The Companion is a "must have", for gathering together so many of Pound's
sources in one place.  I have never read my copy of the book through
'systematically', only consulting it when I've wanted to find out more
about something mentioned in the poem.  The Companion acts as a key to
expanding your own knowledge of the Cantos, not as a reductive explanation
of what the poem is "about."  As Pound himself is not around to be
questioned about the contents of the poem, the Companion is the next best
thing.
 
Now you mention it, I suppose I have only used the book in this way for the
reasons you gave.  I wouldn't let the Companion intrude upon the reading
process (certainly never try reading the Cantos with the Companion open
beside it, consulting back and forth!)  But I imagine now that reading the
Companion through would be of great benefit; if one had gone through the
entire Cantos unaided at least once, and then read the Companion as
"preparatory work" to a further, unaided, reading of the poem.  After all,
the material in the Companion is that used by Pound, presented in an order
analogous to that used by Pound, so I doubt the Companion's approach would
be considered "rigorously analytical" by conventional academic standards.
Besides which, there is the particular nature of Pound's obscurities, as
summed up by Hugh Kenner: "Pound omits, omits, but knows what he is
omitting and can restore on demand".  In this light, use of the Companion
could not distance the reader from the poem.
 
regards, Ben.Harper
 
 
At 04:21 27/04/98 -0400, you wrote:
>On the subject of reference works on Pound: I was considering purchasing
>_A Companion to Ezra Pound's Cantos_, published by the UC press, 1993, by
>Carroll Terrell; does anybody have any comments on this work? A browse of
>it in the bookstore made it seem like a "must have", in some sense, for an
>understanding of the threads of Pound's historical/literary narratives.
>
>This might, I suppose, spark a discussion of the effect a Companion such
>as the above might have on a reading of the Cantos. Terrell basically runs
>each Canto line by line, picking out references and quoting relevant texts
>(primary and secondary). Pound himself didn't have such a rigorously
>analytical approach to what he brought in, and, given what he does with
>the traditional academic narrative of literary development in a book such
>as ABC's of Reading, it seems as if he himself saw Cantos' use of other
>texts in a far different light than Terrell does. Does, then, in some
>sense, a Companion actually distance the reader from the text more than a
>muddle-through-and-get-what-you-can reading?
>
>-- Simon DeDeo
>
>* <`,'> | Simon DeDeo / Mather 307E (B entry, lowrise) | <`,'> *
>* [`-'] | 237 Mather Mail Center / Cambridge, MA 02138 | [`-'] *
>* -"-"- | homepage http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~sdedeo  | -"-"- *
>
>