I am interested in the relation of crime and consequence.  And especially
consequence to others.  The line about what a man's gotta do was not
Eliot of course.  It was about the claim someone made about Eliot.  I'm
aware of when he joined the Church.
Nancy



Date sent:              Sun, 29 Sep 2002 13:04:43 +0100
Send reply to:          "T. S. Eliot Discussion forum." <[log in to unmask]>
From:                   Jennifer Formichelli <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:                Re: Sweeney Agonistes and the Furies: Reply to Peter
To:                     [log in to unmask]

Dear Nancy,

Two points. First, Eliot was not a Christian when he wrote Sweeney
Agonistes. He was, however, when he made the comment about expiation.
However, I am not sure expiation (which is different from atonement after
all, and absolution) is a private matter; it certainly is not in the
Oresteia.

I'm not sure where Eliot ever says 'a man's gotta do what a man's gotta
do'. Sweeney says, 'Any man has to, wants to, needs to'. Of course, some
men do have to: Orestes, to begin with.

I think  the struggle between crime and motive is, as it will always be,
the issue.

Yours, Jennifer
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nancy Gish" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2002 6:43 PM
Subject: Re: Sweeney Agonistes and the Furies: Reply to Peter


> Dear Jennifer,
>
> This is wonderful context, and I agree with all you say except that it
> is precisely this notion that expiation is a private matter between
> oneself
and
> a god that I do not accept.  I think as a Christian Eliot might have
> also seen expiation as involving the contrition that requires reparation
> and a choice never to repeat.  Agamemnon stays dead of course.
>
> I am only distinguishing between the texts, on which I think you are
> absolutely right, and my earlier view on Eliot as a person, which is
> separate from the value of the poetry OR the visions of right and just
> in
the
> poetry.
>
> I think where we may disagree is in admiring Eliot's comment that a
> man's gotta do what a man's gotta do.  Eliot, at least, did not have to
> do what
he
> did, or at least not in the self-preserving ways he did it--in my view.
And
> that does not change the way I love the poems.
> Cheers,
> Nancy
>
>
> Date sent:              Sat, 28 Sep 2002 18:08:32 +0100
> Send reply to:          "T. S. Eliot Discussion forum."
<[log in to unmask]>
> From:                   Jennifer Formichelli <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject:                Sweeney Agonistes and the Furies: Reply to Peter
> To:                     [log in to unmask]
>
> Peter writes: "Then of course there are the figures of the Erinyes that
> are alluded to even in Sweeney Ag. and that appear in one form or
> another in the other plays. "
>
> Firstly, the only other play in which the Erinyes, or the Furies (who in
> Grecian tragedies punish those who commit familial murder) appear is The
> Family Reunion, in which play Orestes' words upon seeing them for the
> first time are alluded to by Harry. Eliot discusses this scene in
> 'Poetry and Drama' (1951), OPP.
>
> Secondly, the Furies are not *in* SA. The only place they appear is in
> the epigraph, and there to Orestes' eyes only; after committing
> matricide in revenge for the murder of his father Agamemnon (under the
> order of Apollo) he sees them , and only he sees them then, for the
> first time. He does, however, know they are coming. (It is an irony that
> the Furies cannot themselves pursue Clytemnestra, Orestes' mother, for
> the murder, because she is not related by blood to Agamemnon). Orestes
> is guilty and goes to Apollo's shrine to purify himself of the killing;
> but then, the
matter
> is more complex. Had he not committed the crime, he would have been
> hounded by the Furies of his father's curse, the punishment for a son
> who does not revenge his father. So they come from both sides. Moreover,
> had he taken this course, he would not have received the aid of Apollo
> which ultimately saved his House and helped to end the tradition of
> revenge killings in the polis (in Eumenides).
>
> Eliot wrote in 1936, in one of his most profound parenthesis: '(Yet
> Aeschylus, at least, knew that it might be a man's duty to commit a
> crime, and accomplish his expiation for it.)' I think it is not helpful
> to look at Eliot's situations unless we situate them. There is much more
> to Orestes than guilt; Eliot prefaces Sweeney A with his whole situation
> (including the Trojan War which his father carries with him).
>
> Yours, Jennifer