Alison
Would it not be 'fair' to say that Classical prosody, and its re-incarnation
in Renaissance onwards vernaculars, works well-enough granted the
assumptions of its model, and that in early modern epoch European
literatures ( Rrroughly C16 onwards) it functions analogously to Newtonian
physics, Florentine perspective, or the scales climbing and descending from
a middle 'c'?
If actualities dismantle the model, then a new language is needed?
Even within the Renaissance births poetry occurs that evades the
description of the model - one need look no further than Shakespeare, the
Shakespeare of the sonnets even, to find lines which can only be
comprehensively scanned on the trochaic-iambic grid by simultaneous multiple
scansions, particularly where oxytonics are concerned?
I liked the Skelton-Creeley pairing, by the way, now that is illuminating.
Couldn't agree more about Prynne's creative prosody but who is this Geoffrey
Hill manifestation who breaks the moulds? Where have I missed him? Not that
I regard Hill as rhythmically, metrically uninteresting, but he's always
seemed a re-invigorator of existent forms to me. Both modern & older forms,
that is. Which seems apt for the ambiguous light of his stained-glass.
Conservative, defensive, often though not always in the better senses of
those words.
david bircumshaw
----- Original Message -----
From: <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2000 3:43 PM
Subject: Re: prosody, life, unfreedom
> >Keston, all I meant was that prosody can be considered a discipline in
its
> >infancy
>
> Curious to know how this can be so - having struggled through Aristotle's
> strictures on measure, trying to memorise all the Greek terms (which I
> instantly forgot, of course). Prosody has been discussed at such length
> and for so many centuries that perhaps it might be more accurate to say
> it is in its second infancy.
>
> This discussion makes me think a bit of Celan's comment that technique is
> like hygiene, something which doesn't require comment but should be
> simply taken for granted: that it's where you begin. If you're curious
> about poetry, and enjoy it, then you come into contact with very many
> ways of varying and emphasising the rhythms of language, and in the hands
> of a skilled poet therein are very many pleasures. From John Skelton to
> Robert Creeley (who, perhaps, are not very different at times - )
>
> This regret?
> Nothing's left.
> Skin's old,
> story's told -
>
> but still touch,
> selfed body,
> wants other,
> another mother
>
> (Creeley)
>
> It is generall
> To be mortall:
> I have well espyde
> No man may him hyde
> From Deth holow eyed
>
> (Skelton)
>
> Though there are probably more pertinent comparisons - I chose these at
> random. Which is simply to say that it's clear to me, when I read
> Creeley, that's he's drawing from some very ancient prosodical ideas and
> bending them to his own usages, with a lightness and deftness that I envy
> greatly. Others _break_ older prosodies, which can be equally exciting
> (Prynne, Hill, Ashbery, Pound, &c&c). What bores me witless is no
> prosodical technique at all, which is perhaps where the question of the
> Ear comes in. The joy for me is in the invention, which is one of the
> reasons I so like George Herbert and Donne, and also why Pound at his
> best makes me gasp - and why I find myself also enjoying Prynne, who has
> a very sure grasp indeed of prosodical devices.
>
> Paz has some wonderful things to say about rhythm, but I can't find him
> at the moment - his idea is that poems expose history for what it is, ie,
> time. For rhythm is a function of time. (Also makes me think of
> Tarkovsky's book Sculpting in Time, which I like for the title as much as
> anything else).
>
> Best
>
> Alison
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|