who's your favorite poet? why?

[rossette]

hi there:wave::wave:

Who is\are your favorite poet\s? Why?

[kevinthediltz]

Poe. Classic, dark, disturbing, evil, beautiful.

[rossette]

Poe. Classic, dark, disturbing, evil, beautiful.

i agree, actually he's one of my favorites.
but i really like robert frost. he uses easy words but with deep meaning. actually, i think i don't simply like frost, ilove him. i love his poems.

[Lokasenna]

It really depends on what mood I'm in... perhaps a shortlist would be more appropriate?

[Scheherazade]

ee cummings

[Bastable]

Sylvia Plath

[JBI]

Giacomo Leopardi, because he I think was the greatest of pessimists, and certainly the most effective one writing with lyrics. There's also the power of his words, especially in the Italian, which is staggering - I didn't think Italian poetry could convey those things, because the language feels too cheery, but he somehow pulls it off better than anyone could do in English.

[blazeofglory]

My favourite poet is kalidas. He was a great Sanskrit poet, and indeed he was a matchless poet. His style of writing or composing poems was really unique, and hardly any poet of that measure have been born. I have read poems of different languages, Greek, French, English, Germany, but none of the poets could ascend to an extent he had, and there was a blend of everything in his poetries, of course superbly beautiful.

I am indeed moved. I am not good at Sanskrit, but even chanting Sanskrit poems without understanding their meanings you can immerse yourself in a world that was kind of full of fancies and imaginations.

In Meghadut Kalidahs transcended all limits, boundaries, and he rose above all these heights. In this epic he characterized a person who companioned even a cloud and he has been a messenger or an emissary for him. He has animated even inanimated beings. This is indeed something touchingly beautiful.

There is no scale to measure the depth and intensity of his poems and he was really a great poet.

He has not been adequately publicized or to put it differently, the way Greek and Latin poets were praised he or Sanskrit poets were not praised or published.
Of course we know that Sanskrit is the source language, and the most beautiful language. This is often said to be a scientific language.

[JBI]

Yes Blaze of Glory, though I think more people will have better luck finding things about him by adding a's to the end of things, like Kalidasa instead of Kalidas, and Maghaduta, etc. I know Penguin put out a volume of two of his poems, and one of his plays, but as it is, he's hard to find in English.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Wordsworth I think. Maybe part of that choice is my own sentimentality, but I love and appreciate Wordsworth’s deep connection with nature all the same. He carries his love to the extreme so that nature becomes a healer and teacher to the faults of mankind, and makes perfect sense because of it really.

I love his simple little pieces, which is of course part of the Wordsworth style, for example I love the idea of the poems ‘To the Daisy; and ‘To the Same Flower’ (partially quoted below) though they are nothing much really, even compared to other Wordsworth poems. For it might as well say “I have seen all that mankind is capable of and have rejected that in favour of the simplicity of nature” because after all to live in harmony with nature ultimately means living in harmony with oneself.

I particularly love ‘Tintern Abbey’ as a short piece, the idea of Lyrical Ballads and dipping into the Prelude at random. I might even have to do the tourist thing this summer and visit his houses which are now museums to his name. Bit silly really, but a good excuse to get out to the lakes all the same, besides I enjoy doing stuff like that anyway.

[mayneverhave]

T.S. Eliot. Difficulty and obscurity aside, I find his poetry to be some of the most affecting work I have ever read.

[BienvenuJDC]

Robert Burns...
I love his perspective of the most common of things...

To a Louse

[Rococo]

There is so much wonderful poetry out there...but i think my favourite poet is Percy Shelley. I first read his poem "To a Skylark" when i was ten, and i fell in love with it. Nearly ten years after first reading it, i still notice different aspects and nuances - and i feel the same way about so much of his other poetry. His essays are very interesting, too - he was a great thinker as well as a poet.

I really like Robert Browning's poetry as well.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Yes Shelley is an interesting one I think, great poet. I get the impression that he would have been a very interesting person to meet too, highly passionate and wild in everything he did.

His poetry to me is so very musical and flowing, so much so that I often get carried away with it and I don't even take in what I am reading half the time! He's one of the only writers that I can read half-drunk and lose nothing for it for that reason.

[Rococo]

Yes, i agree - there is flowing, lyric feel about Shelley's poetry, isn't there? This probably sounds an odd way to describe it, but i feel there is an intimacy about his poetry too - it's so unashamedly emotional. Like i said, i've always been able to enjoy and relate to his poetry. I read poetry from many different poets and genres, but Shelley remains my favourite :)

[andave_ya]

Haven't read very much, but Wilfred Owen and Rupert Brooke. The War Poets.

[JohnMelmoth]

I have a soft spot for the poetry of A.E. Housman. He suffered from unrequited love and so did I. He was a great comfort when I was in trouble.

[regularjoe]

Mine are : Shakespeare's sonnets (obviously).
I also love John Donne, George Herbert,Milton and Poe. I love some of Marvell's works but generally find him rather difficult to appreciate.

[Dark Lady]

I agree with a lot of the choices posted in the thread so far; there are some really good poets here. If I had to pick one I think at the moment I would have to go for William Blake. This is likely to change, though, since if I'd answered the same question a few months ago I'd have probably answered TS Eliot. A few months before that and I may have said Marvell or Donne. Shakespeare is always near the top, too.

[kelby_lake]

T.S. Eliot. Difficulty and obscurity aside, I find his poetry to be some of the most affecting work I have ever read.

Agreed. I can see the influence on Lolita. Although his poems got a bit tedious when they started going overly religious.

I quite like Hardy's poems actually, especially Neutral Tones.

I'm more of a person who likes individual poems: To An Athlete Dying Young, The Tyger, Remember (by Christina Rosetti)...

[Wilde woman]

I cannot come up with a single favorite. But recently, I've 'discovered' G.M. Hopkins and I find his sprung rhythm VERY exciting. I enjoy the way he coins hyphenated words and combines them with unusual rhythms and striking imagery to create a really fresh, vivacious brand of poetry. For me, it's very compelling.

I love Blake, for his deceptively simple songs. Also Keats and Tennyson...who, for me, are the quintessential Romantic poets. And in the Classical vein, Ovid.

[IndigoStorm]

John Keats ... His life was so short that he must hardly have had time to even edit his work and yet he still managed to produce some of the finest work ever written in the English language.

His last poem "Bright Star" written on board ship on his way to Italy where he died, is my favourite.

[Moshu]

I love Robert Frost, I can really make connections with his poetry. Others would be Milton, Lord Byron, Tennyson, Thomas Carew and Ben Johnson. Oh yes, Emily Dickenson and Edna St. Vincent Millay. =D There's so many; and I'm a sucker for classic poetry...

[stlukesguild]

Easily Dante. The Comedia is quite simply unrivaled. I would have no problem with suggesting that it is the single greatest creation in Western literature. Its breadth and depth are equaled only by the collected works of Shakespeare and the Bible. Had Dante not even written this, he would still be a marvelous and important poet. Along with Guido Cavalcanti he brought the sonnet and the sonnet cycle to a new level of depth and complexity. The poems included in the semi-autobiographical La vita nuova are quite marvelous and the entire cycle certainly sets a model for Petrarch, Ronsard Sidney, Spenser, and others.

[Diane Havens]

Pablo Neruda, Franz Wright, Shakespeare, T.S. Eliot, Jane Hirshfield, John Keats, Laurence Ferlinghetti, and so many more

[blithe_spirit]

I never cared much for the War Poets as a group but the poems of Rupert Brooke never fail to move me. Other favourites whose poems have the same effect are Milton, especially 'L'Allegro' and 'Il Penseroso'; Matthew Arnold, especially 'The Scholar Gypsy'; Sylvia Plath and, of course, Shakespeare for his sonnets.

[cute angel]

Emily Dickenson

[JBI]

Easily Dante. The Comedia is quite simply unrivaled. I would have no problem with suggesting that it is the single greatest creation in Western literature. Its breadth and depth are equaled only by the collected works of Shakespeare and the Bible. Had Dante not even written this, he would still be a marvelous and important poet. Along with Guido Cavalcanti he brought the sonnet and the sonnet cycle to a new level of depth and complexity. The poems included in the semi-autobiographical La vita nuova are quite marvelous and the entire cycle certainly sets a model for Petrarch, Ronsard Sidney, Spenser, and others.

Hmm, I'd argue the sonnet would have taken form regardless - I don't particularly think its development was as reliant on Dante as other Dolce stil Nuovo poets, or even radical contemporaries like Cecco Angliolieri who certainly worked a lot more of them. Perhaps the cycle is indebted somewhat to Dante, but I think his influence is more essential in other areas - namely linguistics, and a popularization of themes that would dominate poetry up until this day in the West.

The Vita Nuova wouldn't have made such a splash over time (it certainly made a splash in its day) had it not been for its appropriation as a prologue for the Comedia. Still, such subjunctive thought goes nowhere - I will agree though, that he was the master, and to date is probably the most essential poet in Western literature, as you call it (I do not group Homer into this category, because quite simply, his inclusion in Western literature is a mere appropriation).

[Jozanny]

You know, I usually balk at these kind of questions, but if I am going to answer this honestly, my favorite poet is a post-modern atheist named Jerry McGuire (http://www.louisiana.edu/Academic/LiberalArts/ENGL/Creative/Anthology/McGuirework.htm), and evidently, stalking him down on Google has informed me that I am still in love with him, which should serve as a warning about honesty. Since he taught me Donne, Donne is my second favorite.

Let me try to add, again, that this board is too conservative; maybe it is natural that students do not read nor seek the influence of living poets, but luke, you know better. Dante is a great poet, but your favorite? In the 21st century? The Comedia is the classic Catholic nightmare, but it is also chock full of petty Florentine blowback. I pricked myself in tracking down my internalized Irish godhead, but at least it was through a contemporary that I learned how to branch out into the canon and the vibrant literary zine culture, one and the same.

[stlukesguild]

Let me try to add, again, that this board is too conservative; maybe it is natural that students do not read nor seek the influence of living poets, but luke, you know better. Dante is a great poet, but your favorite? In the 21st century? The Comedia is the classic Catholic nightmare, but it is also chock full of petty Florentine blowback. I pricked myself in tracking down my internalized Irish godhead, but at least it was through a contemporary that I learned how to branch out into the canon and the vibrant literary zine culture, one and the same.

Jozie... you are assuming that it is a sign of daring to prefer a contemporary as your favorite... and consequently it is proof of conservatism to admit to a preference for an established master. The reality is that I can't imagine finding the same degree of aesthetic pleasure in any Modern or Contemporary poet as I've found in Dante. Who? T.S. Eliot? Rilke? Montale? Neruda? Geoffrey Hill? None of them come close. As I don't turn to art to reinforce my own experiences and thoughts I don't feel a need for a favorite poet to be closer to my own time... my own experience. I have read the Comedia, the Vita Nuova and the sonnets repeatedly. The only poets I imagine as having read as much or as deeply or with as much pleasure would probably include Baudelaire, Rilke, and certainly Blake. By the same token my favorite composer is J.S. Bach... followed by Mozart and Wagner... in spite of the fact that I quite love Miles Davis, Thelonius Monk, Bob Dylan, and the Rolling Stones. I will admit your may be the preference of the artist for the work of another artist of his or her own time. Without the least hesitation I would place Michelangelo at the pinnacle of Western art... followed by Rembrandt and Rubens... but I just might admit to finding Bonnard to be my personal favorite... if not Max Beckmann. I'll also admit that if the question were broader... if we were asked who was our favorite writer... and if Shakespeare, Dante, and Blake were all off limits... I just might go with J.L. Borges.;)

[JBI]

This is poetry though -


Time present and time past
Are both perhaps present in time future,
And time future contained in time past.
If all time is eternally present


- you really cannot separate the past from the present in the way you can with prose - even the most abstract, most radical poets are still dependent on the past masters - the language of poetry is flexible in time - the spoken Italian language is in itself, the spoken Italian language because of the Catholic Florentine culture you dismissed - the past cannot be broken - the influences cannot be ignored. I have read my own share of radical poetry, Erin Moure comes to mind, as does Robert Kroetsch, to writers who really stretch language, but even they would laugh if you tried to disconnect them from the discussion. Every poem (I'm talking here about lyric poetry, narrative poetry has a different function, though often fits this later definition) is answering the same question, even poems from far distant cultures, Japanese, and Chinese included.




Words move, music moves
Only in time; but that which is only living
Can only die. Words, after speech, reach
Into the silence. Only by the form, the pattern,
Can words or music reach
The stillness, as a Chinese jar still


Within poetry is the capturing of time, that is able to repeat itself. Every poem dies, but is reborn with every reading, and made to live again. Dante is as a part of the stillness of time as any poet. Quite simply though, I strain to come up with a figure who really mastered language and metaphor the way Dante did. As one of my professors kept telling me, you need to read Dante, and then you need to read him in Italian. There is nothing without Dante - there is no poetry. I strain to come up with a rival for him.

When all things are considered, there are very few poets who I could even begin to consider in that sense. Wilbur comes to mind, though he is no where near Dante, as do Walcott, and a few others (just to put forward some English names, as I dislike judging poetry at all, especially if it is in translation). Montale as a modernist poet to me seems within a similar league, though I doubt Montale would have given himself such praise. Eliot certainly, but I just end up going back more and more, and keep thinking, where is Dante really absent in any of these writers? Perhaps Walcott, of those mentioned, seems the freeist, but he hardly is free of Dante. Dante is Western poetry - the connection between the world of Virgil, and the world of Europe is best constructed out of the imagination of Dante. He seems the forerunner for the whole idea, the grounds by which the sense of West were formed (there had been a rough connectedness between Europe and the Far East spanning back far before Marco Polo or Matteo Ricci) but the main force, that would be the defining point of the Renaissance consciousness that led to our current sense of self, that I can only attribute to Dante, with his appropriation of the classical models as something belonging to a Western Tradition (when, with the exception of Virgil, most weren't even part of what we generally consider the West. Certainly the Alexandria-born Aristotle wouldn't be considered Western if born today).


That being said, I'm open to other poets as well, and other traditions, but quite simply, I can read English, and I can read Italian, and I can read Hebrew, and in those languages, if I was to pick a dominant poetic figure that towers over all of them in our Western consciousness, I would choose Dante first, then perhaps Milton. Even King David, or other scripture writers don't seem as prevalent. Does that make him the favorite? Well - I chose Leopardi, but I wouldn't call him a better poet than Dante.

[Jozanny]

But there is nothing wrong with a student being an apprentice to those among the living. Dante may have truly been orgasmic about Virgil. I don't know, as even by the time of the Comedia imitation was a literary technique with its conventions which lived on at least through Milton, but even Dante learned how to be a poet among contemporary poets in Florence. It is not always a good thing that the work becomes a hallowed orb walled off from living experience. My former neo-Beat contacts are mostly mediocre, true, but I know some very talented people who deserve better, who deserve to be discussed, and even bringing up Armitage in these dusty digital shelves leaves one flailing, and he is an enormously popular poet in England.

It may be true that more people read poetry than ever before, but they don't seem to care about poetry as a vibrant, living art, which it is. The comfort of the canon is about as far as some are willing to venture.

[JBI]

Some, and that is a flaw - that people are often considered well read without knowing anything about languages or contemporary trends - but I think St. Lukes, for instance, is quite well versed in contemporary poetry. I see myself as being a contemporary poetry reader over a classicist - MortalTerror, for instance, I would consider a classicist in aesthetic sensibilities, but I'm sure he reads outside of the canon.

If I were to pick a quarrel though, I would say that readers are too afraid to really branch out. These selected poems classical volumes are too convenient - they take the best of what has been written in a period, take the best from that, narrow it down, and make it simple to understand. That is the problem really, that poetry has sought to make itself easy, and neat, whereas contemporary poetry is often dismissed by such readers as "broken up prose", or lacking. Time will fix everything though - there are vibrant poetry communities, and great artists at work at the current moment from virtually everywhere.

[stlukesguild]

Tradition is a matter of much wider significance. It cannot
be inherited, and if you want it you must obtain it by great
labour. It involves, in the first place, the historical sense...
the historical sense compels a man to write not merely with
his own generation in his bones, but with a feeling that the
whole of the literature of Europe from Homer and within it the
whole of the literature of his own country has simultaneous
existence and composes a simultaneous order...

No poet, no artist of any art, has his complete meaning
alone. His significance, his appreciation is the appreciation
of his relation to the dead poets and artists. You cannot value
him alone; you must set him, for contrast and comparison, among
the dead... what happens when a new work of art is created is
something that happens simultaneously to all the works of art
which preceded it. The existing monuments form an ideal monument
among themselves, which is modified by the introduction of the
new (the really new) work of art among them. The existing order
is complete before the new work arrives; for order to persist
after the supervention of novelty, the whole existing order
must be, if ever so slightly, altered; and so the relations,
proportions,values of each work of art toward the whole are
readjusted; and this is conformity between the old and the new.

Whoever has approved this idea of order...will not find it
preposterous that the past should be altered by the present
as much as the present is directed by the past.
-T.S. Eliot

Yes poetry is a living art... but that does not mean that the art of the past is "dead". Such is a concept only believed by anarchists such as Marinetti (of Futurist fame) and the reality is that even those who most shake up the Canon... the accepted traditions... are those who are also most aware of and "respectful" of the same. Dante virtually invents the Italian language, reinvents Catholicism, invents his own universe. Today he is still unnerving... shocking... in a way that some late modernist playing with words or their layout on the page cannot come near to.

Having admitted that Dante remains my favorite does not mean that I cannot appreciate Modern and even contemporary poets. I have more than expressed a fondness for Geoffrey Hill, Anthony Hecht, Anne Carson, Charles Wright, Czeslaw Milosz, among others. Of course here one is greatly limited. One commonly has access only to that deemed worthy of publication. One is further limited by the restrictions of language. Few contemporary poets writing in French, Italian, and Spanish (let alone Arabic, Hebrew, Chinese, Japanese) have benefited from solid translation. of course the reality is that in any time or place there are but a choice few artists of real brilliance. The question confronting the reader must be how much time do I wish to invest in obscure, experimental, contemporary poets when there is still so much of the canons (East and West) to be devoured? 100s of books call to me from my shelves. Am I to give precedence to only those who are writing here and now? Again, such may be the prejudice of the artist. If I were to compose a list of the essential artists since World War II the list would be but a few dozen in length. Yet as an artist working in this time I am aware and somewhat knowledgeable of literally thousands. Yet not in my wildest dreams would I imagine that Alan Feltus, David Bates, John Currin, Walton Ford, John Kirby, Robert Kushner, Pat Lipski, Paul Feiler or any number of other quite talented artists will end up sharing a place within the ranks alongside Titian, Rembrandt, Picasso, and Matisse. Those that will be remembered will only be studied by those who specialize in the art of this time.

[stlukesguild]

If I were to pick a quarrel though, I would say that readers are too afraid to really branch out.

That is true in my field as well. There are those Modernists/Post-Modernists who shun the "old masters" in many cases I would suggest because they fear comparison with the unquestionable mastery on a technical level. By the same token, there are those who fear Modernism and Contemporary art... who imagine that there exists some ideal of perfection that was attained at some time during the 1600s... or perhaps during the late 19th century... and that every deviation from this is a sign of failure.

[Jozanny]

Not sure what it says about me that Google still has the ability to freak me out. I am debating whether or not I should email him and say hello, but I failed everything I aspired to be through this man, and I avoided trying to dig him up exactly for this reason until I acted on a whim because of this thread. What could I possibly convey to this man that would be of any use to me or fix things for me or restore something to me I once believed was a possibility? He is in his 60's and he manages to hang on as an assistant professor because he was a more snide version of Gregory House before they invented this character for television--at least when I knew him.

Peeling away scars for the wounds of one's past is sometimes not very useful, but then again, one of his collections should be on my bookshelf. He may have trace Beat resonances, but he is a fantastic poet JBI, much more versatile than Avison, I am sorry to say. I don't know what to do. I know saying hello to an instructor should not normally invite terror, but Jerry was my Virgil, even more than that.

***
After I breathe for a few days, I suppose I could buy his collection and then just say "Jerry it's Joanne, would you sign this for me if I mail it to your campus?" And leave it at that, and never go near it again. Luke, you do need to reprimand me when I give in to my very unwise impulses, dear fellow. Unplug my battery wire or something.

[JuniperWoolf]

I really love Rimbaud. The first time that I ever felt that there was something to existance was when I was reading his poetry. It makes me want to do something.

[stlukesguild]

Yes... Rimbaud was one of my passions during my freshman year in college. He wasn't an author required in our World Lit Survey and so he was my own discovery... part of an entire unknown continent to me including Baudelaire, Verlaine, Valery, Lamartine, Huysmans, Gautier, Mallarme, Nerval, even Paul Eluard. Initially I was seduced by A Season in Hell... but with time I came to prefer the Drunken Boat and Illuminations.

[stlukesguild]

After I breathe for a few days, I suppose I could buy his collection and then just say "Jerry it's Joanne, would you sign this for me if I mail it to your campus?" And leave it at that, and never go near it again. Luke, you do need to reprimand me when I give in to my very unwise impulses, dear fellow. Unplug my battery wire or something.

Jozie... I can't say I was ever so fully seduced by a mentor... although I did have a few. The first had a marvelously absurd sense of humor and painted Expressionist paintings with blaring colors, shimmering brush-work, and emotion-laden imagery (read: sex!) while all the other faculty were abstract formalists. In literary terms he was Blake or Rimbaud... or at least Ginsberg... while they were all Richard Wilbur. I eventually outgrew his influence... and yet I now see certain formal elements that echo (albeit it in a very different manner) some of his. My other mentors included a feisty Scotsman (who may have been the most marvelous painter of the lot) who had a penchant for a single adjective beginning with F and spoken with the most marvelous Scottish brogue, and a Pole who had survived the Nazis and Stalin (although not without consequences). He had the most magnificent bio and in spite of the complete loss of his one arm (thanks to Stalinist guards at a gulag) and the fact that he stood no more than 5' 4"... he could absolutely dominate any discussion ( in spite of the fact that I stood 6 foot, 200 pounds). He also had an uncanny talent for observation and listening and was a master of the Socratic method. He never told you what to do. He merely asked questions... questions that I still think about today. In spite of this I broke free of all of them. My own work has little in common with them (although I may find some links if I stretch the imagination) and is clearly my own... for better or worse.:rolleyes:

[mortalterror]

Ovid. The man can do no wrong where I'm concerned. His writing is so fluid, so sensual, so vibrant, and at the same time so droll and sophisticated, so structured. He's what would happen if T.S. Eliot or Leopardi ever had a moment of true happiness and joie de vivre. He's kind of like a mix of them and Petrarch, a real scholar poet.

He's not as good as Dante, but he has more range. His juvenilia, the Amores, are so much more enjoyable than Dante's New Life. His secondary works like the Heroides, are head and shoulders above Dante's lesser offerings like Monarchia. Give him that at least. Both poets are rivals for Love's favor, but the lady has two hands. Dante is a prince of sacred platonic love, whereas Ovid is a master of secular physical love making. They need not compete.


Yes... Rimbaud was one of my passions during my freshman year in college. He wasn't an author required in our World Lit Survey and so he was my own discovery... part of an entire unknown continent to me including Baudelaire, Verlaine, Valery, Lamartine, Huysmans, Gautier, Mallarme, Nerval, even Paul Eluard. Initially I was seduced by A Season in Hell... but with time I came to prefer the Drunken Boat and Illuminations.

I've always considered Rimbaud as something of an enfant terrible. I can never picture him having a lasting sustainable career. If he was still writing like a vulgar petulant child, lashing out, and giving the finger to society when he was fifty, I don't think his poetry would play the same. He's sort of wrapped up in a romantic mythos, a cult of personality akin to that surrounding Lord Byron.

[stlukesguild]

Ovid. The man can do no wrong where I'm concerned. His writing is so fluid, so sensual, so vibrant, and at the same time so droll and sophisticated, so structured. He's what would happen if T.S. Eliot or Leopardi ever had a moment of true happiness and joie de vivre.

Of course... the Romans again. Always the Romans.:brickwall

Seriously, I would not underestimate Ovid. I've long preferred him to Virgil (although I would have to admit that the latter is probably the better poet) for the very reasons you point out: his absolute fluidity... his sophisticated lightness of touch... as if he need not try in the least... where Virgil is clearly making concerted efforts to impress. This quality... this joie de vivre... is something that few poets have. It is an embrace of life and sensuality without intimations of danger and looming death (Baudelaire) and certainly without guilt. Another poet who immediately strikes me as also having this quality is Robert Herrick. It is something one imagines in Mozart and in a great deal of French painting... especially culminating in Matisse.

[mortalterror]

Of course... the Romans again. Always the Romans.

There's so much there to love. Not just the literature, but the philosophy, the history, the art, and the architecture too. As an artist, surely you must appreciate this. If the Greeks were the brains of Western civilization then the Romans are it's fiery beating heart.

http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h268/Saliari/2666054210_67a12e3593_b.jpg

If I had the means, I'd build a house of columns, arches, murals, statues, mosaic floors, and gardens. If I thought I could get away with it, I'd wear a toga. I wouldn't dine without bloodshed and my music would be the chains of my enemies dragging through the streets.

[Mr Endon]

mortalterror, that was interesting and entertaining, and I can see (and feel) the appeal of such vision. The slave culture and the gratutious violence, however, kind of put me off. That's probably the en vogue humanitarian sensitivity affecting my judgement though. I'm sure my dark, primal self (whom Lawrence says we must obey) would find it heaven.

Dante[/B] lovers. Can you suggest me a decent translation (if there is such thing) of [I]The Divine Comedy, if possible a good bilingual edition? Many thanks.]

Well, let me add my twopence: Fernando Pessoa's Alberto Caeiro and Álvaro de Campos are my favourite poets, are among the greatest of the first half of the 20th century, and are surely the best heteronyms ever created.

[bacchante]

Charles Bukowski

Writing

often it is the only
thing
between you and
impossibility.
no drink,
no woman's love,
no wealth
can
match it.
nothing can save
you
except
writing.
it keeps the walls
from
failing.
the hordes from
closing in.
it blasts the
darkness.
writing is the
ultimate
psychiatrist,
the kindliest
god of all the
gods.
writing stalks
death.
it knows no
quit.
and writing
laughs
at itself,
at pain.
it is the last
expectation,
the last
explanation.
that's
what it
is.

one of the many reasons - why... ;)

[crystalmoonshin]

Gustavo Adolfo Becquer!!! I love his "Rimas". So powerfully moving, passionate, touching and melancholic.

One of my fave poems by Becquer is the Rima XXIV.

[Jozanny]

[COLOR="DarkRed"]
Jozie... I can't say I was ever so fully seduced by a mentor... although I did have a few. The first had a marvelously absurd sense of humor and painted Expressionist paintings with blaring colors, shimmering brush-work, and emotion-laden imagery (read: sex!) while all the other faculty were abstract formalists. In literary terms he was Blake or Rimbaud... or at least Ginsberg... while they were all Richard Wilbur. I eventually outgrew his influence... and yet I now see certain formal elements that echo (albeit it in a very different manner) some of his. My other mentors included a feisty Scotsman (who may have been the most marvelous painter of the lot) who had a penchant for a single adjective beginning with F and spoken with the most marvelous Scottish brogue, and a Pole who had survived the Nazis and Stalin (although not without consequences). He had the most magnificent bio and in spite of the complete loss of his one arm (thanks to Stalinist guards at a gulag) and the fact that he stood no more than 5' 4"... he could absolutely dominate any discussion ( in spite of the fact that I stood 6 foot, 200 pounds). He also had an uncanny talent for observation and listening and was a master of the Socratic method. He never told you what to do. He merely asked questions... questions that I still think about today. In spite of this I broke free of all of them. My own work has little in common with them (although I may find some links if I stretch the imagination) and is clearly my own... for better or worse.:rolleyes:

Well, this is what I mean. I am leagues beyond the promise he once saw in me, and from what I can gather, his growth apparently stopped at a certain count in the alphabet and hasn't made the final leap toward brilliance being willing to accommodate certain accepted social norms. It isn't so much what my personal feelings amount to; it is just, what's the point at this stage in our lives? I am not a scholar, just a mid-term writer trying to be creative about keeping her tush out of a nursing home.

I do enjoy his work though, and intend to buy one of his titles. I will debate the rest.

I need to read Rimbaud and Rilke, at some point. As to this contest between Ovid and Dante:rolleyes:, I am not so studied in Ovid--read yes, but not studied--to say one thing or another, but they played different roles in their respective eras, and I am not sure that mutual appreciation of the two necessitates saying which is better.


- you really cannot separate the past from the present in the way you can with prose - even the most abstract, most radical poets are still dependent on the past masters - the language of poetry is flexible in time - the spoken Italian language is in itself, the spoken Italian language because of the Catholic Florentine culture you dismissed - the past cannot be broken - the influences cannot be ignored.

Which is why I *balk* at singling out favorites, because poetry is a network of generation building. I do not *dismiss* the rise of the Italian city states after empire. My experience is simply different than luke's, from the start. I discovered Creeley before I knew what Beat poetry meant, and then in a series of coincidences, I studied under his student, and then met him--but this was my way through to Renaissance Italy and England. I did not just land in university and go plop! (In American high school I am foggy on my English lit track, but it was mainly the American modernists, Fitz, Steinbeck, etc.)

I just don't see how Dante can be a *favorite*. To me, calling il somma poeta "my favorite" rather downplays the achievement of the Comedia




Within poetry is the capturing of time, that is able to repeat itself. Every poem dies, but is reborn with every reading, and made to live again. Dante is as a part of the stillness of time as any poet. Quite simply though, I strain to come up with a figure who really mastered language and metaphor the way Dante did. As one of my professors kept telling me, you need to read Dante, and then you need to read him in Italian. There is nothing without Dante - there is no poetry. I strain to come up with a rival for him.

Sure there was. Latin, and then Greek before that, and goodness knows what Asia was up to. Poetry doesn't begin history with Dante, JBI, nor is the Comedia the end of history, in that sense.

[stlukesguild]

I just don't see how Dante can be a *favorite*. To me, calling il somma poeta "my favorite" rather downplays the achievement of the Comedia

Again... that is something I can't quite fathom. A "favorite" artist in any genre would seem to be the one who has made the deepest impact upon you personally and to whom you return to again and again... regardless of whether he or she is truly one of the absolute greats. If you ask me who is my favorite composer I will not hesitate to say J.S. Bach. I return to his music more than to any other. This does not mean I cannot appreciate Miles Davis, Johnny Cash, or the Rolling Stones... nor that there are not times that I'd rather listen to them than the Well Tempered Clavier again.

The same holds true of Dante. There are any number of modern and contemporary poets I turn to repeatedly: Rilke, Baudelaire, Verlaine, Rimbaud, T.S. Eliot, Garcia-Lorca... but none captivates me and calls me back as much as Dante. There is such a wealth there: violence, lust, passionate emotion, rage, history, philosophy... poetry of all the senses: sight, sound, scent, touch... and absolutely transcendent and visionary poetry. On the other hand... had the question been "Who is your favorite writer?" I just might have gone with Borges... in spite of the fact that I acknowledge Dante and certainly Shakespeare (among others) as being far greater writers.

With art... however... my choice would not be one of the two or three artists most universally acknowledged as giants. Indeed, he doesn't even hold that rank within the 20th century. If you ask me who the greatest artist of all time was I would not hesitate a second. It is unquestionably Michelangelo. No one else comes close. After that? Rembrandt. He is the Shakespeare of painting... the greatest creator of characters... personalities who are so fleshed out you imagine you know them better than you know most real people. The 20th century? Again, that's easy. Picasso. There is no competition. And yet my favorite artist may just be Pierre Bonnard:

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/Stlukesguild/Bonnard02.jpg

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/Stlukesguild/mimdsmall.jpg

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/Stlukesguild/bonnard_model_in_backlightmedium.jpg

Again, I suspect that as an artist working in the same field we are more attracted to the work of artists who inspire or even predict our own work than we are of artists who we imagine as having given the biggest aesthetic
bang for our buck... or so is my thinking.

[stlukesguild]

There's so much there to love. Not just the literature, but the philosophy, the history, the art, and the architecture too. As an artist, surely you must appreciate this.

Actually I... and I'm not alone in this... have long imagined the Romans in contrast to the Greeks as being not unlike the United States in contrast to Europe. In both instances we have a younger republic that rapidly declines into decadence (without any period of civilization in between, as Oscar Wilde might have suggested). The art is initially stodgy... pragmatic... practical:

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/Stlukesguild/roman-bust.jpg

bombastic... and admittedly stiff:

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/Stlukesguild/roman_augustus2s.jpg

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/Stlukesguild/lysistrata.jpg

It lacks any of the grace and fluidity of Greek art... in spite of the fact that it is modeled almost exclusively upon Greek art:

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/Stlukesguild/minoanpaintings.jpg

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/Stlukesguild/octopusvases.jpg

From the very start the sea-going Greeks have an appreciation of flowing, organic lines and forms. With the female nude Greek sculpture reached its peak. There is nothing in Roman art to match the sensuality and grace of Praxiteles:

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/Stlukesguild/96182288_8f23842322.jpg

The harsh naturalism and overwrought, clunky forms of Roman portraiture...

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/Stlukesguild/RomanPortraitofaWoman.jpg

are almost laughable in comparison with the soft and atmospheric... "impressionistic" images of the Greek ideal of female beauty:

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/Stlukesguild/3229739131_4037689a27.jpg

Indeed it may be an exaggeration... but one that has much truth to it... to suggest that Greek art is an art of sophistication, sensuality, and "feminine" beauty:

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/Stlukesguild/Praxiteles_Aphrodite_of_Cnidos_rear.jpg

... even when the subject is male:

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/Stlukesguild/hermes_by_praxiteless.jpg

... while Roman sculpture is clearly masculine... an art of crude brute force

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/Stlukesguild/Caracalla215.jpg

Of course where Rome does succeed marvelously is in the field of architecture... or more accurately, engineering. The innovations and the technology and the sheer labor employed in Roman architecture clearly outstripped all rivals:

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/Stlukesguild/archofconstantine-aoc3small.jpg

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/Stlukesguild/Coliseumsm.jpg

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/Stlukesguild/pantheonsm.jpg

In this sense the analogy between Rome and the United States remains true, for certainly it was the technological wonder of the Brooklyn Bridge, the Golden Gate Bridge, the interstate highways, the hydro-electric dams, and the skyscrapers of Chicago and New York that awed the world far before American painting had made the least mark.

Of course I am speaking of Rome of the Republic and the peak of the Empire. As Rome began to decline and slip into decadence its art actually blossomed. We begin to discover the most "expressionistic" distortions:

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/Stlukesguild/4-2.jpg

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/Stlukesguild/tetrarchs.jpg

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/Stlukesguild/constantine2.jpg

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/Stlukesguild/lessing_23020118Marble-Hand-from-Co.jpg

A huge influence upon the Roman art of this period is that of contact with Eastern cultures. It is commonly known that Rome had a huge impact upon the art of India and Egypt... but the "Eastern" cultures... especially the Persians... had a major impact upon the art of Rome. This influence helped the Romans break free from the academicism rooted in Greek classicism. The Eastern influence becomes quite apparent in the art of the mosaic:

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/Stlukesguild/mosaic1.jpg

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/Stlukesguild/DuckFacLVine.jpg

The Eastern influences will become ever more obvious with the fall of Rome and the rise of the Eastern Roman Empire or Byzantium. The Byzantine Empire will explode with the most absolute wealth of visual splendor:

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/Stlukesguild/ceiling8s.jpg

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/Stlukesguild/145377825_e5a7b8b172.jpg

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/Stlukesguild/2593112665_95e51f0fb2.jpg

[meh!]

I really can't choose a favourite, the ones that always jump to mind:

Seamus Heaney (he's just ****ing excellent. Blackberry picking has always been one of my favourites)
Norman Mcaig (for his imagery mostly. It's so excellent.

'
Straws like tame lightnings lie about the grass
And hang zigzag on hedges. Green as glass
The water in the horse-trough shines.
Nine ducks go wobbling by in two straight lines.'


John Donne (best love poetry ever?)

[Jozanny]

I suppose I am wading into trouble here, but when has that stopped me. Let me tackle this issue about favorite, first. To me the word implies an indulgence: my favorite ice cream is Ben & Jerry's for which I need a certain amount of restraint; my favorite rock music is Elton John, hands down, an attachment I haven't outgrown, and McGuire is my favorite poet for various reasons, and since this is sort of a semi-public community, I will restrain my characteristic confessional mode any further there:yawnb: (happy about that?).

But is a favorite the best thing, the most authentic, or the greatest? Or is it an intimacy which socially we are given permission to expose? This is the crux of the issue for me. Favorite poems are less of an attachment than the greatest poems, or poetry that moves me most profoundly due to something about the poem or the poet, or even poetry worthy enough to love. I love Dante; I love The Divine Comedy, but I do not wear terza rima on my wrist like a charm bracelet, even as I allow for an exasperation with Italian provincialism. Every society and culture is probably grounded in provincialism to some degree, but the Roman mentality excels at it since losing world domination, and because of Dante, the Roman mentality hasn't stopped being entirely indignant since. I even have an editorial on file that claims Italian Popes were necessary for Catholicism because you had to wield your authority like an emperor, and JP2 could not because he used his authority in part to break Communism. I find the writer's train of thought interesting, but it is still, as always, more modern Italian whining. They will never rule the world again, but hey, we can cry about it in our thousand year old palaces and aqueducts while we drown in the Mediterranean in our own garbage:D. Provincialism as high art, indeed!

Then again, I'm Italian.

I will save poetic inter-connectedness for another day, since JBI put his stamp on that issue first, but I would hope those who have favorite poets allow for curiosity to branch out into influences and discoveries.

I am slightly more comfortable selecting favorite poems, now that I've finished turning blue, but it is still rather a parlor game with ice cream scoops.:p

Now we can resume our normal programming, which was already in progress.

[mortalterror]

Surely, a man who loves color as much as you would have no objection to this:
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h268/Saliari/01-1.jpg
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h268/Saliari/2443730653_8cd31364f7_o.jpg
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h268/Saliari/2667991331_706991a130_b-1.jpg
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h268/Saliari/2668003367_d34cc2a3db_b.jpg
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h268/Saliari/2764291041_d94effdc13_b.jpg
And their statues were hardly rigid as you imply.
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h268/Saliari/2565372490_c9539cf682_b.jpg
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h268/Saliari/2532726534_226ec8c65d_b-1.jpg
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h268/Saliari/2492584893_64b0ce05c7_b.jpg
Although they did like to do things on a colossal scale.
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h268/Saliari/2506110139_789f8c8019_o.jpg
They also did some amazing relief work.
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h268/Saliari/2549875392_9a8f74268f_b-1.jpg
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h268/Saliari/2562322250_dde8231065_b.jpg
And they loved everything around them to be beautiful and ornate.
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h268/Saliari/2548857263_f28a161d9d_b-1.jpg
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h268/Saliari/2554255051_91a2408e4b_o-1.jpg
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h268/Saliari/774382358_6a4af5d9fd.jpg
There's no beating them for architecture. What you call bombastic, I call heroic.
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h268/Saliari/2659016635_4917b45301.jpg
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h268/Saliari/536718439_0166fac8a7_o.jpg
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h268/Saliari/745869012_bd66893c5f_b.jpg
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h268/Saliari/800px-Roma_Pantheon_001.jpg
They invented the mosaic and did it as well as the Byzantines ever did.
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h268/Saliari/227712409_eb904f1f63_o.jpg
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h268/Saliari/2342872404_1d8e1ddf6d_b.jpg
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h268/Saliari/2667584689_c562bf7939_b.jpg
I think if you do some independent research, you will find that there is far more to the Romans than what you were taught in art school. It wasn't too long ago that people called the middle ages the Dark Ages and taught that it was a time of primitive and unsophisticated art and I know you have a taste for them.

[stlukesguild]

...their (Roman) statues were hardly rigid as you imply. Although they did like to do things on a colossal scale. They also did some amazing relief work. And they loved everything around them to be beautiful and ornate. There's no beating them for architecture. What you call bombastic, I call heroic. They invented the mosaic and did it as well as the Byzantines ever did. I think if you do some independent research, you will find that there is far more to the Romans than what you were taught in art school. It wasn't too long ago that people called the middle ages the Dark Ages and taught that it was a time of primitive and unsophisticated art and I know you have a taste for them.

Mortal... whatever I know of literature absolutely pales beside what I know of art and art history. I am far more versed in Roman art than was necessitated by my formal studies of ancient art history. In no way do I question the merit of Roman architecture. They were brilliant engineers and put these skills to work in created some of the most marvelous architectural creations. The Roman Coliseum...

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/Stlukesguild/rome_coliseums.jpg

... was unrivaled as an arena until the late 20th century. In many ways it remains unrivaled. I was brilliantly designed in order to allow for rapid dispersal of crowds. Beyond the three tiers of seating there were multiple subterranean levels where animals, prisoners, gladiators, etc... were housed. In spite of this they were able to flood the field in order to carry out mock naval battles.

With the Pantheon the Roman succeeded in creating the first true hemispheric dome.

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/Stlukesguild/pantheon_4viewslg.gif

The dome, as a work of architecture, can be imagined as a series of arches 360-degrees in the round. The arch succeeds in standing by bracing the thrust of one side of the arch against the opposing thrust. It essentially works in a manner not unlike leaning two playing cards against each other to create a house of cards. The keystone, where the two opposing arms of the arch meet is essential... and yet the Roman Pantheon succeeded in creating a dome with a wide oculus:

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/Stlukesguild/010611-pantheon-dak.jpg

The Romans were able to achieve this... and to have it still standing nearly 2000 years later... as a result of their mastery of certain engineering skills including the use of ribbed vaulting, the decreasing thickness of the shell of the actual dome as it moves ever upward and out from the supporting walls, and especially their absolute genius with concrete.

Brilliant works of Roman architecture can be found not only in Rome:

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/Stlukesguild/rome_constbasilica.jpg

...but also France...

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/Stlukesguild/may25_maison_carree1s.jpg

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/Stlukesguild/The_Pont_du_Gard_Roman_Aque.gif

...Germany...

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/Stlukesguild/basilika_in_trier_gr.jpg

... the Middle East...

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/Stlukesguild/2744261213_92285d8840.jpg

... and even Britain:

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/Stlukesguild/roman-baths.jpg

Architecture in unquestionably THE Roman contribution to Western Civilization.

Their sculpture, however, leaves something to be desired. Little can be said of painting for so little of any real merit remains... outside of the lovely works discovered in Pompeii... especially in the magnificent Villa of Mysteries...

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/Stlukesguild/800px-Villa_dei_Misteri_megalograph.jpg

Pre-Roman art... the art of the Etruscans... was quite brilliant, fantastic, and original:

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/Stlukesguild/Etruskischer_Meister_002sm.jpg

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/Stlukesguild/capwolf.jpg

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/Stlukesguild/EtruscanChimera.jpg

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/Stlukesguild/T070220A.jpg

While it is clear that Etruscan art has built upon influences as diverse as Greek and Minoan, Scythian, Celtic, Persian, and Asian... their art is truly unique and displays forms and genre unseen anywhere else.

With the establishment of the Roman Republic art served the pragmatic needs of the Roman desire to remember and be remembered. The wild fantasies of the Etruscans and the ideals of beauty of the Greeks...

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/Stlukesguild/3229739131_4037689a27.jpg

... were abandoned, In their place we have the harsh realism of Roman portraiture. This was especially true of sculpture:

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/Stlukesguild/roman-bust-1.jpg

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/Stlukesguild/barberini.jpg

As the Republic became the Empire there developed an obsession for all things Greek. Building upon Greek classicism was seen as a means of conveying a legitimacy to the Empire by suggesting that Rome was an extension of Greece and the Empire of Alexander. This is played out in Virgil's epic, the Aeneid, in which Rome is imagined as a continuation of Homer's Troy. In a manner it is not unlike the use of Neo-Classical architecture in French, German, British, Russian, American, etc... public building as a means of conveying a legitimacy, solidity, and sense of historic continuity.

To fuel the desire for Greek-style sculpture the Romans employed several methods. They simply stole everything they could from the conquered Greeks and shipped it en masse to Rome. A few of the best original Greek bronzes have been found as part of Roman shipwrecks. They also employed... through coercion or force... every Greek artist... especially sculptors... they could. Finally, through various mechanical means including the use of calipers and other devises... they made endless copies of Greek art. The result was loss of originality... a stiff pseudo-classicism. Unfortunately, some of the greatest Greek sculpture (such as the so-called Apollo Belvedere) is known only through stiff Roman copies which convey nothing of the fluidity of the known Greek original bronzes and marbles.

Some of the most important commissions achieved a level of classical beauty:

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/Stlukesguild/roman_augustus2s-1.jpg

But it often remained marred by a certain stiffness of lack of fluidity, an obsession for realism that conflicted with the classical ideal, and a degree of bombast. Certainly, there are exceptions (there are always exceptions in art) such as the relief sculpture on the Ara Pacis or the Column or Trajan... but by and large Roman art of the Republic and the early Empire cannot begin to compete with the achievements of Greece or Persia.

As the Empire began to decline the art devolved into a sort of "mannerism":

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/Stlukesguild/commodus_hercules.jpg

The outrageously ornate manner and rather effete styling had a definite expressiveness to it... but this in itself was equally indebted to the Greeks... in this case Greek Alexandrian/Hellenistic sculpture such as found upon the ornate Temple at Pergamon or the famed Laocoon, which was certainly known at this time through endless copies (Pliny the Elder claims the original was owned by the Emperor Titus but it was unearthed near the Golden Palace of Nero).

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/Stlukesguild/Laocoon_Pio_Clementino_Inv1059_1064.jpg

In spite of the obvious indebtedness to Greek art, the Roman sculpture of this period displayed a far greater fluidity and lack of stiffness common to earlier periods. While the stylizations may owe to Greece, there is a far greater originality and inventiveness in the actual imagery which is no longer so completely indebted to Greek models.

Roman art (sculpture) really comes into its own, however, during the period of Constantine. The famous Four Tetrarchs may owe more to Persian than Greek art, but it is entirely unique and powerfully conveys the uncertainties of the period as the four "Ceasars" each hold on to each other warily...

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/Stlukesguild/tetrarchs.jpg

The fragmentary colossal portrait of Constantine (can anyone look at this work and not think of Ozymandias?

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/Stlukesguild/constantine2.jpg

brings something truly new. The forms are greatly simplified... abstracted... and yet we are not seeing anything like the Greek sculptural classical ideal. The facial features are cut incredibly deep and convey an emotion not seen since the ancient Messopotamian Abu-figures...

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/Stlukesguild/448px-Mesopotamia_male_worshiper_27.jpg

This work will become THE model for later Christian art with large-eyed figures looking up into heaven. Of course the contributions of the Roman Empire continue well into the Middle Ages in the form of the art of the Eastern Roman Empire or Byzantine Empire but I somewhat suspect, Mortal, that for you the Roman Empire is that of Julius Caesar, Augustus Caesar, etc... the Roman Empire proper. I will admit that it is more than likely that a great deal of art of real merit was lost during all the subsequent destruction wrought by the barbarians, time, and the church (the church being the most destructive).

[stlukesguild]

Oh... by the way... my favorite poet? Did I mention Dante?:D

[Mr Endon]

Well then, stlukesguild, if you don't mind this seems like an opportune time to bring this up again:


I'm sorry, I know this isn't the right place for it, but I can see some serious Dante lovers. Can you suggest me a decent translation (if there is such thing) of The Divine Comedy, if possible a good bilingual edition? Many thanks.

I like my needy peddling admixed with relevant information, so I announce that Ernst Jandl is my favourite German poet.

[Jozanny]

Oh... by the way... my favorite poet? Did I mention Dante?:D

I brought up Manzoni because I Promessi Sposi is, surprisingly lacking in shallowness and the tiresome didactic sensibility of the English novel of manners. Sometimes it pays to branch out luke, to read good literary critics, and to refine our terms of engagement, and reconsider the field. Dante is simply too large for me to put him on par with the sentiments of Julie Andrews in The Sound of Music:D. I thought you would have picked someone along the lines of your Italian modernist who earned Bly's acclaim, whose name escapes me in my reluctant laziness to go dig him up in the book club threads.

[mortalterror]

StLukes I did not mean to imply that you didn't know your art history. My intent was to show that the traditional opinion of Roman art may be mistaken and in light of recent archeological findings is open to reinterpretation. However, your initial offerings were a far cry from the glamour shots we're used to seeing from you when you discourse upon art history. Even I don't like those first examples you gave of Roman art. They are mostly second class works photographed in unflattering ways. Their lighting, framing, and angles could all be better. It's as if their insignificance were a forgone conclusion, and they were being put forth not as examples of beauty but as examples of how poor Roman art was in comparison to x. I know this is your thesis, and you are under no constraint to make my case for me, but shouldn't a period be judged by the very best it produced rather than the run of the mill. The early pictures you posted are all drab, lifeless, colorless, and stiff. You say as much. But your criticisms do not apply so well to the pictures I've put up which are full of energy, light, fluidity, and hint that there is more to Roman aesthetics than what is commonly thought.
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h268/Saliari/2890548574_e735139351_o.jpg
Take this reconstructed Roman interior for example. It is spartan, almost utilitarian, yet sophisticated. The room is filled with natural light and looks out onto a garden. It is tastefully, conservatively decorated, and somewhat reminiscent of the Japanese.
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h268/Saliari/2038313695_62b8721dc9_b.jpg
Here, we see again not Roman bombast but restraint and minimalism.
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h268/Saliari/2434442682_0f6123d9f9_o.jpg
Look at that beautiful green hue, and the way these fluted columns draw the eye up, and up, and up to contemplate the empty space. There is force, and silence, a quiet simplicity in all of these.
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h268/Saliari/stylusLady.jpg
You say that Roman aesthetics were too masculine, that they couldn't do fluidity or the feminine. But isn't this woman refined, gentile?
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h268/Saliari/2466869609_2a37c99169_b.jpg
Isn't this graceful? Look at the way her body sways and dances with the flower, the incline of her neck, and the flowing waves of her gown.
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h268/Saliari/2182080496_45d3142b63_o.jpg
Look at this enigmatic face gazing out of the mosaic. Soft, contained, expressive as if she had some secret all her own.
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h268/Saliari/1839924784_af10e24541_b.jpg
Nothing harsh and masculine here.
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h268/Saliari/3350698986_ba1ecd8375.jpg
Augustus found Rome brick and left it marble. Alaric found it marble and left it gravel. So much is lost and missing, melted down for lime, or bronze for canons. This was burned. That decayed. Yet, of what remains there is still an abundance of great mosaics to judge them by.
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h268/Saliari/3038028521_fd0dfb6fdf_o.jpg
These aren't those brown drab little things you showed initially. These are strong competitors for anything in Byzantium.
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h268/Saliari/2963377834_7634470924_o.jpg
This mosaic of Alexander the Great could be something out of Da Vinci's sketches there is so much energy, motion, action, and detail.
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h268/Saliari/9c.jpg
As a fan of patterns and color, doesn't this appeal to you? Doesn't it seem vaguely modern? It's all so complex and involved.
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h268/Saliari/2772276321_5988f5420c.jpg
But they could do simplicity as well.
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h268/Saliari/2440933607_a68e8bbda1_o.jpg
It's not all big, rigid, domineering, masculine art. From what I understand, as much of Roman painting survives as Greek, and for my money there's one area the Romans surpassed them.
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h268/Saliari/2411363159_f392d7b074_b.jpg
This mural could have been made in the Renaissance. It's beautiful, and look at those artificial windows!
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h268/Saliari/323129201_de0c6b4dff.jpg
You say the Romans didn't do statues well. That they just copied the Greeks. That they didn't innovate. That was virtue number one of Roman aesthetics: the Mos Maiorum. The Romans revered their ancestors and tried to keep a continuity between modern and traditional practices. It was a religious thing with them the same as it was with the Egyptians and we don't come down on them for not changing what they did for centuries at a time. Innovation is not everything. As a lover of Bach you must understand that.
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h268/Saliari/2644386343_45d4397c68_b.jpg
Besides, I really like the Hellenistic look, and the Pergamene Baroque. This new more naturalistic style, that shows the warts, lines, and age of people is really appealing. For the first time we get man as he is and not his ideal. There is more going on with these aged, withered figures than just pure pathos. This may be a foreign concept to Americans who like the Greeks worship youth; but the Romans revered age, as the Japanese do even now. They'd put old men's heads on strong young bodies because of an innate sense of gravitas.
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h268/Saliari/2595474487_55208ea644.jpg
Look at this boxer. I've seen pictures of Ali looking just this way after a fight. He looks tired, but strong. He's got something of the look which the Dying Gaul has, which made it so popular with the Romans.
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h268/Saliari/2525343828_bf1fe2cd52_b.jpg
You called Roman statuary "rigid, stiff, harsh". Those words are a little judgemental. Can't this be solid, strong, contained, powerful, commanding, quiet. Does everyone have to be contorting themselves and leaping about to impress you? And why does everything have to be feminine and dainty? Why can't we have an art for the BAMFs of the world? Something that's loud, mean, dirty, kicks you in the face and won't be ignored. I'm talking Beethoven, not Mozart. I'm talking rock and roll.
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h268/Saliari/2521383572_89f0f9c199_b.jpg
This isn't a traditional beauty. It's the beauty of the common man shown in all it's glory. This man's face has a force of personality in every line and a gaze that pins the viewer to his seat and stares right through him.
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h268/Saliari/2516333150_2e5bcc98fa_b.jpg
And this! If men were green this could be a real person.

I'm not saying you have to like it. But judge the age by it's best representatives and not by it's worst.

[stlukesguild]

Can you suggest me a decent translation (if there is such thing) of The Divine Comedy, if possible a good bilingual edition? Many thanks.

It was in John Ciardi's translation that I was first introduced to dante, so I will always have a soft spot for that one. Some have argued that he is too fluid... but then no translator can capture all of Dante. Allen Mandelbaum is also to be recommended as is Mark Musa. I might also suggest Robert Pinskey's Inferno and W.S. Merwin's Purgatorio. The Mandelbaum is a duo-language text... at least in the edition I own. I also would not underestimate the classic Longfellow translation.

[Jozanny]

I am not an expert on translating Italian, and certainly not the vernacular of Dante, but I would second luke on Mandelbaum for a student of world classics. In maturity I would then look at other editions, like the early Harvard translations. I am hoping to go *home* for a visit soon to Rome and Tuscany, and I am going about it by reading everything I can on modern Italy, which has probably altered my perspective a great deal from those of the norm.

[stlukesguild]

...your initial offerings were a far cry from the glamour shots we're used to seeing from you when you discourse upon art history. Even I don't like those first examples you gave of Roman art. They are mostly second class works photographed in unflattering ways. Their lighting, framing, and angles could all be better. It's as if their insignificance were a forgone conclusion, and they were being put forth not as examples of beauty but as examples of how poor Roman art was in comparison to x. I know this is your thesis, and you are under no constraint to make my case for me, but shouldn't a period be judged by the very best it produced rather than the run of the mill.

Of course. And I might note that the portraits from the period of the Republic and the famed Caesar Augustus of Prima Porta are certainly among some of the finest sculptural works of Rome. They also remain deeply indebted to Greek art while lacking the movement and fluidity of the Greek works:

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/Stlukesguild/hellenistic-prince.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2113/3532544428_d1c2b9eec3_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2416/3532548564_352dde7d23_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2331/3532544494_d20b9ab767_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3604/3531727673_0363001912_o.jpg

...there is more to Roman aesthetics than what is commonly thought.

Certainly.

Take this reconstructed Roman interior for example. It is spartan, almost utilitarian, yet sophisticated. The room is filled with natural light and looks out onto a garden. It is tastefully, conservatively decorated, and somewhat reminiscent of the Japanese.

I almost see it as more Chinese in its aesthetic... but either way it is indeed a splendid example of Roman painting and interior design. Is it from Pompeii?

Here, we see again not Roman bombast but restraint and minimalism.

Look at that beautiful green hue, and the way these fluted columns draw the eye up, and up, and up to contemplate the empty space. There is force, and silence, a quiet simplicity in all of these.

And I have no argument with you with regard to Roman architecture. I'' state it again that architecture is probably their greatest contribution.

You say that Roman aesthetics were too masculine, that they couldn't do fluidity or the feminine. But isn't this woman refined, gentile? Isn't this graceful? Look at the way her body sways and dances with the flower, the incline of her neck, and the flowing waves of her gown. Look at this enigmatic face gazing out of the mosaic. Soft, contained, expressive as if she had some secret all her own. Nothing harsh and masculine here.


Yes... these are some lovely exceptions. Again, the stiffness or rigidity of which I speak owes much to the Roman habit of mechanically copying Greek originals. There is also the obsession for geometric form as opposed to the organic forms found in Greek, Minoan, Persian, Asian, and even Etruscan art of the time. This does not result in an inherent inferiority... but it can lend a certain rigidity to the work. Again there are lovely exceptions such as the marvelous impressionistic woman seen from behind.

Augustus found Rome brick and left it marble. Alaric found it marble and left it gravel. So much is lost and missing, melted down for lime, or bronze for canons. This was burned. That decayed. Yet, of what remains there is still an abundance of great mosaics to judge them by.

Unfortunately time has taken its toll on all of these cultures. It is more than likely that the vast majority of nudes... especially the (gasp!) female nudes... were destroyed by the early Christian church. Many of the works which did survive were either hidden, buried and lost for ages, or mistaken for something they weren't: a portrait of the Virgin Mary or St. Mark on Horseback:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2073/3531766221_5e96208405_o.jpg

Who knows what has been lost of Rome... or Greece. And considering the Greek habit of brightly painting their bronze and marble sculpture, who knows what our response might have been to these works in their original state.

Roman mosaics, I agree, are impressive... although I certainly lean more toward the Byzantine:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3353/3532609722_05d8c2e24e_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3371/3532609856_472776fcd8_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3547/3531793981_8677a36f3b_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2258/3532610090_9a6760755f_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3663/3531794501_14b7b1e104_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3310/3532610152_8bab57da69_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3298/3532610474_69b251cfc2_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2122/3532610724_1a9a8027a3_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2229/3532610854_4e8016db97_o.jpg

Of course it must be admitted there is a huge difference in intent between the Byzantine focus upon the transcendent and spiritual and the Roman art of the concrete. The goal of the Byzantine was to virtually disintegrate the solid forms into a "thousand points of light" as it were. I should also admit that there is a certain prejudice against Roman art as the model for the expression of power in totalitarian states from Napoleon to Hitler to Stalin.

This mosaic of Alexander the Great could be something out of Da Vinci's sketches there is so much energy, motion, action, and detail.

Lovely piece... unfortunately it is a Roman copy of a Greek painting.

You say the Romans didn't do statues well. That they just copied the Greeks. That they didn't innovate. That was virtue number one of Roman aesthetics: the Mos Maiorum. The Romans revered their ancestors and tried to keep a continuity between modern and traditional practices. It was a religious thing with them the same as it was with the Egyptians and we don't come down on them for not changing what they did for centuries at a time. Innovation is not everything. As a lover of Bach you must understand that.

There is a fine line between revering the past and stagnation... as well as between innovation and mere novelty. American art, for example, never came into its own until it could assimilate the influences of Europe without slavish imitation... and until it evolved into something unique that was more than a mere whim of fashion. Egyptian art slipped into a long period of decline and imitations of Greco-Roman models. Most of the Roman art... especially the sculpture... of the Republic and the early Empire simply strikes me as immature and overly stiff... not unlike the art of the American republic prior to the mid-20th century. Again... as always... there are exceptions.

Besides, I really like the Hellenistic look, and the Pergamene Baroque. This new more naturalistic style, that shows the warts, lines, and age of people is really appealing. For the first time we get man as he is and not his ideal. There is more going on with these aged, withered figures than just pure pathos. This may be a foreign concept to Americans who like the Greeks worship youth; but the Romans revered age, as the Japanese do even now. They'd put old men's heads on strong young bodies because of an innate sense of gravitas.

And certainly I admire Greek Hellenistic art as well. The portrait of Mausolus (above) is magnificent... to say nothing of the Temple of Zeus from Pergamon. As I suggested in the previous post it is the latter "mannerist" sculpture of the Romans (such as the portrait of Comodus-previous post) where Roman sculpture first seems to come into its own... in spite of being clearly rooted in Greek models. All great art has its predecessors, but here the Romans seem to break free from them and develop something truly their own.

You called Roman statuary "rigid, stiff, harsh". Those words are a little judgemental. Can't this be solid, strong, contained, powerful, commanding, quiet. Does everyone have to be contorting themselves and leaping about to impress you?

In the visual arts... when one speaks of "movement"... it need not be merely obvious movement of leaping about. Movement also refers to the manner in which there is a gestural flow within the image... even if the figure is stationary. In the Augustus of Prima Porta, for example, the flow is impeded by the crudely overwrought drapery and ornately detailed breast-plate. Neither is there as smooth of a flow in the pose of the body (in spite of the contraposto) as there is in Praxiteles' Hermes or the Comodus.

And why does everything have to be feminine and dainty? Why can't we have an art for the BAMFs of the world? Something that's loud, mean, dirty, kicks you in the face and won't be ignored. I'm talking Beethoven, not Mozart. I'm talking rock and roll.

Because something lacks a rigidity or excessive masculinity (although I hate using that term) need not mean that it is inherently dainty, simpering, and limp-wristed:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2019/3532678770_492e45e57b_o.jpg

There is certainly a sensuality and a fluidity without surrendering a muscularity and definite strength. There have been endless eras of the most refined visual aesthetics (the Italian Renaissance, the Elizabethans, the Edo period Japanese) and yet this in no way curtailed their blood lust. They were just as quick to shove in the knife as any Roman.

[mortalterror]

I almost see it as more Chinese in its aesthetic... but either way it is indeed a splendid example of Roman painting and interior design. Is it from Pompeii?

I believe so. I tried to check, but I'm having trouble finding the place I got the photo.


Roman mosaics, I agree, are impressive... although I certainly lean more toward the Byzantine:

Those are very nice.


I should also admit that there is a certain prejudice against Roman art as the model for the expression of power in totalitarian states from Napoleon to Hitler to Stalin.

I think the main prejudice against Roman art is that it is so like Greek art but not quite. It always invites an unfavorable comparison, whereas if it were compared to other locales and time periods I think it would come off better. If we forget for a moment that there ever was a Greek civilization and just judge each piece without context, names, dates, or history, I think the appraisals would be kinder.

I love the Greeks. I just don't think that should interfere with my appreciation of the Romans. Do we need to compare every Elizabethan play to Shakespeare? What good does that serve? And after a certain period, say 146 BCE, Greece is a province of Rome. Yet, we don't consider Laocoon to be a Roman work. It was commissioned by a Roman from Greek artists who had been in the Empire for more than a century; but we still call them Greeks. I mean, most of Greek art and philosophy wasn't Greek either. It was Turkish, and Thracian, and Macedonian. But the Greeks get credit for everything.

Even with writers clearly working within the geographic boundaries and time frame of Rome we sometimes give credit to the Greeks. Guys like Plutarch for instance. It's one of those gray areas like who can properly claim T.S. Eliot.



This mosaic of Alexander the Great could be something out of Da Vinci's sketches there is so much energy, motion, action, and detail.

Lovely piece... unfortunately it is a Roman copy of a Greek painting.

Dang. Well, I never claimed to be an art historian.

By the way, I liked your latest batch of pictures.

[JBI]

Just so you know, Mortal, the mosaic you posted of the Roman women with a book is really depressing when seen up close. The size of it on your screen is pretty accurate, and it's also standing on a wall, rather high up, amongst other miniatures dug up from the area.

In truth, I think with these pictures, people get the wrong idea. There is an intense distortion, especially with the older sculptures and paintings, some perhaps improving, whereas others greatly losing something. The Colosseum for instance, when you actually see it, it seems like a waste of time - the stones are less sharp, the building looks worn out - in fact, surrounded with a billion tourists elbow to elbow, each with their audio tour guides in hand, or their tour guide led trips, one can't help but feel let down. Naples is perhaps better, given that the tourists, though there are some, are less rampant, and far fewer in number (at least, when I was there, perhaps because of the garbage crisis), though I wouldn't want to be in that city once the sun goes down. But beyond that, our distortion over time based on the form the image is coming to us (a 2d imprint of a 3d image, for instance) or a resized, refocused image, with perhaps heightened color or softened edges, really changes things.

Perhaps the same could be said of poetry - the Roman poetry, obviously, has not really come down as it originally was understood - much has been lost, to quote, "Stat Roma pristina nomine; nomina nuda tenemus." What is there really left of everything.

But on the subject of Roman verses Greek in sculpture - the Greek models tend to carry a rawer, more life like quality, whereas the Roman ones seem to be idealized forms of previous models. The Greek figures, even if the legs, head, and arms are missing, seem far more real, far more emotion, seem to convey so much more, than even the most well kept Roman statues.

That perhaps is closer to what classical Greek poetry tried to capture, I would take it. Catullus and Horace may have perfected forms, and what not, but I think there is something more real in Sophacles' verse, or in Aeschylus' (I use these guys, because of all the poets, they seem to me perhaps the best examples, and some of the most well preserved) - something more alive, and not strapped down to the confines of an image.

[Woland]

Lately Wordsworth and Coleridge

[mortalterror]

But on the subject of Roman verses Greek in sculpture - the Greek models tend to carry a rawer, more life like quality, whereas the Roman ones seem to be idealized forms of previous models. The Greek figures, even if the legs, head, and arms are missing, seem far more real, far more emotion, seem to convey so much more, than even the most well kept Roman statues.

That perhaps is closer to what classical Greek poetry tried to capture, I would take it. Catullus and Horace may have perfected forms, and what not, but I think there is something more real in Sophacles' verse, or in Aeschylus' (I use these guys, because of all the poets, they seem to me perhaps the best examples, and some of the most well preserved) - something more alive, and not strapped down to the confines of an image.

Yes, but maybe you are comparing them to the wrong Greeks. The Byzantines had a thousand years of uninterrupted culture and where are their literary masterpieces? Name anything of theirs that stands with The Aeneid, The Metamorphoses, Satyricon, The Pot of Gold, Thyestes, The Dream of Scipio, Livy's History of Rome, De Rerum Natura, The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius, etc. Compare them to medieval Europe, or just about any other time period for that matter, and you are likely to take a much kindlier view of the Roman's achievements, than if you compare them to the golden age of Greek civilization. While you are at it, compare anybody else to those same Greeks and see where that gets you. If you play that game with music, who can beat the Germans? It's an unfair contest, a rigged game with loaded dice, weighted scales, and a card up the sleeve. Praxiteles, indeed! Stlukes, do you compare every one of your canvases to Michelangelo?

By the way JBI, I've heard people complain about how small and cramped the Sistine Chapel is. What can I tell ya? History isn't what it used to be.

[Desolation]

Allen Ginsberg was my introduction to poetry, so he always holds a special place for me, while I consider Walt Whitman to be THE poet. But I'd say my general favorite is Arthur Rimbaud, he speaks to me in a way that no other poet has. 'A Season in Hell' is my go to piece whenever I'm down on life.

[kelby_lake]

I'm liking Byron currently. 'And Thou Art Dead, As Young and Fair' has to be one of the best poems ever written.

[Helga]

william blake.... "the sick rose" is a beauty

[kelby_lake]

I like The Cold and the Pebble :)

[MissTwain]

Favorite poet is Yeats, but I think everyone should check out canadian poet Don McKay--modern and fascinating

[JBI]

Favorite poet is Yeats, but I think everyone should check out canadian poet Don McKay--modern and fascinating

I could never really get into him - I don't know; I've studied him formally, but he never seemed to appeal to me.

[MissTwain]

I could never really get into him - I don't know; I've studied him formally, but he never seemed to appeal to me.

Yeats or McKAy?

[lavendar1]

Favorite contemporary poet? Philip Levine:

Excerpt from "Coming Home"

Take this quiet woman, she has been
standing before a polishing wheel
for over three hours, and she lacks
twenty minutes before she can take
a lunch break. Is she a woman?
Consider the arms as they press
the long brass tube against the buffer,
they are striated along the triceps,
the three heads of which clearly show.
Consider the fine dusting of dark down
above the upper lip, and the beads
of sweat that run from under the red
kerchief across the brow and are wiped
away with a blackening wrist band
in one odd motion a child might make
to say No! No! You must come closer
to find out, you must hang your tie
and jacket in one of the lockers
in favor of a black smock, you must
be prepared to spend shift after shift
hauling off the metal trays of stock,
bowing first, knees bent for a purchase,
then lifting with a gasp, the first word
of tenderness between the two of you,
then you must bring new trays of dull
unpolished tubes. You must feed her,
as they say in the language of the place.
Make no mistake, the place has a language...

Why?

Because he's blue collar, and he gets it right.

All time favorite? Gotta be Yeats:

WHEN you are old and gray and full of sleep
And nodding by the fire, take down this book,
And slowly read, and dream of the soft look
Your eyes had once, and of their shadows deep;

How many loved your moments of glad grace,
And loved your beauty with love false or true;
But one man loved the pilgrim soul in you,
And loved the sorrows of your changing face.

And bending down beside the glowing bars,
Murmur, a little sadly, how love fled
And paced upon the mountains overhead,
And hid his face amid a crowd of stars.

Why? Do I have to say?

[honeyleroy101]

i have some kind of twisted adoration for Dylan Thomas, though i do find some of his work a little pretentious

i think if you're looking for a witty poem, dripping with dark humour, Charles Bukowski is the one and only.

[JBI]

Yeats or McKAy?

McKay

[mortalterror]

JBI, how much Ovid have you read? I'm assuming you've read The Metamorphoses, and The Amores, which are his primary texts like Eliot's Wasteland, or Prufrock. But the secondary works such as The Heroides and Cures for Love are almost as good and to continue the analogy are quite as charming as Eliot's The Hollow Men and his Four Quartets. I think it is a shame that these other works are so rarely read. How tragic it would be to know Eliot only by The Wasteland but so many only know Ovid as the author of The Metamorphoses.

I know you've read Catullus, but have you ever sampled Lucan, Statius, Propertius, Tibullus, or Persius? Drkshadow is currently making a drive-by of the Roman era in literature and I'm afraid he won't do it even the justice he did the Greeks: reading a survey of lyric fragments on his way to the playwrights. How short changed this era gets in modern appraisal. A little Cicero, a little Virgil, a little Horace and they think they know everything. I'm not saying you do this yourself, just that there is this tendency.

Was it on this thread that we discussed the Greeks in comparison to the Romans? Even then I felt constricted by the parameters of the debate. We limited our examples to the visual arts and I forgot to mention how the Roman's excelled the ancient world in engineering, law, politics, warfare, religious freedom. Such a fascinating time! Plautus is no Aristophanes, and Seneca is no Aeschylus, yet they are still Plautus and Seneca. But now I am ranging far afield and must reign my horses in.

What I meant to do, when I started out, was merely to ask how far your studies of Ovid had gone and to further inquire whether or not you have continued your perusal of Leopardi. Have you been reading his Zibaldone and Operette Morali or have you thrown the Italians over for some new Mandarin paramour? I must admit, I was looking forward to hearing your views of Alfieri, Ariosto, and Gozzi.

[JBI]

JBI, how much Ovid have you read? I'm assuming you've read The Metamorphoses, and The Amores, which are his primary texts like Eliot's Wasteland, or Prufrock. But the secondary works such as The Heroides and Cures for Love are almost as good and to continue the analogy are quite as charming as Eliot's The Hollow Men and his Four Quartets. I think it is a shame that these other works are so rarely read. How tragic it would be to know Eliot only by The Wasteland but so many only know Ovid as the author of The Metamorphoses.

I know you've read Catullus, but have you ever sampled Lucan, Statius, Propertius, Tibullus, or Persius? Drkshadow is currently making a drive-by of the Roman era in literature and I'm afraid he won't do it even the justice he did the Greeks: reading a survey of lyric fragments on his way to the playwrights. How short changed this era gets in modern appraisal. A little Cicero, a little Virgil, a little Horace and they think they know everything. I'm not saying you do this yourself, just that there is this tendency.

Was it on this thread that we discussed the Greeks in comparison to the Romans? Even then I felt constricted by the parameters of the debate. We limited our examples to the visual arts and I forgot to mention how the Roman's excelled the ancient world in engineering, law, politics, warfare, religious freedom. Such a fascinating time! Plautus is no Aristophanes, and Seneca is no Aeschylus, yet they are still Plautus and Seneca. But now I am ranging far afield and must reign my horses in.

What I meant to do, when I started out, was merely to ask how far your studies of Ovid had gone and to further inquire whether or not you have continued your perusal of Leopardi. Have you been reading his Zibaldone and Operette Morali or have you thrown the Italians over for some new Mandarin paramour? I must admit, I was looking forward to hearing your views of Alfieri, Ariosto, and Gozzi.

I admit, I branch out a lot, but I like to read a few works by each writer, to give me a flavor - I've read the Horace, Catullus, Seneca, Virgil, the famous pieces you mentioned by Ovid, as well as a few choice pieces from others in terms of poetry, that somehow floated my way. Generally though, I like to avoid the classics, especially the Roman ones.

As for Leopardi, the Zibaldone as of yet has not been translated into English (from what I know) - I've read the selections I could find that have been translated, and have tried the original, but quite simply, I haven't made much progress because the language is incredibly difficult, and the text is thousands of pages. I haven't really covered Alfieri or Gozzi (though I have seen the Prokofiev Opera based on his play) yet, as I haven't really gone into reading Drama yet (I don't read much English drama for that matter either) but I have read Orlando Furioso, though not his two plays.

When I read Italian, generally I go for lyric poetry, as it allows me to read it in the original, without spending hours with the dictionary per work trying to figure out what things mean. In that sense, I've covered quite a bit of poetic ground this past year, much of which in the late 19th century and 20th century, since that generally is where my interest lies. But on the whole, It's been quite a busy year, so I don't really have the time to take 15 minutes per sonnet over an extended period of time.

Generally, as a rule, I try to read a) culturally significant texts around what I am studying at the moment, and b) historically unavoidable texts that cannot be ignored in the overall scheme of literature. Beyond that, the bulk of my reading bends toward critical and theoretical thought, which is necessary to build up my writing style with fresher, or newer ideas and forms of expression. Keep in mind, I'm only one person, and there are only really a maximum of 2-3 hours of free time a day during the high season, and during this season probably around 1-2.

[NovemberGuest]

My favorites vary depending on my mood...but the constants remian:

Frost- I love his simple...almost hymnlike tone that convays a sence of peace, even if the poem is sad.

Tennyson- His peoms have great rythem..."In Memoriem" is my favorite.

Wilde- I love "The ballad of reading gaul" (spelled wrong probably...)

Theres more...but those stick out :)

[Silenced Chaos]

Blake, I suppose...because he got me into Poetry. The first one I truly admired.

[Beautifull]

rtc143. because he can rhyme for one!(always a plus,right?) and his poems never fail to make me laugh, and very captivating!

[Maximilianus]

rtc143. because he can rhyme for one!(always a plus,right?) and his poems never fail to make me laugh, and very captivating!

Oh, one of these days I'm gonna show you my rhymes... and you'd better laugh... because if you don't... I'm not gonna rhyme anymore! :p :lol:

Now seriously:
Shakespeare: because he talks a tongue of his own, what gives me trouble to understand... what I find attractive.
And then I should mention Tennyson, Shelley, J.R.R. Tolkien, Frost, Yeats, Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz (that's Spanish poetry, sorry if you don't know her, but you should, though I'm not sure if her work was ever translated into English) and in no special order... To tell the truth I like them all. May not sound objective but... I can't help it.

[Maximilianus]

...
Wilde- I love "The ballad of reading gaul" (spelled wrong probably...)


The correct spelling would be The Ballad of Reading Gaol :)
Great choice, by the way :thumbs_up

[Beautifull]

hey...i'll check it out.

[don alfa]

Wordsworth I think. Maybe part of that choice is my own sentimentality, but I love and appreciate Wordsworth’s deep connection with nature all the same. He carries his love to the extreme so that nature becomes a healer and teacher to the faults of mankind, and makes perfect sense because of it really.

I love his simple little pieces, which is of course part of the Wordsworth style, for example I love the idea of the poems ‘To the Daisy; and ‘To the Same Flower’ (partially quoted below) though they are nothing much really, even compared to other Wordsworth poems. For it might as well say “I have seen all that mankind is capable of and have rejected that in favour of the simplicity of nature” because after all to live in harmony with nature ultimately means living in harmony with oneself.



Hey i would so much like to feel the same way you feel, living in harmony with oneself is the only way i mend and grow spiritually and mentally and then see and think positively and clearly. ‘To the Daisy; and ‘To the Same Flower’ these i will find and navigate in them.

[don alfa]

I like the poems of homer although it is believed to be short stories that were commonly used by people in ancient times especially when people gathered at night around the fire. I like its metaphorical way of expression that gets me thinking and puzzled and because most of them are narrative.

[David R]

Shakespeare. For his energy, power, beauty, depth and range. I find it amazing that one man, living in one country, for an average span of years, with little knowledge of the Greek and Roman Classics could write so much
mind-blowing poetry!

[BookMarkMe]

Wilfred Owen

His poetry brings me to tears, perhaps too sentimental an old git.

[Draemr]

Currently, my favourite poet is Dylan Thomas. 'A Refusal to Mourn the Death by Fire of a Child in London,' absolutely blew my head off my shoulders.

I also like Auden, Byron, Keats, Chaucer, Ted Hughes, Elizabeth Bishop and Michael Longley.

If you get the chance, check out Ian Duhig and Derek Mahon. Mahon has to be one of the best Irish poets writing today and is really nowhere near as well known as he deserves to be.

[Ivan_Karamazov]

I'll have to second that, Draemr. Dylan Thomas is amazing. A lot of his poems can be difficult to understand, but they reward close reading. "Light, I Know, Treads the Ten Million Stars" is one I've come to really appreciate. "Sometimes the Sky's Too Bright" is also amazingly poignant.

I like Andrew Marvell, Yeats, Auden, Blake, Keats, Tennyson, Ovid, Petrarch, Kipling...but I keep coming back to Dylan Thomas as my favorite.

[Barbarous]

As I made apparent in the 'French Symbolism' thread, I am more than affable to Baudelaire and as apparent in my signature, I love Yeats as well, though he is a newer acquaintance of mine.

I also love Eliot, Rilke, some of Goethe's poetry, and of course Neruda and Shakespeare. Marvell and Blake are also on my list!

[sangha]

Allen Ginsberg
Edna St. Vincent Millay
E.E Cummings
Goethe

[Cailin]

Depends on my mood - as others have said here.

Amongst my favourites are Yeats, Longley, Plath, Keats, O'Driscoll, Montague.... Clearly a bias towards Irish poets!

[Niamh]

Depends on my mood - as others have said here.

Amongst my favourites are Yeats, Longley, Plath, Keats, O'Driscoll, Montague.... Clearly a bias towards Irish poets!

I'm a bit biased towards the Irish too. :D
Synge, Yeats, Heaney, Kavanagh being my forerunners...
I also love shakepseare, Thomas... Dahl is quite a funny poet. oh and cant forget Burns.

[MarkBastable]

Living : David Harsent (http://www.poetryarchive.org/poetryarchive/singlePoet.do?poetId=5917)

Dead: WH Auden

Very Dead: Donne

Classical: Catullus

[David R]

I'm a bit biased towards the Irish too. :D
Synge, Yeats, Heaney, Kavanagh being my forerunners...
I also love shakepseare, Thomas... Dahl is quite a funny poet.

Hey Niamh, Cailin,

My Favourite Irish poet is Yeats - born to write poetry.
Also I love Heaney. Poets I want to read more of are Mangan, O'Rathaille and the poems of early Irish Christian monks, who preserved Irish mythology - there is so much imagination in them.
But if I had to pick one poet it would be Yeats.

[Cailin]

Can't believe I forgot Heaney!!!!!! :eek: Been to hear him read so many times - the latest a celebration for his 70th birthday. Currently devouring "Stepping Stones".....

[kelby_lake]

Currently devouring "Stepping Stones".....

Are they hard to digest? :lol:

[David R]

John Keats is definately one of my favourites. I love especially the poems that are steeped in the Greek and Roman Classics - Ode on a Grecian Urn, Hyperion, Ode to Psyche, On First Looking into Chapman's Homer etc. He has such a powerful imagination whilst staying true to the mythology and legends he is using. I also love his elevation of the life of the mind over the life of the senses - see On First Looking into Chapman's Homer. And his passion for music.

:wave:

[bluosean]

I have not read much poetry. Whitman, Frost, Dylan Thomas, and Rudyard Kipling is really all I have read. I have a good anthology of poetry though.

Coleridge is my favorite poet. I havent read much of his poetry though. Just the poems im my anthology.

[jocky]

William Topaz Macgonagall, The Tay, the Tay, the silvery Tay, it runs all night and it runs all day. The Coo, loosely translated as the Cow. The Coo, the Coo looks so forloner, standing there, with a leg in each corner. Aye, Burns had serious competition to be Scotland's bard!

[ZACK]

Yes Shelley is an interesting one I think, great poet. I get the impression that he would have been a very interesting person to meet too, highly passionate and wild in everything he did.

His poetry to me is so very musical and flowing, so much so that I often get carried away with it and I don't even take in what I am reading half the time! He's one of the only writers that I can read half-drunk and lose nothing for it for that reason.

Did Shelly die young?

so, i think he might be more famous than Shakespeare if he could live longer.

[stlukesguild]

Did Shelly die young?

so, i think he might be more famous than Shakespeare if he could live longer.

Yes... he drowned. In spite of this I doubt he could have surpassed Shakespeare in fame or certainly in artistic achievements had he lived longer. Keats and Rimbaud and perhaps Nerval, Garcia-Lorca, and Miguel Hernandez are all equal of greater losses. Keats more than any...:(

[mortalterror]

Yes... he drowned. In spite of this I doubt he could have surpassed Shakespeare in fame or certainly in artistic achievements had he lived longer. Keats and Rimbaud and perhaps Nerval, Garcia-Lorca, and Miguel Hernandez are all equal of greater losses. Keats more than any...:(
Holderlin, Tasso, Rimbaud, the history of literature is full of authors with impressive beginnings who sputtered out and produced nothing of note in their maturity. As good as Lucan is, I have no evidence to suggest that had he lived he would have surpassed Virgil. Some authors just peak early. Would Leopardi have surpassed Dante if he'd lived another thirty years, probably not.

[stlukesguild]

Such a question is all hypothetical and what an artist "might have achieved had he or she only lived another 20 or 40 years" is impossible to tell. Dante, himself, was not the oldest... but it is hard to imagine that anything he might have done after the Comedia could have surpassed it. And what of Shakespeare? Again he was not the oldest of men... and his last years were not the most fruitful in terms of artistic output. What if he had just kept at it? Keats is one I suspect might have achieved much more... though just how good, who can tell. I suspect Mozart, Schubert, Raphael, and Van Gogh might have produced many more masterful works... perhaps they may have even led major shifts within their artistic genre... but again... its all by hypothetical. Perhaps a good question might be which artist in any genre or artistic language would you give an extra 10 0r 20 years if you could? Who do you imagine might have achieved the most?

[mortalterror]

I suspect Mozart, Schubert, Raphael, and Van Gogh might have produced many more masterful works... perhaps they may have even led major shifts within their artistic genre... but again... its all by hypothetical. Perhaps a good question might be which artist in any genre or artistic language would you give an extra 10 0r 20 years if you could? Who do you imagine might have achieved the most?
Or Cobain, or Hendrix, or Hemingway for that matter? Your mentioning of Van Gogh reminds me of what Hokusai, one of my favorite artists, once said.

"From around the age of six, I had the habit of sketching from life. I became an artist, and from fifty on began producing works that won some reputation, but nothing I did before the age of seventy was worthy of attention. At seventy-three, I began to grasp the structures of birds and beasts, insects and fish, and of the way plants grow. If I go on trying, I will surely understand them still better by the time I am eighty-six, so that by ninety I will have penetrated to their essential nature. At one hundred, I may well have a positively divine understanding of them, while at one hundred and thirty, forty, or more I will have reached the stage where every dot and every stroke I paint will be alive. May Heaven, that grants long life, give me the chance to prove that this is no lie."

On his death bed he is said to have exclaimed, "If only Heaven will give me just another ten years... Just another five more years, then I could become a real painter." He was 88.

[JuniperWoolf]

Yes... he drowned. In spite of this I doubt he could have surpassed Shakespeare in fame or certainly in artistic achievements had he lived longer. Keats and Rimbaud and perhaps Nerval, Garcia-Lorca, and Miguel Hernandez are all equal of greater losses. Keats more than any...:(

Rimbaud was done. Even if he had lived for fifty more years he wouldn't have produced anything more (I'm almost certain), so losing him wasn't a great loss.

[ZACK]

Such a question is all hypothetical and what an artist "might have achieved had he or she only lived another 20 or 40 years" is impossible to tell. Dante, himself, was not the oldest... but it is hard to imagine that anything he might have done after the Comedia could have surpassed it. And what of Shakespeare? Again he was not the oldest of men... and his last years were not the most fruitful in terms of artistic output. What if he had just kept at it? Keats is one I suspect might have achieved much more... though just how good, who can tell. I suspect Mozart, Schubert, Raphael, and Van Gogh might have produced many more masterful works... perhaps they may have even led major shifts within their artistic genre... but again... its all by hypothetical. Perhaps a good question might be which artist in any genre or artistic language would you give an extra 10 0r 20 years if you could? Who do you imagine might have achieved the most?



Hey!! do you know Keats, right?
So, could you tell me about his work, To Solitude?

[stlukesguild]

Rimbaud was done. Even if he had lived for fifty more years he wouldn't have produced anything more (I'm almost certain), so losing him wasn't a great loss.

Rimbaud's loss was perhaps less heart-wrenching than that of Keats in the sense that he voluntarily abandoned poetry... theoretically in response to the negative criticism leveled at him by other poets and critics as a result of his relationship with Verlaine and the manner in which this was documented in Une Saison en Enfer. But of course what artist gives up because of a bad review?

[JCamilo]

Keats would probally be a completely different poet if Death was not so near him. Of course he could have mastered the long dramatic poems with more time to work, since he had already notable momments there. But the urge that he seemed to have to produce was well used in his sonnets and odes. I really do not see Shelley or Byron achivements being increased by a few more years, no more I would imagine if Baudelaire had more time to work (Or Poe, or Kafka)
I could think of some women: what would happen with Elizabeth Browning if she matured together with Robert. She was already quite good, what would she do seeing the results of Book and the Ring ? Or worst, would her existence hold down Robert?
I can imagine Emily Bronte (And Anne maybe). As much as I like her poetry and Wuthering Heights, those works are flawed. But they are quite amazing, her potential was imense.
In Brazil the two best romantic poets (IMO, the only two that achived a quality to place them among the best european poets) died quite young, Castro Alves and Gonçalves Dias. Gonçalves then was quite perfect reggarding technique and vocabulary, he could have done much more, I have no doubt.

[DanielBenoit]

Besides the fact that Shakespeare has probably always been my all time favorite poet (and to say so has become somewhat of a cliche), I would have to say that I have always loved T.S. Eliot, John Milton, Wallace Stevens, Hart Crane, Thomas Hardy, W.B. Yeats as well as the rest of the modernists and imagists.
Recently I've re-discovered cummings and Tennyson.

By the way, Chineese poetry is pretty damn good. Very subtle and quiet.

[dreamtime]

hi everyone:

My favorite poet is Rumi. He is one of the Sufi's great ones, always expressing love for the Divine and great hints for living.

It's great to be here!!!

[WICKES]

Philip Larkin.

[pjjrfan1]

Robet Frost because the first poem of his I read made an impact on me at the age of 12, "Stopping by woods on a Snowy evening." What did I know at 12 or now at 58, but the words just touched something inside of me even to this day. I also love Emily Dickinson because I love how she saw the world around her, and wish I had that gift myself.

[Red-Headed]

who's your favorite poet? why?

William Blake, because he was crackers! :banana:

[Lynne50]

Billy Collins, contemporary poet. He writes about ordinary things but somehow is able to elevate them and give them all more universal meanings.
I think Princemyskin also strives for that and for the most part is equally successful. I always admire poets that make their art look so effortless. We have a lot of them, right here on Litnet.

[Virgil]

Billy Collins, contemporary poet. He writes about ordinary things but somehow is able to elevate them and give them all more universal meanings.


Collins is pretty good. I've enjoyed reading some of his poems.

[JBI]

besides the fact that shakespeare has probably always been my all time favorite poet (and to say so has become somewhat of a cliche), i would have to say that i have always loved t.s. Eliot, john milton, wallace stevens, hart crane, thomas hardy, w.b. Yeats as well as the rest of the modernists and imagists.
Recently i've re-discovered cummings and tennyson.

By the way, chineese poetry is pretty damn good. Very subtle and quiet.

你會讀中文嗎？

[rich_pip]

Gregory Corso - colourful, eccentric, brave and powerful - just read 'Bomb' or 'Marriage'.

[El Carmo]

It´s impossible to say. There´s so many. Shakespeare, Rimbaud, Verlaine, Fernando Pessoa. I love the Portuguese Luiz de Camões (1524-1580). He is the greatest poet of the Portuguese language. His poetry is very beautiful, musical and plenty of life.

Amor é fogo que arde sem se ver

Amor é fogo que arde sem se ver;
É ferida que dói e não se sente;
É um contentamento descontente;
É dor que desatina sem doer;

É um não querer mais que bem querer;
É solitário andar por entre a gente;
É nunca contentar-se de contente;
É cuidar que se ganha em se perder;

É querer estar preso por vontade;
É servir a quem vence, o vencedor;
É ter com quem nos mata lealdade.

Mas como causar pode seu favor
Nos corações humanos amizade,
Se tão contrário a si é o mesmo Amor?

Luís de Camões

[balehead]

My favourite poet is war-time poet Rupert Brooke; i especially like his poem "The Fish"

[greenfroggsplat]

Browning and Shelley- both made my skin crawl with Porphyria's Lover and The Daemon of the World