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]">



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: