Print

Print


Dear Peter, I cannot, I am afraid, agree with this summation: Arial0000,0000,FFFF Arial0000,0000,FFFFInteresting. The only reason I use the word Arial0000,0000,FFFFtouchstone is because it is a modern synonym for Arial0000,0000,FFFFa proof rock. Conceivably Eliot was making his Arial0000,0000,FFFFown commentary on Arnold by using that name. I should need to see some evidence to be convinced that this line has any sort of allusion in it (ie references to Eliot's knowledge of Arnold at the time, his concern with his work, and comparing this to the specific context in which Arnold uses the word). It seems from here even very unlikely to be a coincidence . Therefore, the summation you make from such an unsupported inference seems to me a rather precarious. Arial0000,0000,FFFFEliot's quarrel with the idea that the arts, esp. Arial0000,0000,FFFFpoetry could be a source of salvation for man Arial0000,0000,FFFFseems to have started very early in his critical Arial0000,0000,FFFFdevelopment.   If you are interested, however, you might look at a book called Poetry and Religion, by Santayana (c 1908 r 1909). As you know, Eliot mentioned Santayana's Three Religious Poets on several occasions, and I believe he studied with him at Harvard. The complaint about poetry and salvation does not surface until 1932, in his talk on Arnold given in UPUC (I believe it is also levelled in a more minor way against Richards in the last lecture in 1933). This talk was of course given when he went back to Harvard; but I should certainly need to see more evidence to the effect that this was latent in Eliot's mind from 1911, or 'very early', as you put it. This list is not only for scholars, but it may not be a bad idea for any poster to back their claims with scholarship (which, as Eliot said, even in its humblest forms, has its rights). By the way, I see no reason for being unwarrantedly suspicious of the title of Professor; respect, I should guess, is due to those who earn it. Sincerely, Jennifer