James at ursprache has a typically pithy post today on the nature of poetry. He writes, “It is often cited that the root of the word poetry comes from the Greek term poïesis meaning ‘to make.’ But make how? And make what? So much lies undisclosed in the concept of mere ‘making’.”
I couldn’t resist commenting, then thought I should share the response here as passable material for rumination:
I think the “making” has been defined, in “Symposium,” where Socrates recounts a conversation he had with his tutor, the seer Diotima. She tells him:
“All creation or passage of non-being into being is poetry or making, and the processes of all art are creative; and the masters of arts are all poets or makers.”
“Very true,” [says Socrates].
“Still,” she said, “you know that they are not called poets, but have other names; only that portion of the art which is separated off from the rest, and is concerned with music and metre, is termed poetry, and they who possess poetry in this sense of the word are called poets.”
Pretty clear.
But it goes deeper, evidently. Robert Cavalier has a fine commentary on “Symposium” here, where he explains:
In all begetting and bringing forth upon the beautiful there is a kind of making or poiesis (“poetry” in the wide sense of “creating”). In this genesis … there is a movement beyond the temporal cycle of birth and decay…. Such a movement can occur in three kinds of poiesis: (1) Natural poiesis through sexual procreation, (2) poiesis in the city through the attainment of heroic fame and finally, and (3) poiesis in the soul through the cultivation of virtue and knowledge.
Poetry, if it is poetry, involves this third kind of making.
in the (Potomac / Anacostia) river that we swam in<br />during the early 50's <br /><br />the "fish" that we called 'bottom feeders' were the Washington D.C. Lawyers (Politicians).<br /> flounder, cat-fish…. also 'bottom-feeders' .. one we poached & tuthher we deep-fried !<br /><br />now ? me thinks that all fish are poison grown in "farms" (
When I was "growing up"–never got very grown up, I'm afraid–us small fry would fish the not-so-pure Willapa River for bottom fish called "suckers"–not too clean owing to the impurities in the river but we swam in it along with the fish.
I like "that" : Poetica Amnesia &,<br />me thinks, "that" is not possible<br />with-in & with-out "its" ("thats" <br />con-comit-ant "this" ?<br /><br />so "that"any "poetry/poet" must<br />realize (it s own) intimacy & con<br />-tainment ?<br /><br />in other words:<br /><br />"Water which is too pure has no
I'm not sure what Aristotle thought about <i>poets</i> and virtue, but it seems clear to me that poets can be fairly beastly and still serve as conduits for knowledge and virtue. This makes no sense unless something like the situation I sketched out <a href="http://perpetualbird.blogspot.com/2012/01/friday-notebook-012012.html" rel="nofollow">here</a> is going on. Of course, the authenticity
Thanks for this, Joe but if by “that” Conrad means the qualities of virtue and knowledge in poets, I’d say they were washed overboard from the craft to make room for other more dubious but seaworthy qualities, which in my encroaching state of Poetica Amnesia I find hard to remember; perhaps I shall call that lugubrious roller of big cigars (Nharwhale Sealaman) to light my pyre and illuminate my
Joseph,<br /><br />I like Cavalier's "extended" application of poeisis, and I agree, of the three, poetry most properly belongs to "virtue and knowledge". When I was younger I held it as a undisputed truth that our best poets were our most virtuous people. I had people like Auden, Stevens, Rilke in mind.<br /><br />Whatever happened to that?