Print

Print


Well, there was unitarianism and unitarianism and congregationalsim &c &c.
Whether the doctrine of original sin were held or not,
it would have been an important consideration,
as in "Oh we don't adhere to THAT doctrine." &c., &c., &c.
 
P.
----- Original Message -----
From: [log in to unmask] href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">Nancy Gish
To: [log in to unmask] href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 8:52 AM
Subject: Re: Waste Land Sex

That would be a valid point if it were clear that Eliot did believe in original sin at that early stage of his life.  He has said that at the time of TWL he contemplated being a Buddhist, and his own family background was Unitarian.  What evidence is there that his later orthodoxy was relevant to a poem published in 1916?

>>> Ken Armstrong <[log in to unmask]> 08/27/09 12:28 PM >>>
Regardless of our own beliefs (or disbeliefs, as the case may be), might
not a poet who firmly believed in original sin be exactly the poet to
envision an "irresponsible foetus", however else it might fall out?

Diana Manister wrote:
> Dear Marcia,
>
> "My tall husband" is not redundant.
>
> However, unless a foetus can be responsible, or imagined to be
> responsible, or could sanely be described as possessed of any tiny
> degree of responsibility for anything at all, "irresponsible foetus"
> is redundant.
>
> Diana
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 10:16:25 -0400
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Waste Land Sex
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> They might be redundant, but not necessarily so. If you don't know my
> husband, and I say "I love my tall husband," I'm not (necessarily)
> comparing him to my short one. I'm being descriptive. I don't know
> about you, but I don't see how "irresponsible f?tus" is at all
> redundant. It is illuminating.
>
> Best,
> Marcia
>
> Diana Manister wrote:
>
> "Irresponsible foetus" and "hot sun" should be sent to the
> Department of Redundancy Department.
>
> Diana
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 18:09:28 -0400
> From: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Waste Land Sex
> To: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
> Funny thing about modifiers in English. Do they describe? Do
> they invite comparisons? Serve mixed functions?
>
> It is true that a f?tus has no responsibilities, so, just as it is
> accurate to say "the hot sun" without the necessity that it is
> ever cool or that there are other suns that are, it is accurate to
> say "an irresponsible f?tus," as long as one grants that
> a-responsibility is irresponsibility. (Not sure I do.) And then
> there is the rather creepy matter of a laughing one. But I don't
> there is an ambivalence in the phrase as to the function of the
> adjective, unlike in "free-thinking Jews," the phrase that was all
> the rage here recently, where there is one or more of Empson's
> ambivalences.
>
> Best,
> Marcia
>
>
>
> Diana Manister wrote:
>
> Dear CR:
>
> First of all, I'd like to know how any foetus could be
> responsible.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Get back to school stuff for them and cashback for you. Try Bing™
> now.
> <http://www.bing.com/cashback?form=MSHYCB&publ=WLHMTAG&crea=TEXT_MSHYCB_BackToSchool_Cashback_BTSCashback_1x1>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Hotmail® is up to 70% faster. Now good news travels really fast. Try
> it now.
> <http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=PID23391::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HYGN_faster:082009>