolution, arising from the stark inconscient’s sleep and the mute void would hardly be an harmonious plan. The <\/p>\n

Rakshasas only shield themselves with the covering ignorance’, they <\/p>\n

don’t create it. Do you mean that, if they had not interfered, there <\/p>\n

wouldn’t have been resistance and conflict and suffering? How can they <\/p>\n

be called the artificers of Nature’s fall and pain?"<\/font>
\n<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 887<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

within it. But it need not have been so
\nexcept for the overriding Will of the Supreme which meant that the possibilities of Perversion by inconscience and ignorance should be manifested in order <\/p>\n

to be eliminated through being given their chance, since all possibility has to manifest somewhere: once it is eliminated the Divine <\/p>\n

Manifestation in Matter will be greater than it otherwise could be <\/p>\n

because it will combine all the possibilities involved in this <\/p>\n

difficult creation and not some of them as in an easier and less <\/p>\n

strenuous creation might naturally happen. <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

(<\/font>1937)<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

"From beauty to greater beauty, from joy to intenser joy, by a <\/p>\n

special adjustment of the senses"\u2014yes, that would be the normal <\/p>\n

course of a divine manifestation, however gradual, in Matter. <\/p>\n

"Discordant sound and offensive odour" are creations of a disharmony between consciousness and Nature and do not exist in <\/p>\n

themselves, they would not be present in a liberated and harmonised consciousness for they would be foreign to its being, nor <\/p>\n

would they afflict a rightly developing harmonised soul and <\/p>\n

Nature. Even the "belching volcano, crashing thunderstorm <\/p>\n

and whirling typhoon" are in themselves grandiose and beautiful <\/p>\n

things and only harmful or terrible to a consciousness unable to <\/p>\n

meet or deal with them or make a pact with the spirits of Wind <\/p>\n

and Fire. You are assuming that the manifestation from the <\/p>\n

Inconscient must be what it is now and here and that no other kind <\/p>\n

of world of Matter was possible, but the harmony of material <\/p>\n

Nature in itself shows that it need not necessarily be a discordant, <\/p>\n

evil, furiously perturbed and painful creation\u2014the psychic being <\/p>\n

if allowed to manifest from the first in Life and Mind and lead the <\/p>\n

evolution instead of being relegated behind the veil would have <\/p>\n

been the principle of a harmony outflowing; everyone who has <\/p>\n

felt the psychic at work within him, free from the vital intervention, can at once see that this would be its effect because of its<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 888<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

unerring ‘perception, true choice, harmonic action. If it has not <\/p>\n

teen so, it is because the dark Powers have made life a claimant <\/p>\n

instead of an instrument. The reality of the Hostiles and the <\/p>\n

nature of their role and trend of their endeavour cannot be doubted by any one who has had his inner vision unsealed and made <\/p>\n

their unpleasant acquaintance. <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

(1937)<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n**<\/font><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

And the articles of the bound soul’s contract<\/font>1<\/sup><\/font>.<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Liberty is very often taken with the last foot nowadays and <\/p>\n

usually it is just the liberty I have taken here. This liberty I took <\/p>\n

long ago in my earlier poetry. <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

(<\/font>1948)<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n**<\/font><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

They wouldn’t be heavens if they were not immune<\/font>2<\/font><\/sup>\u2014a
\nheaven with fear in it would be no heaven. The Life-Heavens <\/p>\n

have an influence on earth and so have the Life-Hells, but it does <\/p>\n

not follow that they influence each other in their own domain. <\/p>\n

Overmind can influence earth, so can the hostile Powers, but it <\/p>\n

does not follow that hostile Powers can penetrate the Overmind <\/p>\n

\u2014they can’t: they can only spoil what it sends to the earth. Each<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

1 P. 262.<\/font> <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

2 The question apropos the canto called "The Paradise of the <\/p>\n

Life-Gods", pp. 264-69, ran: " Is the plane of the Life-Heavens perfectly immune? Is there no attack at times from the Life-Hells, no <\/p>\n

visitor from them thrusting in? The Life-Heavens do have an influence <\/p>\n

on earth, don’t they? And as the Life-Hells too have, don’t they ever <\/p>\n

clash in the subtle worlds?…And what exactly is the basis of the vital <\/p>\n

harmony? On the overhead planes there is the consciousness of the <\/p>\n

One everywhere, but that can’t happen here."<\/font> <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 889<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

power of the Divine life like mind and matter is a power of the <\/p>\n

Divine has its own harmony inherent in the purity of its own <\/p>\n

principle\u2014it is only if it is disturbed or perverted that it produces disorder. That is another reason why the evolution could <\/p>\n

have been a progressing harmony, not a series of discords through <\/p>\n

which harmony of a precarious and wounded kind has to be <\/p>\n

struggled for at each step; for the Divine Principle is there within. <\/p>\n

Each plane therefore has its heavens; there are the subtle physical <\/p>\n

heavens, the vital heavens, the mental heavens. If Powers of disharmony got in, they would cease to be heavens. <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

(1937)<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n**<\/font><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

There Love fulfilled her gold and roseate dreams <\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

And Strength her crowned and mighty reveries.<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

"Gold and roseate dreams" cannot be changed. "Muse" would <\/p>\n

make it at once artificial. "Dreams" alone is the right word there. <\/p>\n

"Reveries" also cannot be changed, especially as it is not any particular "reverie" that is meant. Also, "dream" at the beginning of a later line<\/font>1<\/font><\/sup>
\ndeparts into another idea and is appropriate in its place; I see no objection to
\nthis purposeful repetition. Anyway the line cannot be altered. The only
\nconcession I can make to you is to alter the first.<\/font>2<\/font><\/sup> <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

(<\/font>1948)<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n**<\/font><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

   <\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

All reeled into a world of Kali’s dance.<\/font>3<\/font>
\n<\/font><\/sup>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

1 Dream walked along the highway of the stars.<\/font>
\n<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

2 Adoring blue heaven with their happy dreams. <\/p>\n

This line on the same page 266 ends now with the word "hymn".<\/font>
\n<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

3 P. 289.<\/font> <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 890<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

It is "world", not "whirl". It means "all reeling in a clash and <\/p>\n

confusion became a world of Kali's dance." <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

(<\/font>1948)<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n**<\/font><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Knowledge was rebuilt from cells of inference <\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Into a fixed body Basque and perishable.<\/font>1<\/sup><\/font>
\n<\/font><\/sup>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

"Flasque" is a French word meaning "slack," "loose", <\/p>\n

"flaccid", etc. I have more than once tried to thrust in a <\/p>\n

French word like this, for instance, "A harlot empress in a <\/p>\n

bouge"\u2014somewhat after the manner of Eliot and Ezra Pound.<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

(1946)<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n**<\/font><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

For Truth is wider, greater than her forms. <\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

A thousand icons they have made of her <\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

And find her in the idols they adore;<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

But she remains herself and infinite.<\/font>2<\/font>
\n<\/font><\/sup>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

"They" means nobody in particular but corresponds to the <\/p>\n

French "On dit" meaning vaguely "people in general". This is <\/p>\n

a use permissible in English, for instance, "They say you are not <\/p>\n

so scrupulous as you should be." <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

(<\/font>1948)<\/font> <\/p>\n

  <\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n**<\/font><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

"Depths" will not do,<\/font>3<\/font><\/sup>
\nsince the meaning is not that it took<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

1 P. 304.<\/font> <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

2 P. 313.<\/font> <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

3 P. 321.<\/font> <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

The reply is to: "Would it be an
\nimprovement if one of the two successive ‘it’s in<\/font> <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

In the world which sprang from it it took no part <\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

is avoided? Why not put something like ‘its depths’ for the first ‘it’?"<\/font>
\n<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 891<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

no part in .what came from the depths but did take part in what <\/p>\n

came from the shallows; the word would be merely a rhetorical <\/p>\n

flourish and take away the real sense. It would be easy in several <\/p>\n

ways to avoid the two "it"s coming together but the direct force <\/p>\n

would be lost. I think a comma at "it" and the slight pause it <\/p>\n

would bring in the reading would be sufficient. For instance, one <\/p>\n

could write "no part it took", instead of "it took no part", but <\/p>\n

the direct force I want would be lost. <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

(<\/font>1948)<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n**<\/font><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Travestied with a fortuitous sovereignty.<\/font>1<\/sup><\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

I am unable to follow your criticism. I find nothing <\/p>\n

pompous or bombastic in the line unless it is the resonance of <\/p>\n

the word "fortuitous" and the many closely packed "t"s that <\/p>\n

give you the impression. But "fortuitous" cannot be sacrificed <\/p>\n

as it exactly hits the meaning I want. Also I fail to see what <\/p>\n

is abstract and especially mental in it. Neither a travesty nor <\/p>\n

sovereignty are abstract things and the images here are all <\/p>\n

concrete, as they should be to express the inner vision’s <\/p>\n

sense of concreteness of subtle things. The whole passage <\/p>\n

is of course about mental movements and mental powers, <\/p>\n

therefore about what the intellect sees as abstractions, but the <\/p>\n

inner vision does not feel them as that. To it mind has a substance and its energies and actions are very real and substantial <\/p>\n

things. Naturally there is a certain sense of scorn in this passage, <\/p>\n

for what the Ignorance regards as its sovereignty and positive <\/p>\n

truth has been exposed by the "sceptic ray" as fortuitous and <\/p>\n

unreal. <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

(<\/font>1948)<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n**<\/font><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

1 P. 323.<\/font> <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 892<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

That clasped him in from day and night’s
\npursuit.<\/font>1<\/font>
\n<\/font><\/sup><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

I do not realise what you mean by "stickiness", since there <\/p>\n

are only two hard labials and some nasals; is it that combination <\/p>\n

which makes you feel sticky, or does the addition of some hard <\/p>\n

dentals also help? Anyhow, sticky or not, I am unwilling to <\/p>\n

change anything.<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

I do not want to put "day’s" and "night’s"; I find it heavy and <\/p>\n

unnecessary. It ought to be clear enough to the reader that <\/p>\n

"day and night" are here one double entity or two hounds in a <\/p>\n

leash pursuing a common prey. <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

(<\/font>1948)<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n**<\/font><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

"Lulling" will never do. It is too ornamental and romantic and <\/p>\n

tender. I have put "slumber" in its place.<\/font>2<\/sup><\/font><\/p>\n

  <\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n**<\/font><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

A Panergy that harmonised all life.<\/font>3<\/font>
\n<\/font><\/sup>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

1 P. 328.<\/font> <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

2 P. 333. The suggestion offered to Sri Aurobindo was; "Your line,<\/font>
\n<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

In a stillness of the voices of the world, <\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

is separated by twenty lines from<\/font>
\n<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

In the formless force and the still fixity. <\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

So there is no fault here in ‘stillness’, but an added poetic quality might <\/p>\n

come if ‘stillness’ were avoided and some such word as ‘lulling’ used, <\/p>\n

especially as the line before runs:<\/font> <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

And cradles of heavenly rapture and repose."<\/font>
\n<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

3 P. 340. The point raised was: "That ‘Panergy’ is a fine coinage, but, by <\/p>\n

following the word ‘energies’ in the third line before it, does it not become <\/p>\n

a little bit obvious, losing its mysterious suggestion?! dare say ‘energies’ <\/p>\n

helps to make it clear, but is it necessary to prepare it? Will not a better <\/p>\n

effect be produced by springing it suddenly upon the reader, preparing it <\/p>\n

only indirectly by using some synonym for ‘energies’ in the other line?"<\/font>
\n<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 893<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

I do not think the word "Panergy" depends for its meaning <\/p>\n

on the word "energies" in a previous line. The "Panergy" <\/p>\n

suggested is a self-existent total power which may carry the <\/p>\n

cosmic energies in it and is their cause but is not constituted<\/font><\/p>\n

by them. <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

(<\/font>1948)<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n**<\/font><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

I have wholly failed to feel the poetic flatness of which you <\/p>\n

accuse the line<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

All he had been and all that now he was.<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

No doubt, the diction is extremely simple, direct and unadorned <\/p>\n

but that can be said of numberless good lines in poetry and even <\/p>\n

of some great lines. If there is style, if there is a balanced rhythm <\/p>\n

rhyme is not necessary and a balanced language and significance <\/p>\n

for these two elements combined always create a good style, <\/p>\n

and if the line or the passage in which it occurs has some elevation <\/p>\n

or profundity or other poetic quality in the idea which it expresses, <\/p>\n

then there cannot be any flatness nor can any such line or passage <\/p>\n

be set aside as prosaic. <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

(1946)<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n**<\/font><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Your new objection to the line,<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

All he had been and all that now he was,<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

is somewhat self-contradictory. If a line
\nhas a rhythm and expressive turn which makes it poetic, then it must be good poetry;<\/font><\/p>\n

but I suppose what you mean is fine or elevated poetry. I would <\/p>\n

say that my line is good poetry and is further uplifted by rising <\/p>\n

towards its subsequent context which gives it its full poetic <\/p>\n

meaning and suggestion, the evolution of the inner being and the<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 894<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

abrupt end or failure of all that had been
\ndone unless it could suddenly transcend itself arid become something greater. I do not <\/p>\n

think that this line in its context is merely passable, but I admit <\/p>\n

that it is less elevated and intense than what precedes or what <\/p>\n

follows. I do not see how that can be avoided without truncating <\/p>\n

the thought significance of the whole account by the omission <\/p>\n

of something necessary to its evolution or else overpitching the <\/p>\n

expression where it needs to be direct or clear and bare in its <\/p>\n

lucidity. In any case the emended version\u2014"All he had been <\/p>\n

and all towards which he grew"<\/font>1<\/font><\/sup>\u2014cures any possibility of the <\/p>\n

line being merely passable as it raises both the idea and the <\/p>\n

expression through the vividness of image which makes us feel <\/p>\n

and not merely think the living evolution in Aswapathy’s inner <\/p>\n

being. <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

(<\/font>1946)<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

1 P. 347. The emendation was made because Sri Aurobindo felt <\/p>\n

that the new line said more fully and accurately what he should at that <\/p>\n

place.<\/font> <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 895<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

5<\/font><\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

You have asked me to comment on your friend X’s comments <\/p>\n

on my poetry and especially on Savitri.<\/i><\/font>1<\/font><\/sup> But, first of all, it is not <\/p>\n

usual for a poet to criticise the criticisms of his critics though a <\/p>\n

few perhaps have done so; the poet writes for his own satisfaction, his own delight in poetical creation or to express himself <\/p>\n

and he leaves his work for the world, and rather for posterity <\/p>\n

than for the contemporary world, to recognise or to ignore, <\/p>\n

to judge and value according to its perception or its pleasure. <\/p>\n

As for the contemporary world he might be said rather to throw <\/p>\n

his poem in its face and leave it to resent this treatment as an <\/p>\n

unpleasant slap, as a contemporary world treated the early <\/p>\n

poems of Wordsworth and Keats, or to accept it as an abrupt <\/p>\n

but gratifying attention, which was ordinarily the good fortune <\/p>\n

of the great poets in ancient Athens and Rome and of poets <\/p>\n

like Shakespeare and Tennyson in modern times. Posterity <\/p>\n

does not always confirm the contemporary verdict, very often <\/p>\n

it reverses it, forgets or depreciates the writer enthroned by con <\/p>\n

temporary fame, or raises up to a great height work little appreciated or quite ignored in its own time. The only safety <\/p>\n

for the poet is to go his own way careless of the blows and caresses <\/p>\n

of the critics; it is not his business to answer them. Then you <\/p>\n

ask me to right the wrong turn your friend’s critical mind has <\/p>\n

taken; but how is it to be determined what is the right and what<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

1 The full text of Sri Aurobindo’s letter, from which relevant <\/p>\n

portions are quoted here, is to be found in the compilation of letters, <\/p>\n

entitled Life, Literature, Yoga.<\/i><\/font> <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 896<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

is the wrong turn, since a critical judgment depends usually on <\/p>\n

a personal reaction determined by the critic’s temperament <\/p>\n

or the aesthetic trend in him or by values, rules or canons which <\/p>\n

are settled for his intellect and agree with the viewpoint from <\/p>\n

which his mind receives whatever comes to him for judgment;<\/font><\/p>\n

it is that which is right for him though it may seem wrong to a <\/p>\n

different temperament, aesthetic intellectuality or mental view <\/p>\n

point. Your friend’s judgments, according to his own account <\/p>\n

of them, seem to be determined by a sensitive temperament <\/p>\n

finely balanced in its own poise but limited in its appreciations, <\/p>\n

clear and open to some kinds of poetic creation, reserved towards <\/p>\n

others, against yet others closed and cold or excessively depreciative. This sufficiently explains his very different reactions <\/p>\n

to the two poems. Descent and Flame-Wind,1<\/i> which he unreservedly admires and to Savitri.<\/i> However, since you have asked <\/p>\n

me, I will answer, as between ourselves, in some detail and <\/p>\n

put forward my own comments on his comments and my own <\/p>\n

judgments on his judgments. It may be rather long; for if such <\/p>\n

things are done, they may as well be clearly and thoroughly done. <\/p>\n

I may also have something to say about the nature and intention <\/p>\n

of my poem and the technique necessitated by the novelty of <\/p>\n

the intention and nature.<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Let me deal first with some of the details he stresses so as to <\/p>\n

get them out of the way. His detailed intellectual reasons for <\/p>\n

his judgments seem to me to be often arbitrary and fastidious, <\/p>\n

sometimes based on a misunderstanding and therefore invalid <\/p>\n

or else valid perhaps in other fields but here inapplicable. Take, <\/p>\n

for instance, his attack upon my use of the prepositional phrase. <\/p>\n

Here, it seems to me, he has fallen victim to a grammatical <\/p>\n

obsession and lumped together under the head of the prepositional<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

1 Collected Poems and Plays,<\/i> Vol. II, pp. 368, 364,<\/font>
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

57<\/i>.<\/font> <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 897<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

twist a number of different turns some of which do <\/p>\n

not belong to that category at all. In the line,<\/font>1<\/sup><\/font>
\n<\/font><\/sup>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Lone on my summits of calm I have brooded with voices<\/font><\/p>\n

around me,<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

there is no such twist, for I did not mean at all "on my calm <\/p>\n

summits", but intended straightforwardly to convey the natural, simple
\nmeaning of the word. If I write "the fields of beauty" or "walking on the paths
\nof truth" I do not expect to be supposed to mean "in beautiful fields" or "in
\ntruthful paths", it is the same with "summits of calm", I mean "summits of calm"
\nand nothing else; it is a phrase like "He rose to high peaks of vision" or "He
\ntook his station on the highest summits of knowledge". The calm is the calm of
\nthe highest spiritual consciousness to which the soul has ascended, making those
\nsummits its own and looking down from their highest heights on all below: in
\nspiritual experience, in the occult vision or feeling that accompanies it, this
\ncalm is not felt as an abstract quality or a mental condition but as something
\nconcrete and massive, a self-existent reality to which one reaches, so that the
\nsoul standing on its peak is rather a tangible fact of experience than a
\npoetical image. Then there is the phrase "A face of rapturous calm"<\/font>2<\/font><\/sup>:
\nhe seems to think it is a mere trick of language, a substitution of a
\nprepositional phrase for an epithet, as if I had intended to say "a rapturously
\ncalm face" and I said instead "a face of rapturous calm" in order to get an
\nillegitimate and meaningless rhetorical<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

1 Not in Savitri<\/i> but in Trance of Waiting<\/i> in Collected Poems and <\/p>\n

Plays,<\/i> Vol. II, p. 363.<\/font> <\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

2 Savitri,<\/i> p. 7:<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Infinity’s centre, a Face of rapturous calm <\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Parted the eternal lids that open heaven.<\/font> <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 898<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

effect. I’ meant nothing of the kind, nothing so tame and <\/p>\n

poor and scanty in sense: I meant a face which was an expression or rather a living image of the rapturous calm of the <\/p>\n

supreme and infinite consciousness,\u2014it is indeed so that it can <\/p>\n

well be "Infinity’s centre". The face of the liberated Buddha <\/p>\n

as presented to us by Indian art is such an expression or image <\/p>\n

of the calm of Nirvana and could, I think, be quite legitimately <\/p>\n

described as a face of Nirvanic calm, and that would be an apt <\/p>\n

and live phrase and not an ugly artifice or twist of rhetoric. <\/p>\n

It should be remembered that the calm of Nirvana or the calm <\/p>\n

of the supreme Consciousness is to spiritual experience some <\/p>\n

thing self-existent, impersonal and eternal and not dependent <\/p>\n

on the person\u2014or the face\u2014which manifests it. In these two <\/p>\n

passages I take then the liberty to regard X’s criticism as erroneous <\/p>\n

at its base and therefore invalid and inadmissible. <\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Then there are the lines from the Songs of the Sea:<\/i><\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

The rains of deluge flee, a storm-tossed shade,<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Over thy breast of gloom…<\/font>1<\/font><\/sup> <\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

"Thy breast of gloom" is not used here as a mere rhetorical <\/p>\n

and meaningless variation of "thy gloomy breast"; it might <\/p>\n

have been more easily taken as that if it had been a human breast, <\/p>\n

though even then, it could have been entirely defensible in a <\/p>\n

-fitting context; but it is the breast of the sea, an image for a <\/p>\n

vast expanse supporting and reflecting or subject to the moods <\/p>\n

or movements of the air and the sky. It is intended, in describing <\/p>\n

the passage of the rains of deluge over the breast of the sea, to <\/p>\n

present a picture of a storm-tossed shade crossing a vast gloom:<\/font><\/p>\n

it is the gloom that has to be stressed
\nand made the predominant idea and the breast or expanse is only its support and <\/p>\n

not the main thing: this could not have been Suggested by<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

1 Collected Poems and Plays, Vol.<\/i> II, p. 257.<\/font>
\n<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 899<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

merely writing "thy gloomy breast". A prepositional <\/p>\n

phrase need not be merely an artificial twist replacing <\/p>\n

an adjective, for instance, "a world of gloom and terror" <\/p>\n

means something more than "a gloomy and terrible <\/p>\n

world", it brings forward the gloom and terror as the <\/p>\n

very nature and constitution, the whole content of the world <\/p>\n

and not merely an attribute. So also if one wrote "Him too <\/p>\n

wilt thou throw to thy sword of sharpness" or "cast into thy <\/p>\n

pits of horror", would it merely mean "thy sharp sword" and <\/p>\n

"thy horrible pits" ? and would not the sharpness and the horror <\/p>\n

rather indicate or represent formidable powers of which the <\/p>\n

sword is the instrument and the pits the habitation or lair? That <\/p>\n

would be rhetoric but it would be a rhetoric not meaningless <\/p>\n

but having in it meaning and power. Rhetoric is a word with <\/p>\n

which we can batter something we do not like, but rhetoric of <\/p>\n

one kind or another has been always a great part of the world’s <\/p>\n

best literature; Demosthenes, Cicero, Bossuet and Burke are <\/p>\n

rhetoricians, but their work ranks with the greatest prose styles <\/p>\n

that have been left to us. In poetry the accusation of rhetoric <\/p>\n

might be brought against such lines as Keats’<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Thou wast not born for death, immortal Bird ! <\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

No hungry generations tread thee down……<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

To conclude, there is "the swords of sheen" in the translation <\/p>\n

of Bande Mataram.<\/i><\/font>1<\/sup><\/font> That might be more open to the critic’s <\/p>\n

stricture, for the expression can be used and perhaps has been <\/p>\n

used in verse as merely equivalent to "shining swords"; but <\/p>\n

for any one with an alert imagination it can mean in certain <\/p>\n

contexts something more than that, swords that emit brilliance <\/p>\n

and seem to be made of light. X says that to use<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

1 Collected Poems and Plays,<\/i> Vol. II, p. 227.<\/font>
\n<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 900<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

this turn in any other than an adjectival sense is unidiomatic, <\/p>\n

but he admits that there need be no objection provided that it <\/p>\n

creates a sense of beauty, but he finds no beauty in any of these <\/p>\n

passages. But the beauty can be perceived only if the other <\/p>\n

sense is seen, and even then we come back to the question of <\/p>\n

personal reaction; you and other readers may feel beauty where <\/p>\n

he finds none. I do not myself share his sensitive abhorrence <\/p>\n

of this prepositional phrase; it may be of course because there <\/p>\n

are coarser rhetorical threads in my literary taste. I would not, <\/p>\n

for instance, shrink from a sentence like this in a sort of free <\/p>\n

verse, "Where is thy wall of safety? Where is thy arm of strength? <\/p>\n

Whither has fled thy vanished face of glory?" Rhetoric of course, <\/p>\n

but it has in it an element which can be attractive, and it seems <\/p>\n

to me to bring in a more vivid note and mean more than "thy <\/p>\n

strong arm" or "thy glorious face" or than "the strength of thy <\/p>\n

arm" and "the glory of thy face".<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

I come next to the critic’s trenchant attack on that passage <\/p>\n

in my symbolic vision of Night and Dawn in which <\/p>\n

there is recorded the conscious adoration of Nature when it feels <\/p>\n

the passage of the omniscient Goddess of eternal Light. Trenchant, but with what seems to me a false edge, or else if it is a <\/p>\n

sword of Damascus that would cleave the strongest material <\/p>\n

mass of iron he is using it to cut through subtle air, the air closes <\/p>\n

behind his passage and remains unsevered. He finds here only <\/p>\n

poor and false poetry, unoriginal in imagery and void of true <\/p>\n

wording and true vision, but that is again a matter of personal <\/p>\n

reaction and everyone has a right to his own, you to yours as <\/p>\n

he to his, I was not seeking for originality but for truth and <\/p>\n

the effective poetical expression of my vision. He finds no vision <\/p>\n

there, and that may be because I could not express myself with <\/p>\n

any power; but it may also be because of his temperamental <\/p>\n

failure to feel and see what I felt and saw. I can only answer to<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 901<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

the intellectual reasonings and judgments which turned up in <\/p>\n

him when he tried to find the causes of his reaction. These seem <\/p>\n

to me to be either fastidious and unsound or founded on a mistake of comprehension and therefore invalid or else inapplicable <\/p>\n

to this kind of poetry. His main charge is that there is a violent <\/p>\n

and altogether illegitimate transference of epithet in the expression "the wide-winged hymn of a great priestly wind".<\/font>1<\/font><\/sup> A <\/p>\n

transference of epithet is not necessarily illegitimate, especially <\/p>\n

if it expresses something that is true or necessary to convey a <\/p>\n

sound feeling and vision of things: for instance, if one writes <\/p>\n

in an Ovidian account of the denouement<\/i> of a lover’s quarrel<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

In spite of a reluctant sullen heart <\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

My willing feet were driven to thy door,<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

it might be said that it was something in the mind that was willing <\/p>\n

and the ascription of an emotion or state of mind to the feet is <\/p>\n

an illegitimate transfer of epithet, but the lines express a conflict of the members, the mind reluctant, the body obeying the <\/p>\n

force of the desire that moves it and the use of the epithet is <\/p>\n

therefore perfectly true and legitimate. But here no such de <\/p>\n

fence is necessary because there is no transfer of epithets. The <\/p>\n

critic thinks that I imagined the wind as having a winged body <\/p>\n

and then took away the wings from its shoulders and clapped <\/p>\n

them on to its voice or hymn which could have no body. But <\/p>\n

I did nothing of the kind; I am not bound to give wings to the <\/p>\n

wind. In an occult vision the breath, sound, movement by which <\/p>\n

we physically know of a wind is not its real being but only the <\/p>\n

.physical manifestation of the wind-god or the spirit of the air, <\/p>\n

as in the Veda the sacrificial fire is only a physical birth, temporary <\/font> <\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

1 Savitri,<\/i> p. 7. <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 902<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

body or manifestation of the god of Fire, Agni. The <\/p>\n

gods of the Air and other godheads in the Indian tradition have <\/p>\n

no wings, the Maruts or storm-gods ride through the skies in <\/p>\n

their galloping chariots with their flashing golden lances, the <\/p>\n

beings of the middle world in the Ajanta frescoes are seen moving <\/p>\n

through the air not with wings but with a gliding natural motion <\/p>\n

proper to ethereal bodies. The epithet "wide-winged" then does <\/p>\n

not belong to the wind and is not transferred from it, but is <\/p>\n

proper to the voice of the wind which takes the form of a conscious <\/p>\n

hymn of aspiration and rises ascending from the bosom of the <\/p>\n

great priest, as might a great-winged bird released into the sky <\/p>\n

and sinks and rises again, aspires and fails and aspires again on <\/p>\n

the "altar hills". One can surely speak of a voice or a chant of <\/p>\n

aspiration rising on wide wings and I do not see how this can <\/p>\n

be taxed as a false or unpoetic image. Then the critic objects <\/p>\n

to the expression "altar hills" on the ground that this is superfluous as the imagination of the reader can very well supply this <\/p>\n

detail for itself from what has already been said: I do not think <\/p>\n

this is correct, a very alert reader might do so but most would <\/p>\n

not even think of it, and yet the detail is an essential and central <\/p>\n

feature of the thing seen and to omit it would be to leave a gap <\/p>\n

in the middle of the picture by dropping out something which <\/p>\n

is indispensable to its totality. Finally he finds that the line <\/p>\n

about the high boughs praying in the revealing sky does not help <\/p>\n

but attenuates, instead of more strongly etching the picture. <\/p>\n

I do not know why, unless he has failed to feel and to see. The <\/p>\n

picture is that of a conscious adoration offered by Nature and <\/p>\n

in that each element is conscious in its own way, the wind <\/p>\n

and its hymn, the hills, the trees. The wind is the great priest <\/p>\n

of this sacrifice of worship, his voice rises in a conscious hymn <\/p>\n

of aspiration, the hills offer themselves with the feeling of being <\/p>\n

an altar of the worship, the trees lift their high boughs towards<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 904<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

heaven as the worshippers, silent figures
\nof prayer, and the light of the sky into which their boughs rise reveals the
\nBeyond towards which all aspires. At any rate this "picture" or rather this part
\nof the vision is a complete rendering of what I saw in the light of the
\ninspiration and the experience that. came to me. I might indeed have elaborated
\nmore details, etched out at more length but that would have been superfluous and
\nunnecessary; or I might have indulged in an ampler description but this would
\nhave been appropriate only if this part of the vision had been the whole. This
\nlast line<\/font>1 <\/font><\/p>\n

<\/sup><\/p>\n

is an expression of an experience which I
\noften had whether in the mountains or on the plains of Gujarat or looking from
\nmy window in Pondicherry not only in the dawn but at other times and I am unable
\nto find any feebleness either in the experience or in the words that express it.
\nIf the critic or any reader does not feel or see what I so often felt and saw,
\nthat may be my fault, but that is not sure, for you and others have felt very
\ndifferently about it; it may be a mental or a temperamental failure on their
\npart and it will be then my or perhaps even the critic’s or reader’s misfortune.<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

I may refer here to X’s disparaging characterisation of my <\/p>\n

epithets. He finds that their only merit is that they are <\/p>\n

good prose epithets, not otiose but right words in their right <\/p>\n

place and exactly descriptive but only descriptive without any <\/p>\n

suggestion of any poetic beauty or any kind of magic. Are there <\/p>\n

then prose epithets and poetic epithets and is the poet debarred <\/p>\n

from exact description using always the right word in the right <\/p>\n

place, the mot juste? <\/i>I am under the impression that all poets, <\/p>\n

even the greatest, use as the bulk of their adjectives words that <\/p>\n

have that merit, and the difference from prose is that a certain <\/p>\n

turn in the use of them accompanied by the power of the rhythm<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

1 The high boughs prayed in a revealing sky.<\/font>
\n<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 904<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

in which they are carried lifts all to the poetic level. Take one <\/p>\n

of the passages I have quoted from Milton,<\/font>1<\/sup><\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

On evil days though fall’n, and evil tongues…<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Blind Thamyris and blind Maeonides <\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

And Tiresias and Phineus, prophets old,<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

here the epithets are the same that would be used in prose, the <\/p>\n

right word in the right place, exact in statement, but all lies in <\/p>\n

the turn which makes them convey a powerful and moving emotion and the rhythm which gives them an uplifting passion and <\/p>\n

penetrating insistence. In more ordinary passages such as the <\/p>\n

beginning of Paradise Lost<\/i> the epithets "forbidden tree" and "mortal taste" are of the same kind, but can we say that they are merely <\/p>\n

prose epithets, good descriptive adjectives and have no other <\/p>\n

merit? If you take the lines about Nature’s worship in Savitri, <\/p>\n

<\/i>I do not see how they can be described as prose epithets; at any <\/p>\n

rate I would never have dreamt of using in prose unless I wanted <\/p>\n

to write poetic prose such expressions as "wide-winged hymn" <\/p>\n

or "a great priestly wind" or "altar hills" or "revealing sky";<\/font><\/p>\n

these epithets belong in their very nature to poetry alone whatever <\/p>\n

may be their other value or want of value.-He says they are <\/p>\n

obvious and could have been supplied by any imaginative reader;<\/font><\/p>\n

well, so are Milton’s in the passages quoted and perhaps there too <\/p>\n

the very remarkable imaginative reader whom X repeatedly brings in might have supplied them by his own un <\/p>\n

failing poetic verve. Whether they or any of them prick a hidden <\/p>\n

beauty out of the picture is for each reader to feel or judge for <\/p>\n

himself; but perhaps he is thinking of such things as Keats’ <\/p>\n

‘"magic casements" and "foam of perilous seas" and "fairy lands<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

1 The<\/i> reference is to the more general but earlier letter appearing <\/p>\n

here in the next section. <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 905<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

forlorn", but I do not think even in Keats the bulk of the epithets <\/p>\n

are of that unusual character.<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

I have said that his objections are sometimes inapplicable. <\/p>\n

I mean by this that they might have some force with regard to <\/p>\n

another kind of poetry but not to a poem like Savitri.<\/i> He says <\/p>\n

to start with, that if I had had a stronger imagination, I would <\/p>\n

have written a very different poem and a much shorter one. <\/p>\n

Obviously, and to say it is a truism; if I had had a different kind <\/p>\n

of imagination, whether stronger or weaker, I would have written <\/p>\n

a different poem and perhaps one more to his taste; but it would <\/p>\n

not have been Savitri.<\/i> It would not have fulfilled the intention <\/p>\n

or had anything of the character, meaning, world-vision, description and expression of spiritual experience which was my object <\/p>\n

in writing this poem. Its length is an indispensable condition for <\/p>\n

carrying out its purpose and everywhere there is this length, <\/p>\n

critics may say an "unconscionable length"\u2014I am quoting the <\/p>\n

Times’<\/i> reviewer’s description1 in his otherwise eulogistic <\/p>\n

criticism of The Life Divine\u2014<\/i>in every part, in every passage, <\/p>\n

in almost every canto or section of a canto. It has been planned <\/p>\n

not on the scale of Lycidas<\/i> or Comus<\/i> or some brief narrative <\/p>\n

poem, but of the longer epical narrative, almost a minor, though <\/p>\n

a very minor Ramayana;<\/i> it aims not at a minimum but at an <\/p>\n

exhaustive exposition of its world-vision or world-interpretation. <\/p>\n

One artistic method is to select a limited subject and <\/p>\n

even on that to say only what is indispensable, what is centrally <\/p>\n

suggestive and leave the rest to the imagination or understanding <\/p>\n

of the reader. Another method which I hold to be equally artistic <\/p>\n

or, if you like, architectural is to give a large and even a vast, a <\/p>\n

complete interpretation, omitting nothing that is necessary, <\/p>\n

fundamental to the completeness: that is the method I have chosen.<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

1 The Times’ Literary Supplement,<\/i> January-17, 1942.<\/font>
\n<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 906<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

in Savitri.<\/i> But X has understood
\nnothing of the significance or intention of the passages he is criticising, least of all, <\/p>\n

their inner sense\u2014that is not his fault, but is partly due to the lack <\/p>\n

of the context and partly to his lack of equipment and you have <\/p>\n

there an unfair advantage over him which enables you to under <\/p>\n

stand and see the poetic intention. He sees only an outward form <\/p>\n

of words and some kind of surface sense which is to him vacant <\/p>\n

and merely ornamental or rhetorical or something pretentious <\/p>\n

without any true meaning or true vision in it: inevitably he finds <\/p>\n

the whole thing false and empty, unjustifiably ambitious and pompous without deep meaning or, as he expresses it, pseudo and <\/p>\n

phoney. His objection of longueur<\/i> would be perfectly just if the <\/p>\n

description of the night and the dawn had been simply of physical <\/p>\n

night and physical dawn, but here the physical night and physical <\/p>\n

dawn are, as the title of the canto clearly suggests, a symbol, <\/p>\n

although what may be called a real symbol of an inner reality <\/p>\n

and the main purpose is to describe by suggestion the thing <\/p>\n

symbolised, here it is a relapse into Inconscience broken by a slow <\/p>\n

and difficult return of consciousness followed by a brief but <\/p>\n

splendid and prophetic outbreak of spiritual light leaving behind <\/p>\n

it the "day" of ordinary human consciousness in which the prophecy has to be worked out. The whole of Savitri<\/i> is, according <\/p>\n

to the title of the poem, a legend that is a symbol and this opening <\/p>\n

canto is, it may be said, a key beginning and announcement. <\/p>\n

So understood there is nothing here otiose or unnecessary, all <\/p>\n

is needed to bring out by suggestion some aspect of the thing <\/p>\n

symbolised and so start adequately the working out of the significance of the whole poem. It will of course seem much too long <\/p>\n

to a reader who does not understand what is written or, under <\/p>\n

standing, takes no interest in the subject; but that is unavoidable.<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

To illustrate the inapplicability of some of his judgments one <\/p>\n

might take his objection to repetition of the cognates "sombre<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 907<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Vast", "unsounded Void," "opaque Inane", "vacant Vasts"<\/font>1<\/font><\/sup> <\/p>\n

and his clinching condemnation of the inartistic inelegance of <\/p>\n

their occurrence in the same place at the end of the line. I take <\/p>\n

leave to doubt his statement that in each place his alert imaginative <\/p>\n

reader, still less any reader without that equipment, could have <\/p>\n

supplied these descriptions and epithets from the context, but let <\/p>\n

that pass. What was important for me was to keep constantly <\/p>\n

before the view of the reader, not imaginative but attentive to <\/p>\n

seize the whole truth of the vision in its totality, the ever-present <\/p>\n

sense of the Inconscience in which everything is occurring. It <\/p>\n

is the frame as well as the background without which all the de <\/p>\n

tails would either fall apart or stand out only as separate incidents. <\/p>\n

That necessity lasts until there is the full outburst of the dawn <\/p>\n

and then it disappears, each phrase gives a feature of this Inconscience proper to its place and context. It is the entrance of the <\/p>\n

"lonely splendour" into an otherwise inconscient obstructing <\/p>\n

and unreceptive world that has to be brought out and that cannot <\/p>\n

be done without the image of the "opaque Inane" of the Inconscience which is the scene and cause of the resistance. There <\/p>\n

is the same necessity for reminding the reader that the "tread" <\/p>\n

of the Divine Mother was an intrusion on the vacancy of the <\/p>\n

Inconscience and the herald of deliverance from it. The same <\/p>\n

reasoning applies to the other passages. As for the occurrence of <\/p>\n

the phrases in the same place each in its line, that is a rhythmic <\/p>\n

turn helpful, one might say necessary to bring out the intended <\/p>\n

effect, to emphasise this reiteration and make it not only <\/p>\n

understood but felt. It is not the result of negligence or an awkward and inartistic clumsiness, it is intentional and part of the <\/p>\n

technique. The structure of the pentameter blank verse in Savitri <\/p>\n

<\/i>is of its own kind and different in plan from the blank verse that<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

1 Pp. 4-7<\/font> <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 908<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

has come to be ordinarily used in English poetry. It dispenses <\/p>\n

with enjambment or uses it very sparingly and only when a <\/p>\n

special effect is intended, each line must be strong enough to stand <\/p>\n

by itself, while at the same time it fits harmoniously into the sentence or paragraph like stone added to stone, the sentence consists usually of one, two, three or four lines, more rarely five or <\/p>\n

six or seven: a strong close for the line and a strong close for <\/p>\n

the sentence are almost indispensable except when some kind <\/p>\n

of inconclusive cadence is desirable; there must be no laxity <\/p>\n

or diffusiveness in the rhythm or in the metrical flow anywhere,\u2014 <\/p>\n

there must be a flow but not a loose flux. This gives an added <\/p>\n

importance to what comes at the close of the line and this placing <\/p>\n

is used very often to give emphasis and prominence to a key <\/p>\n

phrase or a key idea, especially those which have to be often reiterated in the thought and vision of the poem so as to recall attention <\/p>\n

to things that are universal or fundamental or otherwise of the <\/p>\n

first consequence\u2014whether for the immediate subject or in the <\/p>\n

total plan. It is this use that is served here by the reiteration at <\/p>\n

the end of the line.<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

I have not anywhere in Savitri<\/i> written anything for the sake <\/p>\n

of mere picturesqueness or merely to produce a rhetorical effect;<\/font><\/p>\n

what I am trying to do everywhere in the poem is to express <\/p>\n

exactly something seen, something felt or experienced; if, for <\/p>\n

instance, I indulge in the wealth-burdened line or passage, it is <\/p>\n

not merely for the pleasure of the indulgence, but because there <\/p>\n

is that burden, or at least what I conceive to be that, in. the <\/p>\n

vision or the experience. When the expression has been found, I <\/p>\n

have to judge, not by the intellect or by any set poetical rule, <\/p>\n

but by an intuitive feeling, whether it is entirely the right expression and, if it is not, I have to change and go on changing until <\/p>\n

I have received the absolutely right inspiration and the right <\/p>\n

transcription of it and must never be satisfied with any \u00e0 peu pr\u00e8s<\/i><\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 3<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

or imperfect transcription even if that makes good poetry of one <\/p>\n

kind or another. This is what I have tried to do. The critic or <\/p>\n

reader will judge for himself whether I have succeeded or failed;<\/font><\/p>\n

hut if he has seen nothing and understood nothing, it does not <\/p>\n

follow that his adverse judgment is sure to be the right and true <\/p>\n

one, there is at least a chance that he may so conclude, not because <\/p>\n

there is nothing to see and nothing to understand, only poor <\/p>\n

pseudo-stuff or a rhetorical emptiness but because he was not <\/p>\n

equipped for the vision or the understanding. Savitri<\/i> is the record <\/p>\n

of a seeing, of an experience which is not of the common land and <\/p>\n

is often very far from what the general human mind sees and experiences. You must not expect appreciation or understanding <\/p>\n

from the general public or even from many at the first touch;<\/font><\/p>\n

as I have pointed out, there must be a new extension <\/p>\n

of consciousness and aesthesis to appreciate a new kind <\/p>\n

of mystic poetry. Moreover if it is really new in kind, <\/p>\n

it may employ a new technique, not perhaps absolutely new, <\/p>\n

but new in some or many of its elements: in that case old <\/p>\n

rules and canons and standards may be quite inapplicable;<\/font><\/p>\n

evidently, you cannot justly apply to the poetry of Whitman the <\/p>\n

principles of technique which are proper to the old metrical verse <\/p>\n

or the established laws of the old traditional poetry; so too when <\/p>\n

we deal with a modernist poet. We have to see whether what is <\/p>\n

essential to poetry is there and how far the new technique justifies <\/p>\n

itself by new beauty and perfection, and a certain freedom of mind <\/p>\n

from old conventions is necessary if our judgment is to be valid <\/p>\n

or rightly objective.<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Your friend may say as he has said in another connection that <\/p>\n

all this is only special pleading or an apology rather than an apologia. But in that other connection he was mistaken and would be <\/p>\n

so here too, for in neither case have I the feeling that I had been <\/p>\n

guilty of some offence or some shortcoming and therefore there<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 910<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

could be no place for an apology or special pleading such as is <\/p>\n

used to defend or cover up what one knows to be a false case. I <\/p>\n

have enough respect for truth not to try to cover up an imperfection, my endeavour would be rather to cure the recognised imperfection, if I have not poetical genius, at least I can claim a sufficient, if not an infinite capacity for painstaking: that I have sufficiently shown by my long labour on Savitri.<\/i> Or rather, since it <\/p>\n

was not labour in the ordinary sense, not a labour of painstaking <\/p>\n

construction, I may describe it as an infinite capacity for waiting <\/p>\n

and listening for the true inspiration and rejecting all that fell <\/p>\n

short of it, however good it might seem from a lower standard <\/p>\n

until I got that which I felt to be absolutely right. X was <\/p>\n

evidently under a misconception with regard to my defence of the <\/p>\n

wealth-burdened line; he says that the principle enounced by me <\/p>\n

was sound but what mattered was my application of the principle, <\/p>\n

and he seems to think that I was trying to justify my application <\/p>\n

although I knew it to be bad and false by citing passages from <\/p>\n

Milton and Shakespeare as if my use of the wealth-burdened style <\/p>\n

were as good as theirs. But I was not defending the excellence of <\/p>\n

my practice, for the poetical value of my lines was not then in <\/p>\n

question; the question was whether it did not violate a valid law <\/p>\n

of a certain chaste economy by the use of too many epithets <\/p>\n

massed together: against this I was asserting the legitimacy of a <\/p>\n

massed richness, I was defending only its principle, not my use <\/p>\n

of the principle. Even a very small poet can cite in aid of his practice examples from greater poets without implying that his poetry <\/p>\n

is on a par with theirs. But he further asserts that I showed small <\/p>\n

judgment in choosing my citations, because Milton’s passage<\/font>1<\/font><\/sup>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

1 With hideous ruin and combustion, down <\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

To bottomless perdition, there to dwell <\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

In adamantine chains and penal fire.<\/font>
\n<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 911<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

is not at all an illustration of the principle and Shakespeare’s<\/font>1<\/font><\/sup> <\/p>\n

is inferior in poetic value, lax and rhetorical in its richness and <\/p>\n

belongs to an early and inferior Shakespearean style. He says <\/p>\n

that Milton’s astounding effect is due only to the sound and <\/p>\n

not to the words. That does not seem to me quite true: the <\/p>\n

sound, the rhythmic resonance, the rhythmic significance is <\/p>\n

undoubtedly the pre-dominant factor; it makes us hear and feel <\/p>\n

the crash and clamour and clangour of the downfall of the rebel <\/p>\n

angels: but that is not all, we do not merely hear as if one were <\/p>\n

listening to the roar of ruin of a collapsing bomb-shattered house, <\/p>\n

but saw nothing, we have the vision and the full psychological <\/p>\n

commotion of the "hideous" and flaming ruin of the downfall, <\/p>\n

and it is the tremendous force of the words that makes us see as <\/p>\n

well as hear. X’s disparagement of the Shakespearean passage on <\/p>\n

"sleep" and the line on the sea considered by the greatest critics <\/p>\n

and not by myself only as ranking amongst the most admired and <\/p>\n

admirable things in Shakespeare is surprising and it seems to me <\/p>\n

to illustrate a serious limitation in his poetic perception and <\/p>\n

temperamental sympathies. Shakespeare’s later terse and <\/p>\n

packed style with its more powerful dramatic effects can surely be <\/p>\n

admired without disparaging the beauty and opulence of his earlier <\/p>\n

style; if he had never written in that style, it would have been <\/p>\n

an unspeakable loss to the sum of the world’s aesthetic possessions. The lines I have quoted are neither lax nor merely rhetorical <\/p>\n

they have a terseness or at least a compactness of their own, different in character from the lines, let us say, in the scene of <\/p>\n

Antony’s death or other memorable passages written in his great <\/p>\n

tragic style but none the less at every step packed with pregnant<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

1 Wilt thou upon the high and giddy mast<\/font>
\n<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Seal up the shipboy’s eyes and rock his brains <\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

In cradle of the rude imperious surge?<\/font> <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 912<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

meanings and powerful significances which would not be possible <\/p>\n

if it were merely a loose rhetoric. Anyone writing such lines would <\/p>\n

deserve to rank by them alone among the great and even the <\/p>\n

greatest poets…<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

As regards your friend’s appraisal of the mystical poems,<\/font>1<\/font><\/sup>
\nI <\/p>\n

need say little. I accept his reservation that there is much inequality as between the different poems: they were produced very rapidly\u2014in the course of a week, I think\u2014and they were not given the <\/p>\n

long reconsideration that I have usually given to my poetic work <\/p>\n

before publication; he has chosen the best, though there are others <\/p>\n

also that are good, though not so good, in others, the metre attempted and the idea and language have not been lifted to their highest <\/p>\n

possible value. I would like to say a word about his hesitation <\/p>\n

over some lines in Thought the Paraclete<\/i> which describe the <\/p>\n

spiritual planes. I can understand this hesitation; for these lines <\/p>\n

have not the vivid and forceful precision of the opening and the <\/p>\n

close and are less pressed home, they are general in description <\/p>\n

and therefore to one who has not the mystic experience may seem <\/p>\n

too large and vague. But they are not padding; a precise and exact <\/p>\n

description of these planes of experience would have made the <\/p>\n

poem too long, so only some large lines are given, but the description is true, the epithets hit the reality and even the colours mentioned in the poem, "gold-red feet" and "crimson-white mooned <\/p>\n

oceans", are faithful to experience. Significant colour, supposed <\/p>\n

by intellectual criticism to be symbolic but there is more than that, <\/p>\n

is a frequent element in mystic vision; I may mention the powerful <\/p>\n

and vivid vision in which Ramakrishna went up into the higher <\/p>\n

planes and saw the mystic truth behind the birth of Vivekananda. <\/p>\n

At least, the fact that these poems have appealed so strongly to <\/p>\n

your friend’s mind may perhaps be taken by me as a sufficient<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

1 Collected Poems and Plays,<\/i> Vol. II, pp. 362-374.<\/font>
\n<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

2 ibid.<\/i> Vol. II, p. 300. <\/p>\n

58<\/i><\/font> <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 913<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

proof that in this field my effort at interpretation of spiritual <\/p>\n

things has not been altogether a failure.<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

But how then are we to account for the
\nsame critic’s condemnation or small appreciation of Savitri<\/i> which is also a mystic and <\/p>\n

symbolic poem although cast into a different form and raised <\/p>\n

to a different pitch, and what value am I to attach to his criticism? <\/p>\n

Partly, perhaps, it is this very difference of form and pitch which <\/p>\n

accounts for his attitude and, having regard to his aesthetic temperament and its limitations, it was inevitable. He himself seems <\/p>\n

to suggest this reason when he compares this difference to the <\/p>\n

difference of his approach as between Lycidas<\/i> and Paradise <\/p>\n

Lost.<\/i> His temperamental turn is shown by his special appreciation of Francis Thompson and Coventry Patmore and his <\/p>\n

response to Descent<\/i> and Flame-Wind<\/i> and the fineness of his judgment when speaking of the Hound of Heaven<\/i> and the Kingdom <\/p>\n

of God,<\/i> its limitation by his approach towards Paradise Lost. <\/p>\n

<\/i>I think he would be naturally inclined to regard any very high <\/p>\n

pitched poetry as rhetorical and unsound and declamatory, <\/p>\n

wherever he did not see in it something finely and subtly true <\/p>\n

coexisting with the high-pitched expression,\u2014the combination <\/p>\n

we find in Thompson’s later poem and it is this he seems to <\/p>\n

have missed in Savitri.<\/i> For Savitri<\/i> does contain or at least I <\/p>\n

intended it to contain what you and others have felt in it but he <\/p>\n

has not been able to feel because it is something which is out <\/p>\n

side his own experience and to which he has no access. One <\/p>\n

who has had the kind of experience which Savitri<\/i> sets out to <\/p>\n

express or who, not having it, is prepared by his temperament, <\/p>\n

his mental turn, his previous intellectual knowledge or psychic <\/p>\n

training, to have some kind of access to it, the feeling of it if not <\/p>\n

the full understanding, can enter into the spirit and sense of the <\/p>\n

poem and respond to its poetic appeal; but without that it is <\/p>\n

difficult for an unprepared reader to respond,\u2014all the more<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 914<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

if this is, as you contend, a new poetry with a new law of <\/p>\n

expression and technique.<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Lycidas<\/i> is one of the finest poems in any literature, one of the <\/p>\n

most consistently perfect among works of an equal length and <\/p>\n

one can apply to it the epithet "exquisite" and it is to the exquisite that your friend’s aesthetic temperament seems specially <\/p>\n

to respond. It would be possible to a reader with a depreciatory <\/p>\n

turn to find flaws in it, such as the pseudo-pastoral setting, the <\/p>\n

too powerful intrusion of St. Peter and puritan theological <\/p>\n

controversy into that incongruous setting and the image of the <\/p>\n

hungry sheep which someone not in sympathy with Christian <\/p>\n

feeling and traditional imagery might find even ludicrous or at <\/p>\n

least odd in its identification of pseudo-pastoral sheep and <\/p>\n

theological human sheep: but these would be hypercritical objections and are flooded out by the magnificence of the poetry. <\/p>\n

I am prepared to admit the very patent defects of Paradise <\/p>\n

Lost:<\/i> Milton’s heaven is indeed unconvincing and can be described as grotesque and so too is his gunpowder battle up there, <\/p>\n

and his God and angels are weak and unconvincing figures, even <\/p>\n

Adam and Eve, our first parents, do not effectively fill their <\/p>\n

part except in his outward description of them; and the later <\/p>\n

-narrative falls far below the grandeur of the first four Books but <\/p>\n

those four Books stand for ever among the greatest things in <\/p>\n

the world’s poetic literature. If Lycidas<\/i> with its beauty and <\/p>\n

perfection had been the supreme thing done by Milton even <\/p>\n

with all the lyrical poetry and the sonnets added to it, Milton <\/p>\n

would still have been a great poet but he would not have ranked <\/p>\n

among the dozen greatest; it is Paradise Lost<\/i> that gives him <\/p>\n

that place. There are deficiencies if not failures in almost all <\/p>\n

the great epics, the Odyssey<\/i> and perhaps the Divina Commedia <\/p>\n

<\/i>being the only exceptions, but still they are throughout in spite <\/p>\n

of them great epics. So too is Paradise Lost.<\/i> The grandeur of<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 915<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

hiss verse and language is constant and unsinking to the end <\/p>\n

and makes the presentation always sublime. We have to accept <\/p>\n

for the moment Milton’s dry Puritan theology and his all too <\/p>\n

human picture of the celestial world and its denizens and then <\/p>\n

we can feel the full greatness of the epic. But the point is that <\/p>\n

this greatness in itself seems to have less appeal to X’s <\/p>\n

aesthetic temperament; it is as if he felt less at home in its atmosphere, in an atmosphere of grandeur and sublimity than <\/p>\n

in the air of a less sublime but a fine and always perfect beauty. <\/p>\n

It is the difference between a magic hill-side woodland of wonder <\/p>\n

and a great soaring mountain climbing into a vast purple sky:<\/font><\/p>\n

to accept fully the greatness he needs to find in it a finer and <\/p>\n

sublimer strain as in Thompson’s Kingdom of God.<\/i> On a lower <\/p>\n

scale this; his sentence about it seems to suggest, is the one <\/p>\n

fundamental reason for his complete pleasure in the mystical <\/p>\n

poems and his very different approach to Savitri.<\/i> The pitch <\/p>\n

aimed at by Savitri,<\/i> the greatness you attribute to it, would of <\/p>\n

itself have discouraged in him any abandonment to admiration <\/p>\n

and compelled from the beginning a cautious and dubious approach; that soon turned to lack of appreciation or a lowered <\/p>\n

appreciation even of the best that may be there and to depreciation and censure of the rest.<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

But there is the other reason which is more effective. He sees <\/p>\n

and feels nothing of the spiritual meaning and the spiritual <\/p>\n

appeal which you find in Savitri;<\/i> it is for him empty of anything <\/p>\n

but an outward significance and that seems to him poor, as is <\/p>\n

natural since the outward meaning is only a part and a surface <\/p>\n

and the rest is to his eyes invisible. If there had been what <\/p>\n

he hoped or might have hoped to find in my poetry, a spiritual <\/p>\n

vision such as that of the Vedantin, arriving beyond the world <\/p>\n

towards the Ineffable, then he might have felt at home as he <\/p>\n

does with Thompson’s poetry or might at least have found it<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 916<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

sufficiently accessible. But this is not what Savitri<\/i> has to say <\/p>\n

or rather it is only a small part of it and, even so, bound up with <\/p>\n

a cosmic vision and an acceptance of the world which in its <\/p>\n

kind is unfamiliar to his mind and psychic sense and foreign <\/p>\n

to his experience. The two passages with which he deals do not <\/p>\n

and cannot give any full presentation of this way of seeing things <\/p>\n

since one is an unfamiliar symbol and the other an incidental <\/p>\n

and, taken by itself apart from its context, an isolated circumstance. But even if he had had other more explicit and clearly <\/p>\n

revealing passages at his disposal, I do not think he would have <\/p>\n

been satisfied or much illuminated, his eyes would still have been <\/p>\n

fixed on the surface and caught only some intellectual meaning or <\/p>\n

outer sense. That at least is what we may suppose to have been <\/p>\n

the cause of his failure, if we maintain that there is anything <\/p>\n

at all in the poem, or else we must fall back on the explanation of <\/p>\n

a fundamental personal incompatibility and the rule de gustibus <\/p>\n

-non est disputandum,<\/i> or to put it in the Sanskrit form nana ruchirhi <\/p>\n

lokah.<\/i> If you are right in maintaining that Savitri<\/i> stands as a <\/p>\n

new mystical poetry with a new vision and expression of things, <\/p>\n

we should expect, at least at first, a widespread, perhaps, a general <\/p>\n

failure even in lovers of poetry to understand it or appreciate, <\/p>\n

even those who have some mystical turn or spiritual experience <\/p>\n

are likely to pass it by if it is a different turn from theirs or outside <\/p>\n

their range of experience. It took the world something like a <\/p>\n

hundred years to discover Blake, it would not be improbable that <\/p>\n

there might be a greater time-lag here, though naturally we hope <\/p>\n

for better things. For in India at least some understanding or feeling and an audience few and fit may be possible. Perhaps by some <\/p>\n

miracle there may be before long a larger appreciative audience.<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

At any rate this is the only thing one can do, especially when <\/p>\n

one is attempting a new creation, to go on with the work with <\/p>\n

such light and power as is given to one and leave the value of the<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 917<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

work to be determined by the future. Contemporary judgments <\/p>\n

we know to be unreliable; there are only two judges whose joint <\/p>\n

verdict cannot easily be disputed, the World and Time. The <\/p>\n

Roman proverb says, securus judicat orbis terrarum;<\/i> but the world’s <\/p>\n

verdict is secure only when it is confirmed by Time. For it is <\/p>\n

not the opinion of the general mass of men that finally decides <\/p>\n

the decision is really imposed by the judgment of a minority and <\/p>\n

elite<\/i> which is finally accepted and settles down as the verdict of <\/p>\n

posterity; in Tagore’s phrase it is the universal man, Viswa Manava, <\/p>\n

<\/i>or rather something universal using the general mind of man, we <\/p>\n

might say the Cosmic self in the race that fixes the value of its <\/p>\n

own works. In regard to the great names in literature this final <\/p>\n

verdict seems to have in it something of the absolute,\u2014so far as <\/p>\n

anything can be that in a temporal world of relativities in which <\/p>\n

the Absolute reserves itself hidden behind the veil of human <\/p>\n

ignorance. It is no use for some to contend that Virgil is a tame <\/p>\n

and elegant writer of a wearisome work in verse on agriculture and <\/p>\n

a tedious pseudo-epic written to imperial order and Lucretius <\/p>\n

the only really great poet in Latin literature or to depreciate Milton <\/p>\n

for his Latin English and inflated style and the largely uninteresting character of his two epics; the world either refuses to listen or <\/p>\n

there is a temporary effect, a brief fashion in literary criticism, <\/p>\n

but finally the world returns to its established verdict. Lesser <\/p>\n

reputations may fluctuate, but finally whatever has real <\/p>\n

value in its own kind settles itself and finds its just place in the <\/p>\n

durable judgment of the world. Work which was neglected <\/p>\n

and left aside like Blake’s or at first admired with reservation and <\/p>\n

eclipsed like Donne’s is singled out by a sudden glance of Time <\/p>\n

and its greatness recognised; or what seemed buried slowly emerges or re-emerges; all finally settles into its place. What was held <\/p>\n

as sovereign in its own time is rudely dethroned but afterwards <\/p>\n

recovers not its sovereign throne but its due position in the<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 918<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

world’s esteem. Pope is an example and Byron who at once burst <\/p>\n

into a supreme glory and was the one English poet, after Shakespeare, admired all over Europe but is now depredated, may also <\/p>\n

recover his proper place. Encouraged by such examples, let us <\/p>\n

hope that these violently adverse judgments may not be final <\/p>\n

and absolute and decide that the waste paper basket is not the <\/p>\n

proper place for Savitri.<\/i> There may still be a place for a poetry <\/p>\n

which seeks to enlarge the field of poetic creation and find for the <\/p>\n

inner spiritual life of man and his now occult or mystical <\/p>\n

knowledge and experience of the whole hidden range of his and <\/p>\n

the world’s being, not a comer and a limited expression such <\/p>\n

as it had in the past, but a wide space and as manifold and <\/p>\n

integral an expression of the boundless and innumerable riches <\/p>\n

that lie hidden and unexplored as if kept apart under <\/p>\n

the direct gaze of the Infinite as has been found in the <\/p>\n

past for man’s surface and finite view and experience of <\/p>\n

himself and the material world in which he has lived striving to <\/p>\n

know himself and it as best he can with a limited mind and senses, <\/p>\n

The door that has been shut to all but a few may open; the <\/p>\n

kingdom of the Spirit may be established not only in man’s inner <\/p>\n

being but in his life and his works. Poetry also may have its share <\/p>\n

in that revolution and become part of the spiritual empire.<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

I had intended as the main subject of this letter to say something <\/p>\n

about technique and the inner working of the intuitive method by <\/p>\n

which Savitri<\/i> was and is being created and of the intention and <\/p>\n

plan of the poem. X’s idea of its way of creation, an <\/p>\n

intellectual construction by a deliberate choice of words and <\/p>\n

imagery, badly chosen at that, is the very opposite of the real way <\/p>\n

in which it was done. That was to be the body of the letter and <\/p>\n

the rest only a preface. But the preface has become so long that <\/p>\n

it has crowded out the body. I shall have to postpone it to a later <\/p>\n

occasion when I have more time. <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

(<\/font>1947<\/font>)<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 919<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

6<\/font><\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Something more might need to be said in
\nregard to the Over head note in poetry and the Overmind aesthesis; but these are <\/p>\n

exactly the subjects on which it is difficult to write with any <\/p>\n

precision or satisfy the intellect’s demand for clear and positive <\/p>\n

statement.<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

I do not know that it is possible for me to say why I regard <\/p>\n

one line or passage as having the Overhead touch or the Overhead <\/p>\n

note while another misses it. When I said that in the lines <\/p>\n

about the dying man<\/font>1<\/sup><\/font> the touch came in through some intense <\/p>\n

passion and sincerity in the writer, I was simply mentioning <\/p>\n

the psychological door through which the thing came. I did <\/p>\n

not mean to suggest that such passion and sincerity could <\/p>\n

of itself bring in the touch or that they constituted the <\/p>\n

Overhead note in the lines. I am afraid I have to say <\/p>\n

what Arnold said about the grand style; it has to be <\/p>\n

felt and cannot be explained or accounted for. One has an <\/p>\n

intuitive feeling, a recognition of something familiar to one’s <\/p>\n

experience or one’s deeper perception in the substance and the <\/p>\n

rhythm or in one or the other which rings out and cannot be <\/p>\n

gainsaid. One might put forward a theory or a description of <\/p>\n

what the Overhead character of the line consists in, but it is <\/p>\n

doubtful whether any such mentally constructed definition <\/p>\n

could be always applicable. You speak, for instance, of the sense <\/p>\n

of the Infinite and the One which is pervasive in the Overhead<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

1 I spoke as one who ne’er would speak again <\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

And as a dying man to dying men.<\/font>
\n<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 3<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

planes; that need not. be explicitly there in the Overhead poetic <\/p>\n

expression or in the substance of any given line: it can be ex <\/p>\n

pressed indeed by Overhead poetry as no other can express it, <\/p>\n

but this poetry can deal with quite other things. I would certainly <\/p>\n

say that Shakespeare’s lines<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Absent thee from felicity awhile, <\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

And in this harsh world draw thy breath in pain<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

have the Overhead touch in the substance, the rhythm and the <\/p>\n

feeling; but Shakespeare is not giving us here the sense of the <\/p>\n

One and the Infinite. He is, as in the other lines of his which <\/p>\n

have this note, dealing as he always does with life, with vital <\/p>\n

emotions and reactions or the thoughts that spring out in the <\/p>\n

life-mind under the pressure of life. It is not any strict adhesion <\/p>\n

to a transcendental view of things that constitutes this kind of <\/p>\n

poetry, but something behind not belonging to the mind or the <\/p>\n

vital and physical consciousness and with that a certain quality <\/p>\n

or power in the language and the rhythm which helps to bring <\/p>\n

out that deeper something. If I had to select the line in European <\/p>\n

poetry which most suggests an almost direct descent from the <\/p>\n

Overmind consciousness there might come first Virgil’s line <\/p>\n

about "the touch of tears in mortal things":<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Sunt lacrimae rerum et mentem mortalia tangunt. <\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Another might be Shakespeare’s<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

In the dark backward and abysm of Time <\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

or again Milton’s<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Those thoughts that wander through eternity.<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

We might also add Wordsworth’s line<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 921<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

The winds come to me from the fields of sleep.<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

There are other lines ideative and more emotional or simply <\/p>\n

descriptive which might be added, such as Marlowe’s<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Is this the face that launched a thousand ships <\/p>\n

. <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

And burnt the topless towers of Ilium?<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

If we could extract and describe the quality and the subtle <\/p>\n

something that mark the language and rhythm and feeling of <\/p>\n

these lines and underlie their substance we might attain hazardously to some mental understanding of the nature of Overhead <\/p>\n

poetry.<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

The Overmind is not strictly a transcendental consciousness <\/p>\n

\u2014that epithet would more accurately apply to the supramental <\/p>\n

and to the Sachchidananda consciousness\u2014though it looks up <\/p>\n

to the transcendental and may receive something from it and <\/p>\n

though it does transcend the ordinary human mind and in its <\/p>\n

full and native self-power, when it does not lean down and <\/p>\n

become part of mind, is superconscient to us. It is more properly a cosmic consciousness, even the very base of the cosmic <\/p>\n

as we perceive, understand or feel it. It stands behind every <\/p>\n

particular in the cosmos and is the source of all our mental, <\/p>\n

vital or physical actualities and possibilities which are diminished and degraded derivations and variations from it and <\/p>\n

have not, except in certain formations and activities of genius <\/p>\n

and some intense self-exceeding, anything of the native Over <\/p>\n

mind quality and power. Nevertheless, because it stands behind <\/p>\n

as if covered by a veil, something of it can break through or <\/p>\n

shine through or even only dimly glimmer through and that <\/p>\n

brings the, Overmind touch or note. We cannot get this touch <\/p>\n

frequently unless we have torn the veil, made a gap in it or rent <\/p>\n

it largely away and seen the very face of what is beyond, lived in<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 922<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

the light of it or established some kind of constant intercourse, <\/p>\n

Or we can draw upon it from time to time without ever ascending <\/p>\n

into it if we have established a line of communication between <\/p>\n

the higher and the ordinary consciousness. What comes down <\/p>\n

may be very much diminished but it has something of that. The <\/p>\n

ordinary reader of poetry who has not that experience will usually <\/p>\n

not be able to distinguish but would at the most feel that here <\/p>\n

is something extraordinarily fine, profound, sublime or unusual, <\/p>\n

\u2014or he might turn away from it as something too high-pitched <\/p>\n

and excessive; he might even speak depreciatingly of "purple <\/p>\n

passages", rhetoric, exaggeration or excess. One who had the <\/p>\n

line of communication open could on the other hand feel what <\/p>\n

is there and distinguish even if he could not adequately characterise or describe it. The essential character is perhaps that <\/p>\n

there is something behind of which I have already spoken and <\/p>\n

which comes not primarily from the mind or the vital emotion <\/p>\n

or the physical seeing but from the cosmic self and its consciousness standing behind them all and things then tend to be <\/p>\n

seen not as the mind or heart or body sees them but as this <\/p>\n

greater consciousness feels or sees or answers to them. In the <\/p>\n

direct Overmind transmission this something behind is usually <\/p>\n

forced to the front or close to the front by a combination of <\/p>\n

words which carries the suggestion of a deeper meaning or by <\/p>\n

the force of an image or, most of all, by an intonation and a <\/p>\n

rhythm which carry up the depths in their wide wash or long <\/p>\n

march or mounting surge. Sometimes it is left lurking behind <\/p>\n

and only suggested so that a subtle feeling of what is not actually <\/p>\n

expressed is needed if the reader is not to miss it. This is <\/p>\n

oftenest the case when there is just a touch or note pressed <\/p>\n

upon something that would be otherwise only of a mental, vital <\/p>\n

or physical poetic value and nothing of the body of the Overhead <\/p>\n

power shows itself through the veil, but at most a tremor and<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 923<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

vibration, a gleam or a glimpse. In the lines I have chosen <\/p>\n

there is always an unusual quality in the rhythm, as prominently <\/p>\n

in Virgil’s line, often in the very building and constantly in the <\/p>\n

intonation and the association of the sounds which meet in the <\/p>\n

line and find themselves linked together by a sort of inevitable <\/p>\n

felicity. There is also an inspired selection or an unusual bringing together of words which has the power to force a deeper <\/p>\n

sense on the mind as in Virgil’s<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Sunt lacrimae rerum.<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

One can note that this line if translated straight into English <\/p>\n

would sound awkward and clumsy as would many of the finest <\/p>\n

lines in Rig Veda, that is precisely because they are new and <\/p>\n

felicitous turns in the original language, discoveries of an un <\/p>\n

expected and absolute phrase; they defy translation. If you note <\/p>\n

the combination of words and sounds in Shakespeare’s line<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

And in this harsh world draw thy breath in pain<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

so arranged as to force on the mind and still more on the subtle <\/p>\n

nerves and sense the utter absoluteness of the difficulty and <\/p>\n

pain of living for the soul that has awakened to the misery of <\/p>\n

the world, you can see how this technique works. Here and <\/p>\n

elsewhere the very body and soul of the thing seen or felt come <\/p>\n

out into the open. The same dominant characteristic can be <\/p>\n

found in other lines which I have not cited,\u2014in Leopardi’s<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Insano indegno mistero delle cose <\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

(<\/font>The insane and ignoble mystery of things<\/font>)<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

or in Wordsworth’s<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Voyaging through strange seas of thought, alone.<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 924<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Milton’s line lives by its choice of the
\nword "wander" to collocate with "through eternity"; if he had chosen any other word, <\/p>\n

it would no longer have been an Overhead line, even if the <\/p>\n

surface sense had been exactly the same. On the other hand, <\/p>\n

take Shelley’s stanza\u2014<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

We look before and after,<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

And pine for what is not:<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Our sincerest laughter<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

With some pain is fraught, <\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Our sweetest songs are those that tell of saddest thought.<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

This is perfect poetry with the most exquisite melody and beauty <\/p>\n

of wording and an unsurpassable poignancy of pathos, but there <\/p>\n

is no touch or note of the Overhead inspiration: it is the mind <\/p>\n

and the heart, the vital emotion, working at their highest pitch <\/p>\n

under the stress of a psychic inspiration. The rhythm is of the <\/p>\n

same character, a direct, straightforward, lucid and lucent movement welling out limpidly straight from the psychic source. The <\/p>\n

same characteristics are found in another short lyric of Shelley’s <\/p>\n

which is perhaps the purest example of the psychic inspiration <\/p>\n

in English poetry:<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

I can give not what men call love,<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

But wilt thou accept not <\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

The worship the heart lifts above<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

And the Heavens reject not,\u2014<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

The desire of the moth for the star,<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Of the night for the morrow, <\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

The devotion to something afar<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

From the sphere of our sorrow?<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 925<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

We have again extreme poetic beauty there, but nothing of the<\/font><\/p>\n

Overhead note. <\/font><\/p>\n

  <\/p>\n

<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

In the other lines I have cited it is really the Overmind language <\/p>\n

and rhythm that have been to some extent transmitted; but of <\/p>\n

course all Overhead poetry is not from the Overmind, more often <\/p>\n

it comes from the Higher Thought, the Illumined Mind or the <\/p>\n

pure Intuition. This last is different from the mental intuition <\/p>\n

-which is frequent enough in poetry that does not transcend the <\/p>\n

mental level. The language and rhythm from these other Over <\/p>\n

head levels can be very different from that which is proper to <\/p>\n

the Overmind; for the Overmind thinks in a mass; its thought, <\/p>\n

feeling, vision is high or deep or wide or all these things together:<\/font><\/p>\n

to use the Vedic expression about fire, the divine messenger, <\/p>\n

it goes vast on its way to bring the divine riches, and it has a <\/p>\n

corresponding language and rhythm. The Higher Thought <\/p>\n

has a strong tread often with bare unsandaled feet and moves in a <\/p>\n

clear-cut light: a divine power, measure, dignity is its most <\/p>\n

frequent character. The outflow of the Illumined Mind comes in <\/p>\n

a flood brilliant with revealing words or a light of crowding images, <\/p>\n

sometimes surcharged with its burden of revelations, sometimes <\/p>\n

with a luminous sweep. The Intuition is usually a lightning flash <\/p>\n

showing up a single spot or plot of ground or scene with an <\/p>\n

entire and miraculous completeness of vision to the surprised <\/p>\n

ecstasy of the inner eye; its rhythm has a decisive inevitable sound <\/p>\n

which leaves nothing essential unheard, but very commonly is <\/p>\n

embodied in a single stroke. These, however, are only general <\/p>\n

or dominant characters; any number of variations is possible. <\/p>\n

There are besides mingled inspirations, several levels meeting <\/p>\n

and combining or modifying each other’s notes, and an Overmind <\/p>\n

transmission can contain or bring with it all the rest, but how much <\/p>\n

of this description will be to the ordinary reader of poetry at all <\/p>\n

intelligible or clearly identifiable?<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 926<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

There are besides in mental poetry derivations or substitutes <\/p>\n

for all these styles. Milton’s "grand style" is such a substitute <\/p>\n

for the manner of the Higher Thought. Take it anywhere at its <\/p>\n

ordinary level or in its higher elevation, there is always or almost <\/p>\n

always that echo there:<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Of man’s first disobedience and the fruit<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Of that forbidden tree <\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

or<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

On evil days though fall’n, and evil tongues <\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

or<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Blind Thamyris and blind Maeonides<\/font><\/p>\n

And Tiresias and Phineus, prophets old.<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Shakespeare’s poetry coruscates with a
\nplay of the hues of imagination which we may regard as a mental substitute for the <\/p>\n

inspiration of the Illumined Mind and sometimes by aiming <\/p>\n

at an exalted note he Jinks on to the illumined Overhead inspiration itself as in the lines I have more than once quoted;<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Wilt thou upon the high and giddy mast <\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Seal up the shipboy’s eyes and rock his brains <\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

In cradle of the rude imperious surge?<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

But the rest of that passage falls away in spite of its high-pitched <\/p>\n

language and resonant rhythm far below the Overhead strain. <\/p>\n

So it is easy for the mind to mistake and take the higher for the <\/p>\n

lower inspiration or vice versa.<\/i> Thus Milton’s lines might at <\/p>\n

first sight be taken because of a certain depth of emotion in <\/p>\n

their large lingering rhythm as having the Overhead complexion, <\/p>\n

but this rhythm loses something of its sovereign right because <\/p>\n

there are no depths of sense behind it. It conveys nothing but <\/p>\n

the noble and dignified pathos of the blindness and old age <\/p>\n

of a great personality fallen into evil days. Milton’s architecture<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 927<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

of thought and verse is high and powerful and massive, but there <\/p>\n

are usually no subtle echoes there, no deep chambers: the occult <\/p>\n

things in man’s being are foreign to his intelligence,\u2014for it is <\/p>\n

in the light of the poetic intelligence that he works. He does <\/p>\n

not stray into "the mystic cavern of the heart", does not follow <\/p>\n

the inner fire entering like a thief with the Cow of Light into <\/p>\n

the secrecy of secrecies. Shakespeare does sometimes get in as <\/p>\n

if by a splendid psychic accident in spite of his preoccupation <\/p>\n

with the colours and shows of life.<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

I do not know therefore whether I can speak with any certainty <\/p>\n

about the lines you quote; I would perhaps have to read them <\/p>\n

in their context first, but it seems to me that there is just a touch, <\/p>\n

as in the lines about the dying man. The thing that is described <\/p>\n

there may have happened often enough in times like those of <\/p>\n

the recent wars and upheavals and in times of violent strife and <\/p>\n

persecution and catastrophe, but the greatness of the experience <\/p>\n

does not come out or not wholly, because men feel with the <\/p>\n

mind and heart and not with the soul, but here there is by some <\/p>\n

accident of wording and rhythm a suggestion of something <\/p>\n

behind, of the greatness of the soul’s experience and its courageous acceptance of the tragic, the final, the fatal\u2014and its resistance; it is only just a suggestion, but it is enough: the Overhead <\/p>\n

has touched and passed back to its heights. There is something <\/p>\n

very different but of the same essential calibre in the line you <\/p>\n

quote:<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Sad eyes watch for feet that never come,<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

It is still more difficult to say anything very tangible about <\/p>\n

the Overmind aesthesis. When I wrote about it I was thinking <\/p>\n

of the static aesthesis That perceives and receives rather than <\/p>\n

of the dynamic aesthesis which creates; I was not thinking at all <\/p>\n

of superior or inferior grades of poetic greatness or beauty.<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 928<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

If the complete Overmind power or even that of the lower <\/p>\n

Overhead planes could come down into the mind and entirely <\/p>\n

transform its action, then no doubt there might be greater poetry <\/p>\n

written than any that man has yet achieved, just as a greater <\/p>\n

superhuman life might be created if the Supermind could come <\/p>\n

down wholly into life and lift life wholly into itself and trans <\/p>\n

form it. But what happens at present is that something comes <\/p>\n

down and accepts to work under the law of the mind and with <\/p>\n

a mixture of the mind and it must be judged by the laws and <\/p>\n

standards of the mind. It brings in new tones, new colours, <\/p>\n

new elements, but it does not change radically as yet the stuff <\/p>\n

of the consciousness with which we labour.<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Whether it produces great poetry or not depends on the <\/p>\n

extent 10 which it manifests its power and overrides rather <\/p>\n

than serves the mentality which it is helping. At present it does <\/p>\n

not do that sufficiently to raise the work to the full greatness of <\/p>\n

the worker.<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

And then what do you mean exactly by greatness in poetry? <\/p>\n

One can say that Virgil is greater than Catullus and that many <\/p>\n

of Virgil’s lines are greater than anything Catullus ever achieved. <\/p>\n

But poetical perfection is not the same thing as poetical great <\/p>\n

ness. Virgil is perfect at his best, but Catullus too is perfect <\/p>\n

at his best: even each has a certain exquisiteness of perfection, <\/p>\n

each in his own kind. Virgil’s kind is large and deep, that of <\/p>\n

Catullus sweet and intense. Virgil’s art reached or had from its <\/p>\n

beginning a greater and more constant ripeness than that of <\/p>\n

Catullus. We can say then that Virgil was a greater poet and <\/p>\n

artist of word and rhythm but we cannot say that his poetry, <\/p>\n

at his best, was more perfect poetry and that of Catullus less. <\/p>\n

perfect. That renders futile many of the attempts at comparison like Arnold’s comparison of Wordsworth’s Skylark<\/i> with <\/p>\n

Shelley’s. You may say that Milton was a greater poet than<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 929<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Blake, but there can always be people, not
\naesthetically insensitive, who would prefer Blake’s lyrical work to Milton’s grander <\/p>\n

achievement, and there are certainly things in Blake which <\/p>\n

touch deeper chords than the massive hand of Milton could <\/p>\n

ever reach. So all poetic superiority is not summed up in the <\/p>\n

word greatness. Each kind has its own best which escapes <\/p>\n

from comparison and stands apart in its own value.<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Let us then leave for the present the
\nquestion of poetic great <\/p>\n

ness or superiority aside and come back to the Overmind aesthesis. By aesthesis is meant a reaction of the consciousness, <\/p>\n

mental and vital and even bodily, which receives a certain element in things, something that can be called their taste, Rasa, <\/p>\n

which, passing through the mind or sense or both, awakes a <\/p>\n

vital enjoyment of the taste, Bhoga, and this can again awaken <\/p>\n

as,<\/i> awaken even the soul in us to something yet deeper and <\/p>\n

more fundamental than mere pleasure and enjoyment, to some <\/p>\n

form of the spirit’s delight of existence, Ananda. Poetry, like <\/p>\n

all art, serves the seeking for these things, this aesthesis, this <\/p>\n

Rasa, Bhoga, Ananda, it brings us a Rasa of word and sound <\/p>\n

but also of the idea and, through the idea, of the things expressed <\/p>\n

by the word and sound and thought, a mental or vital or some <\/p>\n

times the spiritual image of their form, quality, impact upon us <\/p>\n

or even, if the poet is strong enough, of their world-essence, <\/p>\n

their cosmic reality, the very soul of them, the spirit that resides <\/p>\n

in them as it resides in all things. Poetry may do more than <\/p>\n

this, but this at least it must do to however small an extent or <\/p>\n

it is not poetry. Aesthesis therefore is of the very essence of <\/p>\n

poetry, as it is of all art. But it is not the sole element and aesthesis too is not confined to a reception of poetry and art: it <\/p>\n

extends to everything in the world: there is nothing we can <\/p>\n

sense, think or in any way experience to which there cannot be <\/p>\n

an aesthetic reaction of our conscious being. Ordinarily, we<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 930<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

suppose that aesthesis is concerned with beauty, and that indeed <\/p>\n

is its most prominent concern: but it is concerned with many <\/p>\n

other things also. It is the universal Ananda that is the parent <\/p>\n

of aesthesis and the universal Ananda takes three major and <\/p>\n

original forms, beauty,<\/i> love and delight, the delight of all existence, the delight in things, in all
\nthings. Universal Ananda is <\/p>\n

the artist and creator of the universe witnessing, experiencing <\/p>\n

and taking joy in its creation. In the lower consciousness it <\/p>\n

creates its opposites, the sense of ugliness as well as the sense <\/p>\n

of beauty, hate and repulsion and dislike as well as love and <\/p>\n

attraction and liking, grief and pain as well as joy and delight;<\/font><\/p>\n

and between these dualities or as a grey tint in the background <\/p>\n

there is a general tone of neutrality and indifference born from <\/p>\n

the universal insensibility into which the Ananda sinks in its <\/p>\n

dark negation in the Inconscient. All this is the sphere of aesthesis, its dullest reaction is indifference, its highest is ecstasy. <\/p>\n

Ecstasy is a sign of a return towards the original or supreme <\/p>\n

Ananda: that art or poetry is supreme which can bring us some <\/p>\n

thing of the supreme tone of ecstasy. For as the consciousness <\/p>\n

sinks from the supreme levels through various degrees towards <\/p>\n

the Inconscience the general sign of this descent is an always <\/p>\n

diminishing power of its intensity, intensity of being, intensity <\/p>\n

of consciousness, intensity of force, intensity of the delight in <\/p>\n

things and the delight of existence. So too as we ascend towards <\/p>\n

the supreme level, these intensities increase. As we climb be <\/p>\n

yond Mind, higher and wider values replace the values of our <\/p>\n

limited mind, life and bodily consciousness. Aesthesis shares <\/p>\n

in this intensification of capacity. The capacity for pleasure <\/p>\n

and pain, for liking and disliking is comparatively poor on the <\/p>\n

level of our mind and life; our capacity for ecstasy is brief and <\/p>\n

limited; these tones arise from a general ground of neutrality <\/p>\n

which is always dragging them back towards itself. As it enters<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 931<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

the Overhead planes the ordinary aesthesis turns into a pure <\/p>\n

delight and becomes capable of a high, a large or a deep abiding <\/p>\n

ecstasy. The ground is no longer a general neutrality, but a pure <\/p>\n

spiritual ease and happiness upon which the special tones of the <\/p>\n

aesthetic consciousness come out or from which they arise. This <\/p>\n

is the first fundamental change.<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Another change in this transition is a
\nturn towards universality in place of the isolations, the conflicting generalities, the <\/p>\n

mutually opposing dualities of the lower consciousness. In the <\/p>\n

Overmind we have a first firm foundation of the experience of a <\/p>\n

universal beauty, a universal love, a universal delight. These <\/p>\n

things can come on the mental and vital plane even before those <\/p>\n

planes are directly touched or influenced by the spiritual consciousness; but they are there a temporary experience and not <\/p>\n

permanent or they are limited in their field and do not touch the <\/p>\n

whole being. They are a glimpse and not a change of vision or <\/p>\n

a change of nature. The artist for instance can look at things <\/p>\n

only plain or shabby or ugly or even repulsive to the ordinary <\/p>\n

sense and see in them and bring out of them beauty and the <\/p>\n

delight that goes with beauty. But this is a sort of special grace <\/p>\n

for the artistic consciousness and is limited within the field of <\/p>\n

his art. In the Overhead consciousness, especially in the Over <\/p>\n

mind, these things become more and more the law of the vision <\/p>\n

and the law of the nature. Wherever the Overmind spiritual <\/p>\n

man turns he sees a universal beauty touching and uplifting all <\/p>\n

things, expressing itself through them, moulding them into a <\/p>\n

field or objects of its divine aesthesis; a universal love goes out <\/p>\n

from him to all beings; he feels the Bliss which has created the <\/p>\n

worlds and upholds them and all that is expresses to him the universal delight, is made of it, is a manifestation of it and moulded <\/p>\n

into its image. This universal aesthesis of beauty and delight <\/p>\n

does not ignore or fail to understand the differences and oppositions, <\/font>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 932<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

the gradations, the harmony and disharmony obvious to <\/p>\n

the ordinary consciousness; but, first of all, it draws a Rasa from them and with that comes the enjoyment, Bhoga, and <\/p>\n

the touch or the mass of the Ananda. It sees that all things <\/p>\n

have their meaning, their value, their deeper or total significance <\/p>\n

which the mind does not see, for the mind is only concerned <\/p>\n

with a surface vision, surface contacts and its own surface reactions. When something expresses perfectly what it was meant <\/p>\n

to express, the completeness brings with it a sense of harmony, <\/p>\n

a sense of artistic perfection, it gives even to what is discordant <\/p>\n

a place in a system of cosmic concordances and the discords <\/p>\n

become part of a vast harmony, and wherever there is harmony, <\/p>\n

there is a sense of beauty. Even in form itself, apart from the <\/p>\n

significance, the Overmind consciousness sees the object with <\/p>\n

a totality which changes its effect on the percipient even while <\/p>\n

it remains the same thing. It sees lines and masses and an under <\/p>\n

lying design which the physical eye does not see and which <\/p>\n

escapes even the keenest mental vision. Every form becomes <\/p>\n

beautiful to it in a deeper and larger sense of beauty than that <\/p>\n

commonly known to us. The Overmind looks also straight at <\/p>\n

and into the soul of each thing and not only at its form or its <\/p>\n

significance to the mind or to the life, this brings to it not only <\/p>\n

the true truth of the thing but the delight of it. It sees also <\/p>\n

the one spirit in all, the face of the Divine everywhere and there <\/p>\n

can be no greater Ananda than that, it feels oneness with all, <\/p>\n

sympathy, love, the bliss of the Brahman. In a highest, a most <\/p>\n

integral experience it sees all things as if made of existence, <\/p>\n

consciousness, power, bliss, every atom of them charged with <\/p>\n

and constituted of Sachchidananda. In all this the Overmind <\/p>\n

aesthesis takes its share and gives its response, for these things <\/p>\n

.come not merely as an idea in the mind or a truth-seeing but <\/p>\n

as an experience of the whole being and a total response is not<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 933<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

only possible but above a certain level imperative.<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

I have said that aesthesis responds not only to what we call <\/p>\n

beauty and beautiful things but to all things. We make a distinction between truth and beauty; but there can be an aesthetic <\/p>\n

response to truth also, a joy in its beauty, a love created by its <\/p>\n

charm, a rapture in the finding, a passion in the embrace, an aesthetic joy in its expression, a satisfaction of love in the giving of it <\/p>\n

to others. Truth is not merely a dry statement of facts or ideas <\/p>\n

to or by the intellect; it can be a splendid discovery, a rapturous revelation, a thing of beauty that is a joy for ever. The poet <\/p>\n

also can be a seeker and lover of truth as well as a seeker and lover <\/p>\n

of beauty. He can feel a poetic and aesthetic joy in the expression <\/p>\n

of the true as well as in the expression of the beautiful. He does <\/p>\n

not make a mere intellectual or philosophical statement of the <\/p>\n

truth; it is his vision of its beauty, its power, his thrilled reception <\/p>\n

of it, his joy in it that he tries to convey by an utmost perfection <\/p>\n

in word and rhythm. If he has the passion, then even a philosophical statement of it he can surcharge with this sense of <\/p>\n

power, force, light, beauty. On certain levels of the Overmind, <\/p>\n

where the mind element predominates over the element of gnosis, <\/p>\n

the distinction between truth and beauty is still valid. It is indeed <\/p>\n

one of the chief functions of the Overmind to separate the main <\/p>\n

powers of the consciousness and give to each its full <\/p>\n

separate development and satisfaction, bring out its utmost potency and meaning, its own soul and significant body and take it <\/p>\n

on its own way as far as it can go. It can take up each power <\/p>\n

of man and give it its full potentiality, its highest characteristic <\/p>\n

development. It can give to intellect its austerest intellectuality <\/p>\n

and to logic its most sheer unsparing logicality. It can give to <\/p>\n

beauty its most splendid passion of luminous form and the consciousness that receives it a supreme height and depth of ecstasy. <\/p>\n

It can create a sheer and pure poetry impossible for the intellect <\/font>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 934<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

to sound to its depths or wholly grasp, much less to mentalise <\/p>\n

and analyse. It is the function of Overmind to give to every possibility its fall potential, its own separate kingdom. But also there <\/p>\n

is another action of Overmind which sees and thinks and creates <\/p>\n

in masses, which reunites separated things, which reconciles opposites. On that level truth and beauty not only become constant <\/p>\n

companions but become one, involved in each other, inseparable:. <\/p>\n

on that level the rue is always beautiful and the beautiful is al <\/p>\n

ways true. Their highest fusion perhaps only takes place in the <\/p>\n

Supermind; but Overmind on its summits draws enough of the <\/p>\n

supramental light to see what the Supermind sees and do what <\/p>\n

the Supermind does though in a lower key and with a less absolute <\/p>\n

truth and power. On. an inferior level Overmind may use the <\/p>\n

language of the intellect to convey as far as that language can do <\/p>\n

it its own greater meaning and message but on its summits Over <\/p>\n

mind uses its own native language and gives to its truths their <\/p>\n

own supreme utterance, and no intellectual speech, no mentalised <\/p>\n

poetry can equal or even come near to that power and beauty. Here <\/p>\n

your intellectual dictum that poetry lives by its aesthetic quality<\/font><\/p>\n

alone and has no need of truth or that truth must depend upon <\/p>\n

aesthetics to become poetic at all, has no longer any meaning. For<\/font><\/p>\n

there truth itself is highest poetry and has only to appear to be <\/p>\n

utterly beautiful to the vision, the hearing, the sensibility of the <\/p>\n

soul. There dwells and from there springs the mystery of the <\/p>\n

inevitable word, the supreme immortal rhythm, the absolute<\/font><\/p>\n

significance and the absolute utterance.<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

I hope you do not feel crushed under this
\navalanche of meta <\/p>\n

physical psychology; you have called it upon yourself by your <\/p>\n

questioning about the Overmind’s greater, larger and deeper<\/font><\/p>\n

aesthesis. What I have written is indeed very scanty and sketchy,<\/font><\/p>\n

only some of the few essential things that
\nhave to be said; but with <\/p>\n

out it I could not try to give you any glimpse of the meaning of<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 935<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

my phrase. This greater aesthesis is inseparable from the greater <\/p>\n

truth, it is deeper because of the depth of that truth, larger by all <\/p>\n

its immense largeness. I do not expect the reader of poetry to come <\/p>\n

anywhere near to all that, he could not without being a Yogi or <\/p>\n

at least a sadhak: but just as the Overhead poetry brings some <\/p>\n

touch of a deeper power of vision and creation into the mind with <\/p>\n

out belonging itself wholly to the higher reaches, so also the full <\/p>\n

appreciation of all its burden needs at least some touch of a <\/p>\n

deeper response of the mind and some touch of a deeper aesthesis. <\/p>\n

Until that becomes general the Overhead or at least the Over <\/p>\n

mind is not going to do more than to touch here and there, as it <\/p>\n

did in the past, a few lines, a few passages, or perhaps as things <\/p>\n

advance, a little more, nor is it likely to pour into our utterance <\/p>\n

its own complete power and absolute value.<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

I have said that Overhead poetry is not necessarily greater or <\/p>\n

more perfect than any other kind of poetry. But perhaps a subtle <\/p>\n

qualification may be made to this statement. It is true that each <\/p>\n

kind of poetical writing can reach a highest or perfect perfection <\/p>\n

in its own line and in its own quality and what can be more perfect <\/p>\n

than a perfect perfection or can we say that one kind of absolute <\/p>\n

perfection is "greater" than another kind? What can be more <\/p>\n

absolute than the absolute? But then what do we mean by the <\/p>\n

perfection of poetry? There is the perfection of the <\/p>\n

language and there is the perfection of the word-music and the <\/p>\n

rhythm, beauty of speech and beauty of sound, but there is also <\/p>\n

the quality of the thing said which counts for something. If we <\/p>\n

consider only word and sound and what in themselves they evoke, <\/p>\n

we arrive at the application of the theory of art for art’s sake to <\/p>\n

poetry. On that ground we might say that a lyric of Anacreon is <\/p>\n

as good poetry and as perfect poetry as anything in Aeschylus or <\/p>\n

Sophocles or Homer. The question of the elevation or depth <\/p>\n

or. intrinsic beauty of the thing said cannot then enter into our<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 936<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

consideration of poetry; and yet it does enter, with most of us <\/p>\n

at any rate, and is part of the aesthetic reaction even in the most <\/p>\n

"aesthetic" of critics and readers. From this point of view the <\/p>\n

elevation from which the inspiration comes may after all matter, <\/p>\n

provided the one who receives it is a fit and powerful instrument;<\/font><\/p>\n

for a great poet will do more with a lower level of the origin of <\/p>\n

inspiration than a smaller poet can do even when helped from the <\/p>\n

highest sources. In a certain sense all genius comes from Over <\/p>\n

head; for genius is the entry or inrush of a greater consciousness <\/p>\n

into the mind or a possession of the mind by a greater power. <\/p>\n

Every operation of genius has at its back or infused within it an <\/p>\n

intuition, a revelation, an inspiration, an illumination or at the <\/p>\n

least a hint or touch or influx from some greater power or level <\/p>\n

of conscious being than those which men ordinarily possess or <\/p>\n

use. But this power has two ways of acting; in one it touches the <\/p>\n

ordinary modes of mind and deepens, heightens, intensifies or <\/p>\n

exquisitely refines their action but without changing its modes or <\/p>\n

transforming its normal character; in the other it brings down into <\/p>\n

these normal modes something of itself, something supernormal, <\/p>\n

something which one at once feels to be extraordinary and suggestive of a superhuman level. These two ways of action when working in poetry may produce things equally exquisite and beautiful, <\/p>\n

but the word "greater" may perhaps be applied, with the necessary <\/p>\n

qualifications, to the second way and its too rare poetic creation.<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

The great bulk of the highest poetry belongs to the first of <\/p>\n

these two orders. In the second order there are again two or per <\/p>\n

haps three levels; sometimes a felicitous turn or an unusual force <\/p>\n

of language or a deeper note of feeling brings in the Overhead <\/p>\n

touch. More often it is the power of the rhythm that lifts up <\/p>\n

language that is simple and common or a feeling or idea that has <\/p>\n

often been expressed and awakes something which is not ordinarily <\/p>\n

there. If one listens with the mind only or from the vital centre<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 937<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

only, one may have a wondering admiration for the skill and <\/p>\n

beauty of woven word and sound or be struck by the happy way <\/p>\n

or the power with which the feeling or idea is expressed. But <\/p>\n

there is something more in it than that, it is this that a deeper, <\/p>\n

more inward strand of the consciousness has seen and is speaking, <\/p>\n

and if we listen more profoundly we can get something more <\/p>\n

than the admiration and delight of the mind or Housman’s thrill <\/p>\n

of the solar plexus. We can feel perhaps the Spirit of the universe <\/p>\n

lending its own depth to our mortal speech or listening from <\/p>\n

behind to some expression of itself, listening perhaps to its memories of<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Old, unhappy, far-off things <\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

And battles long ago<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

or feeling and hearing, it may be said, the vast oceanic stillness <\/p>\n

and the cry of the cuckoo .<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Breaking the silence of the seas <\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Among the farthest Hebrides<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

or it may enter again into Vyasa’s<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

"A void and dreadful forest ringing with the crickets’ cry" <\/p>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Vanam pratibhayam śūnyam jhillikāganāninaditam<\/i><\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

or remember its call to the soul of man,<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Anityam asukham lokam imam prāpya bhajasva mām <\/p>\n

<\/i><\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

"Thou who hast come to this transient and unhappy world, <\/p>\n

love and worship Me."<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

There is a second level on which the poetry draws into itself a <\/p>\n

fuller language of intuitive inspiration, illumination or the higher <\/p>\n

thinking and feeling. A very rich or great poetry may then emerge <\/p>\n

and many of the most powerful passages in Shakespeare, Virgil<\/font>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 938<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

or Lucretius or the Mahabharata and Ramayana, not to speak of <\/p>\n

the Gita, the Upanishads or the Rig Veda, have this inspiration. <\/p>\n

It is a poetry "thick inlaid with patines of bright gold" or welling <\/p>\n

up in a stream of passion, beauty and force. But sometimes there <\/p>\n

comes down a supreme voice, the Overmind voice and the Over <\/p>\n

mind music and it is to be observed that the lines and passages <\/p>\n

where that happens rank among the greatest and most admired <\/p>\n

in all poetic literature. It would be therefore too much to say <\/p>\n

that the Overhead inspiration cannot bring in a greatness into <\/p>\n

poetry which could surpass the other levels of inspiration, greater <\/p>\n

even from the purely aesthetic point of view and certainly greater <\/p>\n

in the power of its substance.<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

A conscious attempt to write Overhead poetry with a mind aware <\/p>\n

of the planes from which this inspiration comes and seeking always <\/p>\n

to ascend to those levels or bring down something from them, <\/p>\n

would probably result in a partial success, at its lowest it might <\/p>\n

attain to what I have called the first order, ordinarily it would <\/p>\n

achieve the two lower levels of the second order and in its supreme <\/p>\n

moments it might in lines and in sustained passages achieve the <\/p>\n

supreme level, something of the highest summit of its potency. <\/p>\n

But its greatest work will be to express adequately and constantly <\/p>\n

what is now only occasionally and inadequately some kind of <\/p>\n

utterance of the things above, the things beyond, the things behind <\/p>\n

the apparent world and its external or superficial happenings and <\/p>\n

phenomena. It would not only bring in the occult in its larger <\/p>\n

and deeper ranges but the truths of the spiritual heights, the <\/p>\n

spiritual depths, the spiritual intimacies and vastnesses as also the <\/p>\n

truths of the inner mind, the inner life, an inner or subtle physical <\/p>\n

beauty and reality. It would bring in the concreteness, the authentic image, the inmost soul of identity and the heart of meaning <\/p>\n

of these things, so that it could never lack in beauty. If this could <\/p>\n

be achieved by one possessed, if not of a supreme, still of a sufficiently <\/font>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 939<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

high and wide poetic genius, something new
\ncould be added to the domain of poetry and there would be no danger of <\/p>\n

the power of poetry beginning to fade, to fall into decadence, to <\/p>\n

fail us. It might even enter into the domain of the infinite and <\/p>\n

inexhaustible, catch some word of the Ineffable, show us revealing <\/p>\n

images which bring us near to the Reality that is secret in us and <\/p>\n

in all of which the Upanishad speaks,<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Anejad ekam manaso javīyo nainad devā āpnuvam
\npūrvam <\/p>\n

arshat….Tad ejati tan naijati tad dūre tad u antike. <\/p>\n

<\/i><\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

"The One unmoving is swifter than thought, the gods cannot <\/p>\n

overtake It, for It travels ever in front; It moves and It moves <\/p>\n

not. It is far away from us and It is very close."<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

The gods of the Overhead planes can do much to bridge that <\/p>\n

distance and to bring out that closeness, even if they cannot altogether overtake the Reality that exceeds and transcends them.<\/font><\/p>\n

  <\/p>\n

<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n

(1946)<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

THE END<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

<\/b><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/font>
\nPage \u2013 940<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

     LETTERS ON "SAVITRI"   I THERE is a previous draft, the result of the many retouchings of which somebody told you; but in that…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[78],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3439","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-03-savitri-1954","wpcat-78-id"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3439","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3439"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3439\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9810,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3439\/revisions\/9810"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3439"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3439"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3439"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}