excuse me as the little kid on the corner but am I correct in thinking that this quite interesting conversation relies entirely on the shared belief that Eliot could not have actually believed in astrology.

For those of us without a god his convictions about the status of Jesus are at least as fanciful. Yes I know that belief has cultural authority and vast cumulative erudition to make his conviction less startling but that's just intellectual snobbery on our part  i.e. astrology finds its audience on page 120 of a glossy magazine but Aquinas  etc etc wrote about Jesus  - its a privileged silly idea.  But pace P and CR and T and K etc re the tone of his pronouncement and the auspices how would this discussion go if we had evidence he believed in horoscopes?

Pete



On 29/07/2012, at 9:13 AM, Chokh Raj wrote:

This reading, I think, is supported by its context:

"It is a method already adumbrated by Mr. Yeats, and of the need for which I believe Mr. Yeats to have been the first contemporary to be conscious. It is a method for which the horoscope is auspicious."  

CR 



From: Chokh Raj <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2012 6:40 PM
Subject: Re: Eliot, the past, and the mythical method

In other words, "It is a method for which [Yeats's horoscope/Forecast/Prediction] is auspicious."

CR 


From: Rickard Parker <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2012 5:59 PM
Subject: Re: Eliot, the past, and the mythical method

Tom. below is one of your earlier posts for this subject. You and CR
have gone over this some since but this seems the best one for me to
reply to. But let me repeat Eliot's statement here:

  "In using the myth, in manipulating a continuous parallel between
  contemporaneity and antiquity, Mr. Joyce is pursuing a method which
  others must pursue after him. . . It is simply a way of controlling,
  of ordering, of giving a shape and a significance to the immense
  panorama of futility and anarchy which is contemporary history. . . .
  It is a method for which the horoscope is auspicious. . ."

The last sentence of this could be written as
  //"The forecast for the method is good."//
Is that Eliot's meaning? I'm not sure.

Regards,
  Rick Parker



On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 07:13:01 -0400, Tom Colket <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>I wrote (in reference to TSE's Tradition essay):
>
>T> Is he being sarcastic when he says "It is a method for which
>T> the horoscope is auspicious"?
>
>And Rick wrote:
>
>R> Sorry, I've thought some on this but I have no idea how to read
>R> this other then to ignore it as an aside.
>
>Rick: In context, here is the line in the essay:
>
>"In using the myth, in manipulating a continuous parallel between
contemporaneity and antiquity, Mr. Joyce is pursuing a method which others
must pursue after him. . . It is simply a way of controlling, of ordering,
of giving a shape and a significance to the immense panorama of futility and
anarchy which is contemporary history. . . . It is a method for which the
horoscope is auspicious. . ."
>
>Given the line's prominent placement, it's got to be more than an aside.
>
>I've been thinking that the idea of a horoscope, the idea of astrology, is
that the planets and the stars greatly influence our individual lives and
fate. In other words, something "bigger than ourselves" plays a vital part
in our lives.
>
>Perhaps what TSE is alluding to is that the "mythical method" is also
trying to establish a link between us and something "bigger than ourselves".
In other words, when Joyce uses the Greek myths of Ulysses' amazing
multi-year voyage and his eventual return home, and parallels it with a
one-day "journey" around a city in Ireland (and his eventual return to Molly
Bloom), Joyce is stating an implicit comparison/equivalence  between the
mythical Ulysses from antiquity and a contemporary  "ordinary person". So
maybe, for Eliot, the horoscope/astrology, which claims that the fate of an
"ordinary person" has its roots in the heavens is "auspicious", that is, is
yet another promising metaphor by which some other author can "control,
order, give a shape and a significance to the immense panorama of futility
and anarchy which is contemporary history".
>
>Just a thought.
>
>-- Tom --