Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Poundian Pedagogy between Kung and Eleusis

Poundian Pedagogy between Kung and Eleusis Poundian Pedagogy between Kung and Eleusis Alan Golding Kindellan and Kotin make some strong claims about The Cantos’ non- pedagogical nature that, as they acknowledge, run counter to one strain of recent Pound criticism: ‘The Cantos [...] is not pedagogical’ and ‘the poem is not compatible with any conceivable model of education’; ‘in The Cantos, Pound is not a teacher and we are not his students’. They contest a fundamental assumption of most criticism on The Cantos: that ‘we are meant to identify the poem’s sources, translate its foreign languages and, especially, rationalize its relentless juxtaposition of “facts’’’. Despite the salutary results of such scholarship, to apply the tools of systematic knowledge to a text that privileges immediate (in both the commonplace and the etymological senses) insight ‘is a mistake – or at least a violation of Pound’s conception of the poem’. The discourse of rite, of revelation, of Eric Havelock’s ‘paideutic spell’, of Carroll Terrell’s ‘religious poem’ runs through Pound scholarship at the same time as ‘it is radically incompatible with how most scholars read and write about the poem. It is an outright contradiction to recognize Pound’s commitment to casting a “spell’’ and then studiously rationalize his http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Modernist Cultures Edinburgh University Press

Poundian Pedagogy between Kung and Eleusis

Modernist Cultures , Volume 12 (3): 10 – Nov 1, 2017

Loading next page...
 
/lp/edinburgh-university-press/poundian-pedagogy-between-kung-and-eleusis-dyhwFK1ron
Publisher
Edinburgh University Press
Copyright
Copyright © Edinburgh University Press
ISSN
2041-1022
eISSN
1753-8629
DOI
10.3366/mod.2017.0180
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Poundian Pedagogy between Kung and Eleusis Alan Golding Kindellan and Kotin make some strong claims about The Cantos’ non- pedagogical nature that, as they acknowledge, run counter to one strain of recent Pound criticism: ‘The Cantos [...] is not pedagogical’ and ‘the poem is not compatible with any conceivable model of education’; ‘in The Cantos, Pound is not a teacher and we are not his students’. They contest a fundamental assumption of most criticism on The Cantos: that ‘we are meant to identify the poem’s sources, translate its foreign languages and, especially, rationalize its relentless juxtaposition of “facts’’’. Despite the salutary results of such scholarship, to apply the tools of systematic knowledge to a text that privileges immediate (in both the commonplace and the etymological senses) insight ‘is a mistake – or at least a violation of Pound’s conception of the poem’. The discourse of rite, of revelation, of Eric Havelock’s ‘paideutic spell’, of Carroll Terrell’s ‘religious poem’ runs through Pound scholarship at the same time as ‘it is radically incompatible with how most scholars read and write about the poem. It is an outright contradiction to recognize Pound’s commitment to casting a “spell’’ and then studiously rationalize his

Journal

Modernist CulturesEdinburgh University Press

Published: Nov 1, 2017

There are no references for this article.