Ezra Pound's Periplum, II: Getting It Right

Pound in the Criterion, July 1933:

"It is perhaps only now that all these disagreeable phenomena can be traced to maladministration of credit. Artists are the race's antennae. The effects of social evil show first in the arts. Most social evils are at root economic. I, personally, know of no social evil that cannot be cured, or very largely cured, economically.

"The lack of printed and exchangeable slips of paper corresponding to extant goods is at the root of bad taste, it is at the root not of bad musical composition, but at the root of the non performance of the best music, ancient, modern and contemporary; it is at the root of the difficulty in printing good books when written.

"The fear of change is very possibly a contributing cause. I don't mean an honest and perspicacious fear of change, but a love of lolling and a cerebral fixation. But with a decent fiscal system the few hundred people who want work of first intensity could at any rate have it, whether it were supposed to leaven the mass or not."

The easiest corollary between a pair of thoughts is usually syntactic. Operative structures, grammatical or otherwise, processing diverse things in similar manners, might mislead the mind to assume that the diverse things are thus similar. Such might be the easiest way to contain a dyadic argument like Pound's, when one, or I, or you might conclude something like: The degeneration of art is linked to a failed economic system because--well, because they is.

My purpose here today is to look carefully at that 'because,' and try to take it as a start rather than finish. Elsewhere, in 'The Serious Artist,' Pound is more specific about the corollary:

"I have said that the arts give us the best data for determining what sort of creature man is. As our treatment of man must be determined by our knowledge or conception of what man is, the arts provide data for ethics."

The ethics of poetics are bound in the latter's interpretive ethos. The sense is that bad art is not only bad, but fundamentally immoral. Such correlation between equity and poetry is the core of Aristotelean theories of judgment--as in the Nichomachean Ethics: We must not adhere strictly to the letter of the law, but account in judgment for the character of the agent and the nature or intention of the act.

It is hardly coincidental that Pound begins the essay which contains the previous quote by suggesting that he is reluctantly merely rewriting Sidney's "Defense of Poesy," in the year of grace 1913. In Sidney's defense Poetry affords imaginative spectrum necessary to 'pierce and possess the sight of the soul' and thus attain 'judicial comprehending.'

I.e. Judgment must recognize the particular reality, as Cicero terms, of voluntas beyond the scriptum. And poetics, likewise an examination of cause through character and intention, is such ethical apparatus.

From Canto CXVI, last Canto:


Neptunus is subsumed by mind in metaphor; the representational, the dolphins, describe the character of Neptune's mind, although they do not determine it. His metonymic absorption here is a kind of auxiliary impersonation. Like Pound in his Personae, Neptunus is reckoned through the poetic character of the leaping, marine mammals. Pound's personae are explicitly instruments of reckoning. Pound's most primordial persona, the Seafarer:

May I for my own self song's truth reckon,
Journey's jargon...

The acknowledgment and adjudication of song's truth occurs through an examination of the humanity residual in a fictive construct of person--accounting, as previously stated, for its character and nature of agency. The lineaments shared by poetics and equitable justice, which Pound invariably links to economic justice, are an affective instrument in the proper application of judicious systems of thought.

Good poetry is good polity, in this rubric. Good political decision, likewise, is proper application of the equitable imagination which has so much of poetry in its decision-making process. We must interpret as we read. And it is the poet's moral duty to present accurate representations of human character and act. Only by such messy representation is the abstract codification of law, of fact, given the meaning of justice, the fuller sense of interpretive equity and humanity in the act of decision.

Worth noting that the Neptunalia was a two-day festival in Rome, in honor of Neptune, during which committees of citizens could vote on civil or criminal matters.


Neptunus Fountain, Queretaro, Mexico, c. 1910

Peripheral to all this, but related, is the Odyssean figure in the Cantos. I have previously detailed the import of the periplum, or navigatorial sense of history, but glossed the central role of Odysseus to its construction in the Cantos; Odysseus, who in the Odyssey is described as polytropon, or many-faced. This democratic manifestation of personae upon personae, epic polytropology, itself textualizes equity, or at least does for the forum in which the equitable imagination can be voiced.

Counsel from Poor Richard

For the Year of Christ, 2009, being the First after Leap Year:

The financial crisis will not break the banks. They will recover, stimulated in part by the injection of the trillion plus dollars of new cash by the Fed in the coming months. These cash credits, known as reserves, will soar in the effort to prevent deflation--or overvalued, scarce cash.

The system will have more lubricity and inflation will soon rise. While this is happening, it is not sound to hold on to too much money because the inflation will act as a sort of tax--charging you at the rate at which money is devalued by its overabundance.

But this is kind of the point--to stimulate finance while simultaneously punishing its tendency to use the held money of long-term investment for short-term gain. It would be unwise then to stand near while the dunce gets lashed. It would be wiser indeed to invest instead in non-money, valued, material assets--such as land, merchandise (for a future business or personal project), etc., because these will become harder to acquire in the next year (as the currency is devalued).

When and while the currency is most devalued, sometime around the middle of 2010, it will be recommendable to save. This is to say that you get it while it's cheap--wait until the excess liquidity is phased out by increased interest (and tax!) rates--and gain as the money is revalued. Whatever you earn from interest during this period will be compounded with the discount of having purchased your investment (ie. your money) on inflationary discount.

Ben Franklin, primordial American money printer, on the way this works:

"This currency, as we manage it, is a wonderful machine. It performs its office when we issue it: it pays and clothes troops, and provides victuals and ammunition; and when we are obliged to issue a quantity excessive, it pays itself off by depreciation. But this depreciation, tho' in some circumstances inconvenient, has the general good and great effect of operating as a tax, and perhaps the most equal of all taxes, since it depreciated in the hands of the holders of money, and thereby taxed them in proportion to the sums they held and the time they held it which generally is in proportion to men's wealth."

Moral of the ant and the grasshopper was that ant bought into something while it was easy to get. In seasonal scarcity, the value of what he'd gotten naturally got gooder. Buy things you want now--invest in material--and when money gets cheapest either sell or save, or sell and save, and watch your dollar earn.

You can tell 'em you bought it on the Fugio Special.


First coin issued by the U.S. government, designed by Franklin, 1787.

Sun Ra's Syllabus, II

In 1848, Elder Joseph Brackett of the Shaker community in Alfred, Maine, wrote "Simple Gifts." The lyrics:

'Tis the gift to be simple, 'tis the gift to be free,
'Tis the gift to come down where we ought to be,
And when we find ourselves in the place just right,
'Twill be in the valley of love and delight.
When true simplicity is gain'd,
To bow and to bend we shan't be asham'd,
To turn, turn will be our delight,
Till by turning, turning we come out right.

This is a Shaker work song and, though not demonstrative of the more amorphous, spontaneous strain of Shaker music, seems meaningful to pause over as monodic argument for the asemic strain. The liberating gift of descent lands the singer in a valley of love and delight, wherein of bow and bend there shall be no shame.

The bow is both an embodied descent and a bent strip of wood, strung taut to launch arrows. The bend is a tripartite bend of this bow, its bend of the body, and the bend of the musical measure of the song, sensible in the stretch from the iambic phrase, 'to bow,' to the anapestic phrase, 'and to bend.' The confluent 'bends' here echo the structure of Paz's 1956 El arco y la lira, tr. The Bow and the Lyre (ie. political instrument and musical instrument), which articulates a theory of poetry as distinct from poem, and of poem as discrete but not excluded from poetry as political organization.

There can be no society without poetry, but society can never be realized as poetry, it is never poetic. Sometimes the two terms seek to break apart. They cannot.

The poetic society then, in its realization, according to Elder Joseph's song, is a thing of which we will feel no shame. Having been liberated, to continuously turn in that liberty will be our delight--and by such delightful, reorienting volutions, we will come out right--come out in accordance with what is good.

In the more asemic strains of their music, the Shakers did not articulate their reorienting volutions but rather demonstrated them. Many lyrics of these songs consist of words from unknown tongues, imitated from the sounds of Native-American languages and the songs of African slaves, whom the Shakers would purchase to liberate, thus precluding further enslavement. The poetics of such a society become an abstract splendor; this is to say that the music was as consequent of political frame as political frame was of musicality embodied and emboldened.

In such bold presentation, Sun Ra descends to planet Earth. Sun Ra traveled from Saturn, where he was designated as the eye of God, to observe humanity and show them that they had entered a new age (of 'colorful presentation' and 'abstract images'). Saddened that Earth's sound was 'one of guns and thunder,' Ra was torn between the transmission of this observation back to God and the desire to reflect for humans the splendors of the age in which they were living. This was his simple gift.

In addition to the bibliography I detailed in the post previous to this, Sun Ra's syllabus included a reference list of his own, most essential albums. I have linked the albums on that list here:

My Brother the Wind, Vol. I
My Brother the Wind, Vol. II
The Night of the Purple Moon
Atlantis
Strange Strings
Heliocentric Worlds, Vol. I
Heliocentric Worlds, Vol. II
Heliocentric Worlds, Vol. III
The Magic City
The Nubians of Plutonia
Fate in a Pleasant Mood
Monorails and Satellites

And, simply because it is beautiful, I am including Spaceways, 1968, as well:

Part I


Part II

Sun Ra's Syllabus

In the 1970s Sun Ra taught a class at UC Berkeley listed as 'Sun Ra 171' in the Afro-American studies department. His syllabus, as recounted by Arkestra drummer, Samurai Celestial, and others, follows:

John Wilson, Jazz: Where it Came From, Where It's At (United States Information Agency, 1967)

Yosef Ben Jochannan, Black Man of the Nile (Alkibu Ian Books, 1972)

Stylus, 13:1 (Temple University Student Publications, Spring 1971)

Henry Dumas, "Ark of Bones," Ark of Bones And Other Stories, ed. Eugene B. Redmond (New York, Random House, 1974), pp. 3-18

Henry Dumas, Poetry for My People, ed. Hale Chatfield and Eugene Redmond. With a pref. by Imamu Amiri Baraka (LeRoi Jones) and an introd. by Jay Wright (Carbondale, Southern Illinois University Press, 1971)

Imamu Amiri Baraka, Black fire; an anthology of Afro-American writing, ed. LeRoi Jones and Larry Neal (New York, Morrow, 1968)

Alexander Hislop, The two Babylons, or, The papal worship proved to be the worship of Nimrod and his wife : with sixty-one woodcut ilustrations from Ninevah, Babylon, Egypt, Pompeii, &c. (3rd ed. Edinburgh : J. Wood, 1862; Also: New York, Loizeaux Bros., 1956)

David Livingstone, Missionary travels and researches in South Africa : including a sketch of sixteen years' residence in the interior of Africa, and a journey from the Cape of Good Hope to Loanda, on the west coast, thence across..., (New York, Harper & Bros., 1858)

Bill Looney, Radix, 2nd ed. (Fort Worth, Branch-Smith, 1975)

Theodore P. Ford, God wills the Negro: an anthropological and geographical restoration of the lost history of the American Negro people (Chicago, The Geographical institute press, 1939)

Archibald Hamilton Rutledge, God's children, illus. with photographs by Noble Bretzman (Indianapolis, Bobbs-Merrill, 1947)

C.F. Volney, The Ruins, or, Meditation on the Revolutions of Empires: And the Law of Nature (New York, The Truth Seeker Co., 62 Vesey St, 1913)

"The Source Book of Man's Life and Death," i.e. The Bible, King James Version

P.D. Ouspensky, A New Model of the Universe: Principles of the Psychological Method in Its Application to Problems of Science, Religion and Art, Tr. by R. R. Merton, under the supervision of the author (New York, Knopf, 1931)

Frederick Bodmer, The Loom of Language: An Approach to the Mastery of Many Languages, ed. Lancelot Hogben

"Blackie's Etymology," C. Blackie, Geographical Etymology: A Dictionary of Place Names Giving their Derivations (London, John Murray, Albemarle St, 1887)

Thomas Browne, Hydrotaphia (London, Cambridge UP, 1922)

John Ballou Newbrough, Oahspe, A Kosmon Bible in the Words of Jehovih and his Angel Embassadors, 3rd ed. 1912 (dictated to him in a trance)

Radix (a 19c astrological journal, of which I have been able to find no further information)

Helena P. Blavatsky, Collected Writings, compiled by Boris de Zirkoff, (London, Theosophical Publishing House, 1950)

Arthur Edward Waite, The Real History of the Rosicrucians (London, George Redway, York St, Covent Garden, 1887)

Franz Hartmann, In the Pronaos of the Temple of Wisdom (Boston, The Theosophical Society and Occult Publishing Company, 1890)

Magus Incognito, The Secret Doctrine of the Rosicrucians (Chicago, L. N. Fowler & Co., 1918)

Hargrave Jennings, The Rosicrucians: Their Rites and Mysteries (New York, E.P. Dutton and Co., 1907)

"Those that imagine heaven and hell neighbors, and conceive a vicinity between those two extremes, upon consequence of the parable, where Dives discoursed with Lazarus, in Abraham's bosom, do too grossly conceive of those glorified creatures, whose eyes shall easily out-see the sun, and behold without perspective the extremest distances: for if there shall be, in our glorified eyes, the faculty of sight and reception of objects, I could think the visible species there to be in as unlimitable a way as now the intellectual"

-Thomas Browne, Religio Medici, 1643

The Denuding of Tenochtitlan

I have for a year had in my possession a dear friend's global history of Mexico in manuscript form. The idea of Mexican literature and history as world literature and history is not a new one. This history, however, supposes a universalism in Mexican history. From without, the history is the face of history. From within, a portrait of Mexico.

A lengthy quote from the history:

On the invisible lake of Texcoco the waving reproducible image of a brown eagle descends on the featherless serpent, lands on the nopal, and decimates the history of a city. It had sighted all that could be seen on that land, in one fell swoop: the founding of Mexico-Tenochtitlan by the Mexica, the wandering tribe of Huitzilopochtli; the Triple Alliance of Tenochtitlan, Texcoco, and Tlacopan, brought to fruition by Itzcoatl and the ingenious Nezahualcotoyl; the imperial achievements made by Ahuitzotl in the expansion of the empire; the melancholy surmises of Moctezuma Xocoyotzin, in conversation with his priests; the three year war for Tenochtitlan, and the Conquest to last 300 years hence; the Victory of Our Lady of Guadalupe, and the coming of the Angel of Independence; the entrance of a Hapsburg into the city gates; three years after, the restoration of the Republic upon the entrance of a Zapotec into the City of Mexico; the assassination of Maximilian I; the countless reforms by Juares, and the re-establishment of the Republic; the thirty-year Porfiriato that would return Mexico to the French Intervention it had just overthrown, and regress the national achievements of the Zapotec liberator; the Revolution that would destroy everything that existed before it and build up a storm that would last decades after the first wave; the establishment of the Partido Revolucionario Institucional, and the 70 years of a perfected dictatorship under the umbrella of a revolutionary cause that continues to thrive in the hears of partisans; & the positivist urbanizing spirit of the times that would bring skyscrapers, the 1968 Olympics, the Tlatelolco Massacre, the 1970 World Cup, and NAFTA to the neo-classical post-modern streets of Mexico - extending blood and expanding borders and exploding the free market, at the helm of a mystic nation - from a moment's perch on the cactus - in the solitary eye of the eagle...

For Moctezuma, Jose-Luis Moctezuma, Joseph, my dear friend, author, the yet unheard song of the federal district was already sung when the tribe of Tenoch saw the eagle eating the snake--to be found is to be founded--and Mexico, historical locus, will never escape the fact and the fate of its founding myth. But myth, it must be remembered, is metaphor. And metaphor is limited by language and that which language cannot represent.

Language can only ever expand because of the fact that it cannot claim total comprehensibility between itself and the universe. Language is both total and not total: We have words for everything we need to say; until we realize that we do not have the words to say something which suddenly needs to be said. The non-total aspect of language then allows us to discover or create that which need be said. These are the moments that the impenetrable crudity of life reveals its presence and its invisibility.

The invisible crudity, as the limit upon which language determines its usefulness, is the fact of the universe. It precedes our vocabularies. It is the territory of life itself. Though life itself is lived through language. There are, as I have just said, monumental moments when these two drives sensibly intersect in the mind. Such, I would argue, was the moment of Moctuzuma's (Xocoyotzin) meeting with Cortez.

A moment which is not mentioned in my dear friend's history but which seems monumental in the collapse of Xocoyitzin's Tenochtitlan is described in William Carlos Williams' 'Destruction of Tenochitlan:'

Here in this large building whose great hall was to serve the Spaniards for barracks from that time until the end, Montezuma (sic) and Cortez found themselves seated at last face to face. Montezuma spoke: "They have told you that I possess houses with walls of gold and many other such things and that I am a god or make myself one. The houses you see are of stone and lime and earth." -Then opening his robe: "You see that I am composed of flesh and bone like yourselves and that I am mortal and palpable to the touch..."

Upon which Cortez demands the Aztec ruler declare himself subject to the king of Spain. It is a stupid and obfuscating falsity that the Aztecs ever believed the Europeans to have been gods. They knew they weren't gods--but men of flesh like their own. Their initial graciousness was premised--and more admirably so--upon this.

Moctezuma Xocoyitzin, sensing the crudity of his universe necessitating new metaphor, new linguistic alignment with the strange, inexplicable European, bared his bareness in an attempt to bare the European. The metaphor of his myth could not sustain itself and, rather than project, he assumed vacuity, flesh, bone and stone. The European then imposed metaphor, myth and sovereignty. But this is inessential to Moctezuma's gesture--which was a moment when the impenetrable crudity of life revealed its presence and its invisibility or incomprehensibility.

Before the incomprehensible, then, he went nude--the nude serpent in the marshy vale. Mr. Moctezuma's (Jose-Luis') argument surfaces again. BUT, with his self-denuding, that man, Moctezuma, breathed for the first time in a universe with no claim upon myth except that myth could not claim him. He became the ineffable crudity--a different kind of king.

As a bit of an aside, my central issue with Hegelian dialectic is such, and I will cite another of my dear friend's passions (Tarkovsky) to illustrate my issue: In 'The Mirror,' Arseny Tarkovsky, Andrei's father, recites from his own poetry:

"A soul is sinful without a body,
Like a body without clothes"

The spiritual (thesis) needs the inert material (antithesis) to realize its comprehensive grace (synthesis) in the same way that a body needs clothes to cover it to contain its grace. But the act of covering is a kind of obscuring. If the soul were verily realized in grace by its presence in material, there would be no need to further cover that grace. Thus dialectic becomes a sort of piling on--despite its suggestion of totalizing. Moctezuma Xocoyitzin attained true sovereignty when he went into the inert material--into flesh, bone and stone--not because of a fusion he attained in so doing, but because of a displacement he sensed and gestured. By displacements, we expand. Such is the nature of the simultaneous totality and expansiveness of language.

In this way, in expanding, we are not static, are not myth.

We are more metaphor. I do not agree with Joseph Moctezuma on many points, but I am certain that we agree on this: The psychic life of humans is most profound on the surface, like Tenochtitlan on the landfill. The deeper you dig, the more you'll find you're in a ditch. We are both, in distinct ways, material universalists, with a faith in the flesh. But he is, in his way, a kind of sun-worshiper--loves cycles and monarchs, and the irreversibility of blood history.

I sometimes consider him a Tory (his adoration Dr. Johnson speaks of this)--but probably only do this to whet the blade of republicanism in my own mind. I know that his thoughts are actually too twisty for Toryism. He is divided within himself. Sometimes he conflicts, sometimes lies. I have loved and hated him with equal intensity. He has been a brother, a buffoon, a best friend and a brilliant counter to my movements. He is a very dear friend. This post is dedicated to him. He keeps an excellent blog on film:

http://modaldoggerel.blogspot.com/

Imperialism and Washington Irving: Some Types of Epic

Having in earlier posts described imperial timescales, in contrast to republican timescales, I'll shorthand the distinction now by saying that imperial time presupposes immemorial custom and, by the prescriptive nature of custom, reflexively claims ethical primacy. The politics of epic writing are such: The Julio-Claudian dynasty was willing to cede laureate status to a secondary poet (Virgil over Horace) to get themselves an Aeneid. Virgil got it and was copied for it.

Arma virumque cano, Troiae qui primus ab oris
Italiam fato profugus Laviniaque venit
litora, multum ille et terris iactatus et alto
vi superum, saevae memorem Iunonis ob iram,
multa quoque et bello passus, dum conderet urbem
inferretque deos Latio; genus unde
Albanique patres atque altae moenia Romae.

In Camoes' Lusiads (epic of a burgeoning imperial Portugal) becomes:

As armas e os barões assinalados
Que, da ocidental praia lusitana,
Por mares nunca de antes navegados
Passaram ainda além da Taprobana,
Em perigos e guerras esforçados,
Mais do que prometia a força humana,
E entre gente remota edificaram
Novo reino, que tanto sublimaram.

In empire, new reign must be timeless, sublime reign, which the fates have indeed ordained. It's worth noting that unlike Homer's Odyssey, no time is set for the events which take place during the Aeneid. The Greeks had no imperial scaffold to construct. The Odyssey is nearer the tradition of 16c, itinerant Cossack bards transmitting Dumas, or military poems with religious undertones.


Ostap Veresai, one of the last Slavonic kobzar, or blind bards, from Poltava region, Ukraine.

In this rather roundabout way, I want to focus this lens of epic imperialism on Washington Irving's Diedrich Knickerbocker's 'History of New York,' which, much like Lucretius' De Rerum Natura, begins at the very beginning, when the world was yet an 'inanimate mass, floating in the vast etherial ocean of infinite space,' shaped, as it were, like an oblate orange. The history of the Empire State cannot be discussed without positioning it in a vast, preposterous cosmogony. Knickerbocker later both attributes and does not attribute the peopling of America to the issue of a globetrotting Noah, under the protection of St. Nicholas.

The preposterous tone seems to work to hedge its speaker: While inflating the absolute, unquestionable authority of empire and imperial legality, the contours or consequence of America, esp. New York, as empire are impossible to determine. Dutch patriarchs are forebears to D Knickerbocker but not with the emotional investment evident in the Persian imperialist, Xerxes, who wept when surveying his army, knowing that not one of them would be alive in one hundred years, or on the timescale of empire. This is to say that Diedrich seems to invoke an imperial sense of time invested but allow it to balloon with republican sensibility, ie. with no emotive sensitivity to its antient lineaments.

Elsewhere, Irving on the Mutability of Literature and the Sovereignty of the Present:

'For my part,' I continued, 'I consider this mutability of language a wise precaution of Providence for the benefit of the world at large, and of authors n particular. To reason from analogy, we daily behold the varied and beautiful tribes of vegetables springing up, flourishing, adorning the fields for a short time, and then fading into dust, to make way for their successors. Were not this the case, the fecundity of nature would be a grievance instead of a blessing. The earth would groan with rank and excessive vegetation, and its surface become a tangled wilderness.'

The mutability of language and literature itself becomes forensic evidence for the sovereignty and responsibility of the individual in time. The Empire State, in this lens, seems rather an empire of the democratic individual. That Irving continuously resists affixing himself to a single pseudonym or personality (Geoffrey Crayon, Gent; Diedrich Knickerbocker; etc.) further suggests an internal, psychic democracy, or mental republic of varied, indeterminable, subjective agents. More on psychic republicanism soon.

Outline Suggesting a Useful Introduction to John Wilmot, 2nd Earl of Rochester

1. Rochester is a materialist: his understanding is premised on proofs and elements that are tangible to him – he resists metaphysical presumption (unlike his poetic forebears, who I have recently discussed at length in this blog)--Rochester arrives in the Fruitful Restauration of Charles II.

2. This lack of metaphysical presumption even surfaces as a contempt for metaphysical conceits. He distrusts abstractions (and therefore discredits the capacity REASON has to apprehend)

Cf. “A Satyre against Reason and Mankind,” 37-42: wit is a whore, fatal to admiring fools; 62-81: the creative flights of fancy, beyond Material sense, makes a mite think he’s the image of the infinite—“And tis this very Reason I despise;”

3. Having dismissed metaphysic, his business is articulating pleasure of life. His intellectual understanding is conscientiously focused on material with the intent to elicit GREATER PLEASURE from his activities –intellectual or otherwise ('Satyre')

Cf. “A Satyre…” 92ff: “And we have modern Colystred Coxcombs, who/ Retire to think, ‘cause they have nought to do:/ But Thoughts are given for Actions government,/ Where Action ceases, Thought’s impertinent./ Our sphere of Action is Lifes happiness, And he who thinks beyond, thinks like an Asse; 104-05: Your Reason hinders, mine helps to enjoy, Renewing appetites yours would destroy. My reason is my friend, yours is a cheat, Hunger calls out, my Reason bids me eat…

4. HE IS NOT, HOWEVER, outside his time: He asserts responsibility and role of the citizenry to organize government and the material purpose of a sovereign’s rule—that is to protect the citizenry and promote greater appreciation of life (as Rochester understands it—drink and fuck) among his citizenry ('Sodom, or the Quintessence of Debauchery')

Cf. “To the Reader” Rochester is no anarchist: 17: To be lawless is true vassalage; 71: Lawless liberty is the Lowest slavery; “To the Reader:” 38: The certain way to reigne is to protect; “Sodom” 1ff: Bolloxinian: Thus in the Zenith of the lust I reigne:/ I eat to swive and Swive to eat againe./ Let other Monarchs who with their Scepters beare to keepe their subjects less in love [than] feare/ Bee slaves to Crownes, my nation shall be free… FURTHERMORE the central premise of the drama is that Bolloxinian is expected to fuck and his wife and all his mistresses and boys (read subjects)

5. SO THE RULER IS STILL A FOUNTAINHEAD from which the LIFEFORCE of the nation courses--the first and the last cock to cum in any political structure

Cf. as in Sodom, when the Prince ceases to trickle down power (semen and sex) the structure disintegrates and Cuntigratia is compelled to find others to fuck her Act II, Scene 2, 14-15 Lady Officinia: That day of marriage you may JUSTLY rue/ Since he will neither Swive nor suffer you

6. The complication is that, if Rochester is promoting an Enlightened Despot, he does not seem to bother suggesting that this despot necessarily must promote didacticism or knowledge—-promotion of pleasure and protection of welfare alone are the virtues he assigns as the DESPOT’S duties (this becomes problematic when Bolloxinian, his prince, can’t fuck everybody)

Cf. 'Sodom:' Scene B2: 100: Where Pintle cannot gain new breath/ the resureccons wors than Death

7. Rochester seems a good case for examining the reality of a frame inspired by Hobbes taken to its most extreme conclusion: if ruler does not care to advance his people except to licentiousness of body and living—should a body politic still be obliged to follow? Cuntigratia does not. Charles the II could not either and basically gave up on trying

8. Would Rochester say that such is necessarily a BAD thing? Compared to intolerance or violence? Can we presume that Rochester did not understand or perceive his disassociation with the PURITAN flavor of his time (of course not)—-he instead chose a more perpetual tendencies, i.e. the body, sexuality and lawful liberty in love (in doing so associated such with the court of Charles II, as anodyne to the convulsions of the Commonwealth)

Cf. Evident by his invective against the savagery of man: Satyre… 129ff: You see how far Man’s wisdome extends… Birds feed on birds, Beasts on each other prey, But savage Man alone does man betray: Prest by necessity they kill for food, Man undoes Man to do himself no good; Sodom: The Phallic sovereign: Act 4, Scene 5, 31: Damn silly dildoes—had I but the blisse/ of once enjoyeing sucha a prick as this,/ I would his will eternally obey, / and every minute Cunt should tribute pay; 41: A God to rule and keep our sex in awe!; Vide 'Artimizia to Chloe;' The destruction of Sodom by Sexually Transmitted Disease only occurred when the Prince swayed from the organization of sexuality—there is no invective against liberal sex as such, only against the Prince not having fucked the necessary amount of cunts to keep his kingdom functioning (Fuckadilla’s Epilogue)

End note: Rochester is verse already on its way down to, or out to, or toward, pure song in the English language. Rather than an architectizing rhetorician, Rochester was something like the outgrowth of a return to boggier lands.