Carrol said nothing so simple-minded. And "nice try though" is the kind of snide remark that spoils the real discussion I thought you were aiming at in the previous post.
>>> Peter Montgomery <[log in to unmask]
> 04/06/10 5:31 AM >>>
I believe Elioit's conversion was in 1927.
Are you suggesting that everything he wrote up to the day of his conversion
is non-Christian, and everything after is Christiian?
One can find Christian elements in his pre-Christianwork, as in "The Hollow
"for thine is" sequence. On the other hand one can find significant
non-Christian elements in his Christian poetry as in 4Q's :
"Who then devised the torment? Love.
Love is the unfamiliar Name
Behind the hands that wove
The intolerable shirt of flame
Which human power cannot remove."
Technically if Eliot was properly baptised at birth, he would have been a
Christian from the beginning, but simply lapsed his practice of it.
So indeed there is a place for biography in the consideration of the focus
of his work, but if it is used with a negative agenda to try to prove a
point, it may lack credibility.
Nice try though.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carrol Cox" <[log in to unmask]
To: <[log in to unmask]
Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 8:38 PM
> For what it's worth -- William Empson, my nominee for the greatest crtic
> of the 20th c, put considerable emphasis on biography. (And this is
> irrelevant to my immediate concerns, but I might mention that Empson
> _never_ proposed that ambiguity, in and of itself, was a literary
> virtue.) And there is an elementary level where the priority of
> biography is quite obvious: Suppose someone writing on the Odyssey
> focuses on the failure of Odysseus to fly home by American Airlines. One
> need only point out the simple biogrpahical fact that the poet of the
> Odyssey died before the Wright brothers were born. A realistic example.
> For several decades (beginning with C.S. Lewis's book) there was a
> concentrateed effort by a number of Milton scholars to slavage him for
> orthodoxy, particularly in respect to the Arianism recognized in his
> work by a number of scholars. In the '90s William Hunter, one of the
> advocates of Milton's orthodox Trinitarianism, published a work claiming
> that Milton's prose manuscript, _Christian Doctrine_, which was clearly
> Arian, (discovered & published in the early 19th-c) was not in fact
> Milton's, and a controversy erupted that still rages in some quarters.
> Resolution of this biographical dispute would not wholly settle the
> interpretive question, but would clearly have great weight. (I assume
> Milton wrote CD and that PL as well is Arian.) Turning to Eliot, the
> weight of testimony that, in the mid 1920s, he BECAME a Christian seems
> decisvie on the question of Gerontion and TWL: they are non-Christian,
> and the biographical evidecne in this case is strong enough to make it
> not worth debating the point.
> An interesting question as to biographcical relevance is raised by the
> lines in 4Q on the "quiet voiaced elders" having deceived him; old age
> wasn't what they had claimed. But Eliot was only in his early 50s when
> he wwrote those lines. We should probably ignore that biographical fact
> in respondign to the lines, but if we do they force us to shift
> considerably our view of the Persona who speaks in the poem; he is no
> longer closely related to Eliot himself but is in fact a fictive
> Persona, of greater age, speaking. A third and most likely perspective
> is that James Kinkaid was quite correct several decades ago in his
> article in Criticzl Inauiry, "Coherent Readers, Incoherent Texts." All
> texts are incoherent in and of themselves, with coherence imposed on
> them by the reader.
> Another famous text where biographical evidence, if available, would
> profoundly affect interpretation of te texts: the Letters of Abelard and
> Heloise. There are scholars who argue that those Abelard wrote them all,
> without even consulting Heloise. It's possible; he was a man of
> brilliant and not whooly disciplined imaginative pwoers. Yet another
> example. Eliot was prbably influenced by biographical knowledge of
> Shelley when he expressed dislike of Epipsychidion (sp?). That is, he
> linked the poem to Shelley's private sexual history, and disapproved of
> the poem because it reflected that history.
> If we admit that the date of the Odyseey constrains possible
> interpretations, we are on a slippery slope and it is not wholly clear
> where to draw the line between legitiamte and foolish appeals to
> Terry Traynor wrote:
> > Diana,
> > You said:
> > >Eliot himself made many statements within and without
> > >his work to support my view that he over-thought everything.
> > Is it safe to assume that you are exaggerating when you say
> > "everything"? If all the poems he wrote were "over-thought," they
> > might still be interesting, but none of them would qualify as the
> > literary masterpieces they are.
> > >He was a genius intellectually and artistically and a mess
> > >as a human being for most of his life.
> > If his poems are works of artistic genius, what difference does it
> > make if most of his life was a mess or not? We read his poems; we
> > don't live his life or interact with him personally.
> > Please note: I'm not contesting the idea that learning about a poet's
> > life can sometimes help us make sense of difficult parts of the poems.
> > My point is that for the purposes of literary criticism and
> > appreciation, biography is just a tool to illuminate the poems. Saying
> > that Eliot "over-thought everything" and spent most of his life as "a
> > mess" does nothing to illuminate the poems.
> > >What is your contention? That Eliot was a well-rounded,
> > >sexually and emotionally fulfilled and free person?
> > Diana, your sarcasm allows no middle ground: Anyone who doesn't
> > believe that Eliot was "a mess as a human being for most of his life"
> > must be foolish enough to believe that he escaped the human condition
> > altogether (because no human is ever "emotionally free"). I wish you
> > would refrain from sarcasm. Its only purpose is to belittle the
> > person you're addressing. It also lands you in the very dichotomous
> > position you repeatedly scorn.
> > Terry