>From: Tim Romano <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Subject: Pound and Religion
>
>First, two quotations to leaven Wei's discussion of Pound's "theology".
>(From memory -- apologies if I've misremembered.)
>
>1. "All things which are are lights".
>2. How many gods should a man be content with? A reasonable number.
>
I think that is from "Religio". I rather like the general tone and
tendencies of works like Religio and Axiomata.
Here is a more complete passage, with the quote in context:
It is better to perceive a god by form, or by
the sense of knowledge, and after perceiving him thus,
to consider the name or "to think what god this may be."
Do we know the number of gods?
It would be rash to say that we do. A man should
be content with a reasonable number.
What are the gods of this rite?
Apollo, and in some sense Helios, Diana . . . also the
Cytherean goddess.
To what other gods is it fitting, in harmony, or in
adjunction to these rites to give incense
To Kore and to Demeter . . . .
(S.P., 48).
I think "Religio" is a rather early work (1916), and represents a somewhat
incomplete expression of Pound's outlook. For instance, elsewhere in that
work, he begins with the question and answer, "What is a god?/A god is an
eternal state of mind" (SP., 47). By itself, this seems to imply the
existence of purely subjective gods. As Pound would have it, man himself
can become a god by entering one of these "eternal states."
When is a god manifest?
When the states of mind take form.
When does a man become a god?
When he enters one of these states of mind
(SP., 47).
Later in his life he affirms the objective (as opposed to the purely
subjective) existence of gods.
(He also becomes more sympathetic, unfortunately, to Catholicism because of
its hierarchical tendencies).
What follows brings us inevitably into the area of the the social
organization of religion, which has political implications.
>Second, Pound's emphasis, in the remark Wei has given us below, is on the
>death of the _mysterium_. Translation of the rituals into the vernacular,
>Pound implies, gives people the false and even dangerous impression that
>they've understood the meaning of the rituals.
Dangerous! Do you believe it is dangerous? Is it not far more dangerous to
give people the impression that a clergy with vested social and political
interests UNDERSTAND THE MYSTERY better than anyone else.
Pound thought so in his early period:
Historically the organization of religions has usually
been for some ulterior purpose, exploitation, control
of the masses, etc.
(S.P., 50).
[Later he appears to abandon this view]
>Dangerous because the
>lifeblood of religious experience, for Pound, is its celebration of
>mystery.
>An attempt to prevent the death of mystery!
The lifeblood of religious experience, I would think, for Pound (or anyone
else) would be communion with God (or with gods). The ORGANIZED celebration
of mystery -- so-called -- is, as Pound implied early in his life, just a
concealed attempt to control or exploit. I honestly don't see how holding a
ceremony in an incomprehensible language does anymore than create a sense of
Mystery as to what in God's name is going on! It is a way of putting up
walls between the "masses" and authority, fostering the illusion that
clerics have a deserved spiritual authority.
>One might understand Pound's
>seemingly reactionary position here with the threat to the soul which he
>perceived from 20th c. mechanistic Psychology and the scientific
>explanation
>of all things human.
>
There may some truth in this. But William Blake's reaction to the same
phenomena, and his personal solution, make more sense to me than an
admonition to hold more religious services in ancient languages.
>One might be tempted to put Pound into the camp of the Mass-in-Latin
>central-authority Church, were it not for "clargimint" (an echo of
>"varmint") and the phrase "any abracadabra" which shows that it was not the
>language that was sacrosanct to Pound, but the _experience_.
Yes. The EXPERIENCE, which has nothing to do with Latin, or Greek, or
Chinese, but communion with a living Deity, don't you think?
>Pound is a
>pan-religionist, a non-denominational self-appointed high-priest who is
>trying to protect the human capacity for religious experience from the
>onslaught of the 20th c -- communism, science, advertising, consumer
>culture, mechanized war.
"Pan" in the word "pan-religionist" means ALL. But Pound does not embrace
ALL religions. He decidedly rejects certain religions and embraces others.
For instance, during most of his mature adult life he vociferously rejects
three religious world views which are most compatible with democracy in the
social order. These are Buddhism, Taoism, and Protestantism. (One might
also note his rejection of Hinduism, since India is one of the most
successful political democracies in the third world). These are all major
world religions which Pound scoffs at, precisely because they are not as
hierarchical as Confucianism, Catholicism, and Greco-Roman Paganism (as
Pound conceives it --- Greek gods, he says, do not love all men, they only
love the elect, men like Odysseus).
>His predilection for fascism is to be understood,
>in part, in terms of the threat world Communism posed to religious
>experience and the free practice of religion.
>
The notion that Pound cared about any sort of political freedom, or
universally guaranteed right to practice ones religion, is highly suspect.
Analyze his views in the light of this passage:
The higher bureaucrats should be grounded in
the TA HIO and in the analects of Confucius,
apart from which they need only a specialist's
'education.' In the ideal state no Christian should
ever be permitted to hold executive office
("Bureaucracy, the Flail
of Jehovah," SP, 221).
Of course, Pound later decided that "only basically in Catholic/Pagan Italy
has Christianity avoided becoming a nuisance". If anyone could find any
evidence that Pound gave a fig about guarantees for religious freedom, I
would be quite surprised. (The China Cantos are incomprehensible apart
from the celebration of countless attempts of Confucians to wipe out
Buddhism and Taoism, which threaten imperial hegemony).
[quote which provoked this exchange]:
> > Re European belief: Neither mass nor communion
> > are of Jew origin. Nowt to do with that nasty old
> > maniac JHV [Jehovah] and are basis of Xtn. religion.
> > Mass ought to be in Latin, unless you could do it in
> > Greek or Chinese. In fact, any abracadabra that no
> > bloody member of the public or a half-educated ape
> > of a clargimint cd. think he understood
> > (Letter to Rev. Henry Swabey, Mar. 1940).
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Wei
> >
> > http://www.geocities.com/weienlin/poundindex.html
> >
> >
> >
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
|
