Carrol Cox wrote:
>It was around 1912 or so I believe that Pound pointed out in a letter or
>a review or something (this is not my field of specialization, which is
>Milton & Pope, and I haven't tried to remember or research anything
>systematically) that Yeats wrote books not collections of disparate
>poems. (I hope I've got my dates right, because any date later than 1915
>fucks up my argument here.) That is, by 1915 Pound definitely had in his
>head the idea of a book of poems which, though separately written,
>nevertheless constituted a _book_, not merely a collection. I've got an
Why does it matter to your argument (that _Lustra_ is conceived of
as an integrated, coherent volume) when Pound wrote on Yeats? Books of
"separately written" poems that are "not merely collections" have been
around for a long time. Pound would have known some of them, no?
Virgil's _Eclogues_, Dryden _Fables Ancient and Modern_ (though I'd put
an asterisk next to this-- Pound may not have had an edition available
to him in which the poems appear as Dryden arranged them), Housman's _ A
Shropshire Lad_, various sonnet sequences. There are medieval Japanese
court anthologies that Pound may have known or known of that are
compiled from many authors, living across many years, some of which read
as integrated books. _The Metamorphoses_ becomes a seamless song by
dint of Ovid's making it one. The material is inherently disparate.
I don't know what "separately written" poems are. Poems under
individual titles? Poems written without a thought of a whole? If
this, how can you know that poems didn't suggest other poems or that in
the writing Pound, being a single person, doesn't return to himself as a
common source for the poems. The phrase makes no sense to me.
I can feel you arguing that the few volumes I've mentioned wouldn't
have been seen by Pound as _books_. But the point is that the idea of
arranging poems to create some sort of whole was hardly new in the world
in or around 1912, so your argument needed be pinned to that date.