Print

Print


I think this is generally accurate.  But why is it inconsistent?  Christianity
has been on both sides of that line historically.  And Christianity is not and
never was monolithic.  So I don't think I see why Eliot's attempt to "point a
vital path for Christians" (if indeed that is what he did) is necessarily
inconsistent with anti-Semitic attitudes.  It may be, indeed, if you define
Christianity in a specific way, but it is not so if you mean it cannot or has
not coexisted with Christianity for many who called--or call--themselves
"Christian."

I am not, I want to add, validating this.
Nancy


Date sent:              Wed, 19 Feb 2003 18:37:57 -0800
Send reply to:          "T. S. Eliot Discussion forum." <[log in to unmask]>
From:                   Peter Montgomery <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:                Re: Eliot sighting
To:                     [log in to unmask]

I guess Eliot's semetic views, anti- or otherwise
constitute a scar that has to be lived with. There's
no getting around it or justifying it on the basis
of the ethos of the time (there once was an ethos that
justified slavery. That didn't make it right).

Part of the difficulty is that it is so inconsistent with
his later attempts to point to a vital path for thinking
Christians. Such a path is very valuable, but to accept that
path or even just respect it, means living with the
embarassments of the past. His treatment of Viv. is equally
hard to understand given the values he accepted in his
conversion.

Like 99.9999% of us, he wasn't a saint.

Does it affect the validity or aesthetic
appreciation of his work? Nope. It's just
a distraction.

Dr. Peter C. Montgomery
Dept. of English
Camosun College
3100 Foul Bay Rd.
Victoria, BC CANADA V8P 5J2
[log in to unmask]
www.camosun.bc.ca/~peterm


-----Original Message-----
From: Rickard A. Parker [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 4:13 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Eliot sighting


Nancy Gish wrote:
>
> This takes us back to the ongoing debate.  But unless "anti-Semitic" is
> defined, it is impossible to attribute.


I just did a little Google search out of curiosity.
    "T.S. Eliot"                  178,000 Google hits
    "T.S. Eliot" "anti-Semitic"       921 Google hits

Regards,
    Rick Parker

Does this count as 178,000 Eliot sightings?  ;-)