> > > >   Mass ought to be in Latin, unless you could do it in
> > > >   Greek or Chinese.  In fact, any abracadabra that no
> > > >   bloody member of the public or a half-educated ape
> > > >   of a clargimint cd. think he understood
>

Thanks for your detailed analysis of this passage.  I remain puzzled by the
denial that this particular letter urges a condescending attitude toward the
laity or ordinary worshipper.   If your analysis of the neologism
"clargimint" is correct (and it makes sense to me), then Pound wants the
Mass in a language which neither the public nor the half-educated
clergy-varmint will understand.  Do you think that Pound is condemning ALL
clergy here, or only the rural or badly educated clergy?

What is essential to the spirit of the letter is a belief in maintaining a
barrier between those who control the religious service and those who submit
to it.  I really don't see how this can be denied.  Do you say something
else is going on here besides the erection of a barrier?  I can't imagine
that he really cares about the spiritual well-being of the "bloody public"
and this is what concerns me.

I said,

>  Pound sees himself as a member of the "elect".
>That is axiomatic.  Perhaps it is Hubris; perhaps it is part of the
>narrowness of his spiritual vision, inspite of the broadness of his
>intellectual and cultural interests.  Don't you find this sort of elitism
at
>all disturbing?

You replied,

>>No more disturbing than a radical "levelling" egalitarianism which seeks
>>to
>>eliminate the intelligentsia, or mob rule.  I prefer the center path that
>>recognizes varying degrees of human capability  and aptitude while
>>recognizing and enforcing inalienable human rights.

I asked if you found this sort of elitisim disturbing ---  I mean the sort
of elitism by which one elevates oneself ABOVE ones fellows, asserts that
one is a member of the "elect", by virtue of being a poet, being an
intellectual, or believing oneself to be morally or spirtually superior to
the mass of humanity.  You say "no more disturbing than . . . ."  But that
does not answer the question.


>>No more disturbing than a radical "levelling" egalitarianism which seeks
>>to eliminate the intelligentsia, or mob rule.

Does this sentence imply any of the following:

1.  Egalitarianism is radical.
2..  Egalitarianism is a form of levelling
3.  All egalitarians, radicals, or levellers seek to eliminate the
intelligensia.
4.  All egalitarians, radicals, or levellers seek mob rule.

Is it not possible to conceive of an egalitarianism which seeks economic and
social equality WITHOUT the "elimination of the intelligensia", and a form
of democracy WHICH IS NOT mob rule. I believe that those in the 1640's and
50's who called themselves "True Levellers" simply wanted an end to huge
landed estates, freedom ot work the common lands, and representative
democracy, without special advantages for the rich classes.  They did not
advocate mob rule, "elimination of the intelligencia", or even violence.
Winstanley and the Diggers believed much the same thing.

This relates directly to the discussion of Buddhism and Taoism.  Let us look
carefully at the China Cantos for instance.

For instance we find the phrase "damn buddhists" at 54/285.

"Fou stood against foe, damn buddhists."

We hear many critics say that Pound opposed Buddhists because they were
unworldly.  But examine what Terrell says about Fou

Fou, fl. 626 AD , petitioned that all Buddhist establishments be abolished.
[Pound no doubt knew this fact, which is contained in his source, the
"Histoire Generale de la Chine".  Praise of Fou does not speak well of those
who argue that Pound believes in freedom of religion.  So why did Fou want
to abolish Buddhist establishments?]   Buddhism de-emphasized the proper
relationships between the ruler and people, between the parents.  (Terrell,
vol. 1, p. 224)

This is the same justification given in mid-seventeenth century for jailing
Quakers and other religionists who did not favor hierarchical forms of
social organization.   Pound consistently sides with the oppressive forces
in Chinese history, and opposes those who question any traditional
hierarchical distinction.

Take Pound's treatment of Empress Wu, (Ou-heou).  She was a Buddhist, and is
therefore castigated by Pound.  Yet she was hardly "other-worldly", in her
poltical activity.

She was criticized by Pound because she "ran the country toward ruin . . ."
Actually, the main criticisms of her, besides the fact that she was a woman,
and that she was not from a highly aristocratic family, were as follows:

She "believed that people of low rank should be promoted.  To ingratitate
herself with farmers , artisans, women and officials of humble origins, she
did not hestate to overthrow hierarchy and upset the usual distinctions . .
. .   Empress Wu violated Emperor Taizong's regulations, and on the pretext
of making appointments based on ability, allows anyone at all to be
recommended for office, and people can even recommend themselves.  Family
background, reputation, and record of service are completely ignored."

A little research, and reading between the lines will lead one to conclude
that Empress Wu, far from running the "country toward ruin" tried to improve
society, encourage tolerance, and diminish the levels of sexism and
prejudice based on class origin.  Empress Wu encouraged the study of BOTH
Buddhist and Confucianist classics, for which reason she was hated by the
entrenched Confucians.  Pound of course dismisses her in one short phrase,
and as usual accepts the standard orthodox Confucian line.  He reads and
interprets Confucian historical literature the same way he reads Fascist
literature, with no appreciaton of opposition viewpoints, or the possiblity
that they (Confucians or fascists) could be committing atrocities.  This is
precisely because the sexist, classist, imperialist, and hierarchical views
which pervade such works are in complete harmony with his own views.   While
Empress Wu was not a perfect ruler, her virtues were ignored by Pound; she
is cast aside because she was a Buddhist and an egalitarian to some degree.
Rulers and ministers who oppose Buddhism and seek to exterminate its
manifestations are praised, simply by virtue of their being Confucians (who
are therefore always correct).


Regards,


Wei



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