4

in it.

This brings me to the second problem about Pound. I confé that I am seldom interested in what he is saying, but only in the way he says it. That does not mean that he is saying nothing, for the ways of saying nothing are not interesting. Swinburne's form is uninteresting, because he is literally saying next to nothing, and unless you mean something with your words they will do nothing for you. But Pound's philosophy, I suspect, is just a little antiquated. he began as the last disciple of the Nineties, and was much influenced by Mr Leats and Mr Ford -adox Ford. He added his own extensive erudition, and proceeded to a curious syncretism which I do not think he has ever set in order.

of Eliot's
(Date of this essay 1927/
as it was published in Jan.
1928. was
No order then perceivable in the
printed parts of the antos.
at least no philosophic order.

Eliot had already proclaimed himself
we think
a royalist, conservative, etc. some sort of
anglican christian. Pound had listed himself in
the "british who's who as " A follower of Confucius and
Ovid. "

If I choose to add a foot note on mysticism he is welcome to do so.

He is, of course", extremely Romantic. His Romance has
enabled him to revive much that needed to be revived; he has
made people read *ante who àt least* might never have read him; he has
fought successfully the English conventions of good poetry,
and has made his point..

manca l'ultima mezza pagina. del Dial.