T.S. Eliot
Schizmatic
reading that once, they had a chance to meet, and that Lewis pretty much blew
him off. I remember also reading that the two were both on the committee to
revise the Psalter in the early sixties. Does anyone know more about this?
Andrew
Andrew Rilstone
<schiz...@aol.com> writes
>What exactly was it that Lewis had against T.S. Eliot?
He didn't like his poetry very much.
--
Andrew Rilstone and...@aslan.demon.co.uk http://www.aslan.demon.co.uk/
*******************************************************************************
"Then shall the realm of Albion come to great confusion"
*******************************************************************************
Carl Marcus
>--
As I understand it, Lewis blamed Eliot for a lot of the post-modernist
movement. Did he have similar feelings about Pound etc?
Does anyone know if the fact that Eliot was born American had anything to do
with Lewis' dislike of him?
AJA
wrote:
Can't imagine that! He married an American. And I'm not sure about
the violent part. There's a nice letter written to Eliot in Collected
Letters which speaks about getting together to talk over various
subjects like Punishment, etc. I'd like to see quotes about the
poetry problem.
Best,
Ann
tmo...@hotmail.com
Didn't care for the poems -- as a youth was involved in a scheme to get
_Criterion_ to publish some _faux_ modernist verse; one of L's poems has an
opening which lampoons that of Prufrock...
Here's an account of a Thursday Inklings in 1947 from Warren Lewis' diary:
"Present, J[ack -- i.e., CSL], [George] Sayer, Colin Hardie, Christopher
[Tolkien -- J.R.R's son], Hugo [Dyson] and myself. [...] Some enjoyable talk
arising out of T.S. Eliot, one of whose poems J read superbly, but broke off
in the middle, declaring it to be bilge: Hugo defended it, J and Sayer
attacked. I thought that though unintelligible, it did convey a feeling of
frustration and despair. J thought he had nothing to say worth saying in any
case. Christopher, in an interlude with me in the privy, was captious about
quarreling with Eliot for not being Masefield, Auden, or any of the other
poets whose names had come up. When we got back the conversation had drifted
to whether poets create or reflect the mood of their time; I was inclined to
think they helped at least to create it, but I was in a minority.[...]"
Didn't care for his critical principles and judgements either: see _Preface
to Paradise Lost_ and (I think) the _Hamlet_ lecture. (In a fair bit of L's
thoughts on criticism, he has Leavis in his sights, but I daresay "x" amount
of them have some application to Eliot as well --)
There's some evidence he didn't care much for E's "style" of Christianity
either: see _Pilgrim's Regress_.
From here on I'm working from memory, and in any event I don't recall sources.
> I seem to remember
> reading that once, they had a chance to meet, and that Lewis pretty much blew
> him off.
No, they did meet: at a lunch or dinner set up by Charles Williams (this
_may_ have been just after L had published something or other to do with TSE)
-- E is supposed to have remarked very early on, "Mr Lewis, you are a much
_older_ man than you appear to be in your photographs", and -- so says the
source -- it was all downhill from there[1], though CW (who could be rather
mischievous) is supposed to have enjoyed himself hugely... :)
> I remember also reading that the two were both on the committee to
> revise the Psalter in the early sixties. Does anyone know more about this?
I asked once on the list: nobody knew nuthin' then... I'd still like to know
more about this, NTM: _which_ Psalter? The one in the Prayer Book, or one
published separately? Is each man's work known, or identifiable? Etc.
Memory again: L said something along the lines of, I didn't like him once,
but during this collaboration I grew to love him.
I believe there are a couple of letters to E in the _Letters of C.S. Lewis_.
cheers,
t
=================
[1] I've always wondered whether something got lost in the transmission in
this story, AFAIK, L was not esp. vain about his personal appearance...
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
David R L Porter
from "Carl Marcus" <mar...@erinet.com> contains these words:
> As I understand it, Lewis blamed Eliot for a lot of the post-modernist
> movement. Did he have similar feelings about Pound etc?
Surely the term 'post-modern' came much later?
If you want to hear somebody being *really* rude about Pound (and
Eliot, for that matter), read Robert Graves's 'The Crowning Privilege'.
Yummy.
--
Best wishes,
b...@no-spam.com
>On Wed, 7 Apr 1999 13:10:19 -0400, "Carl Marcus" <mar...@erinet.com>
>wrote:
>
>>>He didn't like his poetry very much.
>>>--
>>I think violently hated it might be another way of putting it.
>>
>>As I understand it, Lewis blamed Eliot for a lot of the post-modernist
>>movement. Did he have similar feelings about Pound etc?
Distinguish format from content. Pound used non-rhymes, irregular
lines, imagist stuff ... but so far as I vaguely recall, it was
wholesome content. Nice images. :-) (Surely Lewis and GCK would have
liked "Goodly Frere", unless I've got a whole wrong poet. :-)
> There's a nice letter written to Eliot in Collected
>Letters which speaks about getting together to talk over various
>subjects like Punishment, etc. I'd like to see quotes about the
>poetry problem.
>
>Best,
>Ann
Well, L or GKC or both sure made fun of the 'patient etherized' thing.
Seriously, L didn't like people debunking what in /Exp in Crit/ he
called the 'standard responses.' I'm sure this is the same as the
reactions prescribed by the 'Tao' in AoM, eg enjoyment of children,
awe at waterfalls, etc. :-)
Eliot and others got poetic effect by reversing/clashing such images;
Lewis thought that dangerous (or evil?). Remember also Barfield's
objection to a painting of a motorcycle, which I agree is too nasty to
describe.
bd
********************************************************
Email mailto:Pres...@whitehouse.gov to "Pardon the Lewinskys!"
Julie Steele defense site: (trial May 3, 1999)
http://www.juliehiattsteele.com/
News site worth checking? http://www.consortiumnews.com/
Petition against Starr, and good info:
http://www.rain.org/~openmind/petition.htm
http://www.rain.org/~openmind/jonesrev.htm
The Eight Classic Moral Principles:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/4809/
*****************************************************
AJA
>In article <19990406030406...@ng43.aol.com>,
> schiz...@aol.com (Schizmatic) wrote:
>> What exactly was it that Lewis had against T.S. Eliot?
>
>Didn't care for the poems -- as a youth was involved in a scheme to get
>_Criterion_ to publish some _faux_ modernist verse; one of L's poems has an
>opening which lampoons that of Prufrock...
>
>Here's an account of a Thursday Inklings in 1947 from Warren Lewis' diary:
>
(Entry snipped for space. Get though! )
>Memory again: L said something along the lines of, I didn't like him once,
>but during this collaboration I grew to love him.
>
>I believe there are a couple of letters to E in the _Letters of C.S. Lewis_.
>
>cheers,
>
>t
Eliot's 'despair' period in the 20s, though very fashionable post war
stuff in France and the continent, must have exasperated Lewis. And
the free winging form, and mixed metaphors and images, and the
questionable theology. Hollow Man, etc. And Eliot is _very_
emotional. Might not have sat well with Lewis as well. However, by
the 60s, as TM says, their relationship has progressed to friendship.
From the letter dated 25 May 1962. To T. S. Eliot: from Magdalene
College. Note: "(Jack and T. S. Eliot had become good friends after
they began meeting in 1959 as members of the "Commission to Revise the
Psalter". The first part of the Psalter was published in 1961 and the
complete work, The Revised Psalter, was published in 1963. Jack had
also been consulted about points of translation of the New Testament
section of The New English Bible.)"
The Psalter for the Anglican Church?
Lewis tells Eliot not to sympathize too much with the condition of his
health. He says that while it keeps him from doing some things he
likes it excuses him from doing many things he doesn't like. "We must
have a talk - I wish you'd write an essay on it - about Punishment.
The modern view, by excluding the retributive element and
concentrating solely on deterrence and cure, is hideously immoral. It
is vile tyranny to submit a man to compulsory 'cure' or sacrifice him
to the deterrence of others, unless he _deserves_ it."
The excerpt from this letter ends with Lewis discussing the New
English Bible. "Odd, the way the less the Bible is read the more it
is translated."
All the best,
Ann
Andrew Rilstone
<mar...@erinet.com> writes
>>He didn't like his poetry very much.
>>--
>I think violently hated it might be another way of putting it.
>
>As I understand it, Lewis blamed Eliot for a lot of the post-modernist
>movement.
Nit pick: Eliot was a modernist, quite specifically what the post-
modernists came after. I don't think the term "post-modernism" was
coined in Lewis's time.
Lewis's account, in "Experiment in Criticism" of how modern poetry works
implies that he saw the point of it, even if he didn't like it. And, of
course, he admired "Murder in the Cathedral" a great deal.
>Did he have similar feelings about Pound etc?
>
>Does anyone know if the fact that Eliot was born American had anything to do
>with Lewis' dislike of him?
>
Well, Lewis was well-known for disliking Americans and would certainly
never have married one. :)
tmo...@hotmail.com
==========Possible duplicate post -- gettin' a funny message from
DN==========================
In article <YaegnDAd...@aslan.demon.co.uk>,
Andrew Rilstone <and...@aslan.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
> >As I understand it, Lewis blamed Eliot for a lot
of the post-modernist
> >movement.
>
> Nit pick: Eliot was a modernist, quite
specifically what the post-
> modernists came after.
Tho' post-modernism is a v. dangerous thing to make
pronouncements about, I think what most of them
have in view is "modernity" as such and not a given
modernist movement (tho' presumably if one is
speaking of say, "post-modern _architecture_" then
one _does_ have a particular movement in mind...)
> I don't think the term "post-modernism" was
> coined in Lewis's time.
I'm pretty sure it _had_ been, but (same
difference) I'll bet L had never heard it... ;-)
> And, of
> course, he admired "Murder in the Cathedral" a
great deal.
Ah! That's the work I was trying to think of in an
earlier post -- I kept wanting to say _Four
Quartets_ and then thinking "That's wrong"... (tho'
FAIK he may have liked them _too_ -- never
heard...)
[...]
> >Does anyone know if the fact that Eliot was born
American had anything to do
> >with Lewis' dislike of him?
> >
>
> Well, Lewis was well-known for disliking
Americans and would certainly
> never have married one. :)
> --
:)
I must say I'm really starting to wish that when
things like this get asked, that we could hear as
well, "...and my reason for thinking he may have
disliked Americans is..."
(Or, when we have folks wondering whether he put
actual people in Hell in _The Great Divorce_ [last
count: J.A.T. Robinson and Hilaire Belloc...] that
we could be told "...and my reason for thinking
that Lewis was at all likely to do such a thing
is...")
The above procedure (even if the reasons given were
in fact wrong, or matters of controversy) would at
least be intelligible; what I find quite
_un_intelligible is this sort of scattershot
attribution of more or less malevolent feelings and
actions -- long-time readers (assuming I have any
:) will know that I am not at all an advocate of
the "St. Jack" school, but still...
best to all,
t
tmo...@hotmail.com
tmo...@hotmail.com
tmo...@hotmail.com
David R L Porter
everything 'post-modern', and, somewhat arrogantly, from reading his
works I think he would have agreed with my reasons:
1) There is no doubt that in this present period there are many
things that fit the 'post-modern' definition. But so there have been
in most periods, just as there have always been classical and
romantic elements in most historical periods. For example, re
post-modernism, much criticism in Lewis's day was ironically
detached, used the past as motif rather than linearly, rejected
absolutes, etc etc. But those critics were if anything 'modern'
rather than post-modern. I don't doubt that we are living in a
strongly post-modernly-characterised age, but I do dispute that we
are living in some defining post-modern moment, such that this is the
'post-modern' period in the way that Wordsworth lived in 'the' romantic period.
2) My main reason for saying this is that the post-modernist
labellers have to demonstrate that there has been a radical paradigm
shift which some rate as comparable to the Enlightenment. I don't
believe that any student of the history of culture, ideas and the
arts can hold to this. Some Christians have gone so far as to say
that apologetics of the 1960s are now irrelevant to the present day
(one cover blurb has written Schaeffer off as culturally irrelevant,
for example, purely on the grounds of the dates Schaeffer was
working). Of course there has been a sharp and sometimes abrupt shift
in cultural/intellectual etc direction, but I think if you put C S
Lewis in the senior common room at Yale and got him chatting to the
philosophy faculty, you would find that everybody had no problems
sorting out the wise men from the fools.
3) I get a lot of fun reading articles about modern cultural icons
who are described as being archetypically post-modern, and then
finding an icon from a much older period who easily displays the same
characteristics. The defence is usually 'Ah, but today there's a lot
more of it about' - which would make 1914-1918 the defining nihilist
moment in Western culture, I would suspect.
I do read and respect a lot of what is written by competent academics
about post-modernism but I feel that most of it is comfortably
accomodated by paragraph (1) above. The problem with many Christians
who go into print on the subject is (as I suspect CSL may have
commented) that they know an awful lot about contemporary culture,
but have read very sparingly in the history of ideas.
Yours somewhat grouchily
tmo...@hotmail.com
then thought it might be kindasorta relevant to this one --
from a book review by John J. Reilly:
"[...]Then there is the writing. I realize that I have my own hobby-horses
when it comes to postmodern academic prose. I will not use gender-neutral
language, for instance, and in general I am resistant to picking up new
jargons. Sometimes I think I am just being idiosyncratic, but then I see
paragraphs like this: 'While the contextual nature of knowledge is obvious to
us when we (as modernists, the expanded West) examine the past, when we
examine our present, following Comte, we tend [sic] locate it as the rational
and the scientific. The past is constructed as relative and ideological (that
is, not objective), and the future is the fulfillment of truth, the final
stage of history once the last vestiges, the remnants, of the religious or
philosophical past have been modernized, that is, vanquished. Thus, we submit
our own "present" as outside history and outside of metaphysics.'
"C.S. Lewis said 95% of this with the phrase 'the present is also a
"period."' I really don´t see why people can´t write and think as clearly as
that today. They should at least try. They don´t in this book. On some pages,
the word 'discourse' occurred with a frequency like that of certain
expletives in the military.[...]"
cheers,
tmo...@hotmail.com
TBONELAFS
>things that fit the 'post-modern' definition.
One of the frustrating things I run into when attempting to discuss the term
"post-modern" here at my university is that its proponents and defenders insist
on it being "undefinable", to their own convenience. I am still in the dark
about when the "modern" has ended, but attempting to guess what the
"post-modernist" might have in the hand behind their back strikes me as a
useless game. To me, it seems they have invented a new language in order to
"reappropriate" old methods and ideas, as if they somehow are responsible for
originating them. I'll stick with the pre-1960 literary critics who did not
need to "deconstruct" their subject and who also spoke in a language that is
comprhensible, although Northrop Frye appeals to me once in awhile. It seems to
be to the post-modernists advantage to conveniently obscure and complicate
things. Anyway, that's my 1.5 cents on the matter. I learn more from one C.S.
Lewis book than all of the post-modern canon, including Focault & Derrida,
combined. New or old is irrelevant, in my opinion. Truth is what essentially
matters.
T-Bone
http://cyberlink.to/tbone
Tal Cohen
> The excerpt from this letter ends with Lewis discussing the New
> English Bible. "Odd, the way the less the Bible is read the more it
> is translated."
Funny, I remember what a shock I've got when I noticed how many English
translations there are! I just don't get it. What's wrong with good old
King James'? Sure, it's "old English", but trust me, the original (Old
Testament part, at least) is in *very* old Hebrew -- much older than
King James' English. We're talking 3,000 years or more here... and yet
we manage.
Different translations of the Bible have the very bad property of
ruining references in existing books. I mean, someone who's familiar
with a different version than King James' will not, for example,
recognize the title of Heinlein's book, "Stranger in a Strange Land",
for what it is (the phrase Moses uses to explain why he called his son
Gershom). "Stranger in a Strange Land" is, BTW, a mistranslation -- a
more proper translation would be "stranger in a foreign land"; Moses did
not refer to the land itself as "strange", and the two words he used
(for himself and for the land) were of different roots.
--
Regards,
- Tal Cohen
http://www.forum2.org/tal
Margaret Dean
>
> AJA wrote:
>
> > The excerpt from this letter ends with Lewis discussing the New
> > English Bible. "Odd, the way the less the Bible is read the more it
> > is translated."
>
> Funny, I remember what a shock I've got when I noticed how many English
> translations there are! I just don't get it. What's wrong with good old
> King James'? Sure, it's "old English",
No it's not. It's not even Middle English, come to that. :)
> but trust me, the original (Old
> Testament part, at least) is in *very* old Hebrew -- much older than
> King James' English. We're talking 3,000 years or more here... and yet
> we manage.
>
> Different translations of the Bible have the very bad property of
> ruining references in existing books. I mean, someone who's familiar
> with a different version than King James' will not, for example,
> recognize the title of Heinlein's book, "Stranger in a Strange Land",
> for what it is (the phrase Moses uses to explain why he called his son
> Gershom). "Stranger in a Strange Land" is, BTW, a mistranslation -- a
> more proper translation would be "stranger in a foreign land"; Moses
> did not refer to the land itself as "strange", and the two words he
> used (for himself and for the land) were of different roots.
Well, that is one reason for retranslating the Bible -- to get a more
accurate English rendition. The KJV is indisputably beautiful, but it is
also inaccurate in many respects.
I'm currently taking a Bible study course at my church, and it's
interesting to compare all the different translations we have in class
(New Revised Standard, Good News Bible, New International Version, and
New English Bible). Even without knowing much of anything about the
original texts, it's easy to see where there's a "problematical" section
because those will be the passages with the most variety in translation.
(Not to mention footnotes.)
--Margaret Dean
<marg...@erols.com>
b...@no-spam.com
>Had almost posted this on general obLewis grounds to a thread of its own;
>then thought it might be kindasorta relevant to this one --
>
>from a book review by John J. Reilly:
>
>"[...]Then there is the writing. I realize that I have my own hobby-horses
>when it comes to postmodern academic prose. I will not use gender-neutral
>language, for instance, and in general I am resistant to picking up new
>jargons. Sometimes I think I am just being idiosyncratic, but then I see
>paragraphs like this: 'While the contextual nature of knowledge is obvious to
>us when we (as modernists, the expanded West) examine the past, when we
>examine our present, following Comte, we tend [sic] locate it as the rational
>and the scientific. The past is constructed as relative and ideological (that
>is, not objective), and the future is the fulfillment of truth, the final
>stage of history once the last vestiges, the remnants, of the religious or
>philosophical past have been modernized, that is, vanquished. Thus, we submit
>our own "present" as outside history and outside of metaphysics.'
>
>"C.S. Lewis said 95% of this with the phrase 'the present is also a
>"period."' I really don´t see why people can´t write and think as clearly as
>that today. They should at least try. They don´t in this book.
I totallly agree. YOu are right. Quite right. Indeed.
I suspect this was part of the fall of civilization in 1914. Many
people from before that time, write very clearly. At least those with
Oxbridge connections?
They also use metaphors -- good simple ones.
I wonder if it was a style deliberately taught.
Tal Cohen
> > Funny, I remember what a shock I've got when I noticed how many English
> > translations there are! I just don't get it. What's wrong with good old
> > King James'? Sure, it's "old English",
>
> No it's not. It's not even Middle English, come to that. :)
I meant "old English", not "Old English". :)
Eli Bishop
wrote:
> AJA wrote:
>
> > The excerpt from this letter ends with Lewis discussing the New
> > English Bible. "Odd, the way the less the Bible is read the more it
> > is translated."
>
> Funny, I remember what a shock I've got when I noticed how many English
> translations there are! I just don't get it. What's wrong with good old
> King James'? Sure, it's "old English", but trust me, the original (Old
> Testament part, at least) is in *very* old Hebrew -- much older than
> King James' English. We're talking 3,000 years or more here... and yet
> we manage.
Well, this makes me think that English must have changed much more
rapidly, because there are many parts of the King James that are very
obscure to modern readers. Of course that's true of Shakespeare too,
but there at least you have a good reason for learning the archaic
words, because that's the language it was written in. The same goes if
you're reading the Hebrew Bible. But it would be unfortunate if an
English-speaking reader could only appreciate the poetry of the King
James version while losing the meaning.
Kenneth Miner
: Margaret Dean wrote:
: > > Funny, I remember what a shock I've got when I noticed how many English
: > > translations there are! I just don't get it. What's wrong with good old
: > > King James'? Sure, it's "old English",
: >
: > No it's not. It's not even Middle English, come to that. :)
: I meant "old English", not "Old English". :)
FWIW, the term is ENE 'Early New English' :) (One would use 'ME'
for 'Modern English' but for the fact that 'ME' already is used for
'Middle English.') - Ken
// C * O * N * A * N
*%%%%%(=========================
\\ The Grammarian.
Alan Kreutzer
sounds more a debating trick than a description.
If we think "Modern" is good, and if I can get my
work called "Modern", then your work, by contrast,
must be "old fashioned", so mine is BETTER,
by golly! (Or vice-versa, I suppose, if you
happen to LIKE old fashioned.)
But if were modern yesterday, and are post-modern today,
what will we be 20 years from now? "Really, truly,
Honest to Goodness, Extra Post-Modern?")
David R L Porter
from "Alan Kreutzer" <a...@teleportNOspamPlease.com> contains these words:
> But if were modern yesterday, and are post-modern today,
> what will we be 20 years from now? "Really, truly,
> Honest to Goodness, Extra Post-Modern?")
Returning to grouch mode - this is one of my biggest criticisms of
most Christian commentary on 'post-modernism'. There is very little
attempt to identify where - if anywhere - it is all leading to and
what the next 'ism' is likely to be. On the basis that any cultural
movement that is comprehensively documented in print has probably
already begun to bo obsolete, and that one of the features of what
has been labelled post-modernism is a very precise 'window' in time
(as the novels of Douglas Coupland clearly show), this is a major
critical flaw in my opinion and shows a poor grasp of the flow of history.
Not that I have much af a clear view of what's coming next. Except
perhaps Einstein's prediction: 'I don't know how the Third World War
will be fought. But the one after it will be fought with sticks and stones.'
Kenneth Miner
: In article <7eg3cg$pa2$1...@news.erinet.com>, Carl Marcus
: <mar...@erinet.com> writes
: >>He didn't like his poetry very much.
: >>--
: >I think violently hated it might be another way of putting it.
: >As I understand it, Lewis blamed Eliot for a lot of the post-modernist
: >movement.
: Nit pick: Eliot was a modernist, quite specifically what the post-
: modernists came after. I don't think the term "post-modernism" was
: coined in Lewis's time.
Stanley J. Grenz, _A Primer On Postmodernism_ (Eerdmans, 1996)
suggests it was coined on the 1930s; he has some refs (p 2).
Johnathan George
Tal Cohen wrote:
>
> AJA wrote:
>
> > The excerpt from this letter ends with Lewis discussing the New
> > English Bible. "Odd, the way the less the Bible is read the more it
> > is translated."
>
> Funny, I remember what a shock I've got when I noticed how many English
> translations there are! I just don't get it. What's wrong with good old
> King James'?
Interestingly, I was just reading Lewis' take on translation of the
Bible, which seemed to be that any new translation which is a well done
scholarly work is a good thing. He even listed several translations
which he particularly liked (which I had never heard of). It was one of
the essays in _God in the Dock_ (can't remeber which one right now)
Johnathan
Adrian Rolfs
Tell me when they teach you that the main teachings of the Bible are not
true.
K F W Gumbley
<thege...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>Interestingly, I was just reading Lewis' take on translation of the
>Bible, which seemed to be that any new translation which is a well done
>scholarly work is a good thing. He even listed several translations
>which he particularly liked (which I had never heard of). It was one of
>the essays in _God in the Dock_ (can't remeber which one right now)
>
introduction to J B Phillips' _Letters to Young Churches: A
Translation of the Epistles_. It is printed in _Undeceptions_
(London, G Bles, 1971) at p.187.
Different translations serve different purposes. I often have to read
the Lesson aloud in church, and the problem is to get the sense of the
words over to the congregation. I find that the Authorised Version
(the King James Version, as it is called across the pond) is
marvellous for prophetic stuff like Isaiah or Jeremiah: you can
declaim it, just as one imagines the prophet haranguing the Children
of Israel. Modern translations are banal and feeble in comparison.
Conversely, if you are trying to get across some of St Paul's ideas,
eg. in Romans or Galatians, you have to use a modern translation, as
the AV just doesn't make sense to a modern listener: I find the New
English Bible the best for this. Makes you realise just how difficult
a writer St Paul is, especially when the ideas come pouring out faster
than he can dictate them to the poor srcibe.
b...@no-spam.com
>In article <YaegnDAd...@aslan.demon.co.uk>,
> Andrew Rilstone <and...@aslan.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>[...]
>(Or, when we have folks wondering whether he put
>actual people in Hell in _The Great Divorce_ [last
>count: J.A.T. Robinson and Hilaire Belloc...] that
>we could be told "...and my reason for thinking
>that Lewis was at all likely to do such a thing
>is...")
That he was a fan of Dante?
(And Virgil and Cicero and a few other people I've forgotten, iirc.
..:-)))))
gdr,
bd
********************************************************
Email mailto:Pres...@whitehouse.gov to "Pardon the Lewinskys!"
Julie Steele defense site: (trial May 3, 1999)
http://www.juliehiattsteele.com/
News site worth checking? http://www.consortiumnews.com/
Good info: http://www.rain.org/~openmind/jonesrev.htm
WP article, Serb's offensive was planned before bombing:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPcap/1999-04/11/035r-041199-idx.html