Did Pound believe in the Constitution?

Tim Romano says,

>I think Pound had a fervent, sincere, idealistic belief
>in the power of certain key political documents, the US >Constitution and
>the
>Magna Carta among them.  These documents represent the unwobbling, the
>precise, the firm, the inheritance of western civilization, the clearly and
>simply stated Will of the Founding Fathers. These documents mean so much to
>Pound that I would be very slow to dismiss these passages as statements
>made
>out of convenience or mere expedience.

I would really like to believe that Pound did believe in the US
Constitution.  When I first began to study Pound, I believed that he did
believe not only in democracy, but in "economic democracy."  But Pound did
not believe in Democracy in the sense which you do, Tim Romano, nor in the
sense in which I do; nor did he believe in the Constitution the way you and
I do.

If he did, where did he enunciate his understanding of the Constitution?
Where in the Cantos did he actually quote any part of the Constitution, in
support of the basic principles which are antithetical to fascsim, namely
the rule of law over men, the system of checks and balances, and the vesting
of the supreme power of law-making, and the power of the purse in an elected
legislature?  When he spoke favorably of the Constitution, and I admit he
did (in the vaguest terms) what was the context, and what he saying about
the Constitution?  If he liked the Constituion , what did he like about it?
  And if he did highly value the US Consitution, as you suggest, why was he
so interested in China, Confucianism (which is an authoritarian doctrine),
and in Confucian texts?  And how could he reconcile these interests?

Confucian texts are quoted numerous times throughout the Cantos, and at
great length, while I believe quotations from the Constitution are very few
and far between (perhaps there are none at all).  So why the far, far
greater interest in Chinese  imperial texts?

Allow me to suggest why, I think, he did not care about those features of
the Constitution which enshrine the values suitable for a Republic; and why
he put such an emphasis on Confucian texts.

Pound composed a list of classics, a sort of literary canon to be used as
compasses for the new "totalitarian synthesis."  The list, included at the
end of the Guide to Kulchur, is entitled "AS SEXTANT," and has seven
headings:  "I  The FOUR BOOKS (Confucius and Mencius).  II  HOMER . . .
III   The Greek TRAGEDIANS  . . .   IV   DIVINA COMMEDIA . . .  V
FROBENIUS . . .    VI   BROOKS ADAMS:  Law of Civilization and Decay   VII
The English Charters, the essential parts of BLACKSTONE . . .  The American
Constitution."  Pound's attitude can be gauged partly by the fact that the
Confucian classics appear first on the list, while the U.S. Constitution
appears last.  No valid assessment of Pound's thought is possible without
acknowledging that works like the Confucian Analects and the Ta Hio have a
primary significance for the poet OVER and ABOVE any documents or texts
belonging to Western tradition, such as the U.S. Constitution, which Pound
regards merely as an "amenity". Pound states this straightforwardly in a
brief paragraph after the seven headings:

                        As the FOUR BOOKS contain answers to all
                problems of conduct that can arise, a man who
                understands them may regard the other six com-
                ponents of this list as amenities rather than
                necessities
                                (GK, 352).

So Pound believed the Constitution was not a "necessity", that it was an
"amenity";  while the Four Books contain "answers to all problems".
        Pound believed that the social stability of over two thousand years of
Chinese history was reflected in the stability of the Chinese literary
canon.  The "Four Books" were the essential basis of virtually all official
scholarly research during this long stretch of time.  No similar claim could
be made for any Western set of texts.  The ideological and
religio-philosophical tension that exists between such works as the Bible,
the writings of Plato and Aristotle, the records of the deeds of the Roman
Emperors, the writings of the Church Fathers, the Koran, the prose and
poetry of Renaissance authors, and the writings of the American Founders --
that is to say, the tension which exists between works which have
significantly affected the development of Mediterranean and Euro-American
civilization -- cannot be resolved to Pound's satisfaction.  Pound craved
order.  Thus, the Guide to Kulchur begins with a quotation from the
Confucian Analects.

                Said the Philosopher:  you think that I have learned a great deal, and
kept the whole of it in my memory?
                 . . .  It is not so.  I have reduced it all to one
                principle
                        (GK, 15).

Pound says elsewhere that he is interested in a text that can be used
"against ambiguity."  It is difficult for him to locate it  in the Western
tradition.  Thus, the answer to the question "Why Pound's interest in China"
is to be found not merely in the myth of Chinese social stability (as
opposed to the relatively chaotic succession of civilizations in the West),
but in the fact that a small set of texts can be used as the basis of a
project to construct a stable social order, as Chinese history appears to
show.  Never mind the fact that, in addition to the Confucian canon, there
is a Legalist philosophical canon, a Buddhist religious canon, and a Taoist
canon, and that members of these various schools of thought have tried to
synthesize such contradictory philosophies.  Never mind that study of the
intricate relationships between these different strands of Chinese thought
yields as many ambiguities, quandaries, and contradictions as the study of
Western intellectual history. Pound preferred to believe the myth of one set
of texts, because the Confucian texts did dominate, for the most part, the
propagation of official ideology, and they allowed him to "reduce it all to
one principle."

The principle was the identical with the central tenet of fascism:  A strong
and good man can bring order.

It is a doctrine which is not consistent with democracy, with a republic, or
with a constitutional form of government.  Why?  Because the basic principle
of Constitutional government is the axiom:  all men, no matter how strong
they are, or how good they may appear, must be subject to the law, a law
which is made by elected representatives.


Regards,

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