On 31 May En Lin Wei wrote in response to my "i jen and En Lin Wei"  (posted
on the 30th):

> [Part 2 of previous post on Pound, authoritarianism and the rule of one
Man]
>
> . . . . .  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 ....  Pound encountered the phrase in
the > (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.
[end quote]

A useful analogy, and one which underlines the fact that the king in this
chapter is not claiming to possess all power in his own right.  He has just
defeated the king of Hea who seems to have done just that--he "extinguished
his virtue and played the tyrant, extending his oppression over you, the
people ..... [Heaven] sent down calamities on the House of Hea, to make
manifest its crimes".  Legge's (con)version continues:
    "Therefore, I, the little child, charged with the decree of Heaven and
its
    bright terrors ..... making clear announcement to the spiritual
Sovereign
    of the high heavens, requested leave to deal with the ruler of Hea as a
    criminal.  Then I sought for the great sage [his principal adviser],
with
    whom I might unite my strength, to request the favour of Heaven on
    behalf of you, my multitudes.  High Heaven truly showed its favour to
    the inferior people, and the criminal has been degraded and subjected.
    Heaven's appointment is without error;--brilliantly now like the
blossoming
    of flowers and trees, the millions of the people show a true reviving.
        III.  "It is given to me, the one man, to give harmony and
tranquillity
    to your States and Families; and now I know not whether I may offend
    the powers above and below.... "

--and so on, making himself explicitly subject to powers above his own.

A properly careful reading of that book of the Chou King would not represent
it as justifying arbitrary one-man rule.  That would be a clear abuse of its
ethic.

Later En Lin Wei writes that 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.
[end quote]

Again, careless misreading leads to serious misrepresentation.  It is not
Antoninus but Apollonius of Tyana who says to Vespasian--
    For myself I care little about constitutions, seeing that my life is
    governed by the Gods; but I do not like to see the human flock
    perish for want of a shepherd at once just and moderate.  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 goverment.
There is nothing sinister in his not caring about constitutions.  As
Terrell's gloss notes, "A[pollonius]'s page-long speech adds up to a lack of
interest in abstract theory."  The plain fact is that there is no opposition
to democracy here, nor is there in Pound's citation of Apollonius.  It seems
that he finds the chapter "worth attention" because in it the philosopher is
advising Vespasian on how, being an absolute ruler, he should conduct
himself as one.

En Lin Wei's problem seems to be that he cannot conceive that an emperor, or
king, or any kind of absolute ruler, might rule well.  He believes in
elective democracy, and only in elective democracy.  Any alternative, it
seems, must be anti-democratic and tyrannical.  He cannot accept that under
emperors, kings and even dictators, the burning question has not always been
how to overthrow a tyrant, but rather how to ensure that the ruler shall
rule well--that is for the good of the people.  Democracies have the same
problem with their elected representatives.  Pound's concern in the Cantos
is not to favour one form of government over another, but to affirm the idea
that whatever the form of government it should serve the people as a whole.
So in the Chinese history cantos, given that China had an imperial system,
he follows the discriminations of the Confucian historians between
constructive emperors and disastrous ones. (Consider canto 53, very
carefully.)  In the John Adams cantos, given a democratic system, he follows
Adams in his pursuit of the laws proper to an American democracy.  (To seek
to rectify democracy is to honour its principles, not to despise it.  To put
it the other way, to attack the abuses or the failings of a democracy is not
to attack democracy.)

And as to "vain disputations", who needs them?   And the birds are singing
in the rain outside my window.

David Moody