Print

Print


> Nancy Gish wrote:
> 
>> 
> II. I have denied mere allegory in many specific instances; I have not
> and do not deny that some of the poetry has allegory or allegorical
> elements.  So I repeat, "I never said that every time. . . he didn't
> write allegory."  I don't need to reread my posts: I know what I think
> and therefore said, and I've been writing about Eliot all my life, so
> I do have a pretty good knowledge of what I say.

Allegory, of course, is a formal element, not an expression of meaning.
When the reader recognizes and construes an allegorial element in the
pome (say Virgil as human reaso ), she is not recognizingh the poem's
meaning bur, rather, psoing the question of how this allegory is used by
the poet in order to develop his/her meaning. If we had Dante here to
query about his poem and asked him if he was trying to express the
limits of humanreason he would laugh uproarously and snarl, any fucking
fool knows that human reason is limited. Why in the hell would I spend
half a lifetime merellymaing that obvious poitn? Allegory, when
successful or uiseful, is always obvious (and this is the case even in
those instances where the allegory has gotten complexc enough to offer
some puzzle: it remains _obvious_ in principle, and in soving the puzzle
we are doing the same thing as when we recognize the rhume scheme in a
poem by Marianne Moore: we are grasping a complex technical featue but
not saying anything about the poet's meaning.,

Carrol