Print

Print


With things so calm, I'll spread around some accelerant to the forum.  

Specifically, I found a review of Julius' "T.S. Eliot, Anti-Semitism and 
Literary Form" that had run in "American Literary History."  (It's cached at 
www2.h-net.msu.edu/~antis/papers/Alhfinal.html)

I have not read Julius' book and don't wish, for current purposes, to return 
to a debate on his ultimate conclusions.  The lawyer in me, however, was 
struck by one argument cited in the review that seems not to make sense.   As 
I know Julius is a respected attorney in Great Britain, I thought I'd pass it 
along for others to defend or explain, if appropriate, and let me know if I 
am missing something.

Julius cites Eliot as writing: "The poetry of Isaac Rosenberg . . . because 
it is Hebraic . . . is a contribution to English literature.  For a Jewish 
poet to be able to write like a Jew, in western Europe and in a western 
European language, is almost a miracle."

The review suggests that these words are thrown by Julius together with 
Wagner's statement (among many) to the effect that: "The Jew speaks the 
language of the country in which he has lived from generation to generation, 
but he always speaks it as a foreigner."  Unless I misread the review, it 
appears to consider these as kindred thoughts.

To my readng, however, these statements are almost directly contrary.  Both 
deal with Jews and make general pronouncements about their relationship with 
non-Jewish language systems, but there the similarity ends. 

First, Wagner speaks in absolutes, while Eliot states a general rule in 
recognizing an exception.

More crucially, Wagner posits that European Jews always write "as Jews" 
(implicit in his statement that they always write "as foreigners"), even when 
writing in the local, Europoean language.  Eliot, on the other hand, says 
that for an English Jew to write as a Jew in a European is "almost a 
miracle."  Their fundamental beliefs about the realtionship of European Jews 
to European languages could hardly be more different.

Does anyone else who cares to consider the matter have an opinion as to what 
Julius may have been trying to say here?

Tom K