**(I have already sent a version of this message but it didn't show up in my
inbox so I question whether it arrived - possibly because I used lower case
in the address. If the list has already sent the message to everyone except
myself I apologise).**
 
This message is in reply to Jonathan P. Gill's 6 September posting.
 
Jonathan Morse wrote (6 Sep): "So far as I'm aware, the interview with
Ginsberg is the only instance of anything like a repudiation of the
antisemitism." Are you able to add any instances as a result of your recent
research on this topic?
 
I agree with you that the interesting question is "not was he a treasonous
anti-semite, but how he was, why he was, and what does it mean for the
poetry?" Why do we give shelf-space to such a man and why do we continue to
value his judgment on *anything*, knowing what we do know about the Rome
broadcasts, the Kasper business, and the rest of that sickening garbage?
 
So far as treason in what you call the "normative" sense is concerned, I
accept your view that he was guilty as charged on at least some of the
counts in the indictment although I believe there is some doubt about
whether the relevant allegations could have been proved, given the
constitutional requirement of two witnesses to each overt act. Humphrey
Carpenter's biography is good on this point. For treason in the a less
technical sense one has to look no further than the Italian Cantos in which
Pound betrayed himself if no-one else. I recommend Peter Robinson's essay
"Translation and Betrayal" in his book *In the Circumstances - About Poems
and Poets*, published in England by Oxford University Press.
 
As to anti-semitism, it is a mystery to me where he got it from (Dorothy?).
The prejudices of his Philadelphia suburb, as documented in the local press
at the time (Carpenter again), seem to have been directed mostly against
Italians; obviously Pound didn't pick up much of that. I wonder whether, in
the course of your research, you formed an opinion as to whether or not the
meanness of Pound's hatreds was in any way associated with his mental
illness, if any. Again this raises a host of questions and subquestions: if
Pound was mentally ill when did it begin and what was the nature of the
complaint; if not why did the four doctors behave as they did and why did
Pound allow the insanity plea to be put to the court? And the larger
question: What does his illness mean for the poetry?
 
I am looking forward to reading the article referred to in Jonathan Morse's
post (4 Sept); many thanks for the reference. Those without access to an
academic library can order a copy from the publisher's website,
www.guilford.com. To do so one needs to know that the article appears in
Issue 3 of volume 58. In case you can't find the original post the reference
is to Robert D. Gillman, "Ezra Pound's Rorschach Diagnosis," Bulletin of the
Menninger Clinic 58 (1994), pp 307-22.
 
 
 
Richard Edwards
London
 
 
>From: "Jonathan P. Gill" <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: Ezra Pound discussion list of the University of Maine
>  <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Pound's antisemitism
>Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 19:37:10 -0400
>
>I hesitate to add my voice to the maelstrom, but since I just spent the
>better part of a decade on a dissertation that looks at Pound's
>anti-semitism from start to finish, with a whole chapter on the radio
>broadcasts, here are some comments based on reading and listening to
>these broadcasts longer and harder than anyone else alive.
>
>The hard facts, written and recorded, are that Ezra Pound was
>unquestionably guilty of treason as it was understood at the time by the
>normative voices of the legal community and he was unquestionably an
>anti-semite in the common use of the term.  Can't we all just read Tim
>Redman's book, offer thanks, and move on to a much more interesting
>question: not was he a treasonous anti-semite, but how he was, why he was,
>and what it means for the poetry?  I guess the problem is that some of us
>(me included) can't or don't want to judge Pound according to norms and
>commonalities.
>
>Still, I think it worth mentioning that the difference between word and
>action was a lifelong problem for Pound--he conceived radio (which was, we
>should remember, as he remembered, invented by his sixteenth cousin!) as a
>solution to this problem.  Anyone who wants to judge Pound's broadcasts
>properly needs to put them in the context of early radio history (people
>thought it meant re-evaluating the way language works) and propaganda
>efforts on all sides in World War II (verbal nitroglycerine" --EP's
>phrase--was the rule).
>
>As for the broadcasts themselves, I posted a lengthy explanation of their
>availability to this list about two years ago--it should be in the
>archive.  Anyone really interested in this topic needs not only the actual
>recordings, but transcripts and manuscripts. Yale is a very interesting
>place to start, since they've got plenty of material from after September
>of 1943--indeed, there are typescripts of broadcasts that seem to date
>from early 1945!  Very troubling reading.
>
>By the way, my extended work on all of this is currently available only
>through Interlibrary Loan or University Microfilm--although the University
>of California Press has expressed interest...
>
>To conclude, I'm finding this medium an awful way to present my remarks.
>That's not an apology, but rather a search for a way to redeem the
>medium.
>
>Jonathan Gill
>Columbia University
 
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com