Hello Ben, welcome to the list. I wonder have you seen Prynne's review of
Maximus Iv, V, VI, in which he makes precisely the distinction you
indicate, i.e. that Olson's work is not the "encyclopaedic impulse" of
secondary composition, but "primary writing" itself? Defense against the
conceivable prejudice that Olson merely sewed together scraps of
historical information, whereas in Prynne's view the integrity of
imaginative apprehension in Maximus is the result of what elsewhere he
called "a more synthetic attention".
I'm writing something on this right now, would be happy to forward a copy
when it's finished.
Best, K
(Harold: thanks for your post. I'll come to it shortly.)
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|