To Matt Roth: That's amazing. But what could it mean? The only
connection I can think of is that E. Darwin's work is often cited
as really bad poetry that should never have been poetry in the
first place. Could Nabokov be telling us that that's what
"Pale Fire" is, or is not?

Dear Jerry,

 

Although I hate to sound more disagreeable than others may already think me, I am sure that if you read Darwin's beautifully crafted composition with fine attention and a broader understanding you will appreciate it more while expecting not so much. Note, for instance, the skilful balance with which Erasmus weaves a particularly apt mot juste into the structure of his work --- no less than 12 times in all, evenly distributed throughout the 4 cantos, 4,2,2,4, with varied application in each case, thus (the numbers indicate the lines, together with the object described):

 

Canto I      251 crest; 269 dome; 334 field; 463 nymphs

Canto II     28 tides; 238 deeps

Canto III    110 hair; 289 veins

Canto IV   114 lines; 152 harebell; 379 mantle; 407 fig

 

This eighteenth century masterpiece is quite possibly the most underrated poem in English literature. Also, the erudition of its annotation is remarkable. There can be little doubt that Nabokov had it well in mind when writing Pale Fire: the parallels are too striking.

 

Best regards

 

Charles