Ezra Pound: On Not Getting All the Words Back

Macrobius

Megaphoron
Attention conservation notice: a fine weblog ('blog in the vernacular). But in the end, just a web log.


In July 1919, Robert Graves wrote to Edmund Blunden, having been shown some of his published work by Siegfried Sassoon. Did Blunden have anything to offer for the Owl, the quarterly Graves was co-editing with W. J. Turner? Turner was the Australian-born poet and critic, best-remembered now, perhaps, for his poem ‘Romance’ (it begins: ‘When I was but thirteen or so/ I went into a golden land,/ Chimborazo, Cotopaxi/ Took me by the hand’).

Blunden sent several poems which Graves then forwarded to Turner to look at. ‘“Pan Grown Old” is my favourite’, Graves commented. ‘May I presume for a moment? Titles aren’t your strong suit. All this Pan business is played out anyway. Why not call it “A Country God” and remove that rather Unenglish “complex” from the reader’s eye?’[1]

‘All this Pan business’ had certainly been a significant cultural feature of the period before the First World War, in the work of E. M. Forster, D. H. Lawrence, Arthur Machen, Saki, Edgar Jepson, and in Kenneth Grahame’s The Wind in the Willows, among others.[2] Blunden accepted the suggested change of title. The revised version of the poem published in the Owl was included in The Waggoner and other poems (1920). It begins:

When groping farms are lanterned up
And stolchy ploughlands hid in grief,
And glimmering byroads catch the drop
That weeps from sprawling twig and leaf,
And heavy-hearted spins the wind
Among the tattered flags of Mirth,—
Then who but I flit to and fro,
With shuddering speech, with mope and mow,
And glass the eyes of Earth?[3]

Longmuir, Alexander Davidson, c.1843-1891; Ploughing after a Shower


(Alexander Davidson Longmuir, Ploughing after a Shower: Aberdeen Art Gallery & Museums)

My eye is caught by ‘mope and mow’ mainly because it’s not ‘mop and mow’—Brewer’s Dictionary of Phrase and Fable has ‘grimaces’, with a sidelong glance at the Dutch moppen, ‘to pout’—familiar to me from Ford Madox Ford’s books. ‘Mopping and mowing’ crops up in Violet Hunt’s The Last Ditch and a couple of times in Virginia Woolf’s Between the Acts. It occurs twice in Charlotte Bronte’s Villette too, and the note in my Oxford World’s Classics edition points to Shakespeare’s King Lear, though there (IV, i) it’s ‘mocking and mowing’ – as it is in Blunden’s ‘De Bello Germanico’.[4] Ford, and probably Violet Hunt, most likely took it from Christina Rossetti’s Goblin Market—‘Puffing and blowing,/ Chuckling, clapping, crowing,/ Clucking and gobbling,/ Mopping and mowing’—Rossetti being the nineteenth-century poet whom Ford most admired.[5]

Rossetti_goblin_market


My other eye is fixed on ‘stolchy’. In a remarkably detailed compendium of notes on The Lyttelton Hart-Davis Letters, George Lyttelton is quoted (1 March 1956) as having mentioned that the Oxford English Dictionary didn’t know about ‘stolchy’. Lyttelton copied the opening lines of Blunden’s poem into his commonplace book.
https://lyttelton-hart-davis.site123.me/

Elsewhere, a discussion of W. H. Auden’s habit of roaming through the OED for material has an example: “‘A Bad Night”, subtitled “A Lexical Exercise”, is an obvious example of a dictionary-inspired poem. It is crammed with words lifted from OED which, out of context, are virtually unintelligible: hirple, blouts, pirries, stolchy, glunch, sloomy, snudge, snoachy, scaddle etc.’
https://oed.hertford.ox.ac.uk/literary-sources/writers-and-dictionaries/auden-and-the-oed/

So ‘stolchy’ is there now, in the constantly-updated Oxford English Dictionary? I go online and look. Joseph Wright’s English Dialect Dictionary has it as a verb, ‘to tread down, trample, to walk in the dirt’; and a 1772 manual of husbandry, Ellis’s Practical Agriculture, Volume II, has the adjective. But no, it isn’t in the OED. Still, Wright, whose six-volume work appeared between 1898 and 1905, already has it as ‘obsolete’ then.

99t/47/huty/14061/41


(Robert Bridges via History Today)

Robert Bridges—then Poet Laureate and, famously, editor of the poems of Gerard Manley Hopkins—in a 1921 tract for the Society of Pure English, The Dialectical Words in Blunden’s Poems, remarked: ‘“Stolchy” is so good a word that it does not need a dictionary.’ Perhaps, to the modern ear, it’s close enough to ‘squelchy’ not to require further explanation but Blunden evidently felt that it had a quite specific application: perhaps ground not only wet but trodden down, usually by cattle, then subjected to still more rain. On the way back from seeing Armando Iannucci’s The Personal History of David Copperfield, the ground in the park was, hmm, stolchy; and there was, too, a bit in the film about dialect, usually humorous, and mainly in the mouth of James Steerforth.

Dialect—variations in speech peculiar to place or social group—is not archaism—language fallen out of current use—though the one can become the other. Ezra Pound remembered that, ‘when I was just trying to find and use modern speech, old Bridges carefully went through Personae and Exultations and commended every archaism (to my horror), exclaiming “We’ll git ’em all back; we’ll git ’em all back.”’[6]

He is there again in the Pisan Cantos:

“forloyn” said Mr Bridges (Robert)
“we’ll get ’em all back”
meaning archaic words (80/507)

Pound’s attitude towards such words, and those who used them, tended to fluctuate. Against his praise of Gabriele D’Annunzio, one might set Ford’s comments, as he traced what he saw as the decline of English poetry (while ‘what is wanted of a poet is that he should express his own thoughts in the language of his own time’): ‘The other day I was listening to an excellent Italian conférencier who assured an impressed audience that Signor D’Annunzio is the greatest Italian stylist there has ever been, since in his last book he has used over 2,017 obsolete words which cannot be understood by a modern Italian without the help of a medieval glossary.’[7]

Let’s not get them all back.


Notes

[1] Letter of 12 July 1919: Robert Graves, In Broken Images: Selected Letters of Robert Graves, 1914-1946, edited by Paul O’Prey (London: Hutchinson, 1982), 112, 113; Barry Webb, Edmund Blunden: A Biography (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990), 114.

[2] See W. R. Irwin, ‘The Survival of Pan’, in PMLA, LXXVI, 3 (June 1961), 159-167.

[3] Edmund Blunden, ‘A Country God’, in Selected Poems, edited by Robyn Marsack (Manchester: Carcanet Press, 1993), 32-33.

[4] Charlotte Brontë, Villette, edited by Margaret Smith and Herbert Rosengarten (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990), 195, 300, 633n; Blunden, Fall In, Ghosts: Selected Prose, edited by Robyn Marsack (Manchester: Carcanet Press, 2014), 12.

[5] Though Ford also used ‘minced and mowed’ in The Fifth Queen (London: Penguin Books, 1999), 101; ‘mopped and mowed’ in A Man Could Stand Up— (1926; edited by Sara Haslam, Manchester: Carcanet Press, 2011), 68 and n., where other usages are detailed; and ‘miching and mowing’ in Provence (London: Allen & Unwin, 1938), 87 and Mightier Than the Sword (London: Allen and Unwin, 1938), 264, 265, 266.

[6] Ezra Pound, Selected Letters, 1907-1941, edited by D. D. Paige (New York: New Directions, 1971), 179.

[7] Ford Madox Ford, Ancient Lights and Certain New Reflections (London: Chapman and Hall, 1911), 52, 53.

- 30 -
 
Last edited:

Macrobius

Megaphoron
I disagree.

Return ALL the words please.

Civilisation was not yours to destroy.[1]

Cultural appropriation cuts both ways.

[1]: Pound's Radio addresses


Shakespeare and Bach are a bore. Architecture is dangerous. Sculpture is taboo. Mr. Brown wants a
bright new world; and debt is after all only the prelude to slavery. One can conceive a regime in which
there is NO economic liberty. I mean absolutely NO economic liberty for anyone. Not by accident, but by
program. It is much easier, in fact, to conceive a slave state than a free state. A state wherein all men are
slaves, and no man has any right whatsoever to life, liberty, and where even the pursuit — marvelous phrase
that "pursuit" of happiness — would be illegal, or at least regarded as a grave misdemeanor.

A really severe Puritan like Eden or Morgenthau would probably tell you that the pursuit of happiness
is on a level with chippy-chasing. I know you don't THINK you are ripe for a real revolution. You don't
think YOU are ripe for the end of the capitalist system altogether. You would rather such revolutions
occurred in the Punjab or in Bessarabia. But one thing leads to another.

And yet, Civilization was not yours to destroy.
 
Last edited:

Macrobius

Megaphoron
Need to do a longer post on the retrieval of old words… but god I love Pound
“And yet, Civilization was not yours to destroy.”
In the Vast Wasteland of the 20th century English vernacular, there is little to compare with the works of Il miglior fabbro.

Il miglior fabbro - Dedication - The Waste Land by T. S. Eliot

Information about The Divine Comedy by Dante Alighieri, alluded to in the dedication of The Waste Land.
wasteland.windingway.org
citation reads:

More context, from the Cotter translation of the Purgatorio:

“O brother, the one I point to with my finger,”
He spoke, and pointed to a soul in front,
“Was a better craftsman of the mother tongue.”

- 30 -

Pound, of course, assisted Eliot in editing his poem to half its previous length, and presumably the cut we have is better than the Director's cut.

Cutting a Wasteland by half is the work of a Hari Selden.

Cross-linking this thread:

When Was Latin Invented?

Miniscule penmanship means so much, to the Glossalators. Screw the cursive. I'm goin' in. -- https://tunisbayclub.com/index.php?threads/anno-domini-the-first-thousand-years.419/#post-3920 The title is provocative of course - we all know the standard story: Latin was the language of the Roman...
tunisbayclub.com
tunisbayclub.com
As Thoughts reminded us, our Civilisation began [the second time round] at Skellig St Michael.

It is /our/ Civilisation, and it can't be taken from /us/, by some sort of Identity Theft. We can be annihilated, but not defeated.


 

Macrobius

Megaphoron
More on the Pound connection to the Wasteland (via Arnaut Daniel)

link.springer.com

“Poi s’ascose nel foco che gli affina”: Dante’s Purgatorio

One last fisherman shows up near the end of The Waste Land: I sat upon the shore Fishing, with the arid plain behind me Shall I at least set my lands in order? London Bridge is falling down falling down...

Reading The Waste Land from the Bottom Up pp 233–235Cite as
Palgrave Macmillan

Poi s’ascose nel foco che gli affina”: Dante’s Purgatorio

Abstract​

One last fisherman shows up near the end of The Waste Land:
I sat upon the shore
Fishing, with the arid plain behind me
Shall I at least set my lands in order?
London Bridge is falling down falling down falling down
Poi s’ascose nel foco che gli affina. (WL 424–28)
Remember that in some of the narratives Jessie Weston charts, the death of the Fisher King is necessary to ensure the arrival of spring rains. This fisherman, with his question about putting his affairs in order, seems to be approaching the end of his life. He is calm and appears to have time to get things organized; he is also the last voice in the poem that clearly continues over the course of several lines. “London Bridge is falling down falling down falling down” (WL 427) marks a shift of voice and geography: we have moved from the arid plain to the city, from a single voice concerned with preparation to a more chaotic welter of voices and languages. After London Bridge comes a line of Italian from Dante’s Purgatorio: “Poi s’ascose nel foco che gli affina” (WL 428). These words return to the episode Eliot used in his dedication to Ezra Pound, when he borrowed the compliment poet Guido Guinzelli gives to poet Arnaut Daniel: Guido declares that of the two of them, Arnaut is “a better craftsman” (Purgatorio 26.117).

Thread related: http://thephora.net/phoranova/index.php?threads/ezra-pound-remembering-the-fire-sermon.345/
 

Macrobius

Megaphoron
One way to 'get all the words back is to look at the 'lost sister languages' of English -- Scots is of course basically English without the Norman influence, so barely counts. The dialects of Frisian, though clearly kin, are a bit too different, kin but not kith, perhaps, being somewhat uncouth (which means, not-kith).

A most interesting case is the so-called Yola language of Wexford, Ireland, where a loop of river seems to have isolated a group of English speakers at the time of the Norman invasion, resulting in a history similar to Scots. You can look the language up, as it endured in that little corner of the world, largely isolated, for nearly 1000 years, and though most speakers had died out or adopted Standard English by the 19th century, the very last native speaker died just short of the Millennium, in 1998.

Lovers of Rare Words will find many to plunder from this small account (which is only about half as long as it looks, as the balance of the books is a catalogue of similar works from the publisher).


About Wexford:

Screenshot 2022-12-04 4.07.18 PM.png

Screenshot 2022-12-04 4.07.31 PM.png
 
Last edited:

Macrobius

Megaphoron
Apeirontic, at Carthago Sartago[1], writes:

i have been using the word stolchy on occasion

I see that the reason we call a roaring fire a blaze is because it is actually a roaring faggot (copprouse in a blease). I feel a frogwhistle code word coming on.... what in the bleasing copprousery?

[1]:

Veni Carthaginem, et circumstrepebat me undique sartago flagitiosorum amorum. nondum amabam, et amare amabam, et secretiore indigentia oderam me minus indigentem. quaerebam quid amarem, amans amare, et oderam securitatem et viam sine muscipulis, quoniam fames mihi erat intus ab interiore cibo, te ipso, deus meus, et ea fame non esuriebam, sed eram sine desiderio alimentorum incorruptibilium, non quia plenus eis eram, sed quo inanior, fastidiosior.
To Carthage I came, where there sang all around me in my ears a cauldron of unholy loves. I loved not yet, yet I loved to love, and out of a deep-seated want, I hated myself for wanting not. I sought what I might love, in love with loving, and safety I hated, and a way without snares. For within me was a famine of that inward food, Thyself, my God; yet, through that famine I was not hungered; but was without all longing for incorruptible sustenance, not because filled therewith, but the more empty, the more I loathed it.

A 'sartago' is actually closer to meaning a frying pan.
 
Last edited:

Macrobius

Megaphoron

#JustAngloThings

(

Eliot's Affirmative Way: Julian of Norwich, Charles Williams, and Little Gidding )




We live in such times as Gower, Chaucer, and Julian of Norwich. Eliot, Sayers, Williams and the other Inklings *KNEW*

Our Lord's Beloved can take the Vaxx -- modern snake handling -- and not be poisoned.

If Our Lord makes us suffer, well, 'My Beloved has given me a necklace of pearls'.

And all shall be well and
All manner of thing shall be well
When the tongues of flames are in-folded
Into the crowned knot of fire
And the fire and the rose are one.

Julian of Norwich

Here, I think Julian of Norwich can teach us about the complexities of the sick body. A fourteenth-century mystic, Julian lived and prayed as an anchoress; her body built, as it were, into the walls of the church. Julian had two visions, both when she was very sick and near death. Within these visions, I find a Julian whose encounter with her own body’s limitation presents us with a theological framework to understand the perils of infusing battle rhetoric into a person’s bodily experience with illness. Julian’s work reveals that medicine’s desire to resist death can only intern condemnation upon the body that will one day succumb to its weakness.

Julian’s body is contaminated with an illness that brings her near death. Before Julian’s first vision, she calls the priest to administer her last rites. As she lies there, staring up at the crucifix he is holding over her, her vision forms. In this vision, Julian’s body and the love of God exist in tension. Sickness, or suffering, represents a form of martyrdom for the flesh—she suffers so she can know Christ’s suffering, so she can learn how to overcome her body. She longs to be enraptured fully in the love of Christ, but she feels her body shackled, both by the uncleanliness of illness and by the legacy of a theological discourse that demands her to rise above her body, to master herself. This is particularly true within the feudal economy, she writes, in which one’s ability to work and produce for the feudal lord defines one’s worth.[10]

The sick body cannot work or at least not in the ways that are easily recognizable. The sick body cannot master itself. Sick bodies are an economic and social liability. Not only could Julian’s body not work—and thus be productive in larger society—but in an era ruled by the plague, her illness could risk the health, the hygiene, and productivity of the larger community. Thus, Julian’s inability to dominate and control her weakness dismissed and named her body as “burden.” Jesus’s salvation only exists, she notes, because he suffered and overcame this suffering, and she understands her suffering as the only way in which she can participate in the knowledge of God. Julian spiritualizes her suffering as that which may bring her closer to God and witness to God’s love in suffering. She writes, “Any spirit had life in Christ’s flesh, so long suffered He pain.”[11] Nevertheless, on her deathbed, self-mastery does not present itself as an option for Julian’s body. To try to master her body would only produce a paradox. Julian could not lay claim to or assign value to her body. In Julian’s first vision, her pain gives her body value because her pain ties her to Christ’s suffering. Her body is given meaning not in its life, but in its suffering and death.

After this first vision, Julian recovers and then, upon falling ill again, she has a second vision. In this vision, Julian’s understanding moves away from suffering as that which defines God’s love and her body’s worth. Julian first assumes that the sorrows of life are the experiences humanity merits according to their sin, but in her second vision, Julian comes to understand her body’s weakness not as a divine suffering but as a mournful part of human experience. She allows herself to feel the limits of her skin and the weight of her bones. She understands that the body does not deserve illness. Instead, she sees that illness reveals the vulnerability of the body that existed in the garden and always reveals its need of God’s love, a love that does not fear bodily illness and goop. “If there is anywhere on earth a lover of God who is always kept safe, I know nothing of it for it was not shown to me,” Julian writes. “But this was shown: that in falling and rising again we are always kept in that same precious love.”[12] This time Julian’s revelation does not come to her by rising above her body. Instead, through pressing into the vivified experience of living, she finds her body and mind enlivened with the never-ending, unsanitized love of Christ.

Julian experiences her soul expanding both in and outside her body. When she speaks of the soul, Julian means the medium through which she experiences God, but this does not mean that she believes the soul and the body are separate entities. She writes in a painful beauty, “For as the body is clad in the cloth, and the flesh in the skin, and the bones in the flesh, and the heart in the whole, so are we, soul and body, clad in the Goodness of God, and enclosed.” The soul, for Julian, is the means to which a person clings desperately to the goodness of God. In this clinging Julian finds that her life, as a soul-filled, bodily creature upon this earth, eludes naming and understanding. This present life mingles together the sorrow of sin and the compassion of Jesus to form those experiences that are “[sometimes] good and easy, and sometimes hard and grievous.”[13] Through this love Julian’s illness becomes a space in which she can concurrently mourn and embrace her vulnerability. The love of Christ affirms that her body was made good.

The Words of Our Mouth

At my small Mennonite church here in North Carolina, when the preacher of the week gets up to speak, she begins with a prayer adapted from the Psalms: “May the words of my mouth and the meditation of all our hearts be pleasing to you, oh God” (19:14). Our theological task, then, is to find a way of speaking of suffering that takes to heart this formative medication—to press back against a medicalized construction of the body.

That magnet in the hospital gift shop tells me that medicine cannot merely sanitize bodily vulnerability—human vulnerability—like germs from our hands. We aren’t called to wash away knowing someone with a disease or feeling firsthand the physical presence of illness. How do we speak of sick bodies in a way that acknowledges the terror of human vulnerability and finds hope in the kind of body which God too indwelled? What are those words that speak to the paradox of illness being both natural and horrendous?

Finding new words and ways of talking will require that we carefully listen to those who know sickness all too well. To speak meaningfully about the sick body will require tender theological reflection and pastoral care. Perhaps in this learning, we will find with Julian how to love our bodies as God loves them, in sickness and health.[14]

Tunis version: https://tunisbayclub.com/index.php?...t-getting-all-the-words-back.1369/#post-17414
 
Last edited:

Macrobius

Megaphoron
Last edited:
Hail Ezra Pound: One of the greatest literary voices of 20th century (as both a writer and mentor) who was essentially erased from history, Jew namer extraordinaire and a man who fearlessly exposed the central banking scam while living in Mussolini's Italy...and paid a dear price....
:rome:
 
Top