BOOKS
485
The time, after all, is the twentieth century, not the time of the crusades,
and there were many people who did not say such things. And even if these
anti-Semitic sentiments were widespread, it shows a failure of imagination
and humanity not to be forgiven in a poet with a claim to greatness.
There is evidence from Julius's own account that Eliot not only resisted
the more virulent expressions of anti-Sem.itism, he seemed at times to strug–
gle with his own expression of it.
In
a separate chapter, Julius tries
to
show
that every effort on Eliot's part to make amends like changing "jew" to
''Jew'' in "Gerontion" or suppressing the republication of
After Strange Cads
falls short of genuine relTlorse. Motives, of course, are always difficul t to
ascertain, but Julius is bent upon denying Eliot any exculpatory motive. Here
is an example. In 1940 Eliot approved of the Pope's decision to interdict the
Action Franfaise
newspaper (the organ of the antisemite Charles Maurras).
Speculating about the Pope's motives, he wondered whether the Pope was
"condemning a dangerous intolerance which classified Jews, Protestants and
Freemasons in one comprehensive condemnation," Julius asks "why 'dan–
gerous'? And to whom?" And he answers: "Apparently for the odd reason
that this intolerance makes an error of classification.
It
rejects all three–
Jews, Protestants, and Freemasons-wi thout discrimination. Would an
intolerance that condemned Protestants, but not Jews or Freemasons be less
dangerous?" Eliot's statement invites such a question. But he or a surrogate
should be allowed an answer. Instead Julius provides an answer that discred–
its Eliot.Julius simply believes that Eliot's anti-Semitism is intractable.
The prosecutorial animus extends beyond the theme of anti-Semitism
to Eliot's poli tics. Julius finds anti-Semitism in Eliot's advocacy of a
Christian society and suspicion of the effect of free thinking Jews in it.
(It
is unclear how Eliot would have regarded the presence of the religious
Jew.) Eliot's conservatism and anti-Semitism seem to go hand in hand for
Julius. But what of conservatism in its classic formulation? "The
vi tuperative caricature of liberalism [in Eliot] has its origin in the counter–
revolutionary polemics of Burke and de Maistre." There is surely a
significant difference between Burke and the reactionary and anti-Semi tic
de Maistre.Julius's antipathy
to
conservative thought is so strong that he
simply dismisses the socialist Raymond Williams's thoughtful praise of
Eliot for "exposing the limitations of an 'orthodox' liberalism which has
all
too generally and too complacently accepted." Julius's failure to consider
Eliot's reflections on cultural diversity in
Notes Toward A Diftnition of
Culture
reflects a lack of critical objectivity.
Most puzzling in the book is Julius's profession of admiration for Eliot.
If Eliot is what Julius makes him out to be, what does he mean in his con–
clusion by describing his work as one of resistance and respect? "After
such knowledge, what forgiveness?" What is there to respect in Julius's
