Thanks to Tim Romano for his thoughtful analysis of the issue of Pound and
Empire.

Tim Romano <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Subject: Pound's psychology
>
>Wei,
>
> > To clarify:  I did not say that POUND’s ONLY motive was to support
> > imperialism.  I said, that the Axis powers were only united by this
>drive.
>
>That may be what you meant to say. I wish to point out to you a feature of
>your analytical method and your own synapses.

Synapse with regard to what?  Are you suggesting that I am leaving something
out, and if so what?

>you will notice some legerdemain
>with respect to subject-verb-object:
>
> > Each member of the Axis, it seems, had its assigned task...
>
>Who is doing the assigning of the task?

Clearly Pound is.  I did not intend to imply anything else.


>Where is the assignment of task
>occuring?

In Pound's mind.  You are correct to draw this conclusion.


>Your previous points had been focused on Pound's thought and even
>on his thought processes, not on the strategic alliances of the axis
>powers:

My analysis has always been of BOTH Pound's thoughts about axis powers, and
the actual doings of the axis powers.

>
>     -- "He suspected continued broadcasts might constitute treason"
>     -- "His next thought is of China"
>     --"But his irrepressible dedication to fascism and his belief in
>empire
>were too strong by now"
>     -- "Pound also believed in empire"
>     --"Later in the same speech, for the sake of Axis solidarity, he goes
>on
>to
>defend the Japanese Noh-plays"
>    -- "Pound's rededication to the Axis cause leads him to defend the
>Japanese..."
>

These quotes are all connected with an analysis of Pound's thoughts about
the Axis Powers.

>The implication of your final paragraph is this: the assignment of task is
>occuring in Pound's mind.
>
Yes.  I agree.  But what conclusion do you draw from this?  I think we are
getting lost in a discussion over what I meant by use of the word "ONLY".
Pound was not ONLY concerned about the imperial drive for power.  I never
said that he was.  His interest in the Axis powers was not ONLY rooted in
this interest to see Japan and Italy and Germany succeed in their imperial
conquests.  I never said this was the case either.  He also approved of
fascist notions of hierarchy, nazi notions of race, Japanese moves which he
hoped would restore Confucius status in China, and many other aspects of
Fascist, Nazi, and Japanese culture (under Hirohito).   But the only
international political impetus, which united the Nazis the Italian
fascists, and the Japanese "Co-prosperity sphere" was the drive for imperial
conquest (this was true in fact, and in Pound's mind).  Pound might have
been just as interested in Fascist Spain during the 40's as he was in
Fascist Germany and Fascist Italy.  But Spain was neutral during the war.
[Pound only praises Franco in the Cantos after all other attempts at fascism
have collapsed].  During the war, the ONLY unifying factor for Pound's
admiration for Italy, Germany, and Japan was the drive for imperial
conquest.  If the Spanish fascists had been as involved in the drive for
conquest, they would probably have received the same attention during the
war years.

We see similar pattern in Pound's hero worship as expressed in the China
Cantos.  Pound expresses admiration for Qin Shiuangdi (the first emperor),
Genghis Khan, and the Founder of the T'ang Dynasty.  Why?  The first was a
Legalist, the second was a shamanist, or quasi Buddhist, and third was a
Confucianist?  What did they all have in common?  Only one thing:  they were
all effective conquerors and expanders of empire.   Shihuangdi , the
Legalist, was actually a fierce opponent of Confucianism, and buried
Confucian scholars alive.  Pound supports him because he consolidated
empire.  My conclusion would be that during the period in which the China
Cantos were written, Pound's enthusiasm for imperialism even overcame his
devotion to Confucianism.  How else could Pound's enthusiasm for the
Confucian-burying emperor, and for Genghis Khan, be explained?

>With regard to the pyschoanalytic approach and the mind of the artist: to
>what extent is Pound's mind a passive antennae, and to what extent is it
>directed by conscious will?  Pound seems to want to have it both ways!

Yes. I agree.

>He
>writes often of the Direction of the Will, and yet in the broadcasts (the
>full quote is somewhere in the EPOUND archives since I posted it here
>several months ago) he says that it doesn't matter what the artist thinks
>he
>is doing, if he uses his heightened senses and is candid when he portrays
>what he perceives, his art will reflect his times.  There, he seems to be
>moving away from the will's direction... towards letting "the wind speak".
>

Yes.  The emphasis on will is a feature of Right Hegelianism in general, and
of fascism in particular.  It permeated the philosophical milieu of fascist
Italy.  The passivity, the "let the wind speak" attitude, seems more typical
of Pound's very late writings, after the fascist impetus is largely spent,
and the belief in Confucius and in Mussolini is abandoned.

Regards,

Wei


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