On Apr 25, 2005, at 5:53 AM, David Wilson-Okamura wrote:
> 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.
This has the form of a petitio principii:
1. Separate number symbolism from an undefined 'proportion,' which is
presumably some arithmetic ratio.
2. Ascribe mystical properties to the proportion as "an instance of
order in the universe."
3. Assume that the proportion is an aesthetic factor because it
requires, by analogy with music appreciation, a special sensitivity not
available to everyone.
If 'proportion' refers to a structural aspect of a work, such as stanza
organization, verbal music, narrative, closure, voice, versification,
metrics, symbolism, metaphor, simile and all the other usual suspects
in critical analysis, then I would have no argument. But to claim a
special aesthetic value for a numerical ratio requires proof that it
has the same poetic status as the qualities I've summarized. Can one
really respond to a number as one does, using your analogy, to Mozart's
String Quintet K515 or Bach's Partita No. 2 in D-minor? If so, the
proof is lacking. By contrast let's look at something like Horace's
ode III.iv, arguably his most complex. In the third stanza, we have
me fabulosae Volture in avio
nutricis extra limen Apuliae
ludo fatigatumque somno
fronde nova puerum palumbres.
The whole ode of course is a miracle of construction, but that
architectonics is written small in the stanza, which stretches the
hyperbaton between the adjective "fabulosae" and the noun "palumbres"
to an extreme distance. There is a perceptible aesthetic proportion if
you will at work here. The hyperbaton recalls Pindar, who showed a
strong preference for this kind of phrasal discontinuity. The
structural reference to Pindar then evokes the grand style to emphasize
Horace's special relationship with the muse, his divine calling as one
of the chosen singers. The hyperbaton also heightens suspense as we
move through the Alcaic stanza to find the noun that will cap the
semantic meaning of the sentence. The suspense would have been even
more striking to listeners who heard the poem recited. The release of
suspense in "palumbres" provides a smooth transition to "mirum" at the
start of the next stanza. The pattern in the carpet here is real, open
and aesthetically accessible to those who understand verse. I have
never seen the shred of a serious argument that could demonstrate the
emotional value of literary numerology, and am still waiting.
Let me clear about my position: I accept the verifiable existence of
arithmetic relationships in certain works, I accept that it's a worthy
task to uncover them since the poet put them there, I accept that a
decent respect for literary historiography requires us to teach those
that occur in major poems, but I do not accept that they have the
slightest aesthetic or emotional appeal. Physical proportions, like
the well-known ratio of ideal symmetry in the human body (1:1.618), are
the result of evolutionary biology and are probably hard-wired into our
mind as (research is showing) are certain musical intervals. Literary
numerology is not in that category.
>> 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."
This is essentially just another case of begging the proportional
question. I take it that we agree on number symbolism: one must share
the religious or metaphysical beliefs that produced the symbolism if it
is to have any meaning for us. Absent the belief system, the numbers
are mere data.
|