I want to thank several people --- JB, Jay, Jonathon Morse, Burt Hatlen,
Jacob Korg and Alexander Schmitz-- for their contributions to issues
currently being discussed on this forum.  I would like to address, if only
briefly what each person is saying, esp. on the issue of Pound’s religion.

First, on a non-religious issue, regarding the manner in which we should
debate or discuss topics on this forum,

JB wrote  (speaking of a group of people with whom he disagrees)

><< It doesn't matter that they
>express desires to discuss the content of Pound's work . . . .

But it is precisely this fact which DOES matter in my view.  And if “THEY”
take the conversation away into an area which seems innappropriate to the
subject at hand, you are free to state your opinion.  That, I would have
thought, is what conversation and intellectual exchange are about.   No one
has a monopoly, or supreme right to decide how others will approach the
subject matter. Regarding the issue of “the content of Pound’s work”, I
believe that in my posts I have included as much of the content of Pound’s
work (his poetry, his prose, his public utterances, etc.), and commentary
upon that work, as most people on the list.  But there is no rule regarding
the precise amount of Poundian content or the manner in which we should
approach it.  This is the value of the internet.  NO EDITOR.    You should
feel free, I think, to discuss as much of the content of Pound’s work as you
wish, in any way that you wish, as should I.  Does anyone object to this
procedure?

Jay’s remark was rather short.  I found it provocative and therefore
intriguing.  I would like to invite him to give a fuller expression of his
opinion.

Jonathon Morse’s remark on Kenner’s evasion (on the subject of Pound’s
fascism) was most enlightening.  I did not hear the interview in question.
He wrote:

>. . . I must say the memory of one exchange is indelible. It went
>something like this.
>
>BUCKLEY: Was Pound a Fascist?
>
>KENNER: No.
>
>BUCKLEY: Henri Peyre says he was a Fascist.
>
>KENNER: Henri Peyre writes for _The New York Times Book Review_.
>
>That was vintage Kenner: devastatingly witty, deeply sensitive to value,
>and as evasive as an F-117. But do I have the words right?


Where I might disagree with Jonathon Morse is when he applauds the words of
Burt Hatlen:

>>The critical debate will be banal and
> >unproductive until we can talk about the retrograde social and
> >political views AND  the astonishing inventiveness of the poetry, AT
> >THE SAME TIME.
> >
>

While I agree with this position in principle, I see nothing wrong with
suspending our critique of Pound’s social and political views while we speak
of his religion.

My own take is that Pound’s religion (at least many aspects of it) can be
discussed apart from the purely temporal/political dimension of the work.
Ultimately his religion is rendered somewhat problematic, I think, because
of his political committements.  But it can be considered separately,
because one could imagine Pound having written much of the purely religious
sections of his work without his having been an antisemite or a fascist.
For me personally, this is a bit of a stretch, but I am willing to make it
for the sake of discussion. Furthermore--- forgive me if I overemphasize
this point--- but I do not believe I can judge the status of Pound’s soul;
so I must admit the possibility that his poetry may very well contain
religious insights that are worthy of his highest aspirations during the
best moments of his life.   This may be true, even though his political
views were “retrograde.”

--Wei

(continued in EZRA POUND’S RELIGION--Part Two)
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com