if they had nothing better to do than to facilitate the pattern he prescribed for himself. In the end, it becomes difficult to exonerate Eliot from a charge of moral obtuseness.” That Eliot’s poetry knows about and registers the scenario of guilty retrospection is suggested, in (II), by the encounter with the declamatory ghost, which offers Little Gidding its disenchanting prognosis of gifts reserved for age”: “the And last, the rending pain of re-enactment Of all that you have done, and been; the Of motives late revealed, and the awareness Of things ill done and done to others’ harm Which once you took for exercise of virtue. Then fools’ approval stings, and honour stains. (PTSE 205) 1 Yet, how to the bone does this actually come? Its high rhetoric identifies a gestural, depersonalised guilt which, however generally true, might allow plenty of wriggle-room in the matter of who in particular is to be blamed, and for what. As Hawthorne notes of the Reverend Dimmesdale’s pulpit self-denunciations, had spoken the very truth, and “He transformed it into the veriest falsehood.” This encounter with dead master/ Whom I “some had known, forgotten, half recalled” (PTSE 204) may summon up for us that severe/ 1 “more More harassing master,” Geoffrey Hill, with his insistence that juridical power of the “the poem is not found in utterances that are merely grandiose or imposing,” and in whose opinion the passage quoted might deserve being described as self-enamoured.” “rhetorically Hill noted in a different context, not exhibitionism”. “Confessionalism,” “is The passage’s closing delineation of the ultimately noxious vacuity of a certain kind of public approbation strikes a note heard elsewhere in Eliot: writing in after The Criterion Kipling’s death, he loftily opined that in [Westminster] Abbey can be of no value to “burial the affrighted soul on the way to its last judgement.” However sincerely felt and most –
if they had nothing better to do than to facilitate the pattern he prescribed for himself. In the end, it becomes difficult to exonerate Eliot from a charge of moral obtuseness.” That Eliot’s poetry knows about and registers the scenario of guilty retrospection is suggested, in Little Gidding (II), by the encounter with the declamatory ghost, which offers its disenchanting prognosis of “the gifts reserved for age”: And last, the rending pain of re-enactment Of all that you have done, and been; the Of motives late revealed, and the awareness Of things ill done and done to others’ harm Which once you took for exercise of virtue. Then fools’ approval stings, and honour stains. (PTSE 1 205) Yet, how to the bone does this actually come? Its high rhetoric identifies a gestural, depersonalised guilt which, however generally true, might allow plenty of wriggle-room in the matter of who in particular is to be blamed, and for what. As Hawthorne notes of the Reverend Dimmesdale’s pulpit self-denunciations, “He had spoken the very truth, and transformed it into the veriest falsehood.” This encounter with “some dead master/ Whom I had known, forgotten, half recalled” (PTSE 1 204) may summon up for us that “more severe/ More harassing master,” Geoffrey Hill, with his insistence that “the juridical power of the poem is not found in utterances that are merely grandiose or imposing,” and in whose opinion the passage quoted might deserve being described as “rhetorically self-enamoured.” “Confessionalism,” Hill noted in a different context, “is not exhibitionism”. The passage’s closing delineation of the ultimately noxious vacuity of a certain kind of public approbation strikes a note heard elsewhere in Eliot: writing in The Criterion after Kipling’s death, he loftily opined that “burial in [Westminster] Abbey can be of no value to the affrighted soul on the way to its last judgement.” However sincerely felt – and most
Re_cantationreworked.docx