Dan, I will have to think on what you say some more! Charles, you remind
me of that '30s silent film made of *The Niebelungenlied*; of how a lot of
Wagner's family descendents were Hitler enthusiasts; but, I really don't
understand your suggestion that, now, for some, there is an experience of
guilt, or remorse, over "our" 'victory' - I'm not sure how to take such a
suggestion, and fporgive me if I've completrely misunderstood you
(knowing as I do little about the dragon myuth); I'd connect the German
volk myth that the Nat'l Soc. tapped into, to such images as the dragon
(you seem to want to separate historical accident from the myth). On other
stuff, I have three tangential comments:

1. Lawrence Rainey valuably critiques New Critical positivism in pages of
*Monument*, for its concept of history, and inflexible relation of poetic
text to history so conceived. As I recall, he describes how Pound's
byte-sized use of historical allusion contributed to the consolidation of
the footnote version of history as a means of containing the poem's
sprawling social references.
        The footnote is the formal vehicle of critical knowledge for the
'institutionalized' poem -- think of Norton anthologies. The function of
the footnote seems a prototype of the guide, as genre.
        I agree Terrell's synthesis of other partial efforts at guides to
*The Cantos* is monumental, a landmark in the reception of Pound's work
that renders criticism of *The Cantos* prior to its publication tinged
with a sort of heroism, challenging what comes after to start from a
different footing within Pound's text.
        Pound's work has always been utterly 'impacted' within the
institution of literature -- for all his rants against its denizens, ie
critics -- by sheer virtue of the high cultural ambition reflected in
virtually every line of his work, however colloquial the disguise.
        . . . I wonder what it was like to read Pound when the cantos were
coming out, an experience some of you on this list have had. Charles
Olson, for instance, shows himself truly perplexed in 1945, by the lack of
discussion, among poets, of Pound's poetry, given that P's poetry, and
Poetry itself, was on trial along with Pound's own self (as radio
broadcaster), for treason, in the public mind at any rate (so thought
Olson). Olson is convinced at that date that Pound was an anti-semite of
the worst kind (intellectual), a fascist, and a cultural elitist --  but
also, knew that Pound's poetry was vital to his own understanding of the
craft. It seems there was unavailable a language with which to articulate
all this (MacLeish the exception?).
        Do you think it is arguable (is there evidence) that while Pound
and his total oeuvre was canonized, *The Cantos*, his major work, was
never read?

2. The question of tone reminds me of an interesting chapter in Michael
North's *Dialectics of Modernism*, which examines the use of slang by
Pound and Eliot, particularly in their letters. I am also reminded of
another interesting excursus into Pound's tonal affect, in this case, in
the context of genre: the chapter on popular primers by Michael Coyle
(unfortunately I forget his book's title).
        Methodologically, both provide examples of how cultural studies,
which was set up to unseat the institutional power of high modernist
texts, can disclose new areas of research for the poetic text, even the
high modernist text! Both help toward understanding Pound's various tonal
registers, in their dialectical and idiolectical milieus.

3. In this last connection (relation of tone to genre) I am intrigued by
Pound's use of a fool figure (Glock, the clown) in C87, because there are
so few instances of specifically fool-like humour in *The Cantos* -- which
is as to be expected, for an epic, and given Pound's themes. Glock plays
the role it seems to me of a Shakespearean clown figure in C87, in that he
dispenses wisdom on the side of those in power (unlike, eg, The Green Man
type fool, who thumbs his nose at power and responsibility). That is how
Pound is *using* the clown figure in those lines (whereas, historically --
based on Terrell... -- Glock's mode seems slapstick, ie not
Shakespearian). Usually, in *The Cantos*, a fool is just a fool (eg the
European royalty, in C32); the fool is not a worthy character type, there
is no special knowledge that he has, or gifted role that he plays (or
might play) in society.

All best,
Louis