The view of Pinion is one of many, and he has no inside track. Eliot's friends had contrasting views, and it is clear that the friendship was not one-sided. They were friends for 30 years, and Hayward was far more than an obligation. Smart's bio of Hayward is based in a great deal of material that has largely been left out.

No doubt Hayward was jealous, and he had become possessive, but he had been a major source of support for Eliot--both personal and professional (he helped Eliot edit and helped him with the idioms of England) for years. For example, see the discussion of the editing of 4Q.

Some of Eliot's friends were pretty negative about the way he treated Hayward. Yet the story is complicated by the contrasting views. So what Pinion says is not in any was just fact.

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 6:54 AM, Chanan Mittal <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
An observation vis-a-vis John Hayward 

"[Eliot] could not overcome a gnawing sense of obligation to John Hayward, with whom he had been living for a long period. Just how he broke the news of his forthcoming marriage is uncertain, but it appears that he did not do so until a day or two before the wedding; Hayward probably had his suspicions, and resented Eliot's action and secrecy. His friendship had become rather dependent and possessive, and his jealousy did not allow him to be reconciled to the situation or to Tom. Thereafter they met rarely, and only by chance."

FB Pinion, "A T.S. Eliot Companion: Life and Works" 


On Thursday, May 12, 2016, Chanan Mittal <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
To me Valerie's version is, as they say, truth from the horse's mouth.


On Wednesday, May 11, 2016, Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
I reviewed Tarantula's Web Time Present. What I noted was that many situations have been described differently by Eliot and others. I am not sure there is, as of now, any definitive account because there are so many. But it may be that later letters will clarify it.

Regardless, it does seem that the marriage was a shock to both Hayward and Trevelyan, and of course a total shock to Emily Hale. As Eliot kept it a secret to the last possible time, do you think, Tim, that a day or two affects how you view it?

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 9:47 PM, Peter Dillane <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
What would Smart be getting at with the term "official version" do you suppose? I've been ploughing through the most recent letters volume and he seems to have been a punctilious man at the extremes of the term.


-----Original Message-----
From: T. S. Eliot Discussion forum. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Materer, Timothy J.
Sent: Thursday, 12 May 2016 6:47 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: TSE's second wedding

Most accounts of Eliot’s second wedding suggest that he left John Hayward’s flat to go to the early morning ceremony, though a story in the Guardian claims that he left from the Atheneaum club (   Lyndall Gordon also thinks that Eliot left from the Hayward-Eliot flat, and states that when Eliot did not return from church on 10 January 1957, the date of the ceremony, Hayward thought of calling the police.

But John Smart in Tarantula’s Web states (1) Hayward told Helen Gardner that Eliot gave him a letter notifying him of the departure before spending the night with his lawyer, and Smart also states (2) Hayward told Christopher Sykes that [Eliot] gave him the letter early on the morning of the wedding. Smart mentions a third, “official version” from Valerie that “Eliot met Hayward two days before the wedding and had a long talk in Hayward’s room whilst Valerie waited outside.”

Mrs. Eliot’s version sounds right, and I suspect Eliot spent not one but two nights after his departure at a friend’s house. Does anyone have thoughts about this interesting (to me) biographical issue?