From: Peter Montgomery <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 6:49
AM
Subject: Re: Hughes'
Eliot
My pleasure, Rick.
Further thoughts brought me around
to the essay called "Thoughts After Lambeth"
in which E. shows his utter
disdain and even contempt for the Anglican hierarchy.
One is strongly led
to think that E. might have wondered something like "What have
I done?"
when after his paimful path into the A Church he found himself in a ship of
fools..
His journey into a fulfilling spiritual life, as prompted by the
same spirit which led
him to consider the Hindus and the Buddhists,
ultimately led him into a very assiduous
practice of Anglo-Catholicism
which was almost an exact match of Roman C.
According to Spurr Eliot was
very exacting of himself in all he did in the A-C Church.
It wasn't just a
casual Sunday Mass kind of thing. Piecing together various things
in his
letters to and from Mary Travelyn from which we get this info. I suspect
Mary
was not an Anglo Paplist, but Val Fletcher was. That may account for
his ultimate
marital decision (at a time when he was seriously considering
entering an Anglican
contemplative order). That is partly speculation on my
part, but if one had to, I think
it would not be a difficult course to
defend.
Cheers,
Peter
----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard
Seddon" <
[log in to unmask]>
To: <
[log in to unmask]>
Sent:
Wednesday, October 26, 2011 7:50 PM
Subject: Re: Hughes'
Eliot
> Peter
>
> Thanks
>
> Rick
Seddon
> Portales, NM
>
> -----Original
Message-----
> From: T. S. Eliot Discussion forum. [mailto:
[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf
> Of Peter Montgomery
> Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011
8:17 PM
> To:
[log in to unmask]> Subject:
Re: Hughes' Eliot
>
> There was a sub-group of Anglo-Catholics
who called themselves
> Anglo-Papalists and who wanted the Anglican
Church to join Rome yesterday.
> If Barry Spurr is right, then Eliot
belonged to that group. E. did have two
> audiences with the Pope and
was a recipient of two rosaries, one of which he
> prayed daily. Again,
going along with Spurr, the only reason E. didn't
> become a Roman
Catholic was because he wanted to maintain a
> con-
> nection to
English culture of the past. Your mother certainly seems typical
> of
many Anglo-Catholics. One of the founders of the Anglo-Catholic
strain
> was John Henry Cardinal Newman, recently declared Blessed by
Pope Benedict.
> The Oxford movement as it became known, aka
Tractarians, at one point
> accounted for about 40% of Anglicans. The O.
movement basicaly reawakened
> the liturgical life of the A.
>
church to what it was in the 1600s.
>
> According to Spurr again,
Eliot had no problem with the infallibility of the
> Pope (in matters of
faith and morals of course) and was also quite
> comfortable with the
Assumption of the Blessed Virgin, two doctrines
> definitely rejected by
many Anglo-Catholics. Main stream A-C like what the
> western church was
up to the end of the 12th century.
>
> Got to go aka gtg.
>
> P.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Richard
Seddon" <
[log in to unmask]>
> To: <
[log in to unmask]>
> Sent:
Wednesday, October 26, 2011 5:53 PM
> Subject: Re: Hughes' Eliot
>
>
>> Peter
>>
>> I am not at all sure that
Anglo-Catholic equates to Anglo-Papalist.
>>
>> My mother
claimed Anglo-Catholic as her faith and she was thoroughly
>>
anti-papal. What she also rejected, along with the Pope, was most of
the
>> tenants of Protestantism such as faith alone being sufficient
for
>> salvation.
>> She loved the Sacraments, all the Roman
Catholic Sacraments, not just the
>> one or two accepted by mainline
Protestants. I think she would have been
>> absolutely happy in
the Roman Catholic Church if the Pope was still only
>>
one
>> of several Patriarchs.
>>
>> She was
definitely not a Protestant and while she was an Episcopalian it
>>
was
>> an uncomfortable pair of shoes. I am sure she would have
left today's
>> Episcopal Church, if she were alive, over its current
practices
>>
>> I think TSE when he claimed to be an
Anglo-Catholic was likewise rejecting
>> Protestantism while also
rejecting the Pope.
>>
>> Rick Seddon
>> Portales,
NM
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original
Message-----
>> From: T. S. Eliot Discussion forum. [mailto:
[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf
>> Of Peter Montgomery
>> Sent: Wednesday, October
26, 2011 2:58 PM
>> To:
[log in to unmask]>>
Subject: Re: Hughes' Eliot
>>
>> Personally, ie for me,
Eliot criticism is irrelevant in the face of
>> Eliot's
>>
poetry.
>> In Eliot's own context, ie his time, criticism was not a
product of the
>> academy but the development of many voices speaking
to each other as part
>> of
>> a world of literature which
was vibrantly alive outside the academy, in
>> many
>> of
the literary organs and publications of the time.
>>
>>
From a Christian point of view, esp. as Catholic or Anglo-Catholic,
Eliot
>> ranks with Dante in terms of verse quality, if not in terms
of over-all
>> vision. I can't help wondering what his verse might
have become if he had
>> access to the new Anglican Ordinariate of
the Catholic Church. He was a
>> self-confessed Anglo-Papalist, which
put him on the outs with many
>> Anglicans, but which indicated a
desire for renewal within the Catholic
>> context. Perhaps he might
have created a whole world view for modern
>> Catholicism equivalent
to what Dante did for his own time. He was
>> certainly
>>
one of the great modern mystics, if Barry Spurr is anywhere close to
the
>> mark.
>>
>> How he rates in the general
world of contemporary literature/criticism is
>> of
>>
little interest to me.
>>
>> P.
>> ----- Original
Message -----
>> From: "Ken Armstrong" <
[log in to unmask]>
>>
To: <
[log in to unmask]>
>>
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 7:42 AM
>> Subject: Hughes'
Eliot
>>
>>
>>> Dear Listers,
>>>
>>> Having recently read again Ted Hughes _Dancer To God_, I want
to urge
>>> anyone who hasn't read it or who read it long ago to
do so. It is a
>>> masterful summation and analysis of Eliot the
poet and in relation to
>>> that
>>
>>>
Eliot the person in his time. Reading current criticism, much of which
is
>>> of a "deconstructive," leveling nature, one can rather
quickly lose sight
>>> of the true scale and impact of Eliot's
achievement. Hughes book is an
>>> effective tonic, and for the
person who reads it carefully and
>>> appreciates
>>
>>> the level of achievement it testifies to, it drops an
interesting
>>> question
>>
>>> on your
plate: how to reconcile the grand acheivement of this poetry
and
>>> poet with the preponderance of prose that is presumed to
be brought to
>>> bear on either. The all but terminal inadequacy
of that critical prose
>>> equally to meet the poetry has long
intrigued me. There is a lot I could
>>> say about it, but I'd
like to point to just one early, preliminary
>>>
passage
>>
>>> in _Dancer To God_ to comment on the
predicament all Eliot admirers and
>>> critics alike find
themselves in.
>>>
>>> Hughes writes on the first
page of the first essay, "We know that great
>>> poets are
exceedingly rare. And yet, during my lifetime I have never
>>>
heard
>>
>>> Thomas Stearns Eliot referred to except as
a species on his own, a great
>>> poet in an altogether more
valuable and separate class of greatness than
>>> all those of his
contemporaries in our language who are also frequently
>>> dubbed
'great'....Somehow the consensus materialized, as if through
>>>
instinct, among all his colleagues in the poetry of English, that he
is
>>> not merely a great poet, but, finally, one of that
exceedingly rare kind,
>>> one of the truly great. And not only
one of the truly great, but simply
>>> _the_ poet of our
times."
>>>
>>> I mentioned off list 12 or so years
ago to Guy Story Brown that people
>>> know on instinct that
Eliot's poetry is great or at the least a poetry to
>>> be
reckoned with, but that no one has been able to present, to in
effect
>>> surface that greatness in their critical prose; we know
he's great, but
>>> no
>>
>>> one ultimately
has been able to demonstrate that greatness critically.
>>> This,
the primacy of instinct in responding to Eliot's poetry (as
memory
>>> serves), Guy assented to with some enthusiasm. And this
really is not to
>>> denigrate scholarship, insofar as it is
scholarship and not prejudice
>>> carried in on the shoulders of
scholarship or would-be scholarship, which
>>> has grown and
continues to grow around Eliot; but it is to say that
>>>
criticism proper has not met the challenge and scholarship can never
be
>>> sufficient to the cause of exposing the nature of the
poetry in critical
>>> prose.
>>>
>>> I
realize how hard it is to make a point on this list, and this with
the
>>> help of Hughes and Brown is what I'm trying to do. But I
invite you to
>>> look at _Dancer to God_ and to reflect for
yourself what the relative
>>> accomplishment of Eliot criticism
is in the face of Eliot's poetry.
>>>
>>> Ken A