>I'm not sure I understand the purport of any of Lee Lady's messages. But to >the extent that facts may be useful: > >1. The term "antisemitism" is usually defined in terms of prejudicial >ideas, not physical violence. That was certainly the intent of the man who >coined the term, Wilhelm Marr. However, Marr used the vocabulary of combat >as the vehicle of his central metaphor. For instance, the title of the >pamphlet where the term "Antisemitismus" first appears (Bern, 1879) is _Der >Sieg des Judenthums ueber das Germanenthum_. In the light of subsequent >events, it's hard not to remember that sometimes "Sieg" means "Sieg." A lot of people, especially academics, have difficulty in understanding the purport of many things I write. I hope that this will continue to be the case and that I never start writing messages that are amenable to the sort of neat labeling and pigeonholing that academics are so fond of. In this respect, I do think I have a little something in common with Pound. The Pound of the CANTOS, at least, if not the Pound of the literary essays. As I understand it, this list is intended to serve the needs of two clienteles, which overlap considerably: namely those whose interest in Pound is literary and those whose interest is biographical. My own interest is, I think, primarily biographical, although over the past year I've done quite a bit of re-reading of the CANTOS and some of Pound's other poetry and even more reading of critical works. But presumably, everything we discuss should somehow relate to Ezra Pound. My assumption would be that if someone posts a long book review to the list which talks about violence against Jews and desecration of Jewish cemeteries, then there is an implication that this has something to do with EP. Since the connection was not explicitly stated, we are left to make our own inferences. I wondered whether the poster of the message was suggesting that Pound was somehow responsible for the acts of violence referred to. I think that Pound's anti-semitism is certainly a legitimate topic of discussion. As I've stated before, I find it in a way the least interesting aspect of Pound's biography, since it is the least original --- the most banal. On the other hand, it is in a another way of great importance, because it seems to undermine Pound's claim to present a moral view, based on Confucius, of major value to the world. The sort of bigotry that Pound manifested was and is commonplace. As much so, I claim, among academics and liberals as among any other segment of the population. I sometimes find such bigotry quite apparent in some of the messages here criticizing Pound's own anti-semitism; it's just that it's applied to more socially accepted targets. However I think we are justified in demanding that someone such as Pound who claims to present a moral view for the world hold himself to a higher standard than the rest of us in this respect. However I think it's important to remember when we comment on Pound's anti-semitism that what we are criticizing are his private opinions. Not wholly private, certainly, to the extent that he was quite vociferous in voicing them to everyone he encountered and writing them in private letters. But we should make a distinction between opinions expressed in private conversations and private correspondence and the sort of anti-semitism which consists of writing anti-Jewish books and articles and sponsoring anti-semitic newspapers and magazines. To make the mere statement that Pound was an anti-semite does not convey the important distinctions. The Agresti letters have apparently been shocking to many people who never knew Pound (or, more precisely, a certain very small proportion of the total contents of those letters has been thus shocking). However we should remember that these letters were not intended as published attacks on Jews. They were private communications. I have to admit that if people were able to know all the beliefs I myself hold, I would be judged to be a dreadful person indeed. However I do have a little more discretion than Pound as far as talking to others about my more socially unacceptable beliefs. Of course the one glaring case where Pound was actively involved in promoting anti-semitism was his radio broadcasts, and it's hard to take issue with those who condemn them. There are also a few anti-semitic references in the CANTOS, but very few. There seemed to be something in Pound that realized, when he went into craftsman mode and his primary concern became producing a work of art, that although attacks on usury and arms dealers and financiers might be fine, on the contrary overt anti-semitism would be determental to the artistic value of the work.