Print

Print


Thank you Carrol.
I have now passed through the existential crisis
of final marking, and can take a closer and more
careful look at things.

I agree that EAST COKER has a political underpining,
but it's more in terms of an overall direction, than
a commentary on the immediate politics with their
incredibly short shelf life and super muddle.

For me the political underpinnings in East Coker
connect quite directly with Eliot's assertion
of being a Royalist in politics, whereby he saw
a fundamental connection of the throne with the
English identity, and he was thereby rejecting his
homeland which had cut itself off from that root.

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: Carrol Cox [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 11:16 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Pachel rings a bell backwards


Quoted below are the posts which began this curious winding thread. I
intended my first response to Peter's verse as a possible way of getting
beyond, as per his request.

Were the passages to the discussion of the verb of a relative clause
cunning or otherwise?

:-)

But I do think that _East Coker_, even regarded as primarily religious
verse, suffers greatly if one does not honor (whether in agreement or
disagreement) its powerful political thrust. Surely, in the present era
of "clashing fundamentalisms," it is not necessary to argue that
politics and religion regularly intersect. I use "politics" in a sense
rather close to its original force, the opposite of _idiotes_ (private
person), as denoting participation in the public life of the _polis_.
The _politike_ (someone please correct my greek) was the whole person;
the _idiotes_ was "not all there," since full humanity could only be
exercised in the public realm.

Carrol

Peter Montgomery wrote:
>
> Let us go then you and I
> While the possum is laid out afront your eye,
> Like this list, etherised upon a fable,
> Let us go with half uncovered feet,
> Padding with a half recovered beat
> to get us to the overwhelming question:
> Why can't this list ever really get beyond
> Prufrock and The Wet Land, er Waste Land?
>
> No faith?
>

Carrol Cox wrote:
>
> Peter Montgomery wrote:
> >
> >
> > Why can't this list ever really get beyond
> > Prufrock and The Wet Land, er Waste Land?
> >
>
> Is Gerontion a character or an echo chamber?
>
> Does Eliot equate the mind of Europe with Cleopatra's vagina?
>
> Or what is the point of history's many winding passages?
>
> Carrol