From: INGELBIEN RAPHAEL [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
As for Leavis, I think there is much of the disappointed lover in his
remarks on Eliot's life-deying tendencies. Ideally, he would have liked to
enlist both Eliot and Lawrence in the Great Tradition- and then he realised
that that was not what Eliot meant, at all.
Astute remarks, RaphaŽl.
I suppose another way of looking at it is that Eliot committed THE
great original sin of the 20th C. by becoming a Christian, which in
certain ways made him the equivalent of Shelley in the previous
century who became a pariah because of his atheism. Eliot's punishment
was less glitzy. He just ceased to be taken so seriously in a quietistic
kind of way. Of course his post-conversion art was of less interest
As for E. and D.H.L -- Eliot virtually adopted the Elizabethan
sensibility when he did his assiduous examination of Elizabethan
drama. He ate the language of that time. Then he pretty much looked
at any subsequent usage needing to find its roots in that pre-dis-
sociation source, the lack of such roots suggesting the lack of the
necessary integument to be of much lasting value. Lawrence had no
such grounding in his language. For Eliot that would have been as
much a moral deficiency as an artistic one.
The other side of it is, of course, that Lawrence was Freud's
PR man. He was a populariser of a certain emotional psychology
that was bent towards the molasses end of the feeling spectrum
Definitely NOT Eliot's perferred place to stay tuned on that
particular aesthetic dial.
Dr. Peter C. Montgomery
Dept. of English
3100 Foul Bay Rd.
Victoria, BC CANADA V8P 5J2
[log in to unmask]