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 liberality

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, [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.

>>> 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, [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

T. S. Eliot’s Suppressed LectureIn 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]
Subject: 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.)


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:

Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync. Check it out.