Poëzie is niet een spel met woorden

De criticus Willem Kloos temidden van zijn tijdgenoten

[p. 235]

Summary

In this study the poetical views which come forward in Kloos's reviews written between 1879 an 1900 are mapped and compared with the poetical views of contemporary critics outside the Eighties Movement.

In the years 1879-1900 three periods can be distinguished: from 1879, the year Kloos made his debut as a critic until 1885, when De nieuwe gids was founded; from 1885-1893 when Kloos claimed the periodical for himself and from 1893 to 1900. After the turn of the century Kloos continued to write on his critical oeuvre for many years, but his point of view did not change anymore and did not provoke new discussions.

In this study poetical views of Kloos are described in these three succesive periods and an outline of the contemporary criticism is given besides. In this way, the chapters about Kloos alternate with those about his contemporaries.

Right from the beginning Kloos made it clear that his reviews were of greater importance than informing the lovers of poetry or to give his own vision of poetry. He wanted to raise Dutch poetry, which in his opinion was in a deplorable state, to a higher, international, level, and he wanted to play a key part in this. For that reason he formulated his point of view wittingly provocative.

In the first period his opinions barely caused a ripple. Especially in the beginning, Kloos's poetical views were hardly different from his fellow critics. It was foremost the tone of his reviews that caused excitement.

In broad outlines Kloos's poetical view can be sketched as follows: Until 1895 one of the most important themes in his reviews was that form and content of poetry were inseparable. Still, he differentiated continually between form and content. If we generalize, we can say that Kloos directed his attention in the first period (1879-1885) to the content of poetry. In those years he took it for granted that the low quality of Dutch poetry was caused by foolish subject matter.

In his reviews published in De nieuwe gids (from 1885 on) Kloos addressed the formal side of poetry more than before, and the rhetorical poets of Bilderdijk's school were the main target of his criticism. His main objection against these poets was their use of handed down metaphor and trite expressions.

This point of view provoked more reactions than before. In the years 1885-1893 Kloos made the uselessness of everyday language for the poet the core of his criticism. He defended more and more

[p. 236]

emphatically his point of view that poets are forced to give an original form to their unique feelings. Running parallel tot this development, Kloos valued the sound of the poem higher. At the same time he held on to the conviction that feeling is the only true source for the poet and that poetry should never be a game with words. The real poetry renewal as put to the test by Mallarmé for example, went way too far for Kloos. His plea for language renewal can for that reason partly be seen as a strategic manoeuvre. His distaste for poetry as a game with words already showed up in his criticism of the rhetorical poets and against a form virtuoso as Louis Couperus. Not surprisingly, in the final period (1895-1900) Kloos turned his back on the radical opinions he proclaimed during the prominent years of De nieuwe gids. After 1895 the issue of language renewal did not play any role in his critical reviews anymore. Even the point of view that form and content are one, was abandoned. In those years Kloos's attention was again primarily directed to the content of the poetical work.

The examination of poetical views outside the Eighties Movement, involves the following literary periodicals: De gids, De Nederlandsche spectator, Nederland, De tijdspiegel, De Amsterdammer, De portefeuille, Los en vast, Het leeskabinet, De lantaarn, Taal en letteren, De Hollandsche revue, Ons tijdschrift, De arbeid, De kunstwereld, De kroniek en De nieuwe tijd.

The opinions which are propagated by these periodicals can be described as follows; At the time of Kloos's debut, roughly two poetical views can be distinguished: The first had a strong preference for narrative poetry and was sensitive to the plastic qualities of the poet. Poetry in this instance was in the first place a portrayal of the perceptible reality. There was no appreciation for poetry which expressed sentiments, whatsoever. One was also turned off by the exaggerated attention paid to the form used by the young poets in their work. (De gids, Het leeskabinet and De tijdspiegel) The other poetical view common in this period had a preference for expressive, lyrical poetry. Critics with this opinion saw the true poet as a person with an innate talent and an exceptional mastery of language and form. They also paid considerable attention to the portraying side of the poem and had a distaste of the so-called ‘form-service’ which some of the young poets used excessively.

Critics of this second group shared the opinion of Kloos to a large extent but there was an important difference: In contrast with Kloos, one didn't expect the poet to express his highly personal, unique feelings but to bring these to an universal, generally human level. Another difference with Kloos was that one considered the art

[p. 237]

of poetry partly a craft. (De Nederlandsche spectator, De Amsterdammer, De portefeuille and Nederland)

The start of De nieuwe gids and especially the Julia-affair, brought a change to this situation. Critics who had a predominantly mimetic or pragmatic point of view - critics of the first group - used more and more an expressive theory as a basis for their reviews in the period of 1885-1893. The appearance of De nieuwe gids has contributed without any doubt to this development. Until 1885, critics of the other group were rather well disposed toward the endeavor of the young poets as Verwey and Kloos. Their ideas agreed to a large extent with those of Kloos and his people. Yet during the Julia-affair specifically they were called unqualified critics by Kloos and Verwey.

After that, these critics generally sang a different tune when the actions of Kloos / and his people were discussed. Not much changed though in the poetical view of these critics.

Around 1890 the poetical criticism outside De nieuwe gids was to a great extent characterized by consensus; the dominant opinion was that poetry should be an expression of feelings and that the poet has to find a balance between his (innate) poetic genius and his (learned) artistic calling. Slowly but surely there was more appreciation for poetry which was an expression of individual feelings. The most important spokesman of this view was W.G. van Nouhuys.

The publication of Gorters Verzen revealed the most important difference with the views of Kloos. Gorter's individual idiom, praised by Kloos, was unacceptable to many critics.

After the downfall of De nieuwe gids, during the third period, three movements in poetical reviewing can be distinguished: The largest group supported the expressive poetical theory, of which Van Nouhuys was the leading representative. Comparing the ideas of these critics with those which Kloos propagated in this period, one can say that Kloos strongly leaned toward the ideas of Van Nouhuys and his kindred spirits in the years 1895-1900. Kloos's opinions were no longer controversial. Only his total rejection of any conscious, intellectual consideration of the creation process, distances him from the common poetry reviewer. (De gids, De Nederlandsche spectator, Nederland, Taal en letteren, Los en vast, De Hollandsche revue, Het leeskabinet)

There was also a small group of critics which had an almost reactionary poetical view. These critics evaluated poetry in the first place on the uplifting effect of it and they put the disputed rhetoric and homely school of poetry far above the art of De nieuwe gids. (De tijdspiegel, Ons tijdschrift, De arbeid)

[p. 238]

The third group of critics did not share a similar poetical view, but differentiated themselves by their interest and appreciation for the newest developments in the art of poetry, the more on the community focussed poetry of Verwey, Van Eeden, and Roland Holst-Van der Schalk. (Tweemaandelijksch tijdschrift, De kroniek, De Amsterdammer, De nieuwe tijd).

The main accomplishment of Kloos is most likely that he has challenged his contemporaries to make their point of view inquestionably clear.

After the establishment of De nieuwe gids a considerably greater number of essays were devoted to poetry than before that time. Yet Kloos' poetical views can only to a very limited extent be considered a changing of standards.

His poetrical views can, using Kloos' own words, be summarized as: poetry is the expression of the most individual emotion, but the expression has to be understandable. After all, the poet shares his moods with the reader, and the purpose of poetry, according to Kloos, was to transfer the mood expressed in the poem as exact as possible to the reader, so the reader would share that mood.

Kloos's actions have undoubtedly contributed to the fact that the view on the nature of the to be expressed feeling changed. The general-human in poetry was replaced by the përsonal.

(vertaling: Catherine Stuy Verkijk)