Print

Print


No doubt.  There are always "others" who think absurd and destructive
things.


>>> Kate Troy <[log in to unmask]>08/16/09 9:28 AM >>>

There were others during this time period who expressed the thought that
"free thinking Jews" were responsible for the revolution in Russia.
 
Kate
 

In a message dated 8/15/2009 10:50:15 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

Well that makes absolutely no sense at all.  Are you under the bizarre
impression that all communists are Jews--or any of them in particular,
or most of them?  
 
What makes perfect sense is that by "free thinking Jews," he meant "free
thinking Jews."
 
The sentence that precedes the one about "free-thinking Jews" is as
follows:  The population should be homogeneous; where two or more
cultures exist in the same place they are likely either to be fiercely
self-conscious or both to become adulterate."
 
Two sentences later he says, "and a spirit of excessive tolerance is to
be deprecated."  
 
It has nothing to do with communism.
Nancy


>>> Kate Troy <[log in to unmask]>08/15/09 9:34 PM >>>

I believe that by saying "free thinking Jews," he was referring to
communism.  Nothing else makes sense.
 
Kate
 

In a message dated 8/15/2009 5:08:00 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

Dear Diana,
 
I said exactly the same thing just a few messages ago. Scroll down to
August 13 or just see this copy:


Then why say "Jews" at all?  Why not "free thinkers"?  There are many
free thinking Christians, and they do not seem to be a problem in his
mind.  And many very non-free thinking Christians--such as rigid
fundamentalist protestants--would be as out of place in his culture as
free-thinking or unfree-thinking Jews.  
 
There is really no way to just disconnect this from "Jews."  A qualifier
qualifies; it frames and limits.  That's its function.
N

Just below, I was addressing a different point:  the notion that there
is "race" (except as an idea) and that it can be separated from religion
in this case.  Both are extremely misleading.  I was not taking back
what I wrote on the 13th--just what you said
cheers,
N
 

>>> Diana Manister <[log in to unmask]>08/15/09 4:39 PM >>>

.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Verdana
}

Dear Nancy,
 
I don't think you can separate "free-thinking" from "Jews" or make it
more operative in Eliot's repulsive statement. "Free-thinking" is an
intensifier for the noun "Jews." Presumably Eliot would not have minded
free-thinking Anglicans (and there are some) in his ideal community, or
he would not have modified "Jews" with "free-thinking."
 
Diana
 
<HR id=stopSpelling>
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 11:06:14 -0400
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Eliot's Suppressed Lecture
To: [log in to unmask]

I don't think I see the point.  So what?  Does that somehow make it less
ugly or wrong.  And exactly how does one make that distinction anyway
with the term "Jew"?  If race exists at all--except as an idea that does
affect people--then the race and religion are linked here, and the
operative word seems to be "free-thinking."
N


>>> Peter Montgomery 08/15/09 4:53 AM >>>
Judaism is fundamental to Christianity. Orthodox Judaism provides a
backup for
a central part of orthodox Christian theology. If Judaism dissolves into
liberality
then it is a threat to Christian theology, so conceivably the prejudice
is religious
rather than racial.
 
P. 

On Aug 13, 2009, Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]> wrote: 


Then why say "Jews" at all?  Why not "free thinkers"?  There are many
free thinking Christians, and they do not seem to be a problem in his
mind.  And many very non-free thinking Christians--such as rigid
fundamentalist protestants--would be as out of place in his culture as
free-thinking or unfree-thinking Jews.  
 
There is really no way to just disconnect this from "Jews."  A qualifier
qualifies; it frames and limits.  TIt's definitely a prejudice, but it would seem not to have a problem
with orthodox Judaism. It seems to be aimed at free thinking per se,
the Judaism is a qualifier, no doubt, but I could believe Eliot didn't
like any free thinking at that point. He was still in the honeymoon
period of his embracing of very orthodox Christianity. His rampage
against Lawrence would be relevant to the discussion.

P.


Aug 12, 2009 08:58:07 PM, [log in to unmask] wrote:

Would a prejudice against un-freethinking Jews be anti-semitic?  Or
unfree thinking Jews?  Or free unthinking Jews?  
 
When is prejudice not prejudice?
 
When is it only prejudice if it applies to those who think freely?
 
So complicated.
N


>>> Peter Montgomery 08/12/09 11:38 PM >>>

I sense a piracy coming on, perhaps from Somalia?

Is having a prejudice against the amassing of freethinking Jews
the same as being anti-semitical????

Cheers,
Peter

Aug 12, 2009 09:55:52 AM, [log in to unmask] wrote:

Dear Marcia, I am a VQR subscriber, but I was able to access the
articles before logging in. Try googling VQR and clicking on the link
there. Diana
 
T. S. Eliot’s Suppressed Lecture

In May 1933, T. S. Eliot delivered three lectures at the University of
Virginia, as part of the Page-Barbour Series. By Eliot’s own
description, these lectures were intended as “further development of the
problem which the author first discussed in his essay, ‘Tradition and
the Individual Talent.’” A number of critics have also noted the fact
that Eliot had recently separated from his wife Vivien, and without her
steadying hand, these lectures reveal his complete transformation from
aesthete to self-described “moralist.” 
 
However, the lectures, gathered in Spring 1934 as the slim volume After
Strange Gods, have gained most of their notorious reputation, because
they contain some of the strongest evidence of Eliot’s intolerance for
non-Christian religions and his blatant anti-Semitism. At one point, he
declared that, “The population should be homogeneous; where two or more
cultures exist in the same place they are likely either to be fiercely
self-conscious or both to become adulterate. What is still more
important is unity of religious background; and reasons of race and
religion combine to make any large number of free-thinking Jews
undesirable.” The same spring that Eliot delivered those fateful words,
the young poet Karl Shapiro, who had entered the University the previous
September, decided to leave Virginia, citing its implicit anti-Semitism.
In his poem, “University,” Shapiro charged: “To hurt the Negro and avoid
the Jew / Is the curriculum.” Barely a decade later, Shapiro received
the Pulitzer Prize for his poems about his World War II service, and
Eliot had grown leery of having his remarks published in post-Nazi
Europe. Eliot withdrew After Strange Gods from publication, and it has
remained unavailable ever since. 
 
However, one of the lectures, “Personality and Demonic Possession,”
appeared in VQR in January 1934 (and was followed in April 1934 by the
poem “Words for Music”—later expanded into “Landscapes”). The following
essay is decidedly the least incendiary of the three Eliot delivered at
Virginia; however, even here it is clear the degree to which his
dogmatic artistic beliefs have blurred into social intolerance. We are
grateful to the Eliot estate for generously allowing us to reprint the
piece in our 75th anniversary essay anthology, We Write for Our Own
Time, edited by Alexander Burnham. That collection remains the only
in-print source for any of Eliot’s Page-Barbour lectures. Now Eliot’s
original typescript, from which the printed version was prepared,
appears here for the first time ever. 
 
“Personality and Demonic Possession” © Copyright Valerie Eliot, appears
by permission of Faber and Faber. The typescript appears courtesy of the
Special Collections at Alderman Library, University of Virginia. 

 


Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009Subject: Re: Dynamo, Flanagan, and that "third scene" from Sweeney
Agonistes
To: [log in to unmask]

Dear Diana,
    What, please, is the name of the essay?  (The site is for paid
subscribers only.)

Best, 
Marcia

Diana Manister wrote: 
Dear Rick,
 
No doubt you are familiar with the facsmile of Eliot's suppressed essay
on personality and demonic possession. On page four he discusses human
violence explicitly:
 
<A title=http://www.vqronline.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/8911
href="http://www.vqronline.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/8911">http://www.vqronline.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/8911
  <A
title=http://windowsliveformobile.com/en-us/photos/default.aspx?&OCID=0809TL-HM
href="http://windowsliveformobile.com/en-us/photos/default.aspx?&OCID=0809TL-HM">


Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync. <A
title=http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=PID23384::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:NF_BR_sync:082009
href="http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=PID23384::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:NF_BR_sync:082009">Check
it out.


Express your personality in color! Preview and select themes for
Hotmail®. <A
title=http://www.windowslive-hotmail.com/LearnMore/personalize.aspx?ocid=PID23391::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HYGN_express:082009
href="http://www.windowslive-hotmail.com/LearnMore/personalize.aspx?ocid=PID23391::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HYGN_express:082009"
target=_new>Try it now.