«(pp. 489–490) The Modernist movement which dominated art, music, letters during the first half of the century was, at critical points, a strategy of conservation, of custodianship. Stravinsky's genius developed through phases of recapitulation. He took from
غيوم دو ماشو،
كارلو غيزوالدو،
كلاوديو مونتيفيردي. He mimed
بيتر إليتش تشايكوفسكي and
شارل جونو, the
لودفيج فان بيتهوفن piano sonatas, the symphonies of
جوزيف هايدن, the operas of
جيوفاني باتيستا بيرغوليزي and
ميخائيل غلينكا. He incorporated
كلود ديبوسي and
انتون فيبرن into his own idiom. In each instance the listener was meant to recognize the source, to grasp the intent of a transformation which left salient aspects of the original intact. The history of Picasso is marked by retrospection. The explicit variations on classical pastoral themes, the citations from and
pastiches of
رامبرانت،
فرانثيسكو غويا،
دييغو فيلاثكيث, Manet, are external products of a constant revision, a 'seeing again' in the light of technical and cultural shifts. Had we only Picasso's sculptures, graphics, and paintings, we could reconstruct a fair portion of the development of the arts from the
حضارة مينوسية to
بول سيزان. In 20th-century literature, the elements of reprise have been obsessive, and they have organized precisely those texts which at first seemed most revolutionary.
الأرض اليباب,
عوليس (رواية), Pound's
Cantos are deliberate assemblages, in-gatherings of a cultural past felt to be in danger of dissolution. The long sequence of imitations, translations, masked quotations, and explicit historical paintings in
روبرت لويل's
History has carried the same technique into the 1970s. [...] In Modernism
collage has been the representative device. The new, even at its most scandalous, has been set against an informing background and framework of tradition. Stravinsky, Picasso, Braque,
ت. س. إليوت،
جيمس جويس،
عزرا باوند—the 'makers of the new'—have been neo-classics, often as observant of
المرجعية الأدبية الغربية precedent as their 17th-century forebears.»