THE POUND AWARD
519
society must rest" and I heard one radio commentator remark benignly
that "this could never happen in Russia."
What appeased the journalists must have been their belief that
Pound, despite his unintelligibility to them, is on the side of beauty or
"technical excellence." The Fellows and the newsmen meet at the point
where an unspecified technical excellence is accepted by the lay reader
as successful (i.e., "beautiful") poetry. What the journalists think would
not matter very much, but Mr. Barrett follows the same line of reason–
ing. "How far is it possible, in a lyric poem," he asks, "for technical
embellishments to transform vicious and ugly matter into beautiful
poetry?" Shouldn't the question rather be: Through his experience with
vicious and ugly ideas, what poetic insights into our world has this
poet given us? Pound's worth as a poet rests upon some answer to such
a question.
Another question is well worth asking, namely, how objective could
the fellows be in a decision of this kind?
If
we consider a work for lit–
erary merit alone (whatever that may mean) we imply a personal de–
cision to disregard the mythopoeic and moral function of the artist.
If
Pound had sufficient intellectual honesty, he would be the first to op–
pose such a criterion of selection.
The jury that elected Pound was made up partly of Pound's con–
temporaries, those who had come under his influence as impressario
and teacher, those who had at some time made declarations of political
reaction, and those who had engaged in the literary struggle to disso–
ciate art from social injunction. The presence of Mr. Eliot at the meet–
ings gave these facts a reality which perhaps inhibited open discussion.
For reasons of personal loyalty, which one must respect, and for reasons
of sectarian literary loyalty, which one mayor may not respect, few
poets anywhere are in a position to say what they really think of
Pound's work. But eventually what the serious well-intentioned critic
admires in Pound in his aesthetic integrity. It is curious to see the
flower of this integrity grafted onto criminality, but this should not lead
us to the conclusion that artists can be criminals without incriminating
their art.
The technical charge of treason against Pound is not our concern,
but all artists should stand against this poet for his greater crime against
civilization. Let the same charge be laid against Stalinist artists. But even
if we claim to be objective perceptionists about it, let us at least ask our–
selves whether fascism
is
or is not one of the "myths" of
The Cantos.
Who will deny that it is?
