Decisions are hard enough to take; to change them is even harder.

A fascinating excavation of an ancient dialogue relevant to contemporary circumstances. From Auden on No-Platforming Pound by Edward Mendelson.

It starts off with Random House in 1945 removing the works of Ezra Pound from its new update to its 1927 poetry anthology owing to Pound's political/ideological positions during the just concluding World War II. He was an anti-semite as well as a fascist/statist/totalitarian.

It was your classic virtue signaling move.

The issues at stake in the arguments over the anthology have never ceased to be contentious. The same questions recur in recent arguments—to choose only one among dozens of possible examples—over whether Martin Heidegger should be banished from philosophy reading lists because he was a Nazi. W.H. Auden, one of Cerf’s authors at Random House, wrote Cerf some letters about Cerf’s action and its consequences that may still be clarifying today.

What is striking across the entire public dialog is how civil the parties how, how real arguments are advanced rather than just noisy signaling, and how consequential it could be. W.H. Auden was a poet, by then well established. However, leaving his longstanding publisher might have significant affects on his financial well-being. My emphasis added.

Auden first wrote to Cerf on January 29, 1946, a week after Cerf’s letter appeared in Gannett’s Herald Tribune column:

Dear Bennet[t] Cerf,

It was with surprise and dismay that I heard of the exclusion, at your request, of poems by Ezra Pound from the Modern Library anthology.

I decided not to do or say anything until you had had an opportunity to state your case; now, having read your letter in The Herald Tribune of Jan 22, I feel it my duty to write you this letter.

Let me begin by saying how much I respect you for stating your position so honestly when you could so easily have made it almost impregnable by claiming that the poems in question were fascist in content or in intention, a claim which, however unjust, would be almost impossible to refute in public because of the space such a critical discussion would require. To your honor you have not taken the evasive course but said straight out that your only objection to the poems is that their author is a traitor.

On this issue: “Shall a book be judged by what it contains or by the character of the man that wrote it, or, to use your terms, does a man who has sacrificed any claims to the title of ‘American’ thereby sacrifice any claims to the title of ‘Poet’?”, I have only two points to add to what Mr Gannet[t] and others have already said. Firstly that the question of how good or bad Pound’s poems are is irrelevant (I do not care for them myself particularly); the issue would be the same if some hick newspaper refused, for the same reasons, to print some scribbler they had been in the habit of printing. (Vice versa, of course, if Pound were the greatest poet in the world, it would not entitle him to more lenient penalties for treachery.) Secondly, the issue is far more serious than it appears at first sight; the relation of an author to his work only one out of many, and once you accept the idea that one thing to which a man stands related shares in his guilt, you will presently extend it to others; begin by banning his poems not because you object to them but because you object to him, and you will end, as the nazis did, by slaughtering his wife and children.

As you say, the war is not over. This incident is only one sign—there are other and far graver ones—that there was more truth than one would like to believe in Huey Long’s cynical observation that if fascism came to the United States it would be called Anti-fascism. Needless to say, I am not suggesting that you desire any such thing—but I think your very natural abhorrence of Pound’s conduct has led you to take the first step which, if not protested now, will be followed by others which would horrify you.

Very reluctantly, therefore, I see no alternative for me but to sever my connection with your firm which has done me the, poorly requited, honor of printing my work and from whom I have received unfailing courtesy and kindness.

Yours sincerely,

W.H. Auden

Auden's second point was a great insight and we see it in play today with twitter mobs and media doxxing and calls for people to be fired from their jobs. Once you start proactively silencing a voice that is otherwise in demand based on its merits, you set in place a process for the process that leads from censorship to obliteration.

There follows an exchange where each seeks to clarify his own and the other's position. They are still talking past one another.

Auden follows with:

Dear Bennett,

Thank you very much for your nice letter and the enclosures.

I agree with you

a) That Art and Politics (and Morals) are not unrelated, but the relation is in the work itself. There are works of fairly high aesthetic value which present attitudes which are poisonous, and they present a problem to a publisher, and he has to decide whether the public are grown up enough to enjoy the first without harm because they are sufficiently aware that the second is poison.

But this is not, I believe, the issue in the Pound case. E.g. The contents of the poems in no way resemble the contents of the broadcasts. [That is, the poems were lyrics that had nothing to do with fascism or the war.]

b) An artist, or any other figure, who acquires some special status in the community, has a special responsibility. But that, surely, only means, that if he behaves badly or criminally, his act should be judged more severely. I get very exasperated with the people who argue that Pound should be acquitted or let down gently because he is a poet, which is obviously nonsense. The only claim for leniency can be exactly what it would be for any other criminal, on the grounds that he is mad, which is a matter for the court and the medical experts, not the public.

Actually—it is a very minor point—I have never met or heard of anyone who, out of admiration for Pound’s work, embraced his political opinions though I know, and I’m sure you do, of several who share his opinions but would certainly be incapable of reading his poems.

The whole case only confirms my long-held belief that it would be far better if all books were published anonymously.

Yours ever,

Wystan Auden

Again, my emphasis added. I think Auden is making three critical points. The art is being banned, not because of its message but because of its authorial affiliation. Condemn the artist for criminal violations not for crimes of thought. Art and ideology may be correlated but it is not causal.

Cerf and Auden are passionate in their positions but also determined that it is worth discussing so that one mind or another might be swayed. There is no hint of coercion and a clear valuing that they can discuss without animosity.

Dear Bennett,

Thank you very much for your letter. I’m afraid it looks like an impasse. I believe you to be seriously mistaken but unless I or others can convince you that you are, I would much rather you stuck by your guns, (the sad part about it is that the goal we are both aiming at is really the same) and I hope you will regard my stand in the same light.

If we must part company, which I find most unpleasant, it is at least a consolation that it should be over a principle, not any personal issue, and, speaking for myself, with gratitude and respect.

Yours ever,

Wystan Auden

Followed by:

Dear Bennett,

Thank you for your letter. Of course, if you change your mind, I shall be delighted to change mine, and on the day when you publish the poems, I hope you will tear up my original letter.

I shall be very pleased to see you any time when you are free. I know how busy you are, so could you drop me a note or phone this number (the best time is before 11.00 a.m.) and make a date.

Yours ever,

Wystan Auden

Eventually Bennett does understand Auden's position and does come around to it. Pounds poems will be included. Auden responds. Again, my emphasis.

Dear Bennett,

Many thanks for your letter and its welcome news. I congratulate you. Decisions are hard enough to take; to change them is even harder.

Yours ever,

Wystan Auden

That line from the second letter astonishes me.

Huey Long’s cynical observation that if fascism came to the United States it would be called Anti-fascism.

On researching it I see that it is attributed to Huey Long but it was actually the summary of a conversation by an interviewer, not necessarily exactly his words per se.

Still, the irony has been much remarked that our contemporary Antifa, are indeed in thought, word, and deed, and despite their name, the very personification of Fascism. It takes on a certain ironical piquancy to realize this was already anticipated nearly eighty years ago.