Quoted below are the posts which began this curious winding thread. I
intended my first response to Peter's verse as a possible way of getting
beyond, as per his request.
Were the passages to the discussion of the verb of a relative clause
cunning or otherwise?
But I do think that _East Coker_, even regarded as primarily religious
verse, suffers greatly if one does not honor (whether in agreement or
disagreement) its powerful political thrust. Surely, in the present era
of "clashing fundamentalisms," it is not necessary to argue that
politics and religion regularly intersect. I use "politics" in a sense
rather close to its original force, the opposite of _idiotes_ (private
person), as denoting participation in the public life of the _polis_.
The _politike_ (someone please correct my greek) was the whole person;
the _idiotes_ was "not all there," since full humanity could only be
exercised in the public realm.
Peter Montgomery wrote:
> Let us go then you and I
> While the possum is laid out afront your eye,
> Like this list, etherised upon a fable,
> Let us go with half uncovered feet,
> Padding with a half recovered beat
> to get us to the overwhelming question:
> Why can't this list ever really get beyond
> Prufrock and The Wet Land, er Waste Land?
> No faith?
Carrol Cox wrote:
> Peter Montgomery wrote:
> > Why can't this list ever really get beyond
> > Prufrock and The Wet Land, er Waste Land?
> Is Gerontion a character or an echo chamber?
> Does Eliot equate the mind of Europe with Cleopatra's vagina?
> Or what is the point of history's many winding passages?