criticism essay in occasions poetry
Just as Pound, even before he introduced himself to London literary circles, had firmlydecided that Yeats was the only living poet who mattered, the young Zukofsky had by thelatter part of the Twenties clearly singled out Ezra Pound as his most importantcontemporary. Zukofsky first brought himself to Pound's attention in 1927 by sending theolder poet his astonishingly precocious "Poem beginning 'The,'" which Poundpublished in 1928 in his short-lived periodical . "'The,'" inlarge part a response to T.S. Eliot's 1922 , rather causticallycastigates the widespread modernist pessimism regarding what seemed the post-Great Wardisintegration of Western Culture. The poem looks forward to a new hopeful future both inliterature, as stimulated by the "first generation... infusion" of new bloodinto the American body politic, and in politics itself, as demonstrated by the brave newexperiment being carried forth in Soviet Russia, the homeland of the mother to which muchof Zukofsky's poem is addressed. Pound was appropriately impressed, both by "Poembeginning 'The'" and by Zukofsky's critical sense, which he demonstrated in his 1929essay on (one of the very first analyses of Pound'swork-in-progress)--so impressed, in fact, that he persuaded the Chicago heiress and poeticimpresario Harriet Monroe to allow Zukofsky to edit the February 1931 issue of hermagazine , a journal for which Pound had long served as formal or informaloverseas editor.
Voip essay autobiography criticism essay in occasions ..
Beginning, however, with that zealous Protestant, the old Xenophanes, the austerer minds, moralists, naturalists, and wits, united in decrying the fanciful polytheism of the poets. This criticism was in one sense unjust; it did not consider the original justification of mythology in human nature and in the external facts. It was, like all heresy or partial scepticism, in a sense superficial and unphilosophical. It was far from conceiving that its own tenets and assumptions were as groundless, without being as natural or adequate, as the system it attacked. To a person sufficiently removed by time or by philosophy from the controversies of sects, orthodoxy must always appear right and heresy wrong ; for he sees in orthodoxy the product of the creative mind, of faith and constructive logic, but in heresy only the rebellion of some partial interest or partial insight against the corollaries of a formative principle imperfectly grasped and obeyed with hesitation. At a distance, the criticism that disintegrates any great product of art or mind must always appear short-sighted and unamiable.
The two-volume , including Celia Zukofsky's setting of ,published in 1963 by Ark Press of the University of Texas Press, attracted very littlecritical notice (especially among the Shakespeare criticism community). Zukofsky's nextmajor project, begun in 1958 and completed in 1966, was also a collaboration with hiswife. The Zukofskys' complete translation of , published in 1969, was aconceptual tour-de-force that baffled and angered classicists much as Pound's had a half-century earlier. Its purpose, Zukofsky writes, is"to breathe the 'literal' meaning" of the Latin original, adhering as closely aspossible to the sounds and rhythms of Catullus, and letting the meaning take a distantback seat. , aside from its very real merits of wit and invention, isimportant in Zukofsky's work as a whole, exemplifying at least two central elements of hispoetics. On the one hand, there is the notion of the word, as Zukofsky puts it in a 1968interview, as a "physiological" thing, a tangible shaping of air and sound by anembodied person; in that sense, the way to get closest to the historical Gaius ValeriusCatullus would be to produce poems that shape sound and air as closely as possible to theways in which he shaped them in his poetry some nineteen hundred years ago. When one readsthe Zukofskys' , then, one experiences the Roman poet in a way that onecannot when reading a translation more faithful in literal "meaning."