Crazy old Ezra Pound?

Does anyone have an opinion on the actual mental state of Ezra Pound? He was tried for treason during WWII--or rather, first tried for sanity to determine whether he was fit to stand trial for treason, and found to actually be insane. However, there seems to be an intimation that he was only presented as insane, by friends such as T. S. Eliot, as a means of protecting him from charges of treason. I'm sure that being locked in a wire cage for some duration would be detrimental to anyone's sanity. Do you think that his "Cantos" could be a sure sign of mental imbalance?

Pound is one of my favorite poets. I maintained a severe hatred of him for quite a number of years, until I became (grudgingly) acquainted with his good poems in an American Literature class, and was forced to concede that he was a brilliant poet. But I feel that he lost his poetic sense somewhere along the way. Perhaps as a result of becoming famous, or an actual mental breakdown, his poetry seems to have lost its edge and clarity.

As for his prose, I read his book Jefferson and/or Mussolini last year, and thought it the worst pile of crap writing since Mein Compf. The political intention of the work was interesting, and I could somehow grant him the comparison, but the writing was awful. Could this actually be evidence of a disordered mind, or do you think it merely a bid for a certain avantgarde persona? :confused:

Pound is a favorite of mine too. I'm no psychiatrist, so I don't know how to evaluate. He was off center, but I think he knew what he was doing. He was unstable but he did deserve his prison sentence.

Howdy, Virgil!

I"m coming to the conclusion that he knew what he was doing as well.

Quote:

---

He was unstable but he did deserve his prison sentence.

---

That's very interesting. Do you think he was actually guilty of treason for what he said on the radio? I don't have any way of quoting his broadcasts at the moment, but I've read transcripts of them and couldn't make out any actual treasonous statements, although he was quite outspoken against Roosevelt, and for fascism. Do you think he ought to have gone to prison instead of the asylum?

More evidence:

Quote:

---

And I?
I have gone half cracked,
-Ezra Pound from his poem "Further Instructions"

---

:D Straight from the poets own pen! :lol:

From what little I read of him this semester (and I should review Cantos before writing this I'm sure, but I'm too lazy :p) he didn't seem any more insane than most notable writers. I'm sure he was perfectly aware of himself and what he was saying and doing...though some of his experiences may have pushed him to say and do things that might be considered "insane" by others...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jean-Baptiste

Howdy, Virgil!

I"m coming to the conclusion that he knew what he was doing as well.

That's very interesting. Do you think he was actually guilty of treason for what he said on the radio? I don't have any way of quoting his broadcasts at the moment, but I've read transcripts of them and couldn't make out any actual treasonous statements, although he was quite outspoken against Roosevelt, and for fascism. Do you think he ought to have gone to prison instead of the asylum?

More evidence:

:D Straight from the poets own pen! :lol:

---

Well, I have to dig out my Ezra Pound bio, but he clearly was supporting the fascists while we were at war with them. Actually I think I remember some of his broadcasts were trying to persuade our soldiers and our country to not fight. He was trying to undermine our will. As to prison versus asylum, I think it was only because of the literary community persuading judges to have some leniency. Actually treason during war time was and may still be a death penalty sentence.

Well is it said, "The first casualty of war is truth."

Before Blank entered into the recent war with Incog, there were over a million people who actively protested against the war. Do you think that these should all have been jailed, if they expressed the same view after war had been declared?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shannanigan

he didn't seem any more insane than most notable writers.

---

That's a very good point, Shannanigan. What have we come to expect of writers? Answer: insanity.

Yes, I think you're right, Virgil: His prosecutors were pushing for the death penalty. Perhaps I was a bit misleading when I said that I had read transcripts; I haven't read all of the transcripts, but only several that were specifially cited as treasonous. One of my favorite selections from those is as follows:

Quote:

---

...any man who submits to Roosevelt's treason to the public commits breach of citizen's duty. There is no connection between submittin' to the Roosevelt-Morgenthau frauds and patriotism. There is no connection between such submission and winning this war--or any other. There is no patriotism in submittin' to the prolonged and multiple frauds of the Roosevelt administration and to try to make the present support of these frauds figure as loyalty to the American Union, to the American Constitution, to the American heritage is just as much dirt or bunkum.

---

This quote comes from a transcript printed in The Trial of Ezra Pound by Julien Cornell.

I don't presume to know lots about the Roosevelt administration (and I justify this discussion on the grounds that it is not "current" politics) but these seem like powerful statements of opinion that ought to be allowed by a government based on the political theories of Thomas Jefferson.

As for persuading our country not to fight, I don't believe the broadcasts aired in the United States. I can't answer for any persuasion over the soldiers, but it seems that I also read that they were not recieved on military bases either. Not that that's a justification.

In any case, despite instances of ranting in the courtroom, and absolutely illegible letters written, I'm becoming quite convinced that the man was entirely level-headed.

Quote:

---

I think it was only because of the literary community persuading judges to have some leniency.

---

Yes, I agree. It was a rather powerful community at the time, despite the fact that most of the major players were expatriots. :alien:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whifflingpin

Well is it said, "The first casualty of war is truth."

Before Blank entered into the recent war with Incog, there were over a million people who actively protested against the war. Do you think that these should all have been jailed, if they expressed the same view after war had been declared?

---

Yes, the first casualty of war is truth. And so is revisionism. There is a clear distinction between protesting and treason. Pound wasn't protesting. He was broadcasting on Italian radio on Italian soil supporting Mussolini who we were in a war with. That's the minimum. It was more than that. That is enough for me. He was captured, put in prison, and was to stand trial. I believe his defense was insanity, so he did not dispute the charges. American soldiers were being killed in action and when someone is on the soil of the enemy country supporting the enemy government and rooting for the the death of the soldiers from the country he comes from, that's treason.

I'm afraid I am unclear what you're refering to specifically with "revisionism". Do you use the word to indicate updating history, or revolution?

I think at one point during the trial he blurted out a rather incoherent statement about how he had never supported Fascism, which we know to be absolutely false, but in a way could count as at least an attempt to deny the charges, and perhaps indicate remorse.

I'm curious then, Virgil, how is your opinion of Pound's poetic merit influenced by his political misdeeds, if at all?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Pound is a favorite of mine too.

---

Are you successfully able to divorce his politics from his poetics (as one may not be able to do with Aristotle. ;) ) I admire that capability in a reader.

I have no idea whether he was insane by any definition, but he certainly did not commit treason as defined in the US Constitution, which requires overt acts against the US: Acts, not Speech. Speech is protected under the First Amendment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

I have no idea whether he was insane by any definition, but he certainly did not commit treason as defined in the US Constitution, which requires overt acts against the US: Acts, not Speech. Speech is protected under the First Amendment.

---

He was in Italy (enemy soil) supporting Mussolini's government on radio broadcasts and trying to convince American soldiers to not fight. That is a treasonal ACT. Free speech is protest. He wasn't protesting policy. If it wasn't for the insanity he would have been convicted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jean-Baptiste

I'm afraid I am unclear what you're refering to specifically with "revisionism". Do you use the word to indicate updating history, or revolution?

---

I think certain revisionism has occured since then.

Quote:

---

I think at one point during the trial he blurted out a rather incoherent statement about how he had never supported Fascism, which we know to be absolutely false, but in a way could count as at least an attempt to deny the charges, and perhaps indicate remorse.

---

If he were to not have the insanity out, it is generally acknowledged that he would have been convicted.

Quote:

---

I'm curious then, Virgil, how is your opinion of Pound's poetic merit influenced by his political misdeeds, if at all?

Are you successfully able to divorce his politics from his poetics (as one may not be able to do with Aristotle. ;) ) I admire that capability in a reader

---

Well, thanks. He wrote some excellent poems. It's not just the political ideas that I divorce. Frankly that's not too hard since fascism is soundly defeated as an ideology and this occured well before my life time. What's much harder to divorce from Pound's work is the veriluent racism and anti-semitism that runs throughout. Those works I tend to cast aside. It has prevented him from being a great poet, and his character throughout eternity is stained. And that is far more important than being a great poet. Racist, fascist, traitor. That is his ultimate legacy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

What's much harder to divorce from Pound's work is the veriluent racism and anti-semitism that runs throughout. Those works I tend to cast aside. It has prevented him from being a great poet, and his character throughout eternity is stained. And that is far more important than being a great poet. Racist, fascist, traitor. That is his ultimate legacy.

---

What a sad thing that is. Yes, I'm very disappointed in him, and T.S. Eliot, for the anti-semitism. Although, I've read somewhere (I think it might have been on this forum) that their brand of anti-semitism would not be recognized as such at all, compared to say Nazi Brand. I don't know about that, and it certainly isn't a justification to assume that a hatred is alright because it's not the genocidal sort of hatred. Hatred is hatred, and intollerance is an ugly business.

Yes, stained.

As for ultimate legacy, do you think that as the politics of that era become more and more a thought of the distant past, that his poetry may resurface as his defining contribution? It would seem that we are far more willing to focus on one's works, the less we are directly affected by their life or agenda. In actuality, it was not until I began studying Pound, that I had any idea of these sordid details of a fascist's life. WWII is not so removed from my era that it has ceased to have an impact on my generation--but even now Pound's politics seem to have taken a backseat to his poetry in the eyes of the casual observer of poetry. If you asked people on the street who was Ezra Pound, do you think you'd get more answers of fascist traitor, or poet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jean-Baptiste

What a sad thing that is. Yes, I'm very disappointed in him, and T.S. Eliot, for the anti-semitism. Although, I've read somewhere (I think it might have been on this forum) that their brand of anti-semitism would not be recognized as such at all, compared to say Nazi Brand.

---

Well I'm not sure what you mean. I'm sure there are gradations of anti-semitism. I don't think either Pound or Eliot would have advocated the halocaust. Eliot after the halocaust never uttered an anti-semitic statement and may have regretted his past.

Quote:

---

As for ultimate legacy, do you think that as the politics of that era become more and more a thought of the distant past, that his poetry may resurface as his defining contribution? It would seem that we are far more willing to focus on one's works, the less we are directly affected by their life or agenda. In actuality, it was not until I began studying Pound, that I had any idea of these sordid details of a fascist's life. WWII is not so removed from my era that it has ceased to have an impact on my generation--but even now Pound's politics seem to have taken a backseat to his poetry in the eyes of the casual observer of poetry. If you asked people on the street who was Ezra Pound, do you think you'd get more answers of fascist traitor, or poet?

---

I'm not sure if the politics ever affected his poetic reputation on campus. I speak of prior to the University system becomeing so passionately political (feminism, post modernism). Back when I was an undergraduate (early 1980s), we studied Pound and divorced his ideology from his poetry. He was held up quite high. I have no idea what has happened in the last decade. The feminists and post modernists (of all pursuasions) do not as a rule divorce their politics with their literary assessments. Given that D.H. Lawrence and T.S. Eliot have been reduced in importance in recent years, I suspect so has Pound.

BTW, I presented Pound's Canto XVII for poem of the week discussion a while back. You can check it out here: http://www.online-literature.com/for...=poemoftheweek. I start the discussion on post # 107.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

He was in Italy (enemy soil) supporting Mussolini's government on radio broadcasts and trying to convince American soldiers to not fight. That is a treasonal ACT. Free speech is protest. He wasn't protesting policy. If it wasn't for the insanity he would have been convicted.

---

No, speech is not treason at any time or place. What can be treasonous about saying to soldiers: "Don't fight"? Did Ezra take up arms against US troops?

Your assertion is comparable to the silly assertion that Jane Fonda committed treason by going to Hanoi, and talking Ho, etc, even though the US wasn't even at war.