When Pound turned himself from a poet of  'the obscure reveries of the
inward gaze' into a poet who would 'sing war'  -- from a lyric poet into an
epic poet -- his subject matter became The Republic.  Aesthete Pound could
have been content to be remembered as a poet "whose greatest achievement may
have been to advance the art in terms of craft and technique, pushing it in
new directions..."  But Epic Pound wanted to leave a larger legacy:  EP
sought to rejuvenate and restore The Republic and to return It to its First
Principles. EP chose to enter what is called Public Life--public not in the
debased sense, where the famous artist is the darling of paparazzi for a
fleeting 15 minutes, but public in the sense of Patria and Statesmanship and
Civic Duty. EP had faith that Art could shape Life. Artifice (today we call
it "spin") shapes opinion, so why not Art?  But he was no Machiavel: Pound's
tragic flaw was innocence.
 
Reading over what I've just written before sending it out,  I realize that
my view of Pound has been influenced by things Wyndham Lewis has written
about the poet as much as it has evolved from my own close readings of
Pound's poetry and prose. But it's been a very long time since I've read
anything Lewis. Am I remembering his The Lion and The Fox? Or is it The Art
of Being Ruled?
Tim Romano
 
----- Original Message -----
From: C.Brandon Rizzo <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, 04 Sep 1999 7:23 PM
Subject: Re: FIRE!
 
 
> Can EP's Poetics be split? Namely, via Williams' old saying: "It's not
what
> you say, but how you say it". The HOW seems to be imperative. And i'm
talking
> FORM THEORY here, used by Pound, pragmatically. This is not to simply
brush
> aside politics, economics, et al, but to change the scope. Pound's
greatest
> achievement may have been to advance the art in terms of craft and
technique,
> pushing it in new directions, so to speak. Food for thought.
>
> --CB
>
>