[Part 2 of previous post on Pound, authoritarianism and the rule of one Man]

Pound's belief in the rule of "one man" was, I would argue, very consistent.
  Even Thomas Jefferson was, in the poet's view, a benevolent dictator,
since he supposedly  governed by  "means of conversation with his more
intelligent friends,"  almost as if there were no Congress, no Supreme Court
or even an electorate.

We can talk about Pound's admiration of Jefferson and Adams later in some
detail.  But I want to draw the attention of those interested to the Chinese
dimension of Pound's authoritarianism.  It is not simply some quaint
"orientalist" penchant, which seeks the moral maxim to make inspire the
leader to ethical action.  People need to look at this aspect of Pound's
thought VERY CAREFULLY, because very little has been said about it.

Belief in the rule of a country by a single individual, as had been seen in
China for thousands of years, led Pound to use the Chinese phrase "one man"
several times throughout  the Cantos .  The characters     I1 Jen2   (yi
ren, in pinyin) are as plain and simple as the philosophy of government by
"one man."   They represent "one"   a single item, and a   "man" standing
firmly on two legs.  Pound encountered the phrase in the Chou King
(Shu-jing) the History Classic which predated Confucius.  In that work, the
phrase, I1 Jen2, occurs often in contexts where the task of "rectifying" the
people is said to belong to belong to the sovereign, the "one man" possessed
of all power.

        The king said, "Ah!  ye multitudes of the myriad
        regions, listen to the pronouncement of me, the
        one man.  The great God has conferred even on the
        inferior people a moral sense, compliance with
        which would show their nature invariably right.
        But to cause them tranquilly to pursue the course
        which it would indicate, is  the work of the
        sovereign.
                                (Shoo King, Legge, p.185, Part IV
                                Bk. III. Ch. II .2).
And later,

        It is given to me, the one man, to give harmony
        and tranquility to your states and families.
                                (Legge, p. 188, Part IV. Bk III. Ch. III .6)

In ancient times, the Shoo King provided an ideological justification for
the Chinese version of the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings.
        In the Cantos, Pound employs the ideograms signifying "one man" in contexts
where autocratic decision-making is favored. Opposition to  deliberative
procedures, such as cause delay in democratic societies, and opposition to
checks on the absolute power of a ruler, are expressed in these passages.
For instance the words, i jenn ieun "let the one man be good," are placed
next to the English phrase "nor by vain disputations,/ nor by sitting down
on a job that is done"  (85/547).   By placing the phrase "one man" next to
the English phrase, the poet let it be known that, when  a single man makes
all the decisions, disputation of any sort is unnecessary.
        The point is made more clearly in Canto 94.  Pound's preference for
autocratic rule leads him to praise Roman emperors such as VESPASIAN and
ANTONINUS, whose names he capitalizes at 94.639.  On the bottom of the page
the large characters meaning "one man" appear again.  In this context, Pound
makes very clear his opposition to democracy and his disregard for anything
resembling a constitutional restriction on the monarch.  Written in Greek,
not far below the names of the two Roman emperors, and two lines above the
Chinese characters, Pound places the phrase, "by the gods."  Tracing the
source, Terrell notes that the complete sentence, attributed to the Emperor
Antoninus is, "For myself, I care little about constitutions, seeing that my
life is governed by the gods" (Terrell, p. 581, 94-125).  Pound underscores
the sentiment by following the Greek with the English "not particular about
theoretical organizations" (94.639).  Terrell's gloss on the Chinese
characters which appear on this page merit close attention, since it sheds
light on an essential problem confronting the reader who discovers the basic
identity  of the political philosophies of Pound, Mussolini, Antoninus and
Confucius.

                Ideograms:  I1 Jen2  . . .  "one  man."  Antoninus
        said to Vespasian:  "For just as a single man pre-
        eminent in virtue transforms a democracy into the
        guise of a government of a single man who is the
        best; so the government of one man, if it provides
        all round for the welfare of the community, is
        popular government" . . .   The immediate reason for
        the phrase ["one man"] came from the visit to St.
        Elizabeth's of a Confucian scholar, Carson Chang.
        Pound said to him that 4 Confucians working
        together could save China.  Chang replied, "Four?
        One is enough."
                                (Terrell, p. 581, 94-126).

There is a great deal more evidence to show that Pound despised democracy.
I can provide numerous direct quotes on the subject.  But is that necessary?
  I am primarily interested in the fact that, by their very nature, the
particular Chinese materials which Pound chose to incorporate into the
Cantos were anti-democratic.  What I am calling on supporters of Pound to do
is provide any evidence which they think shows that Pound was at all
sympathetic to democracy, or republican government, as an institution.  And
if there are one or two bits of such evidence, how do we reconcile them with
his persistent championship of Mussolini and of the principles of
Confucianism?

Regards,

Wei
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com