"Will work for food"
  --St. Francis, on a handlettered sign propped at his feet.

(I was taught in m youth by Franciscans, Wei, so I know what they're up to,
at least the 20th century manifestation of the phenomenon. Look someday for
my poem, "Francis and the Air Guitar".)  I don't disagree with you that the
saint's first principles stressed work; but doesn't "holy poverty" imply
"unholy wealth"?   BTW, William Carlos Williams has a poem, entitled "The
Mental Hospital Garden",  in which St. Francis appears in a favorable light.

With respect to "holy poverty", let's return to northern germanic cultures
for a moment: wealth was their social glue; its distribution reinforced
bonds of loyalty in a hierarchical system.  Wasn't the view of wealth in the
christian scriptures incompatible with the view of worldly wealth in
northern pre-Christian/pagan cultures?  The Christian worldview, with its
eschatological focus, and radical levelling, was inimical to that hierarchy,
of course, but also to the view that to create something which lasted _on
earth_ (e.g. a flourishing country with peaceful trade relations with its
neighbors) was a worthy endeavor.  The apocalyptic anti-achievement nature
of the religion is a corollorary of its eschatological focus.  I invite you
to examine my translation of the early medieval poem known as The Wanderer
and my translation of Beowulf (a work-in-progress) from this angle:
http://www.aimsdata.com/tim )

You wrote:

 > I am trying to examine the way Pound looks at
> both first principles and at the practice of religion.

When trying to assess Pound's attitude towards religions, one must not
ignore the "first principles" found in their scriptures nor the individual
institutional manifestations of the religion in time, which, as we both
agree, may have deviated very far from those principles.  The same is true
when assessing Pound's political philosophy.  The abstractions tell only
half the story. For Pound, the platonist, an important half. But one must
also not fail to address his attitude towards the actual institutional
manifestations of communism in the 20th century, the actual manifestations
of democracy as well as his more abstract tendencies. You persist in
characterizing Pound according to abstract first principles, i.e. in terms
of his "anti-egalitarian or anti-democratic" views.  You have given us
specific examples of the atrocities committed by Mussolini in the name of
fascism. You must also give us specific examples of what was going on in the
USA and in Russia if you want to explain why Pound was attracted to Fascism.
His turning to fascism was not mere heliotropism on Pound's part, but a
_rejection_ of the 20th c. manifestation of American democracy.

What I mean is this. It is possible that Pound turned his back on democracy
because he felt the first principles of the U.S. Constitution had been
betrayed, not merely because he was inclined to believe in The One Man as
the best form of government?  Pound talks about American ideals having been
"corrupted" and "rotted" -- he rants that the nation had become
"syphilitic". This is not mere fascist propaganda!   This is Pound-qua-Pound
railing at America.  Pound would have been content, I think, to remain an
"aristo-democrat" had he not felt that the "democratic scriptures" had been
betrayed. You wrote a while back that "aristo-democratic" was an oxymoron. I
disagree. A bicameral system of elected officials, one house having
relatively longer terms and consisting of fewer members, the other having
relatively shorter terms and many more members, is an aristo-democratic
system.  It is possible to increase or decrease the aristo-factor by
tinkering with the length of term, the requirements for office, etc.

Tim Romano