My best compliment fot what Bill Freind wrote: to me it looks that he got to the point. Fabio Franceschini CCU Eruditio Universit` di Trento http://student.gelso.unitn.it/~eruditio Gavin wrote: > He was a fascist. One of my biggest gripes about the studies of literature and fascism is that almost no one bothers to define the term. Pick up any history of generic fascism and a number of pages will be dedicated to discussing what -- if anything -- fascism actually is. To take a simple example: Italian fascism is radically different in 1922, 1933, 1938 and 1942. Mussolini drew his support from an almost bizarre collection of people: socialists, revolutionary syndicalists, the arditi (Italian shock troops), the Futurists, conservative nationalists, etc. Later, he drew at least nominal support from the Vatican and big business. If Italian fascism is complicated, throw in German National Socialism, the various French varieties, the authoritarian governments in Spain, Portugal, Hungary, and even Juan Peron in Argentina and then come up with a definition. Did Pound support Mussolini? Of course. Does that make him a "fascist?" Not necessarily. Pound seems to disregard or perhaps willfully ignore many of the central tenets of fascism, especially its emphasis on war and its nationalism. The core of Pound's political beliefs is an idiosyncratic Confucianism which makes him value the "insight" of certain powerful political leaders. That's why at the same time he's celebrating the Duce, he's corresponding with Bronson Cutting, Upton Sinclair, Huey Long, etc. etc. etc. Tim Redman uses the term "philofascist," which seems right to me. A final polemic: too many of the studies of literature and fascism try to reduce fascism to a manageable bogeyman. As excellent as Casillo's book is on EP's anti-Semitism, it's an utter disaster on his politics: Casillo seems to want to make Pound a garden variety fascist, despite the fact that it's arguable whether such a thing even existed. Bill Freind