am 29.11.2002 16:02 Uhr schrieb Nancy Gish unter [log in to unmask]:
> I don't think I understand your point here. It appears to be saying that if
> one puts aside content (patriotic idealism) and tone (sentimentality) and
> intellect (intelligent views), then the "poem" is good or better than it
> seems. Does that mean that a "poem" is the rhythm, and perhaps some
> images, apart from content, tone, and intelligence? If so, there are
> endless lines of doggerel that need to be reconsidered for their poetic
> merit. But if you mean something else, I am interested in knowing what. I
> do not understand what a "poem" is--as distinguished from rhyming verse--
> if we do not attend to content, tone, and intelligence.
what you are saying is confirmed by Percy Bysshe Shelley in "Defence of
"Poetry is indeed something divine. It is at once the centre and
circumference of knowledge; it is that which comprehends all science,
and that to which all science must be referred. It is at the same time the
root and blossom of all other systems of thought; it is that from which all
spring, and that which adorns all; and that which, if blighted, denies the
fruit and the seed, and withholds from the barren world the nourishment and
the succession of the scions of the tree of life."
However, it seems odd that, according to a poll, the lines
"If I should die, think only this of me:
That there's some corner of a foreign field
That is forever England"
seem to be, together with Kipling's "If", the best known in England...