Print

Print


"Defined it" ...These things do evolve. PRINTED ON PAPER IS NOT THE SAME AS CARVED IN STONE.
p.
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Nancy Gish 
  To: [log in to unmask] 
  Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 5:40 AM
  Subject: Re: TS Eliot: The Metaphysical Poets


  Well, one might, but that is not how Eliot defines it.
  N

  >>> Chokh Raj <[log in to unmask]> 05/04/10 9:39 AM >>> 
  One might say this of the "telescoping of images and multiplied associations", I suppose. 

  Thanks, 
  CR 

  --- On Tue, 5/4/10, Peter Montgomery <[log in to unmask]> wrote: 

  > Er... the objective 
  > correlative? 
  > P. 

  > > > >>> Chokh Raj 05/03/10 11:54 AM 
  > >>> 
  > 
  > > > Apropos the Metaphysical poets, of their poetic 
  > virtues, 
  > Eliot takes 
  > > > note of, in particular, a certain 
  > "telescoping of images and 
  > > > multiplied associations", and 
  > a "heterogeneity of material 
  > compelled 
  > > > into 
  > unity by the operation of the poet's 
  > mind" -- a "put[ting] 
  > the 
  > > > material together again in a new unity". 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > > In fine, 
  > > > 
  > > > "When 
  > a poet's mind is perfectly equipped for its 
  > work, it is 
  > > > 
  > constantly amalgamating disparate 
  > experience; the ordinary 
  > man's 
  > > > experience is chaotic, irregular, fragmentary. 
  > The 
  > latter falls in 
  > > > love, or reads Spinoza, and these two 
  > experiences have nothing to do 
  > > > with each other, or with 
  > the noise of the typewriter or the smell of 
  > > > cooking; 
  > in the mind of the poet these experiences 
  > are always forming 
  > 
  > > > new wholes. " -- T.S. Eliot, 
  > 'The Metaphysical 
  > Poets' 
  > 
  > http://personal.centenary.edu/~dhavird/TSEMetaPoets.html 

  > > > refreshing the memory -- 
  > 
  > > > CR