Yes, I suppose that if the last line still refers to Claudel it would say
'pardon' rather than 'pardons'. I didn't notice the distinction at first,
and assumed Claudel.
P
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Poetryetc provides a venue for a dialogue relating to
> poetry and poetics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Jon Corelis
> Sent: 25 January 2007 17:36
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Auden's Yeats elegy (Re: Dipodic is...?)
>
> >...
> >> x Time that with this strange excuse
> >> Pardoned Kipling and his views,
> >> And will pardon Paul Claudel,
> >> Pardons him for writing well.
> > ^^^
> >Er... this "him" refers to Yeats, yes? Rather than Claudel?
> >
>
> Yeats, because 1)the singular would be incomprehensible if it
> referred to only one of the two just mentioned -- the lines
> would be saying "K. and C.
> both had defective views but Time will pardon C." -- while it
> makes perfect sense if it refers to a third party, Y.; 2) the
> rhetorical strategy at play is the use of exempla, which must
> have a referent (K. and C. are exempla, Y.'s case is what
> they illustrate,) and 3) the historical and personal context
> of the poem is that Y., like K. and C., held incorrect (in Auden's
> opinion) political views, for which Auden argues that like
> them, he (i.e.
> Yeats = "him") should be forgiven because of literary achievements.
>
> --
> ===================================
>
> Jon Corelis www.geocities.com/jgcorelis/
>
> ===================================
>
|