accused the new poets “of undermining tradition,”^71 poets of the modernist
temper followed Eliot in re-thinking tradition, which was kept alive for
Eliot, in Jabrm’s words, “by the interaction between the new and the old
through individual talent, which acted as catalyst.”^72
There are different ideological positions that relate to tradition and its
manifestations, and enforce their authority and power as truthful and oblig-
atory. Eliot as well as modern Arab poets oscillate between a counter-
identification that “... rejects the identity inscribed in the ruling ideological
practices,” though with continuing subordination to these, and a disidentifi-
cation that “... works against the prevailing ideological practices in order to
transform them.”^73 Even the use of voice, mask, and persona indicates this
oscillation, for depersonalization is mainly a defensive strategy as poets
identify wholly or partly with a selected number of ancestors. They derive
from tradition, however, something more than poetic products. They became
aware of the heated discussions of the theory of plagiarism in the classical
Arab age, with its recognition of the best poet as a good plagiarist of mean-
ings and an original creator of techniques and styles. Many have become
aware, too, though at a later stage, of Harold Bloom’s Freudian reading of the
struggle with the ghosts of one’s forebears. In both cases, the great poem may
become a “map of misreading” to use Harold Bloom’s discussion of the anxi-
ety of influence between the descendant and the ancestor.^74 Many poems
in Arabic betray such anxieties. Nevertheless, their significance, if any, lies in
the depth and richness of the cultural subtext. This subtext has become the
focus in the discussion of the ancient and the new, and the constant and
the changeable in heritage and modernity. As the association between the
great poetic talent and the strong precursor has been taken for granted since
early Arabic theories of plagiarism, with their emphasis on the right of
the strong poet to raid every other poetic territory, the emergence of dense
poetic intertexts is not surprising. Whenever these fit well in poetic ensembles,
or harmonious configurational sites, poets may well get away with their booty.
Configurational sites: classical and modern
As ancestors demonstrated some lively engagement with other texts, the
moderns found further support for the practice in European theories of inter-
textuality, its inclusion of borrowing, incorporation, allusion, and stealing.
The practice is a show of allegiance as much as it is an act of aggression
against the engaged. Among strong poets, this takes place within an under-
standing which may well incorporate Ezra Pound’s definition of tradition as
the “... beauty which we preserve and not a set of fetters to bind us.”^75
In theory, discussions and recollections make up a discursive struggle with
an agenda and a commitment to undermine and challenge other competing
discourses. Especially in moments of crisis, in the late 1940s, Arab intellec-
tuals felt entitled and called upon to participate in change. Whether using
THE TRADITION/MODERNITY NEXUS