> > > > >   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
> >


> 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?


Imagine that Pound is reading "letters to the editor" on the subject of
Latin as the language of the mass; imagine him becoming incensed at the
opinions of both the laity and the clergy.  Some may be writing that latin
is a dead language while others may be saying that the hearts of the people
are not in the mass, or appealing to papal authority, or explaining the
meaning and purpose of certain phrases in the liturgy by bombarding the
reader with passages from the Summa Theologica about the "mysterium fidei".
Whereas Pound would be thinking something like this:

"Paganism included a certain attitude toward; a certain understanding of,
coitus, which is the mysterium. The other rites are the festivals of
fecundity of the grain and the sun festivals, without revival of which
religion can not return to the hearts of the people."

To the extent that the clergy are given to theological book-learning and
doctrinal disputations, Pound would condemn them all as "half-educated".
Pound's gripe isn't about city mice/country mice or about studing theology
in Rome over Kansas City.


> 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?

If neither the celebrant nor the congregation understand the "abracadbra"
how is there a barrier between them?

>  I can't imagine
> that he really cares about the spiritual well-being of the "bloody public"
> and this is what concerns me.

Here I disagree.  The animus Pound is feeling here is not directed at people
in general but at "members of the public".  You might think of Pound's
language here as an earlier form of ranting against those who feel entitled
to express an opinion on a subject solely on the grounds that they are
"consumers" or "taxpayers".  Do you know what I mean?

We can agree that Pound was in many respects an elitist. He considered
himself deeply and widely read and to have taken the time and trouble to get
at the essence and causes of things political, literary, social, economic,
historical. I believe he felt himself superior in his accomplishments.  He
was aware that his mother's family looked down upon his father's. (Therein
lies a chapter at least.)  You ask whether I find "elitism" disturbing. Not
really, provided it does not infringe upon anyone's inalienable rights. I
have more trouble, as I said, with levelling, such as civil service rules
which inculcate mediocrity by failing to promote and reward excellence,  or
revolutions which kill off anyone who can read.

> 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.

Yes, it is possible. The system should have checks and balances against both
aristocratic and mob rule. It should establish a somewhat hobbled executive,
and a slightly activist judiciary when individual rights and protection from
the State are at issue.

I have viewed Pound's condemnation of figures like Empress Wu in the context
of his anti-communism but will consider your arguments that Pound believed
in a rigid caste system.
Regards,
Tim Romano