Well, Eliot wrote a great deal about his commitment to "Classicism," so I 
should think it would be his idea that is at issue, not Steve's.  "What is a 
Classic" is an extended definition of his notion of the "classical" and the 
importance of it, ie., "maturity" as he understood that term.  Both there and 
elsewhere, for example, "Modern Education and the Classics," he identifies 
it with the Greek and Latin texts and claims the only way to preserve a 
Christian society is to teach those texts.  He is constant and pretty clear in 
who he means.  And he is very clear that it is not ok to treat just anything 
as equally valuable.  He has clear hierarchies.  So I don't know what the 
question is here unless it is the particulars of his extensive discussions.  In 
"What is a Classic," for example, THE classic text of Western civilization 
is Virgil.
Nancy


Date sent:      	Sat, 18 Aug 2001 17:27:50 EDT
Send reply to:  	[log in to unmask]
From:           	[log in to unmask]
To:             	[log in to unmask]
Subject:        	Re: Definition of art

In a message dated 8/18/01 12:23:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
[log in to unmask] writes:


> Now, here's the problem:  I think TSE wanted to say not only that he was
> judging art by his pet standard (Classicism)...

Given his interest in Marie Lloyd, jazz, pop music, Groucho Marx, dirty
limericks, bawdy ballads, James Joyce, Isaac Rosenberg, etc., how did you
conclude that Classicism was his "pet standard"?

Did he have a "pet standard"?  I thought he wanted to be comprehensive 
and
take it all in.

Also, please clarify what you mean by Classicism. Euripides, Aeschylus,
and Aristophanes? 

pat