In a recent post, A. David Moody stated that I had provided the discussion
list with a prejudiced interpretation of Pound's use of the character Chung1
in "Communications".
I would ask him the following questions, before I respond specifically on
the issue of the fascist-Confucianist connection in "Communications":
1. Does he deny that Pound equated certain Chinese characters with certain
fascist concepts? (If so, how do we explain the fact that the character
Hsin1 "new" is said by Pound HIMSELF to resemble the fasces, and that it
symbolizes Mussolini's incitement to "continous revolution)?
2. Does he deny that Pound equated Confucianism and Fascism, seeing the
former as proof that the latter could succeed?
3. Does he deny that in the areas of economic theory (in the "Ethics of
Mang Tze" , for instance) Pound wished to return to more feudal and
hierarchical forms of socio-economic order? Would he deny that the economic
theory championed by the fascist Odon Por (translated by Pound into
English), was thoroughly compatible, with Confucian feudal economic models?
4. Does he deny that fascism is a quintessential aspects of Pound's
outlook, in the moral, social, economic, and political spheres?
5. Does he deny that the Confucian texts which Pound relied on were all the
products of Sung Learning, the most reactionary and politically conservative
of the schools of Confucian thought; and that Pound's naturally gravitated
toward such a bias, given his fascist propensities?
6. Does he deny that Pound ignored the study of Confucian and Chinese
political history from 1780 onwards, because it was at that point that
Confucian orthodoxy started its decline?
7. Does he deny that Pound saw the rise of the Italian empire in the 20th
century (under fascist leadership) as an event prefigured analogically in
the history of the Chinese imperial expansion (under Confucian leadership)?
7. Does Mr. Moody admit the possibility that his approach to Confucius and
towards Pound might be prejudiced (for one reason or another)?
As regards the significance of the character Chung1, I think you missed the
main point. I don't have the page in front of me, so I cannot address all
your statements. Whether the tract is one page, or two pages may not be of
great consequence (in fact, some of the discrepancies in our views might be
because the version I saw was a reduced photocopy, with the entire text on
one page).
But do you agree with the following?
1) The character Chung1 is NEAR the phrase "THE NAZI MOVEMENT IN GERMANY."
2) Pound specifically equates a quote from a Confucian text with a quote
from Adolf Hitler.
Here is the quote, in case you missed it:
<< The position of a country abroad depends exclusively
on its organization and INTERNAL coherence
Der Fuhrer, 1939.
(which is also Confucius' 5th paragraph of the Great
Learning preceding the chapters by Thseng-Tseu Ta
Hio). >>
We could have a long discussion on the way the character Chung1 is drawn in
"Communications". It does NOT look like the character on page 413 of the
Cantos, at the end of Canto 70, as you assert. That is a fairly standard
rendering of Chung1. If I could reproduce the Chung1 symbol as it is in
Communications, I think people would agree that it resembles a fasces.
But putting the orthographical issue aside for the moment, surely you are
not denying that Pound specifically connects Confucianism and Hitlerism in
"Communications", are you?
I would drop the particular point entirely if you could deal with the larger
issue. For instance, how is your interpretation of Pound affected by the
following fact: Nolde found that Pound had written the swastika in a draft
of a crucial passage of the China Cantos. This was in Canto 54, where
Chinese imperial expansion is described in juxtaposition to the submarine
maneuvers, as witnessed by Hitler and Mussolini at a joint summit.
Allow me to reproduce the passage, describe the passage in some detail, and
invite you to respond.
In one of his most explicit attempts to connect Imperial China with
Mussolini's "Italian Empire," the Tartars appear analogically as the
Germans, loyal and efficient allies capable of creating an admirable empire
in their own right. A passage in Canto 54 describes the meeting of the
Tartar king Tchen-yu (identified with Hitler) and the Chinese Emperor, HAN
SIEUN (identified with Mussolini). As Hugh Kenner points out, the
parenthetic remark concerning a "pretty maneuver" in the Bay of Naples
referred to a "display of synchronized submarining" shown by Mussolini to
Hitler during a visit to Italy.
And when the tartar king came to Tchang-ngan
all the troops stood before him
the great in ceremonial uniform waited before that city
and the EMPEROR
came out of the palace with
foreign and chinese princes. . .
Mandarins of the army and the book mandarins
He took his way. . .
mid cheering and acclamation
Ouan-soui !! Ouan soui !!
10,000 Ouan Soui !! may he live for then thousand years
They cried this for the Emperor and joy was in every voice
And the Tartar ran from his car to HAN SIEUN
held out his hand in friendship
and then remounted his war horse
And they came into the city, and to the palace prepared
And the next day two Imperial princes went to the Prince
Tartar
the Tchen-yu and brought him to the audience hall
where all princes sat in their orders
and the Tchen-yu knelt to HAN SIEUN
and stayed three days there in festival
whereafter he returned to his border and province
He was Prince of Hiong-nou
And the kings of Si-yu, that are from Tchang-ngan to the
Caspian
came into the Empire
to the joy of HAN SIEUN TI
(Pretty maneuver but the technicians
watched with their standing on end anno sixteen, Bay of
Naples
From the Ngan to the Caspian all was under HAN SIEUN
(54/279).
This passage has several noteworthy features regarding Pound's commitment to
the Italian Empire in the year it was written, 1938. First, in the whole of
the Chinese Imperial Cantos there is no other passage of such extended
length which depicts a single occasion. Secondly, as the phrase from "Ngan
to the Caspian" indicates, this was the furthest extent, in terms of
combined territories and tributaries, which the Chinese Empire ever reached.
The Histoire records,
HAN-SIEUN-TI, au comble de la joie de voir
tous les royaumes, depuis Tchang-ngan jusq'a la
mer Caspienne soumis a sa domination, et ce qui ne
s'etoit point encore vu, les Hiong-nu vassaux de
l'empire, voulut consacrer cettre eqopue glorieuse
de son regne par un moment durable.
[HAN-SIEUN-TI, filled with joy to see all the kingdoms
from Chang-an to the Caspian Sea under his control,
and what had never been seen before, the Hiong-nu,
vassals of the empire, wanted to consecrate this
glorious epoch of his reign with a lasting monument
(De Mailla, Histoire III, 152).
Only the singular importance of this event for Pound could have justified
his extensive coverage of it in a set of Cantos designed to cover over 5,000
years of history in a very short space. What is more, the important fact of
the empire's magnitude is further emphasized by its being mentioned twice
(whereas it is mentioned only once in the original), and by Pound's use of
typography. Measured in block spaces, the longest line in in the passage is
the one which first reports the Empire's size: "and the kings of Si-yu, that
are from Tchang-ngan to the Caspian. . . ." Finally, in his notes, Pound
made clear his desire to connect the Mussolini-Hitler alliance with this
most imperial of moments in Chinese history. As Nolde points out, speaking
of this canto and the reference to the "pretty" submarine maneuvers, there
were important markings in the draft. "Pound's notes," he says, "included
the swastika symbol . . ." (Notebook 32, p. 22v. Plate 2. See Nolde, 121).
How do you react to the inclusion of the SWASTIKA, and Pound's equation of
Chinese imperial expansion and the Hitler-Mussolini alliance?
Regards,
Wei
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
|
