Light bulbs and don Quixote

First I'd like to jot down a few light bulbs I had light up while reading Frye's section on the anagogic phase:

"The anagogic view of criticism thus leads to the conception of literature as existing in it's own universe, no longer a commentary on life and reality, but containing life and reality in a system of verbal relationships."
pg. 122

I think I used this quote when I was investigating Wallace's poem or if not I thought about it or wish I had (Wow you can't tell midterms are getting to me or anything). Now I'm thinking, since the anagogic has a connection with the divine and the line:

" And when she sang, the sea, whatever self it had, became the self that was her song, for she was the maker."

She, the maker, the poet, sang her poem, her song, of a world with a sea. And while she sang, she walked on an ordinary beach by an ordinary sea. But her sea was like no other sea. A sea so grand in a world so beautiful that the sea envied her poem and it wanted to change itself, and so did those who heard it. And so they did change, and saw the world of her song what was a poem, much like the one containing this very line.
That's just a little rant on what anagogy made me think while was trying to cram all the words from the poem into my squishy brain.

Anyway, this I just found interesting:

"The literary critic, like the historian, is compelled to treat every religion in the same way that religions treat each other, as though it were human hypothesis, whatever else he may in other contexts believe it to be."
pg. 126


This leads me to Don Quixote and it's delightful relevance and joyous freedom from "theory". I'm now on page 498 with the miraculous pearls from Sancho. But what I found most interesting was on page 476.

" 'That is true, ' said Sanson, 'but it is one thing to write as a poet and another to write as a historian: the poet can recount or sing about things not as they were, but as they should have been, and the historian must write about them not as they should have been, but as they were, without adding or subtracting anything from the truth.' "

Aha! This rings of Sidney, Shelly and of course Aristotle/Plato. ( It's hard to keep straight who said what.)I can just picture the glee on Dr. Sexson's face if he saw me reading that and making the connection.
Short sad blog, but midterms are hovering.