Dear Mr. Korg and Mr. Nikiforov,

Rather than speculate who had better access to or beter knowledge of one specific language, duly noting both that Latin played a major role in the works of both Joyce and Pound, I was wondering if you had any thoughts on how their respective use of macaronics are different/similar, and to what end either writer uses multilingualism, if any.

Was it just a 'fetish'? Were they just 'strutting their stuff'? Or, as I'd like to think, did they have something more 'serious', more 'profound' to say about the weaving of languages, and if so, what?

tony.



-----Original Message-----

> Date: Wed Jan 29 21:22:35 PST 2003
> From: Jacob Korg <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Politics & Macaronics
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> dear Nikolay:
>         Please note that I did not say he had NO knowledge of Latin,
> but that he did not have POUND'S "acess" to Latin.
> I have no doubt that he knew some Latin, but I'm sure Pound had a
> superior knowledge of it, as suggested by Canto I,  his Propertius,
> translations, allusions to  Catullus, etc.
>         I expressed myself carefullly, and hope to be read that way.
>                                 Jacob Korgn
>
> On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Nikolay Nikiforov wrote:
>
> > JK> -- and he did not have Pound's access to Greek, Latin, or, of course,
> > JK> Chinese.
> > ???
> > No access to Latin? Was he not Catholic?
> > Oh my terrible ignorance. Please tell us the truth: that Joyce was a
> > methodist Yankee, who wrote cowboy pulp fiction.
> > Literary studies are definitely _interesting_
> >
> > Nikolay
> >