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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

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.

---

Are you a lawyer? Do you dispute the fact that Pound was on trial for treason and that he had to resort to an insanity plea? Whether he would have been convict or not I don't know, I'm not a lawyer. But he needed the isanity plea, which tells you the staus of his defense.

From Wiki on treason in the United States:

Quote:

---

United States
To avoid the abuses of the English law (including executions by Henry VIII of those who criticized his repeated marriages), treason was specifically defined in the United States Constitution, the only crime so defined. Article Three defines treason as levying war against the United States or "in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort," and requires the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act or a confession in open court for conviction. Congress has, at times, passed statutes creating treason-like offense with different names (such as sedition in the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts, or espionage and sabotage in the 1917 Espionage Act) that do not require the testimony of two witnesses and have a much broader definition than Article Three treason. For example, some well-known spies have been convicted of espionage rather than treason.

---

At a minimum, Ezra Pound gave aid and comfort to the enemy.

And yes, I'd spit on Jane Fonda if she were in front of me. Well, perhaps decency would prevent me from doing that. I am one of those who has never supported Fonda since. I refuse to see a Fonda movie, even if it's on TV. She's hardly made anything of consequence since her repulsive actions, and it's because of there are enough people who loath her. Traitors deserve to be scorned.

I believe it was Arthur Koestler who said acts of creative genius are acts of divine madness.

I think we see in Pound, whether sane or not, the prisoner/poet (Dr. Eugene Paul Nassar's phrase in his book, The Cantos of Ezra Pound: The Lyric Mode) of The Pisan Cantos. Pound's "insanity" was merely the contextual product of his society, whose terraces are not made of the colour of stars so remains the human spirit in darkness where, without the sun, the light of the mind, remains in Dante's hell. Perhaps that state of mind is insanity or perhaps it is the creative human imagination's survival instinct when threatened?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Are you a lawyer? Do you dispute the fact that Pound was on trial for treason and that he had to resort to an insanity plea? Whether he would have been convict or not I don't know, I'm not a lawyer. But he needed the isanity plea, which tells you the staus of his defense.

---

I would dispute that "he had to resort to an insanity plea." but I never read the details of the case.

Quote:

---

And yes, I'd spit on Jane Fonda if she were in front of me. Well, perhaps decency would prevent me from doing that. I am one of those who has never supported Fonda since. I refuse to see a Fonda movie, even if it's on TV. She's hardly made anything of consequence since her repulsive actions, and it's because of there are enough people who loath her. Traitors deserve to be scorned.

---

That says more about you than it says about Ms Fonda. When there is no war, there is no emeny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

That says more about you than it says about Ms Fonda. When there is no war, there is no emeny.

---

57,000 American deaths. There was no war. I guess a Vietnam War memorial with all those names on it doesn't exist. :confused: :rolleyes: That says more about you than anything else.

http://www.kestan.com/dcstock/monume...ial%20wall.jpg


http://www.stinsonflyer.com/batcatsf/vwall26w.jpg

I'm proud of my loyalty to my country. Whether one support's one's government decision or not, once a decision has been made and a war has started, than being a traitor to one's country is the lowest form of life. Ever hear of Benedict Arnold?

Welcome to the forums, ctalerico! And thanks for joining this discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ctalerico

Pound's "insanity" was merely the contextual product of his society,

---

I agree with that whole heartedly.

Virgil, I've been to that wall, and was absolutely horror struck by the simplicity and directness with which it pays tribute. I have made a decent pilgrimage to many of this nation's monuments, and that one had by far the greatest impact on me.

Having said that, how is it that you marry this neo-patriotism to any sentiments of the proto-patriot Thomas Jefferson? After the Shays' Rebellion, Jefferson wrote a letter to James Madison offering advice on how to deal with the rebels (who were not merely exercising free speech) having been themselves a couple of the most recognizable and famous rebels and traitors in history. This is one of my favorite quotes from that man:

Quote:

---

I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government….
Yours affectionately,
Th. Jefferson

---

That comes from a man who feels secure in the power of the government that he's helped to build. I take him to suggest that free expression is one of the cornerstones of this nation, or any stable nation. On the other hand, denouncement of traitors and rebels seems only to intimate fear that one is indeed on the wrong side of a losing struggle.

I say these things not as a means of justifying Pound's actions (or Fonda's, whom I am tragically uninformed about) but only to ask whether your sentiments are entirely patriotic, or if they indeed contain a strong degree of nationalism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jean-Baptiste

Having said that, how is it that you marry this neo-patriotism to any sentiments of the proto-patriot Thomas Jefferson? After the Shays' Rebellion, Jefferson wrote a letter to James Madison offering advice on how to deal with the rebels (who were not merely exercising free speech) having been themselves a couple of the most recognizable and famous rebels and traitors in history. This is one of my favorite quotes from that man:

That comes from a man who feels secure in the power of the government that he's helped to build. I take him to suggest that free expression is one of the cornerstones of this nation, or any stable nation. On the other hand, denouncement of traitors and rebels seems only to intimate fear that one is indeed on the wrong side of a losing struggle.

I say these things not as a means of justifying Pound's actions (or Fonda's, whom I am tragically uninformed about) but only to ask whether your sentiments are entirely patriotic, or if they indeed contain a strong degree of nationalism.

---

Neo-patriotism, proto-patriot: Hehe, I like that. But frankly you're missing the boat because of these points:
1. What Jefferson is describing is insurection, not treason by collaborating with a foreign and enemy government.
2. Jefferson is the odd ball here. I doubt almost any other fore father would have said that or agreed to that.
3. That was never part of the formulated Constitution or even philosophical underpinnings of the American experience.
4. You mention the Shay's rebellion that was put down; you can also add the Whiskey rebellion where people refused to pay a liquor tax, and President George Washington captured the insurrecting people and actually prosecuted two for treason and they were hanged until dead.
5. Any legitamacy to insurrection was finally put down with the Civil War, where Lincoln dispatched forces against a rebbelling army. No state is ever allowed to succeed from the union based on any disagreement with the federal government. If there was ambiguity before the Civil War, there was none after. If a state is not allowed to succeed, I don't think any individual or group of individuals would be allowed to do so.

Frankly Jefferson's statement is fairly off the wall, and while it makes a nice T-shirt, it really has no relevancy. Jefferson was not the most practical of fore fathers.

BTW, I don't want to seem that I'm against protest. One is free to protest one's government any time. But what Peter fails to understand is that collaboration with an enemy is beyond the pale.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Neo-patriotism, proto-patriot: Hehe, I like that. But frankly you're missing the boat because of these points:
1. What Jefferson is describing is insurection, not treason by collaborating with a foreign and enemy government.
2. Jefferson is the odd ball here. I doubt almost any other fore father would have said that or agreed to that.
3. That was never part of the formulated Constitution or even philosophical underpinnings of the American experience.
4. You mention the Shay's rebellion that was put down; you can also add the Whiskey rebellion where people refused to pay a liquor tax, and President George Washington captured the insurrecting people and actually prosecuted two for treason and they were hanged until dead.
5. Any legitamacy to insurrection was finally put down with the Civil War, where Lincoln dispatched forces against a rebbelling army. No state is ever allowed to succeed from the union based on any disagreement with the federal government. If there was ambiguity before the Civil War, there was none after. If a state is not allowed to succeed, I don't think any inividual or group of individuals would be allowed to do so.

Frankly Jefferson's statement is fairly off the wall, and while it makes a nice T-shirt, it really has no relevancy. Jefferson was not the most practical of fore fathers.

BTW, I don't want to seem that I'm against protest. One is free to protest one's government any time. But what Peter fails to understand is that collaboration with an enemy is beyond the pale.

---

Several points:
1) Rebellion is making war against the country. It is treason in and of itself.
2) If Jefferson was an oddball, then the founding fathers were refuges from a lunatic asylum. He was one of the most practical.
3) The right of rebellion is part of the fundamental law of the US. The Supremacy Clause makes it clear that the Declaration of Indepen\dence was carried over under the Constitution, and the DoI clearly staes that the people have the right to rebel.

I will refrain from ad hominems, even though you didn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

Several points:
1) Rebellion is making war against the country. It is treason in and of itself.
2) If Jefferson was an oddball, then the founding fathers were refuges from a lunatic asylum. He was one of the most practical.
3) The right of rebellion is part of the fundamental law of the US. The Supremacy Clause makes it clear that the Declaration of Indepen\dence was carried over under the Constitution, and the DoI clearly staes that the people have the right to rebel.

I will refrain from ad hominems, even though you didn't.

---

The right of rebellion is the fundemetnal right of the US? :confused: Tell that to Robet E. Lee and Jefferson Davis. Do me a favor, why don't you go out with a pistol to Ft Knox outside of Louville, Kt. and start firing at the front gate. I'll be glad to read about it in the paper to see how far you got. And if by some miracle you live, I then assume you will be free from jail after a trial due to this Constitutional right that you claim? Hahaha. Are you F'n serious? :lol: Did you not read that Washinton had two people hanged in the Whiskey rebellion?

What ad hominuem attacks? Point to them. You said that what I feel about Jane Fonda was a reflection on me. I proudly feel that way. I returned that your minimizing of the Vietnam war (you claim it wasn't even a war, yet 57,00 Americans were killed) was a reflection on you. Are you proud of that?

Quote:

---

Jefferson is the odd ball here. I doubt almost any other fore father would have said that or agreed to that.

---

Jefferson was one of the only ones to remain true to the cause. He believed in the ideals of liberty that they fought for in the Revolution, even after victory and power was secured. The rest of them seem to have caved in to the decadence of power, and wanted nothing more than to rule.

Quote:

---

Rebellion against a king may be pardoned, or lightly punished, but the man who dares to rebel against the laws of a republic ought to suffer death.
--Samuel Adams

---

That's a nice justification for his own actions, but totally contrary to the original ideal. What has it got to do with liberty? Nothing.

Yes, Jefferson was the oddball--and I laud him above all the rest for exactly that reason. It is because of Jefferson that this is "The Land of the Free".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

The right of rebellion is the fundemetnal right of the US? :confused: Tell that to Robet E. Lee and Jefferson Davis.

---

Lincoln's War did more damage to the rights of the people than any other person in the history of the country. This would be a better country if someone had nailed him five years earlier.

Quote:

---

What ad hominuem attacks? Point to them. You said that what I feel about Jane Fonda was a reflection on me. I proudly feel that way. I returned that your minimizing of the Vietnam war (you claim it wasn't even a war, yet 57,00 Americans were killed) was a reflection on you. Are you proud of that?

---

No, I am not. 57,000 lives were wasted, but not by Jane Fonda or any anti-war protesters. Those lives were wasted by politicians. Congress did not pass a declaration of war against the Viet Cong or against North Vietnam.

If you people are actually going to support the rebelling south in the Civil war, that's enough for me. :alien: You're out of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

Lincoln's War did more damage to the rights of the people than any other person in the history of the country. This would be a better country if someone had nailed him five years earlier.

---

This could only be out of the mind of a sick person.