LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for TSE Archives


TSE Archives

TSE Archives


TSE@PO.MISSOURI.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

TSE Home

TSE Home

TSE  November 2019

TSE November 2019

Subject:

Not liking Christ / Eliot's Reaction to Peter's 1952 Article on Eliot's Sexual Orientation

From:

"Materer, Timothy J." <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

T. S. Eliot Discussion forum.

Date:

Fri, 29 Nov 2019 23:30:13 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (1 lines)

> I have thought about his extreme reaction to Peters's article on him being gay himself



First, I take it that no one has responded to my question about how Eliot could agree with Aldington about not liking Jesus only about a year before Eliot was received into the C of E because the agreement is in fact inexplicable.



Secondly, before one states that Eliot’s reaction to Peter’s article was extreme, one should be sure which version of Peter’s article Ellot was reacting to.  There are two versions, one in 1952, which Eliot reacted to, and one in 1969, to which of course he could not react. Unfortunately, critics have invariably assumed that Eliot was reacting to the 1969 version, which, thanks to Geoffrey Bateson’s editorial malfeasance, was a very different and sanitized version.



I’ve addressed this matter in T. S. Eliot and his Biographical Critics,  Essays in Criticism, Volume 62, Issue 1, January 2012, 41–57. Here is an excerpt that details some of the differences between the two versions.



Bateson does not explain that the article

he reprinted in 1969 is not the original 1952 version that Eliot

saw. Peter himself may have misled his readers about the

degree of difference when, in the 1969 postscript to the

‘reprint’, he stated that it was ‘almost verbatim an essay which

was printed in Essays in Criticism’ in 1952 (p. 165). Almost is

a deceptive word, for substantial omissions and changes were

in fact introduced into the 1969 text, and later in the postscript

Peter modifies his ‘almost verbatim’ claim: ‘In reprinting the

article, however, a few phrases that might have been misinterpreted

have been modified’ (p. 166). Works such as James

E. Miller’s studyof The Waste Land and Carole Seymour-Jones’s

biography of Vivienne Eliot, which criticise Eliot’s character on

the basis of the Peter incident, do not notice the extent of the revisions,

but many passages were added or rewritten which would

have allowed the reader not to misinterpret but, rather, to interpret

correctly Eliot’s reason for disliking the original article.11



Two passages that Peter added in 1969 demonstrate particularly

how he modified the argument in the original article.

While, in the 1952 version, he writes that the poem’s persona

laments the death of a young man, in the 1969 redaction he

adds: ‘An appropriate parallel would be the situation recorded

in In Memoriam’ (p. 143). After the following statement in

1952, ‘the poem certainly reads more lucidly if we suppose

both the main characters to be male rather than epicene’

(p. 246), Peter adds in 1969 the phrase, ‘a modern Tennyson

and a modern Hallam, as it were’ (p. 144). The fact that these

phrases do not appear in the article that Eliot himself saw undercuts

Bateson’s argument that Eliot should have grasped that Peter

was treating The Waste Land as a dramatic monologue. 



But perhaps the most telling revisions concern the word ‘guilt’,

which is often either omitted or changed to ‘grief’ in the revised

article, as in the following phrases (the first page number is

from 1952, the second from 1969): ‘admitting the sense of

guilt [grief] which oppresses him’ (pp. 248/147); ‘the poet’s

intention was also to imply that all guilt [grief] is one guilt

[grief]’ (pp. 249/147); ‘a guilt [grief] that is all pervading and ineluctable’

(pp. 249/147). And the words ‘guilt’ and ‘guilty’ are

simply excised in 1969 from the following 1952 phrases: ‘the

mental process by which guilty memories are repressed’

(pp. 249/147); ‘to keep his guilty secrets secure’ (pp. 249/148);

‘guilty secrets which he is anxious to keep private’ (pp. 249/

148). Similarly, Peter drops the concluding phrase from the

original description in 1952 of ‘the speaker’s wretchedness and

the guilt which exacerbates it’ (pp. 250/148). The cumulative

effect of these changes is to obscure that in the original essay

Peter was not stressing the speaker’s elegiac ‘grief’ so much as

his confessional ‘guilt’. In addition, passages that occur in both

the 1952 and 1969 articles emphasise, without using the word,

the guilt that the speaker feels for continuing to love the young

man: for example, the speaker must seek a ‘rationalization’ to

‘justify the love that he still feels’ (1969, p. 148). The figure of

Mr Eugenides, ‘a ‘seedy pederast’, reflects how the speaker is ‘disgusted

with his own motives’ (1969, p. 154). According to Peter,

the introduction of Tiresias into the poem indicates that the

speaker is ‘helplessly suspended between the poles of male and

female’ (1969, p. 154). These passages certainly challenge

Bateson’s assertion that Peter was describing nothing more

than the Tennysonian sort of grief shown in the elegy for

Hallam: Tennyson expresses no debilitating guilt for loving his

young friend.



Three longer deleted passages show how much more emphatically

Peter had argued in 1952 that the speaker’s ‘guilty secret’

was homosexual passion, illustrating what Robert Canary has

called Peter’s ‘tendency to argue through innuendo’.12 In discussing

the nightingale’s lament in The Waste Land, Peter states in

the 1969 version: ‘There seems also to be the suggestion that

his own lament will be vulgarized and debased in the same

way by those who read it unsympathetically’ (p. 150). In the

1952 version, the following phrase appears after the word

lament: ‘which may take its origin from a type of desire less

often condoned even than that of King Tereus’ (p. 252). Peter

is obviously referring to the poem’s secret as homosexuality;

and it certainly appears to be a guilty one if, as Peter suggests,

it is less condoned than rape. The speaker is said to feel this

passion but ‘a part of his mind at least still regards it as depraved’

(1952, p. 250); in 1969 Peter drops the phrase ‘regards it as

depraved’ and replaces it with the word ‘rejects’ (p. 148).



Two more occurrences of the word ‘guilt’ are dropped from

a 1952 passage in which Peter argues that a line from Dante’s

Purgatorio, in addition to the lines from that poem spoken by

Arnaut Daniel (The Waste Land, l. 428; Purgatorio, xxvi.

148), is relevant to the theme of guilty love.13 Arnaut Daniel

speaks of plunging into Purgatory’s refining fire. Peter observes

that Daniel’s words express his guilt, which he relates to the

guilt of another figure in the Purgatorio, Guinizzelli, who confesses

that his sins were ‘ermafrodito’. (Peter compares Daniel

and Guinizzelli because the two figures appear in the same

canto.) After dropping the words ‘and guilt’ from a description

of the speaker’s ‘grief and guilt’, Peter eliminates the following

passage from the 1952 version:



guilt is again suggested by the line from the Purgatorio (here

also the provenance of the quotation seems to me to go a

long way to confirm my interpretation of the poem:

Nostro peccato fu ermafrodito), and here as in the earlier

sections of the poem the weight of the guilt is all but insupportable.

(1952, p. 265)



Although the word ‘ermafrodito’ may be translated in various

ways, he apparently interprets the ‘peccato’ or ‘sin’ as homosexual

or bisexual.14 Since Guinizzelli confesses that ‘Nostro peccato

fu ermafrodito’, Peter believes that Eliot’s fascination with this

canto confirms his preoccupation with deviant sexual passion.

Elsewhere, in a passage that appears in both versions of the

essay, Peter reveals his view of The Waste Land’s theme most

clearly in an analysis of the loveless sexuality portrayed in

‘A Game of Chess’. It is the speaker’s homosexuality that, he

argues, best explains his rejection of heterosexual love: ‘It is not

mere arbitrary custom which decrees that Woman is Man’s

natural mate and, where a man or woman has in effect to

maintain that it is, an invidious picture of the opposite sex,

such as the first scene here suggests, is often enough the result’

(pp. 250/148). Peter implies that the speaker’s recoil from the

sexual affairs in ‘A Game of Chess’ is the result not of an absence

of love but rather of his sexual orientation, one which Peter

himself evidently implies is unnatural. Altogether, Eliot’s

reaction to his speculations seems entirely understandable, for

Peter’s analysis is clearly directed at the poet’s as well as the

‘speaker’s’ obsessions. Bateson is on weak ground in his claim

that Eliot should have seen that Peter was treating the poem

merely as a dramatic monologue, with no personal implications

regarding the author – and indeed the claim is implicitly contradicted

by Bateson himself when he writes a few lines later in his

preface to the 1975 reprint of Essays in Criticism, ‘The soul in

agony in that poem, if in some sense the collective soul of

Western Europe, is surely also that of Thomas Stearns Eliot’.





T. S. ELIOT AND HIS BIOGRAPHICAL CRITICS 43

Downloaded from http://eic.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on April 9, 2012

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
March 1996
February 1996
January 1996
December 1995
November 1995

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



PO.MISSOURI.EDU

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager