Re: kafka and rilke

I was hoping Robbie would chime in on this :).

I agree with what you're saying about "song" -- I was using the word
"song" somewhat anachronistically. I view much ancient poetry, even
when unaccompanied by instrumental music, as "song" because, to my
understanding, the poetry was lyrical and quite often sung.

Isn't this the case with Homer's poetry, for example?

I think the important distinction is between poetry that is meant to be
"listened to" and poetry that is meant to be "read." For the sake of
this discussion, I'm loosely applying the word "song" to the former
category while the word "poetry" applies to both categories.

Poetry meant to be quietly read didn't arise until the early modern
period, to my knowledge. Even when written, it was intended to be read
aloud, so quite often had lyrical qualities. You don't see many, or
any, poems shaped like a chalice or a cross, for example -- poems with
visual effects, until around the early modern period.

Jim

> Jim writes:
> << I think the distinction between "song" and "poetry" is a relatively
> recent one, arising from the increase in printed text. >>
>
> What's relatively new, I think, is the idea of a "song." For longer than we
> have had writing we have had poetry and music -- sometimes poetry with
> music, and despite some recent claims on this list, very often poetry with
> no music (except, I suppose, insofar as a poem itself is "musical").
>

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Sat Jun 28 09:47:44 2003