Marcia I find it hard to believe that you would make such a big deal out of a typo. Apparently Ken was able to recognize a misspelling for what it was. Diana

From: Marcia Karp <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: "T. S. Eliot Discussion forum." <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Eliot and Unitarianism
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 09:05:49 -0400

    Look again.  Not "divisiveness," but "deviseness." 

    Devise is already a noun.  "Deviseness" is not in the OED.
    devise (nount):
        The act of devising, apportioning, or assigning, by will; a testamentary disposition of real property; the clause in a will conveying this.

Ken Armstrong wrote:
[log in to unmask]>At 05:28 PM 9/24/2006, Diana Manister wrote:

Regarding Eliot's deviseness, I would go a step further and speculate that he seems to have been deeply committed to it, in the sense of seeing man and God as divided from each other. There is some evidence, as cited in Kearns' book T.S. Eliot and Indic Traditions, that Eliot identified more with the dualistic Christian worship of an external God than the Vedantic recognition of the identity of the deep self with Brahman.

  Diana  --  Your use of "divisive" and "dualistic" are novel to say the least. "Seeing God and man as divided from each other" is certainly traditional Christian belief, but this is not what is usually called "dualistic" or even "divisive." Does Kearns employs this terminology?

Ken A.