On 5/3/2012 8:56 PM, Peter Montgomery wrote:
> Curious how o.c. had more of a life as something to be analysed, then 
> as a device for analysis. It was a concept
> that never quite took off,

   Fair enough, and not unlike considered appraisals of the influence of 
Bradley's  _Logic_ and _Appearance and Reality_ on Eliot's poetic and 
critical practice. (I know a few exist, but none that, as you say, "took 

>  but something like the elephant coming in for a landing at Frankfurt 
> airport, sort of flapped
> its ears very brashly in the wind and somewhat bounced along upon its 
> grceful impact (if you've seen that commercial).
> The gracefully bouncing elephant is my objective correlative for the 
> objective correlative.
> Nez perse?

    Sure, bis Shelley.

    Ken A
> Cheeers,
> Peter
>     ----- Original Message -----
>     *From:* Ken Armstrong <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>     *To:* [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>     *Sent:* Thursday, May 03, 2012 6:57 AM
>     *Subject:* Re: Objective Correlative in Eliot's Poetry (was Re: OT
>     - Chapel Perilous)
>     CR,
>     Now that you mention it, I do vaguely recollect an attempted
>     felony upbraiding by one of the usual suspects, which I generally
>     try to ignore (avoiding my civic duty, I guess). I posed the
>     question here (perhaps too briefly from my ipod) because I assumed
>     you had a specific purpose/meaning in mind for making the
>     assertion and because I don't think I had thought of or heard of
>     an everyday use of "objective correlative" outside of its
>     connection with TSE.
>     For Eliot I think it was something highly specific and informed by
>     his philosophic studies, particularly of F. H. Bradley. When Peter
>     said we are maybe creeping toward the objective correlative,
>     beastly-Yeats-like, I guess, I assumed he meant in Eliot's use of
>     the term. With no upbraiding intended, I don't see what it gains
>     us to use it as a synonym for symbol or metaphor, which already
>     signify much more than their literal meaning.
>     Apart from that, occasionally here some one or other offers that
>     'objective correlative' is a useless term, which I think is
>     perfectly true if it is conceived in a useless way. However, I
>     think it had a legitimate life and utility and a depth of meaning
>     for Eliot when he brought it forth and that it can still be
>     employed fruitfully by anyone wanting to understand the problems
>     that Eliot was trying to understand, whether with Hamlet or in
>     poetry generally. Eliot's late remarks on feeling in the Concord
>     address that Rickard posted a few days ago are perhaps a
>     continuing indicator of the primacy of feeling in his view of poetry.
>     Ken A
>     On 5/2/2012 6:56 PM, Chokh Raj wrote:
>>     Ken/Rickard,
>>     To me Eliot's poetry is replete with 'objective correlatives',
>>     i.e. with concrete images that signify much more than their
>>     literal meaning, to convey certain deep and abstract
>>     ideas/emotions, more or less a synonym for symbols/metaphors.
>>     Here are a few instances from the 'Love Song':
>>     a patient etherized upon a table; / The yellow fog / the
>>     butt-ends of my days and ways/ a pair of ragged claws / the
>>     mermaids / the chambers of the sea / sea-girls wreathed with
>>     seaweed red and brown
>>     My problem arose when, at this list, I was stopped in my tracks,
>>     reprimanded for an indiscriminate use of 'objective correlative'
>>     for Eliot's images, reminding me what exactly Eliot meant by it:
>>     "the only way of expressing emotion in the form of art is by
>>     finding an 'objective correlative'; in other words a set of
>>     objects, a situation, a chain of events which shall be the
>>     formula of that particular emotion; such that when the external
>>     facts, which must terminate in sensory experience, are given, the
>>     emotion is immediately evoked."
>>     I brought up this topic for discussion because I believe that
>>     Eliot's notion of 'objective correlative' is much more
>>     comprehensive and all-inclusive, that it does not preclude the
>>     common usage that we associate with an 'objective correlative'.
>>     I presume that Eliot's aforementioned enunciation was made
>>     specifically in the context of Shakespeare's 'Hamlet'.