166 SECTIONAL ADDRESSES. 
behaviourist interpretation of how it all comes about is, I believe, 
perfectly sound in its way. Not in what it emphasises, but in what 
(among extremists) it ignores—a psychical factor—does it seem to me 
to be deficient. In us at any rate the presence of enjoyment is un- 
deniable. And though it is so readily caught up into consciousness it 
still carries, I think, the marks of its unconscious origin. What does 
the poet or the artist tell us? Does he not claim that what springs 
up within him—if it be in truth (he may add) in any valid sense his—is 
quite inexplicable on what he regards as psychological principles? And 
if psychological principles deal only with conscious integration he is 
right. His poetry, or his art, is not in its essential nature the outcome 
of perceptive or reflective integration. Its well-springs lie deeper than 
that in the unconscious. He rightly affirms that the real thing in all 
true art is beyond his conscious control, though the means by which 
it is expressed must be learnt and may be bettered by taking thought. 
This is enshrined in the proverb: Poeta nascitur, non fit. And even of 
those who can only appreciate his work, may it not be said, with a touch 
of paradox, that enjoyment in art becomes reflectively conscious in 
criticism. This need not mean that the critic enjoys poetry any the less 
for the combination in higher integration of unconscious and conscious 
enjoyment. What it does mean is that the glad newness and glory 
of surprise lies in the poetry and not in the criticism. Once again it 
must be said that it is the fresh unexpectedness that is still the hall- 
mark of the unconscious. 
And here a question arises which I find it difficult to put in readily 
intelligible form. Is the rich enjoyment which gets human expression 
in the poet—but gets expression also in the Black-cap, consummate 
master of song—is this enjoyment dependent on that expression, or is 
the expression dependent on unconsciously integrated enjoyment ? 
Which is prior to the other in order of dependence? What, you may 
ask, am I driving at in propounding so subtle a conundrum? Well, I 
take it that the Black-cap sings, under the conspiring influence of the 
situation and environing conditions, because it is part of his inborn 
nature so to sing under these circumstances. His song is primarily 
the outcome of the unconscious poise of a psychical system, correlated 
no doubt with a physiological poise. In that sense surely the expression 
in song depends on unconscious enjoyment—or, if it be preferred, the 
behaviour in song depends on the integrated life-process with which 
unconscious enjoyment is correlated. | Whether we say that the 
behaviour-expression (with its accompanying enjoyment) is dependent 
on impulse, or disposition, or instinct, or emotional state, what we mean 
is that if the latter be absent the former will not come into being. If 
I may so put it, unconscious enjoyment, affectively integrated, becomes 
clothed in the expression, with its enjoyment, and is consciously 
integrated therewith on the higher perceptive level. And what of the 
poet? I think that he too may tell us that unconscious integration of 
the emotional order precedes the imagery in which it is expressed—that, 
as he may put it, ‘the poetic inspiration strives to find expression ’— 
that the clothing in imagery depends on the prior affective integration, 
as yet unconscious. 
