Print

Print


Eliot also published Djuna Barnes's *Nightwood* when no one else would.

But he also edited out a great deal. I once spent days reading the original
mss. in the Maryland library--with Eliot's marks and comments and cuts--,
and his cuts altered the book in serious ways. She nonetheless was very
appreciative of the fact that he published it and praised it in the
"Introduction."

He later, though, wrote a very unenthusiastic intro to her next book, and
she felt betrayed.

So he had a somewhat mixed history with gay literature.

I have thought about his extreme reaction to Peters's article on him being
gay himself (whether he was or not), and I think it essential to remember
that homosexuality was illegal in England *until 1967*. In 1952 it could
have ruined him I assume. His friends in Bloomsbury, though, were generally
not shocked or even negative about it.
Nancy

On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 10:00 AM Rick Parker <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> The following appeared on:
> http://www.back2stonewall.com/2019/11/gay-history-november-10.html
>
> Today in Gay History – November 10 ...
>
> 1928 – The New York Times reported that forty distinguished witnesses
> including T. S. Eliot, Arnold Bennett, Vera Brittain,  Ethel Smyth. and
> Virginia Woolf, appeared in a London in support of  Radclyffe Hall to
> testify in favor of the lesbian novel “The Well of Loneliness.” which was
> in the midst of an obscenity trail. The judge refused to hear any of them.
>
> He would later go on to apply the Hicklin test of obscenity: a work was
> obscene if it tended to “deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to
> such immoral influences”. He held that the book’s literary merit was
> irrelevant because a well-written obscene book was even more harmful than a
> poorly written one. The topic in itself was not necessarily unacceptable; a
> book that depicted the “moral and physical degradation which indulgence in
> those vices must necessary involve” might be allowed, but no reasonable
> person could say that a plea for the recognition and toleration of inverts
> was not obscene. He ordered the book destroyed, with the defendants to pay
> court costs
>