En Lin Wei wrote,

"So I conclude with the same question, which demands a detailed and serious
answer:  What does it say about American culture that its greatest 20th
century epic poet celebrates dictators, emperors, a Duce, and a Fuhrer--the
rule of ONE MAN--and never gives a single nod to the ideals of democracy?"

    I am no doubt behaving recklessly in taking up this challenge, but I do
want to step into this cantankerous discussion in En Lin Wei's defence.
Certainly Pound was hostile to democratic institutions and fully embraced
the Fuhrer Prinzip--which he thought could be found in Confucian political
thought--and I think it can
    Though I am personally committed to democratic principles as exercised
in parliamentary democracies like Britain, Canada and other Commonwealth
countries, I do not regard alternative political structures as necessarily
evil. Fascism, for example, insofar as it had any political content, was not
evil. The idea of a nation governed by delegates elected through trade and
professional constituencies instead of geographical ones is perhaps foolish,
but not evil. Nor is the idea of a benevolent dictator, or aristocracy evil
in itself.  The regimes of Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin were certainly
evil. Franco's regime less so, and, the Japanese oligarchy was not far
behind Hitler and Stalin--though lacking a single evil spirit.
    But what about En Lin Wei's question? Since the United States Government
indicted Ezra Pound for treason, we might conclude that the government at
least did not regard The Cantos as an authentic expression of American
political and cultural life. In my view--as a Canadian bystander--many
people are drawn to Pound precisely because of his conservative political
and archaic religious views. He seems to me to be a very similar figure to
Martin Heidegger--the darling of the Postmodern, and a younger contemporary,
as well as a Nazi and celebrator of archaic wisdom.
    Alec Marsh has argued in MONEY AND MODERNITY that Pound's epic can be
read as an expression of American populism. Though I disagree with Alec on
some details of his argument, I think that he is correct on that point.
Ameican populism is the expression of the yeoman class in America--that is,
those of British stock who regard themselves as the rightful heirs of the
North American continent, and are committed to localism or parochialism.
Populists tend to distrust central authority of all sorts, but--somehwat
inconsistently--attach themselves to charismatic individuals who they hope
will champion their cause by tilting against the powers that be--usually
located remotely from themselves--in London, Rome, or New York--depending on
the period and the dominant issues.
     Obviously Pound would not embrace all aspects of current populism, but
he was enthusiastic about Huey Long as well as the more dubious figure,
Father Charles Coughlin. Long is pretty well the prototypical figure of
American populism in the thirties--though a Canadian and a Catholic priest.
But we should remember that populism has always been a minority view in the
USA. Currently it has taken the form of the moral majority--a form Pound
would presumably not have much liked.
    So, what does Pound's career tell us about the the political culture of
the USA? It tells us that his poem expresses a minority view within American
politics--as well as other things. No conclusions can be drawn about
American political life or foreign policy from his poem. After all, he spent
virtually all of his adult life outside the USA--like his similarly disposed
friend, T. S. Eliot. If you want an American poet closer to the mainstream
of American political and cultural life try Wallace Stevens. Closer to Pound
is W. C. Williams. His PATERSON leans in the populists direction somewhat,
but it is much closer to being an epic that represents America that is THE
CANTOS. There are lots of other candidates. The USA cannot be reduced to one
voice. Nor, of course, can any other nation.


Leon Surette
English Dept.
University of Western Ontario
London, Ont.
N6A 3K7