EPOUND-L Archives

- Ezra Pound discussion list of the University of Maine

EPOUND-L@LISTS.MAINE.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"A. David Moody" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
A. David Moody
Date:
Tue, 4 Jul 2000 12:24:05 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (34 lines)
En Lin Wei is entitled to his views, but he should not falsify the record.
In two postings on 2 July he writes about Pound's citation of the Chinese
character chung1 [Matthews 1504] in "Communications" in *Townsman* II.6
(April 1939) 12-13.

He describes "Communications" as "a one-page tract", and in his finding
reference mentions only p.12.  It is in fact over two full pages.  He says
the character chung1 "is writ large in the centre of the page".  It is in
fact  near the foot of p.12.  He says "it bears a certain resemblance to the
Nazi swastika, especially since it is placed in close proximity to the
words, written in bold capitals--'THE NAZI MOVEMENT IN GERMANY'".  In his
next sentence that becomes "next to the phrase 'THE NAZI MOVEMENT' [etc.]".
In fact chung1 is in the communication headed "I / MONEY" (on p.12), and "II
/  THE NAZI MOVEMENT" etc. is the heading of the next communication (on
p.13).  Mr Wei then gives a quotation from II as if it were part of I.

In his second posting he gives a detailed account of the way in which chung1
has been altered "to make it look more like a swastika", by the addition of
"horizontal strokes at the top and bottom" of the vertical stroke bisecting
the "square".  Look up The Cantos 70/413 and you will see exactly what he is
describing, for that is the (rather crude) penning of the character  which
was reproduced in *The Townsman*.  (It is identical with the penning of the
character in the Faber first ed. in 1940 of *Cantos LII-LXXI*, p.179.)
There is no horizontal stroke at the bottom of the central vertical stroke.
The short stroke at its top--which is not at all as Mr Wei represents it in
his diagram--is an error (comparable to a mis-spelling), probably made by
someone (Dorothy?) copying the character and mistaking the thicker brushwork
sometimes found at the top of the stroke for a separate brushstroke.   (See
76/454, 77/464, and 84/540 for other, cruder, efforts; and 85/550 and 554
for more correct versions.)  Mr Wei's "unmistakable"  "alterations"  are all
in the eye of the prosecutor reading Pound, as ever, with extreme prejudice.

ADM

ATOM RSS1 RSS2