I've been following this thread with silent fascination, but Henry's current
post stimulates me to throw Hugh McDiarmid into the philosophical/lyric mix.
The early writing -- the "Golden Lyric" period of _Sangshaw_ and
_Pennywheep_ -- was definitely lyric, the later work (and it's maybe
significant that I can't pop any one title in here!) equally definitely
philosophical. _A Drunk Man_ as the bridge?
Years ago, the critic James Smith (+not+ A.J.Smith!) wrote an article for
_Scrutiny_ on philosophical poetry, arguing (which was a pretty Platonic
take on the issue) that philosophical poets were concerned with the problem
of the Many and the One.
And elsewhere and in another context, david b. invoked the name of
W.S.Graham. Again a lyric to philosophic shift -- _Nightfishing_ to
_Malcolm Mooney's Land_ and _The Instruments in Their Places_?
I guess what I'm trying to say, in a slightly confused and more than
slightly naive way, is that a poet's focus on "philosophical issues" may be
as much a matter of content as form.
Hm?
Robin
> I think the lyric has been philosophical from the troubadours, at least.
> Maybe Sappho. Nothin revlutionary there.
I think what started this intervention was my half-agreement with Henry
here -- but also a certain hesitation that extending "philosophical" this
far goes close towards abolishing any distinction between that and anything
else. +Everything+ could be philosophy by this definition. The very act of
writing lyric poetry (Archilochus, Anacreon, Sappho) is an assertion of the
individual and the personal against Homeric impersonality.
Ro2
|