Print

Print


I agree that being a "successful lawyer" does not qualify one in other
fields.  It should provide some grounding in logical thinking, though.  And
if one makes an argument that is internally inconsistent, that is not good
advocacy.  So I'm wondering if I missed something, or if Julius was citing
text that, properly understood, undermined his own premise.  That, at least,
we could expect a respected attorney to avoid.

Your question about the subjective nature of litigation, and its impact as
training for future judges, is a good one.  I think that someone with the
right temperment can make the switch.  Just like a retired player can become
a referee.  It is a simple matter of mental adjustment, and the experience
gained as a contestant can be useful to the arbitrator.

Tom K
----- Original Message -----
From: "Arwin van Arum" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2001 11:26 AM
Subject: RE: Eliot, Wagner and Julius - Lawyers 'R Us


> I can only reply with the general observation that being a 'respected
> attorney in Great Britain' says nothing about whether or not Julius should
> be respected as a scholar or scientist. And if you realise what an
attorney
> fundamentally is - an amplifier of an ultimately subjective point of
view -
> you could easily argue the opposite. As by now thousands of modern day
> Socrati (don't know the Greek plural) have pointed out, a very thin and
> unclear line separates serving justice from preventing justice.
>
> You'd almost suspect that if an attorney hasn't been trained to do one
> thing, it is arguing both sides of a story, subjectivity, and what not.
> Which makes me wonder whether a succesful attorney making it to the other
> side of the bench is an anachronism. ;-) Do you, as a lawyer, have any
> thoughts on this? I'll try to find an opportunity to ask my lawyer
> colleagues this myself, tomorrow (I'm back working at Baker & McKenzie
> Amsterdam).
>
> Yours,
> Arwin
>
> > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> > Van: [log in to unmask]
> > [mailto:[log in to unmask]]Namens [log in to unmask]
> > Verzonden: zondag 2 september 2001 0:38
> > Aan: [log in to unmask]
> > Onderwerp: Re: Eliot, Wagner and Julius
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
>
>