T.S. Eliot—WH. Auden and others | Series of 11 letters on Eliot's character, to Michael Gonin, 1965-72

T.S. Eliot—W.H. Auden and others

A series of 11 letters signed by writers (chiefly autograph), discussing the character of T.S. Eliot, to Michael Gonin, 12 pages, various sizes, 1965–72 (but chiefly 1965), by: 

i) W.H. Auden, providing a careful and sympathetic view of Eliot, noting the difference between his public persona and personal character (“…Everyone seems the serious conscientious Arch-deacon. Few, except the personal friends, are aware of the little boy who loved simple practical jokes…”), and reflecting on his poetry, 2 pages, 4to, Kirchstetten, Austria, 23 April n.y., splitting at folds

ii) William Golding (“…He tried to be kind to me, I believe, but he was so tall, so thin, so distinguistly [sic] stooping, and there was so little I could contribute to any conversation with him that my opinion is hardly worth having…”), 27 November n.y.

iii) Robert Graves (“…As a poet he burned out about 1926 – the main passion has been suppression homosexual, I understand […] he was also a coward. But I couldn’t dislike him…”), 14 Jun n.y.

iv) Graham Greene (“…I always found him a rather aloof character and we came together only on certain esoteric enjoyments – such as the books dealing with the exploits of Arsene Lupin…”), 27 January 1972

v) Frank Kermode, 31 May 1965

vi) John Lehmann, 6 December 1965

vii) Michael Ramsey, Archbishop of Canterbury, 5 July 1965

viii) Herbert Read, (“…Far from being arrogant or in any sense an objectionable personality he was one of the kindest and most considerate people I have ever known…”), 12 July 1965

ix) Bertrand Russell, recalling two meetings with Eliot in 1914 that provide a wholly unsympathetic view of his character, 1 page, 9 March 1965

x) Lord Snow, 9 June 1965

xi) Hugh Trevor-Roper (“…I don’t think that I ever met T.S. Eliot […] I do not like his cold, starched, slightly inhuman high-church formalism and thin-blooded reactionary views!...”), 8 November 1967

“…Eliot was certainly not narrow-minded but, as a poet, the range of experience and emotion with which he could deal was a narrow one. Indeed what to me is most extraordinary about his work is how much he managed to do with so little…” (W.H. Auden)

After the death of T.S. Eliot a Canadian, Michael Gonin, wrote to a number of writers with a serious of tendentious questions about Eliot’s supposedly cold, arrogant, and prejudiced personality. These replies provide a fascinating range of responses. Some of the public figures to whom Gonin had written had barely known Eliot, although this did not always stop them from having a strong opinion on his personal qualities, but in general, as might be expected, those who had known him best tended to write with more nuance and sympathy about his personal characteristics.

The two most interesting replies came from men who had known Eliot well. W.H. Auden writes with grace and sympathy. He acknowledges the anti-Semitism that mars Eliot’s early work but charitably explains it as the product of his upbringing; he also makes very clear that Eliot’s public persona was only one aspect of his character. His letter also includes revealing comments on Eliot’s poetry. In contrast, Bertrand Russell’s comments on Eliot are extraordinarily poisonous and no doubt stem in part from the longstanding bitterness originating in Russell’s destructive relationship with Eliot’s first wife. Russell claims that Eliot’s only contribution to discussion during three months as Russell’s graduate student at Harvard in 1914 was to compare the pre-Socratic philosopher Heraclitus to the French poet Villon. Russell also reports their conversation in London after the outbreak of war later that same year:

“…I said ‘What are you doing here?’ He said, ‘I have just returned from Berlin.’ I said, ‘What do you think of the war?’ He said, ‘I don’t know, except that I’m not a pacifist.’ I said, ‘I see. You don’t care what people are killed about, so long as they kill each other.’…”