-------- Original Message --------
SKB asked, regarding FWTSHH: does her confusion over Angus and Hugh
MacDiarmid dilute her conclusions &/or falsify
her methodology? Are we really supposed to gain insights into the
evolutions of European languages/literatures? Are we really expected to
learn new biographical facts about VN¹s linguistic/cultural odysseys?
MR: I don't think the McDiarmid flaw invalidates her larger point,
since it is supported by plenty of other material. Nor does it falsify
her methodology, though it obviously presents us with a cautionary tale
regarding the trickiness of deciding what was in VN's head when he
wrote something. Are we supposed to and expected to learn these things?
That depends on what you mean by supposed and expected. I don't doubt
that Priscilla's thesis touches on something that was "in" VN when he
wrote his books. He may even have consciously thought of his book from
the perspective she highlights. What is hard to know: if these insights
were more personal in nature or if VN really intended them for readers
of PF. For myself, I feel mostly unconcerned with the level of
intention we can assign to each particular insight. Priscilla's book is
immensely helpful to me for what it reveals about VN's source material
(written without the help of the internet!). And I can accept her
conclusions about history and languages without feeling obligated to
accept a prescibed level of authorial intention. I feel the same way
about Boyd's monograph--grateful for all the insight, understanding of
the way the clues were interpreted, but open to other possibilities. In
fact, I'm perfectly at ease accepting Boyd and Meyer simultaneously
(though I don't share their their level of certainty).
I think my own critical ecumenicism comes from being raised in a
"federated" church that was officially both Baptist and Methodist. Some
dunk, some sprinkle: both methods have particular virtues, within the
same ultimate framework.
Best,
Matt