>Where  is there any evidence in this passage, about silk worms and
>sprouting
>seeds, of so-called "Catholic ritual"?!!
>Pound, I would assert, is not talking about "Catholic ritual" at all.

Let's look at the passage very carefully.  First, I should note that I agree
with you that Pound--- from the point of view of intellectual history, and
from the point of view of his own PERSONAL religious sentiments--- is more
interested in the pagan roots of Christianity in Europe, than he is in
Christianity as such.

But when he talks about the SOCIAL PRACTICES of religion, how society should
organize religious practices for the masses, he favors a hierarchical
approach.  It seems to me incorrect to divorce Pound's views on the SOCIAL
PRACTICES of religion from his adherence to fascist political philosophy.
There is a clear synergy in the development of Pound's views on religious
practices and his decision to support Mussolini.  Notice in the earlier
writings all his comments about Catholicism are negative; while during the
period of the late thirties and forties he starts speaking favorably about
Catholicism, and often in connection with fascism, as in the quote below.
One might want to choose to separate the Catholicism and the fascism; but
the point is that Pound DOES NOT separate them.  Now let us look closely at
the quote, and conclude by examining the claim that << Pound . . . . is not
talking about "Catholic ritual" at all>>


>Pound wrote:
> >   I see out of my bedroom window a chapel built
> >   on a sane economic system.  Namely, the peasants up
> >   that side of the mountain had the stone underfoot and
> >   they wanted a chapel, so they got the stone out of the
> >   mountain and put up the chapel.  I suppose they believe
> >   in something.  And it is quite certain that the FASCIST
> >   regime approves of that sort of activity . . .

Several parts of this quote (on Radio Rome) are noteworthy.  Of course, we
should remember that this statement is being broadcast from Rome to the
Allies, while the war is raging on; and we should recall that it is part of
an effort to convince the British and American listener that the fascist
government is a good one.  This was one of the consistent themes of his
broadcasts.   So one may well ask, why a discussion of the religion and
religious social practices in this context?  Pound wants to show that the
cited religious practices and the fascist state are both good, and in
harmony with one another.

When Pound says I see a chapel built by a "sane economic system", how
seriously can we take this?  How can we take it in light of history, and
even in the light of the stated goals of fascism?  Recall that fascism
sought to destroy the peasant's right to organize independent unions, sought
to force people to act "selflessly" for the good of the state, and urged
citizens to follow the dictates of the church, and the priests, most of whom
supported the fascist state.  Only just recently has the Catholic hierarchy
moved toward making apologies for its support of fascism during the 30's and
40's.

Was it a "sane economic system" which jailed priests who did not support
fascism, or which jailed priests who tried to oppose the war effort
(something Pound might have done in the years 1914-1921); was it a sane
economic system which jailed priests who supported independent trade unions
?  Yet this is precisely what this "sane economic system" did.  (See the
works of Salvemini).  What was so sane this system, according to Pound?  It
"allowed" or "approved" of priest-led efforts to rebuild the local chapel.
Why should anyone, especially an American, think this way?  Pound was
brought up in society that treasures the first amendment's prohibition
agains state interference in religious affairs.  So why should he care if
the Fascist state "approves" of such behavior?  Clearly Pound favors the
fascist hierarchy and the Catholic hierarchy and their mutual cooperation.
(He never shows approval of any action by a Catholic which would call
fascism into question, and there were many lay Catholics and priests who
tried to oppose it).

Now to the issue of the rituals.


> >     I see and approve the folks in Rapallo coming down
> >   to the sea on Easter morning, not so many as used to.
> > I see the peasant women bringing their silk worm cocoons
> > into the church about Easter time to get 'em blessed, hiding
> > them under their aprons.  All this shows respect for divinity.

One can point out that this ceremony has its roots in a pagan tradition.
But Pound has said approves of this ceremony which is a Catholic ceremony.
He approves of pagan ceremonies which have been incorporated into the church
services.  You may well ask where is the evidence "of so-called "Catholic
ritual"?!!  "  The passage indicates that the peasant women bring their silk
worm cocoons "INTO THE CHURCH".  They do this at "EASTER TIME" and they do
this "TO GET THEM BLESSED".  Well, WHO blesses them?  The priest.  Pound
approves of all this.  He approves of the CHURCH (which is a Catholic Church
in which rituals are performed); he approves of the BLESSSING (which is done
by a priest), and he approves of the fact that it is done at EASTER TIME.
This indicates that he endorses the whole operation, which involves
hierarchy, church officials, and church ceremonies.  Pound says "all this
shows respect for divinity".  Perhaps it does, perhaps it does not.  It may
show respect for a tradition, it may show a respect for authority.
Tradition, authority, and divinity are not identical

Why have a priest bless the worms?  Why not have worms blessed by the women
themselves? (Or for that matter, why not have the worms bless the women, as
a true pagan would?)  Because the Catholic tradition gives the ordained
priest the power to bless, and not the lay person.  Why have the ceremony in
the Church?  Because the Church is built according to the plans of  the
ecclesiastical powers to convince the laity that certain places are holy and
suited for religious activity, namely places which are under their
supervision.


> > Nobody taxes 'em for doing it or for NOT doing it.

Irrelevant.  No one in any free state is taxed for performing a religious
ceremony (or for NOT doing it??)!!


> > They bring out their grass that has been sprouted up prematurely
> > by puttin' the seed on the wet flannel and put little rows in front of
>their altars.  All that is very pretty.   It may or may not be part of a
>theory.
> > I think it conduces to the amenities.
> > ANYHOW, it is part of the good life, part of the art of living.
> > ANY Chinese gentleman, on Wang Chin-Wei's side of the line at
> > least, would respect it, and Japanese Samurai would respect it.
> >        (Doob, 119).

Again we have to pay attention to the context of the speech given over Radio
Rome, in 1940.  The Japanese are attacking the Chinese mainland at this
time, and Wang Chin - Wei (the Chinese Quisling, Benedict Arnold, or
Marshall Petain) is supporting the Japanese invasion.  Pound gives
unqualified support to all members of the Rome-Tokyo-Berlin Axis, and their
puppets during this period.  Let us note that it is POUND HIMSELF who brings
these political references into this portion of the speech. He seems to be
talking about the social practices of religion (or practices which "show
respect for divinity").  But HE DELIBERATELY brings in FASCISM, Wang Chin-
Wei, and the Japanese Samurai.   Personally, I would not argue a precise
equivalency between Catholicism and Fascism.  But POUND would, and that is
precisely the point.

Regards,

Wei




________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com