Allow to address points which Mr. Surette made in reply to one of my posts I wrote: "Mr. Surette says that it is innacurate to argue that Pound's anti-semitism stemmed from one negative encounter with a potential sponsor who was Jewish. I don't think I was arguing that. Pound himself describes the incident in his letter, and he apparently attaches some importance to it. My only claim is that this is just one early illustration of the larger pattern. I don't think Mr. Surette is denying this pattern. I think he agrees with me that Pound's antisemitism was ingrained and was a sort of illness." Mr. Surette replied: "I do deny the pattern articulated by Casillo and En Lin Wei. Pound's anti-Semitism was the product of his political engagement and not the cause of it. I don't think this position excuses him in any way, but it is a serious error, in my view, to regard the behaviour of any individual as determined by some single factor that is present in their psyche from birth or early childhood. I recognize that Freudians and behaviourists alike are committed t othe latter view, and racists to the former. I am unfriendly to both ranges of opionion." I have never argued that Pound's anti-semitism was the cause of his political engagement. In fact I agree with you that it probably was not. Nor do I subscribe to the view that "individual behavior is determined by some single factor present in their psyche from birth or early childhood." Like you, I am "unfriendly" toward both the behaviorist and Freudian views of psychological development (and toward the racist view). Was there something I said which would lead you to attribute to me the use of either of these psychological theories? I hope not. As to the view which I did express, "that Pound's anti-semitism was a sort of ingrained mental illness," I did not express any theory view regarding its genesis in Pound's mind. My main interest has been in the texts, in the letters, in the speeches, in the articles, and in all public utterances of Pound, and in their cultural implications. As to whether Pound was mentally ill, and if so, to what degree, you expressed the idea on this list, before I did, the view that Pound was in some sense mentally ill, specifically the view that his anti-semitism was a kind of mental illness. You may or not be committed to that view. I am sympathetic to it, but I do not think it especially relevant to the interpretation of Pound's work. As to your statement: "I do deny the pattern articulated by Casillo and En Lin Wei," allow me to clarify. You seem to be speaking about a psychological pattern. I believe I have been very consistent in expressing the view that in Pound's TEXTS, there is a pattern. His texts frequently express fascist, anti-democratic, racist, imperialistic, and feudalist ideological notions (in creative, imaginative, and totally original ways, I might add, for those who think I slight Pound). So when you speak of a "pattern" you may be looking at something different. You might be performing psychoanalysis or a some other form of analysis. I am not sure. If you want to see the primary and secondary texts which have influenced my interpretation you can look at the bibliography at: http://www.geocities.com/weienlin/poundindex.html [There is a fairly detailed article on Pound's economic theory too, which may interest you. As far as your more recent book is concerned, can you give us the title again? I have misplaced the earlier post in which you mentioned it. Are there any excerpts of it posted on the Web which I could look at? And if so, what is the web address?]. Regards, Wei ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com