I am leaving the politics completely to one side in this post.

The Duncan quote affirms that:

> > "Pound derives from the Neoplatonic cult of Helios, from the Provencal
> > cult of Amor, from the Renaissance revival of pagan mysteries after
> > Gemistos Plethon, and from the immediate influence of the theosophical
> > revival in which Yeats was immersed . . .

[I dont think that part is correct; Pound appears essentially hostile to
theosophy, the Blavatsky school, and the South Asian religions from which
theosophy sprang:  The Vedas, Hindu metaphysics, the Upanishads, the
Bhagavad Gita, the Mahabharata, and Buddhism ---  he thoroughly rejected and
deliberately ignored all of these things, as any good Confucian would, so
long as there was any hope of meaningful political and social activity in
his life].

> >an analogous tradition of poetry
> > as a vehicle for heterodox belief, a ground in which the divine world
> > may appear (with the exception of the Judeo-Christian orders). At the
> > thought of Jesus, Pound has all the furious fanaticism of the Emperor
> > Julian; he is a pagan fundamentalist. Aphrodite may appear to the poet,
> > and even Kuanon, but not Mary; Helios and even Ra-Set may come into the
> > poem, but not Christ.

The comparison with Julian is interesting and has some merit.  However, It
is correct to point out that a reference to Christ does appear next to the
mention of Dionysus in the Cantos.  I am not sure how much weight we should
give to this one reference to Christ, esp. in light of Pound's other
denunciations of Christ and Christianity.  Pound's inclusion of Christ in
the Cantos is, I believe, simply an acknowledgment of the fact that a cult
of Christ has existed, and that it may have some similarity to the cult of
Dionysis (and it is clear that Pound prefers the latter to the former, in
the Cantos, and in his prose writings).


I think there is something of a shortfall in Duncan's view, at least in the
quote presented, and in the characterization of Pound's view as "pagan
fundamentalism."  For one thing, it does not take into account Pound's
Confucianism.

Prose works like "The Immediate Need of Confucius" and "Mang Tsze (The
Ethics of Mencius)," published in the late '30's, are essentially religious
tracts.  In these works Confucius is only praised, and is never subjected to
the slightest criticism.  Pound's attitude toward Confucius differs markedly
from his attitude toward Christ.  Confucius has no flaws.  Christ does.  The
following quote is interesting because it puts the blame for the "failure"
of Christianity on Christ himself.  The gospels are, Pound says,

  the story of a revolt in Judea, that is to say the
  protagonist was trying to provide an antidote to
  Judaism.  He attacks nearly every feature of it
  that he notices.  Being himself a Jew, certain
  things escape his notice, or he takes them for
  granted.  I have at times thought that these over-
  sights provided the causes for xtianity becoming
  unbearable
   (S.P., 57).

So Pound is even harder on Christianity than Nietzsche was (N. at least said
there was one good Christian, Christ himself).

I would argue that POUND WAS AN ORTHODOX CONFUCIAN in all essential
religious, metaphysical, and ethical matters.  I believe this because Pound
says so himself, and because Pound's inclusion of orthodox Confucian
materials in the Cantos confirms it (and also because Confucianism is in no
way inconsistent with a belief in God/gods/and/or spirits).  Pound never
doubts, questions, or criticizes a single tenet of Confucianism, nor does he
have any doubt about Confucius as a person.  (until 1960, which is
relatively late).  One has only to read his writings on Confucianism, esp.
on the Ta Hio, to see just how orthodox he was.


  In considering a value already age-old,
  and never to end while men are, I prefer not to
  write to "the modern world."  The Ta Hio stands, and
  the commentator were better advised to sweep a few
  leaves from the temple steps.  This is no shrine for
  the hurried tourist . . .
     (SP, 75).

A value "NEVER TO END WHILE MEN ARE" is as strong as statement as Pound
could make about anything.  The word "shrine" we may as well take to be
literal, because statements about the supremacy of the Ta Hio are repeated
again and again, in the prose writings.  In 1937 Pound seriously considers
the possibility that not his poetry, but that

"my version of the Ta Hio is the most valuable work I have done in three
decades . . . " (SP, 75).

Those who take Pound at his word NEED TO EXPLAIN THIS.  The Ta Hio, Pound
says, offers to untangle all the problems of Western thought.

  [T]he whole of Western idealism is a jungle. Christian
  theology is a jungle. To think through it, to reduce it
  to some semblance of order, there is no better axe
   than the Ta Hio
       (SP, 78).

In addition to providing the solution to theoretical problems of both a
metaphysical and theological nature, the
sacred work is, according to Pound, a fount of moral values.

  There exists passage after passage in our serious
  medieval thinkers which contains the terms 'virtu,'
  virtus, with vivid and dynamic meaning.  But it is
  precisely the kind of thought that is now atrophied
  in the Occident.  This is precisely how we do not
  now think.
   It is for these values that we have need of
  Ta Hio . . .
   (SP, 78).

Pound goes on to point out that the usefulness of the book lies not merely
in the fact that it possesses
solutions to both moral and theoretical problems.  The Ta Hio can also be
used to  to combat social chaos in
"barbarous" nations.

  The 'value' of Confucius to the Modern World is not,
  I think we may agree, limited to medicinal value for
  the Occident.  There is visible and raging need of the
  Ta Hio in barbarous countries like Spain and Russia,
  but above all questions of emergency, of hypodermic
  injection or strait-jacket for fever patients and lunatics,
  there is also a question of milder and continuous hygiene.
   No one has ever yet exhausted the wisdom of the
  forty-six ideograms of the first chapter
       (SP, 79).

"NO ONE HAS EVERY YET EXHAUSTED THE WISDOM . . ."   Quite a superlative !!
These ideograms which constitute the first chapter of the Ta Hio could, so
Pound thought , solve problems of every
sort --  theoretical, religious, moral, socio-political -- could even
eliminate mass starvation.  Here he delineates the problem in a more
detailed fashion.

  We are oppressed by powerful persons who lie, who
  have no curiosity, who smear the world and their
  high offices with Ersatz sincerity . . . [who] dare not
  investigate this that and the other, and so forth . . .
  Neither does so-and-so nor his colleague (protected
  by libel laws) dare read the Ta Hio.
   Name, nomen, cognomen, etc., dare not be
  left alone in a lighted room with this document.  They
  cannot face the forty-six characters in the solitude of
  their library.  All this testifies to the strength of the
  chapter and to their need of it.  Men suffer malnutrition
  by millions because their overlords dare not read the
  Ta Hio
   (SP, 80).

Pretty strong words !!!  In light of such quotes, how can anyone controvert
the assertion that Pound was an orthodox Confucian?  Does Pound speak that
way about any other specific religious or metaphysical work ?!?!

Regards,

Wei

http://www.geocities.com/weienlin/poundindex.html

-------------------------------------





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