Forgive me for puerile recollections and for lowering the tone:- *...We three Kings of Orient are* *One in a Taxi; one in a car* *One on a scooter, blowing his hooter* *Following yonder star......* (Christmas Carol, trad.) On 29 December 2012 16:32, Chokh Raj <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > (You'll kindly excuse me for posting it again. The emphasis, of course, is > mine.) > > the paradox of wisdom > > I'd have it said of the Magi, the three 'wise' men of the East: > > In order to arrive there, > To arrive where you are, to get from where you are not, > You must go by a way wherein there is no ecstacy. > In order to arrive at what you do not know > You must go by a way which is the way of ignorance. > In order to possess what you do not possess > You must go by the way of dispossession. > In order to arrive at what you are not > You must go through the way in which you are not. > And what you do not know is the only thing you know > And what you own is what you do not own > And where you are is where you are not. > > Cheers, > CR > > ------------------------------ > P <[log in to unmask]> wrote Wednesday, December 26, 2012 11:29 PM: > > If the magi were drawn by a power which they did not understand, what > meaning could the power have for them? Further, why did the critics > understand the meaning of this power so well that they thought the magi, > who did not understand it, should not have followed it? > Peter M. > > > Tom Colket <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > Since some recent posts have involved "The Journey of the Magi," I thought > it might be interesting to look at some correspondence TSE had about the > poem with a friend, Alan Porter. TSE had recently published the poem (1927) > when these letters were written. > > In the Letters of T.S. Eliot (vol 3), Porter's letter appears as a > footnote. Since Porter's letter was written first, I'm posting it first, > followed by TSE's reply. > > In TSE's reply, he gives us a tidbit of what he meant ("I meant that the > Magi were drawn by a power which they did not understand"), although Peter > will undoubtedly send in a post to tell me that TSE was only describing a > mood and not revealing any of his intention regarding meaning. > > -- Tom -- > > ==================================== > > From the footnote listed on page 860-861 of Letters, vol 3: > > (1)-Alan Porter's letter of 25 Nov. was largely devoted to his reading of > TSE's poem Journey of the Magi; beginning from this second paragraph: > > 'I thought it was rather awkward and cowardly to leave you without > saying how I had criticized "The Journey of the Magi". I took it as a very > important poem, and tried to exhibit _why_, from the substance of what you > wrote - not from technique or vividness or lyric quality at all. That is, > as if you were _doing_ something, as if the poem were an action. > > 'And I said, "Alas for this nostalgia", very much as Richards seems to > have said, "Hurrah for this nostalgia". Here is a myth, and you are > remaking it, just as a Greek poet remade the myths he told. And what falls > out of the story, what is put into it, how is it changed? > > 'There is no star, there are no gifts, there is actually no birth and no > worship (or perhaps there was a birth, yes, certainly there was one; but > not an overwhelming and ever remarkable birth). > > 'How would I like to see the myth? Or rather, how do 1 see it? As in > fact the Three Magi were Zoroaster and Pythagoras and Buddha. As if the > mysteries of the ancient world were something of supreme dignity and truth. > As if this were the order of Melchizedec; suffering the shock of becoming > Christian and having its meaning fulfilled, and transcended in fulfillment. > > 'Into Christianity came Plato and Aristotle, Trismegistus, Eleusis, the > Vedas ... It was something to take the breath away, and make them humble; > but are we to say they had nothing to bring, and they were left rootless > after it had happened. I see it as if it were mankind at its firmest and > greatest that was here confessing its insufficiency, and receiving its > justification. > > 'I think you saw it as if the world were at a dead end; as if it were > superseded rather than transcended; as if these were three more Jews, or > rich young men. > > 'And if I am to take the poem as an attitude to life, I believe it would > go like this - "The world certainly happens, and has to be accepted: but > there is no certain perfection. It comes difficultly to us, and even > trivially. I don't know whether there is an absolute meaning to it. I am > forced to certain conclusions. Is there any guarantee that they are Right? > And suppose they are right: are they very exhilarating? > > 'It was one of the Cairnses, I think, who used to get indignant at the > phrase "too good to be true", holding that we should rather say "not good > enough to be true". This looks to me like a good, buoyant, and creative > feeling. > > 'Will you acquit me of impertinence in writing this? If I said > "blasphemous", I must apologise; it was a swear word. Some-one asked me, > "But do you think all that has anything to do with it as a _poem_"; and > that is a point of view which is beyond me to handle.' > > ==================================== > > Here is TSE's response to the Porter letter: > > ==================================== > > To Alan Porter > [London] > > 13 December 1927 [London] > > Dear Porter, > > I am sorry that I did not get your letter in time to accept your > invitation, and since I have been back I have been too busy with the > question of the reorganisation of the Criterion to write to you. I shall be > very busy from now until just before Christmas when I must go abroad again. > Perhaps you will ask me again next year. > > Thank you for expressing yourself so fully about my Christmas poem.(1) > I value all that you say in praise of it, but I must say quite ingenuously > that your interpretation of it gave me rather a shock. No doubt that is > partly because we start with quite different fantasies of what such an > occurrence would have been like. But as the whole story of the Magi is not, > I believe, an essential matter of Christian doctrine, I felt a certain > liberty to treat it according to my own fantasy of realism. I did not > intend to put forward, and still do not believe that I did put forward, any > view which would either conflict with Christian doctrine or any imagination > which would tend to weaken belief. The notion that the three Magi were the > three religious leaders whom you mention does not appeal to me because what > little I know of their religions makes me unable to accept the imaginative > possibility of such a tribute. I certainly do not accept the > interpretation, interesting as it is, which you put on my verses in the > third paragraph of your letter. If I may say so, I think that this > interpretation is due rather to a reading of my previous verses than to > this. I meant that the Magi were drawn by a power which they did not > understand, and I used them as types of a kind of person who may be found > at almost any period of history. I meant them to be pathetic as Dante's > Virgil is pathetic. > > When you speak of the Cairnses, do you mean the Cairds? I know the > Cairnses only as a breed of terriers. > > I certainly acquit you of everything if you will acquit me; but if the > poem continues to make the impression on you that it did - then there is no > possibility of acquitting it. > > Sincerely yours, > [T. S. Eliot] > > ==================================== > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >