Sri Aurobindo - The Poet

A LATINISED ADJECTIVE IN ENGLISH

A Correspondence with Sri Aurobindo

A humorous discussion with Sri Aurobindo about a Latinised adjective for poetic use may not be out of place here. For it links up ultimately with a poem of his own. I put to him questions and he replied.

(In my lines—

This heart grew brighter when your breath's proud chill Flung my disperse life-blood more richly in—

a terminal d d will at once English that Latin fellow "disperse", but is he really objectionable? At first I had "Drove" instead of "Flung"—so the desire for a less dental rhythm was his raison d'être, but if he seems a trifle weaker than his English avatar, he can easily be dispensed with now.)

"I don't think 'disperse' as an adjective can pass—the dentals are certainly an objection but do not justify this Latin-English neologism."

(12-6-1937)

(Why should that poor "disperse" be inadmissible when English has many such Latinised adjectives—e.g. "consecrate", "dedicate", "intoxicate" ? I felt it to be a natural innovation and not against the genius of the language: I discover from the Standard Dictionary

Flung my diffuse life-blood more richly in.

Page 395

But is not "disperse" formed on exactly the same principle as "diffuse" ? By the way, does "dispersed" make the line really too dental, now that "Flung" is there and not the original "Drove")

"I don't think people use 'consecrate', 'intoxicate' etc. as adjectives nowadays—at any rate it sounds to me too recherche. Of course, if one chose, this kind of thing might be perpetrated—

Owretched man intoxicate,

Let not thy life be consecrate

To wine's red yell (spell, if you want to be 'poetic').

Else will thy soul be dedicate

To Hell-

but it is better not to do it. It makes no difference if there are other words like 'diffuse' taken from French (not Latin) which have this form and are generally used adjectives. Logic is not the sole basis of linguistic use. I thought at first it was an archaism and there might be some such phrase in old poetry as lids¹ disperse, but as I could not find it even in the Oxford which claims to be exhaustive and omniscient, I concluded it must be a neologism of yours. But archaism or neologism does not matter. 'Dispersed life-blood' brings three d's so near together that they collide a little—if they were farther from each other it would not matter—or if they produced some significant or opportune effect. I think 'diffuse' will do.

(13-6-1937)

(What do I find this afternoon ? Just read: Suddenly

From motionless battalions as outride

¹Uncertain reading—K.D.S.

Page 396

A speed disperse of horsemen, from that mass

Of livid menace went a frail light cloud

Rushing through heaven, and behind it streamed

The downpour all in wet and greenish lines.

This is from your own Urvasie, Urvasie, written in the middle nineties of the last century. Ofcourse it is possible that the printer has omitted a terminal d—bur is that really the explanation?)

"I dare say I tried to Latinise. But that does not make it a permissible form. If it is obsolete, it must remain obsolete. I thought at first it was an archaism you were trying on, I seemed to remember something of the kind, but as I could find it nowhere I gave up the idea—it was probably my own crime that I remembered."

(29-6-1937)

Page 397