“The Coward Surrealists”: Pound and the Death of García Lorca Wayne Pounds Aoyama Gakuin University, Tokyo That one poet should be indifferent to the assassination of another presents a puzzle. Pound did know about Lorca's death but refrained from public statement. By the mid 30’s he had come to disdain Spanish literature and to scorn French surrealist poetry. He was working closely with Juan Ramón Masoliver (1910-1997), Rapallo’s resident expert on all things Surrealist but politically pro-Franco. After the War, Masoliver’s attitude changed. Pound’s may have also. That one poet should be indifferent to the assassination of another is something of an enigma and worth pondering. It is but one of several puzzles concerning Pound’s state of mind in the 1930s, as his Modernist privileging of “hardness” evolves from an aesthetic theory into a social one – or perhaps a theory in defense of a social practice – and his enthusiasm for what he took to be Italian Fascism’s support of the arts darkened and petrified into a compartmentalized, paranoid mindset that would make many people, then and later, question his sanity. In this development, his indifference toward the assassination of Federico García Lorca, an event which took place in August of 1936, is of more than casual interest. It should be noted first that Pound saw Lorca as a Surrealist poet – rather than as a dramatist, a ballad writer, or a folklorist, for that is how his Catalan colleague Juan Ramón Masoliver (1910- 1997) saw him. Long before, Pound had lost interest in Spain, and by 1936 what he knew and thought about contemporary Spanish poets came largely from Masoliver. Pound’s indifference did not reflect an evaluation of Lorca’s work, for he had almost certainly not read any substantial amount of it and probably none at all. It reflected his personal attitude toward Spain, and toward Surrealist poetry as he had encountered it among the French; and to a lesser extent it reflected Lorca’s reception in Italy. © Quaderni di Palazzo Serra 29 (2016), 79-93 ISBN 978-88-88626-65-9 ISSN 1970-0571 Wayne Pounds To summarize some well-known episodes, Pound’s knowledge of Spanish language and literature dates from his university years. Two major indications show that this was a genuine enthusiasm: his summer in Spain in 1906 studying the manuscripts of Lope de Vega, and the chapters on Lope and the Poema del Cid in The Spirit of Romance. Since Pound’s judgments are so often influenced by his friendships, it should be noted that one important friendship dates from the summer in Spain but only one. Padre José Elizondo helped him gain access to libraries and is mentioned in The Spirit of Romance, Guide to Kulchur, and Canto 77, and he is quoted in Canto 81 (“Hay aqui much catolicismo... y muy poco reliHion”). The chapter on El Cid is noteworthy for the way Pound evaluates the poem above the Chanson de Roland (66), a judgment he never altered, for El Cid becomes an important figure in The Cantos and Roland does not get mentioned except as an aside in the delirium of Niccolò d’Este in Canto 20. In 1906, Pound’s enthusiasm for El Cid takes him to Burgos, whose cathedral he rates above Nôtre Dame and which becomes the subject of one of his earliest magazine publications, and beyond Burgos he follows El Cid’s trail across Soria to the medieval city of Medinaceli, a magic spot which will return at the end of this essay. A cooling of the romance with Spain occurs between 1906 and 1916. No dramatic events account for it – it may be largely a shift in interest. When he leaves the U.S. again in 1910, he goes to London and Paris, and to Italy, but not to Spain. The subsequent years are those in which he establishes himself in London, and Spain has dropped from his mental map. By 1916 his evaluation of Spain has reached a nadir, as he writes to Alice Corbin Henderson, “Spanish next to nothing since the Poema del Cid” (151). And in the same year, in a letter to Iris Barry: “Spain has one good modern novelist, Galdos. Nothing else”. The advent of the Civil War in July of 1936 brought Pound’s attention back to Spain; only now that attention would be determined by his conversion to economics. Poundians all know that in June of 1937 Nancy Cunard and the Left Review sent a questionnaire to 148 English language authors asking whether they were for or against the legal government and the people of the Spanish Republic, and that 80 Pound and the Death of Lorca only 5 declared for Franco, with 15, including Pound, Eliot and H. G. Wells, declaring themselves indifferent, while everyone else expressed themselves in favor of the Spanish Republic (Hamilton 259). Less widely known is Pound’s precise answer in the letter he wrote Cunard and which she published in December in Authors Take Sides on the Spanish War. The survey clearly had made him angry: “Questionnaire an escape mechanism for young fools who are too cowardly to think; too lazy to investigate the nature of money... Spain is an emotional luxury to a gang of sap-headed dilettantes” (in Carpenter 554). Less known still is the personal letter he sent Cunard: ...I think your gang are all diarohea [sic]. For 15 years I have been telling people to look at the ROOT. Stalin is a gorilla, too stupid to look at money, R [?] Trotsk[y] is not a jew but a kike, a slihtery [sic] mess/... Spain is one barbarism and Russia another... Spain is a nuissance [sic]... Not one of these young squirts knows a damn thing of the fight going on in Italy... No darling, it is ALL bloody tosh. Kikes financing both sides. (Wilhelm 124) In this diatribe is announced Pound’s stock response to Spain throughout the thirties. The war is not about any political principle but about profits – those that munition makers and arms dealers make by supplying both sides and big banks make from financing the whole conflagration. And a war in Spain cannot matter because “Spain is a barbarism” (Kulchur 132), “Europe ends with the Pyrenees” (“Race”, Poetry and Prose 7.103), and wars fought outside Europe are of no interest. One also notes the presence of the word “cowardly” in his first response. It would be useful to know where Pound first picks up this term of abuse. Whatever its provenance, we recognize the coded, obscurantist language of Fascist machismo, for of the group Pound attacks many go to fight for the Republic, while the poet sits safe at home. The heart of the Pound-Lorca matter is to be found in the pages of a short-lived review, and the nearest thing to an “encounter” between Pound and Lorca is to be found in its pages, where both appear in the same issue. Contemporary Poetry and Prose began in 81 Wayne Pounds anticipation of the London International Surrealist Exhibition, which was held from June 11 to July 4, 1936. Its editor was the nineteen year-old Roger Roughton, who would die a suicide in Ireland in 1941. It promoted Surrealism and Marxism, providing a vehicle for translations, a showcase for new English writers, and a platform for revolutionary purposes. The translations are largely from the French, done by the youthful David Gascoyne, also nineteen. The French- language artists included: Bréton, Buñuel, Eluard, Dalì, Péret, Saint- John Perse. Writing in English, George Barker, E.E. Cummings (a frequent contributor), William Empson, David Gascoyne, Roger Roughton, and Dylan Thomas. Spanish is represented by Rafael Alberti, Picasso, and Lorca, and Russian by the lone figure of Isaac Babel, who has three short stories in the year’s run. The occasion of Pound’s letter was Roughton’s lead article in the August-September 1936 issue, “Surrealism and Communism”, which quotes the International Surrealist Bulletin to the effect that “the movement of our government towards Fascism threatens to put a stop to all creative activity”. This is exactly the opposite of Pound’s take on Fascism, or at least on Italian Fascism (but note that Contemporary Poetry and Prose does not discriminate among fascisms, whether German, Italian, or Spanish). Roughton’s main argument is that surrealists and communists should not adulterate “the revolutionary essence” of Communism. Surrealists should help “to establish a broad United Front and not delude themselves [...] into imagining that there is any revolutionary part to be played outside the United Front”. This delusion, he says, “has been quashed [...] by the example of the Spanish civil war”. Thus, no quarrel between surrealism and communism (Contemporary Poetry and Prose 1.75). Pound’s letter in response is a typical performance for these years, a period in which his apparent hostility toward Surrealism had provoked such wonder that he had to explain himself. In a 1931 essay called “After Election”, he did so in these terms: “I am pro- Cocteau for the lucidity of his prose. I am pro-Picabia for the lucidity of his mind. I am pro-Brancusi, I see little else in sculpture now making. I am provisionally pro-Surrealist [...] Naturally, at my age, I think I could have brought up most of these young men better than 82 Pound and the Death of Lorca they have been brought up, but when I look at their elders, the French literati of my own age, I am damn well pro-Surrealist and nothing they do causes me any regret or astonishment” (Poetry and Prose 5.268).