In a message dated 5/2/03 9:30:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

> 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.

When you examine it, the line of succession doctrine is absurd.    From a
non-royalist standpoint, even . . .as a great example, really...  I mean, how
many great musicians had children who were great musicians; how many great
writers had children who were great writers; how many great scientists had
children who were great scientists; how many great philosophers had children
who were great philosophers.  I don't say none, of course, but amazingly,
very few.  Of course, Eliot had no children.  But, others did.  Stevens did,
one, and Holly appeared to have spent her life protecting her father's
reputation and memory and hiding whatever "what it is" she knew about him and
editing collections of his poetry.  Even in something as basic and physical
as sports, Jack Nicholson, one the greatest golfers in the world, has four
sons.  One of them plays professional - on the margin all of the time, never
even coming close to wining any PGA tournament,  and that one  son is not
young anymore, so that Eliot believed in some sort of succession doctrine is
just out there to me, but then I am an American.