. . . . 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) =
