Originally Posted by
mortalterror
I'd hoped to let my quotations speak for themselves but now I see that I must further explain my ideas. I did not mean to imply that Montale was channeling Euripides, Virgil, and Shakespeare as influences or models. What I was trying to show was the similarity of their techniques. There are a few rhetorical devices which they have in common.
If only I could force
some fragment of your ecstasy
into this clumsy music of mine;
had I the talent to match your voices
with my stammering speech-
All of the examples I've listed begin with a statement of adynaton, that the subject they are about to treat is too great for them. They long for the eloquence of another, which suggests that the subject can be treated properly just not by them. I felt that this was different from apocarteresis, which is what religious poets like Dante or Firdawsi do when they say there are no words for what they are trying to express, that their subject is beyond the best poets and beyond poetry itself. What this adynaton does is twofold. It's first effect is that of eironeia, a greek word meaning feigned ignorance from which we derive the word irony. Those of you who've studied your Plato know that Socrates does this all the time. He sets up this "I'm just a simple country lawyer" faux humble persona for the purpose of persuading his audience who are now off their guard with lowered expectations. The poet at this point can only surpass the expectations of his listeners or if he does not he is still as good as his word. Secondly, the fact that Montale knows of other artists greater than himself, and correctly understands the magnitude of the subject he's about to treat flies in the face of the statements he's just made. Furthermore, any reference to a greater power than himself would automatically place him in relation to that object in a type of hierarchy which could only reflect well on Montale as we begin to think of them together. We know that he is attempting something which others have done before him, and so they have at least this much in common.
So what do we have so far? Montale has set up his persona at the beginning of his poem as a humble man with an admittedly minor poetic talent. He is about to try something very difficult and possibly above his abilities. If he should fail, as his numerous protestations attest, then he is still a virtuous man and his audience will sympathize with him because of his virtues and ambition. Montale has heightened the stakes of his discourse, while lowering expectations about his competence. When he succeeds, it's the underdog story, and we all cheer even louder.
