Print

Print


Interesting - that explains it ! - thanks for flagging it up
The current Eliot Project might  possibly reveal more although it will
probably be a few years before they get to the 1960's


On 25 October 2013 12:45, Rickard A. Parker <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> On Thu, 24 Oct 2013 19:02:59 +0100, David Boyd <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> >On another matter, interesting, perhaps that he wasn't moved to testify at
> >the Lady Chatterley trial, as did EM Forster and many other worthies:
> >perhaps there is surviving correspondence about this which the Eliot
> >Project may uncover, but with hindsight and no prior knowledge it does
> seem
> >odd that he didn't speak up at the time - perhaps he was by then
> physically
> >not up to it ?
>
> An account of the trial is at
> http://theamericanscholar.org/trial-and-eros/
>
> Book Essay - Autumn 2010
> Trial and Eros
> When Lady Chatterley's Lover ran afoul of Britain's 1959 obscenity law, the
> resulting case had a cast worthy of P.G. Wodehouse
> By Ben Yagoda
>
> The part about Eliot (below) reinforces what I've read elsewhere, Eliot was
> waiting at the courthouse to testify:
>
> Literally waiting in the wings for Penguin was 72-year-old T. S. Eliot, the
> most distinguished man of letters of all. In the early 1930s, in his book
> After Strange Gods, Eliot had offered a devastating critique of Lawrence
> and
> especially Lady Chatterley’s Lover. His string of dashes made him seem to
> sputter with fury: “The social obsession which makes his well-born—or
> almost
> well-born—ladies offer themselves to—or make use of—plebeians springs from
> the same morbidity which makes other of his female characters bestow their
> favors upon savages. The author of that book [Chatterley] seems to me to
> have been a very sick man indeed.”
>
> But Eliot had changed his mind since then. He told Rubinstein he would be
> willing to testify for the defense and sent a statement in which he took
> back his earlier criticisms of Lawrence, calling them “too violent.” He
> typed, but then crossed out, two paragraphs: “I should mention that there
> were circumstances in my private life which I can see in retrospect,
> affected my critical judgment and made me more sweeping and violent in my
> assertions than I now feel.
>
> “One of these particularly unhappy periods was from about 1929–1934 and
> during this period when I lectured about Lawrence and prepared After
> Strange
> Gods for publication in 1933, I should have realised that I as well as he,
> should have been described as ‘a sick soul.’” (During that period, Eliot
> contemplated and then em­barked on a separation from his wife Vivienne.)
>
> Wisely, Rubinstein decided to hold Eliot “in reserve” as a witness (he
> would
> confide to Forster), “in case the Prosecution cross-examined any of our
> other witnesses upon After Strange Gods or any other of Mr. Eliot’s
> writings
> about D. H. Lawrence or Lady Chatterley’s Lover, critical of him or of it.”
>