On Thu, 18 Feb 1999, Christopher K. Coffman wrote:
> Pound mentioned a variety of structural motifs for the Cantos. One
> that I have found particularly intriguing is first mentioned (as far
> as I can tell) in a 1927 letter to his father, and recalled several
> times, including in a response to critics of the poem's structure in
> the 1930s. This proposed structure is the organization of the poem
> around 1. the ephemeral 2. the recurrent 3. the eternal.
> XVI Cantos' as it is for the entire monster.
>
> Does anyone know of any critics who have attempted a breakdown of the
> first 16 Cantos (or even the entire work) in terms of this tri-partite
> (ephemeral/recurrent/eternal) structure? I have been working on it
> myself, but it seems likely that someone would have attempted this
> already.
>
> Is the idea of the fugue, although often dismissed as confusing by
> critics, applicable to smaller segments of the work as well as the work
> as a whole? In other words, is it reasonable to look at parts of one
> particular Canto in terms of this form (as I suspect), or does it only
> work when groups of Cantos are considered in relation to one another?
Have a look at Kay Davis, _Fugue and Fresco_. She deals with _The Cantos_
(the whole monster, as I recall, but also with particular specimens). I
admire the book, even though she dismisses my own article "Are the Cantos
a Fugue?" without bothering to take issue with it. I think she offers
some good analysis along these lines, though I would still pose my
question about what the fugal analogy does to clarify anything. For
corrective on this point, check out my article too (rpt in Nancy
Anne Kluck, ed, _Literature and Music_). And remember, there's no
evidence that Pound came up with these analogies until the late 1920s,
when he was well into the writing of the monster, or (pardon me) poem.
Stephen Adams
Department of English
University of Western Ontario
London, Canada N6A-3K7
[log in to unmask]
|
