There is a strain in Pound scholarship which sets out to show he was not
a careful philologist. To some extent that's called for. I happen to
think that Pound's translation of The Seafarer has done harm in giving
modern readers the impression that crashing consonants and thumping
rhythms are characterisitic of Anglo-Saxon poetry. They are not. But
when seen in the light of his attempts to find new (or recover old)
energetic modes of eloquent vulgar expression, his exaggerations and
misguided notions have their own validity of purpose.

For Pound, the etymological meaning of a word could contribute to the
logopeia of the poem. The man-in-the-street never thinks about etymology
and probably does not know what etymology is or that language changes.
But from the point of view of a poet who is attempting to revive
features of an ancient tradition, it doesn't matter if his notions about
a writing system be arcane,  just as it doesn't matter if Isidore of
Seville's etymologies are bunkum to the historical linguist: however
misguided these notions were, they became bona fide ways of signifying
and encoding meaning.  Did any ancient Japanese poets have a similar
appreciation for the mimesis in the ideograms?

Pound focuses on the rudiments of the writing system because his quest
was to work  back to first principles, to the bedrock of meaning and
signification. This "back-to-bedrock" strain in Pound's nascent theory
of language-in-society also finds expression in his harsh criticism of
statements made by the economist Keynes.  Pound's focus on the elements
of the ideogram, his strict constructionism with regard to the US
constitution, his attacks of economists for saying things that are
not...these are all facets of the same quest for language marked by
profound simplicity, clarity, and vigor. Maybe a quixotic goal, but a
colossal error, not.

Tim Romano

Peter Montgomery wrote:

>I'm certainly not challenging the validity of what Pound did.
>It is its own marvellous justification.
>We might not have the modern approach to poetry with out it.
>I guess I'm more regstering surprise to learn, after all these years,
>that it could have come from misreadings of the original work.
>The error may be collosal, but it is also wonderful and I'm most
>glad it happened.
>
>The fact is Pound sank in even deeper for me when a Japanese student
>told me that the Japanese think in images, not words. The idea of
>the directness of image Pound wanted just made that much more
>sene. Then to learn that my student was wrong, didn't take away
>from my appreciation, but it certanly qualified heavily how I
>think about the matter. In effect it was Pound's invention.
>The original meaning of the characters is not what they mean
>for the Japanese or Chinese now, anymore than we connect the
>letter A with the head of a bull (inverted), even though that's
>from where it came.
>
>Cheers,
>Peter
>=============================
>From: Tim Romano
> It's been a while since I've read Pound on this subject, but I don't
>think he was "unduly influenced by the kanji element". We're outside the
>realm of The Duly and The Unduly here. After all, Pound was not writing
>a linguistic treatise but was exploring the expressive power of
>juxtaposition and superimposition.
>
>The Japanese poet had arrows in his quiver that western poets did not.
>Pound saw that the kanji character was mimetic.  Sun tangled in tree
>branches: sunset.  (Pound is all about mimesis!) The haiku could be
>written as a series of inter-related glyphs. The western writer has only
>a few glyphs that lend themselves to a very rudimentary sort of mimesis
>(e.g. "@ Pisa").
>============================
>
>Peter Montgomery wrote:
>
>
>
>>Forgive my temerity in raising a topic
>>about which I know very little. With the help
>>of certain members here I was recently able to
>>outline, at the annual Japanese Studies Association
>>Canada (JSAC) conferencehere in Victoria, BC, CANADA.
>>the Japanese influence through Fenellosa and Pound,
>>and also show evidences of it in Canadian Lit. Prof.
>>and media prof. Marshall McLuhan.
>>
>>In the process I ran into some interesing (to me anyway)
>>scholarly questions. Apparently, due to a syndrome
>>somnetimes called orientalism, which put very rosey lenses
>>on the engagment of Westerners with orintal culture,
>>both Fenellosa and Pound got it wrong. Fenellosa was
>>not justified in ignoring grammar, and Pound was unduly
>>influenced by the kanji element. A lot of westerners,
>>and very many Japanese are under the impression that
>>the japaese do not think in words. They think in images.
>>Linguists have disproven that illusion thoroughly.
>>One I consulted called it Orientalism run amock.
>>
>>Here is a website that challenges Fenellosa.
>>
>>http://www.pinyin.info/readings/texts/ezra_pound_chinese.html
>>
>>Kenner's Pound Era does its bit to set the record
>>straight. Being an Eliot scholar of sorts, the above
>>came to me as something of a surprise. It is a road
>>that never seems to have been along my path.
>>
>>Perhaps it is old news here.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>