518
PARTISAN REVIEW
should say that his enthusiasm was essentially for the Italian form of
fascism. He did not seem to be very strongly pro-Nazi or anti-Russian,
his real underlying motive being hatred of Britain, America and "the
Jews." His broadcasts were disgusting. I remember at least one in
which he approved the massacre of the East European Jews and
"warned" the American Jews that their turn was coming presently.
These broadcasts-I did not hear them, but only read them in the
BBG monitoring report-did not give me the impression of being the
work of a lunatic. Incidentally I am told that in delivering them Pound
used to put on a pronounced American accent which he did not norm–
ally have, no doubt with the idea of appealing to the isolationists and
playing on anti-British sentiment.
None of this is a reason against giving Pound the Bollingen Prize.
There are times when such a thing might be undesirable-it would have
been undesirable when the Jews were actually being killed in the gas
vans, for instance-but I do not think this is one of them. But since the
judges have taken what amounts to the "art for art's sake" position,
that is, the position that aesthetic integrity and common decency are
two separate things, then at least let us keep them separate and not
excuse Pound's political career on the ground that he is a good writer.
He
may
be a good writer (I must admit that I personally have always
regarded him as an entirely spuriolls writer), but the opinions that he
has tried to disseminate by means of his works are evil ones, and I
think that the judges should have said so more firmly when awarding
him the prize.
KARL SHAPIRO:
Mr. Barrett's analysis of the Pound award seems to be on the
safe side, but rus extension of the official statement of the Fellows makes
it clear that we are dealing with the
pons asinoTum
of modern criticism.
I voted against Pound in the balloting for the Bollingen Prize.
My
first and more crucial reason was that I am a Jew and cannot honor
antisemites. My second reason I stated in a report which was circulated
among the Fellows: "I voted against Pound in the belief that the
poet's political and moral philosophy ultimately vitiates his poetry and
lowers its standard as literary work." This statement of principle I would
place against the official statement of the Fellows, which seems to me
evasive, historically untrue, and illogical. That it was a successful device
in placating opinion you know. The newspaper editorials I sawall
rejoiced in "the objective perception of value on which any civilized
