Some curiosity has been aroused concerning _Imagisme_, and as I was
unable to find anything definite about it in print, I sought out an
_imagiste_, with intent to discover whether the group itself knew
anything about the "movement." I gleaned these facts.
[Footnote C: Editor's Note--In response to many requests for information
regarding _Imagism_ and the _Imagistes_, we publish this note by Mr.
Flint, supplementing it with further exemplification by Mr. Pound. It
will be seen from these that _Imagism_ is not necessarily associated
with Hellenic subjects, or with _vers libre_ as a prescribed form.]
The _imagistes_ admitted that they were contemporaries of the Post
Impressionists and the Futurists; but they had nothing in common with
these schools. They had not published a manifesto. They were not a
revolutionary school; their only endeavor was to write in accordance
with the best tradition, as they found it in the best writers of all
time,--in Sappho, Catullus, Villon. They seemed to be absolutely
intolerant of all poetry that was not written in such endeavor,
ignorance of the best tradition forming no excuse. They had a few rules,
drawn up for their own satisfaction only, and they had not published
them. They were:
1. Direct treatment of the "thing," whether subjective
or objective.
2. To use absolutely no word that did not contribute
to the presentation.
3. As regarding rhythm: to compose in sequence of
the musical phrase, not in sequence of a metronome.
By these standards they judged all poetry, and found most of it wanting.
They held also a certain 'Doctrine of the Image,' which they had not
committed to writing; they said that it did not concern the public, and
would provoke useless discussion.
The devices whereby they persuaded approaching poetasters to attend
their instruction were:
1. They showed him his own thought already
splendidly expressed in some classic (and the school
musters altogether a most formidable erudition).
2. They re-wrote his verses before his eyes, using
about ten words to his fifty.
Even their opponents admit of them--ruefully--"At least they do keep bad
poets from writing!"
I found among them an earnestness that is amazing to one accustomed to
the usual London air of poetic dilettantism. They consider that Art is
all science, all religion, philosophy and metaphysic. It is true that
_snobisme_ may be urged against them; but it is at least _snobisme_ in
its most dynamic form, with a great deal of sound sense and energy
behind it; and they are stricter with themselves than with any outsider.
_F. S. Flint_