The fact is that there is no longer a "one" who can be invoked as all
readers.  And I am not alone in not choosing to be part of that "one."

Date sent:              Mon, 7 Apr 2003 21:07:08 EDT
Send reply to:          "T. S. Eliot Discussion forum." <[log in to unmask]>
From:                   [log in to unmask]
Subject:                Re: Medieval Thinking (again, clarifying)
To:                     [log in to unmask]

In a message dated 4/7/03 8:47:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

> When Eliot published his mum's book/play on
> Savonarola, I believe he did give some cornsideration
> to most of them folk.

What am I trying to get across is that when one thinks "Medieval," one
thinks in the way Dante and the Pearl Poet thought -- an immediacy with
God in everything.  I realize that there are _countless_ other Medieval
opinions. When the Romans thought of themselves during the Pax
Romana they
thought of their beloved Princeps, Augustus.  It's the same idea.  To use
an idea more instantly devourable, when someone thinks of the Greeks
think of these fair, right minded people, a view that existed for perhaps
2 centuries at a very long, very forgiving stretch.  I'm not sure what
will be the main theme of the Industrial Age except perhaps an immediacy
with possessing everything.

The point is that every Era has a main idea.  There are of course other
ideas which stem from that time.  The fact of this, however, is pointless
to the idea I was trying to get across when I stated that Eliot, in
Prufrock, uses the fear of sex as a fear of action and a fear of joining
with the Divine.


p.s. I assume everyone on the list has a cursory knowledge of Medieval
Literature -- I do not, however, assume that everyone on the list has more
than that; it's quite rude to do so.