Archive of messages exchanged on the pmjs mailing list from June 9, 2000.
Question raised by: Michael Watson
Discussants: : Wayne Farris, David Pollack, Janine Beichman, Morgan
Pitelka, Richard Bowring, Leith Morton, Bjarke Frellesvig, Lewis
Cook, Rein Raud, Philip C. Brown, Robert E. Morrell, Joshua Mostow,
Norma Field .
Signatures omitted or abbreviated. For
who's who see
http://www.meijigakuin.ac.jp/~pmjs/pmjs-db.html
Copyright of each message belongs to its author. See general note on editing.
return to: pmjs archive index / pmjs index / members / translations
[...]
I've been talking off-list to a number of pmjs members about what kind of web resources might be offered. Some of the ideas so far are:
-- book reviews (1) of new publications (as H-Japan does)
-- book reviews (2) of "classics" (e.g. Brower/Miner,
J Court Poetry),
-- translations of good quality not intended to be published in
print
-- translations in progress
-- translations by graduate students (done as course work)
-- conference papers / seminar papers by graduate students and
others
-- course syllabi/teaching materials
-- links to all of the above on other sites
There is still no fully-fledged electronic journal in our field. What I am proposing here stops well short of this, but it might be a start in this direction. It would certainly be possible to apply for an ISSN number, so that electronic publications could be formally cited.
Reactions anyone?
I would also like to hear off-list from anyone with suggestions for materials to be housed on the new site.
It might be fun to begin with reassessments of some classics, undervalued or overvalued. Any takers?
Michael Watson
From: Wayne Farris
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 22:23:05 -0400
Subject: RE: new web site
Dear list members,
I, for one, would be in favor of any or all of Michael`s suggestions.
Especially the book reviews of recent, classic, or Japanese works.
Best wishes,
Wayne Farris
From: David Pollack
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 08:38:26 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: clarification?
Michael,
By "reassessments of some classics, undervalued or overvalued,"
I assume you
are talking about "classics of scholarship"? Or do you
mean "classics of
literature," in the sense of reevaluation of the canon? As
I can't imagine
this group taking on the latter task, I can only imagine that
you meant
the former.
I can see it now: "The Tale of Genji: World Classic or Pulp Fiction?"
David Pollack
From: Michael Watson
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 23:44:37 +0900
Subject: re: clarification
I did indeed mean "classics of scholarship" -- though the other reading has intriguing possibilities.
I have several good suggestions in hand from Joshua Mostow (off list, comme d'habitude). If any of you like the idea of reevaluations of earlier scholarship, do send in names, or better still, sit down to write a critique over the summer hols.
Michael Watson
From: Janine Beichman
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 17:59:16 +0900
Subject: re: clarification
Aw, come on, share 'em!
Janine
From: Michael Watson
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 20:59:31 +0900
Subject: Re: classics (WAS: clarification)
Janine Beichman asks me to share Joshua Mostow's off-list suggestions. The exchange went like this:
Other suggestions, anyone?
Michael Watson
(with apologies to Joshua)
From: Wayne Farris
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 23:58:06 -0400
Subject: RE: classics (WAS: clarification)
Dear all,
I recently finished a four-year stint reading all these books
that I was supposed to have read ages ago but never really sat
down and read from cover to cover. You`re right, in that Sansom
contains a lot of useful information. But I would advise extreme
caution in using the three-volume set, because it also contains
innumerable inaccuracies. Also, Sansom seems to have suffered
from a "great man" theory of history. He almost completely
neglects social and economic history. Moreover, and I may be off-base
here, but to me Sansom has always seemed to be a believer in "national
character". Why didn't Chinese-style institutions work in
Japan?
They didn't fit the Japanese national character. This may be a
no-no word to use, but to me Sansom has always betrayed a subtle
strain of racism. On this point, you might look in John Dower's
book on Yoshida Shigeru, where he quotes Sir George in the 1930s
at some length saying some rather surprising things. For my money,
even though it has its flaws and it is institutional history,
Hall's treatment is far superior.
For neglected classics, just off the top of my head, I'd vote
for de Visser's multi-volume study on Buddhism. Religious studies
people tell me it has its problems, but I wish I had known about
it earlier. Also, I'd like to cast a vote for David Earle`s book
on Yoshida Shoin--Emperor and Nation, or something like that.
Also, if I may follow up on Bob's comment about Hiraizumi, if
you go there, you might as well take in Taga-jo and all the other
"fortresses" in the Tohoku. Archaeology has really advanced
in the region, and there are important and exciting discoveries
from Sendai to Morioka--then over to Akita and down the Japan
Sea littoral. They`ve even uncovered soldier`s barracks, weapons,
etc. Moreover, last May I went with a bunch from Todai to Sendai
to see MEDIEVAL archaeology in the region. They`re uncovering
the mountain
fortresses of Sengoku Daimyo, and much more. But I run on. If
anyone is interested in such Tohoku tour, complete with archaeologist-as-guides,
I`m sure Joan or I or several others could get you pointed in
the right direction.
Got to run,
Wayne
From: Morgan Pitelka <mpitelka@princeton.edu>
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 08:46:42 +0100
Subject: classics
Dear PMJS,
I would like to add Louise Cort's 1979 opus, _Shigaraki, Potters'
Valley_ to the list of must-reads. It is not an "ignored"
classic in the sense that no one reads it (then again I'm not
sure either Hall or Sansom are either; many people read them when
doing course work), but it is an essential source that tends to
be ignored by those with no interest in ceramics. Many
people seem to believe that ceramics are a quaint craft with little
connection to the larger socio-economic, political, and cultural
transformations of Japan's past, but Cort's book proves otherwise.
_Shigaraki, Potters' Valley_ is one of the best books I have
seen on the topic of ceramics or tea culture written in any language.
It is monumental in scope, covering developments from medieval
to modern. Cort also manages to be precisely detailed and thorough,
following every lead and every problem to the logical conclusion,
without robbing the topic of its
interest. The book is the ultimate example of the fusion of history,
anthropology, and art history, explicating objects and texts simultaneously
as inseparable parts of the cultural historical record.
It has been nearly impossible to find a copy of this book for sale anywhere for some time. Fortunately, I hear through the grapevine that Weatherhill may be reissuing it (hopefully with updated color images).
Morgan
From: Richard Bowring
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 09:02:07 +0100
Subject: RE: classics (WAS: clarification)
I am a little worried about this request to debunk historiographic
classics in the field of J. history because it is just too easy
by half and leads to the kind of thing that we have just seen:
off the cuff remarks about Ivan Morris and Sansom that are profoundly
unhistorical!! I think most of us can make up our own minds about
whether a well-known book (as opposed to a new
publication) is worth giving to students or not. Can we have some
restraint
please.
Richard Bowring
From: Michael Watson
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 17:21:28 +0900
Subject: Re: classics (WAS: clarification)
Another clarification is in order. I was testing the water for the idea of collecting reviews of early scholarship for the pmjs web site. Those interested in writing a re-assessment /re-evaluation type of piece, should contact me off-list. It was not fair of me to "out" Joshua Mostow's private comments to me.
Michael Watson
From: Leith Morton
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 18:57:31 +1000
Subject: Re:Classics
I've got problems defining 'classic'. Even if we restrict ourselves
to pre-war works (of Western or Western-language scholarship),
then, it still seems to me premature to come up with judgements
at this early stage in the evolution of Japanese premodern studies
outside Japan.
Where do we draw the line ? The eighteenth century? When does
Western writing on Japan stop being scholarship and start being
source?
If we confine ourselves to the period from the late nineteenth century onwards, 'neglected' might be a better category. This allows postwar works to be included. And as for mistakes, does anyone imagine that studies currently being published will be free from mistakes?
It's all too easy to hunt out mistakes, especially when interpretation is subject to fashion and history, and better commentaries (which should lead to revised translations), buttressed by a larger data base, become progressively available to researchers. Taking cheap shots at new books in reviews is already too prevalent an exercise to warrant approbation (surely reviews are a way to assist colleagues). And the number of publications based on revised PhD dissertations that delight in debunking previous scholarship is already too high, especially when the debunker only has to wait a short time to be debunked him/herself. Scholarship should be recognized as a work in progress, a kinetic not a static model.
So I'll nominate 2 neglected postwar works:
Firstly, Sasaki Takamasa's 'Tales of a rain'd moon', his 1980 translation of Ueda Akinari's 'Ugetsu Monogatari. I have a feeling he was trying to out Morris Ivan Morris, given that Morris claimed not to use any word not occurring in Defoe in his translation of Saikaku's 'Koshoku Ichidai Onna'.
Secondly, Geoffrey Sargent's 'The Japanese family storehouse
or, The Millionaires' gospel modernised', his 1959 translation
of the Nippon eitai-gura. Some may believe I'm showing a bias
towards art here rather than science, but surely this is allowable
in literary translations -- a
comparison of Pierson's versions of the Man'yoshu with the novelist
Hideo Lebee's versions will demonstrate that art works better
than science to convey meaning (especially when science is Nazi
science).
On that last note, I wonder what the Manyoshu specialists amongst us think of the various versions of Manyoshu Englished by Japanese translators, from H.H. Honda (whose version Edward Cranston praised) to Teruo Suga and beyond?
Leith Morton
From: Bjarke Frellesvig
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 10:18:05 +0100
Subject: Re: Re:Classics
Dear All
According to our dear colleague Jim McCawley who so sadly passed away last year, a 'classic' of scholarship is a work that everyone cites, but no one reads; one example he gave was Kuhn 1963 (you will be able to test yourself on that one). On that understanding it is not clear what a 'neglected classic' might be. I don't think anyone has used the phrase here, but a 'forgotten classic' would be an oxymoron, I think.
Bjarke Frellesvig
From: Morgan Pitelka
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 10:13:04 +0100
Subject: ignored "classics" and list etiquette
Dear PMJS,
Though I agree completely that dismissing/debunking Morris and Sansom is unhistorical and perhaps unnecessary, I'm not sure that making suggestions to the list of works that might not be as widely read as one would hope is really such a crime. I don't think anyone is trying to make up other peoples' minds about what books to assign to students.
I would hope that professor Farris and others will continue to share thoughts on the state of the field, even when they are off the cuff, because they stimulate discussion. Any list member can of course disagree, and hopefully will air her or his opinion in a polite but to-the-point public message . Silencing discussion on the list doesn't really seem very productive.
Morgan Pitelka
From: Bjarke Frellesvig
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 10:20:07 +0100
Subject: Re: ignored "classics" and list etiquette
What an 'ignored classic' then might be is anybody's guess.
Bjarke
From: Lewis Cook
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 05:48:45 -0400
Subject: Re: classics (WAS: clarification)
Off-list, prior to both of the above messages, I (gently) chided
our webmaster for 'outing' Joshua's off-list comments, and also
seconded Richard Bowring's concern that easy debunkings are all
too often profoundly unhistorical. I myself, however, welcome
help making up my mind which well-known books are worth re-reading
or recommending to students, and am thus all in favor of less
rather than more restraint in this vein. There is more to be learned
from a candid
(even indecorous, occasionally) exchange of opinion, I think,
than from respectful silence.
Lewis Cook
From: Morgan Pitelka
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 10:55:20 +0100
Subject: "ignored classic"
"ignored classic":
For the sake of this discussion, this phrase means a book that I (the user of the phrase) think is a classic, but that many in the field ignore.
"Neglected classic" seems fine as well.
Neither is really semantically interesting enough to raise a fuss about, in my opinion.
Morgan Pitelka
From: Rein Raud
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 16:35:57 +0300
Subject: Classics etc.
It is very easy to raise the suspicion of racism as prof. Farris
did with George Sansom - I do not recall which remarks he had
in mind so he may be right, but the three volumes of Japanese
history, alhtough they may promote an incongruous view of the
historical process, are definitevely not a racist work in my mind,
because these books are motivated by a genuine wish to understand
the history of another country - something that cannot be said
about a significant part of our modern scholarship on Japan, though
perhaps not in the area of classics. As to calling attention to
older works - it would perhaps be even more useful to review works
not originally written in English, classics or otherwise. I don't
know how many people are familiar with the series Orientales (Presses
Universitaires de France) that has a splendid book by
Jacqueline Pigeot, Questions de poetique japonaise, and a study
by Alain Rocher (which I confess I have not read yet) Mythe et
souverainete au Japon? Not to speak about the MOAG collection
in German, which has Klaus Vollmer's extremely good monograph
on the shokunin utaawase, to mention but one book? These books
are all fairly recent, but there is a tradition of scholarship
in all these countries, as well as in Russia, Italy etc.etc.etc.
Somehow it seems that "Western books" means "English
books"...
Rein Raud
From: Philip C. Brown
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 11:00:59 -0400
Subject: RE: Classics etc.
Your point about "Western" = English language is well taken. In the course of doing bibliographic research for the Early Modern Japan "State of the Field" conference last April, I and a number of other folks made an effort to locate materials in other Western languages. (I made sure to include participants who had access, through their own language training, to books written in languages other than English.)
One problem we encountered, and discussed during our meetings, was the challenge of getting access to bibliographic data bases (print or on line) for the field. Professor Klaus Kracht, we knew, was in the process of publishing an important bibliography of works in the area of thought and religion, and he was very cooperative. However, even scholars based in Europe who participated in the meetings were perplexed by this issue.
I would be interested in seeing some discussion here about major bibliographic works published in non-English, European languages. I would also like to see some regular updating of internet links to European language data bases.
Philip C. Brown
Department of History
Ohio State University
230 West 17th Avenue
Columbus OH 43210 USA
From: Wayne Farris
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 22:57:28 -0400
Subject: RE: classics (WAS: clarification)
Dear members,
My apologies if I have offended anyone. As you may know, I tend
to be blunt.
And I thought I was putting Sansom in his historical context,
not being unhistorical.
Best,
Wayne
From: Michael Watson
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 23:25:21 +0900
Subject: two apologies
ListBot has completely cleared the backlog of mail, informing list-owners that the engineers "have increased hardware capacity to greatly reduce the chance of future intermittent delays." A few messages sent on the 13th were delayed up to four days, arriving long after others sent more recently. I apologize to all those concerned.
The fact that messages were arriving out of order made for
odd reading at times. More seriously, though, it added a random
factor to the "classics" discussion which was already
going in several directions at the same time. ListBot is to blame
for reshuffling messages, but I take responsibility for much of
that ensued, in misjudged "clarifications" of what was
intended as simple suggestion--of an online section for book reviews
of
> "classics" (e.g. Brower/Miner, J Court Poetry)
Of things that matter in scholarship, there is little that is simple or uncontroversial. I do not withdraw my suggestion that there is value in reassessing well-known works of scholarship, or in re-examining works which deserve more recognition.
However I would herewith like to apologize for introducing a word which had an unfortunate effect on the subsequent discussion--"debunking."
DEBUNK v. origin U.S.
To remove the 'nonsense' or false sentiment from; to expose (false
claims or pretensions); hence, to remove (a person) from his 'pedestal'
or 'pinnacle'.
[OED Supplement, 1972, 1:748]
An inappropriate word for the re-assessments that I had in mind.
What I intended still less is the idea that one should question a scholar's status or standing by means of revealing about his/her personal beliefs or behaviour, as when Paul de Man's wartime publication record is uncovered and used to cast doubt on his scholarship.
My small desktop English-Japanese dictionary defines only this
sense:
(hito) no shootai wo bakuro suru, (himitsu
nado) wo suppanaku [kanji]
I too have seen the volume of J. L. Pierson's Man'yoshu with the fulsome dedication to Adolf Hitler. This has cast an inevitable shadow over the memory of the scholar. However I cannot see that it reflects in any way on his philology.
Michael Watson
From: Robert E. Morrell
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 23:15:50 -0500
Subject: Fwd: Re: classics (WAS: clarification)
I am guessing that this is about where the current can of worms began to be unscrewed, and I think it is a big one -- between the traditionalists and Young Turks. If you have some way to partition the discussion, that might be a good idea -- but I have no plausible suggestions. . .
Still, however painful, I think that it would be beneficial
to clarify a number of covert assumptions which intrude, but are
rarely clearly expressed. Why? Because they go to the roots of
our philosophical
"certainties." (See below.)
>At 11:59 AM 6/14/00 +0000, [Michael Watson] wrote:
>>Janine Beichman asks me to share Joshua Mostow's off-list
suggestions. The
>>exchange went like this:
>>
>>Watson:
>> >Are there any "classics" of our discipline
that you think need
>> debunking? or
>> >alternatively, neglected seminal work that needs
to be called to our
>> >collective attention? [snip}[snip}
>I agree with Joshua for the most part, but still --
Well, yes. I heartily agree with the following from Professor
Bowring:
I believe that that we have touched a critical issues, for which there are no easy resolutions-- and I stop here. In my simplistic terminology, the revisionist interpretation would reduce Japanese philosophical/aesthetic/ literary endeavors to socio/economic/political explanations -- with the former being merely ephemeral appendages, and simply dismiss Japanese religion, philosophy! ...
Well, why not Western rationalizations by the same reasoning?
Bob M
From: Wayne Farris
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 22:55:10 -0400
Subject: RE: classics (WAS: clarification)
Dear members,
I want to thank those who came to my defense in my comments on
Sansom.
I`m glad that people weren`t too offended.
Let me just say a few things:
1) Most importantly, terms like "racist" are hot-button
words that set people off. I really didn`t know whether to use
the term or not. Thinking back on it, it was not a wise decision.
2) But I stick to my original contention that Sansom relies upon
"kokumin sei" type explanations for historical events
and changes. I don`t think those work, and the idea of "national
character" itself makes me uncomfortable. I haven't done
the research per se, but I wouldn`t be surprised if such thinking
doesn't go back to the nineteenth century and the era when each
race and ethnic group were thought to have certain immutable,
ingrained racial characteristics. We all know now, through excellent
recent
works such as Mark Hudson`s RUINS OF IDENTITY, how these characteristics
are often invented, even by groups on the outside.
3) Let me say finally, that Sir George was the founder and probably
the greatest practioner of the approach we know as "cultural
history." He and his followers have made many contributions.
He was also an elegant writer..
Best wishes to all,
Wayne
From: Joshua Mostow
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 17:16:38 -0700
Subject: RE: classics (WAS: clarification)
Imagine my surprise to come back from 8 days in the wilds of Nova Scotia, only to find myself embroiled in a tempest-in-a-kyuusu on PMJS! My apologies for a) not having written sooner, and b) for now writing at all, when it seems like it may just stir things up again.
I was not, of course, happy to see that Michael had released my comments for general circulation (when I untangled the whole thing out of the 168 e-mails that were waiting for me when I got back to Vancouver). I do indeed tend to be a "lurker" on the list-serve, for the very reason exemplified by Richard Bowring's response, which was to label my off the cuff remarks as "profoundly unhistorical" and to call for "some restraint please."
I must say, I am puzzled by the charge of being "unhistorical."
As my published work on both the Hyakunin Isshu and Ise monogatari
shows, reception history and the historiography of the scholarship
on Japanese
literature (from the Kamakura up to the end of the 20th century)
is one of the topics my research focuses on. However, many works
of scholarship have both a--shall we call it?--synchronic and
diachronic existence. In other words, the works of Morris and
Sansom were produced at particular historical junctures, and to
understand them and assess them fairly, we have to take account
of those historical contexts. This would be the diachronic existence
of these works. On the other hand, Morris is still in
print, and is still used in introductory classes--and I am willing
to bet that in the majority of cases, the subject of the historical
context in which he wrote is not included in class discussion.
This is the synchronic existence of these works, and they still
have a profound influence on the general public, and our undergraduate
students. In this context, they need to be examined and critiqued
and--I would argue with The World of the Shining Prince--superseded.
My comments to Michael were assuming that the topic was the function (or potential function) of these works in an undergraduate setting.
I am encouraged that some on the list have raised the issue of etiquette and have suggested that our list-serve should be a space from relatively unrestrained (though polite) exchange. I would second these sentiments.
Joshua
Joshua S. Mostow
Associate Professor
and Acting Head
Asian Studies
The University of British Columbia
Vancouver, Canada
From: Norma Field
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 12:15:56 -0500
Subject: dual dimensions of classics
Warm thanks to Joshua Mostow for his succinct discussion of the diachronic and synchronic dimensions of classics ("many works of scholarship have both a--shall we call it?--synchronic and diachronic existence. In other words, the works of Morris and Sansom were produced at particular historical junctures, and to understand them and assess them fairly, we have to take account of those historical contexts. This would be the diachronic existence of these works. On the other hand, Morris is still in print, and is still used in introductory classes--and I am willing to bet that in the majority of cases, the subject of the historical context in which he wrote is not included in class discussion. This is the synchronic existence of these works, and they still have a profound influence on the general public, and our undergraduate students.").
It sent me back to the early sections of De Saussure's classic, in which he talks about the science of linguistics necessarily having as its object of study something that is both static (i.e., any language is "complete" in its own moment) and changing. I'm tempted to invert Joshua's use of "diachronic" and "synchronic," but I think the important thing, which he's so helpfully directed us to notice, is that both the works we study and we ourselves have synchronic and diachronic dimensions. The works we study are "complete" (compelling, valid, etc.) in their historical moment but also need to be seen in the history preceding and succeeding them, wherein they necessarily lose their "completeness" or have a new one accorded them. Our own evaluations are shaped by the "completeness" (reigning views as to what's important, how things should be looked at, what counts as history, etc.) of our own moment. But these confident products of the present will also fall into the sweep of diachrony--there's no "last word." (This description misleading separates the two dimensions: we are historical products, and in that sense, the diachronic dimension is built into our apprehension of the present.)
I don't intend this to be a call for relativism, by the way. I think we must take seriously what we have come to know and value, and register the beauties and the constraints, not to mention the barbarisms, of the past and of course the present; by being alert to the dual dimensions, we can sharpen our senses to losses and gains (social, political, aesthetic, imaginative), backward and forward.
Now, on Morris's _Shining Prince_. I'm thinking of the readers who fell in love with it and were led to _Genji_ who otherwise never would have. How shall we think about that? This isn't exactly the same issue, and it's not on the same scale, but recently, in a discussion with colleagues mostly in English about a new undergraduate course, Pound and ideograms came up. The view that Pound was wrong and therefore his errors must not be perpetuated was countered with the view that many texts taught were "wrong" and that we need to address the historical record of the way in which some wrong texts have been spectacularly productive. Moreover, there's an opportunity in the classroom to address such "mistakes." What's the wisdom of people on the list?
Norma Field
From: David Pollack
Organization: University of Rochester
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 14:25:10 -0400
Subject: Re: dual dimensions of classics
In concluding her recent email about "classics," Norma Field wrote,
I'd like to know what people think are the inadequacies of Morris's _Shining Prince_ as a text today. Certainly his work was never intended to address the sorts of issues that have come to define the modern academy such as the psychopolitics of gender, representation, subjectivity, etc. He dealt in a form of "cultural history" that focused the roles of religion, social customs, scholarship, poetics, aesthetics and so forth in the lives of the Heian courtiers to set a context for reading _Genji_. Is such a work still of any value? Or is it so naive in its assumptions that it can no longer be read and must be replaced by studies that share a postmodern view of the text?
I could not possibly teach _Genji_ without discussing the sorts of things dealt with in Richard Bowring's or Norma Fields' excellent books, matters very different from those Morris was writing about. I am caught in the middle of conflicting currents: I want to talk about the story itself as a good tale, about its subtleties of language and points of view and subplots, about aware and nozoki and imi and onnade, and it's here that Morris often provides useful material. But I also feel it necessary to draw attention to narratological problems, gender issues, matters of representation -- all the more recent sorts of issues that Morris ignored, in the English and also perhaps the French sense of the word.
As for Pound: how could the Cantos possibly be read without a discussion of his ideas about ideograms? The idea of censoring and excluding his ideas as "wrong" is horrifying. The Vorticists had their own ideas about how Chinese characters "worked" in poetry, and we don't need to know whether those notions were right or wrong to ask how their poetry grew out of such ideas. We know that Pound was entirely dependent on Fenellosa for his ideas about ideograms, but that important piece of knowledge cannot "explain" the Cantos. Pound did not know Chinese; but his rendering of the "Huang-niao" poem of the _Odes_ that begins "Yaller bird yaller bird" is the best "translation" I have ever seen of the poem. I also do not believe that his antisemitic remarks disqualify him from the curriculum any more than Twain's use of "nigger" Jim do his, though there is debate over both issues. Similarly, Genji's child-molesting, kidnapping of women and possible bisexuality must neither be glossed over and explained away nor used to exclude him from the classroom.
Please excuse the rambling,
David Pollack