The author gives a little list of notably memorable fragments of Eliot's poetry. Unfortunately he gets one of them wrong, which is a pity because the very thing

The author gives a little list of notably memorable fragments of Eliot's poetry. Unfortunately he gets one of them wrong, which is a pity because the very thing he gets wrong is (I think) an absolute masterpiece of subtlety on Eliot's part. As quoted in the article: "Humankind cannot bear very much reality." As actually written by Eliot: "Human kind cannot bear very much reality." The difference is a single space, separating the two halves of a compound word -- but it's a big difference. 1. Eliot's version is better rhythmically. It introduces a tiny extra pause between "human" and "kind", and it sounds better that way. (One particular way in which it sounds better: the slight slow-down makes it that bit more magisterial, which is part of its appeal.) 2. Eliot's version suggests an individual human rather than the species as a whole, which makes better sense: the human race, as such, can neither bear nor fail to bear very much reality, but individual humans certainly can. 3. Eliot's version, by its slight unfamiliarity, encourages the mind to dwell a bit more on the associations of those words, the latter especially. Kin. Kindness. German Kind, a child (children typically can't bear very much reality either). [EDITED a minute or two after posting to fix formatting; no changes in content]