Sri Aurobindo
Letters on Poetry and Art
SABCL - Volume 27
Part 1. Poetry and its Creation
Section 3. Poetic Technique
Substance, Style, Diction
Austerity and Exuberance [1]



 I am still at a loss 
what to answer about উচ্ছ্বাস [ucchbāsa], 
because I still don’t understand exactly what your correspondent is aiming at in 
his criticism. There is not more ucchvāsa in Bengali 
poetry than in English, if by the word is meant rhetoric, free resort to 
imagery, prolix weaving of words and ideas and sentiments around what one has to 
say. Indian poetry in the Sanskritic 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 in 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 into 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 
ucchvāsa 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 ucchvāsa 
among other things Madhusudan’s style, Tagore’s poem to me, a passage from 
Gobinda Das. 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 Gobinda Das’s lines,— let us translate 
them into English
I am still at a loss 
what to answer about উচ্ছ্বাস [ucchbāsa], 
because I still don’t understand exactly what your correspondent is aiming at in 
his criticism. There is not more ucchvāsa in Bengali 
poetry than in English, if by the word is meant rhetoric, free resort to 
imagery, prolix weaving of words and ideas and sentiments around what one has to 
say. Indian poetry in the Sanskritic 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 in 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 into 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 
ucchvāsa 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 ucchvāsa 
among other things Madhusudan’s style, Tagore’s poem to me, a passage from 
Gobinda Das. 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 Gobinda Das’s lines,— let us translate 
them into English



 Am I merely thine? O 
Love, I am there clinging
Am I merely thine? O 
Love, I am there clinging
In every limb of thee — there ever is 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 Vedantic 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.
1 October 1932