THE QUESTION OF TH"E POUND AWARD
(EDITORlAL
NOTE.-We are printing below a comment on Wil–
liam Barrett's editorial, "A Prize for Ezra Pound," which appeared in
the April issue. A number of Bollingen jurors were invited to discuss the
issues connected with the award, but at the time of going to press we
had received replies only from Messrs. Auden, Shapiro, and Tate.
We would like to hear further from our readers on this subject.)
W. H. AU DEN:
I fully share Mr. Barrett's concern over the excessive pre–
occupation of contemporary criticism with Form and its neglect of Con–
tent. I am not sure however that this is the precise problem which
his
comment raises. In stating my own views, I should like to emphasize that
I am speaking purely for myself and am not to be construed as repre–
senting any other colleague with whom at any time I may have been
associated.
1) According to one theory, art, both in intention and effect, is
a means by which cmotions are aroused in the spectator or reader, either
in order that, by re-living them imaginatively, he may get rid of them,
or because he needs to be roused to feel in a certain way.
If
this theory is
adopted, then it seems to me that Plato and Tolstoy are irrefutable. No
works of art may be permitted which do not purge men of their bad
feelings and stimulate good ones. The criterion of value may vary–
Plato thought the supreme value was love of justice and loyalty to the
Good State, Tolstoy thought it was love of one's neighbor-but the
principle is the same. Applied to the present issue, the conclusion would
be obvious-no prize; suppression.
2) One may, on the other hand, hold another theory of art, that,
in intention, at least, it is a mirror in which the spectator sees reflected
himself and the world, and becomes conscious of his feelings good
and bad, and of what their relations to each other are in fact. This theory
presupposes, I believe, certain other beliefs into which there is no time
to go now, beyond baldly stating them:
