William:
 
first of all, let's remember that we're speaking of free speech, and that
Pound, if had said what he said on the broadcasts within the borders of the
US, he would not have been threatened with a charge of treason.  treason is a
legal issue, not a moral one;  one is not charged with the moral crime of
treason, but with a criminal act.  Pound's friends acted to protect against
the criminal charge of treason, which was a capital crime.  in your response
you conflate the criminal with the moral, which I think is a mistake.  you
put a lot of trust in words like "giving aid and comfort to the enemy."  as
one who protested the vietnam war, I, along with others of similar mind, was
often accused in the media of doing just that, so you'll forgive me if I
don't pay much attention to such empty phrases.
 
secondly, to defend Pound on the basis of free speech isn't the same as
agreeing what he had to say.  clearly, much of what he said was morally
reprehensible, and he has been judged him harshly for it, as is appropriate.
but I for one don't think that what he did was treasonous, however rotten it
was.
 
remember that what I'm contesting is Bill's remarks that "In an earlier
posting it was suggested that EP was excercising his rights udner the US
Constitution, which seems to me an ndefensible premise. When you go over to
the other side during a war, you would seem to forfeit some constitutional
protections."  I continue to disagree that Pound went over to the other side,
or that he should have forfeited his constitutional protections, particularly
that of free speech.  I'm not as prepared as Bill, and apparently you, to
forfeit others rights to constitutional protections, which to me is a very
dangerous path to follow.
 
lastly, you ask "Indeed, doesn't it bankrupt it for all honest and good men
and women who believe in beauty and truth above all things? Doesn't it make a
mockery of his efforts to champion those civilisations which evinced a
balance of heart and mind?  a number of people, including Karl Shapiro,
certainly think so, but I don't.  if Pound had been evil through and through,
it would be another story, but he wasn't, so I'm willing to accept him for
who and what he was, confident that I can tell the difference between Pound
as political crank and Pound as artist.
 
joe....
 
 
 
In a message dated 9/4/99 5:41:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [log in to unmask]
writes:
 
<< Joe:
 
 The legal definition of "treason" is not simply taking up arms against
 one's country, or advocating that others do it.  Providing aid & comfort
 are the key concepts... and, from my reading of the broadcasts,
 one could argue this was exactly what Pound was providing, through
 his attack on Roosevelt and "his jews"... The notion that Pound was,
 indeed, guilty of "giving aid and comfort" - was no doubt shared by some
 of his closest friends, else why were they so keen to have him
 plead insanity?
 
 But there is a moral principle at work here which I feel is much
 more serious than the legal one...  Pound's public and poetic utterances
 against the Jews, his wholesale hatred - if we are to believe what he said
 and not what he meant - calls not only his work but his whole life into
 question... Can the work of an artist - an unquestionably great poet -
 be separated from that poet's life? Pound would say - and did say - it
 could. And, simple-mindedly, the answer is "yes, of course"... But in the
 case of the holocaust - in the case of a poet of Pound's genius and
 stature not speaking out, not caring; in fact, at times, seemingly
 applauding
 the extermination - doesn't this mitigate against his art. Indeed, doesn't
 it bankrupt it for all honest and good men and women who believe in beauty
 and truth above all things? Doesn't it make a mockery of his efforts to
 champion those civilisations which evinced a balance of heart and mind?
 
 This is one of the central questions I raise in my play, without
 beating the audience over the head with it. I present a sympathetic Pound,
 a Pound I lived in close proximity to for more than four years of my life...
 And next to this genius, this pacifist, this understander of Cathars, I
 placed
 the old hater, the glib anti-Semite, the village explainer... And I ask:
 
                    Is the beauty immune to the ugliness?
 
 Or does the ugliness - must the ugliness - ultimately corrupt and canker
 the finer abstractions?
 
 I have for some time waivered between thinking it does, and thinking it
 doesn't...  Yes, our system - as it is - upholds the principle of free
 speech...
 our democracy... i say "ours" as if it belongs to us - what a joke!
 There is no freedom of anything, let alone speech, so long as one upholds
 any kind of tyranny...
 
 Perhaps there is a kind of weird variation on Godel's proof going on in all
 of this... namely, freedom of speech can never be a reality until it is free
 enough to provide the proof of its own unreality.  Pound would've admitted
 to yelling FIRE!!!  I have no doubt... he would've also argued the theatre
 was in flames!
 
 Stoneking
 
 
 
  >>