I want to offer special thanks to Burt Hatlen, who gave a very detailed
response to my question regarding Pound’s religion. He wrote:
>
>Robert Duncan said that Pound was a "pagan fundamentalist." That still
>seems to me the smartest thing anyone has ever said about him. Pagan =
>open to the multiplicity of gods at work in the world--thus his
>generosity, his ability to give himself to the radically "other," such
>as Chinese poetry and culture.
>
So you believe that Pound genuinely believed in a multiplicity of gods, and
did not see them as mere symbols to be used for poetic purposes. I gather
that is your position. Correct me if I am wrong. I think such a view of
Pound makes sense in light of his prose writings.
>Fundamentalist = convinced that there
>is a simple truth in religion as in all other areas of human life,
>something that any man can grasp in half a day's reading, so that
>anyone who doesn't grasp it is a fool or worse . . .
I would agree that he was a fundamentalist. But “fundamentalist” tells us
HOW he believed, not WHAT he believed. There are fundamentalist
Christians, fundamentalist Muslims, and fundamentalist Hindus. If Pound is
a fundamentalist, what is, in your view, the precise content of his belief?
[I think Pound was fundamentalist in his attitude toward Confucianism, not
necessarily in connection with his paganism. Pagan fundamentalism, without
some other element, seems to me a contradiction. A brief note in this area:
The official religion of most Sri Lankans is a type of fundamentalism
which includes a type of paganism (a belief in many gods), but it is unified
by an orthodox adherence to Theravada Buddhism. This major division of
Buddhism is consistent with polytheism. Belief in One Supreme God is
excluded as a matter of dogma].
>this doctrinaire cast of mind, this determination to divide the world
>between we enlightened few and the ignorant and probably evil THEM,
>makes him blind to the kinds of truth present in the monotheistic
>religious tradition.
>
There is this “doctrinaire cast of mind,” but the question of the CONTENT of
belief in relation to this elitism must be explicated. Is the “elitist”
strain essential to the religion which Pound presents to his reader, or is
it simply his social view imposed upon or obstructing the most basic tenets
of his spiritual convictions?
>So here's the question that I think we should be talking about. How
>was it possible for a fascist and anti-semite to write the first true
>"world epic"--or, if you want to be politically correct, the first
>fully polyvocal, multicultural poem, rather than an epic of this
>culture versus that (Greeks versus barbarians, Romans versus
>Carthaginians and Etruscans, Christians versus everybody else)?
>
I have my own explanation as to how this occurs, and it is a point which
greatly interests me.
[Your can view it at:
http://www.geocities.com/weienlin/religion.html
I have updated the essay with internal links to make it easier for people to
view specific topics, such as:
1. Pound as a Humanist, 2. Illumination as Sexual Experience , 3. Myth as
Paradigm, 4. Religion and the Social Order, 5. The Four Elements and
Pound's Syncretism, 6. The Provençal Period , 7. Light Worship and
Ideograms in the Cantos, 8. Light Worship and the Universal Paideuma, 9.
Early Religious Growth, 10. Early Prose Religious Works, 11. Confucian
Formalism, 12. The Importance of the Ta Hio (Da Xue), 13. The Fusion of
Christianity, Fascism, Confucianism and Ovid's Paganism, 14. Kung and
Eleusis, 15. Sexuality and the Ideogram, 16. Ritual Ideograms, 17.
Difficulties Inherent in Pound's Religion ]
Your question about the relation between the social views and the religion,
I admit, merits very serious attention. But before we address it, it might
be useful to accept as a premise, that the religion can be discussed
separately, as we might discuss the content of Christian belief apart from
ecclesiastical history or sectarian manifestations.
>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.
>
Maybe we are not ready for that. If we discuss the way in which the poetry
expresses what might be considered a purely religious view (or
philosophical/spiritual view), we may find ourselves engaging in a more
productive conversation.
In connection with the issue of Pound’s religion Alexander Schmitz wrote:
>
>It's ALL in Pav & Div, Romance, Kulch.It is esp. Sel. >Prose pp 45ff.
Of course its there (in some sense), but how do YOU interpret it?
>It's in Surette's books, Miyake, Typhonopoulos, Eastham, Dan Pearlman.
>It's in Kodama, Kenner, Lindberg - it's everywhere!
>
Well, these people all have their own interpretations. Quite frankly I am
surprised there are not more books about the subject. Surette says it is an
“Eleusinian” religion, Eastman says its a form of Shamanism, Kenner says .
. . honestly I don’t think he says anything about his religion which could
be taken very seriously, or at least nothing more than a few offhand
remarks. No serious attempts to explicate it. (If you find a quote that
proves the contrary, let me know).
>It is, in short, what the Cantos is about IN THE FIRST PLACE.
That is an interpretation which needs some substantiation. I will not
dispute it as a premise, if that is how you wish to proceed. However, the
content needs to be elaborated. The thinkers mentioned above do not have
one uniform interpretation of this belief.
>One cd expect that this is, within the Pound circle, common knowledge . . .
The “Pound circle” is not a uniform group either. Many Poundians stress the
poet’s humanism; others stress his late quasi-Catholicisim (Yes, there are
Poundians who argue his poetry is perfectly consistent with Catholic
religion), others who say, as we have heard, that he is a “Calvinist” pagan.
And so on. Some insist Confucianism is the essence.
>Excuse my lack of patience on this.
No problem. You obviously have strong reasons for reacting as you do, and
intense feelings on the subject. Consequently, your opinion is probably
extremely valuable. Permit me to request that you explicate your view.
Regards,
Wei
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
|
