----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Armstrong" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 1:31 PM
Subject: Re: TS Eliot: The Metaphysical Poets
> Nancy Gish wrote:
> > What he means by this is extremely complicated, and it draws on many
> > sources. I traced the terminology through his texts over several
> > years, and the origins of his terms can be demonstrated.
> > If anyone is interested, it is in the book with Cassandra.
> I'll have to take a look. But for now, when he says "unity," it must
> be safe to say that he means "unity," telescoping and Diana's statement
> notwithstanding. And esotericisms be as they may, one cannot form a new
> whole without a unity. The "trick" is to find the unifying element.
> Ken A
> > >>> Chokh Raj 05/03/10 11:54 AM >>>
> > Apropos the Metaphysical poets, of their poetic virtues, Eliot takes
> > note of, in particular, a certain "telescoping of images and
> > multiplied associations", and a "heterogeneity of material compelled
> > into unity by the operation of the poet's mind" -- a "put[ting] the
> > material together again in a new unity".
> > In fine,
> > "When a poet's mind is perfectly equipped for its work, it is
> > constantly amalgamating disparate experience; the ordinary man's
> > experience is chaotic, irregular, fragmentary. The latter falls in
> > love, or reads Spinoza, and these two experiences have nothing to do
> > with each other, or with the noise of the typewriter or the smell of
> > cooking; in the mind of the poet these experiences are always forming
> > new wholes. " -- T.S. Eliot, 'The Metaphysical Poets'
> > http://personal.centenary.edu/~dhavird/TSEMetaPoets.html
> > <http://personal.centenary.edu/%7Edhavird/TSEMetaPoets.html>
> > refreshing the memory --
> > CR