{"id":3774,"date":"2013-07-13T01:51:08","date_gmt":"2013-07-13T01:51:08","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost\/?p=3774"},"modified":"2013-07-13T01:51:08","modified_gmt":"2013-07-13T01:51:08","slug":"08-indo-english-poetry-vol-03-third-series-1949","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/01-works-of-sri-aurobindo\/02-other-editions\/letters-of-sri-aurobindo\/03-third-series-1949\/08-indo-english-poetry-vol-03-third-series-1949","title":{"rendered":"-08_Indo-English Poetry.htm"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n\n\n
\n

\n
\nSECTION SIX <\/font><\/p>\n

<\/b><\/p>\n

\n
\nINDO-ENGLISH POETRY <\/font><\/p>\n

<\/b><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\nAchievement of Indo-English Poetry\u2014
\n<\/a>
\n<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

<\/b><\/p>\n

\n
\nLiterary Decadence in Europe<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

<\/b><\/p>\n

\nT<\/font>HE <\/b>idea that Indians cannot succeed in English
\npoetry is very much in the air just now but it
\ncannot be taken as absolutely valid. Toru Dutt and
\nRomesh of the same ilk prove nothing; Toru Dutt was
\nan accomplished verse-builder with a delicate talent
\nand some outbreaks of genius and she wrote things
\nthat were attractive and sometimes something that
\nhad a strong energy of language and a rhythmic force.
\nRomesh was a smart imitator of English poetry of the
\nsecond or third rank. What he wrote, if written by an
\nEnglishman, might not have had even a temporary
\nsuccess. Sarojini is different. Her work has a real
\nbeauty, but it has for the most part only one highly
\nlyrical note and a vein of riches that has been soon
\nexhausted. Some of her lyrical work is likely, I
\nthink, to survive among the lasting things in English
\nliterature and by these, even if they are fine rather than
\ngreat, she may take her rank among the immortals.
\nI know no other Indian poets who have published
\nin English anything. that is really alive and strong: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 245<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nand original* The test will be when something is
\ndone
\nthat is of real power and scope and gets its due chance. Tagore’s Gitanjali is not in verse, but
\nthe place it has taken has some significance. For the obstacles from the other side are that the English
\nis apt to look on poetry by an Indian as a curiosity, something exotic (whether it really is or
\nnot, the suggestion will be there), and to stress the
\ndistance at which the English temperament stands from
\nthe Indian temperament. But Tagore’s Gitanjali most un-English, yet it overcame this obstacle.
\nFor the poetry of spiritual experience, even if it has true
\npoetic value, the difficulty might lie in the remoteness of the subject. But nowadays this difficulty is lessening with the increasing interest in the
\nspiritual and the mystic. It is an age in which Donne, once condemned as a talented but fantastic weaver
\nextraordinary conceits, is being hailed as a great
\n, and Blake lifted to a high eminence; even
\nsmall poets with the mystic turn are being pulled out of their obscurity and held up to the light.
\nAt present many are turning to India for its sources of spirituality, but the eye has been directed only
\ntowards yoga and philosophy, not to the poetical <\/font><\/p>\n

\n*This was written some years ago and does not apply to more
\nrecent work in English by Indian poets. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 246<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nexpression of it. When the full day comes, however,
\nit may well be that this too will be discovered, and
\nthen an Indian who is at once a mystic and a true
\npoet and able to write in English as if in his mother-
\ntongue (that is essential) would have his full chance.
\nMany barriers are breaking; moreover, both in
\nFrench and English there are instances of foreigners
\nwho have taken their place as prose-writers or poets. <\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n24-1-1935 <\/font><\/p>\n

\nP.S. About decadence: a language becomes decadent when the race decays, when life and soul go
\nout and only the dry intellect and the tired senses
\nremain. Europe is in imminent peril of decadence
\nand all its literatures are attacked by this malady,
\nthough it is only beginning and energy is still there
\nwhich may bring renewal. But the English language
\nhas still several strings to its bow and is not confined
\nto an aged worn-out England. Moreover, there
\nare two tendencies active in the modern mind,
\nthe over-intellectualised, over-sensualised decadent
\nthat makes for death, and the spiritual which may
\nbring rebirth. At present the decadent tendency may
\nbe stronger, but the other is also there. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 247<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n
\nFuture of Indo-English Poetry<\/i>
\n<\/a> <\/font><\/p>\n

<\/b><\/p>\n

\nWhat you say may be correct (that our oriental
\nluxury in poetry makes it unappealing to Westerners), but on the other hand it is possible that the
\nof the future will be more international than it is
\nnow. In that case the expression of various temperaments in English poetry will have a chance.
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nIf our aim is not success and personal fame but to
\narrive
\nat the expression of spiritual truth and experience of all kinds in poetry; the English tongue is
\nthe most widespread and is capable of profound turns of mystic expression which make it admirably fitted
\nfor the purpose; if it could be used for the highest spiritual expression, that is worth trying.
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\nMental Theories and Poetic Freedom<\/i>
\n<\/a> <\/font>
\n<\/b><\/p>\n

\nWhy erect mental theories and suit your poetry to
\nthem? I would suggest to you not to be bound by any but to write as best suits
\nyour own inspiration and poetic genius. Each poet should write in the way suited to his own inspiration and substance;
\nit is a habit of the human mind fond of erecting rules
\nand rigidities to put one way forward as a general <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 248<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nlaw for all. <\/b> If you insist on being rigidly simple and
\ndirect as a mental rule, you might spoil something
\nof the subtlety of the expression you now have, even
\nif the delicacy of the substance remained with you.
\nObscurity, artifice, rhetoric have to be avoided, but
\nfor the rest follow the inner movement. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nI do not remember the precise words I used in
\nlaying down the rule to which you refer, I think I
\nadvised sincerity and straightforwardness as opposed
\nto rhetoric and artifice. In any case it was far from
\nmy intention to impose any strict rule of bare simplicity and directness as a
\ngeneral law of poetic style. I was speaking of "Twentieth century English
\npoetry" and of what was necessary for A, an Indian writing in the English
\ntongue. English poetry in former times used inversions freely and had a law of
\nits own\u2014at that time natural and right, but the same thing nowadays sounds
\nartificial and false. English has now acquired a richness and flexibility and
\npower of many-sided suggestion which makes it unnecessary for poetry to depart
\nfrom the ordinary style and form of the language. But there are other languages
\nin which this is not yet true. Bengali is in its youth, in full process of growth and has
\nmany things not yet done, many powers and values
\nit has still to acquire. It is necessary that its poets
\nshould keep a full and entire freedom to turn in <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 249<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nwhatever way the genius leads, to find new forms
\nand movements; if they like to adhere to the ordinary
\nform of the language to which prose has to keep,
\nthey should be free to do so; but also they should be free to depart from it, if it is by doing so
\nthat they can best liberate their souls in. speech. At present it is this that most matters. <\/font><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\nPitfalls of Indo-English Blank Verse<\/i>
\n<\/a> <\/font>
\n<\/b><\/p>\n

\nI HAVE often seen that Indians who write in English,
\nimmediately they try blank verse, begin to follow
\nVictorian model and especially a sort of pseudo-Tennysonian movement or structure which makes
\ntheir work in this kind weak, flat and ineffective.
\nThe language inevitably suffers by the same fault, for with a weak verse-cadence it is impossible to
\nfind a strong or effective turn of language. But
\nVictorian blank verse at its best is not strong or
\ngreat, and at a more common level it is languid or
\ncrude or characterless. Except for a few poems, like
\nTennyson’s early "Morte d’Arthur", "Ulysses" and one or two others or Arnold’s "Sohrab and
\nRustum", there is nothing of a very high order. Tennyson is a perilous model and can have a <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 250<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nweakening and corrupting influence and the "Princess" and "Idylls of the King" which seem to have
\nset the tone for Indo-English blank verse are
\nperhaps the worst choice possible for such a role.
\nThere is plenty of clever craftsmanship but it is
\nmostly false and artificial and without true strength
\nor inspired movement or poetic force\u2014the right
\nkind of blank verse for a Victorian drawing-room.
\npoetry, that is all that can be said for it. As for
\nlanguage and substance his influence tends
\n<\/b>to
\n<\/b>bring a thin artificial decorative prettiness or
\npicturesqueness varied by an elaborate false simplicity and an attempt at a kind
\nof brilliant, sometimes lusciously brilliant sentimental or sententious commonplace. The higher quality in his best work is
\nnot easily assimilable; the worst is catching but
\nundesirable as a model. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nBlank verse is the most difficult of all English
\nmetres; it has to be very skilfully and strongly done
\nto make up for the absence of rhyme, and if not
\nvery well done, it is better not done at all. In the
\nancient languages rhyme was not needed, for they
\nwere written in quantitative metres which gave
\nthem the necessary support, but modern languages
\nin their metrical forms need the help of rhyme. It
\nis only a very masterly hand that can make blank
\nverse an equally or even a more effective poetic <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 251<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nmovement. You have to vary your metre by a skilful
\nplay of pauses or by an always changing distribution
\ncaesura and of stresses and supple combinations
\nlong and short vowels and by much weaving of
\nvowel and consonant variation and assonance; or
\nelse, if you use a more regular form you have to give a great power and relief to the verse as did
\nMarlowe at his best. If you do none of these things, if you write with effaced
\nstresses, without relief and force or, if you do not succeed in producing
\nharmonious variation in your rhythm, your blank verse
\nbecomes a monotonous vapid wash and no amount of mere thought-colour or image-colour can
\nsave it. <\/font><\/p>\n

\n
\nPractical Suggestions for Writing English Poetry<\/i>
\n<\/a> <\/font><\/p>\n

<\/b><\/p>\n

\n
\n(1)<\/font>
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/b><\/p>\n

\nIf you want to write English poetry which can stand, I would suggest three rules for you: <\/font><\/p>\n

\n(1) Avoid rhetorical turns and artifices
\n<\/b>and the
\n<\/b>rhetorical tone generally. An English poet can use
\nthese things at will because he has the intrinsic sense of
\nhis language and can keep the right proportion <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 252<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nand measure. An Indian using them kills his poetry
\nand produces a scholastic exercise. <\/font><\/p>\n

\n(2) Write modern English. Avoid frequent inversions or turns of language that belong to the past
\npoetic styles. Modern English poetry uses a straightforward order and a natural style, not different
\nin vocabulary, syntax, etc., from that of prose. An
\ninversion can be used sometimes, but it must be done deliberately and for a distinct and particular
\neffect. <\/font><\/p>\n

\n(3) For poetic effect rely wholly on the power
\nof your substance, the magic of rhythm and the
\nsincerity of your expression\u2014if you can add subtlety so much the better, but not at the cost of sincerity"
\nand straightforwardness. Do not construct your
\npoetry with the brain-mind, the mere intellect\u2014that is not the source of true inspiration: write always.
\nfrom the inner heart of emotion and vision.<\/font><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\nPractical
\nSuggestions for Writing English Poetry – (2)<\/a><\/font><\/b><\/i><\/p>\n

\nThe poetry of your friend is rather irritating
\nbecause it is always just missing what it ought to
\nachieve; one feels a considerable poetic possibility"
\nwhich does not produce work of some permanence
\nbecause it is not scrupulous enough or has not a<\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 253<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\ntrue technique. The reasons for the failure can be
\nfelt, but are not easy to analyse. Among hem
\nthere is evidently the misfortune of having passed strongly under the influence of poets who smell of
\nthe schoolroom and the bookworm’s closet. Such
\nawful things as "unsoughten", "a-journeying," "aknocking," "stray\u00e9d gift" and the constant abuse
\nof the auxiliary verb "to do" would be enough to damn even the best poem. If he would rigorously
\nmodernise his language, one obstacle to real poetic success would perhaps disappear,\u2014provided he does
\nnot, on the contrary, colloquialise it too much\u2014e.g. "<\/i>my dear", etc. But the other grave defect is that
\nis constantly composing out of his brain, while one feels that a pressure from a deeper source is
\nthere and might break through, if only he would let it. Of course, it is a
\nforeign language he is writing and very few can do their poetic best in a
\nlearned medium; but still the defect is there.<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n22.6.1931 <\/font><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\nRequirements for Writing Good English<\/i>
\n<\/a> <\/font><\/p>\n

<\/b><\/p>\n

\nTHIS  book, returned herewith, is not in my opinion
\nable for the purpose. The author wanted to <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 254<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nmake it look like a translation of a romance in
\nSanskrit and he has therefore made the spirit
\nand even partly the form of the language more
\nIndian than English. It is not therefore useful for
\ngetting into the spirit of the English language.
\nIndians have naturally in writing English a tendency
\nto be too coloured, sometimes flowery, sometimes
\nrhetorical and a book like this would increase the
\ntendency. One ought to have in writing English a
\nstyle which is at its base capable of going to the
\npoint, saying with a simple and energetic straight-
\nforwardness what one means to say, so that one can
\nadd grace of language without disturbing this
\nbasis. Arnold is a very good model for this purpose
\nEmerson less, but his book will also do. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nIt is surely better to write your own thoughts. The
\nexercise of writing in your own words what another
\nhas said or written is a good exercise or test for
\naccuracy, clear understanding of ideas, an observant
\nintelligence but your object is, I suppose, to be
\nable to understand English and express yourself in
\ngood English. <\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n16-5-1932 <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 255<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n
\n
\nCurrent Use of English Language<\/i>
\n<\/a> <\/font><\/p>\n

<\/b><\/p>\n

\nI AM in general agreement with your answer to M’s
\nstrictures on certain points in your style and your
\nuse of the English language. His objections have usually some ground, but are not unquestionably
\nvalid; they would be so only if the English language
\nwere a fixed and unprogressive and invariable medium demanding a scrupulous correctness and
\npurity and chaste exactness like the French; but
\nthis language is constantly changing and escaping from boundaries and previously
\nfixed rules and its character and style, you might almost say, is whatever the writer likes to make it. Stephen Phillips
\nonce said of it in a libertine image that the English language is like a woman who will not love you
\nunless you take liberties with her. As for the changeableness, it is obvious in recent violences of
\nalteration, now fixed and recognised, such as the pronunciation of words like "nation" and "ration"
\nwhich now sound as "gnashun" and "rashun"; one’s
\nsoul and one’s ear revolt, at least mine do, against
\ndegrading the noble word "nation" into the clipped
\nindignity of the plebian and ignoble "gnashun",  there is no help for it. As for "aspire for", it
\nmay be less correct than "aspire to" or "aspire after", but it is psychologically called for and it<\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 256<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n seems to me to be much more appropriate than
\n"aspire at" which I would never think of using. The
\nuse of prepositions is one of the most debatable
\nthings, or at least one of the most frequently debated
\nin the language. The Mother told me other listening
\nin Japan to interminable quarrels between Cousins
\nand the American Hirsch on debatable points in
\nthe language but especially on this battlefield and
\nnever once could they agree. It is true that one
\nwas an Irish poet from Belfast and the other an
\nAmerican scholar and scientist, so perhaps neither
\ncould be taken as an unquestionable authority on
\nthe English tongue; but among Englishmen themselves I have known of such constant disputes.
\nCousins had remarkably independent ideas in these
\nmatters; he always insisted that "infinite" must be
\npronounced "infighnight" on the ground that
\n"finite" was so pronounced and the negative could
\nnot presume to differ so unconscionably from the
\npositive. That was after all as good a reason as
\nthat alleged for changing the pronunciation of
\n"nation" and "ration" on the ground that as the
\n‘a’ in "national" and "rational" is short, it is illogical to use a different quantity in the substantive.
\n"To contact" is a phrase that has established itself
\nand it is futile to try to keep America at arm’s
\nlength any longer; " global" also has established itself
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 257<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nand it is too useful and indeed indispensable to reject; there is no other word that can express exactly the
\nsame shade of meaning. I heard it first from Arjava
\nwho described the language of Arya<\/i> as expressing
\na global thinking and I at once caught it up as the
\nright and only word for certain things, for instance,
\nthe thinking in masses which is a frequent characteristic of the Overmind. As for the use of current
\nFrench and Latin phrases, it may be condemned
\nas objectionable on the same ground as the use of
\nclich\u00e9s and stock phrases in literary style, but
\nthey often hit the target more forcibly than any
\nEnglish equivalent and have a more lively effect
\non the mind of the reader. That may not justify
\na too frequent use of them, but in moderation it is
\nat least a good excuse for it. I think the expression
\n"bears around it a halo" has been or can be used
\nand it is at least not worn out like the ordinary
\n"wears a halo". One would more usually apply
\nthe expression "devoid of method" to an action or
\nprocedure than to a person, but the latter turn
\nseems to me admissible. I do not think I need say
\nanything in particular about other objections, they
\nare questions of style and on that there can be
\ndifferent opinions; but you are right in altering
\nthe obviously mixed metaphor "in full cry", though
\nI do not think any of your four substitutes have <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 258<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nanything of its liveliness and force. Colloquial
\nexpressions have, if rightly used, the advantage of
\ngiving point, flavour, alertness and I think in your
\nuse of them they do that; they can also lower and
\ndamage the style, but that danger is mostly when
\nthere is a set character of uniform dignity or elevation. The chief character of your style is rather
\na constant life and vividness and supple and ample
\nabounding energy of thought and language which can soar or run or sweep along at will but does not
\nsimply walk or creep or saunter and in such a style
\nforcible colloquialisms can do good service. <\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n2.4.1947<\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 259<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/font><\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

SECTION SIX INDO-ENGLISH POETRY Achievement of Indo-English Poetry\u2014 Literary Decadence in Europe THE idea that Indians cannot succeed in English poetry is very much in…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[100],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3774","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-03-third-series-1949","wpcat-100-id"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3774","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=3774"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3774\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3774"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3774"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3774"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}