I wrote this a couple of days ago in response to some questions that Wei
raised about a post of mine:

What EP does quite unlike anyone before or since is the art of putting
the act of the mind into words. I rephrase here 40 volumes of aesthetic
criticism i suppose, the cue is "direct perception of form" --something
he learned from artists like Gaudier-Brzeska (as EP tells it).

So when Wei writes: "[So the "ugliness" comes in part from the content,
and the ideas expressed, I take it.  May the same be said of the
beauty?  I ask this in anticipation of another question, which I ask
below]," I can only respond, "No, the beauty does not come from the
sunset but from the perception of form. EP requires a different
distinction between content and form than is normal for literary
analysis. To remind us of that I chose my second quote concerning an
"ant." When the mind swings by a grass-blade / an ant's forefoot shall
save you / the clover leaf smells and tastes as its flower" (LXXXIII
553). Here is direct perception, that is all, beautifully all, because
of its power to transport the mind. Everything that most readers will
need in terms of content is here. Volumes have been written on the
relation of 'is' and 'as' of metaphor and concretion.

I would similarly argue that the ugliness of the Cantos is an ugliness
of language rather than polemics (not that the polemics themselves
aren't ugly too). I suppose I could justify what I have just said with
some post-structural bon mots. Still it seems eveident that an an ugly
polemical cast of mind made him incapable of editing or constructing the
ugliness of his text with aesthetic feeling. EP is not Celine.

I might also agree that is some overarching way Confuscianism and
fascism are layers of a palimpsestic entity that EP uniquely perceived
and found to be beautiful, although Wei finds it ugly. Therefore, in my
last post I raised the question, here rephrased, does this percpetion on
EP's part have any world historical signifigance? I think not. If it
did, EP's historical position as the Vergil of Fascism would be well
established.

Your point Wei often seems to be that what Pound sees in this double
connection is manufactured and false to history, far from what any
Chinese thinker of the time could relate to. We also know that Mussolini
and other fascists in power thought EP a mad man, author of obscure,
difficult texts -- the writings in themselves having no use for Fascism
but the man presented them with the possibility of a diverting
spectacle.

So, if Wei is correct in seeing a particular ugliness in the overlay of
Confucianism and fascism, the question remains: of what use is such a
perception? A limited use of helping us focus through the facets of his
"big ball of crystal" I suppose? or of some use in understanding the
real limits of Confuscianism in Chines History? -- but it would seem
there are better ways to address this later point. Or are we to take
seriously Achilles Fang's notion that EP is in fact a major figure in
the Confucian tradition?  My point is that none of this leads me too far
either in terms of assessing EP politically or aesthetically.

--
Donald Wellman
http://www.dwc.edu/users/wellman/wellman.htm