> It is, I believe, an obvious truth that our Poundian scholars, for the last
> twenty years, have not performed the function of scholars but of critics.
> This is, in and of itself, a remarkable thing. Those who should preserve the
> poet also wish to judge him. And what is the basis of their criticism? Is it
> on the basis of manuscripts newly discovered, or textual difficulties finally
> resolved? Has some discovery been made about the poems? Is it, in short, on
> the basis of scholarship?
>
> No. These scholars wish to criticize Pound because of his life, and more
> particularly his political sympathies. Thus, the poet has been re-evaluated
> on the basis of moral criteria, which in the realm of literary judgment, is
> the oldest fallacy.
 
No -- the oldest fallacy is that great literary works transcend moral and
political issues. Pound himself certainly didn't believe that, so I think it
takes an extraordinarily willful reading to claim the Cantos have somehow been
tainted by political readings.
 
Bill Freind