Print

Print


As for Eliot’s 1960 statement, it cannot belie the torment in love he
suffered vis-a-vis Hale.

*Who then devised the torment? Love.*



*Love is the unfamiliar NameBehind the hands that woveThe intolerable shirt
of flameWhich human power cannot remove.*
Howsoever he might gainsay it with a hindsight.

CR

On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 7:02 PM Chanan Mittal <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> The following from Frances Dickey’s report
>
> Interestingly, Eliot’s second letter to Hale (Nov. 1930) //concludes by
> recommending to her certain passages in his poetry that will prove his love
> for her: the hyacinth garden scene in *The Waste Land *and the “Datta”
> section at the end of “What the Thunder Said," “A Cooking Egg,” and
> *Ash-Wednesday.// *
>
> CR
>
> On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 4:38 PM Chanan Mittal <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Of course, you must also be in touch with Frances Dickey’s *Reports from
>> the Emily Hale Archive. *
>>
>> “These letters tell a very different story from the belittling
>> counter-narrative Eliot wrote in 1960, and in my view, a better one.”
>>
>> https://tseliotsociety.wildapricot.org/news
>>
>> CR
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 4:06 PM Chanan Mittal <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> Some resonance here from Keats:
>>>
>>> Forlorn! the very word is like a bell
>>>          To toll me back from thee to my sole self!
>>> Adieu! the fancy cannot cheat so well
>>>          As she is fam'd to do, deceiving elf.
>>> Adieu! adieu! thy plaintive anthem fades
>>>          Past the near meadows, over the still stream,
>>>                 Up the hill-side; and now 'tis buried deep
>>>                         In the next valley-glades:
>>>          Was it a vision, or a waking dream?
>>>                 Fled is that music:—Do I wake or sleep?
>>>
>>> CR
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 4:00 PM Chanan Mittal <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> This is what is called a dynamic relationship; it doesn’t remain static
>>>> after a thousand letters.
>>>>
>>>> CR
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 3:44 PM Peter Dillane <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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."
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Ken A
>>>>> On 1/3/2020 12:17 AM, Peter Dillane wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi CR
>>>>>
>>>>> 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”
>>>>>
>>>>> Pete
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for
>>>>> Windows 10
>>>>>
>>>>> *From: *Chanan Mittal <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> *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.”
>>>>>
>>>>> CR
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 10:43 PM Chanan Mittal <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Edward Helmore from Princeton
>>>>> The Guardian
>>>>> 2 Jan 2020, 14.50 EST
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jan/02/ts-eliot-hidden-love-letters-reveal-intense-heartbreaking-affair-emily-hale
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> CR
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>