FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   327   328   329   330   331   332   333   334   335   336   337   338   339   340   341   342   343   344   345   346   347   348   349   350   351  
352   353   354   355   356   357   358   359   360   361   362   363   364   365   366   367   368   369   370   371   372   373   374   375   376   >>   >|  
--the story, scenery, characters, sentiments as they are in the poem? They have vanished clean away. Nothing is left but the form on one side, and on the other not even the subject, but a supposed invariable material, the appearances of nature and the thoughts and feelings of men. Is it surprising that the whole value should then be found in the form? So far we have assumed that this antithesis of substance and form is valid, and that it always has one meaning. In reality it has several, but we will leave it in its present shape, and pass to the question of its validity. And this question we are compelled to raise, because we have to deal with the two contentions that the poetic value lies wholly or mainly in the substance, and that it lies wholly or mainly in the form. Now these contentions, whether false or true, may seem at least to be clear; but we shall find, I think, that they are both of them false, or both of them nonsense: false if they concern anything outside the poem, nonsense if they apply to something in it. For what do they evidently imply? They imply that there are in a poem two parts, factors, or components, a substance and a form; and that you can conceive them distinctly and separately, so that when you are speaking of the one you are not speaking of the other. Otherwise how can you ask the question, In which of them does the value lie? But really in a poem, apart from defects, there are no such factors or components; and therefore it is strictly nonsense to ask in which of them the value lies. And on the other hand, if the substance and the form referred to are not in the poem, then both the contentions are false, for its poetic value lies in itself. What I mean is neither new nor mysterious; and it will be clear, I believe, to any one who reads poetry poetically and who closely examines his experience. When you are reading a poem, I would ask--not analysing it, and much less criticizing it, but allowing it, as it proceeds, to make its full impression on you through the exertion of your recreating imagination--do you then apprehend and enjoy as one thing a certain meaning or substance, and as another thing certain articulate sounds, and do you somehow compound these two? Surely you do not, any more than you apprehend apart, when you see some one smile, those lines in the face which express a feeling, and the feeling that the lines express. Just as there the lines and their meaning are to you one t
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   327   328   329   330   331   332   333   334   335   336   337   338   339   340   341   342   343   344   345   346   347   348   349   350   351  
352   353   354   355   356   357   358   359   360   361   362   363   364   365   366   367   368   369   370   371   372   373   374   375   376   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

substance

 
meaning
 
contentions
 

nonsense

 
question
 
components
 

factors

 

apprehend

 

poetic

 

wholly


speaking

 

feeling

 
express
 

defects

 
poetry
 

examines

 

closely

 
poetically
 

strictly

 

mysterious


referred

 

criticizing

 

Surely

 

compound

 

articulate

 
sounds
 

imagination

 

analysing

 
reading
 

allowing


proceeds

 

exertion

 

recreating

 

impression

 
experience
 

distinctly

 

invariable

 

supposed

 

present

 
material

validity
 
compelled
 

subject

 

reality

 

feelings

 

thoughts

 

appearances

 

nature

 
assumed
 

antithesis