Wei. Don't you think poets ever operate by intuition. Pound was a poet
not an aeronautical engineer (who also on occasion have recourse to
intuitive thinking). He wasn't constructing a missile guidance system.
He was writing a poem. His sourcing and imagery and juxtapositions and
exegesis are most often not up to engineering standards. Way, way, way
too much flashing on those turbines. Some of the wiring is just hanging
there. You attach that wiring and you blow up the poem. Very
counterintuitive.
As an experienced practitioner, I can guarantee you that if Pound was
using this much source material, he certainly was not able to control it
and in many cases it was 'controlling' him in the sense of providing an
ongoing evolution to his thinking. (And please don't misuse what I mean
here by control e.g. I'm not talking about undo influence). I don't
think you have to look much further than the above to discover salient
points about the Cantos' 'incoherent' form. I know part of academic
hermeneutics is rapped up in overdetermining texts. But if the wealth of
material that Pound engaged got away from him, imagine what it is doing
to your rather detached and secondary encounter with that same material.
This is just common sense and, even as one who grudgingly admires the
close attention you've given to this source material, I have to say it
shows in your product. Tim Romano and Charles Moyer are elucidating the
Pound I usually find in the poetry and enriching my knowledge of or
reminding me of details which add to the profound experience of that
poetry. Carlo Parcelli

En Lin Wei wrote:
>
> >Where  is there any evidence in this passage, about silk worms and
> >sprouting
> >seeds, of so-called "Catholic ritual"?!!
> >Pound, I would assert, is not talking about "Catholic ritual" at all.
>
> Let's look at the passage very carefully.  First, I should note that I agree
> with you that Pound--- from the point of view of intellectual history, and
> from the point of view of his own PERSONAL religious sentiments--- is more
> interested in the pagan roots of Christianity in Europe, than he is in
> Christianity as such.
>
> But when he talks about the SOCIAL PRACTICES of religion, how society should
> organize religious practices for the masses, he favors a hierarchical
> approach.  It seems to me incorrect to divorce Pound's views on the SOCIAL
> PRACTICES of religion from his adherence to fascist political philosophy.
> There is a clear synergy in the development of Pound's views on religious
> practices and his decision to support Mussolini.  Notice in the earlier
> writings all his comments about Catholicism are negative; while during the
> period of the late thirties and forties he starts speaking favorably about
> Catholicism, and often in connection with fascism, as in the quote below.
> One might want to choose to separate the Catholicism and the fascism; but
> the point is that Pound DOES NOT separate them.  Now let us look closely at
> the quote, and conclude by examining the claim that << Pound . . . . is not
> talking about "Catholic ritual" at all>>
>
> >Pound wrote:
> > >   I see out of my bedroom window a chapel built
> > >   on a sane economic system.  Namely, the peasants up
> > >   that side of the mountain had the stone underfoot and
> > >   they wanted a chapel, so they got the stone out of the
> > >   mountain and put up the chapel.  I suppose they believe
> > >   in something.  And it is quite certain that the FASCIST
> > >   regime approves of that sort of activity . . .
>
> Several parts of this quote (on Radio Rome) are noteworthy.  Of course, we
> should remember that this statement is being broadcast from Rome to the
> Allies, while the war is raging on; and we should recall that it is part of
> an effort to convince the British and American listener that the fascist
> government is a good one.  This was one of the consistent themes of his
> broadcasts.   So one may well ask, why a discussion of the religion and
> religious social practices in this context?  Pound wants to show that the
> cited religious practices and the fascist state are both good, and in
> harmony with one another.
>
> When Pound says I see a chapel built by a "sane economic system", how
> seriously can we take this?  How can we take it in light of history, and
> even in the light of the stated goals of fascism?  Recall that fascism
> sought to destroy the peasant's right to organize independent unions, sought
> to force people to act "selflessly" for the good of the state, and urged
> citizens to follow the dictates of the church, and the priests, most of whom
> supported the fascist state.  Only just recently has the Catholic hierarchy
> moved toward making apologies for its support of fascism during the 30's and
> 40's.
>
> Was it a "sane economic system" which jailed priests who did not support
> fascism, or which jailed priests who tried to oppose the war effort
> (something Pound might have done in the years 1914-1921); was it a sane
> economic system which jailed priests who supported independent trade unions
> ?  Yet this is precisely what this "sane economic system" did.  (See the
> works of Salvemini).  What was so sane this system, according to Pound?  It
> "allowed" or "approved" of priest-led efforts to rebuild the local chapel.
> Why should anyone, especially an American, think this way?  Pound was
> brought up in society that treasures the first amendment's prohibition
> agains state interference in religious affairs.  So why should he care if
> the Fascist state "approves" of such behavior?  Clearly Pound favors the
> fascist hierarchy and the Catholic hierarchy and their mutual cooperation.
> (He never shows approval of any action by a Catholic which would call
> fascism into question, and there were many lay Catholics and priests who
> tried to oppose it).
>
> Now to the issue of the rituals.
>
> > >     I see and approve the folks in Rapallo coming down
> > >   to the sea on Easter morning, not so many as used to.
> > > I see the peasant women bringing their silk worm cocoons
> > > into the church about Easter time to get 'em blessed, hiding
> > > them under their aprons.  All this shows respect for divinity.
>
> One can point out that this ceremony has its roots in a pagan tradition.
> But Pound has said approves of this ceremony which is a Catholic ceremony.
> He approves of pagan ceremonies which have been incorporated into the church
> services.  You may well ask where is the evidence "of so-called "Catholic
> ritual"?!!  "  The passage indicates that the peasant women bring their silk
> worm cocoons "INTO THE CHURCH".  They do this at "EASTER TIME" and they do
> this "TO GET THEM BLESSED".  Well, WHO blesses them?  The priest.  Pound
> approves of all this.  He approves of the CHURCH (which is a Catholic Church
> in which rituals are performed); he approves of the BLESSSING (which is done
> by a priest), and he approves of the fact that it is done at EASTER TIME.
> This indicates that he endorses the whole operation, which involves
> hierarchy, church officials, and church ceremonies.  Pound says "all this
> shows respect for divinity".  Perhaps it does, perhaps it does not.  It may
> show respect for a tradition, it may show a respect for authority.
> Tradition, authority, and divinity are not identical
>
> Why have a priest bless the worms?  Why not have worms blessed by the women
> themselves? (Or for that matter, why not have the worms bless the women, as
> a true pagan would?)  Because the Catholic tradition gives the ordained
> priest the power to bless, and not the lay person.  Why have the ceremony in
> the Church?  Because the Church is built according to the plans of  the
> ecclesiastical powers to convince the laity that certain places are holy and
> suited for religious activity, namely places which are under their
> supervision.
>
> > > Nobody taxes 'em for doing it or for NOT doing it.
>
> Irrelevant.  No one in any free state is taxed for performing a religious
> ceremony (or for NOT doing it??)!!
>
> > > They bring out their grass that has been sprouted up prematurely
> > > by puttin' the seed on the wet flannel and put little rows in front of
> >their altars.  All that is very pretty.   It may or may not be part of a
> >theory.
> > > I think it conduces to the amenities.
> > > ANYHOW, it is part of the good life, part of the art of living.
> > > ANY Chinese gentleman, on Wang Chin-Wei's side of the line at
> > > least, would respect it, and Japanese Samurai would respect it.
> > >        (Doob, 119).
>
> Again we have to pay attention to the context of the speech given over Radio
> Rome, in 1940.  The Japanese are attacking the Chinese mainland at this
> time, and Wang Chin - Wei (the Chinese Quisling, Benedict Arnold, or
> Marshall Petain) is supporting the Japanese invasion.  Pound gives
> unqualified support to all members of the Rome-Tokyo-Berlin Axis, and their
> puppets during this period.  Let us note that it is POUND HIMSELF who brings
> these political references into this portion of the speech. He seems to be
> talking about the social practices of religion (or practices which "show
> respect for divinity").  But HE DELIBERATELY brings in FASCISM, Wang Chin-
> Wei, and the Japanese Samurai.   Personally, I would not argue a precise
> equivalency between Catholicism and Fascism.  But POUND would, and that is
> precisely the point.
>
> Regards,
>
> Wei
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

--
ÐÏ à¡± á