Thanks for the reference. Actually it was clear to me that the first line of
my quotation was a biblical reference, not only from the language but also
from the fact that earlier in the section (or canto) Hill refers to Tyndale.
Anyway the line is in italics, which Hotmail won't let me reproduce.
 
What I meant by my original question was : Can anyone make any sense of
Hill's suggestion that Pound was guilty of "removing his maker's mark", or
for the suggestion that his being thus guilty was what caused him to
"founder"?
 
I confess that I find the lines obscure but as Hill has thought very deeply
about Pound over the years I would prefer not to miss his point, whatever it
is.
 
Richard Edwards
 
 
 
>From: Tim Romano <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: Ezra Pound discussion list of the University of Maine
>  <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Pound and Geoffrey Hill
>Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 14:57:07 -0400
>
>Deuteronomy 27:17 ?
>
>Tim Romano
>
>
>Richard Edwards wrote:
> >
> > On a different but not unrelated topic: Geoffrey Hill's strange new
> > book-length poem, *The Triumph of Love* (Houghton Mifflin 1998/Penguin
> > 1999), contains the following lines in section (canto?) CXLVI:
> >
> > "Cursed be he that removeth his neighbour's mark:
> > Mosaic statute, to which Ruskin was steadfast.
> > (If Pound had stood so, he might not have foundered.)"
> >
> > Does anyone have any idea what Hill is getting at here?
> >
 
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com