I thought Eliot said something like his being a Royalist in politics.
As I remember he wore a white rose on the comemoration date of
the Battle of Bosworth field, and referred to Ricky III as the last
Doesn't that pretty much say it all?
He had a tough tryst with Pound in NEW over Social Credit,
and indicated that he didin't care how valid it might be
it didn't have to do with whatever they were arguing about.
At least he didn't come out in support of Hitler like
Dr. Peter C. Montgomery
Dept. of English
3100 Foul Bay Rd.
Victoria, BC CANADA V8P 5J2
[log in to unmask]
From: Jennifer Formichelli [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 7:36 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Pachel rings a bell backwards
> Eliot was political, with a lower case "p," but hardly "only" so.
> Milton was
> Political with an upper case "P" but hardly "only" so. Ironically,
> like Adrienne Rich gets seen as political because the politics are
> and lesbian. But they are not any more "politics" than a commitment to
> being royalist, catholic, and classical. So trying to imagine late
> without those very political commitments would pretty much restrict
> one to
> prosody and style. But it matters that Charles I spent his last night
> loyalists at Little Gidding.
Empson wrote in his essay on 'Eliot and Politics', 1975:
I was asked to reflect on the politics of Eliot, and after making the
attempt felt rather surprised to conclude that he hadn't got any.
This is possibly the most stimulating thing I've read about Eliot's
politics; anyone curious should be, I hope, pricked to read the whole
of Empson's piece (in Argufying).
As for your statement,
> And the politics of the Treaty of Versailles
> matter in "Gerontion's" cunning corridors.
I have often heard this said; I should like to know why they matter.