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."

>>> Peter Montgomery <[log in to unmask]>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
then it is a threat to Christian theology, so conceivably the prejudice
is religious
rather than racial.

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.  That's its function.

>>> Peter Montgomery 08/13/09 9:48 PM >>>
It'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.


Aug 12, 2009 08:58:07 PM, <A class="parsedEmail parsedEmail"
href="mailto:[log in to unmask]" target=_blank>[log in to unmask]

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.

>>> 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????


Aug 12, 2009 09:55:52 AM, <A class="parsedEmail parsedEmail parsedEmail
parsedEmail" href="mailto:[log in to unmask]"
target=_blank>[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
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,” ShaJew / 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 2009 11:07:55 -0400
From: <A class="parsedEmail parsedEmail parsedEmail parsedEmail
parsedEmail" href="mailto:[log in to unmask]" target=_blank>[log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Dynamo, Flanagan, and that "third scene" from Sweeney
To: <A class="parsedEmail parsedEmail parsedEmail parsedEmail
parsedEmail" href="mailto:[log in to unmask]"
target=_blank>[log in to unmask]

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


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 href=""

Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync. <A
target=_blank>Check it out.