Hello Pete,

Thanks for the considered response, both this one below and the one you made to Nancy, they give me along with the Guardian articles, CR's declarations, and Frances Dickey's reports, a lot to chew on, including that I will never again be able to look at canapes in the same way...

As you astutely modified Nancy's good point, let me modify yours of the first sentence in the same way: whether you've crashed and burned a lot or not makes no difference in the condition which one is observing -- judging needs to take a back seat for a while, perhaps indefinitely. At the moment, I see a lot rushing, not from you but in general, but I'll wait to say much more besides this one thing: the difference between 1947 and 1956 strikes me as rather large. As much because of his voluminous declarations leading up to 1947 as in spite of them, the rejection of marriage at that point seems much more significant than what people want to ascribe  to it. I suppose the post-1947 letters may give that more context. If I were at Princeton I'd jump ahead to those dates.

The reports I hear about the Australian wildfires are so extreme, I have to ask whether you are feeling those effects where you are? I'm looking at an online map of Australia this morning, and the extent and intensity of the fires portrayed is beyond sobering.

Ken A

On 1/3/2020 3:44 PM, Peter Dillane wrote:
[log in to unmask]">
Hi Ken,

I guess if one has been lucky enough not to crash and burn too often in love it is a good idea to be slow to judge. 

I allow Eliot’s now released  statement was probably written in anger and it was  a while ago and it is a strange document protesting she took more notice of her uncle than her boyfriend me! etc. 

Clinton trying to argue that when he said he had not had sex he meant insertive copulation is tiresome. But when people dally with each other over canapes I think its still sex not that there’s anything wrong with that. The notion you can say hey I’m off the hook I didnt take it too far is unbecoming for a sophisticated man that’s all I meant. 

On the other hand she and he do seem to have shared the belief that genital relations define the status of a relationship. He as protest of innocence she of propriety. 

I note he represents their love as not congenial devoid of common interest while she makes the opposite claim. What can that mean? I spent the weekend in the pits of a motorcycle race where one could watch men working on girlfriends and wive’s bikes getting them out on the track and women similarly occupied on their mens’ bikes. I wondered how many of these crew gals and guys were bored beyond sanity - week after week year after year. Was that Eliot? Mmmm 

If as he says she was distant from him on so many fronts it is a remarkable thing to write over a thousand letters.

I guess I am being a bit hard on an angry frightened man. Apart from anything else how do you recall what you said in 1131 letters or whose correspondence to you is included as they report he sent other people’s letters to him. You might be worried about all sorts of censure and as his statement shows in its legalistic preamble he was partly worried about early release not 2020.

Ha bloody men full of themselves every damn one of em

"She said she loved me for the dangers I’d survived, and I loved her for feeling such strong emotions about me”

Cheers Pete

On 4 Jan 2020, at 3:37 am, Ken Armstrong <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Hello Pete,

I haven't been following the Hale and letters threads as closely as maybe I should have, having just started this morning to look at some of the pages for which CR and Rickard have provided links. And I'm not sure I've fully comprehended your definition of sex as seen from a certain Democratic angle, or which Eliot statement you refer to, but am wondering if it comports with the Guardian Jan. 2 quote from Hale: “We were congenial in so many of our interests, our reactions, and emotional response to each others’ needs – the happiness, the quiet deep bonds between us and our lives, very rich .. And the more because we kept the relationship on an honourable, to be respected, plane.” That last does sound as if it might have morphed into the beginning of "Burnt Norton."

Ken A

On 1/3/2020 12:17 AM, Peter Dillane wrote:
[log in to unmask]" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 18px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;" class="">
Just reading the Eliot statement.

What do men mean when they tell you “I did not have sex with that woman”.
At least when Billy Clinton did this  it was a lie or a pretty analytic way of talking. A bit like the Hollywood code of one foot on the floor.
Clinton was working from self interest at least.  But old TSE  seems to have thought it a justification . I cant bring myself to consider he had the same punctilious exclusive oscillatory definition of sex as a Democrat.
I’m still a bit shaken by his endorsement of his second wife as a goody because she really loved him. My wife would have said “I’m glad its about you”
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
From: Chanan Mittal
Sent: Friday, 3 January 2020 3:08 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: TS Eliot’s hidden love letters reveal intense, heartbreaking affair | The Guardian
An abstraction 
“Perhaps I could not have been the companion in marriage he hoped ... Perhaps the vision saved both of us from great unhappiness – I cannot ever know.”
On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 10:43 PM Chanan Mittal <[log in to unmask]> wrote: