Science and poetryRichards, I. A. (Ivor Armstrong)
History
Science and poetry
Richards, I. A. (Ivor Armstrong)
English poetry -- 20th century -- History and criticism; Poetry
The doctrinal problem arises again, but in a clearer form with Mr.
Lawrence. But here (Mr. Yeats’ promised treatise on the states of the
soul has not yet appeared) we have the advantage of an elaborate prose
exposition, _Phantasia of the Unconscious_, of the positions which
so many of the poems advocate. It is not unfair to put the matter in
this way, since there is little doubt possible that the bulk of Mr.
Lawrence’s published verse is prose, scientific prose too, jottings, in
fact, from a psychologist’s notebook, with a commentary interspersed.
Due allowance being made for the extreme psychological interest of
these observations, there remains the task of explaining how the poet
who wrote the _Ballad of Another Ophelia_ and _Aware_, and, above
all, _The White Peacock_, should have wandered, through his own zeal
misdirected, so far from the paths which once appeared to be his alone
to open.
Mr. Lawrence’s revolt against civilization seems to have been
originally spontaneous, an emotional revulsion free from _ad hoc_
beliefs. It sprang directly from experience. He came to abhor all
the attitudes men adopt, not through the direct prompting of their
instincts, but because of the supposed nature of the objects to
which they are directed. The conventions, the idealizations, which
come between man and man and between man and woman, which often
queer the pitch for the natural responses, seemed to him the source
of all evil. Part of his revolt was certainly justified. These
idealizations--representative examples are the dogma of the equality
of man and the doctrine that Love is primarily sympathy--are beliefs
illicitly interpolated in order to support and strengthen attitudes
in the manner discussed at length above. And Mr. Lawrence’s original
rejection of a morality not self-supporting but based upon beliefs,
makes his work an admirable illustration of my main thesis. But two
simple and avoidable mistakes deprived his revolt of the greater part
of its value. He overlooked the fact that such beliefs commonly arise
because the attitudes they support are already existent. He assumed
that a bad basis for an attitude meant a bad attitude. In general, it
does mean a forced attitude, but that is another matter. Secondly,
he tried to cure the disease by introducing other beliefs of his own
manufacture in place of the conventional beliefs and in support of very
different attitudes.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account