Stephen Vincent says it well regarding influence, or he says concordance, of poets with the past. I hate to bring up Harold Bloom, who is such a dustily shaped portion of the academic wall, but his notion of the anxiety engendered by influence is a good one. Stephen relates Spicer to Matthew Arnold, of course Spicer was much confronted by the literature he knew. new isn't so new. I've always liked how Jeff Harrison spongily invites the sounds of his reading. I mean I have inferred his reading field from his writing and he has confirmed my guess. it is not an anachronistic usage, just as Spicer's is not. I would hate to pretend that the avant sweeps clean the slate, a foolishly parochial view if ever.