As I said, this is ignoring history, let along psychology.  Or, for that
matter, much of any literature of the period or earlier, when he might
have faced enraged fathers and brothers.  Try Henry James for some

>>> Kate Troy <[log in to unmask]> 06/15/07 5:39 PM >>>
Some things never change, such as leading a woman on for years and  then

ditching her, such as an otherwise intelligent woman being a silly goose
 about a 
man.  Poor Tom.  If he was alive today living in England and  Emily in 
America, he would had to deal with cell phones.  Another thing  that
hasn't changed:  
If after a few months of being in love, if he doesn't  bring up marriage
at least shacking up, then she needs to face up to  facts.
In a message dated 6/15/2007 12:26:31 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
[log in to unmask] writes:

According to Gordon, "Eliot claimed that before he left for Europe  in
1914 he told Emily Hale that he was in love with her.  He said that  he
had no reason to believe, from the way in which his declaration  was
received, that his feelings were returned 'in any degree whatever'." 
they had a relationship:  he sent her roses via Aiken.  He  kept in
with her when he was in Oxford, just before he married  Vivien.  And
he renewed it with visits, letters, autographed  copies of his work, a
shared visit to Burnt Norton that he wrote of as a  moment of
illumination.  And in 1914 a young lady was expected to be  modest and
non-expressive.  Not knowing what 1911 has to do with it is  not knowing
history.  That she sustained the correspondence and  visited him was
than an acceptance later.  At any rate, he made  the avowal of love; she
had every reason to expect it to mean what it  said.


Yes, saying he was in love was in effect  a proposal of marriage. Emily
and Tom were both members of upper-class  Boston families whose
no doubt knew each other socially and  perhaps in business as well. The
families would have been aware of the  situation and so Tom's defection
would have involved their censure. Emily  had the social code of her
class as reinforcement for her trust in Eliot.  Diana

Nancy wrote: "As I said, there is no analogy.  In 1911, if a  man said
was in love,
it was to be trusted.  That was the point  of those words.  And it is
frankly disgraceful to say that when a man  betrays trust the woman is
just silly.  It is  outrageous.

>>> Kate Troy <[log in to unmask]>  06/14/07 8:06 PM >>>

By the way, Nancy, Annette was also a New  England lady.

As I remember, Annette had a good job and received  promotions, etc. She

owned a nice home. Emily waited all of those  years, instead of pursuing
happiness with a man who wanted to be  with her.  I imagine that Emily
used  to cry
at Christmas and  Thanksgiving and on her birthday, etc., just as
Annette used
to  do.

In a message dated 6/14/2007 7:40:01 P.M. Eastern Daylight  Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

Emily  Hale was a very  accomplished, intelligent woman who was also a
England  lady in  1911 when she and TSE met--well before the married

When they   started writing and seeing each other, Viv had been put  in
institution.  Hale did not just meet a married man and  "see"  him.
is no analogy at all.  She was not remotely  silly or   naive.


**************************************  See what's free  at

Hotmail  to go? Get your Hotmail, news, sports and much more! 

>>>  Diana Manister <[log in to unmask]> 06/15/07 10:13 AM  >>>

************************************** See what's free at