The source of the statement about love is Valerie.  The source about the
roses is a letter from Eliot to Aiken.  The letters to Emily exist and
are not available to read until 2018 but are there with dates.

Why mock what you won't bother to look up?

It is impossible to respond to so many separate posts, but your distress
might be eased if you read the biography so you know the sources and see
the relations.  For one thing, the biography did not happen after the

>>> Peter Montgomery <[log in to unmask]> 06/16/07 8:58 AM >>>
I assume the source for that "information" is Emily herself.
Any sources for Eliot's side of the question?

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Nancy Gish" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 8:25 AM
Subject: Re: New England Ladies

> 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
> history.  That she sustained the correspondence and visited him was
> than an acceptance later.  At any rate, he made the avowal of love;
> had every reason to expect it to mean what it said.
> Nancy
> 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.
> Nancy"
> >>> 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.
> owned a nice home. Emily waited all of those years, instead of
> her
> 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
> New
> 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
> an
> institution.  Hale did not just meet a married man and "see"  him.
> There
> is no analogy at all.  She was not remotely silly or  naive.
> Nancy
> ************************************** 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 >>>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.17/850 - Release Date:
11:31 AM