POETRY
51
with the upswinging group of his time. But the revolutionary poet who
fails to keep in mind a concept of the force that transcends-as it controls
and directs-the movement with which he is concerned, is as rudderless
as
the nature poet who attempts to describe a tree or a flower, per se,
without recognizing and placing in relation to his object the fact of physical
evolution. There is no reason, by the way, why the nature poet should
be
scorned by the revolutionary poet. Each, however, to be significant,
must observe the laws and processes that govern his specific world; and there
is a direct analogy and interplay between the two that neither should neglect
With all due respect for Mr. Rolfe's anxiety over the need of guides
and teachers for the young revolutionary poet, there is little, it seems to
me, apart from form, that can actually be taught. Who, for example,
were Whitman's teachers? Whitman understood the immediate problems
of his day; but he saw also above and beyond them, finding a symbolical
significance in the force actuating a group movement that is as true and
applicable to our time as to his. The position of most of our revolutionary
poets is similar to that of Whittier who, as compared to Whitman's larger
view, found a subject in his concern for the abolition of slavery. The
Whittiers, of course, play a necessary part.
A
practical grasp of problems
calling for present solution is important. But if a poet is to leave more
than a "fragmentary mark" on his time, he must have a more embracing
conception that may act as a standard or guide by which to measure his
themes.
If
he has this, his tendency toward what Mr. Rolfe calls "for–
mula" writing, with its static ideas and _red-flag wavmg wind-ups, will
disappear.
To establish ''identification with the masses" is good enough advice.
At the same time it is essential to substitute for the sentimental close-up-–
the hangover of the "I" participation-a rational objective if there is to
be
an expression of collective consciousness rather than of diverse, conflict–
ing individual viewpoints.
What I have said is obviously subject to the criticism of any general–
ization. I have mentioned no contemporary revolutionary poet in par–
ticular, partly because Mr. Rolfe has discussed them individually and
consistently; more pertinently because the points I have suggested apply,
with few exceptions, to each of our poets. Aside from the problem of the
form his work should take, I would suggest in summary to the young
revolutionary poet this: think first; use the findings of philosophy, history,
science as body and background for your own perceptions; learn that
separate persons, objects, or places as subject have no significance except
as
related to the force that has brought them into being; finally, don't
exploit your subject for all it is worth: bring something of rational and
vital worth to it.
