Sri Aurobindo
Letters of Sri Aurobindo
Volume 3
Certainly you can arrange Thursday for Baron1. Monod-Herzen2 spoke to Pavitra about him and Pavitra said he could come but as yet he has not turned up. Of course we did not hear of his surrealism, only of his desire to contact a spiritual centre like this while he was in India. That of course (I mean his surrealism) makes him more interesting.
I really can’t tell you what surrealism is, because it is something – at least the word is – quite new and I have not read either the reliable theorists of the school nor much of 
their poetry. What I picked up on the way through certain reviews, etc. was that it was a poetry based on the dream-consciousness, but I don’t know if this is correct or merely an English critic’s idea of it. The inclusion of Beaudelaire3 and Valery4 seems to indicate something wider than that. But the word is of quite recent origin and nobody spoke formerly of Beaudelaire as a surrealist or even of Mallarme5. Mallarme was supposed to be the founder of a new trend of poetry, impressionist and symbolist, followed in varying degrees and not by any means in the same way by Verlaine6, Rimbaud7, both of them poets of great fame – Verlaine is certainly a great poet and people now say Rimbaud also, but I have never come across his poetry except in extracts – and developing in Valery and other noted writers of today. It seems that all these are now claimed as part of or the origin of the surrealist movement. But I cannot say what are the exact boundaries or who comes in where. I suppose if Baron communicates to you books on the subject or more precise information, we shall know more clearly now. In any case surrealism is part of an increasing attempt of the European mind to escape from the surface consciousness (in poetry as well as in painting and in thought) and grope after a deeper truth of things which is not on the surface. The Dream consciousness as it is called – meaning not merely what we see in dreams, but the inner consciousness in which we get into contact with deeper worlds which underlie, influence and to some extent explain much in our lives, what the psychologists call the subliminal or the subconscient (the latter a very ambiguous phrase) offers the first road of escape and the surrealists seem to be trying to force it. My impression is that there is much fumbling and that more often it is certain obscure and not always very safe layers that are tapped. That accounts for the note of diabolism that comes in in Beaudelaire, in Rimbaud also, I believe, and in certain ugly elements in English surrealist poetry and painting. But this is only an impression.
Nirod’s poetry (what he writes now) is from the Dream 
Consciousness, no doubt about that. It has suddenly opened in him and he finds now a great joy of creation and abundance of inspiration which were and are quite absent when he tries to write laboriously in the mental way. This seems to be to indicate either that the poet in him has his real power there or that he has opened to the same Force that worked in poets like Mallarme. My labelling him as surrealist is partly – though not altogether – a joke. How far it applies depends on what the real aim and theory of the surrealist school may be. Obscurity and unintelligibility are not the essence of any poetry – and except for unconscious or semiconscious humorists like the Dadaists8 – cannot be its aim or principle. True dream poetry (let us call it so for the nonce) has and must always have a meaning and a coherence. But it may very well be obscure or seem meaningless to those who take their stand on the surface or “waking” mind and accept only its links and its logic. Dream poetry is usually full of images, visions, symbols, phrases that seek to strike at things too deep for the ordinary means of expression. Nirod does not deliberately make his poems obscure, he writes what comes through from the source he has tapped and does not interfere with its flow by his own mental volition. In many modernist poets there may be labour and a deliberate posturing, but it is not so in his case. I interpret his poems because he wants me to do it, but I have always told him that an intellectual rendering narrows the meaning – it has to be seen and felt, not thought out. Thinking it out may give a satisfaction and an appearance of mental logicality, but the deeper sense and sequence can only be apprehended by an inner sense. I myself do not try to find out the meaning of his poems, I try to feel what they mean in vision and experience and then render into mental terms. This is a special kind of poetry and has to be dealt with according to its kind and nature. There is a sequence, a logic, a design in them, but not one that can satisfy the more rigid law of the logical intelligence.
About Housman’s9 theory, it is not merely appeal to emotion he posits as the test of pure poetry – he deliberately says that pure poetry does not bother about intellectual meaning at all – it is to the intellect nonsense. He says that the interpretations of Blake’s famous poems rather spoil them – they appeal better without being dissected in that way. His theory is questionable, but that is what it comes to; he is wrong in using the word “nonsense” and perhaps in speaking of pure and impure poetry. All the same, to Blake and to writers of the Dream Consciousness, his rejection of the intellectual standard is quite applicable.
No time to say more. I am reading your article on Bhatkhande10. A very keen and powerful face, full of genius and character.