Print

Print


In that vein of thought, it is perhaps wise to keep in mind that
when Eliot converted, he did not cease his personal religious quest,
which he had spent so much time and effort to sort out. Once a
Christian he had a whole new set of resources to explore,
and deeper developments in his own personal religious quest to go through.
He didn't just say "Well now that's done and I'm glad it's over."
 
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: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 9:30 AM
Subject: Re: Eliot on Charles Williams' mysticism

That depends on which poetry and on how you define the terms.  Even in IMH there are images and allusions from Christianity, but reading his post-conversion religious attitudes back into the poetry up to the mid-20s is extremely dubious. No one--and certainly not Eliot--is simply one thing or has one attitude, unchanging.  For example, in a letter in about 1919 he called himself a liberal.  There is not any simply "seminal aspect" to all of his work--at any rate, there is no general reading of it that assumes one.  And to do so, I think, is to make it boringly limited and hardly worth reading.  Like all poets of genuine invention, he kept writing new kinds of work; he did not simply produce a continuing allegory.  A great deal or energy was expended, mainly in the 1940s, to define a "pattern in the carpet" that would frame all his work as a kind of single, great opus.  But most scholars no longer see it that way, and it would be hard to justify now that we know so much more about him and so much prose not available then.
Nancy

>>> Chokh Raj <[log in to unmask]> 03/30/10 12:58 PM >>>
ps - "Christian" or "mystic", incidentally, happens to be an aspect of Eliot's work which is presently under discussion. It is perfectly fine if this does not interest someone on the list. Interests, as I said, vary.
But let me observe that "Christian" or "mystic" happens to be a seminal aspect of Eliot's work. - CR


--- On Tue, 3/30/10, Chokh Raj <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> In that case, I did NOT provide a
> "label". I'm safer so!
>
> Cheers,
> CR
>
> --- On Tue, 3/30/10, Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> > Epigraphs are not
> > labels. I do not think Carrol meant that at all.
> > //"Christian" or "mystic" is a
> > label.//
> >
> > Carrol?
> >
> > >>> Chokh Raj <[log in to unmask]>
> 03/30/10
> > 12:28 PM >>>
> > PS - As for poems doing "more interesting" and
> > "important" things, interests, I suppose, may
> > vary. - CR
> >
> > --- On Tue, 3/30/10, Chokh Raj <[log in to unmask]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I
> > > don't thiink prefatory quotations merely label
> > > -- they are famed to perform multiple tasks.
> > >
> > > Among other things, they can point to dreams and
>
> > > aspirations, as in this case.
> > >
> > > Eliot himself was very fond of writing epigraphs
> -- to
> >
> > > me these did not diminish the scope of his work.
>
> > >
> > > You're more knowledgeable, though.
> > >
> > > Here's an instance:
> > http://www.c3.hu/~prophil/profi004/SWEENEY2.html
> > >
> > > Your pardon,
> > > CR,
> > >
> > > --- On Sun, 3/28/10, Carrol Cox
> > > <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Carrol Cox <[log in to unmask]>
>
> > > Subject: Re: Eliot on Charles Williams'
> mysticism
> >
> > > To: [log in to unmask]
>
> > > Date: Sunday, March 28, 2010, 5:56 PM
> > >
> > >
> > > I don't understand the motive of
> > > pinning labels on a poet. If anyone
> > > wants to pin any label they like on any poet,
> and
> > spend
> > > their time
> > > 'proving' that the label is accurte, go to it.
> >
> > > I'm just not interested
> > > in having a conversation with them. Poems do lots
> of
> > > things, and almost
> > > all of those things are far more intesting and
> > important
> > > than any label
> > > one can pin on either poet or peom.
> > >
> > > Carrol
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>