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