Pound wrote that his support of Mussolini was an act of faith based on his
intuitive sense of Mussolini's _passion for construction_.

 "I don't believe any estimate of Mussolini will be valid unless it _starts_
 from his passion  for construction. Treat him as _artifex_ and all the
 details fall into place. "

So that the reader find it easier to believe in the correctness of his
intuition vis-a-vis Mussolini, Pound alludes to his grandfather who, he
says, built "a bit of railway" across Wisconsin--not for money.  I had
written that when Pound appeals to his ancestors, it is often to establish
his own _bona fides_.  Wei doesn't buy Pound's strategy for one second, and
calls it an "attempt at emotional manipulation." In his rebuttal, Wei
alludes to that old Quaker bastard, Richard Millhouse Nixon:

> I find this argumentative device difficult to understand.  Isn't it a
> fallacy?  My father, or my grandfather was a good man; therefore what I am
> saying about Mussolini is true (?)  At the very least it seems to be a non
> sequitor.  At worst, it constitutes an attempt at emotional manipulation
of
> a sort used by the most dishonest politicians.  Its a bit like Nixon's
> "Checkers Speech":  I like my dog, therefore I am a good guy, and my
> positions must be correct.


Pound's appeals to his family lineage may be a fallacious "argumentative
device". But appeals to lineage are also an ancient way of establishing
one's bona fides--here in the West.  (Wei's receiver seems not to pick up
this range of the cultural spectrum--that's why I write "here in the West".)
When Beowulf and his men leave their ship and step onto Danish land carrying
their war-gear, they are confronted by the suspicious coast-guard, who
demands that they identify themselves. Beowulf's reply:

    Our people
    populate Gautland
    and hearth we share
    with Huugleik.
    My own father
    was a famous man
    His name was Edgetheow.
    He lived many winters
    before leaving this earth
    an old man.
    He is remembered well
    by men of wisdom
    the world over.

He identifies his homeland, his allegiance, and his father.  This notion of
heritage is ingrained here in the West. Even the politically correct
Jonathan Morse once referred --on this very list--  to Francis Biddle, who
had been appointed Attorney General under Roosevelt, as "THE PROUD SCION OF
A BANKING FAMILY." Certainly Pound would agree that this ancient ethos of
loyalty and family does not represent absolutely unqualified evil. He would
also agree that this notion of heritage has its merits.  The last two
sentences are a bit of litotes on my part... just as Pound's "a bit of
railway" is litotes.  The use of litotes, in fact, can help us better
understand Pound's frame of reference here, in mentioning his grandfather's
act of construction.  The downplaying of accomplishments is one of the
essential features of the heroic ethos.

One might consider the concept of "heritage" to be anacrhonistic,
inextricably bound up outdated notions of "nobility of blood" and
aristocratic privilege, so that one would see nothing whatsoever of value in
it.  However, one's own opinions are beside the point--when the narrow
question being considered is Pound's sincerity, whether such appeals are
_intentionally_  meant to deceive and manipulate, or whether Pound had a
great capacity for self-deception.  (That, anyway, had been the gist of
Richard's followup question.)  Pound holds that the scions of the family of
John Adams are indisputably men of accomplishment and great public spirit.
By analogy, as the son of a man who built a railway, Pound can be expected
to be a man of accomplishment with great public spirit.  He is able to
recognize these core values in others.  Pound's M.O. here is this--   TO BE
ONE IS TO KNOW ONE.  Which brings us to back to Pound's starting point,
Mussolini Artifex, the man with the "passion for construction."

Wei's question is a good one:

> Such statments of Pound as those which Tim Romano has put forward--- what
> are they if not complete abrogations of  REASON itself?  How are such
> proclamations any different from the statements of faith made by
Christians,
> of whom Pound is so critical..

I've tried to put across an answer to this question in what I have written
above. Namely, that Pound, as the 'scion' of a family in which
accomplishment and good judgment have been known to exist, is asking the
reader to acknowledge the probability that his INTUITION on these matters is
sound.

Does anyone 'get the feeling' that Pound is trying to convince HIMSELF?

Tim Romano