Print

Print


From: Peter Montgomery

> In what aspect of medieval culture wasn't Eliot interested,
> and by which wasn't he influenced?

Wycliffe and the Lollards? (too anti-Church for his taste?)

Yours,

RaphaŽl
[log in to unmask]
----- Original Message -----
<[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2003 4:04 AM
Subject: Re: Medieval Thinking


> Really Nancy!?
> Eliot + Dante = Prufrock
>   1   +   1   = 3
> Not fruitful?
>
>
> Cheers,
> Peter.
>
> 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: Nancy Gish [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 2:41 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Medieval Thinking
>
>
> Yes, I read the Pearl and Gawain.  I studied with Sherman Kuhn and read
> Medieval Intellectual history with John Sommerfeldt who started the
> Medieval Institute.  We all read Medieval at one point in American
literary
> education didn't we? There are broad themes and assumptions one can
> find in the Middle Ages.  There is not a single way of thinking.
>
> I do not think this a very fruitful debate.
> Nancy
>
>
>
>
> Date sent:              Fri, 4 Apr 2003 15:59:50 EST
> Send reply to:          "T. S. Eliot Discussion forum."
> <[log in to unmask]>
> From:                   [log in to unmask]
> Subject:                Medieval Thinking
> To:                     [log in to unmask]
>
> In a message dated 4/3/03 7:01:33 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Since my reply to this seemed to evoke confusion, I am replying again.
> > "Most great Medieval thinkers" is so vast a set that I do not think any
> > valid claim can possibly be made about them.  Is this early and late
> > Medieval? All countries?  Mystics and all others?  Chaucer?  My point is
> > that humans vary immensely in their ideas in all times and places.
> >
>
> >From Boethius (the last classical thinker and first medieval thinker)
> through at Least Chaucer [and so maybe I am abandoning the very late
> Middle Ages] there is a mode of thinking [at least partially, if not
> greatly influenced by Christian, Muslim, and Jewish Mystics] that the act
> of copulation is created by God to demonstrate to humans how divinity
> works.  1+1=3 is a kind of Kabbalistic mantra -- there is always something
> more there.  This is why Dante is so Vehemently anti-homosexual and
> anti-usurist.   Homosexuals cannot make a third from their couple and
> Usurers make something from an inanimate object (money).  This thread
> runs
> through Medieval literature (at least Medieval English and Italian and
> Provencal literature), just read _The Pearl_ or _Sir Gawain and the Green
> Knight_ Michael
>