Sri Aurobindo

Letters of Sri Aurobindo

Third Series

Fragment ID: 20965

I am still at a loss what to answer about uchchwas, because I still don’t understand exactly what your correspondent is aiming at in his criticism. There is not more uchchwas in Bengali poetry than in English, if by the word is meant rhetoric, free resort to imagery, prolific weaving of words and ideas and sentiments around what one has to say. Indian poetry in the Sanscritic languages – there are exceptions of course – was for the most part more restrained and classic in taste or else more impressionist and incisive than most English poetry; the qualities or defects noted above came into Bengali under the English influence. I don’t see therefore the point of his remark that the English language cannot express the Indian temperament. It is true of course to a certain extent, first, because, no foreign language can express what is intimate and peculiar to a national temperament, it tends at once to become falsified and seems exotic, and especially the imagery or sentiment of one language does not go well with that of another; least of all can the temperament of an oriental tongue be readily transferred into a European tongue. What is perfectly simple and straightforward in one becomes emphatic or over coloured or strange in the other. But that has nothing to do with uchchwas in itself. As to emotion. – if that is what is meant – your word effusiveness is rather unfortunate, for effusiveness is not praiseworthy in poetry anywhere; but vividness of emotion is no more reprehensible in English than in Bengali poetry. You give as examples of uchchwas among other things Madhusudan’s style, Tagore’s poem to me, a passage from Govindadas. I don’t think there is anything in Madhusudan which an English poet writing in Bengali would have hesitated to father. Tagore’s poem is written at a high pitch of feeling perfectly intelligible to anyone who had passed through the exaltation of the Swadeshi days, but not more high pitched than certain things in Milton, Shelley, Swinburne. In Govindadas’s lines,-– let us translate them into English –

Am I merely thine? O Love, I am there clinging

In every limb of thine – there ever in my

creation and my dissolution –

the idea is one that would not so easily occur to an English poet, it is an erotic mysticism, easily suggested to a mind familiar with the experiences of Vedanta or Vaishnava mystics; but this is not effusiveness, it is intensity – and an English writer – e.g. Lawrence – could be quite as intense, but would use a different idea or image.