 |
 |
Anne, Tom, et al. --- Anne is more right than Tom, I think. I believe I also referred to Kent's work, and I should have paid proper tribute to Fowler, because his book had more bearing on my interests than Kent's breakthrough. Regarding Nelson, I seem to recall that he reviewed Fowler's book -- unpersuaded -- under the coy title, "Calculus Racked Him." Thanks to my education in the TPR orbit, I was spared over-exposure to "continuing Romanticism," and started off under the influence of various dark stars associated with the Warburg Institute -- quite compatible, I think, with the assumptions involved in numerological inquiries. If I may suggest a new twist in this thread: How is the legacy of the Warburg scholars regarded today, especially by the younger generation(s)? Cheers, Jon Quitslund -------------- Original message ---------------------- From: [log in to unmask] > Hey, Tom Didn't I mention Kent? I thought I did. I remember well the > effect on his class (I was a member) when he told us about what he had > found in Epithalamion. Electric. The older scholars at Columbia, including > my beloved Bill Nelson, were taken aback, I suspect because a taste for > this sort of thing is such a violation of the assumptions that lie behhind > a continuing Romanticism. Anne P. > > > I wonder why no one has mentioned Hieatt, Rostviq, or Fowler in all this > > concern about numbers. Doyou read only the new. Tpr Original Message > > ----- > > From: David Wilson-Okamura <[log in to unmask]> > > Date: Sunday, April 24, 2005 4:53 pm > > Subject: [SUSPECT-MSG] Re: Literary numerology > > > >> Steven Willett wrote: > >> > But how does the mere presence of, say, an arithmetic ratio > >> in a > >> > poem provide any more value to our response than the type font > >> or the > >> > paper watermark? > >> > >> I don't want to put down typography or watermarks. Both can be > >> beautiful, both can help us to interpret a book (and sometimes a > >> text).Ratios, though, belong to the poem -- participate in its > >> substance -- in > >> a different way. Remember Quintilian's distinction between figures of > >> thought and figures of speech? If you rearrange the words, the > >> figure of > >> speech disappears. But the figure of thought remains. So it is with > >> ratios. If you copy out the poem by hand from a printed book, the > >> ratiois still there. Not so the font or watermark. > >> > >> > For those who maintain that verifiable numerological > >> > constructs have a value, I'd like to see an argument that clarifies > >> > just what that literary value may be. Number symbolism of the kind > >> > practiced by the Pythagoreans, Plato, Hrosvita of Gandersheim, > >> Nicolas> of Cusa, Spinoza in his ethics more geometrico, Novalis, > >> Kepler and > >> > many another depends on the belief that mathematical laws and the > >> > mathematically-analyzable harmony of nature are both aspects of the > >> > divine mind. Well, if modern literary numerologists would like to > >> > ground the ultimate value of their practice on the divine mind, > >> I have > >> > nothing to object. > >> > >> I think it's useful to distinguish two kinds of literary math. One is > >> number symbolism. For this we need to apply the Prescott and Hamlin > >> tests. The other kind of literary math is what Puttenham calls > >> proportion. Proportion is something you enjoy, contemplate, adjust > >> yourself to, as an instance of order in the universe. Conversely, > >> > >> The man that hath no music in himself, > >> Nor is not moved with concord with sweet sounds, > >> Is fit for treasons, strategems, and spoils. > >> The motions of his spirit are dull as night, > >> And his affections dark as Erebus. > >> Let no such man be trusted. Mark the music. > >> > >> > But think of the pedagogical consequences: claiming > >> > a special literary merit for this kind of number symbolism > >> requires the > >> > introduction of a religious belief system into criticism. Strip > >> away> the mysticism and you strip away the value, if not the > >> existence, of > >> > numerological relationships. > >> > >> This is true of number symbolism. But the ratios are still there, and > >> can still give pleasure. "He that hath an ear, let him hear." > >> > >> > I am also dubious about Prof. Wilson-Okamura's remark that a numbers > >> > mentality would have been induced by quantitative metrics. > >> Classical> poets learned meters as whole structures and did not > >> have to count, > >> > which would have made no sense anyway with the triadic > >> structures of > >> > Pindar, Aeolic meters and stanza forms, dactylo-epitrite meters or > >> > virtually any other metrical unit. I suspect he had the dactylic > >> > hexameter in mind, where one could I suppose count off a > >> sequence of > >> > six dactyls and spondees. But the Greek dactylic hexameter was > >> not a > >> > linear sequence of feet (much as that may be taught in school). The > >> > verse really consists of two cola divided by a medial caesura: the > >> > colon - u u - u u - (occurring independently as the hemiepes, > >> usually> symbolized by D in Greek metrics) is the structural unit. > >> As M. L. > >> > West points out in _Greek Metre_, the hexameter is essentially D > >> u | u > >> > D - ||, where the two short syllables on either side of the caesura > >> > could be replaced by one long syllable. The Latin hexameter was > >> > probably learned and conceived in the same way, since its > >> practitioners> all knew Greek. Greek and Roman poets thought and > >> felt rhythm in terms > >> > of cola, not in terms of feet. Counting played no role in > >> composition,> though it may in the much narrower accentual- > >> syllabic meters of > >> > English. Much as I love English, it suffers from a poverty of > >> metrical> as opposed to free verse resources. > >> > >> If we're talking about "How do you make a real hexameter?" then of > >> course we should all agree with M. L. West. (R.I.P. We shall not > >> see his > >> like again.) But that's not the relevant question. Instead, we > >> need to > >> ask, "How did Spenser and Sidney and the whole gang of metrical > >> vandals_think_ you make a dactylic hexameter?" To answer that, you > >> do what > >> Attridge did: you find the books that they read, and see how _those > >> books_ explained the meter. Even if they were wrong! Which they were, > >> about a lot of things! > >> > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> ---- > >> Dr. David Wilson-Okamura http://virgil.org > >> [log in to unmask] Department Virgil reception, > >> discussion, documents, &c > >> East Carolina University Sparsa et neglecta coegi. -- Claude > >> Fauchet------------------------------------------------------------ > >> ----------- > >> > >