Leopardi and the theory of poetry PDF
Preview Leopardi and the theory of poetry
Leopardi and the Theory of Poetry This page intentionally left blank LEOPARD I and the THEORY of POETRY by G. SINGH UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY PRESS Copyright© 1964 by the University of Kentucky Press Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 64-14001 TO Geoffrey Tillotson IN ADMIRATION AND GRATITUDE This page intentionally left blank Preface As ITS TITLE indicates fairly clearly, this book does not deal exclusively with Leopardi's theory of poetry as such, but also with its relation or its similarity with other theories or views of poetry, with its background and sources, with its influence and implications as well as with its evaluation in the light of what has been written on the subject since Leopardi's death in 1837. The word theory itself has been used in a sense somewhat different from the usual-in a sense, that is to say, that neither implies nor presupposes an organic and coherent system conceived in philosophi cal or quasi-philosophical terms. Again, the phrase theory of poetry, while it is used for the most part to mean views concerning the art and nature of poetry as poetry, does, since poetry is a part of literature, include the theory of literature and literary criticism as well. For indeed after a certain point the dis tinction between the theory of poetry or literature and literary criticism itself, both in its essence and actual application, tends inevitably to disappear which is, of course, as it should be. Comparison between Leopardi and other critics and theorists of poetry-especially Wordsworth, Cole ridge, and Housman, whom Leopardi does peculiarly [vii] Preface resemble-has been resorted to as a useful expedient as well as an effective means for determining the range, depth, and subtlety of Leopardi's meaning and all its multiple implications. This does not, of course, mean that this sort of approach by means of com parison and contrast between Leopardi and others with an altogether different background, tradition, and training is the only approach that has been adopted in these pages; nor that it has altogether supplanted another equally sound and valid approach, namely, that of studying the critical thought of a given writer in its proper historical setting and tracing and analyzing all its real or conjectural sources, as much, if not sometimes actually even more than, what that thought is per se. The book, in fact, tends to combine these two approaches-combine them con sciously and as a matter of principle-as often as it is possible to do so within the space available. However, it is Leopardi's thought in itself-whether his own original thought or the thought of others that he has characteristically made his own-that counts in this book far more than anything else. For even where the source is definitely clear and irre futable, what mainly interests a student of Leopardi's theory of poetry is not so much what its source is, though that too is of capital importance, as it is the reason why he borrowed, or even unconsciously echoed, the ideas of a given writer. Many writers perhaps most-while consciously or unconsciously, and especially unconsciously, imitating others do not but imitate themselves. There is, then, another thing that [viii] Preface makes a radical difference. Leopardi's achievement in the field of creative writing is simply so formidable that his pronouncements on the very art and process of creating are bound to command more respect and more confidence, and therefore they prove more effective and more persuasive, than those of a mere theorist or philosopher of poetry who has no practical experience of what he is talking about. In other words one cannot shirk the conclusion-and in this case, as in so many others, the exceptions merely prove and strengthen the rule-that the greater the artist, the more valuable his criticism and his views on the art he practices are bound to be. Hence, for example, the same opinions expressed by Leopardi in Zibaldone and elsewhere, as have been expressed by much less creatively gifted and inspired poets like Monti and Tommaseo, possess a greater value and mean some thing quite profounder and subtler and carry a greater conviction behind them in his hands than in the hands of the latter. As to what originality and imitation in this connection mean Leopardi himself enlightens us with the following thought of his: "Both the poet and the philosopher can be original while dealing with one and the same truth. For not only to different individuals, but even to the same individual . . . the same truths appear in different forms on different occasions . . . so that the individual, unless he has great powers of penetration and attention and an exceptionally good memory, would hardly be able to recognize those truths to be the same as he has already seen and considered. Thus a philosopher [ ix]
The list of books you might like
