I guess Eliot's semetic views, anti- or otherwise
constitute a scar that has to be lived with. There's
no getting around it or justifying it on the basis
of the ethos of the time (there once was an ethos that
justified slavery. That didn't make it right).
Part of the difficulty is that it is so inconsistent with
his later attempts to point to a vital path for thinking
Christians. Such a path is very valuable, but to accept that
path or even just respect it, means living with the
embarassments of the past. His treatment of Viv. is equally
hard to understand given the values he accepted in his
Like 99.9999% of us, he wasn't a saint.
Does it affect the validity or aesthetic
appreciation of his work? Nope. It's just
Dr. Peter C. Montgomery
Dept. of English
3100 Foul Bay Rd.
Victoria, BC CANADA V8P 5J2
[log in to unmask]
From: Rickard A. Parker [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 4:13 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Eliot sighting
Nancy Gish wrote:
> This takes us back to the ongoing debate. But unless "anti-Semitic" is
> defined, it is impossible to attribute.
I just did a little Google search out of curiosity.
"T.S. Eliot" 178,000 Google hits
"T.S. Eliot" "anti-Semitic" 921 Google hits
Does this count as 178,000 Eliot sightings? ;-)