Yes, Eliot did so. But this rejection, as it finds expression
  in his work, evokes a vision that is neither different from
  what his mother, a Unitarian, wrote of the state of corruption
  in the church orders that obtained in contemporary America,
  nor from what Chaucer had to say on the subject in his
  Prologue to the Canterbury Tales. Even as an outsider,
  personally I found Eliot's images in "Hippopotamus" and
  "Mr Eliot's Sunday Morning Service" fascinating by virtue
  of their universal appeal. O what a timeless vision his
  imagination achieves! 
  I subscribe to the notion Vishvesh draws our attention to:
  Trust art, not the artist.

Diana Manister <[log in to unmask]> wrote:         CR wrote: "As for "Eliot and Unitarianism", I found no grounds for dissension in his work."
  CR, are you saying he did not reject Unitarianianism as a religion in his work? What about "Christ the tiger"? Diana

From:  cr mittal <[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:  Fri, 22 Sep 2006 15:35:55 -0700

  Yes, I have already gone through this, and similar other stuff.
     But they present one side of the picture. I have had occasion
     to post at the List opinions contrary to these. But the war of 
     nerves is likely to go on and on.
     As for "Eliot and Unitarianism", I found no grounds for
     dissension in his work.

Diana Manister <[log in to unmask]> wrote:                    CR wrote: I'm sorry but your remark, "Eliot, though an imaginative genius, had his own divisive vision. Alas." is rather off-the-cuff, Diana.There should be no confusion on this count if one reads Lyndon Gordon's "Eliot's Early Years". I got my basic clarity on the 
subject from it.
     CR: Rather than off the cuff, my remark was based on documentation as cited in this excerpt from the Boston Globe:
     "Lyndall Gordon, having produced two copiously researched volumes over the previous decades, combined them into a single tome in 1998 under the conspicuously damning title, ''T.S. Eliot: An Imperfect Life." Michael Hastings's 1985 play, ''Tom & Viv," made hay with the dirty linen of Eliot's grisly first marriage, spawning a prurient Hollywood biopic of the same name. ''It is now our unsparing obligation to disclaim the reactionary Eliot," Cynthia Ozick declared in a 1989 New Yorker essay; in 1995 the British barrister Anthony Julius followed suit with a prosecutorial opus indicting the poet on long-bruited charges of malignant anti-Semitism. Reviewing the recently published ''Annotated Waste Land" this summer, Christopher Hitchens not only caught a distinct whiff of fascism in Eliot's makeup but took the opportunity 
to bash the masterwork under discussion as ''certainly the most overrated poem in the Anglo-American canon."
     Even Eliot's stoutest partisans at times seem overmatched by the blowback. In 1996, when BU professor Christopher Ricks put out his lavish annotated edition of Eliot's youthful poetry, ''Inventions of the March Hare: Poems 1909-1917," much of the immediate attention fixated on a clutch of scabrous verses that had never seen the light of print. Never mind that Ricks's archeological reconstruction of Eliot's early drafts and notebooks yielded up a landmark work of textual criticism. For naysayers on the warpath, the paper trail once again seemed to point straight to the heart of darkness.
     As usual, one doesn't have to look far for an Eliot line that seems tailor-made for the occasion: After such knowledge, what forgiveness?"

  Do you Yahoo!?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail.   

Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around