What Is Poetry? (Appeared in Objectively Speaking, Autumn
1989, v2n2. Actually written in the 70’s.)
By John Enright
Poetry, among the arts, has
a history of being poorly, even mysteriously, defined. Part of the problem is that many of those
offering definitions have been more poetical than precise. Emily Dickinson, for instance, on being
asked her criterion for poetry, wrote “[I]f I read a book and it makes my whole
body s cold no fire can warm me, I know it is poetry. If I feel physically as if the top of my head were taken off, I
know that is poetry.” This is vivid and forceful, but it tells us much more
about Emily Dickinson than it does about poetry.
Dylan Thomas called poetry
“…the rhythmic, inevitably narrative movement from an overclothed blindness to
a naked vision.” In his inclusion of the word “rhythmic,” Thomas’s definition
is a step up from Dickinson’s, for he
indicates one of poetry’s distinguishing marks.
An all-too-common failing of
proposed definitions of poetry is that they could apply equally as well to
other art forms. Witness Shelley’s:
“[p]oetry is the record of the best and happiest moments of the best and
happiest minds.” Poe did better: “I
would define the poetry of words as the rhythmical creation of beauty.” This
excludes most of the other arts, but does not sharply distinguish poetry from song,
which also uses words and rhythm.
A formal definition combines
a genus and a differentia – the general class to which a thing belongs, and the
characteristics that make it different from the rest of the things in that
class.
The proper genus of poetry
is art form. We differentiate art forms
from one another by the specific material media of the forms. The medium of poetry is language, but novels
and vocal songs also depend upon language.
The unique medium of poetry is language utilizing the musical
elements intrinsic to the language.
In contrast, prose makes little use of language’s musical potential, and
song turns upon a musical element which is extrinsic to language: melody.
Two classical definitions of
poetry, “musical speech” and “rhythmical speech” are not far off the mark. The trouble with “musical speech” is that it
does not differentiate poetry from song.
The trouble with “rhythmic speech” is that rhythm is not the only
musical element that poetry employs.
There is much more to the music of language than beat.
An objection to be expected
here is that I am simply defining poetry as verse, and that I must
consequently accept as poetry commercial jingles such as:
Hold the pickles, hold the
lettuce!
Special orders don’t upset us.
However, the purpose of
defining poetry’s genus as “art form” was precisely to forestall such
classification. An art form must
project a deeply held view of life – which the above Burger King jingle does
not.
It is true that much
of modern “poetry” cannot qualify as real poetry by this definition. But I consider this to be a virtue rather
than a fault.
Verse and poetry are
intimately related. “Verse” names a
specific musical way of using language.
“Poetry” refers to the use of verse for esthetic ends. It is accurate then, to say that poetry
is that art form which utilizes verse.
This is a common layman’s definition.
Its only drawback is that the layman usually cannot define what he means
by “verse.”
Verse is language which
makes full use of the language’s own musical potential. It should be noted that different languages
have different musical potentials. For
instance, it is easier to find rhymes in Italian than in English. Accordingly, native Italian verse forms,
such as Dante’s terza rima and Petrarchan sonnets, are very difficult to
imitate in English since they require multiple interlocking rhyme lines. The typical English poet is happy to get two
lines to rhyme, and abstains from trying for three.
A major factor contributing
to the general confusion on the nature of poetry is poetry’s ability to combine
with both fiction and music.
Poetry’s true relation with
the art of fiction is more easily grasped in our age, when most fiction is
written in prose, than in times past, when most fiction was written in
verse. Today we have the distinctly
separate concepts “fiction” and “poetry.”
But this was not always so.
Aristotle’s work on literary esthetics, the Poetics, is actually
more concerned with the fictional aspects of Greek epic and drama than with
their poetical aspects. The development
of prose fiction is a relatively recent event.
Even in the 19th century many plays were written in verse
(including those of Victory Hugo and Edmond Rostand) although the prose novel
dominated that century’s fiction.
Today we have no difficulty
grasping that poetry is not essential to fiction, and are likely to be puzzled
that fiction so long remained linked to poetry. The reason may be fairly simple: it is much easier to memorize
poetry than prose, and until the invention of the printing press in 1445 by
Johann Gutenberg, fiction had t be memorized.
The epics of Homer may even have been composed orally, and not
written down at all until later ages.
It remains true that the
combination of fiction with poetry can produce works of great power and
beauty. Shakespeare’s plays are usually
thought to be the outstanding example of such a union in English. A special favorite of my own is the Brian
Hooker translation of Cyrano de Bergerac.
Although it is not generally
recognized, fiction is the dominant partner in its marriage with poetry. In any long poem that tells a story,
the story is more important to the overall esthetic effect. In terms of its basic esthetic effect, an
epic poem is a novel in verse.
Likewise, a Shakespeare play is a drama in verse, not “just a
long poem,” (a view which some modern critics have put forth with regard to
Shakespeare).
Poetry does not have to tell
a story. This can be seen clearly in
many poems, including this one by Wordsworth:
My heart leaps up when I
behold
A rainbow in the sky:
So was it when my life began;
So is it now I am a man;
So be it when I shall grow old,
Or let me die!
The child is father of the
Man;
And I could wish my days to
be
Bound each to each by
natural piety.
This well-known poem does
not so much tell a story as make a statement.
So we must deny Dylan Thomas’s assertion that poetry is “inevitably
narrative.” It is true that to have any
meaning at all a poem must refer to reality, and thus directly or indirectly
describe some state of affairs, but we must distinguish description from
narrative. Moreover, in most short
poems that tell a story, there is not enough story for a successful short story
in prose. Consider the story in Robert
Frost’s “Stopping By The Woods On A Snowy Evening.” Although it is a very nice poem, if we were to see the same
bare-bones “story” written up in prose, we should declare that it is hardly a
story at all. Its events could not
stand up on their own as a short story.
It s only the incorporation of the musical effects of language that
turns the description of stopping by the woods into a work of art. This is not true of Shakespeare’s plays or
Homer’s epics. Translated into prose,
they still stand on their own as works of art, because most basically they are
fiction.
Generally speaking, the
longer a poem is, the more dominance its narrative elements acquire. Indeed, the longer a poem is the more it
requires a fictional structure to keep it from falling apart in a disorganized
shambles. Thus, Keats’ middle-length
“Eve of St. Agnes” works because it is sufficiently organized as a
narrative. As a rule, short poems are
basically poetic, and long poems are (or should be) basically fictional. (“Long poem” here refers to book length
poems.)
Poetry also combines with
the art of music, in the form of song.
This is most clearly observed in classical art song, or lieder,
in which composers set to music lyrics which were intended to stand on their
own, as poetry. The talents of the
greatest poets and composers of the 19th century were often combined
in these productions. Beethoven’s
setting to music of Schiller’s “Ode To Joy” in his ninth symphony is one of the
best known and monumental works of this type.
Music dominates this
combination esthetically, providing the more fundamental element in the
experience of song, but this is no more generally recognized than the dominance
of fiction in story-poems, though indications of it a bound. For instance, it is often remarked that many
of the best songs are based on relatively inferior poems. But no one considers a song good if its
melody is bad, no matter how good its poetic bas is.
More generally, music so
dominates poetry in song that the lyrics to most songs make no attempt to stand
on their own as poems at all, although they may possess some poetic
qualities. It is a common experience,
when listening to a song, to feel that the song’s words are profoundly
poetic. But a reading of the lyrics on
the printed page, without music, very often seems to reduce the words to
triviality.
Just as many song lyrics do
not make good poems, so many poems would not make good song lyrics. Or, at least, some poetry seems more suited
to melody, and some less so. The more
suited kind is called “lyric poetry,” naturally enough, and is generally characterized
by a “flowing” quality of sound and though.
The transitions in though should not require such concentration that no
part of the mind is left free to listen to the melody. The metrical arrangement of the words should
not be too closely allied to normal speech patters, for all such effect will be
lost when the words are set to music.
The following verse by Burns exemplifies the qualities of lyric poetry:
My love is like a red, red
rose,
That’s newly sprung in June:
My love is like a melody,
That’s sweetly played in
tune.
In fact, Burns intended this
poem to be set to music.
To get an idea of why abrupt
through-transitions and speech-allied rhythms are unlyrical, try to imagine
Hamlet’s “To be or not to be” speech set to music. Perhaps it would not be impossi8ble, but it would certainly
present a challenge. And rather than
being an isolated song, such a production would most likely be part of an
entire opera based on Hamlet. Opera
combines music, fiction and poetry all together, and is the last combination of
art forms into which poetry enters. In
opera, poetry is dominated by both the fiction and the music, and the fiction
itself is dominated by the music.
This completes our
discussion of poetry’s combination with other forms of art. Because fiction and music dominated these
combined forms, many definitions of poetry, failing to differentiate these from
poetry qua poetry, have done little more than confuse the nature of poetry with that of fiction and music.
One of the special reasons
people find it difficult to make such a differentiation, is that poetry as
such strikes them as being itself a “combined art form” in some sense. After all, poetry seems to combine elements
of literature and music. And aren’t
literature and music both arts in their own right? Shouldn’t poetry then be regarded as a merger of the two?
The answer is no. Why? Because in the form in which they are
found in poetry, neither music nor literature can stand on its own. Music without melody is not an art form. Neither is prose without a story. Try listening to a poem written in a foreign
language. One’s inability to understand
the meaning of the words totally destroys the poem’s esthetic effect. Those musical elements that remain, and
which one does hear, are not enough for art. Try reading a prose translation of a foreign poem, a translation
which communicates the conceptual content, but which drops the musical
element. You will find that it falls
very flat.
Thus we see that in the form
in which they appear in poetry, music and language need each other to
work. However, it is true that language
and music represent basically different modes of awareness for man, as is seen
in the fact that in their proper forms, each is capable of supporting an
art form of its own. Poetry is a
combined form of art, then, in that it unites elements of two different modes
of awareness, the linguistic and the musical, into one form in which neither
mode is self-sufficient.
Poetry cannot be analyzed as
“basically” concerned with the sound of words, nor as “basically” concerned
with the meaning of words. It is
concerned with the union of sound and meaning.
Poetry can in no sense be reduced
to some other, more basic art form.
Poetry represents an esthetic bare-minimum, from which nothing further
can be taken away if its esthetic effect is to stand, even though its elements,
words and sounds, are also found in other art forms. In this respect, poetry resembles sculpture, which seems to combine
the modes of sight and touch, and which seems to fall midway between painting
and architecture.
Because poetry combines two
different sensory modes, judging the esthetic merit of a poem requires judging
the merit of 1) the literary element, 2) the musical element, and 3) the
harmonious integration of sense and sound.
Of the three steps, little is understood about the two which involve
consideration of poetry’s musical aspect.
We don’t know much about how music works. Hence, we don’t know much about how poetry works.
Since poetry has less music
than music itself, it is possible that the problem of music in poetic
evaluation could be solved before the more general problem of musical
evaluation. But this merely
hypothetical possibility is little help for us today.
Despite the authoritative air
of many critics, and despite the often obscure references to “technical
prosody” on the part of critics wishing to back up their assertions, we don’t
know what makes a poem sound good or bad.
And no one has ever proposed a comprehensive theory to account for our
perceived preferences – not even a wrong comprehensive theory. Our knowledge of prosody (the study of
poetry’s sound effects) has never really been organized. It exists chiefly as a debated set of
unintegrated “rules of thumb,” and is startlingly inadequate to the task of
objective evaluation. “Educated taste”
and “the judgment of history” may be given some weight in lieu of objective
standards for the musical aspect of poetry, but they are hardly to be
revered. I suggest you trust your own ear.