This issue didn't pack quite the punch of some: here's what I noticed.
Portrait continues and continues to fit like a hand-in-a-glove in The Egoist. This issue's piece continues the critique of the Catholic church begun earlier. It's actually far more apparent than I'd remembered from my last (non-serialized) read-through. The context makes it pop, context like:
Richard Aldington's piece on mystical Latin poetry in the March 16 issue excites a correspondent (one Amelia Defries) to write in positing that God is behind all great art, opposed to Aldington's contention that art has no divine origin. Aldington counter-attacks this position with classic Imagist rhetoric, applied:
"This much can be said. A work of art is so precisely because it is not divine or inspired or supernatural in any way. In the case of literature a work of art is the record of an experience, an emotion, an observation; its value as art depends upon the method of presentation. If the method is untrained, amateurish, not precise, the result is a collection of vague generalities which only torment the reader by seem ing to mean something they do not mean; if the method is trained, precise, hard, the result is an exact impression which is satisfactory to the reader and stimulating to his imagination." (139).
Intriguingly, the letter was from a theosophical type (the other sort of New Age), very crank-y, looking for the messiah. I quote for color:
"And, in the awakening of this New Era of ours, there is every possibility that such a man may once again appear among us. A poet, "a man whose eyes are those of a leader of men," "red-haired," "Godlike with great brows," "with passionate lips, of gigantic will and indomi table energy, a born fighter and overthrower, young also and enthusiastic . . ." and he will lead, as Jesus led 2000 years before; and all the normal men and women will be "divinely inspired" and will sing of him and with him in words, and paint, and marble, and stone, in colour and in music, and every word of his and of theirs will be of "Divine origin"—as indeed are every word and every line created by His forerunners to-day." (ibid).
Aldington takes a moment to specifically reject Besant, and also makes fun of the writer for the "red-haired" bit (I wonder if on some level a swipe at Pound, as well?).
Another cool thing in the issue may involve Aldington, too: Auceps continues his feud with Pound and Gaudier-Brzeska. Auceps specifically claims that he has never met Pound or Gaudier, which would take Aldington out of the question, but his concerns are so Aldingtonian! Eliot-fan moment: check out how Auceps (Latin for fowler), while making fun of Gaudier-B and EP by personifying them as birds, uses a certain cry for Pound:
"Popopopopopou io io!" wails the other tunefully. "Nay, dear Gaudier, sweet Gaudier, chuck-chuck chuck-a-darling, he has too much feeling, he is a sentimentalist. Tititititina Tereu-tereu !" (137).
I'm able to think it's possible that Possum might be reading this? Pound as Philomela?
Quick notes:
D.H. Lawrence prints a set of love poems that are very closely linked by key words, making me think they are a series or sequence rather than just a selection.
Pound continues to print "the notes of a practical and technical Chinaman" called "The Causes and Remedies of Poverty in China." Shades of later Poundian economics, as the unnamed author advises distributing the wealth currently concentrated in the hands of the dictatorial monarchy.
The first piece in the issue is on the music of Schoenburg, might be interesting to get a music-expert opinion on it.
No comments:
Post a Comment