Print

Print


. . . . the term for atheists.  I'm the one who said that Eliot may be  
associating "free thinking Jews" with the Bolshevik Revolution.
 
Kate
 
 
In a message dated 8/18/2009 11:51:00 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
[log in to unmask] writes:

Diana  wrote:
> "Free-thinking" is an intensifier for "Jews." The  subtext there
>  is "the presence of Jews, too many of whom  are free-thinking, 
> would be  undesirable."

Diana:

Ken sent in a post yesterday that had  a very different explanation of the 
Eliot passage. I'm wondering if you  received the post. It ended with:

> As Guy Brown went on to  explain, "free thinking Jews" becomes, in the 
> context of the New  Canaan, the term for atheists.
> 
> Ken A

-- Tom  --

 
____________________________________
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 14:29:16 +0000
From:  [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Eliot's Suppressed Lecture
To:  [log in to unmask]

Peter,

The point has been made several times that Eliot term  "free-thinking Jews" 
does not comprise a distinction. "Free-thinking" is an  intensifier for 
"Jews." The subtext there is "the presence of Jews,  too many of whom are 
free-thinking, would be  undesirable."

Diana

 
____________________________________
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 16:08:32 -0600
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject:  Re: Eliot's Suppressed Lecture
To: [log in to unmask]

I agree,  which still leaves ne to my question as to why Eliot would make 
such a  distinction.
P


Aug 17, 2009 02:06:48 AM, [log in to unmask] 
(mailto:[log in to unmask])  wrote:

Peter, Sorry that my analogy seems to have gotten convoluted! I  wasn't 
trying to put myself in Eliot's shoes. My intended point was just  that any 
group--whether ex-Catholic Irish-American English professors, ofr  Jews--has a 
right to feel prejudiced against if they are toldn that their  presence is 
acceptable only if they keep themselves, if they remain  sufficnetly 
orthodox," or if they don;t get too  "free-thinking."

Brian
________________________________________
From:  T. S. Eliot Discussion forum. [[log in to unmask] 
(mailto:[log in to unmask]) ] On Behalf Of  Peter Montgomery [[log in to unmask] 
(mailto:[log in to unmask]) ]
Sent: Monday,  August 17, 2009 5:24 AM
To: [log in to unmask] (mailto:[log in to unmask]) 
Subject: Re:  Eliot's Suppressed Lecture

But Eliot was not a former  Jew.
P.
----- Original Message -----
From: "O'Sullivan, Brian P"  <[log in to unmask] 
(mailto:[log in to unmask]) >
To:  <[log in to unmask] (mailto:[log in to unmask]) >
Sent:  Saturday, August 15, 2009 6:08 AM
Subject: Re: Eliot's Suppressed  Lecture


I had the impression that he was more sanguine about  orthodox Jews than
about "free-thinking" ones only because he viewed the  former as
self-segregating and therefore not likely to "adulterate" the  homogeneity 
of
the rest of the population. Is that right? If so, I'm note  sure it's
accurate to say that he seems "not to have a problem with  orthodox
Judaism"--or at least, I think he seems to have a problem with  orthodox
Jews. If someone says that they have no problem with  ex-Catholic
Irish-American English professors as long as they don't get  too
"free-thinking" or start mixing with other people, I'll think they  have a
problem with my  type.

Brian
________________________________________
From: T.  S. Eliot Discussion forum. [[log in to unmask] 
(mailto:[log in to unmask]) ] On Behalf Of  Peter
Montgomery [[log in to unmask] (mailto:[log in to unmask]) ]
Sent:  Saturday, August 15, 2009 4:49 AM
To: [log in to unmask] (mailto:[log in to unmask]) 
Subject: Re:  Eliot's Suppressed Lecture

I'm not aware that anyone is trying  to.

P.



On Aug 14, 2009, Rachel Loden <[log in to unmask] 
(mailto:[log in to unmask]) >  wrote:

Hear hear. Yes, there is really no way to just disconnect this  from "Jews."

Rachel (not née  Rabinovitch)

________________________________________
From: T. S.  Eliot Discussion forum.
[mailto:[log in to unmask] (mailto:[log in to unmask]) 
[log in to unmask] (mailto:[log in to unmask]) >] On  Behalf
Of Nancy Gish
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 8:15 PM
To: [log in to unmask] (mailto:[log in to unmask]) 
[log in to unmask] (mailto:[log in to unmask]) >
Subject:  Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Eliot's Suppressed Lecture

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
>>> 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.

P.


Aug 12, 2009 08:58:07 PM, [log in to unmask] 
(mailto:[log in to unmask]) [log in to unmask] (mailto:[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] 
(mailto:[log in to unmask]) [log in to unmask] (mailto:[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 2009 11:07:55 -0400
From: [log in to unmask] (mailto:[log in to unmask]) [log in to unmask] 
(mailto:[log in to unmask]) >
Subject: Re: Dynamo,  Flanagan, and that "third scene" from Sweeney 
Agonistes
To: [log in to unmask] (mailto:[log in to unmask]) 
[log in to unmask] (mailto:[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:

_http://www.vqronline.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/8911_ 
(http://www.vqronline.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/8911) 



________________________________________
Windows  LiveT: Keep your life in sync. Check it out.


 
____________________________________
With Windows Live, you can organize, edit, and share your photos. _Click 
here._ (http://www.windowslive.com/Desktop/PhotoGallery) 
 
____________________________________
Windows Live: Keep your friends up to date with what you do online. _Find 
out more._ 
(http://windowslive.com/Campaign/SocialNetworking?ocid=PID23285::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:SI_SB_online:082009)  =