I did not say that 4Q did not involve theological issues; I said it was not a theological pronouncement. They are not the same. And I discussed "theological issues" at length in my first book, including the use of a range of mystics. The "it" is "the perfect life" to which you refer.

On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 9:57 PM, Ken Armstrong <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
On 7/13/2016 10:43 PM, Nancy Gish wrote:

"is it wrong?" Yes.

"The perfect life," as I noted, is a common concept in Christian mysticism. Eliot read Evelyn Underhill early and also read many mystics. All this takes is a little reading in what he read.

    Yes, well, just the same, my question concerned what he wrote, not just what he read (the whole listserv must be long aware of his having read Underhill and co.), and pronouncements of my impression of Gordon as wrong seem premature without that data.

I'm sure you do find it wrong.

    Have no idea what "it" you're referring to. But it does seem odd that you point to E having read Underhill and mystics, etc., but think that his poetry does not involve theological issues. From what I've been reading lately, it appears that Emily Hale plays an inconsequential role in 4Q while theological issues play large. Both can be found in biographical data, as your statement demonstrates.

  By the way, I don't have any investment in Gordon's use or abuse of "perfection"; she just points to it so loudly, and surely with multiple meanings, that I'm curious to know how Eliot himself did or didn't use it. Still no answers on that forthcoming.

Ken A