Has anyone ever written on Eliot's Classicism vis-a-vis his religious/spiritual quest (which is the only meaningful dimension of his biography)?
Chokh Raj <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
And yet Eliot, unlike Pound, called himself "a classicist in literature" (preface, FOR LANCELOT ANDREWS). What is really new, is always new. One of the poet's jobs is to recover the new. It is somewhat like classic cars which get to be classics by showing what is really good in car creation.
Richard Seddon <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
PeterAgreed. i think EP wanted to "make it new" while retaining the essence of classics. Re, his idea of the spirit of prior poets being somehow incorporated into modern ones. He was certainly not a classicist but made extensive use of not only classical forms but themes and personalities.Richard SeddonOn Aug 2, 2013, at 9:30 AM, P <[log in to unmask]> wrote:Cf. Ezra Pound's MAKE IT NEW.
Chokh Raj <[log in to unmask]> wrote:One of the pre-eminently "classical" attributes is an indifference to originality. Indeed, in the classical artist, originality would be a fault. He is given, he is served out, with all he is supposed to require for his task: not his reason why, but to "get on with the job" ... He is tied hand and foot therefore to the values of his patrons. Their morals are his morals; it is the Weltanschauung that perforce he holds in common with them that is his subject-matter. -- Wyndham Lewis, 'Men Without Art'Some echoes here of what Eliot says in his essay on Tradition and what obtains in his work.CR