Print

Print


Fascinating. Any idea which reactionary dichotomy is intended?

On 5/4/2012 1:21 PM, John Angell Grant wrote:
> Obama on Eliot (quote courtesy of Bill Chace):
>
> Quotation below from a letter Pres. Obama wrote when a graduate 
> student (cited in a new book about him by David Maranniss):
>
> "Eliot contains the same ecstatic vision which runs from Münzer to 
> Yeats. However, he retains a grounding in the social reality/order of 
> his time. Facing what he perceives as a choice between ecstatic chaos 
> and lifeless mechanistic order, he accedes to maintaining a separation 
> of asexual purity and brutal sexual reality. And he wears a stoical 
> face before this. Read his essay on Tradition and the Individual 
> Talent, as well as Four Quartets, when he’s less concerned with 
> depicting moribund Europe, to catch a sense of what I speak. Remember 
> how I said there’s a certain kind of conservatism which I respect more 
> than bourgeois liberalism—Eliot is of this type. Of course, the 
> dichotomy he maintains is reactionary, but it’s due to a deep 
> fatalism, not ignorance. (Counter him with Yeats or Pound, who, 
> arising from the same milieu, opted to support Hitler and Mussolini.) 
> And this fatalism is born out of the relation between fertility and 
> death, which I touched on in my last letter—life feeds on itself. A 
> fatalism I share with the western tradition at times."