I can only reply with the general observation that being a 'respected
attorney in Great Britain' says nothing about whether or not Julius should
be respected as a scholar or scientist. And if you realise what an attorney
fundamentally is - an amplifier of an ultimately subjective point of view -
you could easily argue the opposite. As by now thousands of modern day
Socrati (don't know the Greek plural) have pointed out, a very thin and
unclear line separates serving justice from preventing justice.
You'd almost suspect that if an attorney hasn't been trained to do one
thing, it is arguing both sides of a story, subjectivity, and what not.
Which makes me wonder whether a succesful attorney making it to the other
side of the bench is an anachronism. ;-) Do you, as a lawyer, have any
thoughts on this? I'll try to find an opportunity to ask my lawyer
colleagues this myself, tomorrow (I'm back working at Baker & McKenzie
> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: [log in to unmask]
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]Namens [log in to unmask]
> Verzonden: zondag 2 september 2001 0:38
> Aan: [log in to unmask]
> Onderwerp: Re: Eliot, Wagner and Julius
> With things so calm, I'll spread around some accelerant to the forum.
> Specifically, I found a review of Julius' "T.S. Eliot, Anti-Semitism and
> Literary Form" that had run in "American Literary History."
> (It's cached at
> I have not read Julius' book and don't wish, for current
> purposes, to return
> to a debate on his ultimate conclusions. The lawyer in me, however, was
> struck by one argument cited in the review that seems not to make
> sense. As
> I know Julius is a respected attorney in Great Britain, I thought
> I'd pass it
> along for others to defend or explain, if appropriate, and let me
> know if I
> am missing something.
> Julius cites Eliot as writing: "The poetry of Isaac Rosenberg . .
> . because
> it is Hebraic . . . is a contribution to English literature. For
> a Jewish
> poet to be able to write like a Jew, in western Europe and in a western
> European language, is almost a miracle."
> The review suggests that these words are thrown by Julius together with
> Wagner's statement (among many) to the effect that: "The Jew speaks the
> language of the country in which he has lived from generation to
> but he always speaks it as a foreigner." Unless I misread the review, it
> appears to consider these as kindred thoughts.
> To my readng, however, these statements are almost directly
> contrary. Both
> deal with Jews and make general pronouncements about their
> relationship with
> non-Jewish language systems, but there the similarity ends.
> First, Wagner speaks in absolutes, while Eliot states a general rule in
> recognizing an exception.
> More crucially, Wagner posits that European Jews always write "as Jews"
> (implicit in his statement that they always write "as
> foreigners"), even when
> writing in the local, Europoean language. Eliot, on the other hand, says
> that for an English Jew to write as a Jew in a European is "almost a
> miracle." Their fundamental beliefs about the realtionship of
> European Jews
> to European languages could hardly be more different.
> Does anyone else who cares to consider the matter have an opinion
> as to what
> Julius may have been trying to say here?
> Tom K