the poet and his reader, and my experience as a
reader of poetry is that I value in a poem the
solution of the conflict when I am to some
extent aware of the nature of the conflict,
but that where there is hitherto only vague
unrest in my mind I value in a poem the clearly
defined statement of the conflict. It is not that
as readers we value the conflict on its own
account; that is not natural economy. We
value the statement of it because this is half-
way to a solution, which may be expected to
occur both in our practical life and in some poem
or dream of the future. In any state of the
conflict before the solution is possible, we are
glad of narcotic poetry of temporary relief;
or of a counter-irritant, which, though at first
sight a case of conflict valued on its own account,
is rather a sparring match where the spectator
takes no sides but may see sweat and strain
and bloodshed from which he is excused, and
feel happier by the contrast with his own more
secure life.

We do not and cannot value in a poem a
statement of conflict, or a temporary relief, or
a final solution which is too far in the future or
too far in the past to be real to us, or one
removed altogether from our experience. It
is a fact that although a schoolboy cannot
possibly be expected to criticize Herr Einstein's
mathematics because Relativity is too far off
in his mathematic future, yet few advanced
mathematicians find it easy or even possible
to do a simple addition sum correctly, because
figures have, for them, acquired such indi-

-3-