The Literary Criticism of T.S. Eliot: New Essays 9781472554376, 9781472509055, 9781472505200

Citation preview

Preface These essays o n aspects o f T. S. Eliot's l i t e r a r y c r i t i c i s m w e r e w r i t t e n a t t h e editor's i n v i t a t i o n a n d are p u b l i s h e d i n t h e present v o l u m e f o r t h e first t i m e . I t is a decade since T. S. Eliot's d e a t h a n d a g e n e r a t i o n or m o r e since his e x t r a o r d i n a r y i n f l u e n c e as poet-critic was at its z e n i t h . T h e w o r d s are w o r n , b u t n o w m a y be a t i m e t o expect some f r e s h h i s t o r i c a l r e v a l u a t i o n s a n d reassessments. W e see t h e gains a n d losses, t h e v i r t u e s a n d vices, t h e successes a n d f a i l u r e s o f Eliot's c r i t i c a l oeuvre against a w i d e n i n g a n d deepening retrospect o n M o d e r n i s m . A n d some o f t h e r e n e w a l a n d e x c i t e m e n t t h a t t h e s e i z i n g o f n e w o p p o r t u n i t i e s affords is p a r t o f t h e a t t r a c t i o n o f t h e r e v a l u a t i o n s a n d reassessments visible i n these n i n e essays. I t is a c o m m o n p l a c e t h a t t h e p e r i o d b e t w e e n 1910 a n d 1939 saw a renaissance i n E n g l i s h l i t e r a t u r e w o r t h y o f c o m p a r i s o n

w i t h those o f 1590-1612, 1710-35 and 1798-1822. A r e v o l u t i o n i n p o e t r y a n d i n a l l o t h e r i m a g i n a t i v e w r i t i n g , t h e d e a t h o f one w o r l d a n d t h e b i r t h o f another, released energies t h a t f e d a n accompanying r e v o l u t i o n i n literary criticism. A n d the critical w r i t i n g s of T. S. E l i o t w e r e a c a r d i n a l feature, u n d e r s t o o d or mis­ understood, i n t h a t c r i t i c a l r e v o l u t i o n f o r n e a r l y h a l f a c e n t u r y as a c t i v e forces. A t present, as t h e t w e n t i e t h c e n t u r y looks f o r w a r d t o i t s close, a n d as Eliot's c r i t i c a l w r i t i n g s enter t h e i r struggle f o r r e n e w e d l i f e against t h e viewless prospect of f u t u r i t y , t h e s p i r i t o f disinterested i n q u i r y w i l l be i n c r e a s i n g l y f r e e d t o l o o k back t o c o n t e m p l a t e a n d u n d e r s t a n d afresh. W e c o u l d b o r r o w some of Eliot's o w n w o r d s ( o n Samuel Johnson) as a m o t t o for t h e e n i g m a o f Eliot's c u r r e n t s t a n d i n g as c r i t i c . W r i t t e n d u r i n g t h e h i g h - t i d e o f h i s c e l e b r i t y ( i n 1944) t h e y c a r r y a characteristic u n d e r t o n e of half-concealed i r o n i c self-parody: 'we are a l w a y s impressed b y a r e p u t a t i o n f o r i n f l u e n c e , as i n f l u e n c e is a f o r m of power. B u t w h e n t h e tide of i n f l u e n c e , w h i c h a w r i t e r m a y set i n m o t i o n f o r a g e n e r a t i o n o r t w o , has come t o i t s f u l l , a n d a n o t h e r force has d r a w n t h e w a t e r s i n a d i f f e r e n t d i r e c t i o n , and w h e n several tides h a v e r i s e n a n d f a l l e n , great w r i t e r s r e m a i n

Preface

vi

of equal p o t e n t i a l i t y of i n f l u e n c e i n t h e f u t u r e / O u r present concern, a t a l l events, i s t o envisage as l u c i d l y as possibly t h e changes i n t h e c o m p l e x r e l a t i o n s b e t w e e n t w o c o m p l e x questions, questions t h a t are aspects o f a single d o u b l e q u e s t i o n i n t h e u l t i ­ m a t e l i g h t o f h i s t o r y : t h e q u e s t i o n of T. S. Eliot's all-pervasive recent influence i n l i t e r a r y c r i t i c i s m i n E n g l i s h , a n d t h e q u e s t i o n of his t r u e or d i s t i n c t i v e greatness as a l i t e r a r y c r i t i c . N a t u r a l l y , p r o p h e c y is v a i n a n d t i m e m u s t b r i n g i n its changes. M e a n w h i l e , w e c o u l d t u r n t o Eliot's several m e d i t a t i o n s o n t h e v i t a l m y s t e r y o f t h e q u i c k a n d t h e dead i n a l l l i t e r a r y experience a n d c u l t u r e . F r o m first t o last, i t was a t h e m e t h a t m a n i f e s t e d (as i n t h e p o e t r y ) m u c h o f h i s creative a n d c r i t i c a l s i n c e r i t y a n d a u t h e n t i c i t y — o r t o use Eliot's o w n t e r m , i t was a t h e m e t h a t m a n i f e s t e d t h e s y m p t o m a t i c ' i n t e n s i t y ' of r e a l i z i n g w h a t is alive ( a n d dead) i n a l l developments of l i t e r a r y taste. A n d w h y n o t adapt some of Eliot's m o s t celebrated phrases w h e n w e w o n d e r i f , as l i t e r a r y critics, w e are l i k e l y t o k n o w w h a t is t o be done unless we l i v e i n w h a t is n o t m e r e l y t h e present, b u t t h e present m o m e n t of t h e past, unless w e are conscious, n o t of w h a t is dead, b u t o f w h a t is already l i v i n g i n t h e noble c r e a t i o n t h a t f o r m s T. S. Eliot's c o m p l e t e d c r i t i c a l oeuvre? I t r e m a i n s f o r m e t o t h a n k F. W. Bateson, D e n i s D o n o g h u e , G r a h a m H o u g h , Samuel H y n e s , R. Peacock, W i l l i a m R i g h t e r , W. W. Robson, Roger S h a r r o c k a n d C. K. Stead f o r first m a k i n g t h e b o o k a p o s s i b i l i t y , t h e n a r e a l i t y ; f o r t h e i r disinterested g e n e r o s i t y a n d e n t h u s i a s m i n t h e interests o f a great poet-critic. I also w i s h t o t h a n k t h e B o a r d of t h e A t h l o n e Press a n d t h e i r staff f o r t h e i r co-operation a n d assistance. W i t h o u t t h e Board's f o r e s i g h t i n e n c o u r a g i n g t h e c o l l e c t i o n o f t h e essays, a n d w i t h o u t u n f a i l i n g s u p p o r t i n savage economic times, n o t h i n g w o u l d have come t o f r u i t i o n . M y dearest debt was once a g a i n t o m y w i f e Marie-Jose:

Une femme est Vamour, la gloire et Vesperance; Aux enfants quelle guide, a Vhomme console, Elle eleve le coeur et calme la souffrance, Comme un esprit des cieux sur la terre exile. U n i v e r s i t y of E d i n b u r g h 21 September 1975

David Newton-De Molina

I

Criticism's Lost Leader F. W. B A T E S O N

Just f o r a h a n d f u l of silver he l e f t us, Just f o r a r i b a n d t o stick i n h i s c o a t — F o u n d t h e one g i f t of w h i c h f o r t u n e bereft us, Lost a l l t h e others she lets us devote ... I n spite of its boisterous v u l g a r i t y B r o w n i n g ' s 'The Lost Leader' has insisted o n b e i n g remembered. T h e p o e m fills a gap i n t h e m y t h o l o g y or phrase-book of m o d e r n representative democracy w i t h o u t l i m i t i n g t h e concept too s t r i c t l y t o p o l i t i c s , t o a duce or a Fiihrer. T. S. Eliot, w h o h a d been persuaded b y Ezra P o u n d t o take B r o w n i n g m o r e seriously t h a n m o s t o f u s can d o to-day, realized at least once t h e possible a p p l i c a b i l i t y of t h e t e r m t o

himself. I t w i l l be f o u n d i n Thoughts after Lambeth (1931), a r u m i n a t i o n u p o n t h e c o n d i t i o n of t h e A n g l i c a n C h u r c h w h i c h h e t h o u g h t s u f f i c i e n t l y w e l l o f t o i n c l u d e i n t h e Selected Essays. T h e passage r u n s as f o l l o w s : One o f t h e m o s t deadening influences u p o n t h e C h u r c h i n t h e past, ever since t h e e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r y , was its acceptance, b y t h e upper, u p p e r - m i d d l e a n d a s p i r i n g classes, as a p o l i t i c a l necessity a n d as a r e q u i r e m e n t o f respectability. T h e r e are signs t h a t t h e s i t u a t i o n to-day is q u i t e different. W h e n , f o r instance, I b r o u g h t o u t a s m a l l b o o k o f essays called F o r

Lancelot Andrewes, the a n o n y m o u s reviewer i n the Times Literary Supplement made i t t h e occasion f o r w h a t I can o n l y describe as a flattering o b i t u a r y notice. I n w o r d s o f great seriousness a n d m a n i f e s t s i n c e r i t y , h e p o i n t e d o u t t h a t I h a d s u d d e n l y arrested m y p r o g r e s s — w h i t h e r h e h a d supposed m e t o be m o v i n g I d o n o t k n o w — a n d t h a t t o his distress I was unmistakably m a k i n g off i n t h e w r o n g direction. Somehow I had failed, and had admitted m y failure; i f not a

2

Criticism's Lost Leader lost leader, a t least a lost sheep; w h a t is more, I was a k i n d o f traitor..

Lost leader? Lost sheep? A k i n d o f t r a i t o r ? T h e alternatives, as E l i o t presents t h e m , are a l l t h r e e s u f f i c i e n t l y bleak. B u t I suspect t h e r e w a s a t least a n e l e m e n t o f t r u t h i n each o f t h e m . I n i t s u n s p o k e n i m p l i c a t i o n s t h e o b i t u a r y w a s n o t flattering a t a l l . I read t h e r e v i e w w h e n i t came o u t . I t carried a n a i r o f a u t h o r i t y w i t h i t w h i c h suggested t h a t i t m i g h t h a v e been b y M i d d l e t o n M u r r y , t h e one-time e d i t o r o f t h e Athenaeum, t o w h i c h E l i o t h a d c o n t r i b u t e d m a n y e a r l y essays a n d reviews. ( R i c h a r d A l d i n g t o n , w h o h a d been o n e o f t h e o r i g i n a l ' I m a g i s t ' g r o u p a n d w a s a n assistant e d i t o r o f Eliot's Criterion w h e n i t started, i s a n o t h e r possibility.) I q u o t e t h e passage f r o m t h e

r e v i e w (Times. Literary Supplement, 6 December 1928) w h i c h makes its ' o b i t u a r y ' character clear: ... b y a c c e p t i n g a h i g h e r s p i r i t u a l a u t h o r i t y based n o t u p o n t h e deepest personal experience ... b u t u p o n t h e a n t e r i o r a n d e x t e r i o r a u t h o r i t y of revealed r e l i g i o n , h e has abdicated f r o m his h i g h p o s i t i o n . B u t m o s t o f us ... h a v e gone too f a r t o d r a w back. I t is t o t h e c o u n t r y b e y o n d t h e W a s t e L a n d t h a t w e are compelled t o l o o k , a n d m a n y w i l l consider i t e m p t i e r t h a t w e are n o t l i k e l y t o find M r . E l i o t there. R e c e n t l y h e recorded h i s c o n v i c t i o n t h a t Dante's p o e t r y represents a saner a t t i t u d e t o w a r d s 'the m y s t e r y o f l i f e ' t h a n Shakespeare's. N o t a saner, w e w o u l d say, b u t s i m p l y a d i f f e r e n t a t t i t u d e , a n d t o t h e m a j o r i t y , t h e great m a j o r i t y , to-day n o l o n g e r a v i t a l one. I n a n y case, however, t h e TLS reviewer, w h o e v e r h e was, h a d n o t a p p a r e n t l y been d i s t u r b e d b y t h e decline i n c r i t i c a l q u a l i t y

t h a t For Lancelot Andrewes displays as compared w i t h The Sacred

Wood (1920) a n d Homage to John Dry den ( i 9 4 ) - B u t i t was this 2

t h a t d i s m a y e d Eliot's h u m b l e r admirers s u c h as m y s e l f a t t h e t i m e . O n l y one o f t h e e i g h t essays, t h a t o n Baudelaire, c a n be considered first-rate as l i t e r a r y c r i t i c i s m , a n d t h e l o n g passage o n Hobbes i n t h e M a c h i a v e l l i essay ( w h i c h E l i o t d i d n o t r e p r i n t l a t e r ) is grotesque i n i t s misrepresentations. N o , w h a t distressed t h e TLS r e v i e w e r w a s t h e r e l i g i o u s a b o u t - t u r n t h a t E l i o t pro­

claimed i n t h e preface t o For Lancelot Andrewes. W e h a d t a k e n

Criticism's Lost Leader

3

the g a y anti-clericalism o f earlier poems l i k e 'Mr. Eliot's S u n d a y M o r n i n g Service' a n d 'The H i p p o p o t a m u s ' q u i t e l i t e r a l l y , a t t h e i r face m e a n i n g o f a sarcastic a g n o s t i c i s m — n o t as mere y o u t h ­ f u l i n d i s c r e t i o n s or rebelliousness. A n d i t seems c e r t a i n t h a t w e w e r e r i g h t t o d o so; after a l l E l i o t was a m a n o f t h i r t y o r there­ abouts w h e n h e w r o t e t h e m . T h e scepticism t h a t h e shared w i t h Ezra P o u n d a n d h a d l e a r n t f r o m Jules L a f o r g u e a n d R e m y de G o u r m o n t , respectively t h e poet a n d t h e l i t e r a r y c r i t i c w h o m h e f o u n d m o s t c o n g e n i a l a t t h e t i m e w h e n h e w r o t e those poems, was serious a n d p r o f o u n d . A s t h e essays collected i n The Sacred Wood demonstrate over a n d over a g a i n i t w a s t h i s diffused scepticism t h a t h a d made t h e e a r l y c r i t i c i s m possible. T h e later ' h u m i l i t y ' , about w h i c h h e tended t o protest t o o m u c h , w a s basically ( t h o u g h n o t i n a l l i t s m a n i f e s t a t i o n s ) less o f a m o r a l advance p e r s o n a l l y t h a n a general social surrender. E l i o t became a m e m b e r o f t h e C h u r c h o f E n g l a n d i n 1927 a n d a n a t u r a l i z e d E n g l i s h c i t i z e n i n t h e same year. T h e t w o acts m u s t be seen i n c o n j u n c t i o n as aspects o f a single c o n v e r s i o n w h i c h

— i n spite o f t h e denials o f Thoughts After

Lambeth—really

a m o u n t e d t o a r e t u r n t o complete respectability; E l i o t h a d signed u p w i t h t h e E n g l i s h Establishment. T h e A n g l o - C a t h o l i c i s m w h i c h h e n o w professed p u b l i c l y w a s n o d o u b t sincerely h e l d , b u t t h e TLS r e v i e w e r was r i g h t — o r so m a n y o f us believed a t t h e t i m e — t o be distressed a t t h e m a n n e r a n d consequence o f i t s avowal. W e , w h o h a d been t h e m o s t a r d e n t admirers b o t h o f t h e poems ( w i t h some exceptions, o f course) a n d o f almost a l l t h e l i t e r a r y c r i t i c i s m , f e l t ourselves let d o w n .

T h e preface t o For Lancelot Andrewes h a d i n c l u d e d a defiant d e c l a r a t i o n b y E l i o t t o t h e effect t h a t he was n o t o n l y a classicist i n l i t e r a t u r e b u t also a 'royalist' i n p o l i t i c s as w e l l as a n anglocatholic i n religion. T h e background to the enunciation of this u n h a p p y t r i p a r t i t e f o r m u l a is p r o v i d e d i n 'To C r i t i c i z e t h e C r i t i c ' , the last o f Eliot's essays o f a n y substance ( o r i g i n a l l y i t h a d been a l e c t u r e a t Leeds, d e l i v e r e d i n 1961). I t seems t h a t I r v i n g B a b b i t t , the H a r v a r d teacher ' t o w h o m I o w e so much', h a d d i n e d w i t h E l i o t i n L o n d o n s h o r t l y before t h e academic year 1927/28 began: I h a d n o t seen B a b b i t t f o r some years, a n d I f e l t o b l i g e d t o a c q u a i n t h i m w i t h a f a c t u n k n o w n t o m y s m a l l circle o f

Criticism's Lost Leader

4

readers . .. t h a t I h a d r e c e n t l y been b a p t i z e d a n d c o n f i r m e d i n t o the C h u r c h o f E n g l a n d . I k n e w t h a t i t w o u l d come as a shock t o h i m t o l e a r n t h a t a n y disciple of his h a d so t u r n e d his c o a t . . . B u t a l l B a b b i t t said was: ' I t h i n k y o u s h o u l d come o u t i n t o the o p e n / 2

E l i o t a d m i t s t h a t h e w a s n e t t l e d b y Babbitt's c o m m e n t , a n d that h i s classicist—royalist—anglo-catholic reaction was t o o extreme. H i s profession o f classicism m a y have been p a r t l y i n ­ tended t o i n g r a t i a t e B a b b i t t , whose d e f l a t i o n o f r o m a n t i c i s m i n

Rousseau and Romanticism (1919) and elsewhere has a certain crude n e g a t i v e m e r i t . T h e r o y a l i s m is m o r e d i f f i c u l t t o excuse. E l i o t w a s flirting at the t i m e a n d later, as the articles h e accepted f o r p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e Criterion show, w i t h t h e a u t h o r i t a r i a n concepts of m o n a r c h y of w h i c h Charles M a u r r a s was the p r o p h e t

and t h e Action Frangaise w i t h its absurd 'Camelots d u R o i ' t h e v u l g a r expression. H i s c o m m e n t i n 'To C r i t i c i z e t h e C r i t i c ' t h a t he w a s s t i l l , t h i r t y years l a t e r , ' i n f a v o u r of the m a i n t e n a n c e o f t h e m o n a r c h y i n a l l countries w h i c h have a m o n a r c h y ' is there­ f o r e s o m e w h a t less t h a n f r a n k . T h e nearest after a l l t h a t t h e ideas of M a u r r a s got t o p o l i t i c a l f u l f i l m e n t w a s i n the V i c h y r e g i m e of P e t a i n a n d Laval, a n d n o t i n t h e decorative c o n s t i t u t i o n a l monarchies. B u t B r o w n i n g ' s h i s t o r i c a l b u t t i n 'The Lost Leader' was n o t i n fact a political turncoat or traitor. T h e poem really portrays a great poet, the poet W o r d s w o r t h , w h o i n c i d e n t a l l y was s t i l l alive w h e n B r o w n i n g w r o t e i t . A s h e e x p l a i n e d to one f r i e n d , i t was a W o r d s w o r t h 'purposely disguised, r e t a i n i n g c e r t a i n character­ istic t r a i t s a n d discarding the rest'. U n d e r the p o l i t i c a l accoutre­ m e n t s o f a successful p o l i t i c i a n w h o has a l l o w e d his e a r l y ideals to be c o r r u p t e d i n m i d d l e age B r o w n i n g w a s d e s c r i b i n g t h e u n d e n i a b l e i f g r a d u a l d e t e r i o r a t i o n of W o r d s w o r t h ' s p o e t r y . A n d he w a s also suggesting t h a t the l i t e r a r y d e t e r i o r a t i o n was i n some sense the consequence of the p u b l i c c o r r u p t i o n . W o r d s w o r t h h a d at one t i m e been a n enthusiastic s u p p o r t e r of the F r e n c h Revolu­ t i o n , b u t his r e v o l u t i o n a r y p e r i o d preceded t h e c o m p o s i t i o n of his best poems; w h e n h e d i d i n 1813 accept t h e Government's offer of a v i r t u a l sinecure as D i s t r i b u t o r o f Stamps f o r W e s t m o r l a n d and parts o f C u m b e r l a n d , t h i s followed t h e best poems b y some

Criticism's Lost Leader

5

t e n years o r more. T h e t w o events w e r e — i t seems f a i r t o s a y — one t h e p r e m a t u r e , t h e o t h e r t h e belated s y m p t o m o f subjective c o n d i t i o n s o t h e r t h a n themselves, t h o u g h n o d o u b t personal a n d social causes w e r e i n t e r r e l a t e d a n d i n t e r d e p e n d e n t . A s I have argued a t l e n g t h elsewhere, t h e c e n t r a l cause u n d e r l y i n g t h e sudden f l o w e r i n g o f W o r d s w o r t h ' s p o e t r y i n t h e years 1797 t o 1802 was t h e obscure e m o t i o n a l i n t i m a c y t h r o u g h o u t t h i s p e r i o d w i t h h i s sister D o r o t h y . I n Eliot's case t h e e m o t i o n a l causes w e r e almost c e r t a i n l y e q u a l l y p r i v a t e a n d e q u a l l y u n d e f i n e d . I t i s reasonable t o connect t h e m (i) w i t h t h e d e a t h of Jean V e r d e n a l , the French f r i e n d drowned or killed i n the Anglo-French naval o p e r a t i o n l a u n c h e d u n s u c c e s s f u l l y i n t h e n a r r o w s o f t h e Dar­ danelles i n 1915. ( E l i o t h a d p r o c l a i m e d h i s affection f o r V e r d e n a l i n h y p e r b o l i c terms i n t h e Prufrock volume's dedication.) A n d ( i i ) w i t h t h e m a r r i a g e t o V i v i e n H a i g h - W o o d later i n 1915. T o o l i t t l e is k n o w n , one is t o l d , a b o u t e i t h e r V e r d e n a l o r t h e e a r l y years o f t h e m a r r i a g e t o m a k e possible m o r e t h a n a n i n t e l l i g e n t guess o r t w o o f t h e i r relevance t o e i t h e r t h e p o e t r y o r t h e c r i t i ­ cism. A g r e e d . B u t a passage i n t h e l e c t u r e 'Shakespeare a n d t h e Stoicism o f Seneca' (1927) does m a k e i t clear t h a t E l i o t was f u l l y a w a r e o f some such p r i v a t e connections: 3

... I a m used [ E l i o t t o l d h i s first audience, t h e L o n d o n Shake­ speare A s s o c i a t i o n ] t o h a v i n g cosmic significances, w h i c h I never suspected, e x t r a c t e d f r o m m y w o r k . . . b y e n t h u s i a s t i c persons a t a distance; a n d t o b e i n g i n f o r m e d t h a t s o m e t h i n g w h i c h I m e a n t seriously is vers de societe; a n d t o h a v i n g m y personal b i o g r a p h y r e c o n s t r u c t e d f r o m passages w h i c h I g o t o u t o f books, o r w h i c h I i n v e n t e d o u t o f n o t h i n g because t h e y sounded w e l l ; a n d t o h a v i n g m y b i o g r a p h y i n v a r i a b l y i g n o r e d i n w h a t I did w r i t e f r o m personal experience .. . 4

T h e final clause makes t h e c r u c i a l admission. So, h a v i n g e l i m i n ­ ated t h e cosmological meanings, t h e bits f r o m books, e t c . — n o t too d i f f i c u l t as t h e critics a n d source detectives get b u s i e r — t h e r e is a r e s i d u u m o f personal experience i n w h a t was w r i t t e n before 1927. W h a t was i t — f o r o n e t h i n g , w h a t c o u l d i t possibly n o t have been, i f n o t at a n y r a t e i n p a r t t h e V e r d e n a l affair ( w h i c h has been d o c u m e n t e d i n t w o acute a n d s y m p a t h e t i c articles b y J o h n Peter)? ( W h y is A p r i l t h e cruellest m o n t h ? Because i t was 5

6

Criticism's Lost Leader

i n A p r i l V e r d e n a l was r e p o r t e d m o r t aux Dardanelles* A n d t h e i m p a c t o f V i v i e n is even clearer. I n t h e e a r l y years o f t h e mar­ riage i t was her g a i e t y t h a t impressed t h e i r f r i e n d s a n d t h i s qual­ i t y is s u r e l y reflected, a t least i n p a r t , i n t h e s o p h i s t i c a t e d c o m e d y of t h e Sweeney poems a n d such l i t e r a r y c o n u n d r u m s as the e p i g r a p h p r e f i x e d t o ' B u r b a n k w i t h a Baedeker: Bleistein w i t h a C i g a r ' ( t h e clue c o n n e c t i n g t h e q u o t a t i o n s is 'Venice'). But, f o r reasons t h a t have o n l y been proposed so f a r b y m o r e or less irresponsible gossip (such as drugs, or t h e b r i e f affair w i t h 'Mr. A p o l l i n a x ' , alias B e r t r a n d Russell) V i v i e n became n e r v y and edgy, u l t i m a t e l y i n d e e d almost mad. T h e p a r a l l e l w i t h W o r d s w o r t h is a t least suggestive. I n 1802, as D o r o t h y ' s a f f e c t i o n f o r her b r o t h e r became m o r e clearly sexual, a n explosive s i t u a t i o n h a d b u i l t u p i n D o v e Cottage w h i c h W o r d s w o r t h solved b y t h e desperate r e m e d y of m a r r y i n g M a r y H u t c h i n s o n . B u t t h e p o e t r y f r o m t h e n o n became i n c r e a s i n g l y c o n v e n t i o n a l . For Eliot, t r a p p e d after h i s day's w o r k was done f o r Lloyd's B a n k w i t h a half-mad w i f e i n a s m a l l L o n d o n flat, n o s u c h s o l u t i o n was available. T h e i n e v i t a b l e consequence was t h e break­ d o w n i n t h e a u t u m n of 1921 a n d t h e t h r e e m o n t h s ' sick-leave t h a t was i m m e d i a t e l y g r a n t e d h i m b y t h e Bank. I n a c u r i o u s l e t t e r t o A l d i n g t o n , w r i t t e n o n N o v e m b e r 6, he pooh-pooed t h e collapse: '...my " n e r v e s " are a v e r y m i l d affair, due n o t t o over-work b u t t o a n aboulie a n d e m o t i o n a l d e r a n g e m e n t w h i c h has been a l i f e - l o n g a f f l i c t i o n . ' T h e 'aboulie' seems t o be a mis­ s p e l l i n g of aboulia, a m e d i c a l t e r m f o r loss o f w i l l - p o w e r , t h o u g h E l i o t m a y h a v e used t h e w o r d i n some s u c h sense as loss of nerve. B u t t h e b r e a k d o w n was f a r f r o m b e i n g 'a v e r y m i l d affair'. Less t h a n t h r e e m o n t h s after t h e c o m p l e t i o n of h i s t r e a t m e n t i n Lausanne ( w h e r e The Waste Land was finished except f o r t h e t i d y i n g s - u p b y Pound), E l i o t b e g a n 'going t o pieces' a g a i n a n d V i v i e n ' s c o n d i t i o n also g o t worse. S o m e h o w he s t r u g g l e d on, b u t a t y p e d l e t t e r d e s c r i b i n g h i s difficulties of 12 M a r c h 1923 ends i n i n k ' I a m w o r n o u t , I c a n n o t go on'. O n A p r i l 26, t o t h e same correspondent, i t is ' I feel p r e t t y w e l l k n o c k e d out; t h e shock o f t h i n k i n g seven or e i g h t times over t h a t m y w i f e was at t h e p o i n t of d e a t h was e n o u g h i n i t s e l f ' . I n t h e end E l i o t became a pub­ lisher a n d V i v i e n entered a m e n t a l home, b u t t h e p r i c e of h i s s u r v i v a l w a s a n e w dependence u p o n props offered h i m b y 7

8

9

10

Criticism's Lost Leader

7

society, especially a r i s t o c r a t i c E n g l i s h society a n d t h a t o f t h e Bloomsbury intellectuals. W o r d s w o r t h celebrated h i s r e t u r n t o c o n f o r m i t y i n t h e 'Ode to D u t y ' . D u t y is a 'Stern Lawgiver', b u t T h o u dost preserve t h e stars f r o m w r o n g ; A n d t h e m o s t a n c i e n t heavens, t h r o u g h thee, are f r e s h a n d strong. Eliot's verse c a n p r o v i d e n o exact e q u i v a l e n t t o W o r d s w o r t h ' s cosmic confidence (except Asfi-Wednesday?), b u t ' W h a t t h e T h u n d e r Said', t h e final section of The Waste Land, w a s perhaps i n t e n d e d t o h a v e some s u c h comparable f u n c t i o n . I n a l e t t e r t o B e r t r a n d Russell of 15 O c t o b e r 1923 E l i o t described i t as n o t i n his o p i n i o n 'the best p a r t , b u t t h e o n l y p a r t t h a t justifies t h e w h o l e , a t a l l ' . T h i s is n o d o u b t t r u e b u t , as E l i o t seems t o recognize here, t h e r e l i g i o u s passages s h o u l d have been better w r i t t e n i f t h e y w e r e t o c a r r y t h e w e i g h t t h e y are expected t o bear. I t was t h e last p a r t o f The Waste Land t o be w r i t t e n a n d t h e poetic d e t e r i o r a t i o n — w h i c h lasts a t least u n t i l F o u r Quar­ tets—had a l r e a d y set i n . I t w a s m y great g o o d f o r t u n e t o be o n e o f Eliot's earliest readers. T h o u g h I o n l y m e t h i m t w i c e , I w a s ( I suppose) o n t h e o u t e r f r i n g e of h i s i n n e r circle. M y r e a d i n g b e g a n i n 1919 w h e n I was b r i e f l y a t O x f o r d t r y i n g m y l u c k i n t h e a n n u a l scholarship e x a m i n a t i o n s . B e t w e e n t h e papers I e x p l o r e d t h e bookshops a n d f o u n d o d d copies o f t h e l i t t l e m a g a z i n e s — A r t and Letters, Coterie, The Chapbook, e t c . — t h a t exploded i n L o n d o n before or soon after t h e 1918 A r m i s t i c e . 'T. S. E l i o t ' w a s a n a m e I f o u n d i n a l l o f t h e m — e i t h e r c o n t r i b u t i n g c r i t i c a l articles i n a m a n n e r a n d prose style I h a d n o t k n o w n before, or as t h e a u t h o r of poems e x c i t i n g l y d i f f e r e n t f r o m a n y of those I h a d f o u n d i n t h e consecu­ t i v e v o l u m e s o f Georgian Poetry w h i c h h a d satisfied m y salad days a t school. I n 1920 I m e t R o b e r t Graves a t a t e n n i s p a r t y a n d w e discovered c o m m o n interests a n d t h a t w e h a d been at t h e same house at Charterhouse. ( I t w a s f r o m Graves I l e a r n t t h a t E l i o t w a s a n A m e r i c a n . ) A n d i n O c t o b e r 1920 t h e Athenaeum p r i n t e d m y first p o e m — a v e r y bad one, I a m a f r a i d , w h i c h t r i e d t o b l e n d t h e Graves m a n n e r w i t h Eliot's. I apologize f o r t h i s a u t o b i o g r a p h i c a l name-dropping. T h e p o i n t 1 1

Criticism's Lost Leader

8

I w i s h t o establish is s i m p l y t h a t I w a s i n i t a l l a l m o s t a t t h e

b e g i n n i n g . The Sacred Wood was p u b l i s h e d i n t h e N o v e m b e r o f m y first t e r m at O x f o r d . I read i t i m m e d i a t e l y ; I r e m e m b e r t h e TLS r e v i e w o f i t w h i c h I read as soon as i t came o u t ; I can even r e m e m b e r t h a t t h e first sentence o f t h a t r e v i e w began b y q u o t i n g Eliot's d i c t u m t h a t ' C r i t i c i s m is as i n e v i t a b l e as b r e a t h i n g ' . I d i d not read t h e 1920 Foems u n t i l 1921 or perhaps 1922; t h e r e w a s a p p a r e n t l y o n l y o n e c o p y o f i t i n O x f o r d , w h i c h belonged t o Jean de Menasce, a n elegant E g y p t i a n Jew a t B a l l i o l w h o n o t o n l y l e n t m e t h e precious v o l u m e b u t insisted o n m y d i n i n g w i t h h i m a n d E l i o t a trois i n Oxford's C a r l t o n C l u b . ( A n embarrassing meal: Eliot's one p r e o c c u p a t i o n w a s n o t t o miss t h e n e x t t r a i n back t o London.) A n d so w h e n A . W a l t o n L i t z , t h e e d i t o r of Eliot in His. Time (1973), describes h i m s e l f a n d t h e o t h e r c o n t r i b u t o r s t o t h i s u s e f u l semi-centenary c e l e b r a t i o n of The Waste Land as ' t h e last genera­ t i o n ' capable o f r e a d i n g t h e p o e m as a c o n t e m p o r a r y a r t i f a c t , I r u b m y eyes. L i t z h i m s e l f c a n o n l y j u s t have been b o r n i n October 1922 ( w h e n The Waste Land appeared i n t h e first n u m b e r of Eliot's Criterion) a n d even D a m e H e l e n Gardner, w h o is t h e oldest m e m b e r of h i s team, m a y s t i l l h a v e been i n pigtails. T h e y b e l o n g t o t h e post-Waste Land g e n e r a t i o n . B u t t o those of 1 2

us w h o were a b o u t t w e n t y i n 1922 The Waste Land h a d t o be j u d g e d i n a c o n t e x t a l r e a d y created b y t h e 1920 Toems a n d The Sacred W o o d . ( W e read t h e Frufrock v o l u m e r a t h e r later.) I n such a c o n t e x t , as t h e sequel t o such b r i l l i a n t l y l u c i d poems as 'Sweeney A m o n g t h e N i g h t i n g a l e s ' a n d ' B u r b a n k ' w h i c h E l i o t r i g h t l y t o l d h i s b r o t h e r H e n r y ( i n 1920) w e r e b o t h 'intensely serious' a n d 'among t h e best t h a t I have ever done', The Waste Land came as a g r e a t d i s a p p o i n t m e n t . I t was, i n d e e d i t s t i l l i s , c h a o t i c a n d p r e t e n t i o u s , t h o u g h a d m i t t e d l y a f e w passages i n i t , p a r t i c u l a r l y t h e superb D a n t e s q u e v i s i o n o f t h e c r o w d s o f the dead s w a r m i n g over L o n d o n B r i d g e — a r e a m o n g t h e master­ pieces o f E n g l i s h l i t e r a t u r e . B u t a p p r o a c h i n g i t as w e h a d done t h r o u g h the q u a t r a i n poems The Waste Land was a flawed w o r k of g e n i u s — a s t h e necessity o f Pound's s u r g e r y has n o w demonstrated. 'Sweeney', 'Burbank', even 'Gerontion', are selfsufficient, as Ash-Wednesday a n d large areas i n t h e F o u r Quar­ tets are n o t . Eliot's p o e t r y lost s o m e t h i n g o f special splendour 13

Criticism's Lost Leader

9

i n t h e b r e a k d o w n o f September 1921 t h a t i t never w h o l l y recovered. Is t h i s also t r u e o f t h e c r i t i c i s m ? I t h i n k i t is. I believe t h a t t h e l i t e r a r y essays a n d reviews u p t o a n d i n c l u d i n g t h e e n d o f t h e s u m m e r o f 1921—'The M e t a p h y i c a l Poets', t h o u g h n o t p r i n t e d u n t i l t h e TLS of 20 O c t o b e r 1921, w a s p r e s u m a b l y w r i t t e n several weeks b e f o r e — d e c l i n e i n q u a l i t y i n m u c h t h e same w a y . T h i s is n o t t o say t h a t t h e r e are n o t occasional passages w i t h t h e earlier b r i l l i a n c e i n t h e later w o r k , b u t t h e y are r a r e exceptions. T h e general level is o f a respectable interestingness; a specialist w i l l read i t a l l , b u t the c o m m o n reader is, I suggest, u n d e r n o such o b l i g a t i o n . H e c a n p i c k a n d choose. I f t h e eyes close, as t h e y w i l l do f a i r l y o f t e n , h e need n o t be u n d u l y ashamed. Shelley has described W o r d s w o r t h ' s decline as a poet i n t h e

D e d i c a t i o n t o t h e s t i l l under-valued Peter Bell the Third as occur­ r i n g i n f o u r stages: Peter [ = W o r d s w o r t h ] changes colours l i k e a chameleon, a n d his coat l i k e a s n a k e . . . H e w a s a t first sublime, p a t h e t i c , impressive, p r o f o u n d ; t h e n d u l l ; t h e n p r o s y a n d d u l l ; a n d n o w d u l l — O , so v e r y d u l l ! i t is a n u l t r a - l e g i t i m a t e dulness. B y ' u l t r a - l e g i t i m a t e dulness' Shelley m e a n t t h e t o r p o r t h a t descended u p o n Europe w i t h t h e r e t u r n o f t h e B o u r b o n s a n d H a b s b u r g s t o t h e thrones of t h e i r ancestors. W e m a y translate i t i n Eliot's case t o 'Ultra-Establishment'. T h a t h i s c r i t i c i s m became d u l l e r — l e s s o r i g i n a l , less l i v e l y — i s n o t l i k e l y t o be denied b y

those w h o have struggled t h r o u g h O n Poetry and Poets (1957), t h o u g h i t is agreeable t o be able t o r e p o r t t h a t t h e essays i n c l u d e d i n t h i s c o l l e c t i o n w h i c h w e r e composed i n t h e 1950s are decidedly less soporific t h a n those of t h e 1940s. A n d here one m o r e p a r a l l e l w i t h W o r d s w o r t h suggests itself. No-one, I suppose, is l i k e l y t o d e n y t h a t t h e Preface t o t h e second

e d i t i o n of Lyrical Ballads (1800) is W o r d s w o r t h ' s c r i t i c a l master­ piece. T h e t w o Prefaces t o t h e 1815 Poems are o f considerable interest, b u t t h e y are n o t o f t h e same acute t h e o r e t i c q u a l i t y . A n d t h e r e is n o l a t e r c r i t i c i s m at a l l — e x c e p t sporadically i n the letters o r t h e accounts of his o w n poems t h a t h e d i c t a t e d t o Eliza F e n w i c k . Eliot's c o u n t e r p a r t t o t h e Lyrical Ballads preface w o u l d g e n e r a l l y be agreed t o be ' T r a d i t i o n a n d t h e I n d i v i d u a l T a l e n t '

10

Criticism's Lost Leader

(1919), w h i c h has been r e p r i n t e d i n c r i t i c a l a n t h o l o g i e s a n d dis­ cussed b y o t h e r critics m o r e o f t e n t h a n a n y o f his o t h e r essays;

E l i o t gave i t t h e p r i d e o f place i n the Selected Essays (1932), t h o u g h i t is t r u e h e disparages i t , f o r n o obvious reason, i n 'To Criticize t h e Critic'. N o w W o r d s w o r t h was only thirty-one w h e n h e w r o t e t h e f a m o u s Preface, a n d E l i o t m u s t h a v e been e x a c t l y t h e same age ( t h i r t y o r t h i r t y - o n e ) w h e n h e c o m p l e t e d ' T r a d i t i o n a n d the I n d i v i d u a l Talent'. T h e coincidence is s t r i k i n g , b u t w h a t I find even m o r e s i g n i f i c a n t i s t h e c o m p o s i t i o n o f t h e i r c r i t i c a l masterpieces w h e n t h e y w e r e s t i l l so c o m p a r a t i v e l y y o u n g . D r y d e n was 69 w h e n he w r o t e the b r i l l i a n t Preface to his Fables; Johnson was 70 o r m o r e w h e n he w r o t e t h e Lives of the Poets. A n d A r i s t o t l e , Horace, Q u i n t i l i a n , D a n t e , M o n t a i g n e , Lessing, Coleridge, Goethe, Sainte-Beuve, A r n o l d are o t h e r ex­ amples o f critics w h o s e c r i t i c a l p r i m e was i n m i d d l e o r l a t e r l i f e . I f W o r d s w o r t h a n d E l i o t are e x c e p t i o n a l i n b e g i n n i n g t h e i r c r i t i c a l careers w i t h t h e i r masterpieces i n t h e genre, m a y i t n o t be t h a t t h e i r finest creative w o r k also came early, a n d t h a t t h e i r best c r i t i c i s m is essentially devoted to e x p o u n d i n g a n d j u s t i f y i n g w h a t t h e i r o w n p o e t r y m e r e l y implies? E l i o t was c o n t e n t to m a k e j u s t t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n i n his o w n case w i t h o u t r a i s i n g the f u r t h e r p r o b l e m o f earliness versus lateness. 'The M u s i c of P o e t r y ' ( t h e W. P. K e r lecture delivered at G l a s g o w

i n 1942 and subsequently i n c l u d e d i n On Poetry and Poets, spells i t out. O n the one h a n d , ' the c r i t i c a l w r i t i n g s o f poets ... o w e a great deal of t h e i r interest to the f a c t t h a t t h e poet, at t h e back of his m i n d , i f n o t as his ostensible purpose, i s a l w a y s t r y i n g t o d e f e n d the k i n d of p o e t r y h e is w r i t i n g ' ; o n the o t h e r h a n d , there is 'the m o r e detached c r i t i c ' w h o supplies ' i m p a r t i a l j u d g m e n t ' . A p a r t f r o m K e r n o names are produced, b u t i t is clear t h a t E l i o t p u t s h i m s e l f a m o n g t h e ' p r a c t i t i o n e r - c r i t i c s ' as against such 'scholar-critics' as Ker. W h a t was i m p l i e d i n 'The M u s i c of Poetry' becomes e x p l i c i t i n the m u c h later 'To C r i t i c i z e the C r i t i c ' (1961). H a v i n g ( h e assures us) re-read a l l o f his earlier c r i t i c i s m h e c a n n o w say o u t l o u d o f his earlier essays t h a t ' i n w r i t i n g a b o u t a u t h o r s w h o h a d i n f l u e n c e d me, I was i m p l i c i t l y d e f e n d i n g t h e sort of p o e t r y t h a t I a n d m y f r i e n d s wrote'. W a s h e r i g h t ? W a s h e p r i m a r i l y a poet o r a critic? E l i o t h a d no d o u b t h i m s e l f t h a t h e w a s one o f those w r i t e r s 'who are

Criticism's Lost Leader

11

p r i m a r i l y creative b u t reflect u p o n t h e i r o w n v o c a t i o n a n d u p o n

the w o r k o f o t h e r p r a c t i t i o n e r s ' ( T o Criticize the Critic, p. 25). M y o w n v i e w is t h e exact opposite o f t h i s . I r e g a r d h i m as a n i n t e r e s t i n g , even g o o d m i n o r poet ( m o r e A m e r i c a n t h a n E n g l i s h ) w h o w a s a m a j o r l i t e r a r y c r i t i c ( a n English c r i t i c a n d o f t h e s t a t u r e o f Johnson, Coleridge a n d A r n o l d ) . T h e case o f H e n r y James is a p a r t i a l p a r a l l e l . I t i s o n l y necessary t o c o n s u l t D o n a l d Gallup's s p l e n d i d T. S. E l i o t : a Bibliography (1969) t o see h o w m u c h m o r e easily c r i t i c i s m came t o h i m t h a n p o e t r y . E x c l u d i n g such p r e l i m i n a r y m a t t e r as title-pages a n d dedications Eliot's poems, i n c l u d i n g t h e

Poems written in Early Y o u t h , t h e strange suppressed 'Ode' (1920), a n d t h e o r i g i n a l parts o f The Waste Land t h a t P o u n d persuaded h i m t o excise, t h e poems a d d u p t o a b o u t 240 s h o r t pages. ( T r a n s l a t e d i n t o t h e smaller t y p e a n d l o n g e r lines a n d pages o f Selected Essays it w o u l d be n o t m u c h m o r e t h a n a h u n d r e d pages.) O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h e c r i t i c a l essays a n d i n t r o ­

d u c t i o n s — e v e n e x c l u d i n g t h e deplorable After Strange Gods

(1934), o n w h i c h Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum is perhaps a sufficient c o m m e n t — a d d u p i n t h e collections author­ i z e d b y E l i o t h i m s e l f t o some 1250 pages. I h a v e excluded t h e plays f r o m these calculations; a p a r t f r o m t h e s h o r t Sweeney A g o n i s t e s a n d perhaps The Family Reunion I c a n n o t take t h e m seriously. ( H e r e too t h e p a r a l l e l w i t h James re-asserts itself.) T h e social a n d r e l i g i o u s p a m p h l e t s also f a l l outside these statistics, t h o u g h some of t h e m are o f considerable interest. E l i o t w i l l c e r t a i n l y s u r v i v e b o t h as l i t e r a r y c r i t i c a n d as poet. B u t w a s t h e d i r e c t i o n his c r i t i c i s m t o o k i n f l u e n c e d t o t h e e x t e n t he h i m s e l f believed b y t h e need t o defend o r j u s t i f y e i t h e r h i s o w n poems o r t h e poems o f t h e I m a g i s t g r o u p ? A n i m p o r t a n t passage o n t h e i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p o f t h e t w o faculties, creative a n d c r i t i c a l , occurs i n 'The F u n c t i o n o f C r i t i c i s m ' (1923). M a t t h e w A r n o l d , h e tells us there, overlooked 'the c a p i t a l i m p o r t a n c e o f criticism i n the w o r k of creation i t s e l f : Probably, indeed, t h e l a r g e r p a r t of t h e l a b o u r of a n a u t h o r i n c o m p o s i n g h i s w o r k is c r i t i c a l labour; t h e l a b o u r o f s i f t i n g , c o m b i n i n g , c o n s t r u c t i n g , e x p u n g i n g , c o r r e c t i n g , testing: t h i s f r i g h t f u l t o i l is as m u c h c r i t i c a l as creative. I m a i n t a i n even

12

Criticism's Lost Leader

t h a t the c r i t i c i s m e m p l o y e d b y a t r a i n e d and s k i l l e d w r i t e r o n his o w n w o r k is the m o s t v i t a l , the h i g h e s t k i n d of c r i t i c i s m ; and ... t h a t some creative w r i t e r s are superior to others solely because t h e i r c r i t i c a l f a c u l t y is s u p e r i o r . 14

W h e t h e r E l i o t h a d h i m s e l f i n m i n d i n t h a t final sentence is n o t easily demonstrated, b u t the circumstances o f t h e essay's c o m p o s i t i o n c e r t a i n l y suggest i t . The Waste Land had been pub­ lished i n the first n u m b e r of the Criterion, Eliot's a m b i t i o u s n e w r e v i e w t h a t w a s i n t e n d e d to create a n E n g l i s h c l i m a t e of l i t e r a r y o p i n i o n s i m i l a r to t h a t created i n France b y t h e Nouvelle Revue Francaise ( o r i g i n a l l y edited b y Jacques R i v i e r e b u t the b r a i n ­ c h i l d of A n d r e Gide and i n c l u d i n g M a r c e l Proust, G i r a u d o u x and A l b e r t T h i b a u d e t a m o n g its regular c o n t r i b u t o r s ) . 'The F u n c t i o n of C r i t i c i s m ' d o m i n a t e d the first n u m b e r of t h e Criterion's second 15

v o l u m e (October 1923), as The Waste Land had d o m i n a t e d t h a t of the first v o l u m e . H e r e w a s the n e w journal's d e c l a r a t i o n o f i n t e n t , i t s m a n i f e s t o — w h i c h , as c o m p a r e d w i t h its F r e n c h model, is m u c h m o r e self-consciously c r i t i c a l and also m u c h m o r e classconscious. I t s t i t l e alone h a d n a i l e d the flag of c r i t i c i s m t o i t s mast. I f t h e sneers a t M a t t h e w A r n o l d ('one w h o s e place, o n the w h o l e , i s w i t h t h e w e a k e r b r e t h r e n ' ) a n d t h e w r a n g l e w i t h M i d d l e t o n M u r r y over the I n n e r V o i c e (essentially t h e Romantics' d o c t r i n e of ' i n s p i r a t i o n ' ) are i r r i t a t i n g , and the con­ c l u s i o n t h a t 'any n o t e i n Notes and Queries, w h i c h produces a f a c t even o f t h e l o w e s t order a b o u t a w o r k of a r t ' is superior c r i t i c a l l y to Coleridge o n Hamlet is grotesque, one message does come t h r o u g h : some creative w r i t e r s are better t h a n others because t h e y are b e t t e r s e l f - c r i t i c s — a n d b e t t e r self-critics, i t seems, because w i t h o n l y t h e fewest exceptions t h e y are b e t t e r educated. T h e passage a b o u t ' t h i s f r i g h t f u l t o i l ' of ' s i f t i n g , com­ b i n i n g , c o n s t r u c t i n g , e x p u n g i n g , c o r r e c t i n g , t e s t i n g ' anticipates passages i n F o u r Q u a r t e t s : W o r d s strain, C r a c k and sometimes break, u n d e r the b u r d e n , U n d e r t h e tension, slip, slide, perish, D e c a y w i t h i m p r e c i s i o n , w i l l n o t stay i n place,

W i l l n o t stay s t i l l .

(Burnt Norton, v, 13-17)

Criticism's Lost Leader

13

So here I a m ... T r y i n g t o l e a r n t o use words, a n d every a t t e m p t Is a w h o l l y n e w start •.. (East Coker, v, 3-5) The An The The

w o r d n e i t h e r d i f f i d e n t n o r ostentatious, easy commerce of t h e o l d a n d t h e new, c o m m o n w o r d exact w i t h o u t v u l g a r i t y , f o r m a l w o r d precise b u t n o t p e d a n t i c ...

(Little Gidding, v, 6-9) Closest of a l l is East Coker's 'the i n t o l e r a b l e w r e s t l e / W i t h w o r d s a n d m e a n i n g s ' ( i i , 20-1), w h i c h is almost a paraphrase o f ' t h i s f r i g h t f u l t o i l ' i n 'The F u n c t i o n of C r i t i c i s m ' . I t is t r u e ' T w e n t y

years l a r g e l y wasted, t h e years o f Ventre deux guerres' {Last Coker, v , 2) separate t h e c r i t i c a l a n t i c i p a t i o n f r o m its poetic use, b u t t h a t m a y be because E l i o t was r i g h t a b o u t h i m s e l f a n d t h e t w e n t y years b e t w e e n The Waste Land a n d F o u r Quartets. T h e y were 'largely wasted'. T h e f a c t t h a t 'The F u n c t i o n of C r i t i c i s m ' preceded t h e creative use o f his o w n v e r b a l labours a n d difficulties r e m a i n s as a c h a l l e n g e — o n e t h a t ( I believe) n o n e o f Eliot's n u m e r o u s critics has so f a r met. A single passage i n prose h a d here a n t i c i p a t e d several e x c e l l e n t ones i n verse. W a s t h i s — t o t h i n k i n prose a n d later translate t h e prose i n t o v e r s e — w h a t i t r e a l l y m e a n t t o be a 'classicist'? A s i m i l a r case is t h e prosodic one o f Eliot's loose b l a n k verse. T h e c r i t i c a l b e g i n n i n g s w i l l be f o u n d i n 'Reflections o n Vers Libre', t h e earliest a r t i c l e t o be a l l o w e d i n t o t h e corpus, w h i c h t h e N e w Statesman h a d p r i n t e d i n M a r c h 1917 a n d w h i c h has

n o w been r e p r i n t e d i n T o Criticize the Critic. T h e article is un­ c e r t a i n i n tone, b u t almost a l l o f Eliot's later u n r h y m e d verse is i m p l i c i t i n t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t is reached: ... t h e m o s t i n t e r e s t i n g verse w h i c h has y e t been w r i t t e n i n o u r l a n g u a g e has been done e i t h e r b y t a k i n g a v e r y simple f o r m , l i k e t h e i a m b i c pentameter, a n d c o n s t a n t l y w i t h d r a w i n g f r o m i t , or t a k i n g n o f o r m a t a l l , a n d c o n s t a n t l y a p p r o x i m a t i n g to a v e r y simple one. 16

T h e examples E l i o t gives of t h e t w o possibilities are i n f a c t a l l o f w i t h d r a w a l s f r o m t h e i a m b i c p e n t a m e t e r — s i x f r o m Jacobean t r a g e d y (Webster, M i d d l e t o n ) a n d one each, i f I a m n o t m i s t a k e n

14

Criticism's Lost Leader

( E l i o t gives n o references) f r o m T. E. H u l m e ('The E m b a n k m e n t ' ) a n d P o u n d ('Near Perigord'). O f t h e second t y p e , E l i o t gives a n e x a m p l e f r o m 'ELD/, a n o r i g i n a l I m a g i s t w i t h P o u n d a n d E l i o t , (her p o e m was 'Hermes o f t h e Ways'), p o i n t e d l y d o v e t a i l i n g i t w i t h several lines f r o m A r n o l d ' s 'The S t r a y e d Reveller'. 'Geront i o n ' , w h i c h was n o t t o be w r i t t e n f o r a n o t h e r t w o years, w o u l d h a v e been a g o o d e x a m p l e of t h e first t y p e : H e r e I am, a n o l d m a n i n a d r y m o n t h , B e i n g read t o b y a boy, w a i t i n g f o r r a i n . T e n syllables i n each l i n e , b u t o n l y scannable as i a m b i c penta­ meters b y c o m p l i c a t e d i n v e r s i o n s a n d f o r c i n g s of t h e accent.

A n d The Waste Land? Is n o t i t s style essentially a versifica­ t i o n o f ' T r a d i t i o n a n d t h e I n d i v i d u a l Talent', w i t h i t s plea f o r 'the w h o l e o f t h e l i t e r a t u r e of Europe' as w e l l as 'his o w n genera­ t i o n ' s o m e h o w i n t h e g o o d author's bones? T w o lines f r o m The Waste Land w i l l e x e m p l i f y w h a t was p r e s u m a b l y m e a n t b y t h e poet's need f o r t h i s special h i s t o r i c a l sense: T h e r e I saw one I k n e w , a n d stopped h i m , c r y i n g : " S t e t s o n ! Y o u w h o w e r e w i t h m e i n t h e ships at M y l a e ! " T o be called Stetson i n t h e e a r l y t w e n t i e t h c e n t u r y w a s t o i d e n t i f y oneself as a m o d e r n A m e r i c a n ; J. A l f r e d P r u f r o c k w o u l d h a v e w o r n a Stetson h a t . A n d those w h o w e r e ' i n ' — r a t h e r t h a n 'on' or ' w i t h ' — t h e ships at t h e n a v a l b a t t l e at M y l a e ( p r o b a b l y t h a t o f 260 B.C.) w e r e t h e poor devils of slaves w h o p r o p e l l e d t h e t r i r e m e s of e i t h e r t h e v i c t o r i o u s R o m a n s or t h e defeated Cartha­ ginians. W h e t h e r Stetson stands f o r C o n r a d A i k e n ( w h o l u n c h e d w i t h E l i o t t w o or t h r e e times a w e e k w h e n m u c h o f The Waste Land was b e i n g w r i t t e n ) , a n d w h e t h e r t h e C a r t h a g i n i a n defeat has some c o n n e c t i o n w i t h Phlebas t h e P h o e n i c i a n ( = = V e r d e n a l ) are considerations I m u s t leave t o l i t e r a r y detectives, a n h o n o u r ­ able profession t o w h i c h I once belonged. S i g n i f i c a n t l y , a n a n t i c i p a t i o n i n prose of t h e u n s a v o u r y classconsciousness w h i c h later disguised itself as ' r o y a l i s m ' makes i t s first e n t r y i n t o t h e l i t e r a r y c r i t i c i s m i n 'The F u n c t i o n o f C r i t i c i s m ' , t h e essay w h i c h as I read i t divides t h e sceptical E l i o t of t h e e a r l y essays f r o m h i s m o r e c o n f o r m i s t successor. T h e m o d e of e n t r y was v i a M u r r y ' s I n n e r V o i c e :

Criticism's Lost Leader

15

The i n n e r voice, i n f a c t , sounds r e m a r k a b l y l i k e . . . 'doing as one likes'. T h e possessors o f t h e i n n e r voice r i d e t e n i n a com­ p a r t m e n t t o a f o o t b a l l m a t c h a t Swansea, l i s t e n i n g t o t h e i n n e r voice, w h i c h breathes t h e e t e r n a l message o f v a n i t y , fear, a n d lust. T h e 'ten i n a c o m p a r t m e n t ' , the f o o t b a l l m a t c h , t h e selection o f Swansea as t h e d e s t i n a t i o n , are a l l sheer snobbery. M a y n o t t h e same message have been b r e a t h e d t o o r f r o m a r i c h f r i e n d o f Eliot's, L a d y R o t h e r m e r e f o r example, r i d i n g alone i n a first-class c o m p a r t m e n t t o t h e Riviera? C. S. L e w i s t o o k u p t h e p o i n t i n t h a t l o n g - d r a w n a r g u m e n t h e h a d w i t h E. M . W. T i l l y a r d called The Personal Heresy. T i l l y a r d h a d applauded Eliot's disgust a t the p h i l i s t i n i s m o f w h a t w e m i g h t n o w c a l l C o m m u t e r L a n d — a l l t h a t is t y p i f i e d i n t h i s l i n e f r o m one o f t h e choruses i n The Rock, The l a n d of lobelias a n d tennis flannels ... To Lewis, o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , Eliot's w h o l e a t t i t u d e here w a s deplorable. T h i s 'dismissing some tens of t h o u s a n d s of m y f e l l o w c i t i z e n s ' shocked a n d r e v o l t e d h i m . W h e n h e r e t u r n e d t o t h e passage a n d i t s key-line l a t e r i n the a r g u m e n t i t was to be even m o r e dismissive: ... f o r the p r o p e r pleasure of p e r s o n a l i t y , t h a t is, f o r love, w e m u s t go w h e r e i t c a n be f o u n d — t o our homes or o u r commons, to r a i l w a y carriages a n d p u b l i c houses, o r even ( f o r y o u see I a m one o f t h e v u l g a r ) t o t h e 'land o f lobelias a n d t e n n i s flannels.' 17

T h o u g h n o Lewisite I too a m one of t h e v u l g a r . I n these examples, w h i c h c o u l d easily be m u l t i p l i e d , t h e prose has a n t i c i p a t e d t h e p o e t r y . Does t h e p o e t r y also t e n d t o be t h e product o f t h e c r i t i c i s m ? T h i s is a n a p p r o a c h t h a t is t h e reverse of w h a t E l i o t w o u l d seem to be a p p r o p r i a t i n g f o r h i m s e l f i n 'The M u s i c o f Poetry', t h o u g h there is a c o n t r a d i c t i o n i n the i m p l i c a ­ t i o n s of t h a t essay t h a t has been overlooked. W e b e g i n b y agreeing w i t h h i m there t h a t a v a l i d d i s t i n c ­ t i o n c a n be d r a w n b e t w e e n t h e p r a c t i t i o n e r - c r i t i c a n d t h e scholar-critic. W. P. K e r c a n n o d o u b t t y p i f y the l a t t e r . I t is the p r a c t i t i o n e r - c r i t i c w h o creates t h e difficulties. T h e r e c u r r e n t

i6

Criticism's Lost Leader

thesis i n 'The M u s i c o f P o e t r y ' is t h a t ' p o e t r y m u s t n o t s t r a y too f a r f r o m t h e e v e r y d a y l a n g u a g e w h i c h w e use a n d hear* (p. 29), t h a t 'Every r e v o l u t i o n i n p o e t r y is a p t t o be ... a r e t u r n to c o m m o n speech' (p. 31), t h a t 'the task is t o c a t c h u p w i t h t h e change i n c o l l o q u i a l speech' (p. 35), ' A t a t i m e l i k e ours, w h e n a r e f r e s h m e n t o f poetic d i c t i o n s i m i l a r t o t h a t b r o u g h t a b o u t b y W o r d s w o r t h h a d been called f o r ' (p. 35), a n d t h a t ' i f t h e w o r k of t h e last t w e n t y years is w o r t h y of b e i n g classified a t a l l , i t is as b e l o n g i n g t o a p e r i o d o f search f o r a p r o p e r m o d e r n c o l l o q u i a l i d i o m ' (p. 38), T h e essay is n o t u n i n t e l l i g e n t , b u t i t becomes sleep-inducing as t h e same f o r m u l a s t u r n u p over a n d over again. A n d t h e y beg t h e q u e s t i o n of t h e changes i n m e t h o d a n d s t y l e i n Eliot's l a t e r p o e t r y . Since 1919 t h e sentence s t r u c t u r e i f n o t t h e v o c a b u l a r y of h i s verse h a d i n f a c t become less a n d less c o l l o q u i a l . H o w f a r i f a t a l l , one has t o ask, are t h e f o r m u l a s r e l e v a n t t o t h e poems E l i o t was i n f a c t w r i t i n g a t t h e t i m e o f h i s G l a s g o w homily? T h e l e c t u r e w a s delivered i n 1942, t h e year of t h e first e d i t i o n

of Little Gidding, The Dry Salvages h a v i n g been p u b l i s h e d i n

1941, East Coker i n 1940, a n d Burnt Norton i n t h e Collected Poems (1936). I n o t h e r words, 'The M u s i c o f P o e t r y ' belongs t o t h e e n d of t h e Four Quartets period. I n t h a t c o n t e x t its d o c t r i n e of t h e d e s i r a b i l i t y o f a m o d e r n c o l l o q u i a l mode o f speech i n p o e t r y c a n o n l y be seen as a confession o f personal e r r o r b y E l i o t comparable t o t h e 1947 essay o n M i l t o n i n w h i c h E l i o t 'recanted' h i s 1936 d e p r e c i a t i o n . T h e p o i n t c a n be made m o r e f o r c i b l y . F r o m 1923 t h e p o e t r y develops independently o f t h e c r i t i c i s m — a non-relationship that m a y help t o explain the general i n f e r i o r i t y o f b o t h t h e later c r i t i c i s m a n d t h e l a t e r p o e t r y . ( I r e g a r d t h e status o f F o u r Quartets as s t i l l a n o p e n question. T h e r e are, of course, some b r i l l i a n t m o m e n t s — n o t a b l y t h e D a n t e s q u e air-raid episode i n Little Gidding—but the w r i t i n g is i n general slack a n d t i r e d , a n d too o f t e n m e r e l y p r e t e n t i o u s , g r o p i n g towards p r o f u n d i t y b y contortions of repetition.) A characteristic o f t h e l a t e r c r i t i c i s m is t h a t i t abhors speci­ ficity. I t is a l l m u c h too m u c h u p i n t h e air. T h e r e is n o t e n o u g h concrete evidence p r o d u c e d a t a n y one t i m e . T h u s i n a v o l u m e t h a t calls itself O n Poetry and Poets one w o u l d expect t h e essays to be d o t t e d , as t h e earlier poetic c r i t i c i s m h a d been, w i t h quota-

Criticism's Lost Leader

17

tions, h o w e v e r s h o r t , t o i l l u s t r a t e o r enforce t h e p o i n t u n d e r discussion. B u t i n 'The Social F u n c t i o n o f Poetry', 'The M u s i c o f Poetry', ' W h a t is M i n o r Poetry?', a n d t h e second M i l t o n l e c t u r e , a l l o f t h e m lectures o f some l e n g t h t h a t m u s t have t a k e n n e a r l y a n h o u r t o deliver, n o t one single l i n e o f p o e t r y is quoted. ' W h a t is a Classic?', one o f t h e m o r e i n t e r e s t i n g o f t h e later essays, gets b y w i t h o u t q u o t i n g a l i n e u n t i l t h e v e r y end, w h e n w e are dis­ missed w i t h three v a l e d i c t o r y lines f r o m D a n t e . A f e w poets' names are occasionally i n s e r t e d i n t h i s lecture, b u t i t is a l w a y s i n t h e most casual w a y , a n d ' m a t u r i t y ' , t h e concept o n w h i c h t h e w h o l e a r g u m e n t hinges, b y n o t b e i n g i l l u s t r a t e d is never p r o p e r l y defined. T h e r e are degrees o f r a r e f i c a t i o n i n t h e o t h e r pieces i n t h e v o l u m e , one o f t h e best s u r p r i s i n g l y b e i n g o n K i p l i n g , b u t i n general a n y q u o t a t i o n s t h a t do occur i n t h e w h o l e c o l l e c t i o n are n o t used. T h e s i t u a t i o n is s i m i l a r i n t h e later c o l l e c t i o n T o Criticize the Critic i n w h i c h three o f t h e s i x essays o n l i t e r a r y topics do n o t offer us even one q u o t a t i o n . T h e t w o e a r l y items i n t h i s c o l l e c t i o n — ' E z r a Pound: H i s M e t r i c a n d Poetry' ( o r i g i n a l l y a b o o k l e t p u b l i s h e d separately i n N e w Y o r k ) a n d 'Reflections o n Vers Libre'—that w e r e added ' I n response t o m a n y r e q u e s t s ' — i l l u s t r a t e i m m e d i a t e l y t h e difference b e t w e e n Eliot's earlier a n d later c r i t i c a l methods. T h e P o u n d piece (of 21 pages) quotes 124 lines o f p o e t r y a n d t h e s h o r t Vers Libre essay quotes 40 lines i n i t s 7 pages. T h e statistics I have j u s t presented g o some w a y t o c l a r i f y a r a d i c a l difference b e t w e e n t h e e a r l y a n d l a t e r c r i t i c i s m . T h e e a r l y essays derive t h e i r sceptical force f r o m t h e c o n t i n u o u s i n v i t a t i o n i n t h e m t o d i g b e l o w t h e v e r b a l o r c o n v e n t i o n a l surface. T h e

S w i n b u r n e essay i n The Sacred Wood is typical: ... agreed t h a t w e do n o t ( a n d I t h i n k t h a t t h e present gener­ a t i o n does n o t ) g r e a t l y e n j o y S w i n b u r n e , a n d agreed t h a t (a m o r e serious c o n d e m n a t i o n ) a t one p e r i o d o f o u r lives w e d i d e n j o y h i m a n d n o w n o l o n g e r e n j o y h i m ; nevertheless, t h e w o r d s w h i c h w e use t o state o u r g r o u n d s o f dislike o r i n ­ difference c a n n o t be a p p l i e d t o S w i n b u r n e as t h e y c a n be t o bad p o e t r y . 18

E l i o t p o i n t s o u t t h a t t o call S w i n b u r n e 'diffuse' i n a n y p e j o r a t i v e sense s i m p l y won't do. T h a t t h e m a t e r i a l used i n 'The T r i u m p h

Criticism's Lost Leader

i8

of T i m e ' s h o u l d h a v e released 'such a n a m a z i n g n u m b e r o f words' is a k i n d o f genius. A n d Swinburne's words, as E l i o t makes us l o o k h a r d a t t h e m , are i n d e e d v e r y odd. ( T h e y e x c i t e enor­ m o u s l y b u t w i t h the m i n i m u m o f m e a n i n g , a l l c o n n o t a t i o n w i t h p r a c t i c a l l y n o denotation.) S i m i l a r l y , t h e essay o n Massinger begins b y c a l l i n g a t t e n t i o n t o t h e difference o f k i n d b e t w e e n some phrases of Shakespeare a n d Massinger's i m i t a t i o n s o f t h e m . Elsewhere i n The Sacred Wood there is a d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n o f Mar­ l o w e f r o m Spenser b y c o m p a r i n g h i s p l a g i a r i s m o f a stanza f r o m The Faerie Queene w i t h t h e Spenserian o r i g i n a l . I n t h e D r y d e n essay p a r a l l e l stanzas f r o m h i m a n d Shelley are i n s t r u c t i v e l y compared. A n d so on. T h i s mode o f c r i t i c i s m n a t u r a l l y d e m a n d e d t h e f r e q u e n t use of q u o t a t i o n . T h e y o u n g E l i o t w a s p r i m a r i l y , as R. P. B l a c k m u r once p o i n t e d o u t , a technical c r i t i c . B u t t h e t e c h n i c a l analysis w a s used t o impose a m o r e general re-assessment r e s u l t i n g e v e n t u a l l y i n a d e t h r o n e m e n t o f t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l o r A r n o l d i a n values. Behind the innovations of critical method, t h o u g h Blackmur did not realize i t , t h e r e was i n r e a l i t y t h e p r o p a g a t i o n o f a sceptical social p h i l o s o p h y — o n e t h a t h a d been n o u r i s h e d i n verse b y L a f o r g u e a n d i n prose b y R e m y de G o u r m o n t — t h a t m i g h t have seemed t o h e r a l d t h e a r r i v a l o f a n e w V o l t a i r e . T h e explosive 19

possibilities o f The Sacred Wood a n d t h e three TLS articles of 1921, published i n 1924 as Homage to John Dryden, r e m a i n to t a n t a l i z e us. A s t h i n g s t u r n e d o u t these e a r l y e s s a y s — t o g e t h e r w i t h those others s t i l l uncollected, w h i c h V a l e r i e E l i o t is r u m o u r e d t o be r e p r i n t i n g s h o r t l y ( t h e best appeared i n t h e Athenaeum)—became u n f o r t u n a t e l y t h e ancestral gods o f t h e n o n - p o l i t i c a l I . A. Richards a n d t h e dead-end critics o f A m e r i c a n ' e x p l i c a t i o n ' . I t need n o t have been so, i f E l i o t h a d n o t h a d t h e b r e a k - d o w n i n September 1921. I n some w a y s t h e essay o n Blake p r o v i d e s t h e best e x a m p l e i n

The Sacred Wood of the enormous extra-literary potentialities o f Eliot's e a r l y c r i t i c i s m . Blake's p e c u l i a r i t y , i t w i l l be remembered, was w h a t E l i o t called h i s honesty, ' w h i c h , i n a w o r l d t o o f r i g h t e n e d t o be honest, is p e c u l i a r l y t e r r i f y i n g ' . T h e w o r l d con­

spires against it, p r e f e r r i n g t o t h e Songs of Experience t h e socalled P r o p h e t i c Books w r i t t e n after Blake t o o h a d h i m s e l f become too t e r r i f i e d t o be honest. B u t Blake's u l t i m a t e greatness is proved,

Criticism's Lost Leader

19

i n Eliot's r e m a r k a b l e words, b y his best p o e t r y h a v i n g 'the u n ­ pleasantness o f great poetry'. I t was a n o v e l , indeed ^ e v o l u t i o n a r y c r i t e r i o n a n d i t p o i n t s t h e w a y Eliot's c r i t i c i s m m i g h t h a v e de­ veloped after 1921 i f h e t o o h a d n o t s u c c u m b e d — f o r e n t i r e l y i n t e l l i g i b l e reasons w i t h w h i c h i t is impossible n o t t o s y m p a t h i z e — t o t h e embrace of o u r t e r r i f i e d w o r l d .

2

Eliot and the Criterion DENIS

D O N O G H U E

T h e r e is p r e t t y g e n e r a l agreement t h a t t h e Criterion f a i l e d i n i t s purposes a n d t h a t t h e f a i l u r e is n o t f u l l y e x p l a i n e d as one s m a l l instance o f t h e i m m e n s e f a i l u r e o f Europe i n t h e years b e t w e e n 1922 a n d 1939. T h e f a i l u r e is m o r e i m m e d i a t e a n d personal t h a n such a n account w o u l d i m p l y . T h e s t a n d a r d b y w h i c h t h e enter­ prise m a y be j u d g e d a f a i l u r e is i n d i c a t e d b y p o i n t i n g t o t h e

Nouvelle Revue Frangaise u n d e r Jean P a u l h a n f r o m 1925 t o 1940 a n d Scrutiny u n d e r F. R. Leavis f r o m 1932 t o 1953 as examples of success h o w e v e r qualified. I a m a w a r e t h a t t h e sense i n w h i c h N R F a n d Scrutiny m a y be said t o h a v e succeeded is n o t selfe v i d e n t a n d t h a t t h e q u a l i f i c a t i o n s w h i c h o u g h t t o be a t t a c h e d t o t h a t j u d g e m e n t are considerable i n each case, b u t I h a v e n o d o u b t t h a t t h e j u d g e m e n t c o u l d be sustained. I t w i l l be agreed, I sup­ pose, t h a t a m a g a z i n e is a success i n t h e sense w e have i n m i n d i f its p r i n c i p l e s are serious i n themselves a n d c o n t i n u o u s l y tested b y specific j u d g e m e n t s a n d provocations. T h e i n f l u e n c e o f a m a g a z i n e u p o n t h e m i n d s o f i t s readers a n d thereafter u p o n t h e m i n d s o f people w h o h a v e read i t casually or n o t a t a l l is o f t e n a m a t t e r o f l u c k . Some magazines h a v e f a i l e d i n practice w h i c h w o u l d n o t have f a i l e d i f p r i n c i p l e a n d i n t e l l i g e n c e w e r e sufficient to ensure success. B u t i t w o u l d be a b s u r d t o c l a i m success f o r a m a g a z i n e w h i c h h a d l i t t l e o r n o i n f l u e n c e u p o n i t s readers. Leavis's Scrutiny a n d Paulhan's N R F i n t h e i r d i f f e r e n t w a y s demanded f r o m t h e i r readers n o t t h e m i l d assent w h i c h attends u p o n u r b a n i t y b u t a responsiveness c o m m e n s u r a t e w i t h t h e u r g e n c y o f t h e i r editors. B y t h i s s t a n d a r d , w h i c h makes e n e r g y a m o r a l p r i n c i p l e , Leavis a n d P a u l h a n succeed w h e r e E l i o t fails. Readers o f t h e Criterion d o n o t r e g u l a r l y feel themselves i m ­ pelled t o care.

Eliot and the C r i t e r i o n

21

T h e m a g a z i n e began i n O c t o b e r 1922. A t t h e e n d o f t h e first v o l u m e E l i o t defined t h e purpose of a l i t e r a r y r e v i e w : A literary review should m a i n t a i n the application, i n litera­ t u r e , o f p r i n c i p l e s w h i c h h a v e t h e i r consequences also i n p o l i t i c s a n d i n p r i v a t e conduct; a n d i t s h o u l d m a i n t a i n t h e m w i t h o u t t o l e r a t i n g a n y c o n f u s i o n of t h e purposes of p u r e l i t e r a ­ t u r e w i t h t h e purposes of p o l i t i c s o r ethics. I n t h e c o m m o n m i n d a l l interests are confused, a n d each degraded b y t h e c o n f u s i o n . A n d w h e r e t h e y are confused, t h e y c a n n o t be related; i n t h e c o m m o n m i n d a n y specialized a c t i v i t y is conceived as s o m e t h i n g isolated f r o m l i f e , a n odious task o r a pastime o f m a n d a r i n s . T o m a i n t a i n t h e a u t o n o m y , a n d t h e disinterestedness, o f every h u m a n a c t i v i t y , a n d t o perceive i t i n r e l a t i o n t o every o t h e r , r e q u i r e a considerable discipline. I t is t h e f u n c t i o n o f a l i t e r a r y r e v i e w t o m a i n t a i n t h e a u t o n ­ o m y a n d disinterestedness o f l i t e r a t u r e , a n d a t t h e same t i m e to e x h i b i t t h e r e l a t i o n s o f l i t e r a t u r e — n o t t o ' l i f e ' , as some­ t h i n g c o n t r a s t e d t o l i t e r a t u r e , b u t t o a l l t h e o t h e r activities, w h i c h , t o g e t h e r w i t h l i t e r a t u r e , are t h e c o m p o n e n t s o f l i f e . ( i . 421) T h e reference t o 'pure l i t e r a t u r e ' is odd, a n d i t p o i n t s to a c e r t a i n i n s e c u r i t y o f p r i n c i p l e beneath t h e ostensibly s t r i c t categories. I f y o u read l i t e r a t u r e i t is as l i t e r a t u r e t h a t y o u m u s t read i t , a n d n o t as a n o t h e r t h i n g : w e l l a n d good. B u t t h e r e is a n obscure place b e t w e e n t h a t p o s i t i o n a n d t h e defence of l i t e r a t u r e i n terms of i t s a u t o n o m y a n d disinterestedness. W h e n l i t e r a t u r e is m o s t com­ p e l l i n g , these are n o t t h e terms w e feel i n c l i n e d t o i n v o k e i n i t s defence. I n J a n u a r y 1926, w h e n Eliot's m a g a z i n e appeared as t h e N e w Criterion, he m o v e d a w a y f r o m t h e i d i o m o f a u t o n o m y a n d disinterestedness t o n o t e 'the i m p o s s i b i l i t y o f d e f i n i n g t h e f r o n t i e r s , or l i m i t i n g t h e c o n t e x t of " l i t e r a t u r e " ': E v e n t h e p u r e s t l i t e r a t u r e is a l i m e n t e d f r o m n o n - l i t e r a r y sources, a n d has n o n - l i t e r a r y consequences. Pure l i t e r a t u r e is a c h i m e r a o f sensation; a d m i t t h e vestige o f a n idea a n d i t is already t r a n s f o r m e d , (iv.4) T h e p a r t i c u l a r idea or v a l u e w h i c h E l i o t i n v o k e d o n t h a t occasion was 'classicism', w h i c h he described as a tendency ' t o w a r d a

22

Eliot and the C r i t e r i o n

h i g h e r a n d clearer c o n c e p t i o n of Reason, a n d a m o r e severe a n d serene c o n t r o l o f t h e e m o t i o n s b y Reason', a t e n d e n c y e x e m p l i f i e d i n such w o r k s as Sorel's Reflexions sur la violence, Maurras's

L'Avenir de Vintelligence, Benda's Belphegor, T. E. Hulme's Speculations, M a r i t a i n ' s Reflexions sur Vintelligence, a n d I r v i n g Babbitt's Democracy and Leadership (iv.5). These books, a n d t h e tendency w h i c h Eliot admired and welcomed i n them, stimulated h i m t o n a m e o t h e r books w h i c h represented ' t h a t p a r t o f t h e present w h i c h is a l r e a d y dead': F L G. Wells's Christina A l b e r t a ' s

father, Shaw's St Joan, a n d B e r t r a n d Russell's W h a t I Believe. T h e a u t o n o m y a n d disinterestedness o f l i t e r a t u r e ceased t o be a m a j o r t h e m e i n Eliot's m a g a z i n e at t h i s stage. Instead, t h e N e w Criterion w a s offered i n J a n u a r y 1927 as a vehicle ' f o r t h e various, d i v e r g e n t o r even c o n t r a d i c t o r y o p i n i o n o f a w i d e n i n g g r o u p o f i n d i v i d u a l s i n c o m m u n i c a t i o n ' (v.2). T h i s p r o g r a m m e led t o t h e e x p e r i m e n t o f r u n n i n g t h e m a g a z i n e as a m o n t h l y : i t became t h e M o n t h l y Criterion i n M a y 1927, b u t r e v e r t e d t o its p r o p e r n a m e a n d c o n d i t i o n i n June 1928 as a q u a r t e r l y , t h e Criterion. T h e m a g a z i n e c o n t i n u e d t o be a l i t e r a r y r e v i e w , b u t o n l y i n t h e sense i n w h i c h such a r e v i e w publishes essays o n p o l i t i c s , r e l i g i o n , h i s t o r y , as w e l l as l i t e r a t u r e . I n its later years t h e Criterion became i n s o m e t h i n g o f t h e o l d sense a ' q u a r t e r l y review'. I n J a n u a r y 1936 E l i o t defined t h e f u n c t i o n o f such r e v i e w s as concerned ' w i t h p o l i t i c a l p h i l o s o p h y , r a t h e r t h a n w i t h p o l i t i c s , a n d w i t h t h e e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e f u n d a m e n t a l ideas of philosophies r a t h e r t h a n w i t h t h e problems o f a p p l i c a t i o n ' (xv.265). O n e reason f o r t h e f a i l u r e o f t h e m a g a z i n e i s t h a t i t never f u l l y k n e w itself, i t d i d n o t u n d e r s t a n d t h e n a t u r e o f i t s t a l e n t . Classicism, w h i c h t h e Criterion u n d e r t o o k t o define a n d serve, f a i l e d t o become t h e s p i r i t o f t h e age. W h e n t h a t f a i l u r e became clear, t h e n o b i l i t y a n d a u s t e r i t y o f Eliot's purposes c o u l d n o t save t h e m a g a z i n e f r o m e c c e n t r i c i t y : at t h e end, i n 1939, i t was clear t h a t t h e values w h i c h E l i o t sponsored w e r e i n chaos. T h e purposes are clear; t h e o n l y p i t y is t h a t t h e y w e r e b o u n d t o f a i l . Eliot's a i m i n t h e Criterion w a s t o b r i n g t o bear u p o n t h e i n d i v i d u a l t a l e n t of h i s E n g l i s h readers a n d w r i t e r s t h e force o f t r a d i t i o n as m a n i f e s t e d i n 'the m i n d o f Europe': t h e w h o l e enter­ prise w a s conceived as a n a t t a c k u p o n n a t i v e p r o v i n c i a l i s m . I n A u g u s t 1927 h e w e l c o m e d 'the E u r o p e a n Idea' a n d t h e d i v e r s i t y

E l i o t and the C r i t e r i o n

*3

of its forms: i t m a y i n c l u d e , h e said, 'a m e d i t a t i o n o n t h e decay of E u r o p e a n c i v i l i z a t i o n b y P a u l V a l e r y , o r a p h i l o s o p h y o f h i s t o r y s u c h as t h a t o f O s w a l d Spengler', o r i t m a y appear 'allied w i t h a n intense n a t i o n a l i s m as i n t h e w o r k o f H e n r i Massis' (vi.98). I n a n y v e r s i o n t h e E u r o p e a n Idea was a response to t h e Russian R e v o l u t i o n , 'for t h e Russian R e v o l u t i o n has made m e n conscious o f t h e p o s i t i o n o f W e s t e r n E u r o p e as ( i n Valery's w o r d s ) a s m a l l a n d isolated cape o n t h e w e s t e r n side o f t h e A s i a t i c C o n t i n e n t : a n d t h i s awareness seems t o be g i v i n g rise t o a n e w E u r o p e a n consciousness' (vi.98). T h e E u r o p e a n Idea was con­ g e n i a l t o E l i o t n o t o n l y because o f its i n t r i n s i c v a l u e a n d t h e opulence o f its c o n t e n t b u t because i t enabled h i m once a g a i n t o employ, a t least i n t h e o r y , a f u n d a m e n t a l p a r a d i g m o f his m i n d : b r i n g i n g t o bear u p o n t h e m a t t e r i n h a n d t h e force o f a larger perspective, a n a n c i e n t discipline. T h e m a t t e r i n h a n d was t h e state o f c o n t e m p o r a r y E n g l i s h c u l t u r e : t h e a n c i e n t discipline i n ­ cluded a t r u e sense o f t h e past, a response t o o t h e r cultures, o t h e r times, Greece a n d Rome, t h e m i n d o f Europe. T h e critic's a i m is to b r i n g 'the a r t o f t h e past t o bear u p o n t h e present, m a k i n g i t r e l e v a n t t o t h e a c t u a l g e n e r a t i o n ' ( t h e Egoist, M a y 1918). I n t h e Athenaeum (1 A u g u s t 1919) E l i o t w r o t e o f d i s c i p l i n e i n t h e same s p i r i t . 'We suppose', he said, a m i n d w h i c h is n o t o n l y t h e E n g l i s h m i n d o f one p e r i o d w i t h its prejudices o f p o l i t i c s a n d fashions o f taste, b u t w h i c h is a greater, finer, m o r e positive, m o r e comprehensive m i n d t h a n t h e m i n d o f a n y period. A n d w e suppose t o each w r i t e r a n i m p o r t a n c e w h i c h is n o t o n l y i n d i v i d u a l , b u t due t o h i s place as a c o n s t i t u e n t o f t h i s m i n d . E l i o t t o o k pride, therefore, i n p u b l i s h i n g i n t h e Criterion essays b y v a r i o u s critics o n Flaubert, Joyce, M a l l a r m e , Balzac, Proust, C h e k h o v , K i p l i n g , V i r g i n i a W o o l f a n d Laforgue: transla­ t i o n s o f D o s t o e v s k y , Benda, Pirandello, V a l e r y , Riviere, H o f m a n n s t h a l , C a v a f y , M a r i t a i n , M a u r r a s , Scheler, M o n t a l e ; a n d s e t t i n g these i t e m s beside w o r k b y Yeats, Pound, Joyce, Forster, Ford, Lawrence, W y n d h a m Lewis, M i d d l e t o n M u r r y , H e r b e r t Read, C l i v e Bell, I . A. Richards, A l d o u s H u x l e y , G e r t r u d e Stein, T. S t u r g e M o o r e , T. E. H u l m e , H a r t Crane, C h e s t e r t o n , H a r o l d Laski, A l l e n Tate. T h e d i s p u t e a b o u t R o m a n t i c i s m a n d Classicism

Eliot and the C r i t e r i o n

24

w h i c h a g i t a t e d E l i o t a n d t h e Criterion f r o m 1924 t o 1926 arose not only f r o m the influence of Babbitt a n d the exacerbation of M i d d l e t o n M u r r y ' s recourse t o t h e I n n e r V o i c e b u t f r o m Eliot's t e n d e n c y t o see each occasion as a s y m p t o m o f v a n i t y a n d p r o v i n c i a l i s m : t h e o n l y cure was t h e d i s c i p l i n e o f a g r a n d per­ spective. I n O c t o b e r 1923 h e spoke o f t h e difference b e t w e e n Classicism a n d R o m a n t i c i s m as ' the difference b e t w e e n t h e com­ plete a n d t h e f r a g m e n t a r y , t h e a d u l t a n d t h e i m m a t u r e , t h e o r d e r l y a n d t h e chaotic' (ii.34). T h e r o m a n t i c 'is deficient or u n ­ developed i n h i s a b i l i t y t o d i s t i n g u i s h b e t w e e n f a c t a n d f a n c y , whereas t h e classicist, o r a d u l t m i n d , i s t h o r o u g h l y r e a l i s t — w i t h o u t i l l u s i o n s , w i t h o u t day-dreams, w i t h o u t hope, w i t h o u t bitterness, a n d w i t h a n a b u n d a n t r e s i g n a t i o n ' (11.39)* I n t h e same s p i r i t E l i o t asserted t h a t ' a l l E u r o p e a n c i v i l i s a t i o n s are e q u a l l y dependent u p o n Greece a n d R o m e — s o f a r as t h e y are c i v i l i s a t i o n s at air (ii.104). O categories o f t h o u g h t , he m a i n t a i n e d , are l a r g e l y t h e o u t c o m e o f Greek t h o u g h t , o u r categories o f e m o t i o n l a r g e l y t h e o u t c o m e o f Greek l i t e r a t u r e . 'Neglect o f Greek means u r

f o r Europe a relapse into unconsciousness* (iii. 342). Hence t h e q u e s t i o n E l i o t posed i n A p r i l 1926: ' A r e there e n o u g h persons i n B r i t a i n b e l i e v i n g i n t h a t E u r o p e a n c u l t u r e , t h e R o m a n i n h e r i t a n c e , b e l i e v i n g i n t h e place o f B r i t a i n i n t h a t c u l t u r e , a n d b e l i e v i n g i n themselves ?' ( i v . 222). P r o v i n c i a l i s m was Britain's l o w dream: w h a t E l i o t i n v o k e d was t h e h i g h d r e a m o f Europe: T h e peculiar p o s i t i o n o f B r i t a i n is t h i s : t h a t she is o n t h e one h a n d a p a r t o f Europe. B u t n o t o n l y a p a r t , she is a m e d i a t i n g p a r t : f o r B r i t a i n i s t h e bridge b e t w e e n L a t i n c u l t u r e a n d G e r m a n i c c u l t u r e i n b o t h o f w h i c h she shares, (viii.194) A g a i n s t t h e W h i g g e r y o f t h e I n n e r V o i c e , therefore, E l i o t pro­ posed t o set t h e m i n d o f Europe: i m p e r i a l V i r g i l , Classicism, Order, t h e categories o f Greece a n d Rome, Dante's precision a n d l u c i d i t y , a n d u l t i m a t e l y t h a t ' p a t t e r n l a i d u p i n Heaven', t h e C i t y o f God. T h i s is n o t t h e place i n w h i c h t o e x a m i n e y e t a g a i n Eliot's sense o f T r a d i t i o n : i t has been severely treated b y several critics

and n o t a b l y b y G r a h a m H o u g h i n h i s Image and Experience. I w i l l m a k e o n l y a b r i e f c o m m e n t o n t h e m a t t e r . A reader o f

Eliot and the C r i t e r i o n E l i o t o u g h t t o take seriously t h e idea o f a t r a d i t i o n i n some e n a b l i n g r e l a t i o n t o a writer's i n d i v i d u a l talent; i f n o t , h e m u s t settle f o r t h e w i s d o m o f t h e i n n e r voice. Eliot's p a r t i c u l a r n o t i o n o f t r a d i t i o n is v u l n e r a b l e n o t i n p r i n c i p l e b u t i n practice; n o t because its c o n s t i t u e n t s , w h e n he chooses t o p r o d u c e t h e m , are eccentric o r i g n o b l e — t h e y are n o t — b u t because h e f a i l e d t o b r i n g t h e m t o bear u p o n a n y m a t t e r i n hand. T h e m i n d o f Europe a n d t h e m i n d o f B r i t a i n are negotiable ideas, b u t E l i o t deployed t h e m as p a r a l l e l lines of force, one superior t o t h e other, a n d t h e y never meet. T h e Criterion p u b l i s h e d a respectable l i s t of F r e n c h a n d G e r m a n w r i t e r s , b u t i t d i d n o t find or m a k e a p o i n t of c o n t a c t w h e r e one force w o u l d r e a l l y i m p i n g e u p o n another. T h e p r o b l e m i n h e r e n t i n every f o r m o f t h o u g h t w h i c h i n v o k e s t h e figures o f perspective is t h a t t h e m i n d finds i t easier t o g a i n a l t i t u d e t h a n t o r e t a i n c o n t a c t w i t h t h e p a r t i c u l a r details o f experience. I t is q u i t e possible t o d i s t i n g u i s h b e t w e e n p o l i t i c a l p h i l o s o p h y a n d p o l i t i c s a n d t o c o n c e r n oneself w i t h t h e first r a t h e r t h a n t h e second. E l i o t d i d n o t edit a d a i l y newspaper o r a w e e k l y magazine, h e was n o t o b l i g e d t o offer a j u d g e m e n t u p o n every t h e m e o r event. M a n y events are p r o p e r l y j u d g e d b y t i m e a n d b y t h e t e n d e n c y o f one event t o supersede another. B u t t h e distance b e t w e e n Eliot's m i n d a n d d a i l y events was c o n g e n i a l t o h i m , a t e m p e r a m e n t a l choice r a t h e r t h a n a m a t t e r o f chance, T r u e , h e w a s agile i n i t s defence, a n d v e r y o f t e n h e was i n t h e h a p p y p o s i t i o n o f p o i n t i n g t o t h e a b s u r d i t y o f those w h o h a d rushed f o r w a r d w i t h p r e m a t u r e o p i n i o n s a n d allegiances. B u t o f t e n , i n t h e presence o f a n event w h i c h c o u l d n o t be i g n o r e d , recourse t o a g r a n d perspective m e r e l y silenced E l i o t or consigned h i m t o t h e a b l a t i v e state of b e i n g n e i t h e r fish n o r flesh. T a k e f o r instance Eliot's p o s i t i o n i n J a n u a r y 1937 w h e n t h e Spanish C i v i l W a r w a s a n inescapable concern, d i v i d i n g m e n i n t o L e f t a n d R i g h t . T h e B r i t i s h G o v e r n m e n t insisted u p o n r e m a i n i n g n e u t r a l . M o s t o f t h e i n t e l l e c t u a l s s u p p o r t e d t h e Popular F r o n t ,

New

Writing

w a s about t o appear, t h e Left Book Club was

to concentrate t h e force o f f e e l i n g against t h e N a t i o n a l F r o n t . A u d e n , Beckett, Spender, Ford, M i d d l e t o n M u r r y a n d m a n y o t h e r w r i t e r s spoke a n d w r o t e f o r t h e Popular F r o n t , c o m p o s i n g b a t t l e h y m n s f o r t h e Republic. A f e w voices spoke f o r t h e N a t i o n a l F r o n t ; a f e w staved n e u t r a l , n o t a b l y Pound, W e l l s a n d

26

Eliot and the C r i t e r i o n

Eliot. I t is s t i l l possible t o argue t h a t n e u t r a l i t y w a s t h e wisest position t o hold. M u c h of the rhetoric lavished u p o n Left a n d R i g h t n o w appears s i l l y . B u t Eliot's v e r s i o n of n e u t r a l i t y is c h i l ­ l i n g , because i t is facile i n t h e a s s u m p t i o n o f a perspective f a r b e y o n d t h e f r a y . 'One m i g h t t h i n k ' , h e said, after p e r u s i n g a paper l i k e t h e N e w Statesman, t h a t t h e elected G o v e r n m e n t of S p a i n represented a n e n l i g h t e n e d a n d progres­ sive L i b e r a l i s m ; a n d f r o m r e a d i n g The Tablet o n e m i g h t be persuaded t h a t t h e rebels w e r e people w h o , after e n d u r i n g w i t h patience m o r e t h a n one w o u l d expect h u m a n beings t o be able t o stand, h a d finally a n d r e l u c t a n t l y t a k e n t o arms as t h e o n l y w a y l e f t i n w h i c h t o save C h r i s t i a n i t y a n d c i v i l i z a t i o n . E l i o t t h e n posited 'an i d e a l l y u n p r e j u d i c e d person w i t h a n i n t i ­ m a t e k n o w l e d g e o f Spain' w h o w o u l d be i n a p o s i t i o n t o a r r i v e at a proper j u d g e m e n t . E x c u s i n g h i m s e l f f r o m these qualifica­ tions, h e m a i n t a i n e d t h a t 'so l o n g as w e are n o t compelled i n o u r o w n interest t o take sides, I do n o t see w h y w e s h o u l d do so o n i n s u f f i c i e n t k n o w l e d g e : a n d even a n y e v e n t u a l p a r t i s a n s h i p s h o u l d be h e l d w i t h reservations, h u m i l i t y a n d m i s g i v i n g ' . U p t o t h i s p o i n t t h e a r g u m e n t is reasonable; t h o u g h i t raises a d o u b t about t h e merit of pursuing the study of political philosophy i f i t m u s t r e t i r e a t t h e first t o u c h o f a p o l i t i c a l s i t u a t i o n . T h e n e x t p a r a g r a p h — I a m s t i l l q u o t i n g f r o m Eliot's 'Commentary', J a n u a r y 1937—is s h r e w d i n i t s assessment o f b o t h Fronts: W h i c h e v e r side w i n s w i l l n o t be t h e b e t t e r f o r h a v i n g h a d t o fight f o r i t s v i c t o r y . T h e v i c t o r y o f t h e R i g h t w i l l be t h e v i c t o r y o f a secular R i g h t , n o t of a s p i r i t u a l R i g h t , w h i c h is a v e r y d i f f e r e n t t h i n g ; t h e v i c t o r y o f t h e L e f t w i l l be t h e v i c t o r y of t h e w o r s t r a t h e r t h a n o f t h e best features; a n d i f i t ends i n s o m e t h i n g called C o m m u n i s m , t h a t w i l l be a t r a v e s t y of t h e h u m a n i t a r i a n ideals w h i c h h a v e l e d so m a n y people i n t h a t d i r e c t i o n . A n d those w h o have at h e a r t t h e interests o f C h r i s t i a n i t y i n t h e l o n g r u n — w h i c h is n o t q u i t e t h e same t h i n g as a n o m i n a l respect p a i d t o a n ecclesiastical h i e r a r c h y w i t h a f r e e d o m c i r c u m s c r i b e d b y t h e interests o f a secular S t a t e — h a v e especial reason f o r suspending j u d g e m e n t , ( x v i .

290)

Eliot and the C r i t e r i o n

*7

B u t there is one sentence w h i c h defines Eliot's perspective as a p o i n t o f v i e w f a r h i g h e r t h a n t h a t r e q u i r e d f o r t h e discharge o f a p l a g u e u p o n b o t h Fronts: T h a t balance o f m i n d w h i c h a f e w h i g h l y - c i v i l i z e d i n d i v i d u a l s , such as A r j u n a , t h e h e r o o f t h e Bhagavad-Gita, c a n m a i n t a i n i n a c t i o n , is d i f f i c u l t f o r m o s t o f us even as observers, and, as I say, i s n o t encouraged b y t h e greater p a r t o f t h e Press. ( x v i . 290) T h e i r o n y w h i c h sets t h e Bhagavad-Gita as a r e b u k e t o ' t h e greater p a r t o f t h e Press' is e x o r b i t a n t i f n o t g r a t u i t o u s : t h e Bhagavad-Gita, ' t h e n e x t greatest p h i l o s o p h i c a l p o e m t o t h e Divine Comedy w i t h i n m y experience', as E l i o t r e p o r t e d i n h i s essay o n D a n t e (Selected Essays, 1951, p. 258). T h e t h i r d section of 'The D r y Salvages' paraphrases Krishna's advice t o A r j u n a as p a r t of t h e a d m o n i t i o n t o consider t h e f u t u r e A n d t h e past w i t h a n e q u a l m i n d . T h e passage, g l a n c i n g at Cantos I I a n d V I I I of t h e Bhagavad-Gita, reads as f o l l o w s : ' A t t h e m o m e n t w h i c h is n o t of a c t i o n or i n a c t i o n Y o u c a n receive t h i s : " o n w h a t e v e r sphere o f b e i n g T h e m i n d of a m a n m a y be i n t e n t A t t h e t i m e o f d e a t h " — t h a t is t h e one a c t i o n ( A n d t h e t i m e of d e a t h is every m o m e n t ) W h i c h s h a l l f r u c t i f y i n t h e lives of others: A n d do n o t t h i n k o f t h e f r u i t o f a c t i o n . Fare f o r w a r d . O voyagers, O seamen, Y o u w h o come t o p o r t , a n d y o u w h o s e bodies W i l l suffer t h e t r i a l a n d j u d g e m e n t of t h e sea, O r w h a t e v e r event, t h i s is y o u r r e a l destination.' So K r i s h n a , as w h e n h e a d m o n i s h e d A r j u n a O n t h e field of b a t t l e . N o t fare w e l l , B u t fare f o r w a r d , voyagers.

(Collected Poems 1909-1962, p. 211)

28

E l i o t and the C r i t e r i o n

T h i s is c o n v i n c i n g i n t h e p o e m because a j u s t i f y i n g place has been p r e p a r e d f o r i t ; w e are possessed b y t h e s p i r i t of t h e F o u r Quartets as a w h o l e , responsive t o a s u p e r i o r perspective thor­ o u g h l y earned. I n t h e Criterion c o m m e n t a r y t h e reference t o A r j u n a is n o t earned, i t is set d o w n o n a page w h i c h has done n o t h i n g t o j u s t i f y i t . T h e m o r a l s u p e r i o r i t y w h i c h i t claims c a n n o t appear as a n y t h i n g b u t bleak indifference, p o i n t i n g n o t t o w a r d t h e g r a n d e u r o f t h e Quartets b u t t o w a r d a lesser w o r k of t h i s p e r i o d , The Family Reunion, a n d t o t h e s n o b b e r y of a hero, H a r r y M o n c h e n s e y , f o r w h i c h E l i o t later apologised. A s i t happens, w e h a v e f a i r l y close a t h a n d a n e x a m p l e of precisely t h e k i n d of a p p l i c a t i o n o f p o l i t i c a l p h i l o s o p h y t o a p o l i t i c a l s i t u a t i o n w h i c h a m a n i n Eliot's p o s i t i o n m i g h t reasonably h a v e been expected t o p r o d u c e o n t h e occasion of t h e Spanish C i v i l W a r . Jacques M a r i t a i n c o n t r i b u t e d a preface t o A l f r e d Mendizabal's

account o f the origins of the W a r , A u x Origines d'une Tragedie. Eliot arranged to have the book reviewed b y M i d d l e t o n M u r r y , w h o praised i t a n d p a r t i c u l a r l y w e l c o m e d M a r i t a i n ' s preface f o r i t s a p p l i c a t i o n of p r i n c i p l e s of m o r a l t h e o l o g y t o t h e p r o b l e m s o f m o d e r n p o l i t i c s (Criterion, xvii.721). E l i o t h i m s e l f m e n t i o n e d t h e m a t t e r w h e n M a r i t a i n was a t t a c k e d b y Serrano Suner, Franco's M i n i s t e r of t h e I n t e r i o r , f o r r e f u s i n g t o endorse t h e c l a i m t h a t the w a r of t h e Franquistas was 'a h o l y w a r ' ( x v i i i . 5 8 ) . C l e a r l y , M a r i t a i n emerges m o r e i m p r e s s i v e l y t h a n E l i o t f r o m t h i s episode. I t was e n t i r e l y p r o p e r of E l i o t t o praise M a r i t a i n a n d t o r e b u k e Suner: l e t t h a t be acknowledged. B u t M a r i t a i n ' s e f f o r t t o concen­ t r a t e h i s m i n d a n d b r i n g t h e f o r c e of C h r i s t i a n p h i l o s o p h y t o bear u p o n a c o m p l i c a t e d s i t u a t i o n i n Spain is a noble enterprise, a n d i t makes Eliot's stance appear m o r a l l y l a z y r a t h e r t h a n l o f t y or disinterested. T h e s e p a r a t i o n of p o l i t i c a l p h i l o s o p h y f r o m p o l i t i c s seems t o m e i n t h i s case a s t r a t a g e m r a t h e r t h a n a p r i n ­ ciple. I suspect t h a t E l i o t was d r a w n t o m a k e t h e s e p a r a t i o n m a i n l y because he c o u l d n o t find a n y secure means b y w h i c h t h e m i n d c o u l d i n t e r v e n e i n h i s t o r y . H i s t o r y w h o s e ' c u n n i n g pas­ sages, c o n t r i v e d corridors' are delineated i n ' G e r o n t i o n ' w a s f a t a l l y obscure t o E l i o t . I do n o t m e a n t h a t h i s h i s t o r i c a l sense was w e a k e r t h a n a n y o n e else's, b u t t h a t he regarded h i s t o r y as a cave of error, i t s v e r y elements obscure. T h e second p a r t of 'The D r y Salvages' refers t o

E l i o t and the C r i t e r i o n

29

T h e b a c k w a r d l o o k b e h i n d t h e assurance O f recorded h i s t o r y , t h e b a c k w a r d h a l f - l o o k O v e r t h e shoulder, t o w a r d s t h e p r i m i t i v e t e r r o r . E l i o t was p e c u l i a r l y sensitive t o t h e p r i m i t i v e t e r r o r a n d regarded the assurance o f recorded h i s t o r y as v a n i t y , M a d a m e Sosostris's c o n n i v a n c e w i t h o u r ' w h i s p e r i n g ambitions'. I f h i s t o r y is w h a t happens t o p o l i t i c s , p o l i t i c s i s b o u n d t o be deceptive, m o s t l y bogus, a l i e n t o those w h o w o u l d consider t h e f u t u r e a n d t h e past w i t h a n equal m i n d . I a m n o t accusing E l i o t of t r i v i a l i t y o r evasiveness. I a m o f f e r i n g a n e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h e recourse t o perspectivist t h o u g h t , p r i n c i p l e s c u t a d r i f t f r o m applications a n d circumstances, a n d Eliot's i n s e c u r i t y i n t h e presence of a p o l i t i c a l act. T h e i n s e c u r i t y shows itself m o s t c l e a r l y i n t h e e d i t o r i a l aspects of t h e magazine, t h e r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n general p o l i c y and i t s em­ b o d i m e n t i n poems, essays, reviews. E l i o t a l w a y s set h i s face against coterie-journals, h e h a d n o a m b i t i o n t o use c o n t r i b u t o r s as mere extensions of h i m s e l f . H e w a n t e d c o n t r i b u t o r s w h o w o u l d be b o u n d t o g e t h e r b y a v e r y loose act o f f e l l o w s h i p a n d c o m m u n i c a t i o n . I n practice, t h i s m e a n t n o t b o u n d at a l l . T h e editor's h a n d u p o n t h e Criterion is a feeble t h i n g , so f a r as i t is e x e r t e d i n t h e choice of c o n t r i b u t o r s a n d themes: i t is m u c h stronger w h e n i t is f e l t i n r e l a t i o n t o Eliot's o w n w r i t i n g . T h e m o s t v a l u a b l e essays i n t h e Criterion are Eliot's C o m m e n t a r i e s . T h e y m a y appear r a n d o m , o f t e n devoted t o m a t t e r s w h i c h n o t even Eliot's m o s t v i v i d prose has been able t o keep alive, b u t i t is precisely t h e i r occasional n a t u r e w h i c h keeps t h e c o m m e n t a r i e s s t r o n g . E l i o t was addressing h i m s e l f n o t t o m a j o r i n t e r n a t i o n a l events w h i c h he c o u l d bear t o c o n t e m p l a t e o n l y f r o m t h e h e i g h t s of A r j u n a , b u t t o r a t h e r small-scale themes p r o v i d e d b y t h e events of t h e day, week, m o n t h . H e h a d n o d i f f i c u l t y i n e f f e c t i n g e n t r y t o these themes, he h a d m e r e l y t o a p p l y h i s i n t e l l i g e n c e t o the m a t t e r i n h a n d . T h e d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n p o l i t i c a l p h i l o s o p h y a n d politics d i d n o t arise: i n m o s t cases E l i o t was c o m m e n t i n g u p o n l o c a l events as s y m p t o m s o f t h e general state o f affairs i n the c u l t u r a l l i f e o f E n g l a n d . T h e themes I r e c a l l i n c l u d e t h e d e s t r u c t i o n o f London's churches, plans f o r t h e e x t e n s i o n o f W e s t m i n s t e r A b b e y , t h e idea of a n a t i o n a l theatre, B e r t r a n d

E l i o t and

30

the

Criterion

Russell, D i a g h i l e v , F. H. Bradley, Yeats, C o n r a d , Shaw, t h e sub­ s t i t u t i o n i n t h e n e w Prayer B o o k o f ' i n f i n i t e ' f o r ' i n c o m p r e h e n ­ sible ' a n d of 'eternal' f o r 'everlasting', t h e q u e s t i o n of censor­ ship, K i p l i n g , A r n o l d , M a r x i s t c r i t i c i s m , I r v i n g B a b b i t t , Paris, anthologies, m o n a r c h y , A. R. Orage, t h e N a t i o n a l T r u s t . T h e r e are o n l y a f e w C o m m e n t a r i e s w h i c h m e d i t a t e u p o n larger ques­ tions; n o t a b l y a c r u c i a l essay o n t h e n a t u r e of belief (xii.468-73) a n d a n o t h e r one, e q u a l l y i m p o r t a n t , o n t h e r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n past a n d present. I s h a l l m a k e one or t w o c o m m e n t s o n t h i s l a t t e r essay. T h e occasion was

t h e p u b l i c a t i o n of a b o o k b y Ernst Robert

C u r t i u s , Deutscher Geist in Gefahr, a collection o f essays o n sociology a n d h u m a n i s m . E l i o t was p a r t i c u l a r l y interested i n Curtius's essay o n K a r l M a n n h e i m , 'a c o n t e m p o r a r y sociologist n a m e d M a n n h e i m , of w h o s e w o r k I am i g n o r a n t ' , he confessed (October 1932), 'and w h o has h i t h e r t o been o n l y a n a m e t o me'. Curtius remarked that f o r M a n n h e i m and m a n y other thinkers t h e r e appeared t o be a crude antithesis b e t w e e n C h a n g e a n d V a l u e o n t h e one side a n d Permanence a n d Valuelessness o n t h e other. E l i o t t o o k u p t h e t h e m e at t h a t p o i n t , associating t h e a n t i ­ thesis w i t h t h e year 1910, 'the pleasant essays of W i l l i a m James (as p o p u l a r a w r i t e r f o r his t i m e as are E d d i n g t o n a n d Jeans i n ours) a n d w i t h t h e epidemic of Bergsonism'. T h e antithesis was also seen i n t h e p o p u l a r i t y of a d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n 'static' (bad) a n d ' d y n a m i c ' (good). T h e c o m m o n tendency, E l i o t argued, was to misrepresent t h e r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e e t e r n a l and t h e transi­ ent, and t h e r e f o r e t o l e n d exaggerated v a l u e t o o u r o w n t i m e . T h e d o c t r i n e of progress, ' w h i l e i t can do l i t t l e t o m a k e t h e f u t u r e m o r e r e a l t o us, has a v e r y s t r o n g i n f l u e n c e t o w a r d s m a k i n g t h e past less real t o us': T h e n o t i o n t h a t a past age or c i v i l i z a t i o n m i g h t be great i n itself, precious i n t h e eye of God, because i t succeeded i n a d j u s t i n g t h e delicate r e l a t i o n of t h e E t e r n a l a n d t h e T r a n s i e n t , is c o m p l e t e l y alien t o us. N o age has been m o r e ego-centric, so t o speak, t h a n o u r own; others have been ego­ c e n t r i c t h r o u g h ignorance, ours t h r o u g h c o m p l a c e n t h i s t o r i c a l k n o w l e d g e . E v e r y t h i n g i n t h e past was a necessary e v i l — e v i l i n itself, b u t necessary because i t l e d u p t o t h e present. T h u s

Eliot and the C r i t e r i o n we

take ourselves, a n d

3i

o u r t r a n s i e n t affairs, too seriously. ( v i i . 75)

E l i o t t h e n applies t h i s c o n s i d e r a t i o n to t h e q u e s t i o n of c r i t i c i s m : A l l g r e a t a r t is i n a sense a d o c u m e n t o n i t s t i m e ; b u t g r e a t a r t is never m e r e l y a d o c u m e n t , f o r m e r e d o c u m e n t a t i o n is n o t art. A l l great a r t has s o m e t h i n g p e r m a n e n t a n d u n i v e r s a l a b o u t i t , a n d reflects t h e p e r m a n e n t as w e l l as t h e c h a n g i n g — a particular relation i n time of the permanent and the transient. A n d as n o great a r t is e x p l i c a b l e s i m p l y b y t h e society of i t s t i m e , so i t is n o t f u l l y e x p l i c a b l e s i m p l y b y t h e p e r s o n a l i t y of its a u t h o r : i n t h e greatest p o e t r y t h e r e is a l w a y s a h i n t o f s o m e t h i n g b e h i n d , s o m e t h i n g i m p e r s o n a l , s o m e t h i n g i n rela­ t i o n t o w h i c h t h e a u t h o r has been n o m o r e t h a n t h e passive ( i f n o t a l w a y s p u r e ) m e d i u m . A good deal of b r i l l i a n t c r i t i c i s m seems t o m e w a s t e d l a b o u r j u s t because i t ignores t h e e n d u r i n g i n favour of the topical, (xii.76-7) E l i o t t u r n s at t h i s p o i n t t o t h e q u e s t i o n of C o m m u n i s m , b u t there is no need t o f o l l o w h i m , he says w h a t w e w o u l d expect h i m t o say. T h e sentences a b o u t t h e r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n past a n d present m a y be read as p a r t s of a n a r g u m e n t w h i c h E l i o t deploys i n ' T r a d i t i o n a n d t h e I n d i v i d u a l T a l e n t ' (1919), t h e essays o n B a b b i t t a n d H u m a n i s m (1928-9), t h e c o m m e n t s o n Secularism i n R e l i g i o n a n d L i t e r a t u r e ' (1935) a n d later w o r k o n t h e idea of a C h r i s t i a n society a n d t h e d e f i n i t i o n of C u l t u r e . O r t h e y m a y be read as a prose gloss u p o n t h e lines a b o u t progress i n t h e second p a r t o f 'The D r y Salvages'. O r w e m a y ask ourselves t o w h a t e x t e n t t h e a r g u m e n t o f these sentences is s t i l l v a l i d . T h e sen­ tences w e r e w r i t t e n i n 1932, w e are r e a d i n g t h e m or re-reading t h e m i n 1977: are t h e y s t i l l alive? I t seems clear t o m e t h a t o u r t i m e is j u s t as egocentric as Eliot's was a n d t h a t o u r a l i e n a t i o n f r o m t h e past is j u s t as extreme. O u r s is n o t a g e n e r a t i o n n o t e d e i t h e r f o r i t s h i s t o r i c a l sense or f o r i t s respect f o r gone times. I t is d i f f i c u l t t o describe t h e s p i r i t of a n age a n d i t m a y be t h a t i n e m p h a s i z i n g t h e m o v e m e n t s of c o n t e m p o r a r y t h o u g h t w h i c h are, h o w e v e r v a g u e l y , s t r u c t u r a l i s t i n tendency, we are m i s t a k i n g t h e e p h e m e r a l f o r t h e significant. B u t s t r u c t u r a l i s t t h o u g h t c e r t a i n l y presents itself as c o n g e n i a l t o t h e age i n m a i n t a i n i n g t h a t t h e c r u c i a l questions a b o u t l i t e r a t u r e and society are s t r u c t u r a l a n d 4

32

Eliot and the

Criterion

s y n c h r o n i c , concerned p r i m a r i l y w i t h t h e e n a b l i n g r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n a w r i t e r ' s i m a g i n a t i o n a n d t h e l i n g u i s t i c codes w h i c h are available t o h i m . I t i s w i d e l y m a i n t a i n e d t h a t these codes m a r k t h e o u t e r l i m i t of a w r i t e r ' s expression. Parole i s a sub­ d i v i s i o n o f langue. I recite these commonplaces o n l y t o m a k e t h e p o i n t that structuralist t h o u g h t connives w i t h anyone w h o wishes t o d i s o w n t h e past. T h e r e l a t i o n s deemed t o be i m p o r t a n t are n o t those w h i c h r e q u i r e o n t h e w r i t e r ' s p a r t e i t h e r a sense o f the past o r a n e t h i c a l scruple i n t h e use o f language. S t r u c t u r a l i s t assumptions h a v e n o place f o r t h a t ' s o m e t h i n g p e r m a n e n t a n d u n i v e r s a l ' t o w h i c h E l i o t refers, o r f o r t h e 'something b e h i n d , something impersonal, something i n relation to w h i c h the author has been n o m o r e t h a n t h e passive ( i f n o t a l w a y s p u r e ) medium'. T h e last phrase m a y p r o m p t us t o say t h a t t h e force o f t h a t ' s o m e t h i n g ' i s exerted, f o r s t r u c t u r a l i s t t h o u g h t , b y language; as i f l a n g u a g e w e r e e n t i r e l y capable o f e x e r t i n g t h e same pressure u p o n i n d i v i d u a l talents w h i c h E l i o t c o n s t r u e d as b e i n g e x e r t e d b y t r a d i t i o n . T h i s is s i m p l y n o t t r u e . G r a h a m H o u g h has argued t h a t t r a d i t i o n , h o w e v e r w e choose t o define i t , i s acquired, even b y m a j o r poets, i n a m u c h m o r e selective w a y t h a n Eliot's a c c o u n t of i t implies: t h a t Keats, f o r instance, g o t f r o m M i l t o n a n d t w o or three f a v o u r i t e poets as m u c h n o u r i s h m e n t as h i s a r t needed or c o u l d assimilate. Poets do n o t m o v e a m o n g masterpieces as E r i c h A u e r b a c h or E r n s t R o b e r t C u r t i u s d i d . T h e p o i n t is w e l l t a k e n , b u t i t does n o t alter t h e essential a r g u m e n t . E l i o t uses t h e idea o f t r a d i t i o n t o stir o u r consciences, r e m i n d i n g us of values w h i c h w e h a v e i g n o r e d , f o r g o t t e n , or abused. T r a d i t i o n i n h i s sense i s n o t a Great Books course, i t i s designed t o do t h e w o r k o f ethics r a t h e r t h a n o f k n o w l e d g e or l e a r n i n g . Indeed, i f Eliot's idea o f t r a d i t i o n is t o be resented or r e p u d i a t e d , i t m u s t be because he deploys i t l i k e a m o r a l t e r r o r i s t , n o t because he is n a i v e i n pre­ s c r i b i n g a course o f r e a d i n g f o r poets. Because t h e single f a c t w h i c h can be established i n r e g a r d t o Eliot's idea o f t r a d i t i o n is t h a t he has i n m i n d a p r e f e r e n t i a l s t r u c t u r e o f values. Indeed, t h e m o s t accurate c o m p a r i s o n I can suggest w o u l d associate Eliot's idea o f t r a d i t i o n n o t w i t h a n e t h i c a l l y n e u t r a l concept o f l a n ­ guage b u t w i t h t h e idea o f ecclesiastical dogma. I t i s s i g n i f i c a n t t h a t i n h i s l a t e r w r i t i n g s E l i o t ascribed t o o r t h o d o x y t h e w o r k he h a d once ascribed t o t r a d i t i o n . C o n t i n u i t y b e t w e e n these t w o

E l i o t and the C r i t e r i o n

33

terms makes i t clear t h a t t h e c e n t r a l m e a n i n g o f t r a d i t i o n i n Eliot's use o f t h e t e r m makes i t , t o s t a r t w i t h , a secular v e r s i o n of d o g m a o r d o c t r i n e , a s t r u c t u r e o f values, choices, preferences a n d c o m m i t m e n t s . W h e n h e became a C h r i s t i a n h e m e r e l y trans­ posed t h e t e r m i n t o a specifically d o c t r i n a l i d i o m . I h a v e r e f e r r e d to t h e c e n t r a l m e a n i n g o f t h e t e r m , because I a m a w a r e t h a t o n some occasions E l i o t used t h e w o r d t r a d i t i o n t o m e a n t h e loose system o f h a b i t s a n d assumptions w h i c h a m a n acquires b y b e i n g b o r n a n d g r o w i n g u p i n a p a r t i c u l a r place. I t w o u l d n o t be d i f f i c u l t t o show, h o w e v e r , t h a t o n t h e w h o l e E l i o t f a v o u r e d a d e f i n i t i o n o f t r a d i t i o n w h i c h makes i t s o m e t h i n g w e h a v e t o labour t o acquire rather t h a n something w e acquire n a t u r a l l y and thoughtlessly. T h e 'something behind, something imper­ sonal' t o w h i c h h e refers is t h e r e f o r e n o t h i n g as permissive as a structuralist's 'language' b u t a force o f e t h i c a l o r quasi-ethical choices a n d preferences: i t is t h a t t o w h i c h one's conscience listens, w h e n i t is active a n d scrupulous. O f course t h e r e is m o r e to be said o n t h i s theme. M y a c c o u n t is designed m e r e l y t o suggest h o w Eliot's sentences m a y be read f o r t h e i r present bear­ i n g r a t h e r t h a n as footnotes t o 'The D r y Salvages'. I h a v e l a b o u r e d t h e recourse t o perspectivism i n Eliot's e d i t i n g because i t accounts f o r t h e f a v o u r i t e gestures o f h i s r h e t o r i c . W h e n t w o ideologies are ostensibly opposed, he declares t h a t t h e differences are accidental. C o m m u n i s m a n d C a p i t a l i s m 'are o n l y f o r m s o f t h e same t h i n g ' (xii.642). 'We s h o u l d learn', E l i o t asserted, ' t h a t one k i n d o f s h a m is offered t o t h e p u b l i c w h e n decadence is i n vogue, a n d a n o t h e r w h e n revolution is i n vogue; a n d t h a t t h e y m a y be a t b o t t o m t h e same o l d s h a m ' ( x i i . 470). I n O c t o b e r 1930 t h e L a b o u r Government's p o l i c y appeared t o differ f r o m t h e p r e v i o u s C o n s e r v a t i v e Government's p o l i c y : no, ' i t is t h e same o l d p o l i c y after a l l ' (x.2). D e p l o r i n g t h e G e n e r a l E l e c t i o n o f 1929 as a n 'undesirable l u x u r y ' , E l i o t p r e d i c t e d t h a t t h e results w o u l d i n c l u d e 'the u s u a l waste o f t i m e , m o n e y a n d energy, a v e r y s m a l l v o t e i n consequence of t h e increased n u m b e r of voters, a n d t h e r e t u r n , k n o w n t o D r y d e n , o f " o l d consciences w i t h n e w f a c e s " ' (viii.377). W h e n people w e r e exercised a b o u t C o m m u n i s m a n d C a p i t a l i s m , o r i t m i g h t be a b o u t n e a r l y a n y ideological r i v a l r y , Eliot's temper i n c l i n e d h i m t o say: 'the c o m b a t of T w e e d l e d u m a n d Tweedledee i s n o t l i k e l y t o lead t o a n y

34

E l i o t and the C r i t e r i o n

m i l l e n i u m ' (x.715). S p e n d i n g a C o m m e n t a r y u p o n H a r o l d Laski's

An Introduction to Politics a n d L o r d Lymington's Ich Dien: The Tory Path, E l i o t m o c k e d L a s k i f o r t h e i n t e l l e c t u a l shoddiness o f his Socialism, a n d m o c k e d L y m i n g t o n e q u a l l y f o r t h i n k i n g o f T o r y i s m as ' s o m e t h i n g t o be r e v i v e d , i n s t e a d o f s o m e t h i n g t o be i n v e n t e d ' . Socialism a n d Conservatism, i f these a u t h o r s gave t r u e accounts of t h e i r creeds, w e r e a b s u r d l y s h a l l o w answers t o Bolshe­ v i s m . 'The Bolsheviks a t a n y r a t e believe i n s o m e t h i n g w h i c h has w h a t is e q u i v a l e n t f o r t h e m t o a s u p e r n a t u r a l sanction; a n d i t is o n l y w i t h a g e n u i n e s u p e r n a t u r a l s a n c t i o n t h a t w e c a n oppose i t ' (xi.71). T h i s m a r k s a c o m m o n p a t t e r n i n Eliot's r h e t o r i c . T a k e t w o forces b e t w e e n w h i c h p u b l i c o p i n i o n appears to be d i v i d e d . S h o w t h a t each is i n i t s o w n w a y defective, a n d n o t o n l y defective b u t d e m o n s t r a b l y i n f e r i o r t o some gross ide­ o l o g y ( C o m m u n i s m , Fascism, o r w h a t e v e r ) . T h e n t r i u m p h over t h e w i n n i n g i d e o l o g y b y recourse t o a h i g h e r creed, 'a g e n u i n e s u p e r n a t u r a l sanction', C h r i s t i a n i t y . Eliot's liveliest Commen­ taries are those i n w h i c h t h i s r h e t o r i c a l p a t t e r n is m o s t power­ f u l l y active. B u t i t is impossible t o escape t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t Eliot's w o r k o n t h e Criterion declined i n b u o y a n c y as t h e years w e n t o n . Indeed, t h e p l a i n facts are t h a t h i s m a g a z i n e dealt w i t h r e a l issues b e t w e e n 1922 a n d 1939 a n d y e t t h a t i t s e n g a g e m e n t w i t h these issues became i n c r e a s i n g l y helpless. Eliot's o w n themes m a k e t h e p o i n t . H e begins w i t h M a r i e L l o y d , 'the expressive figure of t h e l o w e r classes', praised m a i n l y because she embodied t h e v i r t u e s of t h e o n l y class i n E n g l a n d t h a t h a d a n y real v i r t u e s t o define, t h e m i d d l e classes b e i n g ' m o r a l l y c o r r u p t ' a n d t h e a r i s t o c r a c y scared (i.194). B u t Eliot's sense o f lower-class v i t a l i t y d i d n o t amount to a conviction t h a t a genuine culture w o u l d flower f r o m t h a t soil. W i t h i n a s h o r t t i m e h e was i m m e r s e d i n a sense o f 'the p o l i t i c a l a n d e c o n o m i c a n a r c h y o f t h e present time': t h a t was 1927, t h e year i n w h i c h t h e Criterion occupied itself w i t h the question of Intelligence and I n t u i t i o n , M i d d l e t o n Murry's q u e s t i o n b e i n g answered i n v a r i o u s i d i o m s b y E l i o t , M a r t i n D ' A r c y , R a m o n Fernandez, T. S t u r g e M o o r e a n d Charles M a u r o n . T h e q u e s t i o n was exacerbated b y f u r t h e r considerations of t h e issue of R o m a n t i c i s m a n d Classicism, t h e t e r m i n o l o g i e s o f Order, a n d i n 1928 t h e Vatican's c o n d e m n a t i o n o f t h e Action

Eliot and the C r i t e r i o n

35

Frangaise. F r o m 1929 t o t h e end t h e Criterion concerned itself m a i n l y w i t h Fascism, C o m m u n i s m , H u m a n i s m a n d R e l i g i o n ( M o r e , Foerster, Fernandez again, a n d C h e s t e r t o n ) , P r o p e r t y , M o n e y , Economics, t h e t h e o r y o f V a l u e , a n d L i t e r a t u r e p i t c h e d r a t h e r desperately i n t o these contexts. O n m o s t of these questions Eliot's a t t i t u d e s , w h e n t h e y declare themselves, seem t o m e e n t i r e l y w o r t h y . O n Fascism, f o r instance, he argued t h a t i t d i d n o t c o n t a i n a n y idea of general interest, a n d as a r e l i g i o u s f a i t h i t was 'humbug'. A d m i t t e d l y , t h e q u e s t i o n he chose t o ask a b o u t Fascism was n o t t h e one w h i c h w o u l d n o w seem t o have been m o s t u r g e n t i n D e c e m b e r 1928: 'whether Fascism is t h e emerg­ ence o f a n e w p o l i t i c a l idea or t h e recrudescence o f a n o l d one'. I n J u l y 1929 h e m a i n t a i n e d t h a t Fascism as a n idea w a s u t t e r l y sterile, 'the n a t u r a l idea f o r t h e t h o u g h t l e s s person'; n o t h i n g m o r e t h a n 'a c o m b i n a t i o n o f statements w i t h u n e x a m i n e d enthusiasms'. ' I n t h e success o f a m a n l i k e M u s s o l i n i (a m a n o f " t h e p e o p l e " ) a w h o l e n a t i o n m a y feel a k i n d o f self-flattery; a n d t h e Russian people deified itself i n Lenin', E l i o t argued. 'Both I t a l y a n d Russia seem t o m e t o be s u f f e r i n g f r o m N a p o l e o n i s m ' (viii.690). I t is clear t h a t Eliot, faced i n E n g l a n d w i t h a society w h i c h h a d n o t e n t e r t a i n e d a n e w p o l i t i c a l idea since Fabianism, was a s k i n g w h e t h e r o r n o t t h e r e was a n y t h i n g n e w a n d u s e f u l i n Fascism. H i s answer was: no. H e confessed t h a t he p r e f e r r e d t h e Fascist f o r m o f u n r e a s o n t o t h e C o m m u n i s t f o r m of unreason, b u t h e t h o u g h t h i s o w n f o r m o f u n r e a s o n m o r e reasonable t h a n either. H e made n o bones a b o u t h i s f e e l i n g t h a t democratic g o v e r n m e n t i n E n g l a n d was already 'watered d o w n t o n o t h i n g ' . 'From t h e m o m e n t w h e n t h e suffrage i s conceived as a right instead o f as a p r i v i l e g e a n d a d u t y a n d a r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , w e are on t h e w a y merely to government b y a n invisible oligarchy instead o f g o v e r n m e n t b y a visible one.' T h i s is at least a n argu­ able p o s i t i o n , t h e r e is n o t h i n g s t u p i d o r v i c i o u s i n Eliot's words. N o w t h a t t h e q u e s t i o n o f democratic g o v e r n m e n t a n d its conse­ quences has emerged a g a i n f r o m t h e c u r r e n t p o l i t i c a l a n d econo­ m i c crisis as s o m e t h i n g t h a t m u s t be discussed, Eliot's observa­ t i o n s s h o u l d be e x a m i n e d i n a m o r e objective s p i r i t t h a n critics have been w i l l i n g t o produce. 'The m o d e r n question,' he w r o t e , 'as p o p u l a r l y p u t is: " d e m o c r a c y is dead; w h a t is to replace i t ? ", whereas i t s h o u l d be: " t h e f r a m e o f d e m o c r a c y has been des-

36

E l i o t and the C r i t e r i o n

t r o y e d : h o w can we, o u t of t h e m a t e r i a l s a t h a n d , b u i l / a n e w s t r u c t u r e i n w h i c h democracy can l i v e ? " / B u t as one reads t h r o u g h t h e subsequent v o l u m e s of t h e Criterion one finds i t i n c r e a s i n g l y clear t h a t E l i o t c o u l d n o t t h i n k of b u i l d i n g a n y t h i n g f r o m t h e m a t e r i a l s at hand. T h e ' C o m m e n t a r y ' f o r O c t o b e r 1930, for instance, s h o u l d be read i n f u l l as evidence t h a t E l i o t despised w h a t passed f o r ' l i f e ' i n E n g l a n d a n d detested those p o l i t i c i a n s w h o conspired t o enforce, i n s t e a d of g e n u i n e s p i r i t u a l values, t h e m e c h a n i c a l c r i t e r i o n o f 'the s t a n d a r d o f l i v i n g ' . E l i o t was dis­ gusted b y t h e f o r m i n w h i c h t h e debate was presented: t o engage i n debate o n those terms m e a n t y i e l d i n g u p t h e o n l y terms, q u a l i ­ t a t i v e a n d s p i r i t u a l , i n w h i c h he was r e a l l y interested. I n 1936 w h e n t h e p u b l i c a i r was dense w i t h a r g u m e n t s about w a r a n d peace, he was i r r i t a t e d b y special p l e a d i n g o n t h e concept o f a j u s t war. A t one p o i n t t h e Bishop of D u r h a m asserted t h a t ' i t is the q u i t e e v i d e n t d u t y of E n g l i s h C h r i s t i a n s t o s u p p o r t t h e G o v e r n m e n t i n w h a t e v e r efforts a n d sacrifices t h a t p o l i c y m a y involve'. E l i o t w a s exasperated b y t h e e u p h e m i s t i c c a n t o f 'efforts a n d sacrifices' w h e n t h e p l a i n m e a n i n g was 'war', a n d he enquired, barely restraining his impatience w i t h the w h o l e debate: T h e n w h i c h comes first: t h e 'quite e v i d e n t d u t y ' t o s u p p o r t t h e G o v e r n m e n t , or t h e d u t y , p r e v i o u s l y e n j o i n e d b y t h e Bishop, of every m a n t o ' f o l l o w h i s conscience at a l l hazards'? A n d i f the Bishop falls back, as h e does, o n t h e L a t i n t e x t of t h e X X X V I I t h A r t i c l e , are t h e r e n o t t w o i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of licet ('it is l a w f u l ' ) possible? S u r e l y i t is possible f o r t h e L a t i n or even t h e E n g l i s h t o mean, m e r e l y t h a t a t h i n g is permissible, w i t h o u t b e i n g (as t h e Bishop seems t o take i t ) obligatory. T h e f o r m e r m e a n i n g seems, a c c o r d i n g t o dictionaries, t o be m o r e p r i m i t i v e a n d radical. I h a v e f o u n d n o guidance i n t h e Bishop of D u r h a m ' s l e t t e r , (xv.664) I n h a p p i e r times E l i o t w o u l d h a v e e n j o y e d b r e a k i n g a lance against t h e Bishop a n d c o n s u l t i n g t h e respectable L a t i n d i c t i o n ­ aries f o r s a n c t i o n , b u t h i s h e a r t was n o t engaged i n t h e dispute, he c o u l d n o t r i d h i m s e l f of distaste f o r a n age i n w h i c h a sensible m a n was o b l i g e d t o waste h i s s p i r i t u p o n such matters. I t is clear f r o m t h e r e m a i n d e r of t h e C o m m e n t a r y ( J u l y 1936) t h a t E l i o t

E l i o t and the C r i t e r i o n

37

wanted to t u r n a shoddy story of crime and punishment i n t o a d r a m a o f s i n a n d e x p i a t i o n : a n o t h e r occasion f o r m o v i n g t o t h e h i g h e r perspective o f t h e o l o g y a n d t r u t h : I t is a l m o s t impossible t o say a n y t h i n g a b o u t t h e subject w i t h ­ out b e i n g m i s u n d e r s t o o d b y one o r b o t h parties o f simplifiers. (Yet A e s c h y l u s , a t least, u n d e r s t o o d t h a t i t m a y be a man's d u t y t o c o m m i t a crime, a n d t o a c c o m p l i s h his e x p i a t i o n f o r i t . ) O n e p a r e n t h e t i c a l sentence removes t h e debate t o a h i g h e r g r o u n d ; o r r a t h e r , t o a g r o u n d w h e r e i t c a n n o l o n g e r be carried o n as a debate b u t pursued, each m a n f o r h i s o w n s a l v a t i o n , i n terms o f penance a n d h u m i l i t y : T h e economic causes are t h e m o s t accessible a n d t h e m o s t amenable; even t h o u g h t h e y are o n l y abstractions f r o m t h e general s t u p i d i t y a n d sinfulness o f m a n k i n d . T h e p r o b l e m o f conscience t o w a r d s w a r is f a r t o o deeply r o o t e d i n t h e general p r o b l e m o f e v i l t o be settled b y letters t o The Times, (xv.665) I n such a perspective v e r y f e w topics o f t h e d a y are w o r t h dis­ cussing. E l i o t w a s a l r e a d y m o v i n g t o a s i t u a t i o n i n w h i c h i t w o u l d appear pointless t o c o n t i n u e i s s u i n g t h e Criterion. T h e m a g a z i n e ceased i n J a n u a r y 1939, t h e 71st n u m b e r . T h e l o c a l reason was t h a t t h e i m m i n e n c e o f t h e w a r made f u r t h e r p u b l i c a t i o n impossible. B u t t h a t reason is n o t c o n v i n c i n g ; Scrutiny m a n a g e d t o c o n t i n u e d u r i n g t h e war. T h e real reason is t h a t E l i o t was too depressed t o c o n t i n u e , h e h a d lost e n t h u s i a s m f o r t h e w o r k , h e f e l t h i m s e l f g o i n g stale. I n October 1938 h e said t h a t 'there seems n o h o p e i n c o n t e m p o r a r y p o l i t i c s a t a l l ' ( x v i i i . 6 o ) . I t was n o t m e r e l y t h a t t h e L a b o u r P a r t y a n d t h e Con­ servative P a r t y w e r e e q u a l l y f u t i l e , b u t t h a t t h e idea u p o n w h i c h the Criterion was sustained h a d o b v i o u s l y collapsed. 'The m i n d of Europe', ' w h i c h one h a d m i s t a k e n l y t h o u g h t m i g h t be re­ n e w e d a n d f o r t i f i e d ' , E l i o t w r o t e i n t h e final Criterion, 'dis­ appeared f r o m view'. T h e r e was a n o t h e r factor: For myself, a r i g h t p o l i t i c a l p h i l o s o p h y came m o r e a n d m o r e t o i m p l y a r i g h t t h e o l o g y — a n d r i g h t economics t o depend u p o n r i g h t ethics: l e a d i n g t o emphases w h i c h s o m e w h a t stretched the o r i g i n a l f r a m e w o r k of a l i t e r a r y r e v i e w , (xviii.272)

38

Eliot and the C r i t e r i o n

O t h e r w i s e p u t : i t w a s t i m e t o take t o t h e h i l l s a n d c o n t i n u e t h e fight b y a l t e r i n g i t s rules. I n 1946 E l i o t gave three broadcast talks w i t h G e r m a n listeners i n m i n d : t h e y are p r i n t e d i n a n A p p e n d i x t o Notes Towards the

Definition of Culture (1948). I n t h e first, speaking of t h e u n i t y of E u r o p e a n c u l t u r e ' , h e r e f e r r e d t o t h r e e elements w h i c h a n a r t i s t w o u l d find h i m s e l f a c k n o w l e d g i n g : ' t h e l o c a l t r a d i t i o n , t h e c o m m o n E u r o p e a n t r a d i t i o n , a n d t h e i n f l u e n c e o f t h e a r t o f one E u r o p e a n c o u n t r y u p o n a n o t h e r ' (p. 114). I n t h e second t a l k E l i o t r e v i e w e d t h e h i s t o r y o f t h e Criterion, s t a r t i n g w i t h i t s o r i ­ g i n a l aims, t o b r i n g t o g e t h e r 'the best i n n e w t h i n k i n g a n d n e w w r i t i n g i n i t s t i m e , f r o m a l l t h e countries o f Europe t h a t h a d a n y t h i n g t o c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e c o m m o n good', a n d 'to establish r e l a t i o n s w i t h those l i t e r a r y periodicals abroad, t h e aims o f w h i c h corresponded m o s t n e a r l y t o m y own', t h e l i s t i n c l u d i n g t h e

Nouvelle Revue Frangaise, t h e N e u e Rundschau, t h e Neue Schweizer Rundschau, t h e Revista de Occidente, a n d I I Convegno. E l i o t t h e n described t h e c o m m o n basis o f these magazines, i n c l u d i n g t h e Criterion, as 'a c o m m o n c o n c e r n f o r t h e h i g h e s t standards b o t h o f t h o u g h t a n d o f expression ... a c o m m o n c u r i ­ o s i t y a n d openness o f m i n d t o n e w ideas' (p. 117). 'For t h e h e a l t h of t h e c u l t u r e o f Europe', h e said, ' t w o c o n d i t i o n s are required: t h a t t h e c u l t u r e o f each c o u n t r y s h o u l d be u n i q u e , a n d t h a t t h e d i f f e r e n t cultures s h o u l d recognise t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p t o each other.' T h i s r e c o g n i t i o n is possible 'because there is a c o m m o n element i n E u r o p e a n c u l t u r e , a n i n t e r r e l a t e d h i s t o r y o f t h o u g h t a n d f e e l i n g a n d b e h a v i o u r , a n i n t e r c h a n g e o f arts a n d o f ideas' (p. 119). T h e f a i l u r e o f t h e Criterion E l i o t a t t r i b u t e d ' t o t h e g r a d u a l closing o f t h e m e n t a l f r o n t i e r s o f Europe', a n d its 'numb­ i n g effect u p o n creative a c t i v i t y w i t h i n e v e r y c o u n t r y ' (p. 116). T h e m o r a l o f t h e s t o r y is t h a t 'a u n i v e r s a l c o n c e r n w i t h p o l i t i c s does n o t u n i t e , i t divides: i t u n i t e s those p o l i t i c a l l y m i n d e d f o l k w h o agree, across t h e f r o n t i e r s o f nations, against some o t h e r i n t e r n a t i o n a l g r o u p w h o h o l d opposed views; b u t i t tends t o destroy t h e c u l t u r a l u n i t y o f E u r o p e ' (p. 117). I n t h e t h i r d t a l k E l i o t spoke o f t h e c o n s t i t u e n t s o f c u l t u r e , a n d emphasised 'the c o m m o n t r a d i t i o n o f C h r i s t i a n i t y w h i c h has made E u r o p e w h a t i t i s ' (p. 122). T h e h i s t o r y o f t h e Criterion falls w i t h desolate precision i n t o

E l i o t and the C r i t e r i o n

39

t w o periods. F r o m 1922 t o about 1930 t h e m a g a z i n e sustained itself u p o n t h e g e n e r a l sense of a n e w l i t e r a t u r e : The Waste Land,

Ulysses, The Magic Mountain,

t h e later volumes of A la

recherche du temps perdu, Charmes, Harmonium, and Pound's e a r l y Cantos. E v e n w h e n Eliot's m a g a z i n e w r o t e of o t h e r t h i n g s or r e m a i n e d silent u p o n some of these t h i n g s , its b u o y a n c y w a s a n i m a t e d b y a sense o f c o n t e m p o r a r y b e a r i n g , i t s presence at t h e centre. A f t e r seven or e i g h t years t h e e x h i l a r a t i o n of t a k i n g p a r t i n a n e w m o v e m e n t o f f e e l i n g w e a r i e d of itself, t h e m a g a z i n e began t o confuse itself b e t w e e n a desperate k n o w l e d g e of its pur­ poses a n d a n o t h e r k n o w l e d g e , o n l y m o r e desperate, t h a t i t w a s faced w i t h forces w h i c h i t c o u l d n o t assimilate t o t h e i d i o m of p o l i t i c a l p h i l o s o p h y . I n 1931 Ezra P o u n d t h o u g h t t h e Criterion h a d gone soft: 'Far be i t f r o m m e t o d e n y or a f f i r m or i n a n y w a y u n c r i t e r i o n i s t i c l y t o c o m m i t m y s e l f o n t h e subject o f M r . Fletcher's i g n o r a n c e or t h e reverse ...' (x.730). I n t h e f o l l o w i n g year F. R. Leavis r e f e r r e d t o 'the general regret t h a t t h e n a m e of t h e Criterion has become so d i s m a l a n i r o n y and t h a t t h e E d i t o r is so f a r f r o m a p p l y i n g t o h i s c o n t r i b u t o r s t h e standards w e h a v e

l e a r n t f r o m h i m ' ( A Selection from Scrutiny, 1968, i , p. 174), I t m a y be said t h a t E l i o t , lest t h e Criterion become a coteriemagazine, h o p e d t h a t a general f e l l o w s h i p of interests w o u l d m a k e i t unnecessary f o r h i m t o a p p l y t o h i s c o n t r i b u t o r s , i n a n y t h i n g l i k e D r Leavis's sense, t h e standards he defined a n d e x e m p l i f i e d i n The Sacred Wood. A s o m e w h a t b l u n t c o m m e n t m u s t also be i n c l u d e d , t h a t E l i o t h i m s e l f was n o t t r a i n e d o r o t h e r w i s e fitted t o act w i t h t h e f u l l resources o f h i s m i n d u p o n t h e level o f h i g h a n d general p r i n c i p l e s w h i c h he proposed t o occupy. H e was a t r a i n e d philosopher, h i g h l y c o m p e t e n t i n t h e finer p o i n t s of p h i l o s o p h i c a l idealism. H e w a s a poet of genius. B u t h e w a s n o t versed i n p o l i t i c a l p h i l o s o p h y , i f b y t h a t phrase w e m e a n t h e discipline o f t h o u g h t w e find i n M i c h a e l Oakeshott, H a n n a h A r e n d t , K a r l Popper. B y t e m p e r a m e n t , Eliot's interest was i n t h e d e f i n i t i o n of p r i n c i p l e s : w h e n w e refer t o a g r a n d perspective w e refer also t o t h e patience w h i c h its o c c u p a t i o n enjoins. B u t he f a i l e d t o estab­ l i s h i n t h e Criterion a g e n u i n e r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n p r i n c i p l e a n d p a r t i c u l a r , b e t w e e n o r t h o d o x y a n d t h e d a i l y madness of events. These general phrases add u p t o a s y m p t o m r a t h e r t h a n a cause. Even w h e n w e have t a k e n t h e force of Eliot's e n t e r p r i s e

40

E l i o t and the C r i t e r i o n

a n d registered i n some degree t h e severity of his purpose i n t h e Criterion, w e s t i l l feel t h a t t h e w h o l e e f f o r t was s o m e h o w a r t i ­ ficial, a f u n c t i o n of h i s w i l l at odds w i t h h i s t a l e n t . I t m a y be possible t o a c c o u n t f o r t h i s i m p r e s s i o n b y recourse t o a b i z a r r e sentence i n Eliot's Egoist essay o n H e n r y James, p u b l i s h e d i n J a n u a r y 1918. E l i o t has been p r a i s i n g James's t r e a t m e n t , i n The American, o f s u c h characters as N o e m i e N i o c h e a n d t h e Bellegardes, a n d h e goes o n t o say t h a t James's best A m e r i c a n characters 'have a fullness of existence a n d an e x t e r n a l ramifica­ t i o n of r e l a t i o n s h i p w h i c h a E u r o p e a n reader m i g h t n o t easily suspect'. H e t h e n c o m m e n t s o n t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n of T o m T r i s t r a m : I n a l l appearance T o m T r i s t r a m is a n even s l i g h t e r sketch. Europeans can recognise h i m ; t h e y h a v e seen h i m , k n o w n h i m , have even p e n e t r a t e d t h e O c c i d e n t a l C l u b ; b u t n o E u r o p e a n has t h e T o m T r i s t r a m element i n h i s c o m p o s i t i o n , has a n y t h i n g of T r i s t r a m f r o m h i s first v i s i t t o t h e L o u v r e t o h i s final r e m a r k t h a t Paris is t h e o n l y place w h e r e a w h i t e m a n can l i v e . I t is t h e final p e r f e c t i o n , t h e c o n s u m m a t i o n of a n A m e r i c a n t o become, n o t a n E n g l i s h m a n , b u t a E u r o p e a n — s o m e t h i n g w h i c h no b o r n European, n o person o f a n y E u r o p e a n n a t i o n a l i t y , can become. T o m is one of t h e failures, one of nature's m i s f o r t u n e s , i n t h i s process. Recall t h a t Tristram's f a i l u r e to become a E u r o p e a n reveals a m o n g i t s s y m p t o m s n o t o n l y t h e O c c i d e n t a l C l u b , pokersessions, h i s hideous s o c i a b i l i t y , and h i s a b i l i t y ' t o be degenerate w i t h o u t t h e iridescence o f decay', b u t also t h e characteristics w h i c h a l l o w James t o dispose o f h i m i n a sentence: 'and t h e n he was idle, spiritless, sensual, snobbish'. P r e d i c t a b l y , Tristram's reference t o A m e r i c a , n o w t h a t he is l i v i n g i n t h e A v e n u e d'lena, c o m p e l C h r i s t o p h e r N e w m a n t o express h i m s e l f as v e x e d 'to see t h e U n i t e d States treated as l i t t l e better t h a n a v u l g a r s m e l l i n his friend's n o s t r i l ' . Tom, as E l i o t says, is one of t h e f a i l u r e s i n t h e process b y w h i c h a n A m e r i c a n makes h i m s e l f a European. W e l l a n d good: b u t i f T r i s t r a m is a gross f a i l u r e , w h o is a success i n t h e same process? I s h a l l r i s k t h e v u l g a r i t y of s a y i n g t h a t E l i o t h i m s e l f p u r s u e d success i n t h e a r t of m a k i n g h i m s e l f a E u r o p e a n a n d t h a t w h i l e 'the T o m T r i s t r a m element' d i d n o t figure as a grossness i n h i s a m b i t i o n i t m a r k e d i t s presence b y f o r c i n g h i m to

E l i o t and the C r i t e r i o n

41

pursue h i s object w i t h t h e insistence of p r i n c i p l e . I p u t t h e case i n a m o n s t r o u s f o r m : a n A m e r i c a n poet sets o u t t o achieve t h e final p e r f e c t i o n , t h e c o n s u m m a t i o n o f a n A m e r i c a n , t o become a E u r o p e a n sage. B u t i f t h e f o r m u l a is monstrous, w e have o n l y t o take some o f t h e h a r m o u t o f i t , s o f t e n i t s harshness, t o m a k e i t decent. I t is e n o u g h t h e n t o say t h a t w h e n t h e e d i t o r o f the Criterion appeals f o r s a n c t i o n t o 'the m i n d o f Europe', t h e r e is a clear i f silent c l a i m t h a t h e has earned t h e r i g h t t o m a k e t h a t appeal, h e has t a k e n t h e m i n d o f Europe u n t o himself. I a m n o t r e f e r r i n g t o t h e simple c l a i m o f h a v i n g read Plato, V i r g i l , A u g u s t i n e , D a n t e , b u t t o t h e m o r e d a r i n g c l a i m of h a v i n g grasped t h e s p i r i t u a l e n t i t y o f w h i c h these w r i t e r s are c o n s t i t u ­ ents. For t h e occasion o f m y a r g u m e n t i t i s n o t necessary t o m a i n t a i n t h a t Eliot's silent c l a i m is outrageous: even i f t h e c l a i m w e r e precisely v a l i d i t w o u l d s t i l l a t t a c h t o itself a n air of f a i l u r e i n t h e degree t o w h i c h i t s v e r y success w o u l d be a t o u r de force. W e hear a good deal these days about t h e A m e r i c a n E l i o t a n d t h e A m e r i c a n element i n h i s poems: i t is t r u e a n d i m p o r t a n t . B u t t h e editor o f t h e Criterion presents h i m s e l f as t h e E u r o p e a n h e has made himself. W h a t shows, f o r t h e m o s t p a r t , is t h e s t r a i n . T h e r e is s o m e t h i n g strained, w i l l e d , a n d therefore g r i m i n t h e official concerns o f Eliot's p u b l i c l i f e , t h e p r o g r a m m e or r e g i m e n b y w h i c h he moves f r o m l i t e r a t u r e t o society t o r e l i g i o n t o C h r i s t e n ­ d o m t o w a r d t h e C i t y o f God. I l i s t these concerns n o t t o m o c k t h e m b u t t o say t h a t t h e m o v e m e n t f r o m one t o a n o t h e r is n o t a n u n f o l d i n g or a n a t u r a l d e v e l o p m e n t b u t a f u n c t i o n of f r i c t i o n a n d w i l l . T h e Criterion d o c u m e n t s n o t o n l y t h e g r a n d e u r o f Eliot's a m b i t i o n , b u t i t s e x o r b i t a n c e . B y comparison, t h e enter­ prises o f A r n o l d o r Leavis appear n a t u r a l , f a m i l i a r , c o n t i n u o u s w i t h t h e n a t i v e qualities o f t h e i r talent. Culture and Anarchy a n d Scrutiny d o n o t s t r i k e us as h a v i n g a n o b l i q u e or a b e r r a n t r e l a t i o n t o t h e n a t i v e t e m p e r o f t h e i r a u t h o r s , t h e y are a t one w i t h themselves. B u t i n t h e Criterion w e are c o n t i n u a l l y aware of severances a n d d i s j u n c t i o n s b e t w e e n one t o n e a n d another, insecurities o f f e e l i n g a n d t h e desperate l a b o u r o f t r a n s c e n d i n g them.

3 The

Poet as Critic

GRAHAM

H O U G H

One o f t h e tedious a u t o m a t i s m s o f l i t e r a r y h i s t o r y is t h e h o s t i l i t y , real o r alleged, b e t w e e n p o e t r y a n d c r i t i c i s m ; a n d e v e r y age needs a poet-critic s u f f i c i e n t l y p o w e r f u l i n b o t h spheres t o t r a n s c e n d such c i v i l strife. For o u r t i m e i t has been E l i o t w h o has filled t h i s role, a n d i f w e l o o k i n t o t h e e n a b l i n g c o n d i t i o n s o f h i s i n f l u e n c e w e s h a l l find t h a t o n e o f t h e m is t h e moderate n a t u r e o f h i s claims. I t has n o t a l w a y s seemed so. I n h i s early days i t became the f a s h i o n , l a r g e l y o w i n g t o t h e i n f l u e n c e of Ezra Pound, t o deprecate a l l c r i t i c i s m except t h a t o f t h e poets themselves; a n d E l i o t was n o t u n a f f e c t e d b y t h i s a t t i t u d e . A s late as 1961 w e find h i m w r i t i n g T h e nearest w e get t o p u r e l i t e r a r y c r i t i c i s m is t h e c r i t i c i s m o f artists w r i t i n g a b o u t t h e i r o w n art'. P o u n d h a d p u t i t m o r e b l u n t l y : 'Pay n o a t t e n t i o n t o t h e criticisms of m e n w h o have never themselves w r i t t e n a n o t a b l e work'. T h i s sounds exclusive a n d extreme, a n d i t is o p e n t o t h e l o g i c a l o b j e c t i o n t h a t w e c a n n o t k n o w w h o t h e poets are o r w h a t w o r k s are n o t a b l e w i t h o u t p r i o r c r i t i c a l a c t i v i t y . A t w o r s t i t consigns p o e t r y t o a closed g r o u p w h o l i v e b y t a k i n g i n each other's w a s h i n g . T h e r e is o f course a r i v a l d o c t r i n e , best expressed b y N o r t h r o p Frye. For F r y e c r i t i c i s m is t h e s y s t e m a t i c a n a t o m i s i n g of l i t e r a r y a r t , f r o m w h i c h t h e poet as such is e x c l u d e d b y h i s n a t u r e a n d h i s f u n c t i o n . I t is a n a x i o m o f c r i t i c i s m t h a t t h e poet 'cannot t a l k a b o u t w h a t he knows'. T h e arts, i n c l u d i n g even t h e a r t of words, c a n n o t e x p l a i n themselves. T h e y are b e a u t i f u l b u t d u m b , a n d t h e c r i t i c w h o is also a poet is s i m p l y a n o t h e r c r i t i c , possessing n o special a u t h o r i t y even i n r e l a t i o n t o his o w n w o r k . B u t Eliot's p o s i t i o n is n o t r e a l l y exclusive a n d extreme. I f w e s u r v e y h i s r e m a r k s o n t h i s m a t t e r , scattered over f o r t y years, w e find t h a t o n t h e w h o l e t h e y profess n o m o r e t h a n t o be a 1

The Poet as Critic

43

d e f i n i t i o n o f h i s o w n tastes, a n d t h e y i n c o r p o r a t e some q u i t e specific l i m i t a t i o n s o f t h e poet-critic's range: I am, I a d m i t , m u c h m o r e i n t e r e s t e d i n w h a t o t h e r poets h a v e w r i t t e n a b o u t p o e t r y t h a n i n w h a t critics w h o are n o t poets h a v e said a b o u t i t . (1961) 2

I believe t h a t t h e c r i t i c a l w r i t i n g s o f poets, o f w h i c h i n t h e past t h e r e h a v e been some v e r y d i s t i n g u i s h e d examples, o w e a great deal of t h e i r i n t e r e s t to t h e f a c t t h a t t h e poet, at t h e back of h i s m i n d , i f n o t as h i s ostensible purpose, is a l w a y s t r y i n g to defend t h e k i n d o f p o e t r y h e is w r i t i n g , o r t o f o r m u l a t e t h e k i n d t h a t he w a n t s t o w r i t e . . . H e is n o t so m u c h a judge as an advocate ... W h a t h e w r i t e s a b o u t p o e t r y , i n s h o r t , m u s t be assessed i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e p o e t r y h e w r i t e s . (1942) 3

W e c a n see q u i t e clearly, i n a n u m b e r of p r o n o u n c e m e n t s belong­ i n g t o his m i d d l e years, t h a t i t is w i t h i n these l i m i t s t h a t E l i o t w i s h e d h i s o w n c r i t i c i s m t o be remembered. I t h i n k i t w i l l be agreed t h a t h i s m o s t v i t a l c r i t i c a l w o r k is o f t h i s k i n d — b u t i t is n o t a l l of t h i s k i n d . T h e r e is a f a i r b o d y o f f o r m a l a n d ceremonial lectures, retrospects a n d pieces d occasion, t h a t w e r e i n s t i g a t e d i n q u i t e d i f f e r e n t ways. T h e retrospects especially give a n u n e x p e c t e d v i e w o f Eliot's l i t e r a r y operations. I t is as i f h e w e r e l o o k i n g back f r o m t h e f a r t h e r shore o n h i s m o s t active years, a n d h a d assumed a d i f f e r e n t persona f o r t h e purpose. Sometimes h e seems a l m o s t t o b e w r i t i n g h i s o w n o b i t u a r y . T h e r e is h a r d l y a characteristic u t t e r a n c e o f t h e t w e n t i e s a n d t h i r t i e s t h a t has n o t later been qualified, deprecated, r e n o u n c e d , or reduced t o r e l a t i v e u n m e a n i n g b y d i l u t i n g i t i n a w i d e r c o n t e x t . C r i t i c s of o t h e r persuasions h a v e been t e m p t e d t o i r r i t a t e d remon­ strance against some of Eliot's e a r l y dogmatisms; b u t i n t h e e n d i t has a l w a y s t u r n e d o u t t h a t t h e r e m o n s t r a n c e was h a r d l y w o r t h m a k i n g , f o r h e has done i t himself. A n e x p l o r a t o r y , c h a l l e n g i n g , a n d sometimes i n c a u t i o u s l i t e r a r y c o n d o t t i e r e has been a n n o t a t e d b y a well-balanced m a n o f letters, decorous sometimes t o t h e p o i n t o f t e d i u m . B u t t h e y h a p p e n t o be t h e same man. Hence, o f course, t h e c o m m o n d i c h o t o m y b e t w e e n t h e proto-Eliot, com­ m a n d e r o f t h e v a n g u a r d , a n d t h e deutero-Eliot, a lost leader. B u t t h i s w i l l n o t r e a l l y do. A s a m a t t e r o f s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d chronf

Eliot and the C r i t e r i o n

44

o l o g y a n d l i t e r a r y h i s t o r y , t h e p e n e t r a t i n g 'creative' c r i t i c sur­ vives a t least i n t o t h e e a r l y fifties, i n 'Poetry a n d D r a m a ' a n d 'The T h r e e V o i c e s o f Poetry', f o r instance; a n d t h e a n o d y n e academic r e v i s i o n i s t appears as e a r l y as 1932, i n p a r t s of The Use of Poetry. T h e l a t t e r was i m p l i c i t i n t h e f o r m e r f r o m t h e start, a n d t h e t w o c a n be seen deadlocked i n m u t e d combat, i n t h e paradoxes a b o u t t r a d i t i o n o f h i s earliest a n d m o s t celebrated essay. N o r w e r e these r i v a l s ever inaccessible t o each other. Each was w e l l a w a r e o f t h e other's existence; sometimes t h e y f o u n d i t c o n v e n i e n t t o go b y w i t h o u t r e c o g n i t i o n , b u t a t i p o f the h a t i n passing, o r even a d i g i n the ribs, o c c u r r e d q u i t e o f t e n e n o u g h t o keep u p c o m m u n i c a t i o n . A n d t o see E l i o t as a c r i t i c a t all j u s t l y is t o see t h e m b o t h , i n t h e i r uneasy u n i o n . T h e spectacle is a f a s c i n a t i n g one, a n d i t is o f p e r m a n e n t i m p o r t a n c e t o t h e r e m a i n i n g f e w w h o care a b o u t t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f o u r l i t e r a r y consciousness. E l i o t r a n k s w i t h D r y d e n , Johnson, C o l e r i d g e a n d A r n o l d as directors o f t h a t w a y w a r d progress. A n d t h o u g h w e are n o w less c e r t a i n t h a n h e once was t h a t a n y t h i n g t o be p r o p e r l y called 'the m i n d o f Europe' s t i l l exists, i f i t does i t is s o m e t h i n g t h a t w o u l d be i n c o m p l e t e w i t h o u t h i s c o n t r i b u ­ tion. H i s i n f l u e n c e was p r o b a b l y a t i t s greatest b e t w e e n 1930 a n d 1950, a n d i t w a s t h e i n f l u e n c e o f h i s p o e t r y a n d c r i t i c i s m com­ bined. I t is o f t e n t h o u g h t t h a t t h e y developed c o n c u r r e n t l y , as A u s t i n W a r r e n suggests i n h i s fine essay o n t h e c o n t i n u i t y o f Eliot's c r i t i c i s m . T h a t is encouraged b y dates of p u b l i c a t i o n ; b u t i n f a c t t h e p o e t r y came first, as E l i o t h i m s e l f a l w a y s affirmed. 'Prufrock', ' P o r t r a i t o f a L a d y ' a n d 'La F i g l i a che Piange' w e r e w r i t t e n b e t w e e n 1910 a n d 1912; ' T r a d i t i o n a n d t h e I n d i v i d u a l T a l e n t ' n o t t i l l 1919. T h e essays o n Jacobean d r a m a t i s t s are m o s t l y subsequent t o t h e p o e t r y t h a t h a d been modelled o n t h e i r example. 'Poetry a n d D r a m a ' (1951) came after t h e best p l a y s h a d been w r i t t e n . T h i s is t h e general t r u t h , b u t a c t u a l l y t h e s i t u a t i o n is m o r e c o m p l i c a t e d a n d i t needs q u a l i f i c a t i o n . E l i o t was a self-conscious poet; h e f o r m e d h i s practice o n s t u d y a n d p r e v i o u s models. T h e s t u d y was i n t h e interests o f t h e p o e t r y , and i t made t h e p o e t r y possible; after t h a t i t gave rise t o a c r i t i c a l e f f o r t of a p a r t l y d i f f e r e n t a n d m o r e generalised k i n d . A n d once, i n t h e e a r l y 'Dialogue o n D r a m a t i c P o e t r y ' (1928), t h e c r i t i c i s m 4

The Poet as Critic

45

shows t h e e m b r y o n i c f o r m a t i o n of a p r o j e c t n o t t o be developed t i l l m a n y years later. W e s h o u l d r e m i n d ourselves too of Eliot's m a t e r i a l c i r c u m ­ stances. H e w r o t e t h e c r i t i c i s m t o m a k e m o n e y , a n d t h e need was pressing; b u t l i k e m o s t s u b s t a n t i a l w r i t e r s he h a d t h e s t r e n g t h t o organise a d i f f i c u l t l i f e i n t h e service of a c o n t i n u i n g purpose. W h a t h e w r o t e f r o m necessity and u n d e r pressure was w o r k e d i n t o h i s Lebensplan w i t h considerable s k i l l . H e needed t h e guineas

f r o m t h e Times Literary Supplement, b u t h i s p o e t r y

needed

apologia and e x p l a n a t i o n ; a c l i m a t e of t h o u g h t and f e e l i n g h a d to be created i n w h i c h i t c o u l d be read w i t h u n d e r s t a n d i n g ; and t h e mere tactics of a l i t e r a r y career became i n s e n s i b l y p a r t of a g r a n d strategy. E v e n so, h i s c r i t i c i s m was subject t o cross-winds and inconsistencies, d i s c o n c e r t i n g t o those w h o t h i n k of c r i t i c i s m as p h i l o s o p h i c a l a r g u m e n t — l i k e others I have o f t e n been discon­ c e r t e d — b u t w e can see n o w h o w m u c h of its v i t a l i t y depends o n these accidents. Conscious d e v e l o p m e n t of a style, s t u d y of care­ f u l l y chosen m o d e l s — t h e s e are o n l y one side o f Eliot's c r i t i c i s m . A s w e c o u l d at a n y t i m e h a v e seen, b u t as he h i m s e l f o n l y made clear q u i t e late ('The T h r e e V o i c e s of Poetry', 1953) h i s p o e t r y was a l w a y s r a d i c a l l y d e p e n d e n t o n unconscious a n d uncon­ t r o l l a b l e processes—'he does n o t k n o w w h a t h e has t o say u n t i l he has said i t ' — a n d these p l a y t h e i r p a r t i n h i s c r i t i c i s m too. T h e n b e y o n d a l l t h i s and t o some e x t e n t outside i t , there is t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of his r e l i g i o u s a n d social ideas. T h e y exercise a c o n t i n u e d b u t i n t e r m i t t e n t pressure and, since he never made u p his m i n d q u i t e c l e a r l y a b o u t h o w m u c h a n d w h a t k i n d o f pressure t h e y o u g h t t o exercise, t h e y are apt t o i r r u p t c a p r i c i o u s l y and n o t a l w a y s h a p p i l y i n t o l i t e r a r y discussion.

I t w o u l d n o t be v e r y p r o f i t a b l e t o a t t a c h p a r t i c u l a r c r i t i c a l essays to p a r t i c u l a r poems, especially as t h e obscure processes of gesta­ t i o n are n o t reflected i n ascertainable dates; b u t i n q u i r y can be focussed b y some r o u g h groupings. 'Reflections o n Vers Libre* and 'Ezra Pound: h i s M e t r i c and P o e t r y ' are c o n t e m p o r a r y w i t h t h e p u b l i c a t i o n o f 'Prufrock', a n d u n t i l r e c e n t l y w e r e l i t t l e k n o w n . W h i l e readers o f p o e t r y w e r e d i g e s t i n g 'Prufrock', 5

46

The Poet as Critic

' G e r o n t i o n ' a n d T h e Waste Land t h e y w e r e also d i g e s t i n g T h e

Sacred Wood, Homage to John Dry den and the earlier essays o n E l i z a b e t h a n a n d Jacobean d r a m a t i s t s . A n e w phase began w i t h For Lancelot A n d r e w s i n 1928 a n d A s h - W e d n e s d a y t w o years later; a n d a t t h a t stage students o f E l i o t h a d t o r e a d j u s t t h e i r ideas. B u t b r o a d l y speaking t h e Selected Essays o f 1932, w h i c h i n c l u d e m o s t o f t h e c o n t e n t o f t h e earlier collections, f o r m a comprehensible w h o l e , a n d t h e y are t h e c r i t i c a l a c c o m p a n i m e n t t o t h e p o e t r y before F o u r Quartets. I t is l a r g e l y b y t h e m t h a t Eliot's p o s i t i o n as a c r i t i c w a s established. Q u i t e e a r l y t h e y came to c o n s t i t u t e a canon, a n d w h e n Eliot's c r i t i c i s m is discussed i t is even n o w t h i s c o l l e c t i o n t h a t is m a i n l y t h o u g h t of, i n spite o f revisions a n d d i s t i n g u i s h e d a d d i t i o n s l a t e r on. L i k e o t h e r canons t h i s one has been credited w i t h a consistency a n d a u t h o r i t y t h a t t h e w r i t i n g s w h i c h compose i t c o u l d never have o r i g i n a l l y claimed; a n d l i k e o t h e r canons, i t is a d i s t i l l a t i o n f r o m m u c h m o r e extensive a n d miscellaneous m a t e r i a l . T h e Selected Essays are s i m p l y a selection f r o m a large b o d y o f p e r i o d i c a l c r i t i c i s m w r i t t e n b y E l i o t over a p e r i o d o f fifteen years. T h e y are m o s t l y b r i e f a n d m o s t l y book-reviews. So w h a t has been received as a considered l i t e r a r y p r o g r a m m e w a s i n o r i g i n some­ t h i n g f a r m o r e f o r t u i t o u s . Since i n o u r t i m e n o o n e can m a k e a l i v i n g b y p o e t r y t h e poet has several possibilities before h i m . H e can adopt some e n t i r e l y i r r e l e v a n t p r o f e s s i o n — m a r k e t - g a r d e n e r or c i v i l servant. H e c a n become a n academic, h e c a n become a l a y a b o u t , o r h e c a n settle f o r b e i n g a m a n o f letters. E l i o t chose t h e first a n d t h e last of these courses. B u t even d u r i n g h i s e i g h t years i n Lloyd's B a n k t h e best p a r t o f h i s energy w a s g o i n g i n t o l i t e r a r y w o r k o f v a r i o u s k i n d s . For t h e rest, h i s c i v i l status w a s t h a t o f l i t e r a r y j o u r n a l i s t , p u b l i s h e r a n d editor o f a r e v i e w ; a n d t h a t is t h e m i l i e u f r o m w h i c h h i s c r i t i c i s m sprang. ' L i t e r a r y c r i t i c ' n o w a d a y s tends t o i n d i c a t e a n academic addressing a pre­ selected audience o f teachers a n d students: E l i o t w a s a c r i t i c i n t h e o l d sense, l i k e Johnson or H a z l i t t . H i s c r i t i c i s m h a d t o m a k e i t s w a y i n t h e o r d i n a r y l i t e r a r y traffic o f t h e t i m e . T h i s w a s s u r e l y o f great advantage t o h i m . A n a l i e n a n d a l o n e l y man, h e needed t o b e l o n g t o a l i t e r a r y c o m m u n i t y . A m a n w i t h s o m e t h i n g less t h a n a voracious a p p e t i t e f o r l i f e , h e needed t h e s t i m u l u s o f v i c a r i o u s experience. T h e poet w r i t e s a b o u t w h a t

The Poet as Critic

47

has h a p p e n e d t o h i m , b u t h e also w r i t e s a b o u t w h a t has n o t h a p p e n e d to h i m , w h a t h e hopes or fears m i g h t happen, w h a t is h a p p e n i n g t o others a r o u n d h i m . T h e r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n p o e t r y a n d t h e experience of l i f e i n a r i c h l y e n d o w e d poetic n a t u r e is so v a r i o u s a n d many-sided t h a t i t c a n even accommodate Eliot's d o c t r i n e o f i m p e r s o n a l i t y w i t h o u t too m u c h s t r a i n . T h e same s h i f t i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s are l i k e l y t o be f o u n d i n a poet's c r i t i c i s m also; a n d l i k e Spinoza, t h e t y p e w r i t e r a n d t h e s m e l l of cooking, these diversities m a y p o s i t i v e l y c o n t r i b u t e t o h i s p o e t r y . H e m a y w r i t e p r o p a g a n d a f o r h i s o w n w o r k a n d t h a t of h i s friends; h e m a y w r i t e against tendencies t h a t he t h i n k s s t u l t i f y i n g or deaden­ i n g ; b u t h e m a y also e x a l t ideals t h a t h e has conspicuously f a i l e d to a t t a i n , o r praise o u t of h i s t o r i c a l nostalgia a k i n d o f p o e t r y t h a t c o u l d n o t be w r i t t e n i n his age at all. I t m a y be necessary f o r h i m to do a l l these t h i n g s ; a n d t h e sheer miscellaneous q u a l i t y of p e r i o d i c a l c r i t i c i s m gives h i m t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o d o so. T o read Eliot's u n c o l l e c t e d c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o t h e Egoist and t h e A t h e n a e u m b e t w e e n 1917 a n d 1920 i s t o see h i m i n process o f d e f i n i n g himself, n o t according t o a p r e d e t e r m i n e d p r o g r a m m e , b u t as t h e r e s u l t o f chance encounters, appreciations a n d r e v u l s i o n s t h a t w e r e unforeseeable a n d f a r m o r e f e r t i l i s i n g t h a n t h e n a r r o w l y chosen channels o f u n i v e r s i t y c r i t i c i s m c o u l d ever have been. H e r e v i e w e d c u r r e n t p o e t r y , novels, p h i l o s o p h y i n t h e austerely t e c h n i c a l sense, w o r k s of c r i t i c i s m a n d scholarship. Some of these w e r e of n o p e r m a n e n t interest; b u t sometimes t h e offered t o p i c a n d t h e progress o f h i s o w n t h o u g h t r a n together, a n d t h e com­ missioned essay congealed i n t o t h e statement o f a l a s t i n g con­ v i c t i o n . These are t h e pieces r e p r i n t e d i n Selected Essays; b u t i t w o u l d be a m i s t a k e t o f o r g e t t h e b a c k g r o u n d f r o m w h i c h t h e y sprang. A t a l l times, even i n h i s bread-and-butter w r i t i n g , E l i o t is a n a d m i r a b l e craftsman. T h e Egoist m u s t be one of t h e liveliest l i t t l e reviews ever published; t h e Athenaeum w a s a finely serious a n d responsible j o u r n a l ; a n d i n t h i s good c o m p a n y Eliot's c o n t r i b u ­ tions still stand out f o r their thoughtfulness, their concentration, a n d a q u a l i t y I c a n o n l y describe as i n t e l l e c t u a l c h a r m . Because t h e y are book-reviews t h e y m u s t be c o m p a r a t i v e l y short: E l i o t contrives a w a y o f t r e a t i n g s u b s t a n t i a l questions i n l i t t l e space. Because t h e y are p e r i o d i c a l essays i t is r e q u i r e d t h a t t h e y m a y

48

The Poet as Critic

be read w i t h pleasure: E l i o t evolves a k i n d o f grave w i t t h a t is e x t r a o r d i n a r i l y a t t r a c t i v e . A s h o r t sentence takes t w o un­ expected t w i s t s t h a t b o t h define a s i t u a t i o n w i t h e x a c t i t u d e and keep t h e reader awake: T e n n y s o n h a d a b r a i n (a large d u l l b r a i n l i k e a f a r m h o u s e clock) w h i c h saved h i m f r o m t r i v i a l i t y / A chance c o m p a r i s o n b e t w e e n A m e r i c a a n d Russia, l o n g before t h i s c o l l o c a t i o n w a s a commonplace, reveals vistas b e y o n d t h e m e r e l y geographical: 'There are advantages indeed i n c o m i n g f r o m a l a r g e flat c o u n t r y w h i c h no one w a n t s t o v i s i t : advantages w h i c h b o t h T u r g e n e v a n d James e n j o y e d / A t times a k i n d o f ' s o l e m n i m p e r t i n e n c e is used t o m a k e a serious p o i n t : 'Because w e h a v e never l e a r n e d t o c r i t i c i z e Keats, Shelley a n d W o r d s ­ w o r t h (poets of assured t h o u g h modest m e r i t ) , Keats, Shelley a n d W o r d s w o r t h p u n i s h us f r o m t h e i r graves w i t h t h e a n n u a l scourge of t h e Georgian A n t h o l o g y / I t is n o t d i f f i c u l t t o see h o w the exercise of q u a l i t i e s such as these p l a y e d t h e i r p a r t i n t h e f o r m a t i o n of Eliot's l i t e r a r y a t t i t u d e ; a n d i n this t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of h i s p o e t r y m u s t be i n c l u d e d . I t was p a r t l y good l u c k , p a r t l y good m a n a g e m e n t t h a t enabled h i m t o weave a coherent l i t e r a r y o u t l o o k o u t of h i s miscellaneous w r i t i n g . I t was n o t a l l l u c k : he h a d d i s c e r n i n g a n d s y m p a t h e t i c editors w h o sent h i m t h e books he w a n t e d . B u t sheer g o o d l u c k made some s t r i k i n g c o n t r i b u t i o n s . T h e t h r e e essays r e p r i n t e d as Homage to John Dry den n o w l o o k l i k e a considered m a n i f e s t o f o r t h e p o e t r y of w i t . T h e y w e r e i n f a c t t h r e e separate c o n t r i b u ­ t i o n s t o t h e TLS, a n d t h e i r existence depended e n t i r e l y o n t h e a r r i v a l w i t h i n e i g h t m o n t h s i n 1921 o f Grierson's Metaphysical

Lyrics and Poems of the Seventeenth Century, M a r k v a n Doren's John Dryden, a n d t h e M a r v e l l t e r c e n t e n a r y . T h r e e u n r e l a t e d e x t e r n a l events served t o focus and c o n c e n t r a t e a t r a i n of t h o u g h t t h a t was of c e n t r a l i m p o r t a n c e t o Eliot. T h e essays o n E l i z a b e t h a n a n d Jacobean d r a m a t i s t s e x t e n d f r o m 1919 t o 1934; seven o u t of the eleven w e r e c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o t h e TLS; m o s t w e r e reviews of n e w editions or c r i t i c a l studies. B u t here w e have a c o n t i n u i n g a n d deliberate p o l i c y . E l i o t established h i m s e l f as s o m e t h i n g of a c r i t i c a l a u t h o r i t y i n t h i s field, and Bruce R i c h m o n d , t h e e d i t o r t o w h o m he has m o r e t h a n once p a i d t r i b u t e , a l l o w e d h i m t o take charge of i t . O n l y one of t h e Egoist a n d Athenaeum articles is a spontaneous c r i t i c a l discussion, w i t h o u t t h e s t i m u l u s of review-

The Poet as Critic

49

i n g . I t is ' T r a d i t i o n and the I n d i v i d u a l Talent'; and i t has always stood somewhat apart f r o m the other essays. The question t h a t n a t u r a l l y arises is h o w f a r this miscellaneous and e x t e r n a l l y m o t i v a t e d c r i t i c a l a c t i v i t y is a separate t h i n g , and h o w closely i t is related to the poetry. 3 I t is h a r d to recall n o w the depths of u n s o p h i s t i c a t i o n f r o m w h i c h the aspiring c o m m o n reader of the thirties attempted to rise

to t h e challenge of The Sacred Wood and the Selected Essays. Few people realised t h a t t h e y were r e p r i n t e d book-reviews. The heterogeneous content was overlaid b y a magisterial manner; and the t w o combined to suggest the existence of an unsuspected pantheon, i n h a b i t e d b y the veiled figures of I r v i n g Babbit, R e m y de G o u r m o n t , M a r i e L l o y d and Lancelot Andrewes, whose decrees seemed s t r o n g l y a u t h o r i t a r i a n b u t impossible to b r i n g together u n d e r any k n o w n banner. W h a t is more, t h e y seemed t o have no discernible r e l a t i o n t o 'Prufrock', 'Gerontion', or The Waste Land. A s t i m e w e n t on some features of this obscure t e r r a i n became clearer. N o n e of Eliot's poems, i t is true, looked m u c h l i k e D o n n e or M a r v e l l : b u t the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of a l i n e of w i t i n English p o e t r y p l a i n l y had s o m e t h i n g to do w i t h the q u a t r a i n poems of the 1920 volume. The related c o n t e n t i o n t h a t satire could be p o e t r y — a n u n f a m i l i a r and u n w e l c o m e idea t o m a n y at t h a t t i m e — w a s seen i n t h e end t o stake o u t a c l a i m f o r large areas of Eliot's o w n verse. The r e h a b i l i t a t i o n of i n t e l l e c t u a l p l a y and the antiseptic value of negative emotions i n p o e t r y — t h e s e were i m p l i c i t l y anti-Romantic positions; and the e x p l i c i t l y a n t i Romantic, anti-nineteenth-century bias of m a n y passages was consistent w i t h i t . Consistent too w i t h t h e u r b a n i m a g e r y of the poems, the absence of s y m p a t h y between man and his environ­ ment, the glimpses of so m a n y defeated and u n h e r o i c lives. These revulsions f r o m the R o m a n t i c heritage were distasteful to the o r d i n a r y reader, f o r w h o m the archetypes of p o e t r y were the 'Ode to a N i g h t i n g a l e ' and 'Adonais'; distasteful and d i s t u r b i n g — b u t after a short i n t e r v a l of numbness most realised t h a t t h e y had been ready f o r the shock. A l m o s t i m p e r c e p t i b l y the R o m a n t i c heritage had been dissipating itself f o r a generation or more. The last of the old actors were l e a v i n g the stage, t h e i r gestures

The Poet as Critic

50

hopelessly o u t m o d e d . T h e 'impersonal' t h e o r y o f p o e t r y p o i n t e d i n t h e same d i r e c t i o n . Since R o m a n t i c a r t h a d been t h e apotheosis of t h e i n d i v i d u a l s e n s i b i l i t y t h e n e w a r t m u s t p l a y i t d o w n , b y m a k i n g a sharp c u t b e t w e e n t h e a r t i s t i c e m o t i o n a n d t h e e m o t i o n s of l i f e , m u s t place t h e w e i g h t o n a c r a f t s m a n s h i p d i v o r c e d f r o m s u b j e c t i v i t y a n d confession, o n t h e d i s i n f e c t a n t i r o n y o f ' P o r t r a i t o f a L a d y ' a n d 'Sweeney Erect'. So m u c h soon became obvious; a n d g r a d u a l l y i t was seen t h a t E l i o t h a d p e r f o r m e d a r e m a r k a b l e feat. H e h a d w r i t t e n a b o d y o f c r i t i c i s m t h a t d i d i n t e l l i g e n t a n d a s t r i n g e n t justice t o i t s ostensible objects, a n d a t t h e same t i m e g i v e n t h i s m i s c e l l a n y a c e n t r a l i s i n g , u n i f y i n g reference t o h i s o w n p o e t i c development. W e w e r e r e a d i n g a b o u t S w i n b u r n e or D o n n e o r Jonson because w e s o u g h t e n l i g h t e n m e n t a b o u t S w i n b u r n e or D o n n e o r Jonson. A n d w e f o u n d i t . Regardless o f his o p i n i o n s , Eliot's sheer c r i t i c a l i n t e l l i g e n c e , t h e o r i g i n a l i t y a n d v i g o u r of his j u d g e m e n t s , gave us s o m e t h i n g t h a t was s i m p l y n o t to be f o u n d e i t h e r i n t h e scholarship o r t h e amiable belles-lettres t h a t t h e n d i v i d e d t h e field b e t w e e n t h e m . A n d a t t h e same t i m e w e w e r e b e i n g i n s e n s i b l y n u d g e d a n d sidled t o w a r d s a n o v e l c o n c e p t i o n of p o e t r y — o f w h i c h Eliot's o w n p o e t r y t u r n e d o u t t o be t h e exemplar: .. . T h e t w e n t i e t h c e n t u r y is s t i l l t h e n i n e t e e n t h , a l t h o u g h i t m a y i n t i m e acquire i t s o w n character. T h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y had, l i k e every other, l i m i t e d tastes a n d p e c u l i a r fashions; and, l i k e every other, i t was u n a w a r e o f i t s o w n l i m i t a t i o n s . 6

[ T h e v i r t u e o f w i t ] is absent f r o m t h e w o r k o f W o r d s w o r t h , Shelley, a n d Keats, o n w h o s e p o e t r y n i n e t e e n t h - c e n t u r y c r i t i ­ cism has u n c o n s c i o u s l y been based ... t h i s modest a n d c e r t a i n l y i m p e r s o n a l v i r t u e — w h e t h e r w e call i t w i t or reason, or even u r b a n i t y ... is s o m e t h i n g precious a n d needed a n d a p p a r e n t l y e x t i n c t ; i t is w h a t s h o u l d preserve t h e r e p u t a t i o n o f M a r v e l l . Cetait une belle dme comme on ne

fait plus a LondresJ B u t perhaps, w h e n t h e t w e n t i e t h c e n t u r y has a c q u i r e d i t s o w n character a n d e m a n c i p a t e d i t s e l f f r o m t h e standards o f W o r d s w o r t h , Shelley a n d Keats, t h i s modest a n d i m p e r s o n a l

The Poet as Critic

5i

v i r t u e w i l l p r o v e n o t t o be e n t i r e l y e x t i n c t , a n d come i n t o i t s o w n ? I s i t n o t possible t h a t even n o w a n o t h e r belle dme, i t s s e n s i b i l i t y re-associated, n o t q u i t e l i k e t h a t o f M a r v e l l b u t en­ d o w e d w i t h some of t h e same qualities, is even n o w f o r m i n g itself i n L o n d o n ? I f s u c h a b e i n g exists, m u s t i t n o t be t h e a u t h o r o f 'Prufrock', ' P o r t r a i t o f a L a d y ' a n d 'La F i g l i a che Piange'? T h e suggestions are so discreet as t o be v i r t u a l l y i m p e r c e p t i b l e ; b u t like subliminal advertising they did their work. There is a slight tincture of mystification i n a l l t h i s — a n element n o t i n f r e q u e n t i n Eliot's prose, a n d a g o o d deal m o r e e v i d e n t i n t h e u n c o l l e c t e d pieces t h a n i n those h e has preserved. I t is h a r d t o believe t h a t h e d i d n o t take a s l y pleasure i n w r i t i n g serious a n d objective c r i t i c i s m o n a d i v e r s i t y o f subjects, w h i l e s i m u l t a n e o u s l y p r o p a g a t i n g t h e tendencies b y w h i c h h e expected his o w n p o e t r y t o l i v e . B u t t h i s u n d e r c u r r e n t of self-reference l e d h i m i n t o some strange inconsistencies, a n d perhaps t o a tempor­ a r i l y m i s t a k e n estimate o f t h e n a t u r e o f h i s o w n talents. W i t h i n a f e w pages o f t h e Selected Essays w e find t h e M e t a p h y s i c a l poets c o m m e n d e d f o r d i a m e t r i c a l l y opposite qualities: I t is t o be observed t h a t t h e language of these poets is as a r u l e s i m p l e a n d p u r e ; . . . T h e sXructure o f t h e sentences, o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , is sometimes f a r f r o m s i m p l e ... (p. 285) ... a m e t h o d c u r i o u s l y s i m i l a r t o t h a t o f t h e ' m e t a p h y s i c a l poets', s i m i l a r also i n i t s use o f obscure w o r d s a n d o f s i m p l e p h r a s i n g , (p. 289) I t looks at first as t h o u g h h e is fascinated b y M e t a p h y s i c a l p o e t r y b u t does n o t q u i t e k n o w w h y . I t t u r n s o u t h o w e v e r t h a t i n t h e second o f these t w o places h e is h a r d l y t h i n k i n g o f t h e Metaphysicals at a l l ; h e is t h i n k i n g of Laforgue. I m m e d i a t e l y after i t he quotes i n i l l u s t r a t i o n a l o n g p a s s a g e — ' G e r a n i u m s diaphanes, g u e r r o y e u r s sortileges' e t c . — w i t h o u t i n d i c a t i o n o f a u t h o r s h i p . I t is a b e w i l d e r i n g l y allusive catalogue o f some o f t h e grislier aspects o f bourgeois marriage, q u i t e o u t o f k e y w i t h t h e general t o n e o f t h e discussion i n h a n d , a n d u t t e r l y u n l i k e a n y w r i t i n g b y a n y M e t a p h y s i c a l poet. I t comes f r o m Laforgue's Derniers Vers. H e r e t h e u n d e r g r o u n d c o n c e r n w i t h h i s o w n p o e t r y has p r e v a i l e d over t h e c r i t i c i s m . H e has been i n f l u e n c e d b y t h e M e t a p h y s i c a l s ,

52

The Poet as Critic

he has been i n f l u e n c e d b y Laforgue, so he finds t h e m ' c u r i o u s l y similar'. B u t t h e r e is n o s i m i l a r i t y a t a l l . T h e o n l y l i n k is t h r o u g h his o w n w o r k , w h i c h is never m e n t i o n e d . L a f o r g u e a n d C o r b i e r e are r e f e r r e d t o i n t h e n e x t p a r a g r a p h as 'nearer t o t h e school o f D o n n e t h a n a n y m o d e r n E n g l i s h poet'. T h i s need n o t be v e r y near; b u t a p a r t f r o m t h e i r m e e t i n g i n Eliot's creative process t h e r e is no reason f o r t h e c o l l o c a t i o n at a l l . Perhaps w e are t o u n d e r s t a n d 'Nearer t h a n a n y m o d e r n E n g l i s h poet except one'. I n 1961, w h e n a l l his p o e t r y h a d l o n g been w r i t t e n , E l i o t made a n almost p o s t h u m o u s a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t t o L a f o r g u e — ' t o w h o m I owe m o r e t h a n t o a n y one poet i n a n y language'. B u t he w r o t e n o c r i t i c i s m o f Laforgue's w o r k , a n d d u r i n g h i s active years allusions t o i t are b r i e f a n d g l a n c i n g . T h e r e is s o m e t h i n g here o f t h e p h e n o m e n o n ( w e l l k n o w n t o e x a m i n e r s o f academic dissertations) of c i t i n g a l l sources except t h e one t o w h i c h y o u r e a l l y owe most. E l i o t has o f t e n t a k e n a mischievous pleasure i n s e n d i n g h i s critics t o b a r k u p t h e w r o n g tree; a n d t h e m o r e o r less o p e n a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t o f k i n s h i p t o t h e E n g l i s h M e t a p h y s i c a l s is used t o obscure t h e f a r closer k i n ­ s h i p t o t h e F r e n c h Symbolists. B o t h influences are real: w h e n E l i o t praises t h e ' b r i g h t h a r d p r e c i s i o n ' of M e t a p h y s i c a l i m a g e r y , t h e re-creation o f t h o u g h t i n t o f e e l i n g , 'the h e t e r o g e n e i t y of m a t e r i a l compelled i n t o u n i t y b y t h e o p e r a t i o n o f t h e poet's mind', he is p r a i s i n g t h i n g s t h a t he n o t o n l y a d m i r e d b u t i m i ­ t a t e d a n d practised himself. B u t t h e o t h e r aspect o f M e t a p h y s i c a l p o e t r y t h a t he c o m m e n d s — t h e 'tough reasonableness', t h e almost s y l l o g i s t i c a r r a n g e m e n t o f Donne's a n d M a r v e l l ' s a r g u m e n t s — is u t t e r l y a l i e n t o Eliot's procedure. T h e m o s t s t r i k i n g a n d dis­ c o n c e r t i n g f e a t u r e o f h i s poems is t h a t t h e y have no r a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e at a l l . F r o m w h a t w e k n o w o f t h e i r m e t h o d o f com­ p o s i t i o n t h e y c o u l d h a r d l y h a v e h a d any. T h e y are b r i l l i a n t collages, p a t t e r n e d b y u n i t y or c o n t r a r i e t y o f moods. N o one k n o w s w h a t 'A C o o k i n g Egg' is a b o u t t o t h i s day. Sometimes moods a n d images cluster r o u n d a ' p l o t ' t h a t is never stated b u t can be m o r e or less d i v i n e d . Sometimes even t h i s submerged p l o t is absent. Y e t t h e r i d d l i n g 'modernist' o r g a n i s a t i o n i n t h e p o e t r y is p a r t n e r e d i n t h e c r i t i c i s m w i t h obeisance t o A r i s t o t l e , t o c l a r i t y , r a t i o n a l i t y a n d t h e 'classical' v i r t u e s . Readers o f E l i o t wasted m u c h e n e r g y i n t r y i n g t o reconcile these irreconcileables,

The Poet as Critic

53

w h i l e a v e r y b r i e f s t u d y of Laforgue's Complaintes, or s t i l l better, his last poems, w o u l d h a v e s h o w n t h e r e a l n a t u r e o f Eliot's m e t h o d . B u t t h e s l i g h t clues i n t h e p u b l i s h e d c r i t i c i s m w e r e n o t p i c k e d u p — w e r e h a r d l y m e a n t t o be p i c k e d up; w h i l e t h e p a r t i a l debt to t h e M e t a p h y s i c a l s was excessively acknowledged. T h i s is p u z z l i n g . A r e w e t h e n t o give u p t h e idea of Eliot's c r i t i c i s m as a disguised exegesis of his p o e t r y ? I do n o t t h i n k so; b u t w e m u s t realise its l i m i t s . L i k e t h e T r a c t a r i a n s , E l i o t h a d a considerable belief i n t h e e c o n o m y of t r u t h . H e never i n t e n d e d to p r o v i d e a pass-key t o all t h e chambers of his m i n d . H i s readers a n d critics are t o be a l l o w e d t o see as m u c h as t h e y are l i k e l y t o accept, or perhaps j u s t a l i t t l e more: t h e y c o u l d n o t be d r i v e n f a r t h e r w i t h o u t r e v o l t , so i f t h e y are to go f a r t h e r t h e y h a d b e t t e r find t h e w a y f o r themselves. T h e r e a l d i f f i c u l t y of Eliot's p o e t r y was never i n i t s t e x t u r e , i t s i m a g e r y o r i t s r h y t h m s — n o t t o a n y o n e w h o c o u l d read. T h e d i f f i c u l t y was i n t h e s t r u c t u r e — t h e absence of a n y t h i n g t h a t b y t r a d i t i o n a l standards c o u l d reason­ a b l y be called s t r u c t u r e at all. T o p r o v i d e a set defence of these n o v e l p r i n c i p l e s of o r g a n i s a t i o n w o u l d have r e q u i r e d a n i n t o l e r ­ able deal of casuistry, a n d w o u l d p r o b a b l y have f a i l e d . V e r y w e l l t h e n ; l e t t h e critics be o u t f a c e d b y a b l a n k l y c o n t r a d i c t o r y d e c l a r a t i o n of 'classical' principles; and w h i l e t h e y are w o r r y i n g t h e i r heads over t h a t p a r a d o x t h e p o e t r y can q u i e t l y m a k e i t s way. T h i s m a n o e u v r e w a s b r i l l i a n t l y successful. E l i o t w i s h e d to p r o v i d e h i m s e l f w i t h a n E n g l i s h poetic ancestry, a place i n t h e E n g l i s h poetic t r a d i t i o n . H e was w i l l i n g , even eager, t o p r o c l a i m t h e necessity o f n o u r i s h m e n t a n d cross-fertilisation f r o m t h e w i d e r E u r o p e a n stream; he was f o r a t i m e dazzled b y Pound; b u t he h a d i n r e a l i t y l i t t l e of Pound's passion to 'make i t new'. S t i l l less h a d h e t h e desire t o appear as t h e disciple of a l i t t l e k n o w n m o d e r n F r e n c h poet, a poet w h o b y F r e n c h standards was n o t even of t h e first r a n k . A m o n g Eliot's e a r l y poems w r i t t e n at H a r v a r d are several pastiches of L a f o r g u e — a t t h e clever-under­ graduate level a n d no more. I t was n o t t h a t aspect of h i m s e l f t h a t he w i s h e d t o perpetuate. H e w a s q u i t e prepared to c o n d u c t a c a m p a i g n against n i n e t e e n t h - c e n t u r y poetics w h i c h w a s i n a n y case overdue, b u t he was n o t prepared t o go f a r t h e r i n iconoclasm t h a n t h a t . H a v i n g t h r o w n o u t W o r d s w o r t h , Shelley a n d Keats he prefers t o c l a i m k i n s h i p w i t h a n older, a n d as he sees i t , a

The Poet as Critic

54

m o r e e n d u r i n g E n g l i s h t r a d i t i o n . T h e s t a r t l i n g appearance o f classicism i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h r o y a l i s m a n d anglo-catholicism i n t h e celebrated a n n o u n c e m e n t of 1927 w a s a n a d a p t a t i o n f r o m M a u r r a s . I t w a s a socio-political r a t h e r t h a n a l i t e r a r y t r a n s p l a n t , w h i c h E l i o t h o p e d t o acclimatise o n E n g l i s h soil. I n t h i s h e sig­ n a l l y failed. T h e w o r d ' t r a d i t i o n ' has n o w made its appearance; a n d as w e k n o w a l m o s t too w e l l , i t becomes p r o m i n e n t i n Eliot's c r i t i c a l apparatus w i t h t h e essay ' T r a d i t i o n a n d t h e I n d i v i d u a l Talent'. T h i s first appeared i n t w o n u m b e r s of t h e Egoist, September a n d D e c e m b e r 1919. I t is Eliot's first i n d e p e n d e n t c r i t i c a l pronounce­ m e n t , a n d i n its idea o f a n i m p e r s o n a l a r t of p o e t r y , subject t o t h e w h o l e t r a d i t i o n of E u r o p e a n letters, i t belongs w i t h t h e pre­ v a i l i n g a n t i - R o m a n t i c s t r a i n o f t h e e a r l y c r i t i c i s m . W e are a p t t o associate t h e ideas o f ' T r a d i t i o n a n d t h e I n d i v i d u a l T a l e n t ' w i t h t h e p o l i t i c a l a n d r e l i g i o u s t r a d i t i o n a l i s m of a r a t h e r l a t e r stage i n Eliot's career; b u t t h e r o o t of these reflections was s t r i c t l y l i t e r a r y and closely connected w i t h h i s o w n s i t u a t i o n . I t was t h e p r o b l e m of n o v e l t y i n p o e t r y — t h e p r o b l e m of 'modernism' i n a l i t e r a r y c l i m a t e t h a t w a s s t i l l t h a t o f t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y . T h e subject had been o n h i s m i n d t w o years before. I n 'Reflections o n Vers Libre ( N e w Statesman, M a r c h 1917) t h e r e is a passage w h i c h looks l i k e t h e g e r m of t h e l a t e r essay: 1

I n a n ideal state of society one m i g h t i m a g i n e t h e good N e w g r o w i n g n a t u r a l l y o u t o f t h e good O l d , w i t h o u t t h e need f o r p o l e m i c a n d t h e o r y ; t h i s w o u l d be a society w i t h a l i v i n g t r a d i ­ t i o n . I n a s l u g g i s h society, as a c t u a l societies are, t r a d i t i o n is ever l a p s i n g i n t o s u p e r s t i t i o n , a n d t h e v i o l e n t s t i m u l u s o f n o v e l t y is r e q u i r e d . 8

H e r e w e see a m i n d d i v i d e d ; b u t there is n o d o u b t w h e r e Eliot's s y m p a t h i e s lie; t h e y are w i t h t h e pre-lapsarian state w h e r e t h e v i o l e n t s t i m u l u s of n o v e l t y is unnecessary. T h e p r o b l e m h o w e v e r is t o d i s t i n g u i s h e n d u r i n g t r a d i t i o n f r o m mere acquiescence i n t h e status quo. I n a n Egoist article o f a f e w m o n t h s l a t e r w e find h i m veering i n the other direction: A l l t h e ideas, beliefs, modes of f e e l i n g a n d b e h a v i o u r w h i c h w e h a v e n o t t i m e o r i n c l i n a t i o n t o i n v e s t i g a t e f o r ourselves w e take second-hand and sometimes call T r a d i t i o n .

The Poet as Critic

55

A n d h e supports t h i s piece of decorous disrespect w i t h a f o o t n o t e : For a n a u t h o r i t a t i v e c o n d e m n a t i o n o f theories a t t a c h i n g e x t r e m e i m p o r t a n c e t o t r a d i t i o n as a c r i t e r i o n o f t r u t h , see Pope G r e g o r y X V T s e n c y c l i c a l Singulari nos ( J u l y 15, 1834), a n d t h e V a t i c a n C o u n c i l c a n o n o f 1870, Si quis dixerit...

anathema

sit

A s m i g h t be suspected, t h i s is a leg-pull; t h e d o c u m e n t s cited, so f a r as t h e y are r e l e v a n t a t a l l , h a v e precisely t h e opposite ten­ dency. B u t Eliot's leg-pulls are n o t w i t h o u t significance. T h e notes to The Waste Land are a joke, b u t t h e y suggest t h a t h e w o u l d be q u i t e w i l l i n g t o be edited l i k e a n a n c i e n t classic. H e r e w e see h i m c u t t i n g a s o l e m n caper b e t w e e n excessive deference a n d excessive disrespect f o r t r a d i t i o n a l a u t h o r i t y — a n d t h e p o l a r i t y is q u i t e serious a n d q u i t e real. T w o years l a t e r h e has w o r k e d i t o u t a n d come t o terms w i t h i t . A f a m o u s passage i n ' T r a d i t i o n and t h e I n d i v i d u a l T a l e n t ' resolves t h e c o n f l i c t i n a n i n g e n i o u s synthesis t h a t does s i m u l t a n e o u s justice t o b o t h t r a d i t i o n a n d innovation: T h e e x i s t i n g m o n u m e n t s f o r m a n ideal order a m o n g them­ selves, w h i c h is m o d i f i e d b y t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f t h e n e w ( t h e r e a l l y n e w ) w o r k o f a r t a m o n g t h e m . T h e e x i s t i n g order i s complete before t h e n e w w o r k arrives; f o r order t o persist after t h e s u p e r v e n t i o n of n o v e l t y , t h e whole e x i s t i n g order m u s t be, i f ever so s l i g h t l y , altered; a n d so t h e relations, p r o p o r t i o n s , values o f each w o r k o f a r t t o w a r d t h e w h o l e are readjusted a n d t h i s is c o n f o r m i t y b e t w e e n t h e o l d a n d t h e new. T h i s is a wise saying, one t h a t t h e s t u d e n t of m o d e r n p o e t r y can­ n o t recall too o f t e n ; b u t a p p l y i t t o Eliot's o w n p o e t r y a n d there is a l i t t l e sleight-of-hand a b o u t i t a l l t h e same. A g o o d deal o f special p l e a d i n g w o u l d be r e q u i r e d t o s h o w h o w t h e s t r u c t u r e o f The Waste Land achieves c o n f o r m i t y b e t w e e n t h e o l d a n d t h e new; a n d E l i o t never u n d e r t a k e s i t . H i s c r i t i c i s m tends a l w a y s t o u n d e r l i n e t h e l i n k s b e t w e e n his o w n p r a c t i c e a n d t h e p r a c t i c e o f t h e past. T h e r e a l l y subversive elements are l e f t t o e x p l a i n them­ selves, u n t i l a n u n e x p e c t e d genetic e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e m appears i n 'The T h r e e V o i c e s of Poetry', t h i r t y years later.

The Poet as Critic

56

4 Essentially t h e a c t i v i t y w e have j u s t been i n s p e c t i n g w a s a s t r a t e g y f o r p r e s e n t i n g h i s p o e t r y . P o e t r y does n o t exist i n a v a c u u m ; i t needs a s e t t i n g , a l i t e r a r y c l i m a t e , a n d i n d e f a u l t o f others, E l i o t is c h a n g i n g t h e c l i m a t e f o r h i m s e l f . I n o t h e r places w e find h i m a t a d i f f e r e n t t a s k — w o r k i n g o u t h i s o w n t e c h n i c a l p r i n c i p l e s , finding models a n d d e c i d i n g h o w t h e y are t o be used. 'Reflections o n Vers Libre is n o t a good essay o n free verse. I t s c o n t e n t i o n is t h a t a l l free verse is a n a p p r o a c h t o or a recession f r o m a r e g u l a r metre. T h i s describes vers libere n o t vers libre a n d i t leaves t h e u l t i m a t e free verse q u i t e u n a c c o u n t e d for. B u t i t describes w i t h perfect accuracy t h e verse of 'Prufrock', p u b l i s h e d i n t h e same year. I t is q u i t e s i m p l y a n e x p o s i t i o n of t h e p r i n c i p l e s o n w h i c h h i s o w n e a r l y v e r s i f i c a t i o n is based. T h e same is t r u e of m u c h i n t h e essays o n E l i z a b e t h a n and Jacobean drama­ tists. These are s c h o l a r l y c r i t i c a l essays i n t h e i r o w n r i g h t , a n d v e r y fine ones; a n d t h e y h a v e o t h e r interests too. B u t t h e detailed concern w i t h t h e t e c h n i q u e o f b l a n k verse i n t h e essays o n Mar­ lowe, T o u r n e u r a n d F o r d is a t e c h n i c a l s t u d y w h o s e i m p o r t a n c e t o h i s o w n verse E l i o t has acknowledged, a n d whose i n f l u e n c e is i m m e d i a t e l y e v i d e n t i n ' G e r o n t i o n ' a n d T h e Waste Land. T h e M a r l o w e essay reveals Eliot's c o n v i c t i o n t h a t : 1

y

b l a n k verse w i t h i n Shakespeare's l i f e t i m e w a s m o r e h i g h l y developed, t h a t i t became t h e v e h i c l e o f m o r e v a r i e d a n d m o r e intense f e e l i n g t h a n i t has ever conveyed since, a n d t h a t after t h e e r e c t i o n o f t h e Chinese w a l l of M i l t o n , b l a n k verse has suffered n o t o n l y arrest b u t retrogression. 9

H e goes o n t o say t h a t t h e b l a n k verse of T e n n y s o n , 'a consum­ m a t e master o f t h i s f o r m i n c e r t a i n applications, is cruder ... t h a n t h a t of h a l f a d o z e n contemporaries o f Shakespeare; cruder, because less capable of expressing complicated, subtle, a n d sur­ p r i s i n g emotions'. T h i s is a passage p r e g n a n t w i t h i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r Eliot's o w n practice. I n spite o f h i s o f t p r o c l a i m e d aversion f r o m n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y p o e t r y , h i s j u v e n i l i a are q u i t e o b v i o u s l y based o n Swin­ b u r n e and t h e fin-de-siecle. H i s earliest m a t u r e verse, ' P r u f r o c k '

The Poet as Critic

57

a n d 'La F i g l i a che Piange', s t i l l has a base i n t h e i a m b i c verse o f t h e late n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y , as H a r v e y Gross has p o i n t e d o u t ; B r o w n i n g ' s i n ' P o r t r a i t o f a Lady', Tennyson's i n 'La Figlia'. I n these poems f a r greater liberties are t a k e n w i t h t h e i a m b i c decasyllable t h a n t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y a l l o w e d — a n d t h e liberties are m o s t l y those sanctioned b y o r e x t r a p o l a t e d f r o m late E l i z a b e t h a n b l a n k verse. S h o r t lines, reversal o f accent, redun­ d a n t syllables, single 'prosaic' lines n o t amenable t o n o r m a l s c a n s i o n — a l l these are t o be f o u n d i n t h e practice o f W e b s t e r , T o u r n e u r a n d M i d d l e t o n . O n e device h e even seems t o have copied f r o m t h e a c c i d e n t a l m i s l i n e a t i o n s o f t h e seventeenthc e n t u r y p r i n t i n g house; i t is t h e e m b e d d i n g o f r e g u l a r 'iambic pentameter' i n l o n g e r lines t h a t g i v e a d i f f e r e n t p u n c t u a t i o n a n d a d i f f e r e n t m o v e m e n t . T h i s is n o t a s t u d y o f Eliot's m e t r i c s , b u t i f i t w e r e i t w o u l d be possible t o f o l l o w u p a l l t h e passing r e m a r k s o n v e r s i f i c a t i o n i n t h e E l i z a b e t h a n essays a n d s h o w h o w t h e features observed h a v e c o n t r i b u t e d t o h i s o w n practice. I n 'Gerontion', as has o f t e n been noted, t h i s becomes a positive a n d deliberate echo o f T o u r n e u r a n d M i d d l e t o n , j u s t as t h e o p e n i n g of 'A Game of Chess' i n The Waste Land echoes late Shakespeare. E l i o t r e m a r k s p a r t i c u l a r l y o n t h e i n d i v i d u a l n o t e t h a t each of t h e d r a m a t i s t s discussed i s able t o g i v e t o h i s b l a n k verse, as t h o u g h his greatest i n t e r e s t is i n t h e v a r i e t y (at t h a t t i m e a n unsuspected v a r i e t y ) o f w h i c h t h e f o r m is capable. A w e l l - k n o w n i d i o s y n ­ cratic passage f r o m t h e essay o n M a s s i n g e r shows c l e a r l y e n o u g h n o t o n l y w h a t h e has f o u n d i n t h e w r i t e r s o f t h i s p e r i o d , b u t w h a t he has l e a r n t f r o m t h e m : ... T o u r n e u r a n d M i d d l e t o n e x h i b i t t h a t p e r p e t u a l s l i g h t a l t e r a t i o n o f language, w o r d s p e r p e t u a l l y j u x t a p o s e d i n n e w and sudden c o m b i n a t i o n s , m e a n i n g s p e r p e t u a l l y eingeschachtelt i n t o meanings, w h i c h evidences a v e r y h i g h d e v e l o p m e n t of t h e senses, a d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e E n g l i s h l a n g u a g e w h i c h w e h a v e perhaps never e q u a l l e d . 10

T h e E l i z a b e t h a n essays h a v e o f course a f a r w i d e r i n t e r e s t t h a n t h a t . A l o n g w i t h t h e 'Dialogue o n D r a m a t i c P o e t r y ' w h i c h comes i n t h e m i d d l e o f t h e m , t h e y are concerned w i t h some o f t h e m a i n p r o b l e m s o f poetic drama. T h e y discuss t h e l i m i t s o f realism, t h e need f o r a c o n v e n t i o n , t h e r e l a t i o n o f ' p o e t r y ' t o

58

The Poet as Critic

'drama', t h e m o r a l q u a l i t y of t h e p l a y , revealed b o t h i n single characters a n d i n t h e clash of o n e character o n another. E v e n earlier is t h e b r i e f f r a g m e n t 'Rhetoric a n d Poetic D r a m a ' (1919); a n d a l l these pieces s h o w E l i o t m a k i n g a close s t u d y o f t h e d r a m a l o n g before h i s o w n d r a m a t i c w o r k began. T h e i n c u r s i o n i n t o p o e t i c d r a m a w a s e v i d e n t l y t h e r e s u l t of a l o n g i n c u b a t i o n a n d m u c h p r e p a r a t o r y t h i n k i n g . I t was n o t p u r e c r i t i c i s m , f o r d r a m a t i c p o e t r y m o r e t h a n a n y o t h e r is dependent o n social h a b i t , even o n t h e m i n o r social h a b i t s t h a t w e call fashions. Poetic d r a m a can o n l y f u n c t i o n f r e e l y w h e n t h e r e is a g e n e r a l l y acceptable c o n v e n t i o n ready t o embrace i t . E l i o t is a c u t e l y a w a r e f r o m t h e b e g i n n i n g t h a t no such c o n v e n t i o n exists i n o u r c e n t u r y , a n d m o s t o f h i s t h i n k i n g about t h e d r a m a is con­ cerned w i t h t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of c r e a t i n g one. Yeats f o u n d h i m s e l f i n t h e same d i l e m m a , a n d m a s t e r f u l l y devised a special conven­ t i o n of h i s own. E l i o t i n t h e end resigned h i m s e l f t o some of t h e c o n v e n t i o n s of t h e W e s t E n d stage, already b e g i n n i n g t o be o u t of date. B u t i t w a s o n l y after m u c h heart-searching a n d experi­ m e n t , a n d m u c h s t u d y o f E n g l i s h d r a m a i n its great period, w h e n a h a p p i e r state o f affairs prevailed. B u t h i s m o s t s u b s t a n t i a l t r e a t m e n t of t h e subject belongs w i t h the retrospects. I t is t h e l e c t u r e 'Poetry a n d D r a m a ' of 1951. B y t h a t t i m e h e h a d Murder in the Cathedral, The Family Reunion a n d The Cocktail Party b e h i n d h i m ; a n d t h e p r i n c i p l e s h e out­ l i n e d here w e r e n o t t o change i n h i s last t w o p l a y s The Confi­ dential Clerk a n d The Elder Statesman. Because i t came a t a t i m e w h e n h i s p o s i t i o n was l o n g established, a n d because i t has h a d n o p a r t i c u l a r i n f l u e n c e o n t h e course of t h i n g s , t h i s piece has been less n o t i c e d t h a n some o f h i s earlier c r i t i c i s m . A c t u a l l y i t is one of Eliot's finest essays, b o t h f o r i t s m a s t e r l y u n t e n d e n t i o u s state­ m e n t of general p r i n c i p l e s a n d f o r t h e u n a f f e c t e d c a n d o u r w i t h w h i c h i t describes h i s o w n p r o b l e m s a n d endeavours. T h e core of the general a r g u m e n t is t h a t d r a m a t i c prose w i t h a n y j u s t c l a i m to t h e t i t l e is as a r t i f i c i a l as verse, a n d h a r d l y nearer t o t h e f o r m ­ less speech of c o m m o n l i f e . W h a t is called p o e t i c d r a m a i n prose, except i n special cases l i k e Synge's, is even m o r e l i m i t e d b y con­ v e n t i o n t h a n p o e t i c d r a m a i n verse. I t o u g h t t o be possible t o devise a f o r m o f verse s u f f i c i e n t l y f l e x i b l e a n d u n o b t r u s i v e t o deal w i t h t h e o r d i n a r y circumstances o f m o d e r n l i f e , a n d y e t

The Poet as Critic

59

capable, o n due occasion, of 'reaching t h e border of those feelings w h i c h o n l y m u s i c c a n express'. T h e n f o l l o w s t h e account of h i s o w n e x p e r i m e n t s i n t h a t d i r e c t i o n a n d t h e e v o l u t i o n o f his o w n d r a m a t i c v e r s i f i c a t i o n . T h i s w a s s o m e t h i n g q u i t e deliberately devised, d i f f e r e n t i n p r i n c i p l e f r o m m o s t o f t h e earlier verse spoken i n h i s o w n voice. Y e t i t was t o become one of t h e cadences of h i s o w n voice, f o r t h e same p r i n c i p l e s w e r e t o serve f o r t h e

staple verse of t h e Four Quartets.

5 I n t h i s essay i t is as t h o u g h w i t h t h e a p p r o a c h o f o l d age t h e stratagems a n d o b l i q u i t i e s o f h i s earlier c r i t i c i s m h a d m e l t e d away. T h e y h a d o f t e n been necessary a n d f r u i t f u l i n t h e past, b u t n o w E l i o t speaks w i t h a directness a n d s i m p l i c i t y t h a t is p a r t i c u ­ l a r l y engaging a n d persuasive. T h e same is t r u e o f t h e s l i g h t l y later essay 'The T h r e e Voices of P o e t r y ' (1953)* T h e f o r b i d d i n g reserve a n d t h e g n o m i c allusiveness have gone, replaced b y a n unembarrassed p l a i n speaking: T h e first voice is t h e voice o f t h e poet t a l k i n g t o h i m s e l f — o r to nobody. T h e second is the voice o f t h e poet addressing a n audience, w h e t h e r large o r small. T h e t h i r d is t h e voice o f t h e poet w h e n h e a t t e m p t s t o create a d r a m a t i c character speaking i n verse; w h e n he is saying, n o t w h a t h e w o u l d say i n h i s o w n person, b u t o n l y w h a t h e c a n say w i t h i n t h e l i m i t s o f one i m a g i n a r y character addressing a n o t h e r i m a g i n a r y c h a r a c t e r . 11

W h e n h e comes t o elucidate t h i s f o r m u l a h e speaks q u i t e o p e n l y f r o m personal experience. ' I t h i n k t h a t t h e best w a y f o r m e t o t r y t o m a k e m y t h r e e voices audible, is to trace t h e genesis of t h e d i s t i n c t i o n i n m y o w n m i n d / Because t h e tone here is so near t o t h e g r a c e f u l accessibility o f old-fashioned belles-lettres i t has been r a t h e r assumed t h a t i n these later w r i t i n g s E l i o t has n o t m u c h t o say. I n f a c t i n t h i s essay, w r i t t e n v e r y f r e e l y a n d a p p a r e n t l y w i t h o u t t o o m u c h f o r e t h o u g h t , h e makes t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t confession a b o u t t h e genesis o f h i s o w n p o e t r y t o be f o u n d i n a l l h i s c r i t i c a l w o r k . M r C. K. Stead has n o t i c e d t h i s , a n d p u t i t t o a d m i r a b l e use i n h i s b o o k The N e w Poetic; b u t o t h e r w i s e i t has passed l a r g e l y u n r e m a r k e d .

The

6o

Poet as

Critic

E l i o t speaks at l e n g t h a b o u t t h e t h i r d voice, s u p p l e m e n t i n g i n a s l i g h t l y m o r e discursive f a s h i o n t h e t e c h n i c a l considerations raised i n 'Poetry and Drama'. I n c i d e n t a l l y he makes some of t h e acutest c o m m e n t s ever made o n t h e d r a m a t i c m o n o l o g u e — a p p l i e d d i r e c t l y t o B r o w n i n g , a n d e q u a l l y applicable t o the a u t h o r of ' P r u f r o c k ' and ' P o r t r a i t o f a Lady'. B u t i t is i n t h e discussion o f t h e first voice, t h e voice of t h e poet t a l k i n g t o h i m s e l f , w h a t is c o m m o n l y a n d i n e x a c t l y called ' l y r i c ' , t h a t t h e m p s t i l l u m i n a t ­ i n g a n d d i s a r m i n g observations occur. W e c a n n o t d o u b t t h a t i t is t h e first voice t h a t is at t h e h e a r t o f Eliot's p o e t r y , w h a t e v e r r e p u t a b l e e m p l o y m e n t he m a y h a v e f o u n d f o r t h e o t h e r t w o . A n d f o r m a n y years readers and critics, b o t h f r i e n d l y and u n f r i e n d l y , h a d f e l t a discrepancy b e t w e e n t h e a c t u a l tone o f t h a t voice and t h e c r i t i c a l p r o n o u n c e m e n t s t h a t a c c o m p a n i e d i t . Classicism, respect f o r t r a d i t i o n , t o u g h reasonableness, w i t — o n l y b y p r a y e r a n d f a s t i n g c o u l d even t h e devoutest disciples get themselves i n t o a state of m i n d w h e r e these c o u l d be seen as t h e d o m i n a n t v i r t u e s o f Eliot's p o e t r y . N o w i n t h i s late essay a w h o l e a r r a y of c r i t i c a l defences is s i m p l y passed by. T h e M a g i n o t l i n e is doubtless i m p r e g n a b l e , b u t i t h a r d l y m a t t e r s f o r i t is so easy t o w a l k r o u n d t h e end. Eliot, approaches t h e q u e s t i o n of l y r i c b y c i t i n g a l e c t u r e of G o t t f r i e d B e n n i n w h i c h B e n n finds t h e lyrist's s t a r t i n g p o i n t i n an i n e r t e m b r y o or 'creative germ', i n i t i a l l y formless and n o t open to examination: H e has s o m e t h i n g g e r m i n a t i n g i n h i m f o r w h i c h he m u s t find words; b u t he c a n n o t k n o w w h a t w o r d s he w a n t s u n t i l he has f o u n d t h e words; he c a n n o t i d e n t i f y t h i s e m b r y o u n t i l i t has been t r a n s f o r m e d i n t o a n a r r a n g e m e n t o f t h e r i g h t w o r d s i n the r i g h t order. 12

E l i o t is w i l l i n g t o go f a r t h e r t h a n t h i s : i n non-didactic verse t h e poet m a y be concerned solely t o b r i n g t o b i r t h t h i s obscure e m b r y o . 'He does n o t k n o w w h a t he has to say u n t i l he has said i t ; and i n t h e effort t o say i t he is n o t concerned w i t h m a k i n g o t h e r people u n d e r s t a n d a n y t h i n g ' . So m u c h f o r t r a d i t i o n and t h e c o m m u n i t y of E u r o p e a n letters. T h e endeavour is a p u r e l y p r i v a t e affair b e t w e n t h e poet and t h e d a r k forces w i t h i n h i m . A n d t h e passage goes on:

T h e Poet as Critic

61

H e is oppressed b y a b u r d e n w h i c h he m u s t b r i n g t o b i r t h i n order t o o b t a i n relief. Or, t o change t h e figure o f speech, h e is h a u n t e d b y a demon, a d e m o n against w h i c h h e feels power­ less, because i n its first m a n i f e s t a t i o n i t has n o face, n o name, n o t h i n g ; a n d t h e words, t h e p o e m h e makes, are a k i n d o f f o r m of e x o r c i s m o f t h i s d e m o n ... A n d w h e n t h e w o r d s are finally a r r a n g e d i n t h e r i g h t w a y — o r i n w h a t he comes t o accept as the best a r r a n g e m e n t h e c a n find—he m a y experience a m o m e n t o f e x h a u s t i o n , o f appeasement, o f a b s o l u t i o n , a n d o f s o m e t h i n g v e r y near a n n i h i l a t i o n , w h i c h is i n itself indescrib­ able. 13

T h i s is language o f a k i n d t h a t E l i o t has never used before, a n d i t seeks t o p e n e t r a t e i n t o t h e i n t i m a c i e s o f t h e creative process i n a m a n n e r q u i t e f o r e i g n t o t h e earlier c r i t i c i s m . T h i s is f a r r e m o v e d f r o m w i t , t h a t modest a n d i m p e r s o n a l v i r t u e , a n d f r o m p o e t r y p o u r distraire les honnetes gens. B u t h e is n o t r e p u d i a t ­ i n g h i s f o r m e r a t t i t u d e s . H e has s i m p l y reached a stage a t w h i c h i t c a n be t a c i t l y confessed t h a t t h e y w e r e n o t f u n d a m e n t a l . T h e y w e r e r e g u l a t i v e ideals, n e g a t i v e prescriptions, g e n u i n e l y f e l t a n d necessary b o t h for h i m s e l f a n d others; b u t t h e y d i d n o t t o u c h t h e essential source o f p o e t r y . T h a t is s i t u a t e d i n a n o t h e r r e g i o n altogether, i n a r e g i o n n o t accessible t o consciousness a n d n o t amenable t o i n t e l l e c t u a l c o n t r o l . T h i s seems a t first s i g h t t o w i p e o u t t h e sustained c r i t i c a l endeavour o f m a n y l o n g years, b u t i n f a c t i t s t i l l m a i n t a i n s a place f o r i t . T h e G e r m a n w o r d aufheben c a n m e a n b o t h t o n u l ­ l i f y a n d t o preserve. W e h a v e n o s u c h c o n v e n i e n t a m b i g u i t y , a n d w e c a n n o t find a single w o r d t o describe w h a t E l i o t is here d o i n g to h i s earlier c r i t i c i s m . I n effect h e is s h o w i n g t h a t t h a t c r i t i c i s m , for a l l its seriousness a n d patience, is t o some degree e x t e r n a l ; i t applies t o t h e m o r e o u t w a r d a n d accessible areas o f t h e poet's a c t i v i t y . T h e c l i m a t e o f Eliot's earlier t h i n k i n g h a d been per­ m e a t e d w i t h a d i s t r u s t o f t h e i n n e r voice; a n d i n d e e d w h a t i s appealed t o here i s s t i l l n o t t h e i n n e r v o i c e — i t is t h e i n n e r silence. I n h i s earlier f o r m u l a t i o n s h e h a d been perhaps exces­ sively w i l l i n g t o stop s h o r t o f a n y traffic w i t h t h e unconscious; but i n t h i s passage h e drops h i s g u a r d a n d says p l a i n l y t h a t i t is i n t h i s i n a r t i c u l a t e r e g i o n t h a t t h e poet's conscious a c t i v i t y

62

The Poet as Critic

begins. Perhaps t h i s h a r d l y tells us a n y t h i n g n e w a b o u t t h e genesis of h i s o w n p o e t r y ; b u t i t c i r c u m v e n t s some obstacles; a n d i t ratifies a n d sets his o w n seal u p o n w h a t his m o r e a t t e n t i v e readers m u s t h a v e a l w a y s i n some sense have k n o w n . A t t h i s p o i n t w e reach one of t h e greatest u n s e t t l e d questions i n p o e t i c t h e o r y — t h e r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n conscious a n d u n c o n ­ scious, b e t w e e n t h e poet's expressed i n t e n t i o n s , c u l t u r a l o r tech­ n i c a l , a n d t h e deep roots o f p o e t r y i n a n area o f t h e m i n d t h a t c a n n o t be e x a m i n e d — a n d is perhaps n o t a p r o p e r t y o f t h e i n d i ­ v i d u a l m i n d a t a l l . E l i o t h i m s e l f has said l i t t l e a b o u t i t , a n d t h i s is n o t t h e place f o r a f o r a y i n t o t h a t d a r k wood. B u t t h e impres­ s i o n w e have r e m a r k e d on, o f a n i n c o n s i s t e n c y b e t w e e n h i s for­ m u l a t e d p r o g r a m m e a n d t h e a c t u a l n a t u r e o f h i s p o e t r y , does g i v e rise t o some reflections. F r e u d r e m a r k s s o m e w h e r e t h a t i n classic a r t h e looks f o r t h e unconscious, i n r o m a n t i c f o r t h e con­ s c i o u s — o n e o f those p e n e t r a t i n g o b i t e r dicta t h a t t h i s u n l i t e r a r y t h i n k e r n o t i n f r e q u e n t l y c o n t r i b u t e s t o l i t e r a r y discussion. Freud's o b s e r v a t i o n suggests t h a t a c o n f l i c t b e t w e e n i n t e n t i o n a n d a c h i e v e m e n t is i n h e r e n t i n t h e creative process; a n d t h i s is possibly t r u e . I n t h e post-Symbolist p e r i o d t o w h i c h E l i o t belongs i t was p a r t i c u l a r l y l i k e l y t o be t r u e . Poe's l i t e r a r y t h e o r y placed an equal w e i g h t o n t h e obscure p r o m p t i n g s o f t h e soul a n d a deliberate self-conscious c r a f t s m a n s h i p . S k e t c h i l y a n d inade­ q u a t e l y expressed as i t is, Poe's c r i t i c a l t h o u g h t is one o f t h e f o u n d a t i o n s o f t h e S y m b o l i s t aesthetic i n France. E l i o t has m o r e t h a n once p a i d a reserved t r i b u t e t o i t , a n d t o i t s i n f l u e n c e o n his o w n masters. Poe's elaborate j u s t i f i c a t i o n o f artifice a n d c o n t r i v ­ ance is w e l l k n o w n , b u t w h a t is e q u a l l y i m p o r t a n t is h i s realisa­ t i o n t h a t t h e unconscious r e a l l y is unconscious, t h a t t h e obscure d e p t h s o f t h e s o u l r e a l l y are obscure, a n d t h a t images f r o m t h i s r e g i o n are u n b i d d a b l e demons, n o t t o be coaxed, solicited o r dragged o u t a t w i l l . T h e f u n c t i o n o f i n t e l l e c t u a l l a b o u r , w i l l e d a n d f u l l y self-aware, is a t a later stage o f t h e creative process. T h i s is t h e stage w h e r e c o n c e r n f o r c u l t u r a l t r a d i t i o n , t h e h e a l t h o f t h e language, a n d t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f poetic t e c h n i q u e c a n pro­ p e r l y be active; a n d i t is t h e o n l y stage t h a t is r e a l l y o p e n t o dis­ cussion. I t is w i t h these m a t t e r s t h a t t h e great b o d y of Eliot's c r i ­ t i c i s m is concerned. 'The T h r e e V o i c e s o f P o e t r y ' stands o u t as t h e clearest r e c o g n i t i o n t h a t w h a t is o p e n t o c r i t i c a l discussion is

The

Poet as

Critic

6

3

o n l y a p a r t of the t e r r i t o r y of poetry. B e y o n d i t lies t h e obscure creative e m b r y o i n v o k e d b y B e n n — w h i c h is never accessible t o inspection. Some of t h e c e r e m o n i a l and commissioned e s s a y s — ' T h e Clas­ sics and t h e M a n of Letters' and 'The A i m s of E d u c a t i o n ' — s h o w h o w deeply u n i n s p i r i n g E l i o t can be w h e n he moves too f a r a w a y f r o m his o w n poetic concerns. I n one case we find h i m obliged to w r i t e an e n c o m i u m o n a figure w h o had a l w a y s been a n t i ­ p a t h e t i c to h i m , and t h e r e s u l t is t h e p e r f u n c t o r y and u n w o r t h y l e c t u r e 'Goethe as t h e Sage'. W e m a y a d m i r e the sixty-year-old not-so-smiling p u b l i c man, b u t i t is h a r d l y t o h i m t h a t we go f o r t h e special k i n d of i l l u m i n a t i o n t h a t o n l y the p o e t - c r i t i c can b r i n g . Perhaps i t is t r u e of E l i o t as a c r i t i c too, w h e n he is at his best, t h a t he 'does n o t k n o w w h a t he has t o say u n t i l he has said i t ' . Perhaps i t is f o r t u n a t e t h a t he d i d n o t a l w a y s k n o w , f o r w h a t he k n e w he was g o i n g t o say was n o t t h e u n i q u e t h i n g he came i n t o t h e w o r l d t o say. O t h e r men c o u l d have said i t as w e l l . I t was sometimes i n t e r e s t i n g , g e n e r a l l y w o r t h y of r e s p e c t — b u t h o w m u c h of i t w o u l d we h a v e cared to l i s t e n t o i f i t h a d n o t been the u t t e r a n c e of a m a n w h o h a d also said q u i t e o t h e r t h i n g s , i n a q u i t e d i f f e r e n t t o n e of voice? W h i l e he is b u i l d i n g a persona of d e v o t i o n , i n t e l l e c t u a l d u t y and ordered p u b l i c a c t i v i t y — w i t h t h e accomplished competence t h a t attends m o s t of his e n d e a v o u r s — his p o e t r y a n d the c r i t i c i s m t h a t is nearest to his p o e t r y moves i n a n o t h e r d i m e n s i o n . T h e glimpses are n o t a l w a y s easy t o discern, b u t t h e w h i t e sails s t i l l f l y seaward, t h e lost h e a r t stiffens and rejoices, and t h e s p i r i t q u i c k e n s to rebel, m o r e o f t e n t h a n w o u l d be suspected f r o m t h e d i s c i p l i n e d surface of h i s prose w r i t i n g .

4 The Trials o f a Christian Critic SAMUEL

HYNES

A man's t h e o r y of t h e place of p o e t r y is n o t i n d e p e n d e n t of h i s v i e w of l i f e i n general.

The Use of Poetry and the Use of

Criticism

Let us b e g i n w i t h Eliot's M a t t h e w A r n o l d : Eliot's A r n o l d , n o t t h e m a n h i m s e l f , f o r as o f t e n h a p p e n s w h e n a c r i t i c o f decided c o n v i c t i o n s chooses a n a n t a g o n i s t , E l i o t l o o k e d i n t o t h e m i r r o r of A r n o l d a n d saw t h e r e a c a u t i o n a r y i m a g e o f h i m s e l f . H i s A r n o l d is a m i x t u r e of q u a l i t i e s — a c r i t i c of great v i r t u e s a n d o f gross inconsistencies, a n i n f l u e n t i a l t h i n k e r w h o w a s incapable of connected reasoning, ' i n some respects t h e m o s t satisfactory m a n o f l e t t e r s o f h i s age', b u t a n u n d e r g r a d u a t e i n p h i l o s o p h y and t h e o l o g y a n d a P h i l i s t i n e i n r e l i g i o n . E v e r y t i m e E l i o t men­ t i o n e d A r n o l d h e conceded a w o r t h i n e s s , a n d t h e n t o o k i t back; w h a t w e are l e f t w i t h is a m a n o f c o n t r a d i c t i o n s , a h i g h - m i n d e d m a n w h o h a t e d w h a t w a s h a t e f u l a n d praised w h a t w a s best, b u t w h o s e m o r a l a n d r a t i o n a l l i m i t a t i o n s coarsened t h e idea o f C u l t u r e t h a t he cherished. 1

These c o n t r a d i c t i o n s revealed themselves m o s t clearly, i n Eliot's v i e w , w h e n A r n o l d assumed t h e r o l e of social c r i t i c . 'He wasted h i s s t r e n g t h ' , E l i o t w r o t e i n The Sacred Wood, as m e n of s u p e r i o r a b i l i t y sometimes do, because h e s a w some­ t h i n g t o be done a n d n o one else t o do i t . T h e t e m p t a t i o n , t o a n y m a n w h o is i n t e r e s t e d i n ideas a n d p r i m a r i l y i n l i t e r a t u r e , to p u t l i t e r a t u r e i n t o t h e corner u n t i l h e has cleaned u p t h e w h o l e c o u n t r y first, is almost i r r e s i s t i b l e . 2

A r n o l d s u c c u m b e d t o t h a t t e m p t a t i o n , a n d so made h i m s e l f a n e x a m p l e of t h e m a n of letters w h o takes society t o be h i s subject. Indeed he was t h e o n l y m o d e r n e x a m p l e o f s u c h a m a n a t t h e

The Trials of a Christian Critic

65

t i m e t h a t E l i o t began w r i t i n g . B u t t o Eliot, A r n o l d ' s e x a m p l e w a s a w a r n i n g — h e was a c r i t i c w h o h a d m i s j u d g e d h i s g i f t s a n d h a d cast h i m s e l f i n a p u b l i c role t h a t society needed, b u t t h a t h e w a s ill-equipped t o p l a y . I t i s n o t s u r p r i s i n g t h a t t h e e x a m p l e o f A r n o l d w a s m u c h o n Eliot's m i n d d u r i n g t h e years w h e n h e w a s y i e l d i n g t o t h e same t e m p t a t i o n t o reach b e y o n d l i t e r a t u r e ; f o r i f Eliot t u r n e d t o c u l t u r a l issues, h e w o u l d be m a k i n g h i m s e l f t h e A r n o l d of h i s generation. A n d t h a t is clearly w h a t he proposed t o do. W h e n h e w r o t e o f A r n o l d , i n 1920, ' i f h e w e r e o u r exact c o n t e m p o r a r y , h e w o u l d find a l l h i s l a b o u r t o p e r f o r m again', a n d i n 1927, ' i t is n o t t o say t h a t Arnold's w o r k was v a i n i f w e say t h a t i t is t o be done again', w h a t w a s he saying, i f n o t t h a t he w o u l d p i c k u p t h e f a l l e n t o r c h of c u l t u r e ? L i k e A r n o l d , he saw s o m e t h i n g t o be done a n d n o one else to do i t . T h a t is p a r t of t h e t e m p t a t i o n , t o be persuaded t h a t you are t h e o n l y c h a m p i o n o f y o u r cause. A n o t h e r p a r t — s o seductive t o t h e i n t e l l e c t u a l — i s t h e c o n v i c t i o n t h a t t h o u g h y o u r cause is just, i t c a n never w i n : 'We m u s t k n o w i n advance,' E l i o t w r o t e , ' i f w e are prepared f o r t h a t conflict, t h a t t h e c o m b a t m a y have truces b u t never a peace... w e fight r a t h e r t o keep some­ t h i n g alive t h a n i n t h e e x p e c t a t i o n t h a t a n y t h i n g w i l l t r i u m p h . ' T h a t i m a g e o f t h e defence o f c u l t u r e as a crusade w i t h o u t a v i c t o r y was w r i t t e n i n 1927, t h e year t h a t E l i o t c o m p l i c a t e d h i s role as t h e t w e n t i e t h - c e n t u r y A r n o l d b y b e c o m i n g a C h r i s t i a n . I f a c r i t i c becomes a C h r i s t i a n , p r e s u m a b l y h e becomes a C h r i s t i a n c r i t i c , f o r s u r e l y belief s h o u l d enter i n t o every aspect o f a believer's l i f e , a n d m o s t v i s i b l y , perhaps, i f he is a convert. B u t i t w a s d i f f i c u l t t o see j u s t w h a t t h e consequences o f conversion w o u l d be: w h a t e x a c t l y w o u l d a C h r i s t i a n c r i t i c do? E n g l i s h c r i t i c i s m p r o v i d e d E l i o t w i t h n o obvious answers. C e r t a i n l y A r n o l d c o u l d be o f n o h e l p here; o n t h e c o n t r a r y , h i s n o t i o n o f t h e r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n p o e t r y a n d r e l i g i o n was a c r u c i a l p a r t of t h e p r o b l e m , w h i c h t h e C h r i s t i a n c r i t i c w o u l d have t o r e f u t e , w h a t ­ ever else h e d i d . B u t t h o u g h t h e practices o f a C h r i s t i a n c r i t i c m i g h t be unclear, Eliot's d e t e r m i n a t i o n t o be one w a s clear enough. I n t h e year after h e w a s received i n t o t h e C h u r c h h e w r o t e pre­ faces t o t w o v o l u m e s o f his essays, a n d i n t h e m h e made h i s com­ m i t m e n t e x p l i c i t . One, t h e preface t o For Lancelot Andrewes, has 3

4

66

The Trials of a Christian

Critic

been m u c h q u o t e d f o r i t s terse d e c l a r a t i o n o f Eliot's p o i n t o f v i e w : 'classicist i n l i t e r a t u r e , r o y a l i s t i n p o l i t i c s , a n d angloc a t h o l i c i n r e l i g i o n ' . T h e other, a preface t o a n e w e d i t i o n of The Sacred Wood, has received less a t t e n t i o n , b u t is, t o m y m i n d , t h e m o r e i m p o r t a n t statement. H e r e E l i o t a n n o u n c e d t h a t h e h a d 'passed o n t o a n o t h e r p r o b l e m n o t t o u c h e d u p o n i n t h i s book: t h a t of t h e r e l a t i o n of p o e t r y t o t h e s p i r i t u a l a n d social l i f e of its t i m e a n d o f o t h e r times'. A n d a t t h e e n d o f t h e preface, after a c k n o w l e d g i n g t h a t a p o e m ' i n some sense, has its o w n l i f e ' , E l i o t concluded: O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , p o e t r y as c e r t a i n l y has s o m e t h i n g t o do w i t h morals, a n d w i t h r e l i g i o n , a n d even w i t h p o l i t i c s perhaps, t h o u g h w e c a n n o t say w h a t . . . A n d i n these questions, a n d others w h i c h w e c a n n o t avoid, w e appear already t o be l e a v i n g t h e d o m a i n o f c r i t i c i s m o f 'poetry'. So w e c a n n o t stop at a n y p o i n t . T h e best t h a t w e c a n h o p e t o do is t o agree u p o n a p o i n t f r o m w h i c h to start.. . 5

These statements are n a r r o w e r i n r a n g e t h a n t h e sentence i n F o r Lancelot Andrewes, b u t t h e y p r o m i s e more. W h a t t h e y p r o m i s e is a n e w c r i t i c a l d i r e c t i o n , w h i c h is i n a general sense t h e direc­ tion o f M a t t h e w A r n o l d , beyond the domain o f criticism of 'poetry'. C h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y E l i o t declines t o say e x a c t l y w h a t t h a t d i r e c t i o n is, b u t t h e phrase 'the s p i r i t u a l l i f e ' , a n d t h e men­ t i o n of r e l i g i o n , i n d i c a t e t h e n a t u r e of t h e change. A t t h i s p o i n t , i n t h e first year o f h i s conversion, E l i o t was g i v i n g n o t i c e t h a t h e recognized t h a t a t r a n s f o r m a t i o n o f c r i t i c a l concerns m u s t f o l l o w u p o n his n e w f a i t h , t h o u g h he was still unsure of w h a t that t r a n s f o r m a t i o n w o u l d be. These years o f t h e late t w e n t i e s a n d e a r l y t h i r t i e s w e r e a t i m e w h e n E l i o t w a s t r y i n g t o d e t e r m i n e t h e consequences of h i s con­ v e r s i o n i n m a n y areas o f t h o u g h t — i n p o l i t i c s , i n economics, i n p h i l o s o p h y — a n d w a s t e s t i n g h i s ideas i n t h e pages o f t h e Cri­ terion. I n his l i t e r a r y c r i t i c i s m h e w a s d o i n g t h e same t h i n g , t r y ­ i n g o u t answers t o t h e question: w h a t is a C h r i s t i a n c r i t i c ? C l e a r l y t h e c e n t r a l issue w a s t h e r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n l i t e r a t u r e a n d belief, a n d Eliot's p r i n c i p a l c r i t i c a l essays d u r i n g these years are focussed o n t h a t issue i n v a r i o u s ways. T h e r e are t h e o r e t i c a l questions t o be posed: h o w does belief enter i n t o t h e c r e a t i o n o f

The Trials of a Christian

Critic

6

7

p o e t r y (is t h e r e a C h r i s t i a n i m a g i n a t i o n ? ) a n d h o w does i t affect t h e r e a d i n g o f p o e t r y (does a C h r i s t i a n read a p o e m as a n o n C h r i s t i a n does?). T h e n there are questions o f a p p l i c a t i o n : is t h i s or t h a t a C h r i s t i a n poem, is t h i s poet a C h r i s t i a n , a n d w h a t does t h e t e r m m e a n w h e n a p p l i e d t o poetry? Perhaps t h e r e are also t e r m i n o l o g i c a l questions: is there a C h r i s t i a n l a n g u a g e o f c r i t i ­ cism? c a n t h e c r i t i c b r i n g l i t e r a t u r e a n d belief together b y assimi­ l a t i n g t h e l a n g u a g e o f r e l i g i o n ? I n t h e years b e t w e e n 1927 a n d 1934 E l i o t s t r u g g l e d w i t h a l l of these questions, sometimes clum­ s i l y a n d t e n t a t i v e l y , m i x i n g one w i t h another, t e s t i n g a n d revis­ i n g ideas; w h a t t h e c r i t i c a l w r i t i n g o f t h i s p e r i o d records is n o t a n y t h i n g l i k e final, o r even adequate answers t o these questions, b u t r a t h e r t h e course o f Eliot's efforts, a n d t h e d i f f i c u l t y t h a t h e f o u n d i n determining h o w a C h r i s t i a n critic should perform his role. H e t u r n e d t o t h e t h e o r e t i c a l issue first—indeed h i sfirststate­ m e n t o n t h e subject pre-dated h i s f o r m a l conversion b y some s i x m o n t h s . 'A N o t e of P o e t r y a n d B e l i e f was w r i t t e n i n response to an essay b y I . A. Richards w h i c h E l i o t h a d p u b l i s h e d i n t h e Cri­ terion i n 1925, a n d w h i c h is t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e w h o l e p o e t r y / belief debate t h a t w e n t o n b e i n g a r g u e d w e l l i n t o t h e t h i r t i e s . I n describing t h e m o d e r n state of m i n d , Richards h a d w r i t t e n : A sense o f desolation, o f u n c e r t a i n t y , o f f u t i l i t y , o f t h e base­ lessness of aspirations, of t h e v a n i t y of endeavour, a n d a t h i r s t f o r a l i f e - g i v i n g w a t e r w h i c h seems s u d d e n l y t o h a v e failed, are t h e signs i n consciousness o f t h i s necessary r e o r g a n i s a t i o n o f o u r lives. [ B y ' r e o r g a n i s a t i o n ' Richards m e a n t the acceptance of a scientific v i e w o f t h e w o r l d , w h a t h e called ' t h e n e u t r a l i ­ s a t i o n of nature'.] To t h i s sentence t h e f o l l o w i n g f o o t n o t e w a s attached: To those f a m i l i a r w i t h M r Eliot's The Waste Land, m y indebtedness t o i t at t h i s p o i n t w i l l be evident. H e seems t o m e b y t h i s poem, t o h a v e p e r f o r m e d t w o considerable services f o r t h i s generation. H e has g i v e n a perfect e m o t i v e d e s c r i p t i o n of a state o f m i n d w h i c h is p r o b a b l y i n e v i t a b l e f o r a w h i l e t o a l l those w h o m o s t matter. Secondly, b y effecting a c o m p l e t e severance b e t w e e n h i s p o e t r y a n d all beliefs, a n d t h i s w i t h o u t

68

The Trials of a Christian

Critic

a n y w e a k e n i n g of t h e p o e t r y , he has realised w h a t m i g h t other­ wise h a v e r e m a i n e d l a r g e l y a speculative p o s s i b i l i t y , a n d has s h o w n t h e w a y t o t h e o n l y s o l u t i o n o f these d i f f i c u l t i e s . 6

I t is o n l y a passing reference, d r o p p e d i n t o a f o o t n o t e , b u t i t is nevertheless i m p o r t a n t b o t h i n t h e h i s t o r y o f m o d e r n c r i t i c i s m a n d i n t h e c r i t i c a l h i s t o r y o f The Waste Land. F o r Richards h a d devised a t h e o r y o f m o d e r n p o e t r y i n terms o f w h i c h Eliot's p o e m was a k e y e x a m p l e a n d a model, a n d h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e p o e m as a d o c u m e n t o f u n b e l i e f f o r a t i m e o f u n b e l i e f v e r y q u i c k l y became t h e c o m m o n one. E l i o t d i d n o t protest t h e i n t e r ­ p r e t a t i o n i n 1925, w h e n h e accepted Richards's essay f o r p u b l i ­ c a t i o n , n o r i n 1926, w h e n i t was r e p r i n t e d i n Science and Poetry as 'Poetry a n d Beliefs'; b u t one c a n see w h y h e h a d t o speak u p i n 1927, f o r he was t h e n o n t h e verge of conversion, a n d f r o m h i s n e w p o i n t of v i e w Richards's a d m i r a t i o n c o u l d o n l y be a n embar­ rassment. R e a d i n g over Richards's f o o t n o t e , E l i o t m u s t h a v e f e l t l i k e a g e n e r a l w h o has lost h i s a r t i l l e r y t o t h e enemy, a n d is b e i n g shelled b y h i s o w n guns. I n h i s r e p l y , E l i o t t o o k e x c e p t i o n t o Richards's second p o i n t , b o t h o n general t h e o r e t i c a l g r o u n d s ('I c a n n o t see t h a t p o e t r y c a n ever be separated f r o m s o m e t h i n g w h i c h I s h o u l d call b e l i e f ) a n d o n personal grounds: 'As f o r t h e p o e m o f m y o w n i n question', he w r o t e , I c a n n o t f o r t h e l i f e o f m e see t h e 'complete s e p a r a t i o n ' f r o m a l l b e l i e f . . . A 'sense o f desolation,' etc. ( i f i t is t h e r e ) is n o t a s e p a r a t i o n f r o m belief; i t is n o t h i n g so pleasant. I n fact, doubt, u n c e r t a i n t y , f u t i l i t y , etc., w o u l d seem t o m e t o p r o v e a n y t h i n g except t h i s agreeable p a r t i t i o n ; f o r d o u b t a n d u n c e r t a i n t y are m e r e l y a v a r i e t y of belief. 7

T h i s is n o t q u i t e a C h r i s t i a n c r i t i c s p e a k i n g — E l i o t is s c r u p u l o u s to i d e n t i f y h i m s e l f as a d o u b t e r — b u t t h e p o s i t i o n is a r e l i g o u s one i n t h a t i t asserts a necessary c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e c r e a t i n g i m a g i n a t i o n a n d some f o r m o f belief; a n d t h e e x a m p l e t o w h i c h he l i m i t s h i m s e l f is Christian belief, a n h i s t o r i c a l l i n e t h a t h e d r a w s f r o m D a n t e t o C r a s h a w t o C h r i s t i n a Rossetti and, b y s h y implication, to himself. T h e argument i n support of this position scarcely exists i n t h e essay; E l i o t s i m p l y denies Richards's v i e w ,

The T r i a l s of a Christian

Critic

6

9

a n d associates h i m s e l f w i t h another, b e l i e v i n g p o s i t i o n . I t is as t h o u g h at t h i s p o i n t , j u s t before h i s conversion, E l i o t recognized t h a t t h e q u e s t i o n of p o e t r y a n d belief w o u l d be a n i m p o r t a n t one f o r h i m , a n d k n e w w h e r e h e w o u l d h a v e t o take h i s stand, b u t d i d n o t y e t have a t h e o r y t o s t a n d o n . O n e o t h e r p o i n t i n Eliot's ' N o t e ' is i m p o r t a n t t o notice. I n t h e course o f his a t t a c k o n Richards, E l i o t w r o t e : 'Mr. Richards seems to m e t o be s l i g h t l y u n d e r t h e s e n t i m e n t a l i n f l u e n c e of M a t t h e w A r n o l d . ' I t was a n i n f l u e n c e t h a t Richards was eager to claim; h i s essay i n i t s first v e r s i o n b e g a n w i t h a q u o t a t i o n f r o m a n A r n o l d poem, a n d Science and Poetry begins a n d ends w i t h A r n o l d : t h e e p i g r a p h is t h e passage f r o m 'The S t u d y o f P o e t r y ' i n w h i c h A r n o l d claims f o r p o e t r y t h e r o l e i n h u m a n l i f e p r e v i o u s l y p l a y e d b y r e l i g i o n , a n d t h e final essay i m a g i n e s a f u t u r e as prophesied b y A r n o l d : 'We s h a l l t h e n be t h r o w n back, as M a t t h e w A r n o l d foresaw, u p o n p o e t r y . I t is capable of s a v i n g us ...' L i k e A r n o l d , Richards t o o k t h e d e a t h of r e l i g i o u s belief as a g i v e n : 8

Countless p s e u d o - s t a t e m e n t s — a b o u t God, a b o u t t h e universe, about h u m a n nature, the relations of m i n d to m i n d , about the soul, i t s r a n k a n d d e s t i n y — p s e u d o - s t a t e m e n t s w h i c h are pivotal points i n the organisation o f the mind, vital to its well-being, h a v e s u d d e n l y become, f o r sincere, honest a n d i n f o r m a l m i n d s , impossible t o believe. F o r centuries t h e y have been believed; n o w t h e y are gone, i r r e c o v e r a b l y .. . 9

This argument, l i n k i n g the most i n f l u e n t i a l of V i c t o r i a n critics w i t h one of the most influential o f modern, was one t h a t Eliot had t o a t t a c k , w h a t e v e r else h e d i d , f o r i f t h e A r n o l d - R i c h a r d s idea o f t h e r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n p o e t r y a n d belief w a s correct, t h e n belief ( i n Eliot's sense) d i d n o t e x i s t at a l l — i t w a s s i m p l y p o e t r y p r e t e n d i n g t o be s o m e t h i n g else. T h e ' N o t e ' was a t e n t a t i v e first a p p r o a c h t o a t h e o r e t i c a l prob­ l e m t h a t w o u l d c o n c e r n E l i o t t h e C h r i s t i a n c r i t i c f o r m a n y years. I t w a s t e n t a t i v e , p a r t l y perhaps because E l i o t d o u b t e d i n h i m s e l f t h e 'power o f connected r e a s o n i n g ' t h a t h e f o u n d l a c k i n g i n A r n o l d , a n d p a r t l y because he c o u l d n o t y e t speak as a C h r i s t i a n . C o n s e q u e n t l y i t touches o n o n l y one aspect o f t h e p r o b l e m , o n w h i c h E l i o t m i g h t be assumed t o h a v e some s u p e r i o r i n s i g h t — t h e necessity of belief of some k i n d as a c o n d i t i o n of t h e c r e a t i n g

70

The

Trials of a Christian

Critic

m i n d . T w o years l a t e r h e r e t u r n e d t o t h e subject w i t h a good deal m o r e confidence i n 'Dante', a l o n g essay i n w h i c h t h e great­ est C h r i s t i a n poet is dealt w i t h as a C h r i s t i a n , a n d t h e r e f o r e as a necessary case o f t h e p r o b l e m of p o e t r y a n d belief as i t affects t h e r e a d i n g o f p o e t r y . E l i o t is c a r e f u l n o t t o a t t a c k t h i s p r o b l e m i m m e d i a t e l y — t h e e a r l y pages o f t h e essay are concerned w i t h questions o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g and a p p r e c i a t i o n — b u t i t i s neverthe­ less t h e c e n t r a l issue. The t h r u s t of Eliot's a r g u m e n t is t h a t belief exists i n t h e Divine Comedy, t h a t i t is an i n f o r m i n g e l e m e n t t h a t m u s t be recognized a n d responded t o , b u t t h a t r e c o g n i t i o n a n d response do n o t necessarily i m p l y assent t o t h e t r u t h of t h e belief. T h e correct c r i t i c a l state o f m i n d , E l i o t concludes, is one i n w h i c h 'one sees c e r t a i n beliefs, as t h e order of t h e deadly sins, i n w h i c h t r e a c h e r y and p r i d e are greater t h a n l u s t , and despair t h e greatest, as possible, so t h a t w e suspend o u r j u d g m e n t a l t o g e t h e r ' . T h i s is n o t t h e A r n o l d - R i c h a r d s l i n e — b e l i e f stands as belief, a n d n o t as p o e t r y or p s e u d o - s t a t e m e n t — b u t i t is an a t t e m p t t o a v o i d dog­ m a t i s m , w h i l e r e t a i n i n g t h e sense of t h e i m p o r t a n c e of belief as a p a r t of t h e w o r k . T h e t h e o r e t i c a l basis f o r t h i s a r g u m e n t is n o t developed i n t h e essay a n d E l i o t m u s t h a v e f e l t t h a t t h i s was so, f o r he attached t o i t a l o n g f o o t n o t e i n w h i c h he set f o r t h h i s general t h e o r y , n o t i n g as h e d i d so t h a t i t was ' s t i l l embryonic'. T h e note is an e x a m p l e of t h e w a y E l i o t w o r r i e d over c r i t i c a l p r o b l e m s d u r i n g these years, r e t u r n i n g t o earlier f o r m u l a t i o n s , r e v i s i n g , e x p a n d i n g o r compressing, as t h o u g h h e w a s c o n t i n u a l l y u n c e r t a i n as t o w h e t h e r h e h a d f o u n d t h e r i g h t , t h e Christian w a y of p u t t i n g i t . I n t h i s case he was r e v i s i n g h i s 'Note o n Poetry a n d B e l i e f , start­ i n g once m o r e f r o m Richards, a n d w o r k i n g t o w a r d a t h e o r y o f h i s o w n t h a t w o u l d a l l o w t o poetic belief t h e authority o f belief. E v e n Richards's o f f e n d i n g passage o n The Waste Land is q u o t e d again, t o be dismissed i n a single sentence: 'Mr. Richards' s t a t e m e n t . . . t h a t a c e r t a i n w r i t e r has effected " a complete severance b e t w e e n h i s p o e t r y a n d all b e l i e f s " is t o m e i n c o m ­ prehensible.' T h e a r g u m e n t of Eliot's e m b r y o n i c t h e o r y consists m a i n l y i n the offering of t w o apparently contradictory views of the relation b e t w e e n p o e t r y a n d belief, w h i c h E l i o t argues are nevertheless b o t h true: 10

The Trials of a Christian

Critic

7

1

i t m u s t be possible t o have f u l l l i t e r a r y or poetic a p p r e c i a t i o n w i t h o u t s h a r i n g t h e beliefs of t h e poet; and I t is possible, and sometimes necessary, t o argue t h a t f u l l u n d e r s t a n d i n g m u s t i d e n t i f y itself w i t h f u l l b e l i e f . 11

I f y o u d e n y t h e first, E l i o t argues, y o u d e n y t h e existence of b o t h p o e t r y and c r i t i c i s m , f o r b o t h t h e n become sub-categories of p h i l o s o p h y or theology; i f o n t h e o t h e r h a n d y o u d e n y t h e second, y o u d e n y t h e p o w e r of belief t o alter consciousness, and t h i s E l i o t cannot allow. T h e c o n t r a d i c t i o n is n o t resolved, and as a n argu­ m e n t t h e note is n o t m u c h of a c o n t r i b u t i o n t o t h e theoretical problem. B u t i n terms of Eliot's u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e p r o b l e m i t was a n advance i n t w o ways: he recognized t h a t t h e e x t r e m e opposing positions w e r e c o n t r a d i c t o r y , and t h a t b o t h w e r e u n t e n ­ able, and he recognized t h a t t h e p r o b l e m i n v o l v e d t h e reader as w e l l as t h e w r i t e r of poetry. I n his earlier note Eliot had argued t h a t belief necessarily figures i n the creative process; t h a t b e i n g so, he assumes here t h a t i t m u s t figure also i n the reader's response. B u t n e i t h e r aspect of the issue is dealt w i t h c o n c l u s i v e l y and the note is more an a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t of problems t h a n an u r g i n g of solutions. ' I have tried', E l i o t modestly concludes, to m a k e clear some of the difficulties i n h e r i n g i n m y own t h e o r y . A c t u a l l y , one p r o b a b l y has m o r e pleasure i n t h e p o e t r y w h e n one shares t h e beliefs of t h e poet. O n t h e o t h e r h a n d there is a d i s t i n c t pleasure i n e n j o y i n g p o e t r y as p o e t r y w h e n one does not share t h e beliefs, analogous t o t h e pleasure of 'mastering' o t h e r men's p h i l o s o p h i c a l systems. I t w o u l d appear t h a t ' l i t e r a r y a p p r e c i a t i o n ' is an abstraction, and pure p o e t r y a p h a n t o m ; and t h a t b o t h i n creation and e n j o y m e n t m u c h always enters w h i c h is, f r o m t h e p o i n t of v i e w of 'Art,' irrelevant. T h a t states t h e p r o b l e m w e l l enough; b u t i t leaves a l l t h e h a r d questions unanswered. E l i o t r e t u r n e d t o the question again a year later i n 'Poetry and Propaganda', a n essay w h i c h is a sort of f o o t n o t e t o t h e 'Dante' note. ' I n a note to a recent essay w h i c h I have p u b l i s h e d o n

The Trials of a Christian

72

Critic

Dante', h e w r o t e , ' I made a first a t t e m p t t o c r i t i c i z e b o t h views [ t h e t w o c o n t r a d i c t o r y p o s i t i o n s ] , a n d t o find some w a y of medi­ ation between t h e t r u t h of both. I am n o w m a k i n g a fresh s t a r t / T h i s f r e s h s t a r t begins w i t h t h e a n a l o g y b e t w e e n p o e t r y a n d p h i l o s o p h y t h a t E l i o t h a d made i n t h e D a n t e n o t e q u o t e d above, a n d elaborates o n i t i n t w o ways. T h e first a r g u m e n t is t h a t p h i l o s o p h i c a l p o e t r y does n o t prove ideas, b u t m e r e l y lends t h e m a n aesthetic s a n c t i o n . I f I u n d e r s t a n d E l i o t c o r r e c t l y here, he is s a y i n g t h a t even t h o u g h w e m a y n o t be able t o accept a p h i l o s o p h y as t r u e , w e w i l l n o t a l t o g e t h e r despise i t i f w e see t h a t i t c a n be used i n a g o o d poem; t h e p o e m w i l l demonstrate, s i m p l y b y e x i s t i n g , t h a t i t s ideas 'are v a l i d n o t m e r e l y i n t h e o r y , b u t c a n be i n t e g r a t e d i n t o l i f e t h r o u g h art'. B u t one m u s t object t h a t t h a t last phrase begs t h e e n t i r e question; f o r w h a t w e are asking, i f w e discuss t h i s issue a t a l l , is f i o w does a r t i n t e g r a t e belief i n t o life? Eliot's second p o i n t f o l l o w s f r o m t h e first. 'We m u s t remem­ ber', he w r i t e s , 1 2

t h a t p a r t o f t h e use o f p o e t r y f o r h u m a n beings is s i m i l a r t o t h e i r use f o r p h i l o s o p h y . W h e n w e s t u d y p h i l o s o p h y as a h u m a n e d i s c i p l i n e w e do n o t do so m e r e l y i n order t o p i c k o u t one w h i c h w e s h a l l adopt as 'true,' o r e i t h e r t o confect a p h i l o ­ s o p h y of o u r o w n o u t of a l l philosophies. W e do so l a r g e l y f o r the exercise i n a s s u m p t i o n o f e n t e r t a i n i n g ideas; f o r t h e e n l a r g e m e n t a n d exercise o f m i n d w e get b y t r y i n g t o pene­ t r a t e a man's t h o u g h t a n d t h i n k i t after h i m , a n d t h e n passing o u t o f t h a t experience t o another. O n l y b y t h e exercise o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g w i t h o u t b e l i e v i n g , so f a r as t h a t is possible, c a n w e come i n f u l l consciousness t o some p o i n t w h e r e w e believe and u n d e r s t a n d . S i m i l a r l y w i t h t h e experience of p o e t r y . 13

T h i s n o t i o n o f t h e use o f p o e t r y avoids some o f t h e p r o b l e m s connected w i t h p o e t i c belief, b u t i t raises others. I f p o e t r y , l i k e p h i l o s o p h y , m e r e l y demonstrates t h a t o t h e r w o r l d s o f t h o u g h t are possible, t h e n i t is i n i t i a l l y i n d e p e n d e n t o f belief, t h o u g h i t w i l l guide us t o w a r d belief. B u t as w e m o v e t o w a r d t h a t p o i n t , w h a t becomes of o u r experience of p o e t r y ? A p p a r e n t l y w e leave m o s t o f i t b e h i n d : 'We a i m i d e a l l y ' , E l i o t says, 'to come t o rest i n some p o e t r y w h i c h s h a l l realize p o e t i c a l l y w h a t w e ourselves

The Trials of a Christian

Critic

73

believe .. / C o m e to rest is a n o d d phrase. Does i t m e a n t h a t E l i o t imagines a p o i n t i n l i f e a t w h i c h one stops r e a d i n g n e w poems, or a t least poems t h a t do n o t express one's o w n beliefs, a n d settles d o w n t o re-read t h e safe, f a m i l i a r ones u n t i l s e n i l i t y sets i n ? A n o t h e r passage i n t h e essay seems t o c o n f i r m t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n : W e do tend, I t h i n k , t o o r g a n i z e o u r tastes i n v a r i o u s arts i n t o a w h o l e ; w e a i m i n t h e e n d a t a t h e o r y of l i f e , o r a v i e w of l i f e , a n d so f a r as w e are conscious, t o t e r m i n a t e o u r e n j o y m e n t o f the arts i n a p h i l o s o p h y , a n d o u r p h i l o s o p h y i n a r e l i g i o n — i n such a w a y t h a t t h e personal t o oneself is fused a n d completed i n t h e i m p e r s o n a l a n d general, n o t e x t i n g u i s h e d , b u t enriched, expanded, developed, a n d m o r e itself b y b e c o m i n g m o r e some­ t h i n g not itself. 14

H e r e a g a i n is t h e c u r i o u s n o t i o n t h a t t h e experience o f a r t has n o t s i m p l y a n end ( i n t h e sense o f a goal), b u t a n ending. W h e t h e r terminate means t o c u t off, o r t o a r r i v e at a d e s t i n a t i o n , t h e sense is t h e same: a r t leads t o p h i l o s o p h y , a n d p h i l o s o p h y leads t o r e l i g i o n , w h i c h is t h e final t e r m i n t h e sequence. H a v i n g a r r i v e d there, one is at rest. T h i s is c e r t a i n l y E l i o t t h e C h r i s t i a n speaking, finding a n i n s t r u m e n t a l r o l e f o r p o e t r y i n t h e s h a p i n g o f belief, t h o u g h a t t h e expense o f t h e a u t o n o m y o f b o t h p o e m a n d poet. W h a t he seems t o be p o s t u l a t i n g i s a n o r t h o d o x y o f belief. T h i s is n o t a n a l t o g e t h e r satisfactory r e s o l u t i o n o f t h e p r o b l e m , b u t i t is as f a r as E l i o t got, a n d h i s l a t e r references t o t h e p r o b l e m (as f o r e x a m p l e h i s r e m a r k s o n Shelley i n T h e Use o f Poetry and the Use of Criticism) essentially repeat t h i s p o s i t i o n . A t t h e same t i m e t h a t E l i o t w a s t h e o r i z i n g about p o e t r y a n d belief h e w a s w r i t i n g essays o n C h r i s t i a n w r i t e r s , d e m o n s t r a t i n g belief in situ. Some of h i s subjects, D a n t e f o r example, a n d Pascal, are o b v i o u s choices, b u t o t h e r s are r a t h e r m o r e s u r p r i s i n g a n d s h o w m o r e i n t e r e s t i n g l y t h e possible consequences, f o r a c r i t i c , of b e c o m i n g a C h r i s t i a n . Take, f o r example, t h e t w o essays o n Baudelaire. T h e first, w r i t t e n i n 1927, t h e y e a r before t h e Sacred Wood preface, seems i n t e n d e d as a d e m o n s t r a t i o n o f w h a t E l i o t h a d m e a n t b y 'the r e l a t i o n o f p o e t r y t o t h e s p i r i t u a l a n d social l i f e o f i t s t i m e a n d o f o t h e r t i m e s / T h e occasion, a r e v i e w o f a t r a n s l a t i o n b y A r t h u r Symons, gave E l i o t a n o p p o r t u n i t y t o con­ sider Baudelaire i n h i s o w n t i m e , i n t h e nineties, a n d i n t h e

74

The Trials of a Christian

Critic

nineteen-twenties. F o r E l i o t t h e c o n s t a n t i n Baudelaire is t h a t 'he was essentially a C h r i s t i a n , b o r n o u t o f h i s time'; t h e v a r i a b l e is w h a t o t h e r times have m a d e of h i s C h r i s t i a n i t y . Symons, r e a d i n g h i m w i t h t h e b l i n d s e n s i b i l i t y o f h i s nineties g e n e r a t i o n , is p a r t l y right, partly wrong. w h a t is r i g h t i n M r . Symon's account is t h e i m p r e s s i o n i t gives t h a t Baudelaire was p r i m a r i l y occupied w i t h r e l i g i o u s values. W h a t is w r o n g is t h e c h i l d i s h a t t i t u d e o f t h e 'nineties t o w a r d r e l i g i o n , t h e b e l i e f — w h i c h is n o m o r e t h a n t h e game o f c h i l ­ d r e n dressing u p a n d p l a y i n g a t b e i n g g r o w n - u p s — t h a t t h e r e is a r e l i g i o n of E v i l , o r V i c e , or S i n . 15

W h e r e a s 'we' ( m e a n i n g E l i o t ) recognize i n Baudelaire a self-made C h r i s t i a n , t o w h o m t h e n o t i o n o f O r i g i n a l S i n a n d t h e need f o r p r a y e r came spontaneously, a k i n d o f saint w h o i n h i s s o l i t u d e a t t a i n e d t h e greatest o f t h e C h r i s t i a n v i r t u e s , t h e v i r t u e o f h u m i l i t y . I t is a c o n c e p t i o n of Baudelaire t h a t reflects Eliot's ideas as m u c h as Symons's reflects t h e n i n e t i e s — a Baudelaire f o r be­ lievers. T h e second essay, w r i t t e n t h r e e years later, is a l o n g e r a n d m o r e elaborately argued v e r s i o n o f t h e first—another e x a m p l e o f h o w E l i o t r e t u r n e d t o a n d revised h i s c r i t i c i s m . W h e r e a s i n t h e first essay h e h a d s i m p l y stated t h a t Baudelaire was essentially a C h r i s t i a n , i n t h e second he hedged t h a t assertion r o u n d w i t h reservations: I t was once t h e mode t o take Baudelaire's S a t a n i s m seriously, as i t is n o w t h e t e n d e n c y t o present Baudelaire as a serious a n d C a t h o l i c C h r i s t i a n ... I t h i n k t h a t t h e l a t t e r v i e w — t h a t Baudelaire is essentially C h r i s t i a n — i s nearer t h e t r u t h t h a n the f o r m e r , b u t i t needs considerable r e s e r v a t i o n . 16

( T h e p r i n c i p a l e x a m p l e o f t h e l a t t e r v i e w o f course is Eliot's o w n earlier essay, b u t here de-personalized, reduced t o t h e status of a n a p p r o x i m a t e t r u t h , a first draft.) T h e r e s e r v a t i o n t h a t E l i o t pro­ poses i n t h i s n e w v e r s i o n is t h a t Baudelaire's r e l i g i o u s under­ s t a n d i n g was o n l y a p a r t of C h r i s t i a n i t y ; w h a t he h a d discovered f o r h i m s e l f w a s t h e r e a l i t y o f S i n a n d t h e sense o f E v i l . A n d , t h e a r g u m e n t goes, i f t h e c r i t i c shares t h a t sense, h e w i l l have a r o u t e

The

Trials of a Christian

Critic

75

to a n u n d e r s t a n d i n g b o t h o f t h e poet a n d of t h e age t h a t h e represents. T h e Baudelaire essays, a n d p a r t i c u l a r l y t h e second, are i m p o r ­ t a n t examples of E l i o t p e r f o r m i n g as a C h r i s t i a n c r i t i c , u s i n g his o w n r e l i g i o u s sense t o discover t h a t sense i n a n o t h e r poet. Baudelaire w a s u s e f u l t o h i m , as f o r e x a m p l e H o p k i n s was n o t , s i m p l y because his C h r i s t i a n i t y w a s not e x p l i c i t . T o Eliot, h i s case seemed t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t a poet sensitive t o t h e s p i r i t u a l c o n d i t i o n o f h i s t i m e m i g h t a r r i v e i n t u i t i v e l y at a C h r i s t i a n p o s i t i o n , a n d t h a t a C h r i s t i a n c r i t i c w o u l d detect t h a t i n t u i t e d Christianity. A s E l i o t c o n t i n u e d t o t h i n k a b o u t p o e t r y a n d belief, a n d a b o u t C h r i s t i a n l i t e r a t u r e , i t is n o t s u r p r i s i n g t h a t t h e t e r m i n o l o g y o f r e l i g i o u s discourse, a n d especially d i s c r i m i n a t i v e terms s u c h as orthodoxy a n d heresy, began t o t u r n u p i n h i s w r i t i n g . Take, f o r example, t h i s passage f r o m t h e ' D a n t e ' note: I n short, b o t h t h e v i e w I have t a k e n i n t h i s essay, a n d t h e v i e w w h i c h c o n t r a d i c t s i t , are, i f p u s h e d t o t h e end, w h a t I call heresies ( n o t , o f course, i n t h e theological, b u t i n a m o r e general sense). Each i s t r u e o n l y w i t h i n a l i m i t e d field of dis­ course, b u t unless y o u l i m i t fields of discourse, y o u can have n o discourse at a l l . O r t h o d o x y can o n l y be f o u n d i n s u c h con­ t r a d i c t i o n s , t h o u g h i t m u s t be r e m e m b e r e d t h a t a p a i r o f c o n t r a d i c t i o n s m a y both be false, a n d t h a t n o t a l l pairs o f contradictions make up a t r u t h . 1 7

T h e 'views' here are t h e c o n t r a d i c t o r y ideas a b o u t p o e t r y a n d belief t h a t I discussed above: I c a n n o t see h o w t h e y can be regarded as heresies, even i f w e t a k e t h a t t e r m i n a 'general sense'. D o t h e y p r o m o t e d i v i s i o n a n d schism? A r e t h e y c o n t r a r y t o t h e o p i n i o n s o f t h e c o m m u n i t y ? O r are t h e y s i m p l y opposing v i e w s i n a n a r g u m e n t over l i t e r a r y t h e o r y ? A s f o r orthodoxy, i t seems t o m e q u i t e meaningless t o say t h a t i t can o n l y be f o u n d i n s u c h c o n t r a d i c t i o n s , as t h o u g h one a r r i v e d at t h e o r t h o d o x b y s t r i k i n g a n average b e t w e e n heresies, n o r d o I u n d e r s t a n d w h a t sort o f o r t h o d o x y is b e i n g described: religious o r t h o d o x y ? S u r e l y n o t . Critical o r t h o d o x y ? B u t w h a t c o u l d t h a t t e r m possibly mean? Such l a n g u a g e is scattered t h r o u g h Eliot's c r i t i c a l w r i t i n g s of

The Trials of a Christian

76

Critic

t h e p e r i o d : one finds i t f o r e x a m p l e i n a r e v i e w o f a b o o k o n D. H. L a w r e n c e a n d again i n The Use of Poetry and the Use of Criticism, w h e r e L a w r e n c e appears a m o n g 'the great heretics o f a l l times', a category t h a t seems also t o i n c l u d e W o r d s w o r t h , Shelley a n d Goethe ( t h e reference o f p r o n o u n s is s o m e w h a t u n ­ c l e a r ) . I n n o case does t h i s t e r m i n o l o g y c l a r i f y t h e p o i n t at issue; indeed w h e n i t appears i t is m o r e l i k e l y t o reveal Eliot's failures of d e f i n i t i o n a n d logic. B u t I take i t t h a t Eliot's reason f o r u s i n g s u c h t e r m s was r a t h e r a m a t t e r of s t r a t e g y t h a n of logic: w h e n h e called t h e o t h e r side o f a n a r g u m e n t heresy, a n d h i s o w n ortho­ doxy, h e w a s s i m p l y d e f i n i n g t h e g r o u n d o n w h i c h h e chose t o fight his c r i t i c a l battles. I t w a s a w a y o f a n n o u n c i n g t h a t t h e c r i t i c engaged i n t h i s j u d g e m e n t m u s t be t a k e n as a Christian critic. 18

2 I n 1932 E l i o t t r a v e l l e d t o t h e U n i t e d States t o give t w o series o f lectures: t h e N o r t o n lectures at H a r v a r d ( p u b l i s h e d as The Use of

Poetry and the Use of Criticism)

i n t h e w i n t e r of 1932-3, a n d

t h e Page-Barbour lectures a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f V i r g i n i a (pub­ l i s h e d as After Strange Gods) i n t h e a u t u m n o f 1933. T h e t w o series are Eliot's m o s t elaborate performances as a C h r i s t i a n c r i t i c and together they demonstrate the critical implications o f t h e p o s i t i o n at w h i c h he h a d a r r i v e d . I n t h e H a r v a r d series E l i o t is m o r e n e a r l y t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l l i t e r a r y c r i t i c d e a l i n g w i t h a l i t e r a r y subject; nevertheless, o n e finds i n t h e lectures a l l t h e C h r i s t i a n concerns t h a t I h a v e been discussing: t h e p r o b l e m o f p o e t r y a n d belief, t h e j u d g e m e n t o f C h r i s t i a n subjects, examples o f heresies, even a passing r e m a r k o n t h e d e v i l i n m o d e r n l i t e r a t u r e . A n d t h e c e n t r a l thesis o f t h e lectures is a r e l i g i o u s one: t h a t is, i t is a p r o p o s i t i o n a b o u t t h e r e l a t i o n s b e t w e e n p o e t r y a n d r e l i g i o u s f a i t h — t h a t as ideas o f r e l i g i o n h a v e changed, c o r r e s p o n d i n g changes h a v e t a k e n place i n ideas of t h e use of p o e t r y . I t is t h e subject t h a t E l i o t a n n o u n c e d i n h i s Sacred Wood preface: 'the r e l a t i o n of p o e t r y t o t h e s p i r i t u a l and social l i f e of i t s time'. A s E l i o t i n t h e lectures moves chrono­ l o g i c a l l y t h r o u g h E n g l i s h l i t e r a t u r e , t h e j u d g e m e n t s h e offers b e l o n g as m u c h t o r e l i g i o u s as t o l i t e r a r y h i s t o r y : i n t h e age o f A d d i s o n 'theology, d e v o t i o n a n d p o e t r y f e l l fast i n t o a f o r m a l -

The

Trials of a Christian

Critic

77

istic slumber'; W o r d s w o r t h b r o u g h t a ' p r o f o u n d s p i r i t u a l re­ v i v a l ' ; A r n o l d represents a n o t h e r decline, i n w h i c h 'the best p o e t r y supersedes b o t h r e l i g i o n a n d philosophy'; a n d i n t h e t w e n t i e t h c e n t u r y I . A. Richards is a n o t h e r A r n o l d . W h a t t h e lectures a m o u n t t o is a h i s t o r y o f E n g l i s h c r i t i c i s m as seen b y a C h r i s t i a n c r i t i c . I t is C h r i s t i a n c r i t i c i s m i n t h a t i t takes as i t s p r i m a r y v a r i a b l e t h e state o f f a i t h i n E n g l a n d , a n d relates changes i n c r i t i c i s m t o i t . I t is also, perhaps necessarily, a polemic: f o r i t i m p l i e s a n ideal c o n d i t i o n i n society, i n w h i c h p o e t r y a n d f a i t h i n t e r a c t , b u t keep t h e i r o w n domains. T h i s con­ d i t i o n is n o t e x e m p l i f i e d i n a n y h i s t o r i c a l p e r i o d covered b y t h e lectures, a n d least of a l l b y t h e present w h i c h is represented c h i e f l y b y t h e heresies of A r n o l d a n d Richards; indeed i t seems, as one reads t h r o u g h i t , t h a t E l i o t m u s t h a v e w r i t t e n t h e b o o k m a i n l y f o r the o p p o r t u n i t y i t provided of w i n d i n g up w i t h his t w o a n t a g o n i s t s a n d r e f u t i n g y e t a g a i n Richards's j u d g e m e n t of

The

Waste

Land.

E l i o t was n o t satisfied w i t h h i s H a r v a r d performance; t h e result, he said, was o n l y 'another unnecessary book'. W h a t he m e a n t b y t h i s he e x p l a i n e d i n a l e t t e r t o h i s f r i e n d P a u l Elmer More: T h e subject o f 'The Use o f P o e t r y ' was u n d e r t a k e n m e r e l y because i t seemed t h e one o n w h i c h I c o u l d w r i t e w i t h t h e m i n i m u m o f n e w r e a d i n g a n d t h i n k i n g ; t h e field o f ' A f t e r Strange Gods' was one t o w h i c h m y r e a l i n t e r e s t h a d t u r n e d . I t h e r e f o r e feel m o r e r e g r e t a t t h e i n a d e q u a c y of t h e l a t t e r t h a n of the former. I am p a i n f u l l y a w a r e t h a t I need a m u c h m o r e extensive a n d p r o f o u n d k n o w l e d g e o f t h e o l o g y , f o r t h e sort of prose w o r k t h a t I s h o u l d l i k e t o d o — f o r p u r e l i t e r a r y c r i t i c i s m has ceased t o i n t e r e s t me. 19

M o s t of us w o u l d n o t call The Use of Poetry 'pure l i t e r a r y c r i t i ­ cism', b u t i t seems clear t h a t t o E l i o t i t was a b o o k t h a t f a i l e d t o do w h a t he h a d set as h i s i n t e n t i o n back i n t h e Sacred Wood preface, t o leave 'the d o m a i n of c r i t i c i s m of " p o e t r y " '. I t was therefore, to h i s m i n d , a less i m p o r t a n t w o r k t h a n t h e series of lectures t h a t f o l l o w e d , a n d he was a n x i o u s t o d e f e n d t h e seriousness of A f t e r Strange Gods against its critics. W h e n Ezra P o u n d suggested i n a

78

The Trials of a Christian

Critic

r e v i e w t h a t o f t h e t w o books The Use of Poetry w a s t h e better, E l i o t p r o t e s t e d i n a l e t t e r t o t h e editor: M r . P o u n d has done y o u r readers a disservice i n suggesting t h a t a b o o k o f m i n e , w h i c h is a n u n s a t i s f a c t o r y a t t e m p t t o say s o m e t h i n g w o r t h s a y i n g , is m o r e n e g l i b l e t h a n a n o t h e r b o o k o f m i n e w h i c h is a n u n s a t i s f a c t o r y a t t e m p t t o say a v a r i e t y o f t h i n g s m o s t of w h i c h are n o t w o r t h s a y i n g . 20

O n e recognizes t h e self-denigrating tone as Eliot's characteristic p u b l i c a t t i t u d e t o w a r d h i s o w n w o r k , b u t i n t h i s case I t h i n k w e take h i m l i t e r a l l y ; he d i d a p p a r e n t l y t h i n k t h a t b o t h books w e r e

inadequate. B u t o f t h e t w o , After

Strange Gods was t h e one t o

be defended. I t was a n a t t e m p t t o say s o m e t h i n g t h a t m a t t e r e d , s o m e t h i n g t h a t was i n t h e field o f Eliot's r e a l i n t e r e s t . W h a t t h a t field was s h o u l d be clear enough: E l i o t h a d described i t i n t h e 1928 preface t o The Sacred W o o d , a n d h a d been t i l l i n g i t ever since, o r t r y i n g to. I t was s i m p l y a k i n d o f c r i t i c i s m t h a t w o u l d be i n t e g r a t e d b y t h e critic's beliefs, a n d t h e r e l i g i o u s t r a d i t i o n t o w h i c h h e belonged, a c r i t i c i s m t h a t w o u l d t u r n a w a y f r o m t h e idea o f a u t o t e l i c p o e t r y , f r o m t h e s e p a r a t i o n o f t h e m a n w h o suffers f r o m t h e poet w h o creates, a n d w h i c h w o u l d u r g e t h e relevance o f a r e l i g i o u s v i e w o f l i f e b o t h t o t h e m a k i n g a n d t o t h e e x p e r i e n c i n g o f l i t e r a t u r e . 'A man's t h e o r y o f t h e place o f p o e t r y is n o t i n d e p e n d e n t o f h i s v i e w o f l i f e i n general', h e h a d w r i t t e n i n The Use of Poetry; After Strange Gods is h i s c u l m i n a ­ t i n g effort t o demonstrate t h e c r i t i c a l consequences o f t h a t con­ viction. E l i o t first described h i s i n t e n t i o n s f o r t h e b o o k i n a l e t t e r t o M o r e , w r i t t e n w h i l e he was r e v i s i n g t h e lectures f o r p u b l i c a t i o n : I h a v e h a d t o t u r n t o t h e r e v i s i o n o f m y V i r g i n i a lectures w h i c h have t o be p u b l i s h e d i n t h e s p r i n g . A g a i n , a n unsatis­ f a c t o r y piece o f w o r k . A g o o d subject, I t h i n k : f u n d a m e n t a l l y a c r i t i c i s m o f t h e l a c k o f m o r a l c r i t e r i a — a t b o t t o m o f course religious c r i t e r i a — i n the criticism of modern literature. 21

T h e r e is also a s t a t e m e n t o f i n t e n t i n t h e book's dust-jacket copy, w h i c h E l i o t m a y w e l l have w r i t t e n , a n d w o u l d c e r t a i n l y have approved, since i t was p u b l i s h e d b y his o w n firm:

The Trials of a Christian

Critic

79

t h e weakness o f m o d e r n l i t e r a t u r e , i n d i c a t i v e o f t h e weakness of t h e m o d e r n w o r l d i n general, i s a r e l i g i o u s weakness, a n d .. . a l l o u r social problems, i n c l u d i n g those o f l i t e r a t u r e a n d c r i t i ­ cism, b e g i n a n d e n d i n a r e l i g i o u s p r o b l e m . 22

A n d i n t h e lectures themselves h e w a s also a n x i o u s t o define h i s i n t e n t i o n s v e r y e x p l i c i t l y : h e e x p l a i n e d t h e r e t h a t h e w o u l d be 'applying t h e standard of o r t h o d o x y t o contemporary literature', ' i l l u s t r a t i n g t h e l i m i t i n g a n d c r i p p l i n g effect o f a separation f r o m t r a d i t i o n a n d o r t h o d o x y u p o n c e r t a i n w r i t e r s ' , a n d demonstra­ t i n g 'the i n t r u s i o n o f t h e diabolic i n t o m o d e r n l i t e r a t u r e ' . T h e p r i n c i p a l difference b e t w e e n these statements a n d Eliot's earlier approaches t o C h r i s t i a n c r i t i c i s m is i n t h e explicitness o f t h e c o n n e c t i o n t h a t h e makes b e t w e e n l i t e r a t u r e a n d r e l i g i o n ; clearly t h i s b o o k w a s t o be a p o l e m i c i n a w a y t h a t n o n e o f t h e o t h e r w r i t i n g s h a d been. Eliot's p r e v i o u s C h r i s t i a n c r i t i c i s m h a d been h i s t o r i c a l w h e n i t dealt w i t h i n d i v i d u a l w r i t e r s ; i t was a b o u t 'the r e l a t i o n o f p o e t r y t o t h e s p i r i t u a l a n d social l i f e o f i t s t i m e a n d o t h e r times'. B u t After Strange Gods is concerned w i t h t h e i m m e d i a t e s i t u a t i o n : i t deals o n l y w i t h m o d e r n w r i t e r s , a n d addresses itself to c o n t e m p o r a r y l i t e r a r y questions, t h o u g h i t does so i n a r a t h e r s u r p r i s i n g w a y . E l i o t calls i t 'my i l l u s t r a t i o n o f t h e dangers o f a u t h o r s h i p to-day', b u t t h e dangers h e is r e f e r r i n g t o are n o t those t h a t t h r e a t e n t h e a u t h o r , b u t those b y w h i c h t h e a u t h o r threatens s o c i e t y — i n short, t h e 'modern heresies' o f w h i c h t h e b o o k is a 'primer'. I t is a b o o k o f m o r a l j u d g e m e n t , a n d Eliot's tone, u s u a l l y so m i l d a n d urbane, sometimes becomes a n g r y a n d d e n u n c i a t o r y , t h e voice less o f a l i t e r a r y c r i t i c t h a n o f a n O l d T e s t a m e n t p r o p h e t ; t h e final l e c t u r e assumes t h a t voice altogether i n t h e p e r o r a t i o n , w h e r e E l i o t quotes a fiery passage f r o m Ezekiel: 'Woe u n t o t h e f o o l i s h prophets, t h a t f o l l o w t h e i r own spirit...' B u t t h o u g h E l i o t ends as a p r o p h e t , h e begins as a modest m a n of letters. T h e first l e c t u r e opens w i t h a d i s a r m i n g l y simple state­ m e n t : E l i o t is s i m p l y s e t t i n g o u t t o r e - w r i t e h i s i m p o r t a n t e a r l y essay, ' T r a d i t i o n a n d t h e I n d i v i d u a l Talent'. F i f t e e n years have passed, a n d E l i o t has changed (he has become a C h r i s t i a n , t h o u g h he doesn't m e n t i o n t h i s c r u c i a l f a c t o r ) . A l t h o u g h h e does n o t r e p u d i a t e h i s earlier f o r m u l a t i o n , h e sees t h a t i t needs r e v i s i n g : 23

80

The Trials of a Christian

Critic

'the p r o b l e m , n a t u r a l l y , does n o t seem t o be so s i m p l e as i t seemed t h e n , n o r c o u l d I t r e a t i t n o w as a p u r e l y l i t e r a r y o n e / This is b y n o w f a m i l i a r behaviour: Eliot revising himself a n d r e a c h i n g o u t f r o m t h e ' p u r e l y l i t e r a r y ' t o larger issues. H e is s t i l l against p e r s o n a l i t y a n d i n f a v o u r o f t r a d i t i o n , b u t t h e terms need r e - d e f i n i t i o n a n d a f e w n e w ones m u s t be added ( n o t a b l y heresy). Tradition i n p a r t i c u l a r has changed; i t is n o l o n g e r a w o r d for a literary inheritance, b u t rather i n v o l v e s a l l those h a b i t u a l actions, habits a n d customs, f r o m the most significant religious rite to our conventional w a y of g r e e t i n g a stranger, w h i c h represent t h e b l o o d k i n s h i p o f 'the same people l i v i n g i n t h e same p l a c e / 24

E l i o t assumes t h r o u g h o u t t h i s first l e c t u r e n o t o n l y t h a t such a t r a d i t i o n a l society is t h e o r e t i c a l l y desirable, b u t t h a t i t a c t u a l l y exists i n t h e audience t h a t he is addressing. T h i s m u s t be t a k e n as a n elaborate p r e t e n c e — h e m u s t s u r e l y h a v e k n o w n t h a t h e w a s speaking, n o t t o a g a t h e r i n g o f S o u t h e r n A g r a r i a n s , b u t t o t h e h e t e r o d o x m o d e r n w o r l d — b u t i t was a pretence t h a t a l l o w e d h i m to m a k e some statements t h a t w o u l d o t h e r w i s e seem i n t o l e r a b l y r e a c t i o n a r y , t o r e m a r k t h a t i n t h e g o o d t r a d i t i o n a l society 'any large n u m b e r o f f r e e - t h i n k i n g Jews' w o u l d be undesirable, a n d t h a t 'a s p i r i t o f excessive tolerance is t o be deprecated'. T h e freet h i n k i n g Jews h a v e n o t h i n g t o do w i t h t h e a r g u m e n t a n d i t is d i f f i c u l t t o see w h y E l i o t inserted s u c h a g r a t u i t o u s l y offensive r e m a r k , o n e t h a t s t u c k t o h i s r e p u t a t i o n f o r t h e rest o f his l i f e ; the l a t t e r c o m m e n t is m o r e relevant, f o r as t h e l a t e r lectures d e m o n s t r a t e i t is a s t a t e m e n t o f t h e c r i t i c a l a t t i t u d e t h a t E l i o t h a d assumed. A s l i t e r a r y c r i t i c i s m t h e first l e c t u r e is a n e m p t y vessel, a n d t h e audience o f V i r g i n i a n s m u s t h a v e gone a w a y f e e l i n g r a t h e r l e t d o w n ; t h e y h a d come t o h e a r a f a m o u s m o d e r n poet a n d h a d g o t n o t h i n g b u t t r a d i t i o n a n d o r t h o d o x y . B u t one c a n see w h a t E l i o t w a s d o i n g ; h e w a s m a k i n g t h e l e c t u r e a n assertive i n i t i a l act o f i n t e g r a t i o n , p r o p o s i n g t h e r e l i g i o u s , p o l i t i c a l a n d social bases o n w h i c h t h e f o l l o w i n g c r i t i c a l j u d g e m e n t s w o u l d rest. I f the 'purely l i t e r a r y ' principles of 'Tradition and the I n d i v i d u a l T a l e n t ' w e r e n o l o n g e r adequate, these w e r e t h e reasons w h y . T h e t w o lectures t h a t f o l l o w e d h a v e p l e n t y o f c r i t i c a l c o n t e n t ,

The Trials of a Christian

Critic

81

t h o u g h o f a n o d d k i n d ; o n e m i g h t describe t h e m as Eliot's l i t e r a r y P u r g a t o r i o a n d I n f e r n o ( c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y , t h e r e is n o Paradiso). I n t h e second lecture, one sees t h e souls of t h e d i s t r e s s e d — w r i t e r s w h o m E l i o t admires b u t w h o s e w o r k has been c r i p p l e d b y t h e i r l a c k of 'a l i v i n g a n d c e n t r a l t r a d i t i o n ' , a n d i n t h e t h i r d , t h e souls of t h e damned, t h e heretics, i n s t r u m e n t s o f t h e E v i l S p i r i t ( D . H. Lawrence, r a t h e r p u z z l i n g l y , appears i n b o t h ) . I t i s a l l v e r y d r a m a t i c a n d s u r p r i s i n g — w h e r e else w o u l d one find t h e capital­ i z e d E v i l S p i r i t i n m o d e r n l i t e r a r y c r i t i c i s m ? — b u t i t is also sometimes grotesque, a n d suggests t h a t t r a d i t i o n a n d o r t h o d o x y m a y h a v e h a d as l i m i t i n g a n d c r i p p l i n g effects o n E l i o t as he t h o u g h t t h e i r absence h a d o n i m a g i n a t i v e w r i t e r s . A t t h e h e a r t o f t h e second l e c t u r e — a n d indeed i t is t h e essen­ t i a l centre o f t h e w h o l e c r i t i c a l a r g u m e n t — i s a t h e o r y o f t h e aesthetics o f m o r a l c o n f l i c t . A p e r c e p t i o n o f G o o d a n d E v i l , a n d t h e e t e r n a l s t r u g g l e b e t w e e n t h e m , is a c o n d i t i o n o f t h e s p i r i t u a l l i f e ; b u t i t is also, E l i o t argues, a c o n d i t i o n of t h e h i g h e s t l i t e r a r y l i f e , a n d one t h a t c a n scarcely be achieved w i t h o u t t h e s u p p o r t o f a m o r a l t r a d i t i o n . A w r i t e r ' s capacities w i l l be d i s t o r t e d a n d r e s t r i c t e d t o t h e degree t h a t h i s ideas o f G o o d a n d E v i l are i n ­ adequate, p r i v a t e , o r non-existent. T h e a s s u m p t i o n h e r e is n o t s i m p l y t h a t belief governs content: E l i o t i s a r g u i n g t h a t i t also governs t h e r a n g e o f a w r i t e r ' s awareness a n d u t i m a t e l y h i s c a p a c i t y f o r r e a l i s m a n d d e p t h of c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n . H e n c e m o d e r n w r i t e r s are c r i p p l e d as artists b y t h e i r strange gods: I t is i n f a c t i n m o m e n t s o f m o r a l a n d s p i r i t u a l s t r u g g l e depend­ i n g u p o n s p i r i t u a l sanctions, r a t h e r t h a n i n those ' b e w i l d e r i n g m i n u t e s ' i n w h i c h w e are a l l v e r y m u c h alike, t h a t m e n a n d w o m e n come nearest t o b e i n g real. I f y o u do a w a y w i t h t h i s struggle, a n d m a i n t a i n t h a t b y tolerance, benevolence, i n offensiveness a n d a r e d i s t r i b u t i o n o r increase o f p u r c h a s i n g p o w e r , c o m b i n e d w i t h a d e v o t i o n , o n t h e p a r t o f a n elite, t o A r t , t h e w o r l d w i l l be as g o o d as a n y o n e c o u l d r e q u i r e , t h e n y o u m u s t expect h u m a n beings t o become m o r e a n d m o r e vaporous. 25

For t h i s general t h e o r y , E l i o t offers t w o sets o f examples: a g r o u p o f stories, a n d a n u m b e r o f m o d e r n poets. T h e stories are K a t h e r i n e Mansfield's 'Bliss', Lawrence's 'The S h a d o w i n t h e

8z

The Trials of a Christian

Critic

Rose Garden', a n d Joyce's 'The Dead', a n d w h a t t h e y p r o v i d e is a g r a d u a t e d series i n t e r m s o f m o r a l i m p l i c a t i o n s . Mansfield's s t o r y has n o m o r a l i m p l i c a t i o n a t a l l ( b u t t h i s i s a l l r i g h t , appar­ e n t l y because i t is b r i e f a n d 'feminine'); Lawrence's has a n e g a t i v e m o r a l i m p l i c a t i o n ( t h e characters l a c k a n y m o r a l or social sense); Joyce's seems t o a p p r o a c h p o s i t i v e m o r a l significance ( t h o u g h t h e o n l y evidence t h a t E l i o t offers i s a q u o t a t i o n f r o m t h e final para­ g r a p h ) . I n these judgements, E l i o t explains, w e are n o t concerned w i t h t h e a u t h o r s ' beliefs, b u t w i t h o r t h o ­ d o x y o f s e n s i b i l i t y a n d w i t h t h e sense o f t r a d i t i o n , o u r degree of a p p r o a c h i n g ' t h a t r e g i o n w h e r e d w e l l t h e v a s t hosts o f t h e dead' [ t h i s is a phrase f r o m t h e Joyce passage q u o t e d ] . A n d L a w r e n c e is f o r m y purposes, a n a l m o s t perfect e x a m p l e o f t h e heretic. A n d t h e m o s t e t h i c a l l y o r t h o d o x o f t h e m o r e e m i n e n t w r i t e r s o f m y t i m e is M r . Joyce. I confess t h a t I d o n o t k n o w w h a t t o m a k e o f a g e n e r a t i o n w h i c h i g n o r e s these considera­ tions. 26

I confess t h a t I d o n o t k n o w h o w t o r e s p o n d t o Eliot's distress, f o r i t i s h a r d t o see h o w h i s g e n e r a t i o n o u g h t t o behave i n order t o please h i m . A p p a r e n t l y b y p r a i s i n g Joyce, c o n d e m n i n g Lawrence, a n d p a t r o n i z i n g M a n s f i e l d ; b u t o n w h a t grounds? Eliot's o w n bases f o r j u d g e m e n t are n o t clear, t h o u g h i t seems t o i n c l u d e a d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n Joyce's s u p e r i o r Jesuit e d u c a t i o n a n d Lawrence's u n f o r t u n a t e association w i t h a n E v a n g e l i c a l mother. (These stories are offered, E l i o t says, because h e h a p p e n e d t o read t h e m a t t h e same t i m e , w h i l e h e w a s at H a r v a r d , b u t o n e can't h e l p n o t i c i n g t h a t t h e y h a v e a c o m m o n t h e m e — s u f f e r i n g a n d b e t r a y a l i n m a r r i a g e . N o t m u c h is k n o w n a b o u t Eliot's first m a r r i a g e , b u t i t was c l e a r l y a w r e t c h e d f a i l u r e , a n d i t was break­ i n g u p d u r i n g the t i m e w h e n Eliot was lecturing i n America. I m e n t i o n t h i s c o n n e c t i o n n o t o u t o f a taste f o r gossip, b u t t o n o t e t h a t even t h e m o s t d e t e r m i n e d m o r a l i s t is never e n t i r e l y i n c o n t r o l o f w h a t h e w i l l m o r a l i z e about. E l i o t m a y h a v e gone l o o k i n g f o r examples of m o r a l i m p l i c a t i o n s , b u t w h a t h e f o u n d w e r e examples of s e x u a l c r u e l t y i n m a r r i a g e ; a n d perhaps t h i s element affected h i s judgements.) I n t h i s second l e c t u r e Eliot's p r i n c i p a l poetic examples are

T h e Trials of a Christian

Critic

83

Yeats a n d Pound, t w o m a k e r s o f p r i v a t e m y t h o l o g i e s w h o w e r e l i m i t e d a n d c r i p p l e d b y t h e i r p r i v a c y . E l i o t is especially g o o d o n Pound's Draft of X X X Cantos, w h e r e h e concentrates (as o n e m i g h t expect) o n t h e r e n d e r i n g o f H e l l . Pound, h e says, h a v i n g n o personal belief i n e i t h e r H e l l o r Heaven, has created a H e l l t h a t is p e r f e c t l y c o m f o r t a b l e , because i t is a place o f p u n i s h m e n t f o r o t h e r people, a p r i s o n f o r t h e people P o u n d disapproves of; i t is a case o f a m o d e r n m i n d l a c k i n g t h e s u p p o r t o f o r t h o d o x y a n d t r a d i t i o n , a n d so t r i v i a l i z i n g r e l i g i o u s concepts. Yeats, treated as a n o t h e r e x a m p l e o f t h e m o d e r n m i n d , is praised l a r g e l y i n n e g a t i v e terms: i n h i s o l d age h e has cast o f f t h e p r i v a t e r e l i g i o n of p o e t r y t h a t he h a d made i n h i s y o u t h ( a n d t h a t h a d m a d e h i m g u i l t y , i n Eliot's m i n d , o f t h e c r i m e o f A r n o l d i s m — t h i n k i n g t h a t P o e t r y c a n replace R e l i g i o n ) , a n d has settled i n t o a bare b u t seemly poetic o l d age. I n Eliot's t r e a t m e n t o f these t w o a d m i r e d poets there is w h a t seems a n essential c o n t r a d i c t i o n . O n t h e one h a n d h e assures u s t h a t t h e i r difficulties arose t h r o u g h n o f a u l t o f t h e i r o w n , t h a t t h e y suffered t h e c r i p p l i n g o f t a l e n t because t h e y l i v e d i n a c r i p p l i n g w o r l d . B u t o n t h e o t h e r h a n d E l i o t seems t o believe — a n d i n d e e d t h e o r t h o d o x c r i t i c must b e l i e v e — t h a t t h e o p t i o n of belief is a t a l l times o p e n t o t h e e r r a n t w i l l , a n d t h a t Yeats a n d P o u n d m i g h t h a v e m a d e themselves C h r i s t i a n poets i f t h e y h a d t r i e d h a r d enough; h i s descriptions o f t h e t r i f l i n g a n d eccentric systems t h a t t h e y c o n s t r u c t e d as alternatives t o f a i t h h a v e a touch of impatience about them. Eliot's o w n H e l l — t h e d o m a i n o f h i s t h i r d l e c t u r e — i s , l i k e Pound's, a place f o r o t h e r people, t h o u g h i t has o n l y t w o occu­ pants. T h o m a s H a r d y a n d L a w r e n c e are t h e r e as examples o f w h a t E l i o t calls 'the i n t r u s i o n o f t h e diabolic i n t o m o d e r n l i t e r a ­ ture', a n d h i s t o n e w h e n h e discusses t h e m is w h a t one m i g h t expect o f a C h r i s t i a n d e s c r i b i n g t h e agents o f T h e E v i l One. W h i c h is t o say t h a t t h e c r i t i c i s m i n t h i s l e c t u r e is so extreme, so i n d e f e n s i b l e i n i t s e x t r a v a g a n t c o n d e m n a t i o n o f heresy, as t o be o f i n t e r e s t o n l y as a d e m o n s t r a t i o n o f t h e dangers t o r a t i o n a l discourse t h a t o r t h o d o x y a n d m o r a l f e r v o u r pose. I f t h i s is a n e x a m p l e o f o r t h o d o x c r i t i c i s m , t h e n critics m u s t p r a y f o r hetero­ d o x y , f o r c l e a r l y o r t h o d o x y is b a d f o r one's j u d g e m e n t : i t leads one t o dismiss t h e w h o l l y unacceptable too q u i c k l y , a n d f o r t h e

84

The Trials of a Christian

Critic

w r o n g reasons, a n d t o condescend t o one's o p p o n e n t s ( f o r t o be a n o p p o n e n t is to be one o f t h e Lost). T h e q u a l i t y o f Eliot's j u d g e m e n t i n these cases is perhaps best s h o w n b y q u o t i n g a f a i r l y extensive passage f r o m his r e m a r k s o n Hardy: T h e w o r k o f t h e late T h o m a s H a r d y represents a n i n t e r e s t i n g example of a p o w e r f u l personality uncurbed b y a n y institu­ t i o n a l a t t a c h m e n t o r b y s u b m i s s i o n t o a n y objective beliefs; u n h a m p e r e d b y a n y ideas, o r even b y w h a t sometimes acts as a p a r t i a l r e s t r a i n t u p o n i n f e r i o r w r i t e r s , t h e desire t o please a large p u b l i c . H e seems t o m e t o have w r i t t e n as n e a r l y f o r t h e sake o f 'self-expression' as a m a n w e l l can; a n d t h e self w h i c h he h a d t o express does n o t s t r i k e m e as a p a r t i c u l a r l y w h o l e ­ some o r e d i f y i n g m a t t e r o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n . H e was i n d i f f e r e n t even t o t h e prescripts o f g o o d w r i t i n g : h e w r o t e sometimes o v e r p o w e r i n g l y w e l l , b u t a l w a y s v e r y carelessly; a t times h i s s t y l e touches s u b l i m i t y w i t h o u t ever h a v i n g passed t h r o u g h t h e stage o f b e i n g good. 27

T h e r e is n o single clause i n t h i s q u o t a t i o n t h a t is defensible as a n even possible o p i n i o n o f H a r d y . H a r d y did h o l d objective beliefs; he was i f a n y t h i n g h a m p e r e d b y t o o many ideas; h e did desire t o please a large audience ( i f h e hadn't, w o u l d h e h a v e revised h i s novels f o r p e r i o d i c a l p u b l i c a t i o n ? ) ; h e did w r i t e f o r a p u b l i c a n d n o t f o r 'self-expression'; h e was aware o f t h e prescripts o f good w r i t i n g , t h o u g h h e w a s perhaps n a i v e i n seeking t h e m w h e r e h e d i d . A s f o r t h e final superior t h r u s t , I a m a t a loss t o say w h a t i t c o u l d possibly mean; h o w c a n a s t y l e 'pass t h r o u g h ' goodness o n i t s w a y t o s u b l i m i t y , as t h o u g h s t y l e was a passenger o n t h e N o r t h e r n Line, a n d goodness was at Golders Green a n d s u b l i m i t y at Edgware? A d d t o t h i s t h a t t h e e x a m p l e E l i o t chooses t o j u d g e H a r d y b y is a m i n o r s h o r t s t o r y , 'Barbara o f t h e H o u s e o f Grebe', a n d one m u s t conclude t h a t w h a t w e h a v e here is n o t so m u c h a n act o f c r i t i c i s m as a k i n d o f exorcism. L a w r e n c e is t r e a t e d less b a r b a r o u s l y , because E l i o t saw i n h i m a m a n w h o s e v i s i o n was a t least s p i r i t u a l , t h o u g h i t w a s s p i r i t u ­ a l l y sick. S t i l l , t h e j u d g e m e n t s are severe e n o u g h : n o sense o f h u m o u r , a n i n c a p a c i t y f o r t h o u g h t , sexual m o r b i d i t y . T h i s last p o i n t reveals a n i m p o r t a n t , r a t h e r V i c t o r i a n side t o

The Trials of a Christian

Critic

Eliot's c r i t i c a l p o s i t i o n . W r i t i n g o f Lady Chatterley's says,

85 Lover, h e

O u r o l d acquaintance, t h e game-keeper, t u r n s u p again: t h e social obsession w h i c h makes h i s w e l l - b o r n — o r almost w e l l ­ b o r n — l a d i e s offer themselves t o — o r m a k e use o f — p l e b e i a n s springs f r o m t h e same m o r b i d i t y w h i c h makes o t h e r o f h i s female characters b e s t o w t h e i r f a v o u r s u p o n savages. T h e a u t h o r o f t h a t b o o k seems t o m e t o h a v e been a v e r y sick m a n indeed. 28

A n d perhaps h e was; b u t w h a t E l i o t is here d e s c r i b i n g is n o t a s p i r i t u a l sickness, o r even a m o r b i d i t y , b u t s i m p l y a v i o l a t i o n o f the class s t r u c t u r e : Lawrence's heresy is a class-heresy, a n d Eliot's o r t h o d o x y is at t h i s p o i n t s i m p l y T o r y conservatism. T h e last o f Eliot's V i r g i n i a lectures ends w i t h t h i s sentence: A l l t h a t I have been able t o do here is t o suggest t h a t there are standards o f c r i t i c i s m , n o t o r d i n a r i l y i n use, w h i c h w e m a y a p p l y t o w h a t e v e r is offered t o us as w o r k s of p h i l o s o p h y o r o f art, w h i c h m i g h t h e l p t o render t h e m safer a n d m o r e p r o f i t a b l e f o r us. 29

H e h a d said s o m e t h i n g s i m i l a r i n t h e p r e v i o u s l e c t u r e , about a p p l y i n g t o a u t h o r s 'critical standards w h i c h are almost i n desue­ tude', a n d w e are i n v i t e d t o believe t h a t After Strange Gods w a s composed as a d e m o n s t r a t i o n o f w h a t those standards are, a n d h o w t h e y s h o u l d be applied. B u t i n f a c t i t is impossible t o dis­ cover w h a t E l i o t means b y standards o f c r i t i c i s m here, o r even t o be sure w h a t t h e u l t i m a t e object o f h i s c r i t i c i s m is. I s h e c r i t i ­ c i z i n g m o d e r n w r i t e r s f o r t h e i r heresies? O r is h e c o n d e m n i n g the society t h a t p r o d u c e d t h e m ? Some o f h i s i n d i v i d u a l l i t e r a r y j u d g e m e n t s are v e r y sharp, b u t t h e general focus o f h i s concern seems social a n d r e l i g i o u s , as w h e n h e says, apropos o f H o p k i n s , t h a t 'to be c o n v e r t e d ... is n o t g o i n g t o do f o r a m a n , as a w r i t e r , w h a t h i s ancestry a n d h i s c o u n t r y f a i l e d t o do'. T h i s is n o t a j u d g e m e n t o f H o p k i n s , b u t o f w h a t E l i o t calls 'a m o d e r n e n v i r o n ­ ment unfavourable to faith'; and i f unfavourable to faith, then u n f a v o u r a b l e also t o o r t h o d o x l i t e r a t u r e , a n d t h e s t r e n g t h s t h a t E l i o t finds i n s u c h w r i t i n g . T h e e p i g r a p h t h a t E l i o t chose f o r h i s b o o k makes m u c h t h e same p o i n t : i t is a passage f r o m t h e G e r m a n

86

The Trials of a Christian

Critic

c r i t i c T h e o d o r Haecker, o n 'Das Chaos i n der " L i t e r a t u r " '. M o d e r n l i t e r a t u r e is a chaos, a n d c o u l d n o t be otherwise, g i v e n t h e c h a o t i c state o f f a i t h i n t h e w o r l d . L i t e r a r y examples are therefore t o be seen o n l y as s y m p t o m s o f a sickness f o r w h i c h t h e cure c a n n o t be m e r e l y l i t e r a r y : n o t h i n g c o u l d m a k e L a w r e n c e a n d H a r d y acceptable t o E l i o t except t h e i r c o n v e r s i o n t o t h e C h u r c h . A n d even t h a t w o u l d n o t do f o r t h e m as w r i t e r s w h a t t h e i r s p i r i t u a l e n v i r o n m e n t h a d f a i l e d t o do. T h e k i n d o f a r t t h a t E l i o t w a n t e d w o u l d o n l y come as a consequence o f t h e general r e s t o r a t i o n o f o r t h o d o x y ; i t c o u l d c e r t a i n l y n o t be a cause o f t h a t r e s t o r a t i o n . A n d so w h a t w e have i n After Strange Gods is C h r i s t i a n c r i t i c i s m o f a k i n d , b u t i n t h e voice o f t h e critic-asp r o p h e t , r a i l i n g against t h e false gods o f men. H a d E l i o t a r r i v e d , t h e n , a t t h a t final state t h a t h e described i n 'Poetry a n d Propaganda', w h e r e t h e e n j o y m e n t o f t h e arts ter­ minates i n a philosophy, a n d the philosophy i n a religion, a n d w h e r e t h e test o f p o e t r y is ' w h a t w e ourselves b e l i e v e ? I t w o u l d seem t h a t h e t h o u g h t h e had, f o r w h e n h e prepared t h e lectures f o r p u b l i c a t i o n h e added a preface i n w h i c h h e denied t h e r o l e o f l i t e r a r y c r i t i c a n d claimed instead t h a t o f moralist. B u t such a disclaimer won't do, f o r w h a t is t h e m o r a l c r i t i c i s m o f l i t e r a t u r e i f i t is n o t a f o r m o f l i t e r a r y criticism? Perhaps E l i o t d r e w back f r o m t h e n a m e o f c r i t i c because h e recognized t h a t h i s m o r a l f e r v o u r h a d l e d h i m t o t a k e positions t h a t w e r e n o t c r i t i c a l l y defensible. O r perhaps h e saw, as h e a p p a r e n t l y h a d n o t seen before, t h a t t h e l i m i t a t i o n s a n d deformities t h a t h e s a w i n t h e w r i t i n g o f h i s o w n g e n e r a t i o n d i d n o t h a v e e i t h e r l i t e r a r y causes o r l i t e r a r y cures, t h a t i f l i t e r a t u r e is n o t , as A r n o l d a n d Richards w o u l d have i t , 'capable o f s a v i n g us', n e i t h e r are w e capable o f s a v i n g l i t e r a t u r e . I t m a y be, as E l i o t believed, t h a t m e n a n d a r t c a n o n l y be saved b y a r e t u r n t o o r t h o d o x belief; b u t t o p u t i t t h i s w a y is t o p u t t h e m a t t e r b e y o n d a n y w r i t e r ' s o r critic's c o n t r o l : w e c a n n o t w i l l a b e l i e v i n g w o r l d , n o r c a n w e scold o n e i n t o being. Perhaps i t was h i s awareness o f t h i s t r u t h t h a t t u r n e d E l i o t a w a y f r o m l i t e r a r y c r i t i c i s m , t o t h e larger considerations o f his later books, The Idea of a Christian Society a n d Notes Towards the Definition of Cidture, books i n w h i c h h e c o u l d p l a y t h e role o f a C h r i s t i a n A r n o l d w i t h greater r a n g e a n d freedom. O r perhaps h e s i m p l y lost i n t e r e s t f o r a t i m e i n l i t e r a t u r e as a

The Trials of a Christian

Critic

8

7

subject f o r p r i m a r y concern. For t h e r e is a p o i n t , f o r t h e r e l i g i o u s m i n d , a t w h i c h l i t e r a t u r e ceases t o m a t t e r , o r a t least takes a s u b o r d i n a t e p o s i t i o n i n t h e scale o f values. E l i o t seems t o have reached t h a t p o i n t i n After Strange Gods. L o o k i n g back o n Eliot's w r i t i n g b e t w e e n 1927 a n d 1934, o n e can see t h a t his w h o l e e f f o r t w a s t o i n t e g r a t e his l i f e a n d t h o u g h t i n t o one c o h e r e n t w o r l d v i e w based o n his C h r i s t i a n f a i t h : to be a C h r i s t i a n i n a l l t h i n g s . ' I o n l y a f f i r m ' , h e says i n The Use of Poetry, ' t h a t a l l h u m a n affairs are i n v o l v e d w i t h each other', a n d t h a t i n t e r - i n v o l v e m e n t w a s h i s subject. B u t o n e m u s t conclude t h a t i n his c r i t i c a l w r i t i n g t h i s e f f o r t failed. For t h a t f a i l u r e there are m a n y possible e x p l a n a t i o n s — s o m e t h e o r e t i c a l , some his­ t o r i c a l , some personal. L i k e m a n y a n o t h e r c o n v e r t , h e w a s t o o u r g e n t i n his f a i t h , a n d so w r o t e polemics w h e n t h e occasion r e q u i r e d c r i t i c i s m . H e was never, i n a n y case, at his best i n sus­ t a i n e d t h e o r e t i c a l a r g u m e n t ; w h a t h e said of A r n o l d w a s t r u e o f himself: h e 'had l i t t l e g i f t f o r consistency o r f o r d e f i n i t i o n . N o r h a d h e t h e p o w e r of connected r e a s o n i n g at a n y l e n g t h : his f l i g h t s are e i t h e r s h o r t f l i g h t s or c i r c u l a r flights'. A n d h e was d e f e n d i n g a cause t h a t w a s d i r e c t l y opposite t o t h e m a i n c u r r e n t of t h e time, r e l i g i o u s a n d conservative i n a p o l i t i c a l a n d r a d i c a l era. W h i l e h e was l e c t u r i n g i n A m e r i c a , N e w Country a n d N e w V e r s e w e r e a p p e a r i n g i n E n g l a n d , a n d i t was t h e c o n v e r s i o n experience t h a t those pages expressed t h a t w o u l d be i n f l u e n t i a l i n t h e c o m i n g years. B u t b e y o n d a l l else, o n e m u s t c o n c l u d e t h a t E l i o t f a i l e d because he m i s u n d e r s t o o d w h a t success w o u l d h a v e been. A u d e n ( w h o was w i s e r i n these m a t t e r s ) once r e m a r k e d t h a t there can n o m o r e be a C h r i s t i a n a r t t h a n a C h r i s t i a n science o r a C h r i s t i a n diet. T h e r e are o n l y C h r i s t i a n s w h o are artists o r scientists o r cooks; a n d t h e same is s u r e l y t r u e o f c r i t i c i s m . F a i t h is n o t a t e r m i n ­ ology, n o r a l i s t of t h e l i t e r a r y damned, n o r even a s o u n d t h e o r y of p o e t r y a n d belief. I t does n o t rest o n t h e surface of a l i f e l i k e o i l o n a p o n d , b u t flows a n d spreads e v e r y w h e r e — i t is the w a t e r itself. E l i o t w o u l d h a v e succeeded as a C h r i s t i a n c r i t i c i f h e h a d made h i s C h r i s t i a n i t y i n v i s i b l e ; b u t h e made i t visible, a n d so made his r e l i g i o n seem a w a y o f b e i n g r e a c t i o n a r y , u n g e n e r o u s and cold. W e m u s t conclude, t h e n , t h a t E l i o t f a i l e d as a C h r i s t i a n c r i t i c .

88

The Trials of a Christian Critic

B u t w e c a n n o t say t h a t h e w a s t e d h i s s t r e n g t h ; f o r w h o c a n say w h a t is waste a n d w h a t is v a l u e i n t h e use t h a t a poet makes o f h i s prose life? T h e essays t h a t I have been c o n s i d e r i n g w e r e w r i t t e n i n t h e p e r i o d b e t w e e n t h e t i m e w h e n E l i o t began w r i t i n g 'Ash-Wednesday' a n d t h e t i m e w h e n he began ' B u r n t N o r t o n ' , a n d t h e t w o activities are related. I t is d i f f i c u l t t o define j u s t w h a t t h a t r e l a t i o n s h i p is, b u t s u r e l y t h e f a i l e d C h r i s t i a n c r i t i c p l a y e d his p a r t i n t h e m a k i n g o f t h e F o u r Quartets. B u t even i f t h a t w e r e n o t t r u e i t w o u l d be necessary t o consider t h i s b o d y o f Eliot's c r i t i c a l w r i t i n g s ; f o r d u r i n g these years, t h i s is w h a t h e d i d , a n d w e w i l l n o t u n d e r s t a n d h i s l i f e a n d w o r k f u l l y u n t i l w e have mastered i t a l l , t h e f a i l u r e s as w e l l as t h e t r i u m p h s .

5

Eliot's Contribution to Criticism o f Drama R. PEACOCK T h i s essay m i g h t be l o o k e d o n as a n e x p e r i m e n t t o see w h a t happens i f w e t r y t o isolate a specific d r a m a t i c c r i t i c i s m f r o m t h e general corpus o f Eliot's c r i t i c a l w r i t i n g s . T h e p o s i t i o n w e c a n s t a r t f r o m is t h e r e c o g n i t i o n of t w o c o n c e n t r a t e d activities. I n h i s l a t e t w e n t i e s a n d e a r l y t h i r t i e s h e was f o r m u l a t i n g , i n essays b o t h o n poets a n d o n problems, a series of j u d g e m e n t s based o n general p o e t i c a n d aesthetic principles; a n d he was already de­ v e l o p i n g a n i n t e n s e interest, indeed a passion, f o r verse drama. A n ideal of t h i s f o r m e d itself g r a d u a l l y i n h i s m i n d . I t came t o be expressed p a r t l y as a t h e o r e t i c a l t h r o w - o f f f r o m h i s s t u d i o u s l y conducted assessments o f E l i z a b e t h a n dramatists, a n d p a r t l y as a c l a r i f i c a t i o n f o r h i m s e l f of p r a c t i c a l problems w h i c h w o u l d arise w e r e h e t o w r i t e plays. W e feel t h i s d u a l character i n a l l t h e c r i t i c i s m o f t h e t w e n t i e s . E v e r y e v a l u a t i o n is a f u t u r e precept. H i s d r a m a c r i t i c i s m falls i n t o t h r e e m a i n parts, each of w h i c h is concerned w i t h a n aspect o f d r a m a a n d theatre, each is i n t e r ­ e s t i n g i n itself, a n d each is f r u i t f u l i n respect o f c r i t e r i a a n d p r i n c i p l e s . First, t h e l o n g series o f E l i z a b e t h a n essays presents itself s o l i d l y a n d i m p o r t a n t l y ; here w e find h i s t o r i c a l assessments, t o g e t h e r w i t h a c u m u l a t i v e e n u m e r a t i o n o f c r i t e r i a f o r drama. Secondly, w e h a v e a n assessment o f t h e s i t u a t i o n i n t h e contem­ p o r a r y t h e a t r e , a n d see E l i o t c l a r i f y i n g b y adverse c r i t i c i s m h i s p r a c t i c a l p o s i t i o n . T h i r d l y , t h e r e are m o r e d i r e c t statements a b o u t his i d e a l o f poetic drama, a n d t h e p r o b l e m of f o r m i n v o l v e d . T h e t h r e e fields are i n t r i c a t e l y i n t e r w o v e n because t h e y have a c o m m o n i m p u l s i o n f r o m Eliot's desire t o w r i t e p l a y s and, i n ­ deed, t o i n i t i a t e a general r e v i v a l o f verse drama. T h u s t h e c r i t i c i n Eliot, i n t e l l e c t u a l l y e x c i t e d b y a p r o b l e m of d e f i n i t i o n , w a s t o

90

Eliot's Criticism

of Drama

be a s k i n g t h e question, t h r o u g h o u t t h i r t y - o d d years, w h a t is d r a m a t i c p o e t r y ? A n d t h e a s p i r i n g p r a c t i t i o n e r asked s i m u l t a n e ­ ously: is i t possible today, is t h e r e a f o r m i t c o u l d take, a n d is t h e r e a n audience t h a t b o t h w a n t s and needs it? H i s w r i t i n g o n t h e subject is i n consequence a l w a y s twod i m e n s i o n a l , w h i c h gives i t i t s e x c e p t i o n a l character. H i s w h o l e approach, w r i t i n g d r a m a a n d w r i t i n g a b o u t i t , was ' c r i t i c a l ' , t h a t is, hyperconscious, t o t a l l y scrupulous; m o r e o v e r t h e c r i t i c a l gear i n w h i c h h e p r o p e l l e d h i s creative v e h i c l e t o o k a c c o u n t of b o t h a n author-contemporaries a n d a n a u t h o r - p u b l i c r e l a t i o n s h i p . A t t h e v e r y b e g i n n i n g of h i s essay 'The Possibility of a Poetic D r a m a ' (1920) h e says: 'Surely t h e r e is some l e g i t i m a t e c r a v i n g , n o t r e s t r i c t e d t o a f e w persons, w h i c h o n l y t h e verse p l a y c a n satisfy. A n d s u r e l y t h e c r i t i c a l a t t i t u d e is t o a t t e m p t t o analyse t h e c o n d i t i o n s a n d t h e o t h e r data.' H e w a s r e a l l y a c u t e l y con­ cerned a b o u t t h e r e v i v a l of a p o e t i c genre, a n d h e i n s t i n c t i v e l y accepted t h e f a c t t h a t a genre, as d i s t i n c t f r o m i n d i v i d u a l ex­ pression, is i n p a r t a social creation. So, t u r n i n g t o t h e t w o e x p l o r a t o r y essays, t h e above q u o t e d a n d 'A D i a l o g u e o n D r a m a t i c P o e t r y ' (1928), w e see a special k i n d of c r i t i c i s m . I t s essential baseline is t h e q u e s t i o n of s t a r t i n g a r e v i v a l ; i t s m e t h o d , however, i n s t e a d o f being, as o n e m i g h t expect, a s t r a i g h t architect's design f o r t h e project, is a ' c r i t i c a l ' m a r k i n g - o u t o f t h e p r o b l e m s a r i s i n g . H i s v i e w of t h e contem­ p o r a r y d r a m a h a d a n e g a t i v e tone; h i s s t u d y o f t h e E l i z a b e t h a n drama a more positive direction. T h e contemporary drama was t h e enemy, w h i l s t t h e Elizabethans gave h i m h i s evidence, or at least a great deal of i t , against t h e enemy's case. I n t h i s c o n n e x i o n t h e essay of 1924 o n 'Four E l i z a b e t h a n D r a m a t i s t s ' ('Preface t o a n U n w r i t t e n Book') moves n a t u r a l l y i n t o close association w i t h t h e t w o m o r e general exercises, b e i n g itself, f r a g m e n t a r y i n t r o ­ d u c t i o n t h a t i t is, s o m e w h a t general i n tone. These t h r e e essays o v e r l a p t o some e x t e n t , b u t n o t i n t h e sense o f r e s h u f f l i n g t h e same ideas; i t is i n f a c t d i f f i c u l t t o g i v e a l o g i c a l s u m m a r y of a l l t h e y say. B u t t o g e t h e r t h e y focus w h a t became f o r h i m a c e n t r a l issue, t h a t of r e a l i s m versus c o n v e n t i o n , a n d t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p o f these t w o i n a l l p o e t r y , w h i c h is b o t h a concern of E l i o t a n d b e y o n d t h a t a p e r e n n i a l l y i n t e r e s t i n g p r o b l e m of aesthetics. 1

T h e y also m a k e clear a double v i e w of t h e E l i z a b e t h a n drama.

Eliot's Criticism of Drama

91

E l i o t w a s o n t h e one h a n d p r o f o u n d l y aware t h a t t h i s b o d y of d r a m a t i c p o e t r y represented a great l i t e r a r y m o v e m e n t , t h e out­ s t a n d i n g a c h i e v e m e n t of d r a m a i n E n g l a n d . T h a t i t was a verse d r a m a w a s p e r t i n e n t , because h e believed firmly t h a t verse is necessary t o g e n u i n e p o e t i c creations. B u t he does find p o i n t s f o r c r i t i c i s m . T h e y h a v e t h e d i s c i p l i n e o f verse b u t are t o o free and too realistic i n o t h e r respects. T h u s , as his t h o u g h t s d w e l t o n t h e d e s i r a b i l i t y o f a n e w p o e t i c d r a m a h e d i d n o t , i n spite of h i s a d m i r a t i o n , envisage a r e v i v a l t h r o u g h simple i m i t a t i o n of t h e i r forms. H e regarded Everyman a n d A e s c h y l u s m o r e f a v o u r a b l y as models. One f e a t u r e o f t h i s m o v e m e n t , as a m o v e m e n t , a p a r t f r o m i n t r i n s i c m e r i t s o f t h e plays themselves, impressed h i m v e r y m u c h . I t w a s t h e f a c t t h a t t h e genre created w a s subsequently capable of e x t e n s i v e d e v e l o p m e n t b y m a n y hands. 'The Possi­ b i l i t y of a Poetic D r a m a ' is v e r y m u c h d o m i n a t e d b y t h i s idea, and a n accompanying nostalgia f o r a situation i n w h i c h a num­ ber of w r i t e r s are able t o t a k e u p a genre already available and devote t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l o r i g i n a l i t y t o e n r i c h i n g i t w i t h v a r i a t i o n s , t h u s c r e a t i n g a f u l l cycle o f p o t e n t i a l i t y b e y o n d t h e powers o f single workers. Comparing the contemporary drama a n d theatre w i t h the E l i z a b e t h a n E l i o t s a w w i t h distaste t h a t i t lacked his r e q u i r e ­ ments; h e s a w n o verse, or t h e w r o n g k i n d , n o conventions, a n d an u n i n s p i r e d realism. C e r t a i n l y i t w a s t h e t i m e of t h e n a d i r o f realism. H e seems t o h a v e h a d n o v e r y h i g h o p i n i o n of a n y of t h e l i t e r a t u r e o f prose drama, B r i t i s h o r C o n t i n e n t a l , i n t h e earlier p a r t of t h i s c e n t u r y . So m u c h so t h a t , a l t h o u g h so i n ­ terested i n t h e p r o b l e m , h e w a s t e d n o t a j o t o f t i m e o n t h e passionately devoted niceties of e v a l u a t i o n h e bestowed o n t h e least of t h e Elizabethans a n d Jacobeans. H e w a s offended, obvi­ ously, b y t h e prosaic s t y l e associated w i t h realism, w h i c h i n t h e t w e n t i e s d i d perhaps need, f o r t h e p u b l i c assertion o f standards, some sort of s n u b f r o m a c r i t i c of sufficient a u t h o r i t y . H e w a s also c o n t e m p t u o u s of t h e e n t e r t a i n m e n t f r i n g e , w h i c h i n c l u d e d C o w a r d a n d A r l e n . Since h e c o u l d n o t r e a l l y be r e q u i r e d t o be interested i n these o n e sees h o w m u c h t r o u b l e h e t o o k t o be a w a r e of t h e m , a n d h o w conscientious h i s s t u d y of t h e contem­ p o r a r y t h e a t r e a n d i t s audience was. M a n y m a y h a v e shared h i s

9

2

Eliot's Criticism

of Drama

feelings. L o o k i n g back n o w w e see t h a t h e was r i g h t to l a u n c h h i s attack; b u t h i s basis was v e r y restricted a n d h e d i d less t h a n justice t o some great a u t h o r s w h o i n t h e event n o t o n l y s u r v i v e d i n their o w n w o r k b u t were a fertile influence o n the remarkable d r a m a of t h e fifties a n d sixties i n Europe. E l i o t was also plagued, i n this area of p o e t r y as i n others, b y his o l d obsession a b o u t poetic w o r k s a n d t h e p h i l o s o p h y t h e y m i g h t too o b v i o u s l y express, n o t t o say advertise. H e h i m s e l f b e i n g a p h i l o s o p h e r i n a professional, academic, sense, his i n t e l l e c t u a l p r i d e i n t h i s respect j o i n e d forces w i t h t h e f a c t of h i s adherence to a n o r t h o d o x y , o n e o f t h e C h r i s t i a n positions, t o m a k e h i m i m p a t i e n t of m o s t k i n d s of l a y p h i l o s o p h y or ' p h i l o s o p h y o f l i f e ' . T h e m o d e r n d r a m a o f t h i s c e n t u r y suffered i n his eyes f r o m t h e same weakness as m u c h n i n e t e e n t h - c e n t u r y R o m a n t i c a n d postR o m a n t i c p o e t r y ; i t w a s engaged i n f o r m u l a t i n g o r e m b o d y i n g a p h i l o s o p h y as p a r t o f its purpose a n d t h e r e f o r e deviates f r o m t h e t r u e f u n c t i o n of p o e t r y . Goethe, M a e t e r l i n c k , S h a w a n d Ibsen, to n a m e o n l y t h e m o s t e m i n e n t knaves i n his perspective, w e r e v u l n e r a b l e f r o m t h i s p o i n t o f v i e w . H i s j u d g e m e n t is l o g i c a l i n r e l a t i o n t o a first p r i n c i p l e h e e n t e r t a i n e d f a i t h f u l l y , t h a t p o e t r y , fiction a n d a r t s h o u l d eschew t h e r h e t o r i c a l statement of f e e l i n g , t h e direct, impassioned, c o m m i t t e d profession of beliefs a n d t h e i r e m o t i o n a l aura, a n d a i m i n s t e a d t o organize a set of data, sensu­ ous impressions a n d images as t h e e q u i v a l e n t of a f e e l i n g - p a t t e r n ; such a p a t t e r n has t h e eloquence of s i g n a t u r e , t o set against ex­ p l i c i t v o c a l declamation. B u t h i s l o y a l t y t o t h i s r i g o r o u s p r i n c i p l e was so great t h a t i t made h i m insensitive, distressingly obtuse, f o r c r i t i c a l purposes, t o a r a n g e o f expressive modes a n d styles t h a t are v a l i d i n t h e i r o w n w a y . T h i s r e s u l t e d i n a s u r p r i s i n g blindness a b o u t m u c h m o d e r n drama; h e t e n d e d t o t h r o w o u t b o t h good a n d b a d together, t h o u g h here a n d there h e retrieves c o n d e m n a t i o n w i t h g r u d g i n g half-acknowledgements, as i n t h e cases o f Ibsen a n d C h e k h o v . T o a t t a c k a r i d i t y a n d f a l s i t y w a s one t h i n g , t o depreciate good prose f o r m s another. H o w e v e r , i t m a y s i m p l y have been a deliber­ ate t a c t i c a l blindness, d u e t o h i s fixity o f purpose over verse. B u t i t w o u l d l o o k b e t t e r i n retrospect i f t h e trends embodied i n some o f t h e prose d r a m a h e deprecated h a d subsequently p r o v e d sterile; i n f a c t t h e y h e l d some o f t h e seeds of l a t e r developments

Eliot's Criticism of Drama

93

i n w h i c h f o r m s based o n t h e a t r e i m a g e r y a n d v e r b a l s t y l e w e r e t o replace w i t h c o n f i d e n t effectiveness t h e p o e t r y of verse. T h e 'Dialogue o n D r a m a t i c P o e t r y ' i s a m e a n d e r i n g conversa­ t i o n , w i t h m u c h self-irony. I t is n o t a p a r t i c u l a r l y cogent piece, e i t h e r as c r i t i c i s m or t h e o r y , a n d a q u e s t i o n m a r k hangs over t h e use of t h e d i a l o g u e m e t h o d . Y e t i t does reflect E l i o t r u m m a g i n g a b o u t i n a score of possible a t t i t u d e s a n d problems, p r e t e n d i n g to feel a b i t a t a loss, s c r a t c h i n g o r s e e m i n g t o scratch, h i s h e a d f o r once i n s t e a d of l a y i n g d o w n a sharp b i t of l a w , a n d w o n d e r i n g w h e r e t h e w a y ahead lies. B u t h e gets h i s enemies spot-lit: t h e ' e t h i c a l ' c o m e d y of ideas ( t o cite t h e ageing Pinero i n t h i s c o n n e x i o n w a s p r u d e n t ) ; t h e r e a l i s m o f social drama; t h e d i d a c t i c p u r v e y o r s o f philosophies of l i f e , w h i c h , l i k e t h e f o r m e r , f a i l e d t o s t r i k e t o t h e ' s i m p l i f i e d ' a n d 'universal'; t h e m i s t a k e n s u b s t i t u t i o n of l i t e r a t u r e a n d d r a m a f o r r e l i g i o n ; a n d t h e w o r k of sophisticated b u t superficial entertainers. T h e general d r i f t of a r g u m e n t i n t h e ' D i a l o g u e ' is t o r e v i e w t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f d r a m a a d o p t i n g a ' c o n v e n t i o n ' as a basic a r t i s t i c d i s c i p l i n e w h i c h w o u l d of i t s n a t u r e i n d u c e t h e poetic. E l i o t p i c k s u p ideas first m o o t e d i n 'Four E l i z a b e t h a n D r a m a t i s t s ' , w r i t t e n some f o u r years earlier, b u t after he h a d already spent some t i m e o n h i s r i g o r o u s , sustained s t u d y of t h e Elizabethans. T h i s essay, cleaner i n o u t l i n e t h a n t h e 'Dialogue', is o r g a n i c a l l y i m p o r t a n t i n t h e development, because i t shows f o r t h e first t i m e i n a l l i t s c l a r i t y t h e p a r t i c u l a r m o t i v a t i o n o f Eliot's c r i t i c i s m : T h e s t a t e m e n t and e x p l i c a t i o n o f a c o n v i c t i o n a b o u t s u c h a n i m p o r t a n t b o d y of d r a m a t i c l i t e r a t u r e , t o w a r d w h a t is i n f a c t t h e o n l y d i s t i n c t f o r m o f d r a m a t i c l i t e r a t u r e t h a t E n g l a n d has produced, s h o u l d be s o m e t h i n g m o r e t h a n a n exercise i n m e n t a l i n g e n u i t y o r i n r e f i n e m e n t of taste: i t s h o u l d be some­ t h i n g of r e v o l u t i o n a r y i n f l u e n c e o n t h e f u t u r e of drama. Con­ t e m p o r a r y l i t e r a t u r e , l i k e c o n t e m p o r a r y p o l i t i c s , is confused b y t h e moment-to-moment s t r u g g l e f o r existence; b u t t h e t i m e arrives w h e n a n e x a m i n a t i o n o f p r i n c i p l e s is necessary. I believe t h a t t h e t h e a t r e has reached a p o i n t a t w h i c h a r e v o l u ­ t i o n i n p r i n c i p l e s s h o u l d take place. 2

T h e appearance i n 1923 o f W i l l i a m Archer's The Old Drama and the N e w w a s t h e ideal p r o v o c a t i o n f o r E l i o t at t h i s p o i n t .

94

Eliot's Criticism of Drama

I t h e l p e d h i m t o focus h i s d e v e l o p i n g ideas a n d m a k e a p u b l i c d e c l a r a t i o n as a counter-attack. Archer's b o o k defended as pro­ gressive t h e a t r e m u c h of t h e prose d r a m a t h a t E l i o t h i m s e l f w a s u p i n arms about. I n r e p l y , h e t h r o w s A r c h e r w i t h a s u b t l e insight very unexpectedly together w i t h Swinburne, w h o m he respected as a c r i t i c , p o i n t i n g o u t t h a t t h e y b o t h i n f a c t regarded E l i z a b e t h a n d r a m a as ' l i t e r a t u r e ' p r i m a r i l y a n d n o t as effective 'drama'. H e takes t h e l i n e t h a t A r c h e r c r i t i c i z e d t h e Elizabethans f o r t h e w r o n g reasons; he supposed t h e y w e r e n o t realistic e n o u g h a n d t h e r e f o r e less g o o d t h a n t h e m o d e r n drama. B u t E l i o t sees t h a t t h e y , too, s o u g h t realism; b y a i m i n g i n several d i r e c t i o n s a t once w i t h t h e i r p l a y s t h e y f a i l e d t o act o n t h e first p r i n c i p l e of poetic c o m p o s i t i o n , w h i c h is t o choose y o u r c o n v e n t i o n s a n d w o r k w i t h i n t h e m ; of w h i c h procedure A e s c h y l u s and t h e m o r a l ­ i t y Everyman are adduced as examples. B y c o n v e n t i o n here E l i o t means a n y c o n v e n t i o n a p p a r e n t i n subject-matter, i n t r e a t m e n t , i n verse, i n d r a m a t i c f o r m , or i n g e n e r a l l y accepted p h i l o s o p h y . O n l y b y s u c h a device can t h e m a t e r i a l of l i f e be t r a n s f o r m e d i n t o art. T h i s is h e n c e f o r t h t o be one of h i s m o s t i m p o r t a n t p r i n c i p l e s . H e takes u p t h e p o i n t i n c o n n e x i o n w i t h a c t i n g . H e finds t h a t actors p l a y i n g n o w a d a y s i n E l i z a b e t h a n p l a y s are e i t h e r too realistic or too abstract i n t r e a t m e n t , a n d h e blames t h i s o n t h e c o n t e m p o r a r y realistic s t y l e w h i c h reduced actors' u n d e r s t a n d i n g of o t h e r methods. H e h i m s e l f w o u l d l i k e t h e j o b of t h e actor t o be n o m o r e t h a n t h a t of a b a l l e t dancer whose general m o v e m e n t s are set f o r h i m ; h e is n o t r e q u i r e d t o have a n y ' r e a l i t y ' or per­ s o n a l i t y ; h e exists o n l y d u r i n g t h e dance. I n t h e actor a c t i n g i n realistic d r a m a t h e r e a l person o f t h e actor i n t r u d e s , a n d t h e m o r e realistic t h e greater t h e i n t r u s i o n . T h e p r o b l e m is c e n t r a l t o t h e poetics of theatre. I t is clearer i f w e r e m e m b e r t h a t E l i o t was basically o b j e c t i n g n o t o n l y t o realistic a c t i n g b u t t o p l a y s of realistic c o n t e n t and tendency, w h i c h r e a l l y depend o n accur­ ate c a s t i n g a n d t h e consequent i d e n t i t y o f t h e p a r t w i t h t h e per­ son of t h e actor. T h e ideal i n Eliot's m i n d , o n t h e c o n t r a r y , is of a poetic w o r k , i n a f o r m a l c o n v e n t i o n , w h i c h requires f o r i t s pre­ s e n t a t i o n a n 'abstract' actor p r o j e c t i n g t h e poet's c o n c e p t i o n simply and purely. H i s o w n p r i m a r y c r i t i c i s m of t h e Elizabethans m a y be s u m m e d

Eliot's Criticism of

Drama

95

u p i n t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t t h e i r a r t was 'an i m p u r e art'. T h e y confused t h e issue b y n o t d e c i d i n g i n p r i n c i p l e w h a t s h o u l d be t h e i r conventions. T h e y suffered f r o m ' a r t i s t i c greediness', desir­ i n g a l l sorts of effects together, a n d u n w i l l i n g t o accept l i m i t a ­ tion. B y v i r t u e of h i s p o w e r of m a k i n g p r e g n a n t d i s t i n c t i o n s , and of a sort of strategic m i l i t a r y eye i n t h e d r a m a area, E l i o t appeared t o be t a k i n g u p s t r o n g positions i n a r e l a t i v e l y l i m i t e d field; b u t he was i n f a c t a t t a c k i n g t h e decadence of a l l t h e d r a m a a n d fiction of t h e realistic, and n a t u r a l i s t i c , era. H e was fighting a b a t t l e i n t h e same c a m p a i g n as V i r g i n i a W o o l f i n her f a m o u s essay o n ' M o d e r n F i c t i o n ' (The Common Reader 1925). H i s pre­ o c c u p a t i o n w i t h t h e n a t u r e of ballet, a n d t h e references t o D i a g h i l e v , are n e i t h e r o r i g i n a l n o r f o r t u i t o u s , n o r personal prob­ lem; t h e D i a g h i l e v performances i n w e s t e r n E u r o p e a n capitals w e r e a m a j o r r e v i t a l i z i n g i n f l u e n c e o n a l l t h e arts. B u t again t h e fight was n o t m e r e l y about f o r m . T h r o u g h n o t t a l k i n g m u c h about subject or t h e m e E l i o t a l l o w s m u c h o f h i s d r a m a t i c c r i t i ­ cism t o appear w h o l l y preoccupied w i t h f o r m a l o r t e c h n i c a l methods. B u t subject is t h e d e t e r m i n i n g factor. V i r g i n i a W o o l f , i n t h e essay r e f e r r e d to, spoke o f t h e distressing l a c k o f ' s p i r i t u a l ' themes a n d q u a l i t y i n t h e p r e v a l e n t m a t e r i a l i s t i c fiction. E l i o t , too, was r e a l l y c a l l i n g n o t s i m p l y f o r m o r e ' a r t i s t i c ' surfaces or m a n n e r b u t f o r themes t h a t t r a n s c e n d m i m e t i c r e a l i s m a n d abso­ l u t e l y impose t h e r e q u i r e m e n t o f formal-poetic s y m b o l i s m . T h e 'Dialogue', r u n n i n g over some o f t h e p o i n t s raised i n t h e t w o earlier essays, adds others, t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t b e i n g t h e q u e s t i o n of t h e Mass as a f o r m o f ideal drama, and t h e g r a d u a l f o c u s i n g of t h e specific dramatic-poetic f o r m , w h i c h was t o be i l l u s t r a t e d f r o m Shakespeare. T h e f o r m e r is i n a w a y an i r o n i c a l r e d h e r r i n g , because E l i o t uses i t t o d i f f e r e n t i a t e b e t w e e n a c t u a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n , as a believer, i n a r e l i g i o u s r i t e a n d t h e p u r e l y aesthetic e n j o y m e n t of a perfect f o r m a l r i t u a l . B u t i t is also rele­ v a n t i n v i e w of t h e D i o n y s i a n o r i g i n of Greek tragedy; d r a m a was o f t e n closely associated w i t h r i t u a l s a n d t h e i r f o r m a l i z a t i o n of u n i v e r s a l emotions. T h e p h e n o m e n o n of t h e Mass helps h i m t o c r y s t a l l i z e o u t t h e n a t u r e of f o r m a l conventions, or 'impersonal' f o r m s , w h o s e expressiveness lies i n a bedrock of c o m m u n a l feel­ i n g a n d t r a d i t i o n a l discipline.

9

6

Eliot's Criticism

of

Drama

T h u s , after passing j u d g e m e n t o n t h e c o n t e m p o r a r y prose drama, a n d e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e p r i m e necessity of f o r m a l d i s c i p l i n e t h r o u g h c o n v e n t i o n s , h e arrives a t t h e p a r t i c u l a r p r o b l e m o f t h e poetic a n d t h e d r a m a t i c : do t h e y i n some w a y i n t e r f e r e w i t h each other, so t h a t o n e can o n l y be effective at t h e expense o f t h e other? O r do t h e y r e i n f o r c e each other? W h i l s t t h i s is a q u e s t i o n he has t o resolve f o r h i s o w n personal reasons i t extends f a r b e y o n d t h a t . G i v i n g , i n t h e scheme o f t h e 'dialogue', a m i l d Socratic t w i s t t o t h e course of t h e a r g u m e n t , h e lets h i s p a r t i c i ­ p a n t 'B' p u t f o r w a r d t h e idea t h a t d r a m a t i c m e r i t c a n n o t be estimated w i t h o u t reference t o p o e t i c m e r i t , a n d t h a t Shakes­ peare is a greater d r a m a t i s t t h a n Ibsen, 'not b y b e i n g a greater d r a m a t i s t , b u t b y b e i n g a greater poet'. ' F o r . . . w h a t great p o e t r y is n o t dramatic'; w h i c h is, f o r E l i o t , a n imprecise r e m a r k , n o t m o r e t h a n a d e b a t i n g p o i n t . ' W h o is m o r e d r a m a t i c t h a n H o m e r or D a n t e ? ' ' I f y o u isolate p o e t r y f r o m d r a m a c o m p l e t e l y , h a v e y o u t h e r i g h t t o say t h a t Shakespeare w a s a greater drama­ t i s t t h a n Ibsen, or t h a n Shaw?' B u t i n t h e sequel a n o t h e r voice ('D') corrects a n d refines: I f d r a m a tends t o p o e t i c drama, n o t b y a d d i n g a n embellish­ m e n t a n d s t i l l less b y l i m i t i n g its scale, w e s h o u l d expect a d r a m a t i c poet l i k e Shakespeare t o w r i t e h i s finest p o e t r y i n h i s m o s t d r a m a t i c scenes. A n d t h i s is j u s t w h a t w e do find: w h a t makes i t m o s t d r a m a t i c is w h a t makes i t m o s t p o e t i c . . . T h e same plays are t h e m o s t poetic a n d t h e m o s t d r a m a t i c , a n d t h i s n o t b y a concurrence of t w o activities, b u t b y t h e f u l l e x p a n s i o n of one a n d t h e same a c t i v i t y . 3

T h i s passage is of c e n t r a l i m p o r t a n c e because, v i r t u a l l y t r a n ­ scending c r i t i c i s m , i t states a c o n c e p t i o n t h a t is ideal. I t is n o t m e r e correct t h e o r y , a n d n o t necessarily precise a b o u t Shakes­ peare, f o r w h o s e m u l t i p l i c i t y of f o r m s i t is a too s i m p l i f i e d single p r i n c i p l e . I t p r o m u l g a t e s t h e ideal c o n d i t i o n , almost a P l a t o n i c idea, o f d r a m a t i c p o e t r y , t o w h i c h E l i o t sees Shakespeare a p p r o a c h i n g nearest, a n d b e h i n d h i m t h e n o b i l i t y o f E n g l i s h drama, h i s E l i z a b e t h a n contemporaries and successors, i n descend­ i n g ranks. A s a n absolute c o n c e p t i o n i t has splendour; b u t i t i m p l i e s a n a u t o m a t i c , r a t h e r ruthless d e m o t i n g o f a n y or a l l prose drama, w h i c h finally is too absurd a l i m i t a t i o n . A p a r t f r o m its

Eliot's Criticism of Drama

97

i d e a l i t y i t can be made a c e n t r a l p r i n c i p l e of t h e poetics of drama, as indeed E l i o t does m a k e i t i n h i s later essays 'Poetry a n d D r a m a ' a n d 'The T h r e e Voices of Poetry'. T o s u p p o r t i t h e needs o t h e r principles, w h i c h w e s h a l l e x a m i n e t o g e t h e r later. T h e ' D i a l o g u e ' ends i t s s u r v e y o f t h e s i t u a t i o n o f t h e t w e n t i e s o n t h e simple p r a c t i c a l n o t e t h a t 'our' desire f o r a p o e t i c d r a m a s h o u l d be k e p t alive, t h a t s m a l l interested g r o u p s s h o u l d experi­ m e n t i n d e p e n d e n t l y o f t h e c o m m e r c i a l theatre, a n d t h a t a n e w f o r m o f verse s h o u l d be f o u n d t h a t c o u l d do f o r t h e present w h a t b l a n k verse p e r f o r m e d f o r t h e Elizabethans. I t w o u l d be t o o s i m p l e t o r e g a r d Eliot's essays o n d r a m a as cumulative fragments of a blueprint f o r his o w n drama-writing, t h o u g h i n o n e sense t h e y are so; a n d too s i m p l e t o h i v e o f f t h e articles o n E l i z a b e t h a n a n d Jacobean p l a y w r i g h t s as a separate category of h i s t o r i c a l c r i t i c i s m , t h o u g h t h e y are indeed a remark­ able c o n t r i b u t i o n i n t h a t sense alone, inseparable f r o m t h e corpus of scholarship i n t h a t field. For b o t h these c u r r e n t s are directed also b y h i s p o w e r f u l , i n s i s t e n t i n t e r e s t i n t h e n a t u r e of a l l p o e t r y , a n d a c r i t i c a l u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f its v a r i a n t forms. T h e sense o f m a n y people t h a t t h e p l a y s are a w e a k e r b r a n c h of t h e E l i o t tree, a n d e q u a l l y t h a t t h e c r i t i c a l s c h o l a r s h i p is i n d e p e n d e n t l y v a l i d , tends c o n s t a n t l y t o obscure t h e f a c t t h a t t h e i m p u l s e i n E l i o t t o d r a m a was e x c e p t i o n a l l y deep a n d s t r o n g ; i t m u s t r e m a i n a cen­ t r a l c o m p o n e n t i n h i s p o e t i c a c t i v i t y , h o w e v e r t h e p l a y s are assessed. T h i s relates i n some respects t o t h e c o n t r o v e r s i a l v i e w s a b o u t Eliot's precise r a n k . I n spite of t h e r e s o u n d i n g a d u l a t i o n of his e a r l y l y r i c w o r k t h e r e w e r e m o d e r a t i n g voices t h a t saw i n h i m a n i n t e r e s t i n g m i n o r poet r a t h e r t h a n a m a j o r one. E v e n g r a n t e d t h e q u a l i t y o f h i s superb i n n o v a t i o n s o f style, a n d t h e a c h i e v e m e n t o f t h e F o u r Quartets, t h e r e r e m a i n s s o m e t h i n g i n c o n g r u o u s i n t h e b r e a d t h a n d incisiveness o f h i s t h i n k i n g o n n u m e r o u s issues a n d t h e r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l q u a n t i t y o f p o e t r y h e w r o t e . T h e same discrepancy appears i n t h e c o n t r a s t b e t w e e n h i s g r a n d conceptions o f classical style, a n d poetic t r a d i t i o n s o f Europe established i n s u c h achievements as those o f V i r g i l a n d D a n t e , a n d h i s o w n i m p l i e d a t t e m p t t o c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e same t r a d i t i o n . T h e r e is a f a c t o r m i s s i n g i n t h i s e q u a t i o n . H i s inveter­ ate p r e o c c u p a t i o n w i t h d r a m a t h r o w s l i g h t o n this. I n h i s w r i t i n g a n d t h i n k i n g as a w h o l e , as a single a c t i v i t y flowing i n t o diverse

9

8

Eliot's Criticism

of

Drama

channels, t h e r e w a s a greatness o f o u t l o o k , a p o w e r f u l r a d i a t i o n of ideas a b o u t t h e f u n d a m e n t a l p r o b l e m s o f i n t e r p r e t i n g l i f e , society, t h e h u m a n conflicts, t h a t q u i t e transcends t h e l i m i t s o f his l y r i c poems a n d cries o u t f o r a broader mimesis o f l i f e . T h e poems w e r e a decisive c r e a t i o n , b o t h h i s t o r i c a l l y a n d absolutely. But there was something more comprehensive about his m i n d a n d i m a g i n a t i o n t h a t r e a l l y d i d m a k e h i s t o t a l u t t e r a n c e com­ m e n s u r a t e w i t h poets w h o w r o t e m u c h m o r e p o e t r y t h a n h e d i d . T h e u r g e t o d r a m a w a s a p r o f o u n d i n s t i n c t . H e w a s search­ i n g f o r t h e canvas, t h e landscape o f m a n i f o l d h u m a n c o n f l i c t , w h i c h w o u l d be a n adequate r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f h u m a n i n v o l v e ­ ment, a n d w h i c h he could impregnate w i t h his interpretations of existence. E l i o t , as a poet c o m m i t t e d t o verse, s a w v e r y soon t h a t t h e d r a m a w a s t h e o n l y e x t e n d e d f o r m available t o h i m i f h e w i s h e d , as h e d i d , t o m o v e b e y o n d his ' f i r s t ' voice ( m e d i t a t i v e ) a n d give a p i c t u r e o f society, o f m e n a n d w o m e n w i t h t h e i r actions a n d conflicts, i n s i t u a t i o n s of s u f f e r i n g a n d g u i l t , a n d i n a r e l a t i o n t o society as a w h o l e a n d its values. Such a subject can­ n o t be dealt w i t h i n t h e t w e n t i e t h c e n t u r y b y epic or l o n g narra­ t i v e , genres w h i c h n o l o n g e r have r o o t s i n society o r its c u l t u r e . B u t E l i o t d i d w a n t t o u n d e r t a k e t h e l a r g e r poetic task a n d p o r t r a y l i f e , behaviour, a n d t h e e t h i c a l s t r u c t u r e o f m o d e r n society i n r e l a t i o n t o beliefs a n d non-belief. T h e e a r l y c r i t i c i s m a n d t h e e a r l y poems go together as a k e e n specialized achievement. T h e search f o r a w o r k i n g t h e o r y o f verse drama, a n d f o r d r a m a t i c r e a l i z a t i o n s , i n a verse a n d i d i o m c o n g r u e n t w i t h t h e social r e a l i t y o f c o n t e m p o r a r y people, is t h e l i n k b e t w e e n t h e special­ i z e d p e r f o r m a n c e a n d t h e scale o f h i s o u t l o o k o n t h e w h o l e o f l i f e , l i t e r a t u r e a n d ideas. T h e forces f r o m t h i s w i d e r o u t l o o k a n d p o t e n t i a l i t y drove h i m to p l a n h i s d r a m a - w r i t i n g . I t also d e t e r m i n e d h i s i n t e r e s t i n Eliza­ b e t h a n d r a m a as a corpus of l i f e - m a t e r i a l as w e l l as a c r e a t i o n o f poetic drama. T h i s w a s p r i m a r y . T h e E l i z a b e t h a n c r i t i c i s m w a s n o t j u s t a s u p e r b l y cool course i n c r i t i c a l a n a t o m y . T h e contents of t h i s drama, f r o m K y d t o M a s s i n g e r a n d S h i r l e y , consist o f a mass of essential d r a m a m a t e r i a l , social t u r b u l e n c e a n d m o r a l con­ f l i c t . T h e r e c a n be n o d o u b t t h a t Eliot's e v o l v i n g o f so concen­ t r a t e d a b o d y o f c r i t i c i s m a b o u t n u m e r o u s w r i t e r s m u c h of w h o s e w o r k is t o a l l p r a c t i c a l purposes dead t o t h e t h e a t r e w a s sus-

Eliot's Criticism

of Drama

99

t a i n e d n o t o n l y b y a p r i v a t e w i s h t o w r i t e verse plays b u t b y a c o m p e l l i n g interest i n t h e m o r a l a n d social chaos e v i d e n t i n t h e themes o f E l i z a b e t h a n a n d Jacobean drama. E l i o t a f t e r a l l belonged t o a g e n e r a t i o n t h a t rediscovered e v i l , desired t o feel its r e a l i t y as p a r t o f h u m a n r e a l i t y , h o w e v e r v e i l e d b y conscious o r unconscious subterfuges. O n l y s u c h a n impulse, o p e r a t i n g finally as a n obsession, c o u l d c a r r y a r e a l l y l i v i n g person, as d i s t i n c t f r o m a c u r i o u s h i s t o r i a n , t h r o u g h t h e w h o l e mass o f t h i s drama, as E l i o t was carried. I t is noticeable t h a t w h e n h e quotes approv­ i n g l y passages f r o m poets h e has s t r o n g reservations a b o u t i t is n o t o n l y because t h e y are p r a i s e w o r t h y s i m p l y f o r t h e i r poetic style; t h e y are v i v i d expressions o f a c e r t a i n k i n d o f subjectm a t t e r , w h i c h helps t o g o v e r n t h e i r selection. T h u s , h o w e v e r a d m i r a b l e as finely tempered, self-possessed c r i t i c i s m his Eliza­ b e t h a n essays m a y appear t o scholar-critics, t h e y reveal i n effect, i n t h e guise o f c r i t i c i s m , some o f Eliot's obsessional problems. I n retrospect t h e y are seen t o be every b i t as m u c h t h e co-lateral documentation of the subjective origins of his early poetry, a n d of h i s plays, w h i c h are a l l a b o u t g u i l t , as a m o d e l piece o f c r i t i ­ cism o n h i s o w n p r i n c i p l e s o f analysis a n d comparison, cool, r a t i o n a l , m a r v e l l o u s l y poised. H i s obsession w i t h t h e subject area, as w e l l as h i s f o r m a l analysis, g i v e these essays, as a g r o u p , t h e i r committedness, t h e i r i n t e n s i t y , t h e i r force, t h e i r even h a l l u c i n a ­ t o r y perspicuity. I n t h i s c r i t i c i s m h e w a s k e e n n o t solely t o describe t h e v i r t u e s of p a r t i c u l a r authors, n o r t o find one o r t w o models t o serve h i s o w n plans best. H e m o v e d steadily t o w a r d s d e f i n i n g some general p r i n c i p l e s o f poetics. T o discover t h e nerve o f d r a m a t i c p o e t r y became h i s persistent aim; t h i s is nearer t o aesthetics t h a n c r i t i ­ cism. H e avoided u s i n g t e c h n i c a l aesthetics, b u t c o n s t a n t l y expressed aesthetic p r i n c i p l e s i n t h e l a n g u a g e o f c r i t i c i s m . H i s m o s t f a m o u s d i c t u m a b o u t t h e o b j e c t i v e c o r r e l a t i v e is of t h i s k i n d . M o s t critics stop s h o r t o f h i s p o i n t o f generalized f o r m u l a t i o n , w h i l s t m o s t philosophers s t a r t o n t h e o t h e r side, i n abstract ana­ lysis, o f its c o m p l e x a n d dense s i m p l i c i t y . H e w o r k s w i t h great adroitness a n d c o n c i s i o n w i t h i n a c r i t i c a l i d i o m , b u t a l w a y s o n t h e edge o f aesthetics. I n h i s t o r i c a l perspective, moreover, w e see t h a t he o f t e n s t a r t e d f r o m t h e aesthetic debates o f t h e period; Croce, Richards, C o l l i n g w o o d are a l l i n t h e w i n g s . T h e c e n t r a l 4

100

Eliot's Criticism of Drama

'objective c o r r e l a t i v e ' is related t o lines o f t h o u g h t e m e r g i n g w i t h Cassirer's w o r k o n s y m b o l i c f o r m s as aspects of conscious­ ness, w h i l s t t h e role o f ' f e e l i n g ' was to be g i v e n elaborate ana­ lysis b y Susanne Langer. Because o f h i s p o s i t i o n i n t h i s general c o n t e x t , t o g e t h e r w i t h his p r a c t i c a l p r o b l e m , t h e c r i t i c i s m o f t h e essays o n i n d i v i d u a l poets c o n s t a n t l y overlaps w i t h t h e m o r e t h e o r e t i c a l m e t h o d s o f t h e essays d i r e c t l y focused o n general p o i n t s . Each o f t h e Eliza­ b e t h a n pieces isolates i n t u r n a p r i n c i p l e r e l e v a n t t o t h e defini­ t i o n , practice, or e v a l u a t i o n of drama; each p u t s a m a j o r p r o b l e m i n t o special relief. C r i t i c s o f t e n h a v e a specialized m e t h o d , o r t h e i r o w n g r o u p of c r i t e r i a , a n d a p p l y t h e m e q u a l l y t o successive authors. I t is p a r t of t h e o r i g i n a l i t y of t h i s l a r g e cluster of essays t h a t t h e i r a u t h o r , r e a d i n g o n e d r a m a t i s t after another, evolves g r a d u a l l y , each t i m e f r o m t h e m o s t i n f o r m a t i v e example, w h a t is v i r t u a l l y a poetics o f d r a m a i n near-aphoristic f o r m . C e r t a i n l y E l i o t is sensitive t o t h e i n d i v i d u a l style of h i s p o e t - p l a y w r i g h t s , b u t t o focus t h i s a n d also f o r m u l a t e a general p r i n c i p l e o f a l l d r a m a is t h e r e s u l t of a single i n s i g h t . A t t h e end of t h i s series of studies of i n d i v i d u a l w r i t e r s w e can g i v e a set o f chapter headings f o r a poetics of t h e f o r m . W e find t h e f o l l o w i n g topics, a m o n g s t others, e m e r g i n g i n t h i s w a y : t h e m a t e r i a l o f drama, especially emotions t h a t h a v e t o find a p p r o p r i a t e expression (Hamht); emo­ t i o n a l t o n e expressed i n t h e t o t a l design (Jonson); t h e p r o b l e m of types a n d categories, a n d i n a d e q u a t e t e r m i n o l o g y (Jonson); t h e ' c r e a t i n g ' of characters (Massinger, Jonson); r e a l i s m a n d t h e a r t i ­ fice of f o r m ('Four E l i z a b e t h a n D r a m a t i s t s ' ) ; d i c t i o n , especially t h e r e f i n e m e n t of p l u r a l sensuousness m a t c h e d i n l a n g u a g e a n d i m a g e r y (Massinger); p o e t i c verse a n d d r a m a t i c verse ( M a r s t o n , H e y w o o d ) ; p o e t r y of t h e surface (Ford); m o r a l c o n f l i c t c e n t r a l t o d r a m a ( M i d d l e t o n ) ; r h e t o r i c a n d a c t i n g ('Rhetoric a n d Poetic Drama'); d r a m a t i c c o n c e p t i o n a n d c o n s t r u c t i o n ( T o u r n e u r ) ; d r a m a a n d beliefs, o r p h i l o s o p h i c a l a t t i t u d e s ('Shakespeare a n d t h e Stoicism o f Seneca'); b l a n k verse as d r a m a t i c i n s t r u m e n t ( M a r l o w e , a n d passim). I n a d d i t i o n these studies a i m t o establish m a r g i n s , a n d a scale; m a r g i n s o n t h e one side of d r a m a t i c r h e t o r i c b e c o m i n g false h y p e r b o l e , and o n t h e o t h e r of p o e t r y l a p s i n g i n t o versified prose. E l i o t finds a l o n g t h e scale a place f o r each a u t h o r a c c o r d i n g t o h i s r o b u s t e r or w e a k e r r e a l i z a t i o n of g e n u i n e p o e t r y ,

Eliot's Criticism of Drama

101

his 'degree of f o r m ' and style. H e finds h i s ideal centre, finally, i n t h e first scene of Hamlet a n d t h e b a l c o n y scene of Romeo and

Juliet I t is essential t o Eliot's p o s i t i o n t h a t d r a m a t i c p o e t r y (verse d r a m a ) is a t y p e of verse, b u t n o t a t y p e o f drama; h i s l i n e is t h a t verse expression, b e i n g s i m p l y a n a t u r a l i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n of prose, does n o t alter d r a m a except t o i n t e n s i f y i t . N o r is i t a m i x t u r e of l y r i c , n a r r a t i v e , a n d dialogue. H e regarded closet drama, i n w h i c h ' p o e t r y ' spreads itself f o r a p r i v a t e reader, as a n u n t r u e f o r m , f a u l t y a n d misdirected. H i s basis f o r p o e t i c values i n d r a m a is a l w a y s t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of a n a c t i o n , a sequence of h u m a n involvement, a n indivisible artistic whole; and i n n o circum­ stances a f r a m e or g r i d o n w h i c h m e r e l y t o a t t a c h p o e t i c divaga­ tions. O f t h e later essays, t h a t o n 'The T h r e e Voices of P o e t r y ' (1953) yields, amidst some restatements of s i m p l e d a i l y rules o f his o w n , i n s i g h t s of a f r u i t f u l k i n d , capable of w i d e r develop­ m e n t , m o r e so t h a n t h e m o r e d i r e c t l y e n t i t l e d essay 'Poetry and D r a m a ' (1951). I t c o n t a i n s i n essence a n astute r e a d j u s t m e n t of classical g e n r e t h e o r y , s w i t c h i n g f r o m r e c i p i e n t t o poet t h e v i e w p o i n t f r o m w h i c h l y r i c , n a r r a t i v e a n d d r a m a are seen. B u t his t h e o r y o f voices c o u l d also be said t o be i n f l u e n c e d b y Plato's v i e w of basic p o e t i c forms. Plato d i s t i n g u i s h e d f o r m s a c c o r d i n g to t h e 'direct' or ' i n d i r e c t ' address of t h e poet. T h e first w a s r e a l i z e d i n t h e d i t h y r a m b , t h e second i n drama, epic b e i n g a m i x t u r e of t h e t w o . T h i s v i e w regarded t h e i n d i r e c t ( d r a m a t i c ) f o r m as ' i m i t a t i o n ' . Eliot's v a r i a n t provides f o r a t h i r d mode, i n w h i c h t h e poet's address is t o himself, n e i t h e r d i r e c t n o r i n d i r e c t , b u t n e u t r a l . I n t h e present state of aesthetics of l i t e r a t u r e these d i v i s i o n s appear v e r y a p p r o x i m a t e , n o m o r e t h a n s c a f f o l d i n g t o h e l p c o n s t r u c t m o r e i n t r i c a t e conceptions; b u t t h e transference of speech f r o m a n a r r a t i n g poet t o A c t i v e d r a m a t i c characters, w h o become t h e v i c a r i o u s agents of t h e p o e t i c statement, is t h e essential characteristic of d r a m a t i c f o r m . T h i s i n itself is n o t t h e m o s t d i f f i c u l t problem. T h e m y s t e r y E l i o t is a l w a y s t r y i n g t o p r o b e is t h a t o f characters i n a fiction, a n a c t i o n , speaking i n verse a n d enhanced language. A l y r i c poet, a n epic poet, are s e l f - j u s t i f y i n g i n respect of i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n . T h e y speak as a p a r t i c u l a r species, poets, a n d t h e purpose of t h e i r speech is, o n t h e surface itself, t o give enhanced meanings, 5

102

Eliot's Criticism

of

Drama

w h i c h b y t h e i r significance, a n d i t s i n c o r p o r a t i o n i n language, j u s t i f y t h e artifice and t h e raised plane of expression. B u t d r a m a i m i t a t e s men, n o t poets, speaking. So t h e q u e s t i o n arises, w h a t , i n drama, justifies, analogous t o l y r i c and epic, t h e h i g h l y incred­ i b l e artifice of verse and poetic d i c t i o n ? E l i o t takes as a m o d e l t h e poet i d e n t i f y i n g w i t h t h e character, s p e a k i n g i n and t h r o u g h t h e character, so t h a t character and poet have a s i m i l a r m o t i v e f o r s p e a k i n g p o e t r y ; t h e y are b o t h u n d e r a c o m p u l s i o n t o ' i n t e n s i t y ' of expression, t h e one b y v i r t u e of t h e e m o t i o n a l pressures f r o m h i s s i t u a t i o n , t h e o t h e r b y v i r t u e of h i s e m p a t h y a n d i m a g i n a t i o n . B u t a r o u n d t h i s character-to-character c o m p o s i t i o n h e also has s o m e t h i n g h e calls 'musical design'; a n d I t h i n k w e are to u n d e r s t a n d t h a t there is a k i n d of m u s i c i n t h e speech o f characters, a n d a m u s i c i n t h e design of t h e w h o l e ; a p o i n t t o be e l u c i d a t e d later. T h e i r c o m b i n e d f u n c t i o n i n g repre­ sents h i s c e n t r a l idea a b o u t t h e poetic-dramatic u n i s o n . T h e a r g u m e n t f r o m ' i n t e n s i t y ' comes o u t w i t h p a r t i c u l a r c l a r i t y i n t h e f o l l o w i n g passage: B u t i f o u r verse is t o have so w i d e a r a n g e t h a t i t can say any­ t h i n g t h a t has t o be said, i t f o l l o w s t h a t i t w i l l n o t be p o e t r y a l l t h e t i m e . I t w i l l o n l y be p o e t r y w h e n t h e d r a m a t i c s i t u a t i o n has reached s u c h a p o i n t of i n t e n s i t y t h a t p o e t r y becomes t h e n a t u r a l u t t e r a n c e , because t h e n i t is t h e o n l y l a n g u a g e i n w h i c h t h e e m o t i o n s can be expressed a t a l l . 6

E l i o t is here c l e a r l y i n l i n e w i t h aesthetic t h i n k i n g i n t h e t w e n t i e s a n d t h i r t i e s . A l t h o u g h h e c o u l d speak s l i g h t i n g l y o f contem­ p o r a r y trends (as, f o r instance, i n t h e b r i e f references i n t h e 'Dia­ l o g u e ' t o w h a t one 'must h a v e read') h i s v i e w s are n o t u n r e l a t e d to expressionist aesthetic t h e o r y . T h e idea of r e p r e s e n t a t i o n y i e l d s first place t o t h a t of expressing f e e l i n g . T h r o u g h o u t h i s c r i t i c i s m E l i o t relies o n t h e expression o f e m o t i o n as t h e specific, i d i o s y n ­ cratic r o l e o f p o e t r y . I n t h e w h o l e a r g u m e n t a b o u t belief, a b o u t p o e t r y and p h i l o s o p h y , h e o f t e n has e m o t i o n , e m o t i o n a l p a t t e r n s , i n m i n d ; h e a l w a y s arrives back at expression of f e e l i n g as t h e c r u x of poetry's f u n c t i o n . So here, r e j e c t i n g the realist c r i t e r i o n , he accepts, as t h e s o l u t i o n of t h e p r o b l e m o f t h e u n n a t u r a l n e s s of people s p e a k i n g verse, t h e naturalness o f verse f o r c o n v e y i n g s t r o n g , subtle, or e x c e p t i o n a l emotions. I n s u p p o r t he can f u r t h e r

Eliot's Criticism

of Drama

103

use h i s r e c u r r e n t idea a b o u t 'degree o f f o r m ' ; as emotions, i n c l u d i n g d r a m a t i c ones, i n t e n s i f y , y o u need a h i g h e r compres­ s i o n a n d i n t r i c a c y of f o r m - m a k i n g , w h i c h t h e s u p e r i o r organiza­ t i o n o f verse ( r h y t h m a n d s o u n d ) provides. T h e emotions h e means i n t h i s c o n t e x t are o f course a l w a y s e m o t i o n s a r i s i n g f r o m t h e d r a m a i n h a n d , w h i c h gives t h e m t h e i r p a r t i c u l a r c o l o u r i n g . A s E l i o t applies i t t h e c o n c e p t i o n becomes a n o r i g i n a l c o n t r i ­ b u t i o n t o poetics o f drama. I t is made s t i l l m o r e persuasive, a n d more useful, b y h i s careful distinction between t h e dramatic m o n o l o g u e , as practised b y B r o w n i n g , a n d t r u e dialogue. T h e character i n a m o n o l o g u e , n o t b e i n g placed opposite o t h e r characters i n a n a c t i o n , w i t h e q u a l d r a m a t i c status, appears s i m p l y as a -persona o f t h e poet himself. I t is a n i n t e r m e d i a t e 'voice', p o s i t i o n e d s o m e w h e r e b e t w e e n Eliot's first ( m e d i t a t i v e ) a n d t h i r d ( d r a m a t i c ) voices. H e sees i t based o n m i m i c r y a n d i m p e r s o n a t i o n , n e i t h e r o f w h i c h is i n v o l v e d i n e i t h e r t h e l y r i c m e d i t a t i v e voice or t h e t r u e d r a m a t i c character. B u t E l i o t also keeps h i s eye o n t h e w h o l e d r a m a t i c scheme of a p l a y . T h e terms h e uses are t h e o r d i n a r y ones; a character has t o express feelings a r i s i n g f r o m a n a c t i o n . H e has i n v i e w , h o w e v e r , w i t h o u t t o o d i r e c t l y f o r m u l a t i n g i t , t h e n o t i o n t h a t t h e r e is a l i n g u i s t i c f o r m t h a t is t h e n a t u r a l mimesis o f t h e p a t t e r n s o f t h e d r a m a t i c i n t h e m o v e m e n t o f h u m a n l i f e ; t h i s is w h a t h e is aim­ i n g t o s h o w i n h i s analysis o f t h e first scene of Hamlet, i n 'Poetry a n d Drama'; a n d as a l i n g u i s t i c f o r m i t differs f r o m l y r i c medi­ t a t i o n , a n d n a r r a t i v e . A e s t h e t i c a l l y speaking, i t is h i s essential r e p l y t o false modes o f t h e p o e t i c i n prose p l a y s s u c h as h e c r i t i ­ cized f r o m t h i s p o i n t of view; f o r example, i n M a e t e r l i n c k , w h e r e t h e 'poetic' is d e r i v e d f r o m atmosphere, o r t h e sense o f unseen powers. W h a t i t does n o t answer is a n adverse i m p l i c a t i o n a b o u t prose fiction; i f s t r o n g feelings need verse f o r adequate expression i t looks as t h o u g h t h e n o v e l i n p r i n c i p l e c a n n o t p r o v i d e t h i s , w h i c h is q u i t e l o g i c a l b u t r o u g h o n e m i n e n t novelists. E l i o t i s t h r o u g h o u t seeking s o m e t h i n g h e calls 'dramatic poetry'; h e explores t h e Elizabethans i n such d e t a i l because t h e i r p r o d u c t i o n over fifty years w a s e n o r m o u s l y f e r t i l e a n d varied. D e e p d o w n , however, h e i s seeking t o c o m b i n e a metaphord o m i n a t e d d i c t i o n , w h i c h u l t i m a t e l y is one aesthetic r o o t o f t h e s y m b o l i s t aesthetic, w i t h t h e b e a u t y o f f o r m a l design i n larger

104

Eliot's Criticism

of

Drama

patterns that he f o u n d more i n C o n t i n e n t a l a r t a n d literature t h a n i n E n g l i s h , a n d t o w h i c h h e h a d access d i r e c t l y f r o m A m e r i ­ can taste, a n d n o t v i a E n g l a n d ; f o r example, i n t h e classical tra­ dition, i n Dante, a n d i n the quintessential f o r m a l symbolism, or s y m b o l i c f o r m a l i s m , o f t h e Russo-Italian b a l l e t A n acute f o r m a l sense is a p o w e r f u l , u n - E n g l i s h t r a i t i n h i s a r t i s t i c character; h e sought, w i t h i n t e l l e c t u a l a n d sensuous passion, b e a u t y o f com­ p o s i t i o n . E n g l i s h creative a c t i v i t y is a d d i t i v e , a g g l u t i n a t i v e , tend­ i n g t o p a t t e r n s of free, capricious o r g a n i c g r o w t h ; i t s emblems are the s h r u b , t h e tree, t h e ' E n g l i s h ' garden. W e speak, o f course, o f g a r d e n a n d p a r k design, b u t m e a n m o s t l y n o m o r e t h a n canaliz­ i n g nature's o w n l i b e r t y , a n d c a m o u f l a g i n g even t h i s i n t e r f e r ­ ence. T h e E l i o t counter-taste reaches a l o n g w a y . I t covers h i s w i t a n d farce, a n d makes h i m sensitive t o f o r m a l b e a u t y a n d its associated e m o t i o n a l overtones i n t h e c o m e d y o f Jonson; i n h i s essay o n t h e l a t t e r h e clarifies w i t h great i n s i g h t a n d s y m p a t h y a k i n d o f p o e t i c q u a l i t y a r i s i n g f r o m design w h i c h is d i s t i n c t f r o m the p o e t r y of d i c t i o n o r i m a g e r y . T h i s b r i n g s us t o a c o m p o n e n t o f Eliot's idea o f d r a m a t i c p o e t r y t h a t extends its scope, g o i n g b e y o n d t h e expressiveness o f characters i n a c t i o n o n w h i c h h e bases so m u c h o f h i s a r g u m e n t . I n t h e l a t e r phase o f h i s t h o u g h t , as represented b y 'Poetry a n d Drama', h e m a d e a n a t t e m p t t o s u p p l e m e n t h i s general concep­ t i o n w i t h t h e musical analogy he h a d previously explored i n r e g a r d t o p o e t r y ; i t d e r i v e d , o f course, w i t h h i m as w i t h most, f r o m t h e s y m b o l i s t aesthetic. T h e q u e s t i o n t o consider is w h e t h e r t h i s e n l a r g e m e n t consolidated h i s ideas o r i n t r o d u c e d a n e w fac­ tor m o r e d i s r u p t i n g , or d i v e r g e n t , t h a n s y n t h e s i z i n g . I n 'Poetry a n d D r a m a ' h e w r i t e s : I t seems t o m e t h a t b e y o n d t h e nameable, classifiable e m o t i o n s a n d m o t i v e s of o u r conscious l i f e w h e n directed t o w a r d s a c t i o n — t h e p a r t o f l i f e w h i c h prose d r a m a is w h o l l y adequate t o e x p r e s s — t h e r e is a f r i n g e of i n d e f i n i t e e x t e n t , of f e e l i n g w h i c h w e c a n o n l y detect, so t o speak, o u t o f t h e corner o f t h e eye a n d c a n never c o m p l e t e l y focus; o f f e e l i n g o f w h i c h w e are o n l y a w a r e i n a k i n d o f t e m p o r a r y d e t a c h m e n t f r o m a c t i o n .. • T h i s p e c u l i a r r a n g e of s e n s i b i l i t y c a n be expressed b y d r a m a t i c p o e t r y , a t its m o m e n t s of greatest i n t e n s i t y . A t such m o m e n t s ,

Eliot's Criticism

of Drama

105

w e t o u c h t h e border o f those feelings w h i c h o n l y m u s i c c a n express ... I h a v e before m y eyes a k i n d of m i r a g e o f t h e per­ f e c t i o n o f verse drama, w h i c h w o u l d be a design o f h u m a n a c t i o n a n d of words, s u c h as t o present at once t h e t w o aspects of d r a m a t i c a n d of m u s i c a l order. I t seems t o me t h a t Shakes­ peare achieved t h i s at least i n c e r t a i n scenes ... a n d t h a t t h i s was w h a t he was s t r i v i n g t o w a r d s i n his l a t e plays. T o go as f a r i n t h i s d i r e c t i o n as i t is possible t o go, w i t h o u t l o s i n g t h a t con­ t a c t w i t h the o r d i n a r y e v e r y d a y w o r l d w i t h w h i c h d r a m a m u s t come t o terms, seems t o me t h e p r o p e r a i m of d r a m a t i c p o e t r y . For i t is u l t i m a t e l y t h e f u n c t i o n o f a r t , i n i m p o s i n g a credible order u p o n o r d i n a r y r e a l i t y , a n d t h e r e b y e l i c i t i n g some percep­ t i o n o f a n order in r e a l i t y , t o b r i n g us t o a c o n d i t i o n of seren­ i t y , stillness, a n d r e c o n c i l i a t i o n .. . 7

I t strikes us t h a t E l i o t is t r y i n g here t o b r i n g together a n u m b e r of t h i n g s , each far-reaching: his love o f drama, his love o f a n ineffable m u s i c a l order u n d e r l y i n g a l l p o e t r y , his belief t h a t art's f u n c t i o n is t o reveal m e a n i n g a n d order i n r e a l i t y , and, finally, his nostalgia f o r w h a t he calls r e c o n c i l i a t i o n ; a n d b r i n g i n g these t h i n g s together h e w a n t s t h e m t o m a k e a perfect h a r m o n y . H e h a d already spoken, i n t h e essay o n M a r s t o n , of t w o 'levels' i n poetic drama. T h e p o i n t is i n t e r e s t i n g because his e x p l a n a t i o n of ' i n t e n s i t y ' , a n d i t s n a t u r a l o u t l e t i n t h e h y p e r b o l e o f verse, c o u l d r e a l l y be q u i t e acceptable as t h e poetic p r i n c i p l e o f d r a m a w i t h o u t f u r t h e r help: I t is possible t h a t w h a t distinguishes poetic d r a m a f r o m pro­ saic d r a m a is a k i n d o f doubleness i n t h e a c t i o n , as i f i t t o o k place o n t w o planes a t once ... I n poetic d r a m a a c e r t a i n a p p a r e n t irrelevance m a y be t h e s y m p t o m o f t h i s doubleness; or t h e d r a m a has a n under-pattern, less m a n i f e s t t h a n t h e t h e a t r i c a l o n e . . . I t is n o t b y w r i t i n g q u o t a b l e 'poetic' pas­ sages, b u t b y g i v i n g us t h e sense o f s o m e t h i n g b e h i n d , m o r e r e a l t h a n a n y of h i s personages a n d t h e i r a c t i o n , t h a t M a r s t o n established h i m s e l f a m o n g t h e w r i t e r s of genius ... I n spite o f the tumultuousness o f the action, and the ferocity a n d horror of c e r t a i n parts o f t h e p l a y [ T h e Wonder of W o m e n ] , there is a n u n d e r l y i n g serenity; a n d as w e f a m i l i a r i z e ourselves w i t h t h e p l a y w e perceive a p a t t e r n b e h i n d the p a t t e r n i n t o

106

Eliot's Criticism

of

Drama

w h i c h t h e characters d e l i b e r a t e l y i n v o l v e themselves; t h e k i n d of p a t t e r n w h i c h w e perceive i n o u r o w n lives o n l y a t rare m o m e n t s o f i n a t t e n t i o n a n d d e t a c h m e n t , d r o w s i n g i n sun­ l i g h t . I t is t h e p a t t e r n d r a w n b y w h a t t h e a n c i e n t w o r l d called Fate; s u b t i l i z e d b y C h r i s t i a n i t y i n t o mazes of delicate theology; a n d reduced a g a i n b y t h e m o d e r n w o r l d i n t o c r u d i t i e s o f p s y c h o l o g i c a l or economic necessity. 8

These remarks, w r i t t e n seventeen years p r e v i o u s l y t o 'Poetry a n d Drama', c o n t a i n elements decidedly a n t i c i p a t i n g t h e passage u n d e r discussion. B u t t o say t h a t t h e p a t t e r n t h a t u n d e r l i e s is Fate, or its C h r i s t i a n or m o d e r n c o u n t e r p a r t , is almost t o m a k e i t over-clear, so t h a t i t lacks t h e transcendent q u a l i t y o f t h e l a t e r passage, created b y t h e ideal m u s i c a l image. T h e l a t e r passage is indeed a v e r y r e m a r k a b l e m i x t u r e o f pre­ cise o b s e r v a t i o n a n d a d r e a m o f a n u l t i m a t e c o n s u m m a t i o n t o be achieved t h r o u g h art. T h e p r e c i s i o n lies i n t h e b r i e f d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e p e n u m b r a of elusive feelings b e y o n d those o f specific drama­ t i c a c t i o n a n d e m o t i o n . E l i o t has here added s o m e t h i n g t o h i s i n t e n s i t y idea; h e has focused t h e r e w i t h a n area t h a t i s decisive f o r t h e finest effect of p o e t r y b u t is u n d o u b t e d l y elusive. I n f a c t he has here l i n k e d u p i n a n o t h e r w a y t h e poet speaking a n d t h e character speaking. H i s t h e o r y o f t h e p o e t i c expression o f drama­ tic characters does n o t s a t i s f a c t o r i l y cover t h e reference b e t w e e n t h e poet a n d t h e w o r k as a w h o l e , w h i c h is s o m e t h i n g m o r e t h a n t h e s u m of t h e characters i n i t ; one has t o a c c o u n t f o r t h e u l t i ­ m a t e u n i t y of v i s i o n c e n t r e d i n t h e a u t h o r , a n d e m b o d i e d i n a u n i t y of s t y l e a n d design. Possibly t h e opera of M o n t e v e r d i , or of G l u c k , w o u l d p r o v i d e a specific a n a l o g y f o r Eliot's order o f d r a m a a n d order of m u s i c created s i m u l t a n e o u s l y . I n M o n t e v e r d i t h e events, t h e h u m a n d r a m a ( t h e l i f e - m a t e r i a l ) , p r o j e c t e d i n a power­ f u l v o c a l l i n e , w i t h r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e c h o r a l or o r c h e s t r a l s u p p o r t , are indeed a s i m u l t a n e o u s d r a m a t i c a n d m u s i c a l order. W i t h G l u c k t h e a n a l o g y w o u l d be based o n h i s ideal o f p o w e r f u l d r a m a t i c emotions, a p p r e h e n d e d s i m p l y i n t h e i r n a t u r a l , u n i ­ versal t r u t h , a n d s u b l i m a t e d i n t o a m u s i c o f t h e p u r e s t a n d noblest classical design, e q u a l l y n a t u r a l a n d u n i v e r s a l i z e d . I n m a n y respects, t h e n , Eliot's v i e w s o n t h e n a t u r e o f a p e r f e c t d r a m a t i c p o e t r y are a decisive c o n t r i b u t i o n t o t h e poetics o f

Eliot's Criticism of Drama

107

drama, n o t covered i n t h i s i l l u m i n a t i n g w a y b y o t h e r d r a m a t i s t s or w r i t e r s o n aesthetics, w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n of M i d d l e t o n M u r r y ' s e x p l o r a t o r y chapter ('Imagery a n d I m a g i n a t i o n ' ) i n h i s Shakes­ peare. T h e r e are o f course signs t h a t i t is a v e r y d i s t i l l e d concep­ t i o n . E l i o t gives, i t is t r u e , a f e w concrete examples f r o m Shakes­ peare t o persuade us t h a t i t has been a c t u a l l y realized; a n d h i s q u o t a t i o n s f r o m o t h e r Elizabethans o f t e n t e n d i n t h i s d i r e c t i o n , t h o u g h t h e i r e x q u i s i t e selection is deceptive, m a k i n g t h e m seem t h e r u l e a n d n o t t h e e x c e p t i o n a l h i g h p o i n t s t h e y o f t e n are. B u t t h e c o n c e p t i o n has t h e b e a u t y of an ideal paradigm; i t is a p o e m of t h e o r y , almost a u t o n o m o u s ; j u s t as h i s t h r e e later plays m a y be said t o cast t h e shadow, itself b e a u t i f u l , of t h i s quasi-Platonic f o r m r a t h e r t h a n t o e m b o d y i t r e a l l y f o r c e f u l l y . Nevertheless i t focuses as n o one else has done t h e m y s t e r y of t h e p o e t i c ' f o r m ' of a l l drama. A p a r t f r o m t h e aesthetic aspect a f u r t h e r p o i n t t o n o t i c e is h o w t h e ideas of t h e passage t e n d t o overshoot t h e analysis of d r a m a t i c f o r m . A f t e r e x t e n d i n g t h e l a t t e r , m a k i n g i t as compre­ hensive as possible, E l i o t is i n danger o f e n d i n g w i t h a n apothe­ osis n o t of d r a m a b u t of one t y p e of p l a y , t h e p l a y o f u l t i m a t e r e c o n c i l i a t i o n , l i k e Shakespeare's later w o r k s ; and, w i t h The Elder Statesman p a r t i c u l a r l y i n m i n d , w e feel here t h a t characteristic features o f h i s late phase b e g i n t o i n f l u e n c e a n d d i s t o r t t h e general idea of p o e t i c drama. I n t h e m i x i n g of c r i t i c a l , aesthetic d e s c r i p t i o n of d r a m a w i t h t h e v e r y a l l - c o m p r e h e n d i n g i m a g e of music, t h e l a t t e r becomes a general s y m b o l of p u r i f i c a t i o n , o f r e d e m p t i o n , w h i l s t t h e f o r m e r is assimilated t o i t as drama-poemr i t e . T h i s m a y m e a n a n i n d u c t i o n i n t o s e r e n i t y a n d peace, b u t s u c h terms take m e a n i n g s f r o m near-religious c o n t e x t s , a n d c r i t i ­ cism, or poetics, are transcended. H a v i n g c o n c e n t r a t e d o n a f e w salient p o i n t s w e h a v e n o t h a d space t o analyse or describe a l l Eliot's m e t h o d s a n d usages i n his d r a m a t i c c r i t i c i s m . F r o m t h e m a n y references h e makes i t is clear t h a t h e w a s e x t r e m e l y k n o w l e d g e a b l e a b o u t t h e theatre, p l a y w r i t i n g a n d d r a m a t i c l i t e r a t u r e , m a n y years ahead o f h i s o w n p r a c t i c a l c o n n e x i o n w i t h t h e a t r e people. H e w a s n o t a l y r i c poet s t r a y i n g lucklessly or m i s t a k e n l y i n t o drama. H e w a s i n w a r d l y a t t a c h e d t o i t . I n a n e a r l y essay l i k e 'Euripides a n d Professor M u r r a y ' (1920), w h i c h is m a i n l y a b o u t questionable 9

108

Eliot's Criticism

of Drama

poetic t r a n s l a t i o n , i t is clear t h a t h e has a well-aimed grasp o f character and t h e actor's task; he 'conceives' t h e d r a m a t i c person­ age as such, and n o t o n l y t h e p r o b l e m of versification. I t i m p l i e s a n i m p o r t a n t premiss, a creative l i a i s o n w i t h d r a m a t i s t s of t h e past. I n a s i m i l a r way, w i t h o u t e x a m i n i n g t r a g e d y as a category, he is deeply sensitive a b o u t t h i s aspect o f l i f e . T h e essay o n M i d d l e t o n bears witness to i t . H e r e h e concentrates, i n terse, c o m p a c t phrases, o n h u m a n character, especially o n p e r m a n e n t types of w o m a n . T h e basis of t h e essay is m o r a l k n o w l e d g e o f l i f e . I t shows E l i o t p r o f o u n d l y moved, g i v i n g t h i s a u t h o r h i s a d m i r a t i o n w i t h w a r m t h o f feeling, s t r a n g e l y , c o m p u l s i v e l y generous. H e displays everywhere, of course, a special interest i n d i c t i o n a n d versification, b u t t h e r e are u s u a l l y h i n t s t h a t h e is a l w a y s aware of t h e s t r u c t u r a l features of drama, s u c h as p l o t , m a n i p u l a t i o n of stage effects, characterisation, e m o t i o n a l tone, a n d t y p e of play; h i s c o m m e n t s o n d i c t i o n a n d m e t r i c can u s u a l l y be seen to be dependent o n a p r i o r consideration of these. Eliot's p o s i t i o n as c r i t i c of d r a m a is strange because he chose to w r i t e m o s t o n a d i f f i c u l t and r e m o t e g r o u p of d r a m a t i s t s w h o raise m a n y special, h i s t o r i c a l questions. W h a t h e d i d is a l i t t l e bizarre; f o r u r g e n t c o n t e m p o r a r y reasons ( h i s desire t o have a poetic d r a m a ) h e w e n t , i n order t o establish his c r i t e r i a about p o e t r y a n d conventions, r e a l i s m a n d prose, to a p e r i o d d r a m a w h i c h gave h i m a n e x t r e m e l y o b l i q u e v i e w of h i s real problem, the one t h a t p u t h i m i n c o n f r o n t a t i o n w i t h h i s present-day. For m o s t people t h i s means t h a t a series of s i g n i f i c a n t m o d e r n dra­ matists h a v e been pushed i n t o a c r i t i c a l l i m b o of Eliot's m a k i n g . I t means t h a t h e refused, at least as p u b l i c c r i t i c , t o face u p t o a p o w e r f u l presence i n t h e t w e n t i e t h c e n t u r y , n a m e l y a v a r i e d and i n t e r e s t i n g prose d r a m a t h a t has displaced verse drama, as prose fiction had displaced epic and n a r r a t i v e p o e t r y . T h i s is, of course, easier t o see n o w because w e have before us t h e l o n g e r develop­ ment; w e see c o n t i n u i t i e s s t r e t c h i n g f r o m S t r i n d b e r g , late Ibsen, and t h e social d r a m a o f t h e nineties a n d after, t h r o u g h b o t h G e r m a n expressionism a n d t h e poetic revivals i n France a n d E n g l a n d , d o w n t o a post-war d r a m a c o m p l e t e l y l i b e r a t e d f r o m the social r e a l i s m t h a t persisted s t i l l i n Eliot's earlier years and h a d become t r i t e and superficial. I n r e l a t i o n t o m o s t o f t h i s d r a m a E l i o t was c r i t i c a l l y aloof. T h i s

Eliot's Criticism

of

Drama

109

m e a n t , however, t h a t h e w a s unable, a n d u n w i l l i n g , t o a p p l y a n e n l i g h t e n i n g , p o s i t i v e c r i t i c i s m to a large b o d y of r e p u t a b l e w o r k , a n d displayed h i s p o w e r s i n t h a t respect o n l y o n t h e r e m o t e r drama. N a t u r a l l y n o o n e c o u l d r e q u i r e h i m t o w r i t e a b o u t t h e prose a u t h o r s i f he d i d n ' t w i s h ; he w a s averse a n y w a y t o w r i t i n g c r i t i c i s m a b o u t l i v i n g w r i t e r s . Nevertheless, w i t h h i s d r a m a c r i t i ­ cism, h e w a s j u m p i n g i n t o c o n t e m p o r a r y w a t e r s w i t h a r g u m e n t s and attacks, and so i t is i n e v i t a b l e t h a t one s h o u l d feel a gap of sorts. W h a t w e notice, n o d o u b t w i t h h i n d s i g h t , i n t h e s t r a i g h t ­ e n i n g perspective of h i s t o r y — a n d a l l t h i s is n o w h i s t o r i c a l — i s t h a t his v i g o r o u s f o c u s i n g o n t h e t w i n p r o b l e m o f t h e n a t u r e of poetic drama, a n d t h e p r a c t i c a l p r o b l e m o f c r e a t i n g i t anew, d e p r i v e d h i m r e a l l y o f t h e distanced v i e w t h a t w o u l d have l e t h i m see m o r e c l e a r l y a l l t h e forces, l i t e r a r y and social, t h a t h a d i n f a c t created t h e s i t u a t i o n , and w e n t o n r e i n f o r c i n g t h e trends t h a t w e r e against h i s dream, i n s o f a r as i t w a s t h e a s p i r a t i o n a c t u a l l y to b r i n g i n t o b e i n g a m o v e m e n t o f some p r o p o r t i o n s . S l i p p i n g i n t o t h i s p o s i t i o n w a s u n f o r t u n a t e , because, a l t h o u g h d r a m a enlarged h i s o w n creative effort, as I said above, h i s i n t e n d e d regenerative c r i t i c i s m w a s concerned o n l y w i t h a r e s t r i c t e d area of t h e genre a n d h e perhaps underestimated, o r did n o t w i s h t o acknowledge, t h e m a j o r change of d i r e c t i o n t h a t was o c c u r r i n g . A s w e read h i s essays o n d r a m a i n sequence, w a t c h i n g t h e pat­ t e r n of c r i t e r i a developing, w e n o t i c e t h a t t h e y are w h o l l y t i e d t o t h e Greek, Renaissance, a n d F r e n c h classical t r a d i t i o n . H i s a t t e m p t at a r e n e w a l w a s l u c i d l y c a l c u l a t i n g and b o l d b u t w a s perhaps a last-ditch stand. T h e last florescence of t h e great t r a d i ­ t i o n w a s t h e G e r m a n classical-romantic e f f o r t r e a c h i n g f r o m Goethe t o G r i l l p a r z e r a n d Hebbel; a m o v e m e n t w i t h w h i c h , how­ ever, E l i o t h a d l i t t l e s y m p a t h y . I t was, moreover, s t i l l w i t h i n earshot of t h e seventeenth a n d e i g h t e e n t h centuries. B y Eliot's t i m e t h e gap h a d indeed w i d e n e d . A n o t h e r f a c t o r i n t h e c u l t u r a l c l i m a t e was, b y t h e f o r t i e s and fifties, t h e a r r i v a l o f t e l e v i s i o n a n d colour-film; i n themselves t h e y w e r e n o t at first f e l t as t h r e a t e n i n g u n t i l t h e r a p i d i t y o f t h e i r d e v e l o p m e n t t o o k e v e r y o n e b y surprise. A p a r t f r o m t h e i r p r o v i n g t o be a corrosive solvent, p r e p a r i n g t h e w a y f o r t h e emergence of mass democratic values, t h e y h e l d g e n u i n e p r o m i s e

110

Eliot's Criticism

of

Drama

as n e w m e d i a of a r t , a n d affected t h e a t r e f o r m s i n e v i t a b l y . T h e large screen film i n colour, a n d t e l e v i s i o n i n less f o r c e f u l degree, h a v e created a d o m i n a n t f o r m composed of f l u i d n a r r a t i v e scenes, dialogue, and, above a l l , v i s u a l imagery; i n t h i s c o m b i n a t i o n t h e l a t t e r dispossesses enhanced m e t a p h o r i c a l speech, a m a i n s t a y of verse drama. N o r d i d E l i o t , n o r a n y o n e else, f o r t h a t m a t t e r , a m o n g s t t h e l i t e r a r y , foresee t o w h a t a n e x t e n t t h e d o m i n a n t t e m p e r w o u l d be so u n u t t e r a b l y 'conversationalised', i n t h e sense t h a t a l l eleva­ t i o n o f f e e l i n g a n d a t t i t u d e w o u l d be u n d e r suspicion. T h e p o e t i c d r a m a i n t h e Classical a n d Renaissance t r a d i t i o n d i d depend n o t o n l y o n a taste f o r a t y p e o f p o e t r y b u t also o n t h e r e c e p t i v i t y f o r elevated a t t i t u d e s ; t h a t i s , g e n u i n e ones, n o t assumed, o r r h e t o r i c a l i n a bad sense. Such r e c e p t i v i t y has disappeared i n t h e e x t r e m e e g a l i t a r i a n t e m p e r of t h e present. H o w e v e r , E l i o t w o r k e d o u t i n his d r a m a c r i t i c i s m some v a l u ­ able c e n t r a l p r i n c i p l e s o f t h e p o e t i c f o r m h e m o s t admired. H e p r o d u c e d w h a t is o n a n y c o u n t a n i l l u m i n a t i n g set of ideas about p e r m a n e n t features of t h i s f o r m . T h e t w o - d i m e n s i o n a l i n t e r e s t o f t h e general p r i n c i p l e of poetics a n d t h e p r o j e c t f o r a n e x p e r i m e n t is c o n s t a n t l y m a i n t a i n e d . I t is a d i s t i n c t i v e feature. O t h e r drama­ tists w r o t e c r i t i c i s m , b u t as o f t e n as n o t i t w a s a f o r m of justifica­ t i o n o f t h e i r o w n practice a n d d e v i a t i o n s , u n d e r t h e guise o f general p r i n c i p l e . I n E l i o t t h e p r i n c i p l e s are n o t apologia, defens­ i v e p l e a d i n g , b u t f o r w a r d projections.

6 The 'Philosophical Critic' WILLIAM

RIGHTER

I t has a l w a y s been supposed t h a t Eliot's l i f e a n d w o r k , p o e t r y , c r i t i c i s m a n d social c o m m e n t a r y w e r e shaped b y at least a degree of t h a t reasoned coherence t h a t one m i g h t call p h i l o s o p h i c a l , o r reflect a u n i f i e d a n d r a t i o n a l i z e d p o i n t o f v i e w t h a t o n e c o u l d call a p h i l o s o p h y . C e r t a i n l y i t w o u l d seem l i k e f o l l y to t a k e a n y one aspect o f t h e w o r k i n t o t a l i s o l a t i o n f r o m t h e others. Y e t insofar as a n y t h i n g called a ' p h i l o s o p h y ' enters i n t o a n y one o f those aspects, i t w i l l emerge i n q u i t e d i f f e r e n t m a n n e r s a n d d i f f e r e n t degrees. A n d the a m b i g u i t y is t h e deeper i n E l i o t t h e 'philosophical c r i t i c ' , f o r c r i t i c i s m itself poses t h i s q u e s t i o n o f wholeness f o r us i n a d o u b l e sense: to w h a t e x t e n t m a y i t be seen as t h e i n t e n t i o n a l w o r k i n g o u t i n i t s a p p r o p r i a t e sphere o f a p r i n c i p l e t h a t pervades t h e w h o l e ? O r t o w h a t e x t e n t does i t s practice i n the m u l t i p l i c i t y of i t s c o n t e x t s suggest s u c h a u n i t y t h a t w e c o u l d i n d u c t i v e l y derive a clear n o t i o n o f w h a t 'philo­ sophy' i t m i g h t imply? I n Eliot's case, h i s l o n g professional i n v o l v e m e n t w i t h p h i l o ­ s o p h y is itself o n e p o i n t of departure. Y e t the a m b i g u i t i e s are as finely poised as the circumstances are c l e a r l y k n o w n — t h e l a t t e r i n large degree t h e source of t h e f o r m e r . H e c o u l d have been a n academic p h i l o s o p h e r a n d chose n o t t o be. T h e details o f t h a t academic w o r k h a v e been c l e a r l y c h a r t e d b y Professor W o l l h e i m , D r B o l g a n a n d others. T h e process o f i t s a b a n d o n m e n t r e m a i n s obscure. Late i n l i f e , perhaps w i t h some persuasion, h e came t o p u b l i s h his d o c t o r a l dissertation o n Bradley, a n d m a y have come t o take h i s e a r l y p h i l o s o p h i c a l studies m o r e seriously. Y e t m a n y scattered remarks, perhaps m o r e e m p h a t i c a l l y i n his l a t e r essays, t r e a t his p h i l o s o p h i c a l w o r k w i t h a diffidence t h a t approaches t h e dismissive. H o w h e a v i l y do s u c h r e m a r k s — o r at least those w h i c h p o i n t

112

The 'Philosophical

Critic*

to t h a t p a r t i c u l a r a n d isolatable i n t e l l e c t u a l e p i s o d e — w e i g h u p o n o u r sense o f t h e w h o l e ? I t s d u r a t i o n o f five or s i x years w o u l d alone g i v e us pause. Y e t i f w e i n v o k e some such fiction as 'Eliot's p h i l o s o p h y ' i t is n o t necessarily t h a t p e r i o d or w o r k o f t h a t k i n d w h i c h come t o m i n d . T h e dimensions suggested m a y be m u c h m o r e closely a t t a c h e d t o t h e defender o f classicism, t r a d i t i o n , r e l i g i o u s o r t h o d o x y a n d p o l i t i c a l conservatism, a coherence o f a broader a n d vaguer a n d m o r e pervasive k i n d t h a n t h a t o f a pre­ cise c o n c e p t u a l f r a m e d e r i v e d f r o m a n academic discipline, a coherence closer t o t h a t w h i c h d i s t i n g u i s h e d D a n t e f r o m Shakes­ peare. A n d as such, one w h i c h defines t h e series o f active stances w h i c h m a r k t h e course o f Eliot's l i f e — i n t h e c o n f r o n t a t i o n o f m o d e r n chaos w i t h t r a d i t i o n a l order, o f t h e f r a g m e n t a t i o n o f s e n s i b i l i t y a n d t h o u g h t characteristic of t h e present age w i t h a r a t i o n a l i z e d recension of t r a d i t i o n a l w i s d o m . I f t h e p o e t r y m a y i n t h e m o r e v e r t i g i n o u s of its j u x t a p o s i t i o n s have suggested other­ wise, i t was a m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e r e l a t i o n o f a t e c h n i q u e of d a z z l i n g n o v e l t y t o t h e reasoned purpose o f a n u l t i m a t e aim. A n d t h e c r i t i c i s m , especially i n i t s earlier a n d m o r e creative phase, asserts t h e presence a n d i m p o r t a n c e o f some l e v e l o f r i g o u r , o f appeal t o a demonstrable g r o u n d o f d i s c r i m i n a t i o n w h i c h m i g h t be t h o u g h t t o i m p l y a p h i l o s o p h i c a l basis of choice. I t is a n a c t i v i t y r e q u i r i n g standards w h i c h one m u s t assume t o have some, h o w e v e r unspoken, source o f j u s t i f i c a t i o n , a n d i n w h i c h t h e feel f o r m o r e r i g o r o u s , a s t r i n g e n t a n d severe c r i t i c a l stances c a n n o t be u n r e l a t e d t o t h e values w h i c h i n f o r m them. T h i s is, o f course, n o t m e r e l y a fiction, b u t a s i m p l i s t i c one. Y e t i t m a y h a v e t h e u s e f u l purpose o f p r o v i d i n g a r o u g h f r a m e f o r t h e w a y i n w h i c h t h e v a r i o u s aspects o f t h e oeuvre seem t o ask t o be considered. A f t e r a l l , E l i o t c o u l d h a r d l y h a v e said t h a t h i s p o e t r y , c r i t i c i s m a n d o t h e r discursive or a r g u m e n t a t i v e prose proceeded f r o m w h o l l y d i f f e r e n t assumptions a b o u t t h e w o r l d , or w i s h e d t o say c o n f l i c t i n g t h i n g s a b o u t i t , even i f t h e y are q u i t e d i f f e r e n t languages a n d t h e use o f those languages argues a r a d i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t sort o f a c t i v i t y . I t is as process, a n d as f o r m s o f t h e i m a g i n a t i o n t h a t t h e y are d i f f e r e n t . A n d as f o r m s o f c l a i m u p o n us t h e y differ as w e l l , i n t h e i m p i n g e m e n t o f w h a t e v e r t r u t h t h e y h o p e t o c o n t a i n . B u t t h e first o f these differences is

The Philosophical

113

Critic

1

9

m u c h m o r e susceptible t o s c h e m a t i z a t i o n , h o w e v e r opaque some of t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s m a y be. O n e can see t h e w o r k i n g o f such a d u b i o u s neatness i n a r e c e n t i n t e r v i e w w i t h Sartre, i n w h i c h Sartre e x p l a i n s t h e difference b e t w e e n t w o o f h i s i n t e l l e c t u a l f o r m s , o r i m a g i n a t i v e selves, i n the language t h a t characterises h i s p h i l o s o p h i c a l a n d h i s l i t e r a r y work: W h a t distinguishes l i t e r a t u r e f r o m scientific c o m m u n i c a t i o n , f o r example, i s t h a t i t i s n o t u n a m b i g u o u s ; t h e a r t i s t o f language arranges w o r d s i n such a w a y t h a t , d e p e n d i n g o n h o w h e emphasises or gives w e i g h t t o t h e m , t h e y w i l l h a v e one m e a n i n g , a n d a n o t h e r , a n d y e t a n o t h e r , each t i m e a t d i f f e r e n t levels ... i n p h i l o s o p h y , e v e r y sentence s h o u l d h a v e o n l y one m e a n i n g . T h e w o r k I d i d o n Les M o t s , f o r example, a t t e m p t i n g to give m u l t i p l e a n d superimposed m e a n i n g s t o each sentence, w o u l d be b a d w o r k i n p h i l o s o p h y . I f I have t o e x p l a i n , f o r example, t h e concepts o f ' f o r - i t s e l f a n d ' i n - i t s e l f t h a t c a n be d i f f i c u l t ; I c a n use d i f f e r e n t comparisons, d i f f e r e n t demonstra­ tions, t o m a k e i t clear, b u t i t is necessary t o stay w i t h ideas t h a t are self-contained: i t is n o t o n t h i s level t h a t t h e c o m p l e t e m e a n i n g is f o u n d — w h i c h c a n a n d m u s t be m u l t i p l e so f a r as the complete w o r k is concerned. I do n o t m e a n t o say, i n effect, t h a t p h i l o s o p h y , l i k e scientific c o m m u n i c a t i o n , is u n a m b i g u ­ ous. 9

1

T h e m i n d moves b e t w e e n s i n g u l a r i t y a n d p l u r a l i t y , b e t w e e n surfaces a n d depths, s i m p l i c i t y a n d c o m p l e x i t y . B u t o n e c o u l d h a r d l y c a l l t h i s a n evolved o r r e f i n e d w o r k i n g o u t , a n d i t cer­ t a i n l y gives a f u r t h e r a m b i g u i t y t o t h e p h i l o s o p h i c a l passages i n La Nausee or t o t h e elaborate a n d fictionalized examples o f m o r a l a c t i o n i n VLtre et le Neant. T h e r e seems t o be some c u r i o u s l a w b y w h i c h t h e greater t h e precision w i t h w h i c h such d i s t i n c t i o n s are made, o r t h e greater t h e l i t e r a l i s m w i t h w h i c h t h e y are expressed, t h e m o r e a m b i g u i t i e s m u l t i p l y . A n d t h e clear d i v i s i o n b e t w e e n uses o f language, so r e m i n i s c e n t o f I . A . Richards's dis­ t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n scientific a n d e m o t i v e , is t o o crude t o be u s e f u l , w h i l e h i s d a n g l i n g admission t h a t t h e r e is a m b i g u i t y i n p h i l o ­ s o p h i c a l l a n g u a g e as w e l l m a y p o i n t r a t h e r u n r e f l e c t i v e l y a t t h e 'different comparisons, d i f f e r e n t d e m o n s t r a t i o n s r e q u i r e d t o 9

114

T h e 'Philosophical

Critic'

'make i t clear'. A n d t h e emphasis f a l l s t o o d e a d e n i n g l y o n dis­ similarity, o n the m u t u a l exclusivity of t w o forms of activity. A n o d d i t y o f t h i s i n t e r v i e w was t h e selection o f Situations as one o f t h e w o r k s Sartre m o s t c o m m e n d e d t o t h e f u t u r e , w i t h o u t a n y c o n c e r n f o r t h e place o f c r i t i c a l language, o r t h a t n o t - w h o l l y p h i l o s o p h i c a l l a n g u a g e o f c o m m e n t a r y o n social a n d p o l i t i c a l m a t t e r s t h a t compose so m u c h o f t h a t series o f volumes. B u t c l e a r l y he placed a v a l u e o n p a r t i c u l a r i t y t h a t b o t h l i t e r a r y occa­ s i o n a n d h i s t o r i c a l e v e n t o r m o m e n t c o u l d provide. I n a v o i d i n g a n e n q u i r y i n t o such language h e m a y also h a v e avoided t h e embarrassing elusiveness o f those f o r m s w h o s e a p p r o p r i a t e d e v e l o p m e n t is t i e d u p w i t h t h e t h i n g s o n w h i c h t h e y are para­ sitic. For E l i o t t h e a p p r o a c h t o one's l i t e r a r y a c t i v i t y a t t h e l e v e l o f r e l a t i o n s b e t w e e n t h e f o r m s o f language e m p l o y e d is one t h a t has v i r t u a l l y n o s y s t e m a t i c e x p o s i t i o n . P h i l o s o p h y itself i s seldom m e n t i o n e d except i n terms o f f r a g m e n t a r y asides. B u t t h r o u g h t h e c r i t i c i s m t h e r e is a r o u g h e f f o r t t o separate o u t t h e literariness of t h e c r i t i c a l i n v o l v e m e n t , a n d t o define i t i n terms o f a n a l m o s t u n i n t e n d e d o v e r s p i l l f r o m t h e creative interests o f t h e w r i t e r . R a t h e r t h a n describing a n d r e l a t i n g a l t e r n a t i v e modes o f dis­ course, t h e r e seems a d o u b l e i m p u l s e : t o p o i n t t o t h e special n a t u r e a n d apartness o f p o e t r y , a n d t o r e g a r d one's o t h e r uses o f l a n g u a g e as a n c i l l a r y . A n d t h e r e s u l t is n o t t o d i s t i n g u i s h alterna­ t i v e f o r m s o f t h e i m a g i n a t i o n , b u t t o focus o n one's o w n creative process as t h e g r o u n d o n w h i c h one sees t h e e x t e n d i n g o u t o f s u b s i d i a r y a n d w h o l l y dependent c o m m e n t . ' I t is a b y - p r o d u c t of m y p r i v a t e p o e t r y - w o r k s h o p ; o r a p r o l o n g a t i o n o f t h e t h i n k i n g t h a t w e n t i n t o t h e f o r m a t i o n o f m y o w n verse. I n retrospect, I see t h a t I w r o t e best a b o u t poets w h o s e w o r k h a d i n f l u e n c e d m y o w n . . .' T h e i n t e r e s t i n g w o r d here is ' p r o l o n g a t i o n ' as i f i t w e r e n o t a difference o f k i n d i n t h e t w o modes o f t h o u g h t . B u t s u r e l y t h i s is n o t w h a t c a n be i n t e n d e d . I t i s perhaps r a t h e r t h a t t h e by­ p r o d u c t is a f t e r t h o u g h t , w h i c h surfaces i n r e l a t i v e l y casual a n d occasional w a y s w h e n t h e m a i n process has been arrested. T h e r e is n o d o u b t o f course a b o u t t h e t o t a l i t y o f s u b o r d i n a t i o n o r o f r e l a t i v e levels o f i m p o r t a n c e . A n d t h i s is c o n s o n a n t w i t h Eliot's t e n d e n c y t o elevate t h e studies o f p a r t i c u l a r w r i t e r s above t h e 2

The ' Philosophical

115

Critic'

'phrases o f g e n e r a l i s a t i o n ' w h i c h h a v e been s u c h a source o f embarrassment. W h e n t h e l a t t e r surface i t is as utterances t h e 'force [ o f w h i c h ] comes f r o m t h e f a c t t h a t t h e y are a t t e m p t s t o s u m m a r i z e , i n c o n c e p t u a l f o r m , d i r e c t a n d i n t e n s e experience o f t h e p o e t r y t h a t I h a v e f o u n d m o s t congenial.' T h i s w o u l d beg t h e q u e s t i o n o f t h e bases o f c o n g e n i a l i t y , i f i t w e r e n o t t h a t w e h a v e a great deal t o go on, a n d i t c e r t a i n l y begs t h a t o f t h e r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n 'conceptual f o r m ' a n d 'direct a n d intense experience'. I t almost i m p l i e s t h a t t h e s u m m a r y b y w a y of c o n c e p t u a l f o r m c o u l d c o n v e y t h e same experience i n a l l i t s i n t e n s i t y . B u t a g a i n t h i s is u n l i k e l y t o be i n t e n d e d , a l t h o u g h some r e m a r k s a b o u t t h e Paradiso h i n t at t h e possible p o w e r s o f c o n c e p t u a l language. I t is r a t h e r t h a t g e n e r a l i z a t i o n is a n o t h e r level a t w h i c h t h e d e r i v a t i o n takes p l a c e — a t a f u r t h e r degree o f r e m o v e f r o m t h e creative process. Perhaps t h e closest l e v e l o f c o n t a c t w i t h t h i s process is represented b y t a l k a b o u t t e c h n i q u e . Y e t one 'cannot say a t w h a t p o i n t " t e c h n i q u e " begins o r w h e r e i t ends'. Just as g e n e r a l i z a t i o n c a n be treated as a f o r m o f sub­ o r d i n a t i o n , so c a n t h e emphasis o n t h e apartness of t h e l i t e r a r y — a l t h o u g h t h a t too, l i k e t e c h n i q u e , seems t o h a v e n o d i s t i n c t begin­ n i n g s a n d ends since ' i t is impossible t o fence off literary c r i t i ­ cism f r o m c r i t i c i s m o n o t h e r grounds, a n d . . . m o r a l , r e l i g i o u s a n d social j u d g e m e n t s c a n n o t be w h o l l y e x c l u d e d . . .' f o r a f t e r a l l , does n o t '... p o e t r y as c e r t a i n l y [ h a v e ] s o m e t h i n g t o do w i t h morals, a n d w i t h r e l i g i o n , a n d even p o l i t i c s perhaps, t h o u g h w e c a n n o t say w h a t ' ? O n t h e o t h e r h a n d t h e r e are occasions w h e n 'the " h i s t o r i c a l " a n d t h e " p h i l o s o p h i c a l " critics h a d better be called h i s t o r i a n s a n d p h i l o s o p h e r s q u i t e s i m p l y ' — a l t h o u g h to be f a i r t h i s last c o m m e n t seems t o refer m o r e t o m e t h o d t h a n to area o f interest. N o w m y a i m i n t h i s is n o t so m u c h t o d r a m a t i z e t h e m u d d l e a r t i f i c i a l l y b y u s i n g q u o t a t i o n s f r o m diverse sources, b u t t o suggest t h a t i n spite o f some r e m a r k s t o t h e c o n t r a r y t h e r e is a reticence before t h e p r o b l e m o f c r i t i c i s m t h a t is essentially per­ missive. I don't m e a n s i m p l y t h a t i t a d m i t s o f i n c o n s i s t e n c y , s o m e t h i n g impossible t o a v o i d w h e n d e a l i n g w i t h m u l t i p l e con­ t e x t s a n d purposes, b u t t h a t i t is r e l a t i v e l y u n c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h i s m u l t i p l i c i t y o f p u l l . I also h o p e I do n o t seem t o take a l l t h a t w h o l l y a t face v a l u e some o f t h e r e m a r k s i n t h e l a t e c r i t i c i s m 3

4

5

6

7

116

The

'Philosophical

Critic

9

w h i c h I h a v e quoted. These essays seem t o me t o be of l i t t l e c r i t i c a l interest, b u t t o be s k e t c h y f r a g m e n t s o f i n t e l l e c t u a l auto­ b i o g r a p h y . T h e r e are u s e f u l observations, q u a l i f i c a t i o n s a n d cor­ r e c t i o n s w i t h respect t o w h a t one once t h o u g h t . A n d w h i l e m a r k e d trends a n d perspectives can be seen i n t h i s , t h e r e is seldom as m u c h of a c o n c e p t u a l map as i n t h e Sartre i n t e r v i e w . These l a t e essays perhaps suggest, w i t h t h e i r m i x t u r e of caveat and r e t r o s p e c t i v e consistency, t h e s t r e n g t h of a lifetime's h a b i t of w o r k i n g w i t h c e r t a i n presuppositions, ones w h i c h w e r e w i d e l y shared, a n d accepted w i t h o u t a great deal of arriere pensee. T h e r e is a basic c o m m o n g r o u n d assumed, o f t e n i m p l i c i t l y , b y m a n y A n g l o - S a x o n critics, t h a t t h e r e are orders of l a n g u a g e t h a t h a v e r o u g h i d e n t i t i e s a n d are exercised b y t h e a p p r o p r i a t e per­ sons: (1) philosophers, w h o a r g u e c o n c e p t u a l l y a b o u t abstract mat­ ters; (2) poets, w h o m a k e images a n d arrange w o r d s i n t o v e r b a l s t r u c t u r e s w h i c h w h i l e n o t e x a c t l y l o g i c a l are l a r g e l y w i t h i n t h e rules, g r a m m a t i c a l a n d otherwise, w h i c h g o v e r n t h e use of a n a t u r a l language. ( O r i f t h e y break a w a y f r o m such rules t h e v e r y break is i n t e l l i g i b l e because such r u l e s exist); (3) critics, w h o discuss t h e w o r k s created b y poets i n a l a n g u a g e w h i c h i n some w a y s resembles t h a t o f (1) b u t may, especially perhaps f o r E l i o t a n d o t h e r poets, be t h e spin-off o f t h e i r o w n l a n g u a g e a n d t h e r e f o r e h a v e some affinities w i t h i t . A n y o n e w h o w o u l d assume such an o r d e r i n g w o u l d q u a l i f y i t i n a v a r i e t y o f ways. B u t I m e a n i t less as a h i g h l y c o n t r o l l e d scheme t h a n as a c o l l e c t i o n o f habits. A n d one of t h e c o r o l l a r y h a b i t s is t h a t of t a k i n g ' p o e t r y ' t o stand f o r l i t e r a t u r e as a w h o l e , i n i t s essential a n d special features. T h e n too, t h e d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n abstract a n d concrete, b e t w e e n c o n c e p t u a l a n d imagebased v e r b a l c o n s t r u c t i o n s m a y be m o r e a c o n v e n i e n t r u l e of t h u m b t h a n a set of w a t e r - t i g h t c o m p a r t m e n t s . Y e t i f one accepts that this r o u g h distinction runs through our critical thinking, i t is s t i l l c r i t i c i s m itself t h a t is t h e a n o m a l o u s t h i n g , and i t s p r i n c i p a l i n t e r e s t lies i n i t s b e i n g so. I n p r a c t i c e t h e a m b i g u i t y lies i n t h e f a c t t h a t t h e l a n g u a g e w h i c h i n t e r p r e t s or e x p l a i n s m u s t seem t o be i n t e l l i g i b l e i n a w a y i n w h i c h t h e t h i n g e x p l a i n e d is n o t , t o h a v e a c l a r i t y , a n accessibility a n d general i m p o r t i n w h i c h t h e

The ' Philosophical

117

Critic'

subject of e x p l a n a t i o n is l i n k e d w i t h larger a n d m o r e i m m e d i a t e l y i n t e l l i g i b l e w o r l d s of discourse. A n d even t h e avoidance of gener­ a l i t y i n e x p l a n a t i o n b y t h e c o n t i n u a l reference back t o t h e par­ t i c u l a r o n l y doubles t h e a m b i g u i t y . For E l i o t t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s o f t h i s are l a r g e l y avoided, p a r t l y perhaps because there i s l i t t l e e x t e n d e d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i n h i s c r i t i c a l w o r k . Philosopher perhaps, poet w i t h a t o t a l i t y o f com­ m i t m e n t , c r i t i c b y accident of circumstance, t h e t h i r d r o l e seemed posed i n terms o f occasion u n t i l time's passage suggested a r e t r o ­ spective a n d d i f f i d e n t assessment. A n d t h i s t h i n k i n g h a r d l y focuses seriously o n t h e n a t u r e o f t h e c r i t i c a l mode itself. Y e t there are at least t w o m a j o r a t t e m p t s t o r a t i o n a l i z e t h e a n o m a l y : one his e x t e n d e d a r g u m e n t i n The Use of Poetry and the Use of Criticism, w i t h h i s o w n chosen m o d e l o f ' p h i l o s o p h i c a l c r i t i c ' , a n d another, h i s 'Charybde e t Scylla', a n a t t e m p t t o use c r i t i c a l l a n g u a g e as a m e d i a t i o n b e t w e e n h i s p h i l o s o p h i c a n d poetic selves, a n d t o act t h e ' p h i l o s o p h i c a l c r i t i c ' himself. Y e t I a m t r e a t i n g t h e t e r m as i f i t h a d a single sense, o r as i f its m u l t i p l e senses are clear, a n d i t is as w e l l t o spell o u t t h e possibilities o f a sense, p a r t l y because Eliot's o w n i n t e r p r e t e r s have c l e a r l y e m p l o y e d i t i n d i f f e r e n t ways, p a r t l y t o m a p t h e scope o f t h e p r o b l e m w h i c h has c o n f r o n t e d us f r o m t h e begin­ ning, the relation of the whole t o t h e part, of t h e overriding p r i n c i p l e t o t h e specialized a c t i v i t y o r a t least t h e c o n c e n t r a t e d m o m e n t w h e n p a r t i c u l a r a n d general meet. I s h a l l b e g i n b y means of caricatures, w i t h five senses of t h e ' p h i l o s o p h i c a l c r i t i c ' . (1) T o criticize precisely i n t e r m s o f a n evolved p h i l o s o p h i c a l system, p r o v i d i n g a l l o f t h e a p p r o p r i a t e pigeon-holes w h e r e c r i t i c i s m w o u l d h a v e its d i s t i n c t i v e place a m o n g o t h e r i n t e l l e c t u a l activities. 'System' also i m p l i e s t h a t t h e m a p o f t h e pigeon-holes w o u l d be a sequence o f ordered r e l a t i o n s h i p s a l l i n t e l l i g i b l e i n t e r m s o f each other. S u c h a p h i l o s o p h y m i g h t be t h a t o f H e g e l and h i s descendants, o r o f A q u i n a s . E l i o t sometimes speaks o f D a n t e as i f h e h a d s u c h a systematic a n d r a t i o n a l i z e d w o r l d p i c t u r e , a n d a n u m b e r o f scattered r e m a r k s seem t o suggest t h a t he f o u n d a n o v e r a l l sense of order of t h i s k i n d desirable. Y e t w i t h respect t o t h e v a l u e o f Dante's o w n w o r k f o r h i m , E l i o t has d i s t i n g u i s h e d s h a r p l y b e t w e e n t h e necessity o f b e l i e v i n g D a n t e ( w h i c h as G r a h a m H o u g h has r e c e n t l y said, n e i t h e r E l i o t n o r 8

118

The 'Philosophical

Critic'

a n y o f t h e rest o f us are i n a p o s i t i o n t o do) a n d assent t o h i s p o e m as a poem. I say s h a r p l y r a t h e r t h a n c l e a r l y because t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s are n o t clear, least o f a l l w h a t force is t o be g i v e n t o 'assent'. W h a t e v e r i t means, i t does n o t i m p l y acceptance o f a system. V a r i o u s r e m a r k s a b o u t M a r i t a i n m a y f l i r t w i t h t h e n o t i o n o f a m o d e r n a d a p t a t i o n o f Dante's f o r m o f order, b u t t h i s is n o t t a k e n v e r y far. ( A n d elsewhere E l i o t even suggests t h a t D a n t e h i m s e l f 'qua p o e t ' need n o t have believed o r disbelieved the T h o m i s t d o c t r i n e t h a t his w o r k embodied.) (2) A c r i t i c m i g h t be called ' p h i l o s o p h i c a l ' i n t h e sense t h a t h i s l a n g u a g e o f c r i t i c a l discourse was shaped, a n d consciously, b y c e r t a i n p h i l o s o p h i c a l concepts, o r t h a t i t e m p l o y e d terms w h i c h h a d far-reaching p h i l o s o p h i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n s a n d w h i c h connected p a r t i c u l a r observations a b o u t l i t e r a t u r e w i t h those i m p l i c a t i o n s . D r B o l g a n m a y h a v e s o m e t h i n g l i k e t h i s i n m i n d w h e n she says t h a t '... Bradley's p h i l o s o p h y m a y v e r y r e a d i l y be seen as pro­ v i d i n g t h e m e t a p h y s i c a l system f r o m w h i c h a l l o f Eliot's m a j o r c r i t i c a l concepts derive, a n d b y w h i c h t h e i r m e a n i n g s are con­ s e q u e n t l y e v e r y w h e r e c o n t r o l l e d .. Z U n f o r t u n a t e l y she gives a l m o s t n o examples o f h o w t h i s m i g h t w o r k i n c r i t i c a l practice. T h e use o f 'entelechy' t o p o i n t t h e difference b e t w e e n under­ s t a n d i n g a n d e x p l a n a t i o n m i g h t seem p r o m i s i n g , b u t t h e t e r m is n o t specifically Bradley's a n d t h e m a t t e r is i n t r o d u c e d w i t h i m m e n s e diffidence a n d n o t f o l l o w e d u p . I f t h e r e are shadows o f the n o t i o n o f ' i n t e r n a l r e l a t i o n s ' i n t h e c r i t i c i s m , t h e y w e i g h n o m o r e h e a v i l y t h a n a n y o t h e r source o f f o r m a l u n i t y . A s f o r t h e i m p e r s o n a l i t y o f t h e poet t h e r e is c l e a r l y some b a c k g r o u n d i n Bradley, a l t h o u g h t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e d o c t r i n e a n d i t s b a c k g r o u n d seems o p e n t o q u e r y . W o l l h e i m has p u t t h e m a t t e r as g e n e r o u s l y as o n e m i g h t reasonably w i s h . A n d as f o r t h e f a m o u s 'objective c o r r e l a t i v e ' W o l l h e i m is s u r e l y r i g h t t h a t '... t h e r e is some o b s c u r i t y h o w t h i s c r i t i c a l t h e o r y is t o be con­ nected w i t h those parts o f t h e p h i l o s o p h y w h i c h i t seems t o p a r a l l e l ' . F i n a l l y , t h e f a m o u s dialectical m o v e m e n t discerned b y D r B o l g a n a n d D r L u seems l i t t l e m o r e t h a n Eliot's h a b i t o f can­ vassing one o r t w o a l t e r n a t i v e s before s e t t l i n g o n a t h i r d . I t m a y w e l l be t h a t l o n g s t u d y o f idealist p h i l o s o p h y gave shape t o a m e n t a l tendency, a n d t h i s m i g h t relate o b l i q u e l y t o w h a t E l i o t says a b o u t Bradley's i n f l u e n c e o n his style. B u t t o s h o w t h a t t h e r e 9

10

11

12

The 'Philosophical

Critic'

119

is a consistent p a t t e r n , a n d t h a t t h e final t e r m represents a syn­ thesis o r r e s o l u t i o n r e q u i r e s a d e m o n s t r a t i o n t h a t has n o t been g i v e n . T h e r e m a y be o t h e r h i n t s o r vague analogies, b u t n o t h i n g w h i c h shows h o w t h e m e a n i n g s o f c r i t i c a l concepts are 'every­ w h e r e controlled'. (3) T h e r e is also a sense i n w h i c h t h e practice of c r i t i c i s m m a y h a v e t h r o u g h i t s o w n p a r t i c u l a r character c e r t a i n p h i l o s o p h i c a l consequences w i t h o u t necessarily h a v i n g its source i n a p a r t i c u ­ lar t h e o r y . I t is too easy t o t a l k as i f ' p h i l o s o p h y ' has some p r i ­ m a r y character as i n f o r m i n g p r i n c i p l e , t o w h i c h c r i t i c a l practice adapted. B u t t h e a l t e r n a t i v e m a y be h e l d , t h a t features o f c r i t i c a l practice, developed f r o m t h e o b s e r v a t i o n a n d c o m p a r i s o n o f par­ ticulars, define a n area of a c t i v i t y w h o s e v e r y existence has p h i l o ­ sophical significance. I n s o f a r as w e account f o r t h e h u m a n con­ d i t i o n , l i t e r a t u r e a n d t h e c o m m e n t o n i t are p a r t of t h a t account­ i n g . T h i s m a y seem t o be p i t c h i n g t h e m a t t e r a t a f a i r l y l o w c o m m o n d e n o m i n a t o r level, a n d t h e sort of p h i l o s o p h i c a l a c t i v i t y i m p l i e d is closer t o concern w i t h t h e w o r k i n g o f language i n a n a l y t i c a l p h i l o s o p h y t h a n i t is t o m e t a p h y s i c a l system construc­ t i o n . O u r i n t e r e s t here i n a n y critic's c o n t r i b u t i o n w i l l l i e i n o u r assessment o f h i s i n n o v a t i v e p o w e r w i t h respect t o c r i t i c a l con­ cepts, l a n g u a g e o r technique. H e r e Eliot's w o r k has been m o r e t a k e n f o r g r a n t e d t h a n e x a m i n e d , a l t h o u g h i t has o f t e n been assumed t h a t E l i o t was t h e predecessor o r f o u n d e r o f t h e 'new c r i t i c i s m ' — a n a t t r i b u t i o n w h i c h seemed r a t h e r t o bemuse h i m : '... I f a i l t o see a n y c r i t i c a l m o v e m e n t w h i c h c a n be said t o derive f r o m m y s e l f .. .' B u t i n s o f a r as t h a t elastic collective has a m e t h o d o r created a b o d y o f concepts o r a c r i t i c a l language, i t derives m u c h m o r e f r o m I . A. Richards, a n d develops i n terms o f close r e a d i n g a n d i n t e r p r e t a t i v e skills. These are t h i n g s i n w h i c h E l i o t h a r d l y seems interested: t h e r e is l i t t l e close r e a d i n g i n h i s w o r k a n d s o m e t h i n g o f a n aversion t o i n t e r p r e t a t i o n a n d ex­ p l a n a t i o n . H e p u t h i s o w n aims i n terms o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g a n d e n j o y m e n t , w i t h t h e insistence t h a t u n d e r s t a n d i n g was n o t t o be confused w i t h e x p l a n a t i o n . A n d e n j o y m e n t is clearly t i e d u p w i t h e d u c a t i o n , taste a n d o t h e r p s y c h o l o g i c a l o r c u l t u r a l i m ­ ponderables. O f t h e m later. (4) O n e m a y c r i t i c i z e i n accordance w i t h a set o f a t t i t u d e s , a personal ' p h i l o s o p h y ' o r g r o u p o f presuppositions w h i c h m i g h t 13

120

The 'Philosophical

Critic*

be h e l d at any of a v a r i e t y of levels of consistency and i n t e n s i t y . These a t t i t u d e s reflect t h e claims of one's c u l t u r e as a w h o l e and of p a r t i c u l a r i n s t i t u t i o n s w i t h i n i t . B e t w e e n ideological com­ m i t m e n t a n d academic n e u t r a l i t y , b e t w e e n t h e s t r o n g a n d the vague, there are m u l t i p l e levels of coherence, and t h e measure of t h e m is m u c h of the order of t h a t i n w h i c h persons m a y be said to cohere. I t is c l e a r l y better to h a v e u n i f i e d t h a n dissociated sensibility. (The m a r g i n a l r e l a t i o n o f the l a t t e r concept to i t s p h i l o s o p h i c a l o r i g i n s is n o t e d b y W o l l h e i m . ) T h e r e l a t i o n o f social s t a b i l i t y and order to the non-dissociated self seems to r e l y o n some e q u a t i o n l i n k i n g l i t e r a t u r e , s e n s i b i l i t y and society. B u t this is t o a large degree m e r e l y assumed, and the i n t a n g i b i l i t y of the elements o f t e n seems to s u i t b o t h a n elusiveness i n Eliot's own reasoning, a n d t h e commonsense a s s u m p t i o n t h a t con­ nections m u s t be there h o w e v e r one w o u l d choose to spell t h e m out. O n e m a y get a p i c t u r e of sorts f r o m w o r k s l i k e The Idea of a Christian Society w i t h o u t a p p l y i n g i t d i r e c t l y to l i t e r a r y judgements. (5) B e y o n d t h i s there is s o m e t h i n g m o r e i n t a n g i b l e s t i l l i n a k i n d of p h i l o s o p h i c a l m a n n e r or s t y l e — a deliberateness, a c u l t i ­ v a t e d i r o n y o r g r a v i t y — a stance. T h i s m a y be w h a t H e r b e r t H o w a r t h means b y s a y i n g t h a t Eliot's .. prose w r i t i n g impresses, and one m i g h t even say subdues, the reader w i t h i t s p h i l o s o p h i c a l order'. T h e appeal t o a sense of reasoned order may be t h r o u g h a k i n d of r h e t o r i c i n w h i c h one feels t h e 'philo­ sophical' and measured presence. K e n n e r r e m a r k s o n the deliber­ ate p a r o d i c stance i n Eliot's c r i t i c a l language and i t s i r o n i c and d i s t a n c i n g aspect. Y e t E l i o t seems t o have f e l t t h a t one f l a w i n his earlier c r i t i c a l language l a y precisely i n the i m p l i c a t i o n s o f stance, i n the a u t h o r i t y of a m a n n e r w h i c h seemed n e i t h e r sub­ s t a n t i a l n o r a t t r a c t i v e . Such a q u a l i t y too m u c h isolated m i g h t p a r a l l e l his o w n r e m a r k a b o u t A r n o l d , 'He h a d n o r e a l serenity, o n l y an impeccable demeanour'. Needless to say t h i s c a t e g o r i z a t i o n is n o t i n t e n d e d to be the k i n d of s o r t i n g o u t t h a t E l i o t h i m s e l f m i g h t h a v e done. A n d even h a d he made s u c h d i s t i n c t i o n s i t w o u l d h a v e been at a n o t h e r level o f finesse, a characteristic a n d cautious chiaroscuro. B u t even such b r u t a l i t i e s s h o w t h a t at a v a r i e t y o f levels, and w i t h d i f f e r e n t strengths and weaknesses of claim, Eliot's i n v o l v e m e n t 14

The 'Philosophical

Critic'

121

w i t h p h i l o s o p h y is a d o u b l e one, w i t h t h e use o f a concept can­ celled o r q u a l i f i e d b y incompleteness, i r o n y , disclaimer, o r s i m p l y u n w i l l i n g n e s s t o c a r r y t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s t h r o u g h . H e o f t e n seems to reach, t h e n p u t aside. Y e t o n t w o o r three occasions h e uses t h e expression ' p h i l o s o p h i c a l c r i t i c ' as i f the person i n question, Richards ( t o w h o m o n one occasion h e l i n k s W i l l i a m Empson) gave a p r o p e r sense t o t h e t e r m . C e r t a i n l y one o f t h e m o s t sustained a n d systematic series of general a r g u m e n t s i n his w o r k is t h a t directed against Richards i n The Use of Poetry and the Use of Criticism. T h e v o l u m e itself has a d e v e l o p m e n t a n d extendedness t o t a l l y a t y p i c a l o f Eliot's c r i t i c a l w r i t i n g , w h i l e its m i x t u r e o f diffuseness a n d p o l e m i c c o n t a i n s a r a n g e o f obser­ v a t i o n a n d reference t h a t has a c e n t r i f u g a l effect o n t h e o v e r a l l design. Nevertheless, i t is i n such sustained d e v e l o p m e n t t h a t t h e consequences o f observation, or the lack o f t h e m , c a n be w o r k e d out, a n d w h e r e t h e f u l l e r characteristics o f t h e l a n g u a g e t h a t w o r k s t h e m o u t m a y be seen. F o r t h i s t h e v e r y selection o f Richards as antagonist goes some w a y t o g i v i n g t h e a r g u m e n t a form. B u t t h e ' p h i l o s o p h i c a l c r i t i c ' is c u r i o u s l y balanced, i n t h e per­ son o f M a r i t a i n , w i t h t h e p h i l o s o p h e r concerned w i t h t h e arts. T h e y are b o t h concerned t o 'determine t h e p o s i t i o n o f p o e t r y ' t h e one i n a pagan, t h e o t h e r i n a C h r i s t i a n w o r l d . T h e r e is, however, a clear difference b e t w e e n t h e p r a c t i s i n g c r i t i c t r y i n g to w o r k o u t t h e f u n c t i o n o f l i t e r a t u r e i n a p a r t i c u l a r h i s t o r i c a l m o m e n t , a n d t h e t h e o r e t i c a l aesthetician a d j u s t i n g t h e t e r m i n ­ o l o g y o f a c o m p r e h e n s i v e system t o h i s awareness o f t h e v i t a l i t y of m o d e r n a r t . T h e p a r a l l e l is uneasy, as t h e l a t t e r is concerned w i t h a c c o m m o d a t i n g t h e r a d i c a l a n d creative w i t h a t r a d i t i o n a l b o d y o f belief, t h e v e r y act o f a c c o m m o d a t i o n w h i c h occupied such a n i m p o r t a n t place i n Eliot's w h o l e i n t e l l e c t u a l l i f e . Richards, o n t h e other h a n d , has chosen i n The Waste Land t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t poetic m o n u m e n t o f t h a t i n t e l l e c t u a l l i f e as t h e m o d e l o f t h e 'severance b e t w e e n p o e t r y a n d all beliefs' a n d t h e i n t o l e r a b l e m i s c o n c e p t i o n arises e x a c t l y t h r o u g h his m o d e r n version of A r n o l d ' s heresy of s a l v a t i o n t h r o u g h p o e t r y , i n w h i c h t h e psychological a n d c u l t u r a l f u n c t i o n o f p o e t r y comes t o replace t h e belief i t m i g h t have conveyed. M a r i t a i n needless t o say k n o w s better: '... r e l i g i o n saves p o e t r y f r o m t h e a b s u r d i t y

122

The 'Philosophical

Critic

9

of b e l i e v i n g itself destined t o t r a n s f o r m ethics a n d l i f e : saves i t f r o m o v e r w e e n i n g a r r o g a n c e / So t h e t r u t h o f p o e t r y lies out­ side o f p o e t r y , a n d t h e r e l i g i o u s t h i n k e r is concerned w i t h a t r u t h t o w h i c h t h e p o e m is o n l y a vehicle. I n m u c h o f Eliot's w r i t i n g t h i s i s e x a c t l y w h a t i t w o u l d seem l o g i c a l t o expect, a n d i t c a n be o u t l i n e d w i t h a severe dogmatism: 15

I t is o u r business, as readers o f l i t e r a t u r e , t o k n o w w h a t w e l i k e . I t is o u r business, as C h r i s t i a n s , as well as readers o f l i t e r ­ ature, t o k n o w w h a t w e o u g h t t o l i k e . I t i s o u r business as honest m e n n o t t o assume t h a t w h a t e v e r w e l i k e i s w h a t w e o u g h t t o l i k e ; a n d i t is o u r business as honest C h r i s t i a n s n o t to assume t h a t w e do l i k e w h a t w e o u g h t t o l i k e . A n d t h e last t h i n g I w o u l d w i s h f o r w o u l d be t h e existence o f t w o l i t e r a ­ tures, o n e f o r C h r i s t i a n c o n s u m p t i o n a n d t h e o t h e r f o r t h e p a g a n w o r l d . W h a t I believe t o be i n c u m b e n t u p o n a l l C h r i s t ­ ians is t h e d u t y o f m a i n t a i n i n g consciously c e r t a i n standards a n d c r i t e r i a o f c r i t i c i s m over a n d above those applied b y t h e rest o f t h e w o r l d ; a n d t h a t b y these c r i t e r i a a n d standards e v e r y t h i n g t h a t w e read m u s t be tested. 16

Put i n this w a y however the criteria of the 'ought' r i n g w i t h a false c e r t a i n t y , w h i c h is made easier b y a l a c k o f t h e need t o j u s t i f y t h e i r grounds. A n d w h e n d e a l i n g w i t h a n o t h e r belief as a b s o l u t e — i f o f a n o t h e r s o r t — h e i s capable o f p r a i s i n g T r o t s k y for h i s r e c o g n i t i o n o f t h e d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n beliefs as held a n d beliefs as f e l t , w h i c h seems t o b r i n g us back t o t h e same t y p e o f u n c e r t a i n t i e s as 'assent' t o t h e poem. B u t i n b o t h o f these con­ t e x t s , a l l is stated, n o t h i n g is a r g u e d — n o reasons are adduced. Richards a n d M a r i t a i n ( a n d T r o t s k y f o r t h a t m a t t e r ) are l i k e actors, s t a t i n g a p o i n t o f v i e w , a n d w e see t h e m n o t so m u c h as givers o f reasons as figures o c c u p y i n g stances, t o be described i n t e r m s o f attitudes. Richards does n o t so m u c h h a v e a p h i l o s o p h i ­ cal p o s i t i o n w h i c h o n e m i g h t r e f u t e , as a 'modern e m o t i o n a l a t t i t u d e ' w h i c h o n e 'cannot share'. A s i n d e e d D a n t e h a d a 'saner a t t i t u d e t o w a r d s t h e mysteries o f l i f e ' t h a n Shakespeare, a n d T r o t s k y gave i n Literature and Revolution 'the m o s t sen­ sible s t a t e m e n t o f a C o m m u n i s t a t t i t u d e ' . H a s t h e w o r d been c a r e f u l l y selected t o c o n t r a s t w i t h t h e l o g i c a l l y schematised, a n d to suggest those p s y c h o l o g i c a l dimensions w h e r e s y m p a t h i e s 17

The 'Philosophical

Critic'

123

m a y be engaged a n d exposure t o p o l e m i c r e a d i l y opened? T h e psychological force is i m p o r t a n t , b u t i t does n o t l o o k as i f t h e m a t t e r has been n i c e l y w e i g h e d . Consider t h e variables i n t h e d e s c r i p t i o n o f Richards a n d t h e f o r m s o f difference w i t h h i m : Richards is a 'serious m o r a l i s t ' w i t h a ' t h e o r y o f v a l u e ' t h a t one 'cannot accept'; h e has 'philo­ sophical conclusions' w i t h w h i c h one m a y be 'dissatisfied', y e t d i s c r i m i n a t i n g taste i n w h i c h one c a n 'believe'. Does t h e d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i n h i s taste depend u p o n h i s t h e o r y o f value? O n e m i g h t have t h o u g h t f r o m c e r t a i n passages i n The Principles of Literary Criticism t h a t there w a s a clear t h e o r e t i c a l con­ n e c t i o n . A n d t h e consequence m i g h t seem t o f o l l o w t h a t believ­ i n g i n d i s c r i m i n a t i o n s made o n t h e basis o f a v a l u e t h e o r y w h i c h one c a n n o t accept is d i s t i n c t l y odd. B u t E l i o t is n o t interested i n consequence o r c o n n e c t i o n . H e t u r n s t o questions o f experience a n d e n j o y m e n t , t o t h e possible g r o u n d o f t h e i r a u t h e n t i c i t y , a n d hence t o observations a b o u t l i t e r a r y e d u c a t i o n , changes i n taste a n d those h i s t o r i c a l and psychological c o n d i t i o n i n g factors w h i c h p l a y u p o n t h e e v o l u t i o n o f taste. I n d o i n g so there is a b l u r r i n g o f t h e intellec­ t u a l a n d e x p e r i e n t i a l g r o u n d o f o u r d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . W e are escorted b y stages w h i c h m o v e f r o m ' i n t e n s i t y o f f e e l i n g ' t o 'appreciation' w h i c h b r i n g s a m o r e i n t e l l e c t u a l 'addition', t o a n 'organising' w h i c h goes b e y o n d o u r e l e m e n t a r y selection a n d r e j e c t i o n , t o a 'reorganising' i n w h i c h t h e evolved p a t t e r n o f taste readjusts t o t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f some n e w element w h i c h threatens i t s e q u i l i b r i u m . T h e r e i s n o h a r m i n t h i s r a t h e r casual sketch o f levels o f d e v e l o p m e n t b u t i t does b e g t h e q u e s t i o n o f t h e c r i t e r i a b y w h i c h t h e 'organisings' a n d 'reorganisings' s h o u l d take place. I f w e are t o take seriously t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s o f Eliot's w h o l e i n t e l l e c t u a l o u t l o o k t h e e d u c a t i o n o f taste c o u l d h a r d l y be a r a n d o m process o f g r o w t h , b u t a directed a c t i v i t y a c c o r d i n g t o c e r t a i n p r i n c i p l e s , w h i c h o n e presumes w o u l d n o t be those o f ' t h e m o d e r n e m o t i o n a l a t t i t u d e ' . W e m i g h t t u r n t o C h r i s t i a n i t y i n t h e sort o f terms seen i n 'Religion and L i t e r a t u r e ' b u t t h a t passage almost uses t h e force o f ' o u g h t ' as a n i n h i b i t i o n t o a n y g r o w t h process a n d m i g h t suggest t o o total a subordination t o t h e extra-literary i n i t s most negative forms. I n a n y case, E l i o t does n o t b r i n g process a n d i n f o r m i n g

124

The

'Philosophical

Critic'

p r i n c i p l e t o g e t h e r — s o m e t h i n g perhaps m o r e characteristic t h a n n o t o f h i s w o r k as a w h o l e . I n t h i s case t h e d e s c r i p t i o n of a pro­ cess has been s u b s t i t u t e d f o r a j u s t i f i c a t i o n of w h a t s h o u l d go into it. T h e r e can be no o b j e c t i o n t o t h e f u s i o n of f e e l i n g , t h o u g h t , a t t i t u d e and belief as i n t e r d e p e n d e n t i n a n y sensible t a l k a b o u t p o e t r y , b u t t h e d i f f i c u l t y w i t h Eliot's h a n d l i n g of t h e m u l t i p l e aspects of h i s subject is a n u n c e r t a i n t y as to w h a t he w i l l l i g h t u p o n as t h e e x p l a n a t o r y element i n a p a r t i c u l a r case. M o s t pervasive perhaps are those references t o f e e l i n g a n d e n j o y m e n t , s o m e w h a t accentuated i n t h e later c r i t i c i s m , a n d expressive per­ haps o f some, at least, n o t w h o l l y r a t i o n a l i z e d presuppositions t h a t h a v e a p h i l o s o p h i c a l c o l o u r a t i o n . T h e r e is h o w e v e r a sense i n w h i c h t h e e n j o y m e n t t h a t p o e t r y produces seems i n t r o d u c e d as a n unanalysable end t e r m i n e x p l a n a t i o n , w h i c h does n o t a l l o w of f u r t h e r d i s t i n c t i o n s and descriptions, c e r t a i n l y u n l i k e t h e analysis i t m i g h t receive f r o m Richards i n terms of psycho­ l o g i c a l c o m p o n e n t s a n d q u a n t i t i e s . Opposed t o a science of f e e l i n g , t h e r e seems to be a m y s t i q u e of f e e l i n g , w h i c h is u s e f u l l a r g e l y because of i t s resistance to analysis, i t s e x p l a n a t o r y o p a c i t y . T h i s m u s t be e x a m i n e d i n o t h e r contexts. W h a t I have t r i e d t o g i v e here is of course n o t a n a c c o u n t of Richards's t h e o r y of p o e t r y a n d Eliot's a l t e r n a t i v e t o i t . I t is r a t h e r a c o n s i d e r a t i o n of a moment's encounter, w h e r e t h e l a n ­ guage E l i o t uses i n s t a t i n g his u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f Richards a n d t h e character of t h e a r g u m e n t s he t h o u g h t a p p r o p r i a t e i n s e t t i n g o u t h i s c r i t i c i s m reflect t h e character of h i s w o r k as a w h o l e . T h i s has h a r d l y been a ' p h i l o s o p h i c a l ' response, b u t has dis­ solved t h e a r g u m e n t i n t o a v a r i e t y o f disconnected, or at least l o g i c a l l y u n r e l a t e d elements. T h e m u l t i p l i c i t y of appeal t o d i f f e r i n g frames of reference, standards, levels of p s y c h o l o g i c a l c o m m i t m e n t , a l t e r n a t i v e p r i n c i p l e s of coherence, m a y partly i n d i c a t e a l a c k of a n y interest i n t h e w o r k i n g of c r i t i c a l lan­ guage itself. T h e final suggestion t h a t ' c r i t i c a l speculation, l i k e p h i l o s o p h i c a l s p e c u l a t i o n and scientific research m u s t be free to f o l l o w i t s o w n course .. .' seems m o r e a permissive gesture t h a n an i n d i c a t i o n t h a t t h e r e is a n y p a r t i c u l a r c o n f i g u r a t i o n t o t h e 'course', especially w h e n i t s c o n s u m m a t i o n is seen i n t h e ten­ dency t o enhance o u r o w n e n j o y m e n t . A t every stage one has 18

The 'Philosophical

Critic'

125

l o o k e d a t a d i f f e r e n t g u i d e l i n e because a d i f f e r e n t aspect o f a p r o b l e m has been i n t h e f o r e g r o u n d . W h i l e I have been e m p h a s i z i n g t h e d i s c o n t i n u i t i e s w i t h i n w h a t presents itself as a s y n o p t i c r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n , i t is w o r t h m e n t i o n i n g t h e special p r o b l e m o f r e l a t i n g p a r t i c u l a r a n d general, c o n s i d e r i n g especially t h e self-consciousness which inheres i n t h e v e r y sense o f b e l o n g i n g t o t h e t r a d i t i o n one is describing. So E l i o t is i n effect u s i n g a n h i s t o r i c a l f r a m e f o r a conceptual argument, and h i s imaginative involvement w i t h p a r t i c u l a r m o m e n t s o f c r i t i c a l h i s t o r y seems t o m o v e c o u n t e r t o t h e o v e r a l l e x p l a n a t o r y i m p u l s e w h i c h goes i n t o h i s o w n con­ f r o n t a t i o n w i t h h i s h i s t o r i c a l m o m e n t . So even t h e l a t t e r breaks d o w n i n t o such o d d l y sorted examples as T r o t s k y a n d t h e A b b e B r e m o n d . T h e w h o l e r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n seems t o h a v e posed t h e k i n d o f c o n d i t i o n s , i n a t t e m p t i n g t o relate i n t e l l e c t u a l coherence t o h i s t o r i c a l s e n s i b i l i t y , t h a t made i t u n s y m p a t h e t i c to his p a r t i c u l a r t a l e n t . A n analogous case is s h o r t e r a n d m o r e retrospective, as i f t h e effect o f h i s t o r i c a l d i s t a n c i n g t h a t enables h i m t o t r e a t h i s o w n w o r k as b e l o n g i n g t o t h e past, a n d t h e r a p p r o c h e m e n t b e t w e e n t h e disciplines t h a t have shaped h i s l i f e , m a y g a i n i n c l a r i t y t h r o u g h distance. T h e 'Charybde et Scylla' o f h i s l e c t u r e i n N i c e i n 1952 represent t h e claims o f p h i l o s o p h y a n d p o e t r y . T h e relevance t o c r i t i c i s m m a y be o b l i q u e b u t t h e s e p a r a t i o n o u t of t h e languages o f concept a n d i m a g i n a t i o n m a y h e l p t o give c r i t i c i s m i t s necessary frame. T w o senses o f ' p h i l o s o p h y ' are d i s t i n g u i s h e d : one w h i c h identifies t h e general o u t l o o k a n d beliefs o f a poet, a n d a n o t h e r w h i c h is a n i n t r i n s i c p r o p e r t y o f t h e p o e m itself 'et q u i ne p e u t etre t r a d u i t e n concepts'. E l i o t is of course p e r f e c t l y a w a r e o f t h e s t r e n g t h o f n o r m a l claims f o r t h e first sense a n d t h a t t h e l a t t e r poses special c o n d i t i o n s f o r t h e use of t h e w o r d . W h a t w e seem t o find i n some poems is a n i n t e l ­ l e c t u a l pleasure w h i c h corresponds t o t h e p h i l o s o p h y o f t h e poem. T a k e M a l l a r m e , w h o s e poems m a y n o t i n t h e u s u a l a n d l i t e r a l w a y m a k e sense, o r a t least w h e n l i t e r a l l y i n t e r p r e t e d manage t o elude us, w h o m one does n o t read w i t h t h e awareness of a D a n t e s q u e i n t e l l e c t u a l substance. Y e t n e i t h e r does i t cause a pleasure w h i c h is t h a t o f t h e senses: ' I I m'a d o n n e u n exercise i n t e l l e c t u e l et u n p l a i s i r i n t e l l e c t u e l . . . ' , a pleasure w h i c h is a 19

126

The 'Philosophical

Critic'

d i r e c t effect o f t h e ' p h i l o s o p h y o f t h e p o e m \ I s h a l l r e t u r n t o the p r o b l e m o f t h e t w o k i n d s of pleasure. B u t t h e passage w h i c h follows is sufficiently revealing o f a w a y i n w h i c h Eliot h a d come t o see h i s o w n p o e t r y t o be w o r t h q u o t i n g at l e n g t h : E v i d e m m e n t , cette f o r m u l e 'la p h i l o s o p h i e d u poeme' n e s'applique pas egalement a toutes sortes de poemes. Elle s' a p p l i q u e a u m i e u x a u x poemes de ces poetes q u i , s'ils n'avaie n t pas ete poetes, a u r a i e n t p u etre philosophes. Elle comp r e n d des poetes q u i , s'ils a v a i e n t f a i t de l a p h i l o s o p h i e a u l i e u de f a i r e de l a poesie n'auraient peut-etre a t t e i n t qu'une tres modeste place e n t a n t que philosophes. E t p a r m i ceux-la, j e ne vous cacherai pas que je m e c o m p t e moi-meme. (Car i l m e semble q u e e'est i n e v i t a b l e q u a n d u n poete f a i t des theories sur l a poesie, l e genre de poesie s u r l e q u e l i l concentre son a t t e n t i o n , e'est s o n p r o p r e genre de poesie. C o m m e V a l e r y F a d i t ' i l n'est pas de t h e o r i e q u i n e soit u n f r a g m e n t , soigneusem e n t prepare, de quelque a u t o b i o g r a p h i c ' ) . Q u a n d je p a r l e de 'philosophie d'un poeme' j ' a i dans F esprit, a v a n t t o u t , u n poeme ecrit par u n poete q u i a f a i t des etudes p h i l o s o p h i q u e s et q u i a peut-etre m e m e c o n s t r u i t des theories p h i l o s o p h i q u e s originales. Ces theories o n t joue u n r o l e i m p o r t a n t dans sa for­ m a t i o n , e t done p a r a i t r o n t dans sa poesie, mais dans u n e f o r m e dans l a q u e l l e elles n e sont p l u s proposees e n t a n t q u e t h e o r i e mais presentees c o m m e des f a i t s d'experience, des elements q u i composent, avec t o u t e son experience de l a v i e sous ses differ en tes formes, les m a t e r i a u x , l a substance de ses poemes. D e s philosophies differentes, des o p i n i o n s philoso­ phiques opposees q u i n e p e u v e n t pas dans l e d o m a i n e de l a discussion p h i l o s o p h i q u e etre m a i n t e n u e s simultanement, p e u v e n t etre a i n s i unies et reconciliees sur l e p l a n poetique. Je d i r a i de p l u s que dans cette o p e r a t i o n , i l y a u n t r a v a i l i n t e l l e c t u e l d'organisation q u i est analogue a u t r a v a i l c o n c e p t u e l d u philosophe. E t je d i r a i aussi q u e les s e n t i m e n t s d'un lect e u r delicat, e n s'assimilant u n poeme de ce genre, sont ana­ logues a ses s e n t i m e n t s l o r s q u ' i l s'assimile F o u v r a g e d'un philosophe. Seulement, l a comprehension d'un o u v r a g e p h i l o ­ sophique e t l a c o m p r e h e n s i o n d'un poeme sont d e u x choses tres differentes. C'est parce qu'on n e c o m p r e n d pas ce f a i t

The 'Philosophical

127

Critic

7

q u ' i l y a differentes fa^ons de comprendre, qu'on n o u s a i n f l i g e t a n t de fausses e x p l i c a t i o n s de l a poesie p h i l o s o p h i q u e : toutes ces e x p l i c a t i o n s q u i r e d u i s e n t e n f a i t l a p h i l o s o p h i c d'un poeme a des termes abstraits: soit des m a i t r e s de p h i l o s o p h i c d u poete, soit des concepts v e n a n t de sa p r o p r e pensee l o r s q u ' i l faisait de l a p h i l o s o p h i c et n o n de l a poesie. 20

T h e a u t o b i o g r a p h i c a l p o i n t s h o u l d be t a k e n , a n d t h i s passage clearly represents a n a t t e m p t t o a c c o u n t f o r a r e l a t i o n s h i p w h i c h h a d l o n g g i v e n h i m a n awareness o f o p p o s i t i o n s t o be resolved. B u t s u c h self-reference almost erects t h e f r a m e w o r k f o r a category o f one o r t w o a n d creates its i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y f r o m t h e cases o f h i m s e l f a n d V a l e r y , o r those r a r e persons w h o s e t h o u g h t is f o u n d e d i n p h i l o s o p h y , b u t w h o s e a c t u a l l i t e r a r y w o r k s do n o t c o n v e y t h i s except i n d i r e c t l y . T h i s suggests some c u r i o u s c h e m i s t r y w h i c h converts t h e abstractions o f philoso­ phical thought into something lived, a n d thus material for a f u r t h e r t r a n s f o r m a t i o n i n w h i c h t h e i r p a r t i c u l a r features as p h i l o s o p h i c a r g u m e n t , especially t h e p r i n c i p l e o f c o n t r a d i c t i o n itself, are so s u b l i m a t e d t h a t contradictories, o r at least 'opinions p h i l o s o p h i q u e s opposees', c a n co-exist o n t h e ' p l a n poetique'. B u t t h e v e r y existence o f t h i s ' p l a n ' m a y pose a n evasion of t h e p r o b l e m i t sets o u t t o solve. F o r i f t h e co-existence o f opposites i n a n a l t e r n a t i v e f o r m of i n t e l l e c t u a l o r g a n i z a t i o n means t h e dif­ ference b e t w e e n c o n t r a d i c t i o n a n d r e s o l u t i o n , t h e p o e t i c level has i n some degree become a t t h e same t i m e t h e antithesis of t h e p h i l o s o p h i c , a n d a means o f t r a n s p o s i n g t h e awkwardnesses i n t o an area w h e r e t h e r e is s i m p l y a f o r m a l blessing o n t h e i r incom­ patibilities. Y e t t h e m o v e m e n t o f t h o u g h t i n t o experience, i n t o t h a t experience t r a n s m u t e d b y words, m i g h t i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e ' p l a n ' defines itself less as a n area o f i m p l i c a t i o n t h a n as a n order o f words. A n d w o u l d n o t such a v i e w m o v e us back t o w a r d s Richards's n o t i o n o f The W a s t e Land as e f f e c t i n g a severance b e t w e e n p o e t r y a n d w h a t i t is supposed t o be about? A n d w o u l d i t n o t as w e l l d u l l t h e registers o f experience itself? For o n e t h i n g , t h e casual sequence i n w h i c h t h e experience i n q u e s t i o n becomes t r a n s m u t e d a n d is v a l u e d f o r t h a t t r a n s m u t a b i l i t y m a y i n d i c a t e a self-conscious selective process, as m a y even t h e crea-

128

The 'Philosophical

Critic'

t i o n o f o r i g i n a l p h i l o s o p h i c a l t h e o r i e s — a l l directed t o w a r d s t h e p o e m itself a n d i t s 'philosophy'. O n e is r e m i n d e d of w h a t P o u n d said o f E l i o t i n September 1914: 'He is t h e o n l y A m e r i c a n I k n o w o f w h o has made w h a t I c a n call adequate p r e p a r a t i o n f o r w r i t i n g . H e has a c t u a l l y t r a i n e d h i m s e l f and m o d e r n i z e d h i m s e l f o n his o w n / O n e grasps a n i m a g e o f e n o r m o u s self-assuredness a n d s e l f - c o n t a i n m e n t , w i t h a conscious a n d c o n t r o l l e d develop­ m e n t s u b s u m i n g a l l of i t s elements, i n c l u d i n g t h e B r a d l e y phase, s i n g l e m i n d e d l y i n t o t h e final p r o d u c t . T h a t E l i o t h a d h a d some such s u b o r d i n a t i o n a n d d e v e l o p m e n t i n m i n d is s o m e t h i n g h e later spells o u t q u i t e l i t e r a l l y . T h e ideas d r a w n f r o m p h i l o s o p h y are i m p o r t a n t insofar as t h e y h a v e f o r m e d t h e poet's m i n d a n d have been 'assimilees ( c o m m e u n f e r t i l i s a n t , p o u r r a i t - o n dire) dans cette couchc p r o f o n d e de l'experience q u i c o n s t i t u e l e sol m e m e dans l e q u e l les germes de l a poesie se n o u r r i s s e n t ' . T h a t is, t h e y do n o t even b e l o n g t o t h e substance o f t h e p r o d u c t , b u t are a n a n c i l l a r y device f o r b r i n g i n g i t i n t o being. T h e f o r m u l a b y w h i c h c o n c e p t u a l t h o u g h t moves i n t o experi­ ence t o h e l p b r i n g a b o u t t h e p o e m has a c o u n t e r p a r t i n w h a t Professor D o n a l d D a v i e has r e c e n t l y w r i t t e n o f Pound: w h e n 'sense-perceptions c o n c e p t u a l i z e d i n language c a n ... be experi­ enced as i f t h e y are i m m e d i a t e , m a y n o t concepts be substantial­ i z e d i n language so t h e y c a n be experienced i m m e d i a t e l y , as i f t h e y w e r e p e r c e p t i o n s ? ' H e n c e a reversal o f w h a t seems t h e n o r m a l process b y w h i c h t h i n g s become i n t e l l i g i b l e , w i t h per­ ceptions a n d images r e c e i v i n g c o n c e p t u a l expansion, a n d w h e r e t h e y are considered i n c o n c e p t u a l terms. T h e concept as imme­ d i a t e l y experienced m u s t , l i k e t h e ' p l a n poetique', s u b s t i t u t e the i m m e d i a t e a n d experienced (words w h i c h f o r E l i o t m i g h t w e l l h a v e a n echo o f B r a d l e y ) f o r w h a t w o u l d be t h e n o r m a l expec­ t a t i o n s i n a c o n c e p t u a l language. A n d w h a t e v e r i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y adhered t o t h i s w o u l d be f o u n d as t h e concrete r e a l i z a t i o n o f t h e l a n g u a g e o f t h e poem, d i r e c t l y perceived, t h e ' p h i l o s o p h i c d'un poeme' itself. Perhaps Davie's suggestion m i g h t as c o r o l l a r y r e q u i r e t h e a b o l i t i o n o f c r i t i c i s m as i t is n o w practised. I t is n o r m a l l y sup­ posed t h a t w h a t is e x p l a i n e d is i n some w a y opaque a n d d i f f i ­ cult, a n d that interpretation works b y rendering i n t o a more accessible a n d c o m m o n language o f agreed meanings. W h a t 21

22

The 'Philosophical

Critic'

129

w o u l d r e s u l t f r o m r e v e r s i n g t h i s a n d t r a n s l a t i n g o u r concepts i n t o more directly felt a n d therefore immediately intelligible percepts? W o u l d t h i s m e a n a n e n d t o steps t h a t m o v e f r o m one's u n d e r s t a n d i n g back t o t h e concrete occasion i n w h i c h i t rests? O r w o u l d w e find some r e t r a n s l a t i o n process a necessary step? Certainly Eliot allows f o r t w o different forms of understanding, f o r p h i l o s o p h i c a l w o r k s a n d f o r poems. A n d i t is because w e h a v e f a i l e d t o grasp t h e difference i n these f o r m s of understand­ i n g t h a t w e have h a d i n f l i c t e d o n us t h e false a n d r e d u c t i v e e x p l a n a t i o n s o f t h e ' p h i l o s o p h i c d u poeme'. Y e t w h a t force do w e give to the analogy between t w o forms of intellectual organi­ z a t i o n ? T h e r e are several puzzles: does t h e ' t r a v a i l i n t e l l e c t u e l d'organisation' refer t o t h e process b y w h i c h p h i l o s o p h i c a l a n d poetic w o r k s are created, o r t o some i n n a t e characteristic o f t h e i r s t r u c t u r e — t o process o r t o order? A n d w h a t o f t h e 'senti­ m e n t s ' o f t h e 'lecteur delicat' i n t a k i n g i n these t w o d i s t i n c t i v e f o r m s o f discourse? I s t h i s process o f a s s i m i l a t i o n a r o u g h des­ c r i p t i o n o f t h e r e a d i n g process w h i c h is i n some w a y contrasted w i t h t h e e n d p r o d u c t o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g ? I f so, w h a t v a l u e h a v e the 'sentiments'? T h e answer t o such queries w i l l n o t be f o u n d i n E l i o t a n d a n y c o n s t r u c t i o n i s q u i t e c o n j e c t u r a l . F o r one t h i n g t h e d i f f i ­ c u l t y i n t h e t e r m 'analogy' is t h a t o f a l l o w i n g f o r e i t h e r s t r o n g or w e a k resemblances, a n d t h e u s u a l t e m p t a t i o n i n accepting w e a k senses is t h a t s t r o n g e r ones are easier t o spell out. I f one w i s h e s — a n d here t h e elusiveness o f Eliot's t h i n k i n g is f e l t . T h e m o v e f r o m t h e analogous a s s i m i l a t i o n t o t h e separate under­ s t a n d i n g is p r o b a b l y t h e m o v e m e n t f r o m s i m i l a r i t y i n c o m i n g t o g r i p s w i t h t w o c o m p l e x orders o f w o r d s t o a r e a l i z a t i o n o f t h e difference i n t h e i r k i n d of i m p o r t . B u t here a g a i n t h e d i f f i c u l t y is l i t t l e m o r e t h a n p u s h e d a w a y a n d t h e m e a n i n g is f a r f r o m clear. W h a t i s clear i s t h e i n t e n t i o n o f s e c u r i n g t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f p o e t r y f r o m t h e v u l g a r error t h a t poems can, f o r t h e purposes o f e x p l a n a t i o n , be reduced t o t h e ideas t h e y c o n t a i n . E l i o t h a d o b v i o u s l y suffered m u c h f r o m t h a t k i n d o f literalness o f m i n d w h i c h , b y a s k i n g one t o say e x a c t l y w h a t one means, c o n f i r m s one i n t h e belief t h a t i t c a n n o t be said i n t h a t w a y , a n d t h a t i f i t c o u l d i t w o u l d n o l o n g e r be t h e same t h i n g — o r even t h e same sort o f t h i n g . So t h e i m p u l s e is understandable t o separate o u t

130

The 'Philosophical

Critic*

t h e 'kinds' o f t h i n g , y e t p o i n t o u t t h e close r e l a t i o n s h i p t h a t existed b e t w e e n t h e m i n h i s o w n w o r k i n g o u t o f t h e ' p h i l o ­ s o p h y of t h e p o e m '. A s a personal t e s t i m o n y t h i s is m o r e s a t i s f a c t o r y t h a n i t is as a t h e o r e t i c a l statement, a n d a n y general c o n c l u s i o n w o u l d r e q u i r e f u r t h e r e l a b o r a t i o n t o g i v e a sense o f w h a t i t s i m p o r t m i g h t be. T h e r e s o l u t i o n of t h e d o u b l e c o n c e r n — a s philosopher, as p o e t — w i t h h i s i m m e d i a t e experience a n d double i n v e n t i o n of a l a n g u a g e a p p r o p r i a t e t o c o n v e y i n g i t seems t o succeed best i n terms o f a lifetime's development, a n d h a v e i t s analogy, w i t h d i f f e r e n t force i n d i f f e r e n t cases, o n l y i n t h e w o r k of o t h e r poets w h o f e l t a s i m i l a r d u a l i t y . T h e e x a m p l e w h i c h develops a n essentially confessional m o m e n t i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y n o t f r o m his o w n w o r k b u t f r o m V a l e r y , a n d t h e a r g u m e n t t u r n s o n t h e c o m p a r i s o n o f t h e c o m m o n p l a c e i n Gray's Elegy a n d t h e special o r i g i n a l i t y o f Le Cimetiere Marin. M o s t o f t h e a c t u a l c o m m e n t s o n t h e p o e m are concerned w i t h i t s language. B u t t w o p o i n t s m a y i l l u m i n a t e t h e d i s t i n c t i o n s made above. O n e is t h e r e m a r k t h a t w h a t e v e r w e m i g h t derive f r o m t h e p o e m o f a p h i l o s o p h i c a l k i n d w o u l d be less t h a n t h e poem. W o u l d s u c h a r e m a r k a p p l y to D a n t e too, a n d q u a l i f y t h e d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n categories made earlier i n t h e l e c t u r e , w h e n discussing t h e t r a n s m u t a t i o n of a passage f r o m De Anima i n t o p o e t r y , i n w h i c h t h e p o e m seems to b e l o n g t o t h e same mode of t h o u g h t as Aristotle's? A n d there i s a c o m m e n t o n t h e '... s t r u c t u r e p h i l o s o p h i q u e , u n e o r g a n i s a t i o n n o n pas seulement de reactions successives a u n e s i t u a t i o n donnee, mais de reactions a ses premieres reactions'. T h i s seems t o suggest a n o t i o n o f levels o f g e n e r a l i t y , o r some k i n d o f dialectical m o v e m e n t w h i c h m i g h t h a v e Idealist ancestry, a l t h o u g h t h e p h i l o s o p h i c a l s t r u c t u r e m i g h t appear t o h a v e a p s y c h o l o g i c a l i n s t a n t i a t i o n . W h e t h e r o r n o t t h i s is so is n o t made clear. T h i s b r i n g s us back b y a c i r c u i t o u s r o u t e , b y w a y perhaps o f a c e r t a i n deviousness i n Eliot's o w n t h o u g h t , t o t h e m o s t persis­ tent a m b i g u i t y i n the n o t i o n of the 'philosophical critic', w h i c h r u n s u n e v e n l y t h r o u g h t h e five caricatures t h a t I suggested earlier. O n e w h o criticises a c c o r d i n g t o some p h i l o s o p h i c a l p r i n ­ ciple m a y n o t i n s t a n t i a t e t h a t p r i n c i p l e i n t h e act o f c r i t i c i s m itself. Y e t i n e s t a b l i s h i n g a r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e c o n c e p t u a l 23

The 'Philosophical

Critic'

131

a n d creative aspects o f h i s w o r k , E l i o t p a r a d o x i c a l l y became a k i n d of philosophical c r i t i c — w i t h o u t w i s h i n g t o apply such a d i s c i p l i n e o r t h e f u l l e r consequences o f h i s observations t o t h e order o r l a n g u a g e i n w h i c h t h e y are made. T o w h a t e x t e n t w o u l d one w i s h t o r e q u i r e t h a t t h e ' p h i l o s o p h i c a l c r i t i c ' s h o u l d be concerned w i t h t h e n a t u r e o f t h e a c t i v i t y i n v o l v e d i n t h e m o m e n t o f c o m m e n t a r y ? E l i o t is h a r d l y so concerned i n a n y d i r e c t w a y , a n d t h e f e w approaches t o s u c h considerations are retrospective. T h e c r i t i c i s m has n o sense o f a l i f e i n i t s o w n r i g h t . T h e 'phrases of g e n e r a l i s a t i o n ' are fitful sparks. A n d t h e t e r m s t h a t p o i n t m o s t deeply t o p h i l o s o p h i c a l presuppositions are those t h a t h e i n w h a t o n t h e surface seems t h e m o s t easily used, least e x a m i n e d a n d least e x p l a i n e d p a r t of his v o c a b u l a r y . I m e a n b y t h i s w h a t I h a v e already described as h i s use as a n end t e r m i n e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e terms 'feeling', 'pleasure' a n d 'enjoyment'. T h e persistence o f these suggests a p o i n t b e y o n d w h i c h E l i o t feels j u s t i f i c a t i o n need n o t take us, a n d m a y also i n d i c a t e a n area o f p h i l o s o p h i c a l c o m m i t m e n t w h i c h is n o t w h o l l y a r t i c u l a t e d a n d w h i c h plays a larger p a r t i n h i s t h o u g h t a b o u t l i t e r a t u r e t h a n he h i m s e l f acknowledged. O r a t least chose t o see i n terms of t h e i r consequences. O n e o r t w o r e m a r k s set o u t w i t h a deceptive casualness t h e h i s t o r i c a l circumstances i n w h i c h , f o r E l i o t , t h e d o m i n a n c e o f e x p l a n a t o r y c r i t i c i s m m u s t be rebalanced b y t h e rediscovery o f e n j o y m e n t . T h e e x t e n s i v e passage i n 'The F r o n t i e r s o f C r i t i c i s m ' w h i c h sets o u t some a p p r o p r i a t e senses o f ' e n j o y m e n t ' also places i t i n t h e centre o f h i s c r i t i c a l t h i n k i n g . T h e earlier f o r m u ­ l a t i o n 'the e l u c i d a t i o n o f w o r k s o f a r t a n d t h e c o r r e c t i o n o f taste' i s translated, f o r advantage o f tone, i n t o 'promote t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g a n d e n j o y m e n t o f l i t e r a t u r e ' . A n d these do n o t s t a n d i n a n y f o r m o f o p p o s i t i o n as separate activities o f t h e m i n d , f o r 'to u n d e r s t a n d a p o e m comes t o t h e same t h i n g as t o e n j o y i t f o r t h e r i g h t reasons'. H e is q u i t e aware o f t h e danger of question-begging i n ' r i g h t reasons' b u t t h e e x p a n s i o n g i v e n b y 'to t h e r i g h t degree a n d i n t h e r i g h t w a y ' h a r d l y adds m o r e t h a n a h i n t o f measure a n d scale. T h e a d d i t i o n o f 'relative t o o t h e r poems' m a y t i g h t e n t h e c o n t e x t (a p r o b l e m i n itself) b u t t h e r e m a r k s a b o u t n o t t a k i n g pleasure i n b a d p o e t r y c o n v e y some n o t i o n o f a scale of excellence w h i c h corresponds t o a scale 2 4

132

The 'Philosophical

Critic'

of pleasures, w i t h n o t h i n g c o n n e c t i n g b e y o n d t h e a s s u m p t i o n that the t w o really ought to match. E l i o t recognizes t h e f u r t h e r difficulties i n 'enjoy', b u t t h e discussion o f t h e r e l a t i o n o f 'enjoy' t o 'get e n j o y m e n t f r o m ' a n d to t h e c o n n e c t i o n w i t h ' j o y ' does n o t r e a l l y h e l p w i t h t h e n a t u r e o f t h e pleasure w e get f r o m p o e t r y a n d h o w i t connects w i t h u n d e r s t a n d i n g . I t i s o n e t h i n g t o say t h a t w e c a n n o t e n j o y w i t h o u t u n d e r s t a n d i n g , b u t i f y o u t h e n say t h a t under­ s t a n d i n g is t h e r i g h t sort o f e n j o y m e n t t h e c i r c u l a r i t y takes m u c h o f t h e e x p l a n a t o r y force o u t of i t . O n e m a y see t h e use o f t h e c o n n e c t i o n t o r e f u t e t h e sort o f a r i d e x p l i c a t o r w h o makes no place f o r pleasure i n h i s f o r m o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g . Y e t t h e t w o demands w h i c h seem t o be made o n u n d e r s t a n d i n g — t h a t i t s h o u l d c o n f o r m t o some n o t i o n of correctness a n d i n v o l v e imme­ diate e n j o y m e n t — m a y n o t account f o r t h e g a p b e t w e e n t h e r e q u i r e m e n t f o r p u b l i c e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e c r i t e r i a o f correctness a n d t h e s u b j e c t i v e g r o u n d s o f e n j o y m e n t . T h e o n e has features t h a t c a n be stated a n d p o i n t e d t o w h i l e t h e o t h e r is p a r t of a per­ sonal t a n g l e m o r e d i f f i c u l t t o inspect. H o w e v e r , a n i m p o r t a n t c o r r o l a r y o f t h i s v e r s i o n o f under­ s t a n d i n g f o u n d e d i n e n j o y m e n t is t h a t i t is essential t o recognize t h a t one is u n d e r s t a n d i n g a p o e m as a poem. H e n c e Eliot's l a c k o f i n t e r e s t i n t h e e n o r m o u s l i t e r a t u r e w h i c h m a y i n f o r m us a b o u t poems a n d be q u i t e i n t e r e s t i n g i n its o w n w a y , b u t w h i c h does n o t c o n t r i b u t e t o o u r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e p o e m as poem. T h i s m i g h t seem t o a p p l y n o t o n l y t o w o r k s o f a b a c k g r o u n d o r i n f o r m a t i o n a l k i n d ( t h e case h e gives is The Road to Xanadu) b u t t o those analyses w h i c h consider t h e p o e m as l i n g u i s t i c object, b u t one w h i c h i s n o t , s i m p l y because i t is a poem, differ­ e n t f r o m o t h e r c o m p l e x l i n g u i s t i c objects. ( S o m e t h i n g analogous is t r u e o f t h e Jakobson a n d Levi-Strauss analysis o f Baudelaire's Les Chats.) C e r t a i n l y i n s u c h analyses t h e f a c t o f b e i n g con­ cerned w i t h poems is s o m e t h i n g t h a t c a n be recorded i n terms o f t h e d e s c r i p t i o n . B u t t h i s does n o t seem t o t o u c h o n w h a t E l i o t means b y 'as a poem'. F o r t h e features described m a y be those o f a n y c l o s e l y - w r o u g h t b u t non-poetic v e r b a l s t r u c t u r e , o r i f t h e r e are features w h i c h m i g h t be t h o u g h t t o a p p l y t o p o e t r y specifically t h e y m i g h t also a p p l y t o b a d poems o r t o m e r e verse, o r a n y t h i n g u s i n g v e r b a l characteristics u s u a l l y attached 25

The 'Philosophical

Critic'

133

to p o e t r y . A n d I take i t t h a t t h i s i s s o m e t h i n g t h a t E l i o t does n o t m e a n — t h e pleasure a n d u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h a t go w i t h 'as a poem' clearly exclude b a d poems a n d versification. T h e effect is t h a t f o r E l i o t t h e r e is a n aesthetic m y s t i q u e w h i c h is essential t o t h e idea o f t h e poem. A n d t h i s m y s t i q u e i s served b y w o r d s l i k e 'pleasure' o r ' f e e l i n g ' w h i c h have i n t u r n t h e i r o w n f o r m o f o p a c i t y . 'Pleasure' c o u l d h a r d l y be directed t o o easily o u t w a r d to t h e u s u a l r a n g e o f m e a n i n g s w h i c h a t t a c h t o h e d o n i s m o f w h a t e v e r k i n d , t o a n y t h i n g b e y o n d a r e s t r i c t e d a n d r a t h e r gen­ teel r a n g e o f i t s c o n n o t a t i o n s , y e t i t is a b s o l u t e l y p r i m a r y t o Eliot's t h i n k i n g about p o e t r y . 'Feeling' has a special a m b i g u i t y because o f t h e s u p p o s i t i o n t h a t Eliot's t h e o r y o f i m p e r s o n a l i t y a n d t h e classicizing ele­ m e n t s i n h i s c r i t i c i s m s h o w e d a h o s t i l i t y t o e m o t i o n a l excess a n d the k i n d o f personal i n d u l g e n c e i n f e e l i n g w h i c h is associated w i t h R o m a n t i c a n d Post-Romantic p o e t r y . B u t c l e a r l y t h i s p a r t i ­ cular stance, w h i c h c o m b i n e d w i t h a m a r k e d desire t o distance h i m s e l f f r o m w h a t e v e r m i g h t be i n t e r p r e t e d as a personal u t t e r ­ ance, does n o t p r e v e n t h i s use o f ' p o e t r y as f e l t ' as opposed t o ' p o e t r y as statement'. I n f a c t t h e n o t i o n of f e e l i n g as realized i n the p o e m itself m a y serve t o distance one f r o m a n y n o t i o n o f t h e p o e m as r e p o r t i n g l i t e r a l l y o n t h e feelings o f t h e a u t h o r . I n a n y case, w h a t p o e t r y acts u p o n is t h e 'sentiments' o f t h e 'lecteur delicat', a n d ' i t m a y m a k e us f r o m t i m e t o t i m e a l i t t l e m o r e a w a r e o f t h e deeper, u n n a m e d feelings w h i c h f o r m t h e substra­ t u m o f o u r being, t o w h i c h w e r a r e l y penetrate; f o r o u r lives are m o s t l y a c o n s t a n t evasion o f ourselves, a n d a n evasion o f t h e v i s i b l e a n d sensible w o r l d . B u t t o say a l l t h i s is o n l y t o say w h a t y o u k n o w already, i f y o u h a v e f e l t p o e t r y a n d t h o u g h t about y o u r feelings'. B e y o n d t h i s a n d b e h i n d i t E l i o t does n o t t e l l u s w h e r e t o go. O n e effect of t h e covert a d o p t i o n m e n t i o n e d earlier of s o m e t h i n g l i k e Richards's ' t w o uses o f language' is t h a t o f h e l p i n g t o set p o e t r y a p a r t f r o m t h e claims a n d erosions of e v e r y d a y l i f e . These are feelings a n d pleasures of a special k i n d . Y e t t h e r e is n o p o i n t , I t h i n k , i n e x t e n d i n g t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s o f Eliot's use of f e e l i n g as a c r i t i c a l t o o l ( t h e e x t r a p o l a t i o n s of a precise B r a d l e i a n t h e o r y o f f e e l i n g a n d p e r c e p t i o n f r o m t h e a c t u a l c r i t i c a l uses o f t h e t e r m seems w h o l l y special p l e a d i n g ) , f o r t h e i n t e n t i o n is n o t t o 26

134

T h e 'Philosophical

Critic'

develop a concept f o r a n y k i n d o f e x p l a n a t o r y purpose, b u t t o present t h e p r i m a r y , essential, a n d essentially unanalysable e l e m e n t of o u r lives u p o n w h i c h p o e t r y w o r k s . N o t i o n s o f pleasure a n d f e e l i n g are h o w e v e r c o m b i n e d i n t h a t o f 'taste' w h i c h , i f n o t a l w a y s a n d necessarily t o be corrected, is t h e subject of a process o f changes sometimes called education, a n d w h i c h b r i n g s those p s y c h o l o g i c a l sources o f o u r response t o p o e t r y i n t o some k i n d o f r a p p o r t w i t h t h e best t h a t has been, i f n o t k n o w n a n d t h o u g h t , t u r n e d i n t o t h e v e r b a l complexes w e c a l l poems. A n d because taste is s o m e t h i n g t h a t is subject t o t h i s e v o l u t i o n i t m u s t l i n k t h i s best i n t h e c u l t u r a l t r a d i t i o n w i t h t h e sense o f b e i n g i m m e r s e d i n t h e present. E l i o t is c a r e f u l t o balance t r a d i t i o n w i t h t h e i n e v i t a b i l i t y o f change, w i t h r e v o l u ­ t i o n s i n s e n s i b i l i t y , w i t h t h e necessity i n every g e n e r a t i o n t o re­ read, r e i n t e r p r e t a n d revalue. T h e i m p o r t a n c e o f t h i s lies i n h i s r e c o g n i t i o n o f process, o f s o m e t h i n g q u i t e a t variance w i t h t h e n o t i o n o f a fixed, s t r a t i f i e d , u n c h a n g i n g h i e r a r c h y o f preserved values. I t suggests a h i g h l y h i s t o r i c i z e d i m a g i n a t i o n , a n d a commonsense acceptance o f t h e necessity b y w h i c h o u r r e a d i n g is c o n d i t i o n e d b y t h e circumstances o f o u r lives. 'Taste' w o r k s as a concept l i n k i n g self a n d h i s t o r y , a n d a l w a y s comprises b o t h t h e elements o f t h e i n h e r i t a n c e a n d t h e contingencies w h i c h play u p o n them. I do n o t m e a n t o u n d e r s t a t e t h e degree t o w h i c h E l i o t t u r n s a w a y f r o m t h e m o v e m e n t o f h i s o w n society, o r t h e degree t o w h i c h t h e social c r i t i c i s m has a 'perissons e n r e s i s t a n t ' r i n g t o i t . T h i s i s especially s t r i k i n g i n several r e m a r k s a b o u t t h e m o d e r n reader's i n a b i l i t y n o t o n l y t o conceive o f t h e r o l e o f t h e s u p e r n a t u r a l i n t h e w o r l d , b u t even t o conceive o f a n y o n e else seriously d o i n g so. B u t t h i s does n o t e x c l u d e h i s acute awareness t h a t t h e v e r y f a c t o f p o e t r y i n c u l t u r e , a n d o f c u l t u r e i n society, a n d o f society i n t h e n a t u r a l h i s t o r y o f m a n k i n d is subject t o a m i x t u r e o f c o n t i n g e n c y a n d n a t u r a l l a w . W i t h t h i s , there is a s e n s i t i v i t y t o t h e m o d i f i c a t i o n s t h a t process makes o f t r a d i t i o n w h i c h is n o t m e r e l y a t u r n i n g o f one's back. A n d w h i l e I w o u l d n o t go so f a r as t o suggest t h a t a r e p u t e d l y conservative, hier­ archical, t h e o c e n t r i c n o t i o n o f l i t e r a t u r e a n d c u l t u r e i s shot t h r o u g h w i t h r e l a t i v i s t , p o s i t i v i s t a n d h e d o n i s t elements, there is nevertheless i n Eliot's n o t i o n o f taste a n d t h e h i s t o r i c a l aware-

The

' Philosophical

135

Critic'

ness t h a t goes w i t h i t a p l a c e m e n t of t h e g r o u n d of j u d g e m e n t i n a n e v o l v i n g self w h o s e d e v e l o p m e n t is open-ended. A n d t h e essential r o l e of pleasure is one guarantee of t h a t openness. C e r t a i n l y t h e n o t i o n of t h e e d u c a t i o n of taste consists i n m u l t i p l e a d j u s t m e n t s t o o u r i n c r e a s i n g awareness of t h e order of w o r l d l i t e r a t u r e , t o w h i c h t h e w r i t e r belongs t h r o u g h t h e act of w r i t i n g a n d w h i c h t h e reader apprehends m o r e f u l l y and a c c u r a t e l y as h i s k n o w l e d g e increases. A n d c e r t a i n l y t h a t g r o w t h and t h a t e d u c a t i o n i n v o l v e w o r k i n g o u t a n appropriateness i n the scale of a p p r e c i a t i o n s w h i c h c a n n o t be done i n a f r e e l y sub­ jective or permissive way, a n d w h i c h m u s t accept t h e objective character of t h e order i n w h i c h t h e w o r d one w r i t e s is a p a r t , and t h e w o r d one reads finds i t s place. H o w e v e r , t h e r e are c o m p l i c a t i o n s . One is t h a t i n t h e insistence o n t h e subordina­ t i o n of t h e i n d i v i d u a l t o t h e collective a n d established order, the i m p o r t a n c e of t h e collective is m o r e v i v i d t h a n t h e n a t u r e of the p r i n c i p l e s w h i c h t h e collective embodies. ( T h i s is perhaps especially t r u e of 'The F u n c t i o n of Criticism'.) Eliot's c o n v i c t i o n , w h i c h p r o b a b l y owes s o m e t h i n g t o Royce, t h a t a n i n d i v i d u a l c a n n o t f u l l y realize h i m s e l f e i t h e r as a m a n o r as a n a r t i s t w i t h o u t s u b m i t t i n g t o t h e disciplines a n d standards of h i s o w n t r a d i t i o n a n d c u l t u r e , is s o m e t h i n g w h i c h c o u l d as easily be t r u e of m a n y o t h e r t r a d i t i o n s and cultures. A n d E l i o t o f t e n seems c a u g h t b e t w e e n t h e n o t i o n t h a t t h e m o d e r n w r i t e r ( a n d reader) is t h e i n h e r i t o r of a l l t h e great a r t i s t i c a n d i n t e l l e c t u a l t r a d i t i o n s of t h e past, a n d t h e necessity of d e t e r m i n i n g t h e r e l e v a n t features of a c e n t r a l t r a d i t i o n a p p r o p r i a t e t o h i s o w n l i f e . So w h a t at some m o m e n t s looks as i f i t tends t o t h e absolute, t o w a r d s system a n d fixed standards, i s f r o m a n o t h e r p o i n t of v i e w ready t o accept a c u l t u r a l r e l a t i v i s m a n d t h e a m b i g u i t y of o u r p o s i t i o n i n t h e face o f i t . A n d t h e e x p l a n a t i o n s t h a t t h e experienced c r i t i c m i g h t be t e m p t e d t o g i v e t h e y o u n g a b o u t t h e differences o f r a n k , p o s i t i o n a n d degree a m o n g poets are prob­ a b l y t o be avoided, as t h e necessary g r o u n d of t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g of 'degree' is experience of l i f e : 'The p e r c e p t i o n of w h y Shake­ speare or D a n t e or Sophocles holds t h e place he has is s o m e t h i n g t h a t comes o n l y s l o w l y i n t h e course o f l i v i n g ' . So i t is h a r d l y a m a t t e r o f a p p l y i n g measures or rules. N o r is e d u c a t i o n a m a t t e r of h e e d i n g w h a t y o u h a v e been t o l d . A n d 'place' has t h e 2 7

136

The 'Philosophical

Critic

9

s p l e n d i d a m b i g u i t y of suggesting s i m u l t a n e o u s l y a n abstract, a n historical and a psychological location. T h e r e s u l t i s a n eclecticism i n w h i c h t h e use o f taste, a t w h a t e v e r stage i n i t s e v o l u t i o n , as a n o r g a n i z i n g p r i n c i p l e i s subjected t o m a n y purposes, a n d t h e process o f d e c i d i n g a b o u t relevance is subject t o w e a k a n d v a r i a b l e f o r m s o f c o n t r o l . Yet, of course, t h i s eclecticism a n d openness has i t s necessity f o r a w r i t e r w h o is c o n s t a n t l y a d j u s t i n g t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s o f h i s o w n m o d e r n i t y t o a deeply f e l t i n n e r need t o i d e n t i f y h i m s e l f w i t h the d i s t i n c t i v e features o f a n a t least p a r t l y a l i e n society. T h e A m e r i c a n E l i o t , i n c o n s t r u c t i n g t h e European, f e l t c o n f l i c t i n g pressures b e h i n d h i s need f o r a coherent p o i n t o f view. A n d h e was deeply a w a r e t h a t , h o w e v e r f u l l y o n e absorbed a c u l t u r a l t r a d i t i o n , taste is f o u n d e d i n p e r s o n a l i t y — h o w e v e r disagreeable the w o r d — w i t h a l l o f t h e p s y c h o l o g i c a l a n d c i r c u m s t a n t i a l variables w h i c h act u p o n i t . ( Y e t t h e account o f t h i s i n The Use of Poetry and the Use of Criticism refuses t o be d r a w n i n t o 'any discussion of t h e d e f i n i t i o n s of " p e r s o n a l i t y " a n d " c h a r a c t e r " \ ) Such a r e c o g n i t i o n reveals a n o t h e r a n d e q u a l l y u n r e s o l v e d c o n f l i c t b e t w e e n t h e s y n t h e s i z i n g i n s t i n c t a n d t h e desire t o g i v e a separate shape t o t h e s t u d y o f l i t e r a t u r e . A c o n c o m i t a n t of t h i n k i n g of a p o e m 'as a p o e m ' a n d a c c e p t i n g t h e c o m p l e x i t i e s of t h e g r o u n d o f taste is Eliot's emphasis o n t h e uniqueness o f l i t e r a t u r e — t h e s e p a r a t i o n o f t h e l i t e r a r y f r o m o t h e r c r i t i c i s m is b r o u g h t o u t i n t h e later essays. T h i s i n effect moves c o u n t e r t o i n t e g r a t i o n o f a ' p o i n t o f view'. L o o k i n g t h r o u g h t h e c r i t i c a l w o r k as a w h o l e one notices a q u i t e characteristic s h i f t f r o m seeing i n c o n t e x t a n d e m p h a s i z i n g local relatedness, t o seeing i n terms o f w h a t e v e r u n i t y one's ' p o i n t of v i e w ' m i g h t possess, t o a n assertion o f t h e uniqueness o f l i t e r a t u r e , r e q u i r i n g separate c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f its p a r t i c u l a r problems. T h i s three-way move­ m e n t b o t h c o n t a i n s a r e a c h i n g o u t t o grasp t h e m u l t i p l e aspects of a w o r k , a n d y e t has a d i s t i n c t i v e s p l i n t e r i n g effect w h i c h leaves one w i t h o u t a final sense of a n y c o n c e p t u a l w h o l e . T h e r e a l i z a t i o n o f t h i s s h o u l d alone, t h r o u g h t h e v e r y l a c k o f a n y t h i n g reasonably r e s e m b l i n g a synthesis, cast some d o u b t o n the claims made c o n c e r n i n g Eliot's dialectic. T h e recent f l o u r i s h ­ i n g o f t h i s w o r d , h a r d l y u t t e r e d i n Eliot's l i f e t i m e , conveys l a r g e l y t h e need f o r some c o n c e p t u a l t i d y i n g u p w h i c h t h e w o r k 2 8

The P h i l o s o p h i c a l Critic' 4

137

itself does n o t s u p p l y . T h e m o v e m e n t o f Eliot's m i n d , as I h a v e said, i s m o r e t h a t o f t h e c a r e f u l s i f t i n g o f a l t e r n a t i v e s t h a n a dialectical p a t h t o a n u l t i m a t e f u s i o n . A n d t h r o u g h o u t his w o r k w o r d s l i k e 'coherence', ' u n i t y ' , o r 'order' m a y be used i n a v a r i e t y o f c o n t e x t s w i t h o u t t h e i r i m p l y i n g a precisely e m p l o y e d m e t h o d . Perhaps w e m i g h t v i e w i n s y m p a t h e t i c terms a r e l a t e d n o t i o n o f s u c h p r e c i s i o n w h e n D r L u r e m a r k s t h a t 'The w h o l e of Eliot's c r i t i c i s m i s a calculus o f t h e c o n d i t i o n s o f u n i f i c a ­ t i o n .. .' w i t h o u t b e i n g able t o find a n y procedures i n a calculus w h i c h c o u l d be m e t h o d i c a l l y e m p l o y e d , o r a n y sense i n t h e w o r d b e y o n d t h e figurative, o r t h a t of a p r i n c i p l e u n d e r l y i n g t h e u n i t y . W h a t seems t o be f u l f i l l e d is a n e m o t i o n a l necessity. T h e r e are dangers v e r g i n g o n a b s u r d i t y i n a n y a t t e m p t t o g i v e a p i c t u r e o f t h e k i n d o f u n i t y w h i c h w o u l d destroy t h e com­ p l e x i t y o f t h e 'eclectic' Eliot, t o s m o o t h over t h e i n n e r con­ f l i c t t o s h o w t h a t t h e r e i s a consistent d e v e l o p m e n t w h i c h is directed b y some o r i g i n a l p h i l o s o p h i c a l f o r m . T h e r e is n o w a y t o a v o i d t h e s h i f t i n g frames o f reference, t h e m u l t i p l i c i t y o f m i n d , t h e i n d i v i d u a t e d a t t e n t i o n , t o t u r n i t i n t o some n e a t conceptual package w i t h o u t v i t a l i t y o r interest. O f course, t h e f o r m l i m i t e d t h e design, a n d t h e diverse a n d p a r t i c u l a r i z e d reflect t h e occa­ sional character o f so m u c h o f h i s c r i t i c a l w o r k , shaped b y a n i m m e d i a c y t h a t is n o t a p h i l o s o p h i c a l t e r m , b u t t h e i n d i v i d u a l piece i n i t s s i t u a t i o n a n d m o m e n t . Some occasions m a y arouse t h e g e n e r a l i z i n g i m p u l s e — a s u n a v o i d a b l e as i t i s d i s t r u s t e d — b u t t h e y do n o t give i t t h e f r e e d o m t o speculate a t developed l e n g t h . T h e o r e t i c a l r e m a r k s are scattered t h r o u g h t h e occasional pieces l i k e t e m p t i n g b u t m i s l e a d i n g obiter dicta. A n d t h e f e w stretches o f sustained a r g u m e n t — o n w h i c h I h a v e h a d t o con­ centrate i n m y search f o r t h e ' p h i l o s o p h i c a l c r i t i c ' — a r e f a r f r o m t y p i c a l o f t h e w h o l e . M o r e o f t e n t h e r e is a t o u c h o f evasiveness before t h e necessity o f e l a b o r a t i o n a n d t h e d r a w i n g o u t o f con­ sequences. I t is as i f t h e ' p h i l o s o p h i c a l c r i t i c ' u n d e r w e n t some k i n d o f i m a g i n a t i v e f a i l u r e , a n d deferred t o t h e sense o f t h e i m m e d i a t e — a Bradleian w o r d n o doubt, b u t one representing t h e u n i t y o f t h e o r y f a r less t h a n t h e pressure b e h i n d i t . T h e f r a g m e n t s o f p h i l o s o p h i c a l l a n g u a g e add u p t o l i t t l e m o r e t h a n a d i s t a n t e v o c a t i o n of w h a t t h e y m i g h t h a v e meant. Does t h e case of such a p h i l o s o p h i c a l r e f u s a l t e l l us o n l y a b o u t 29

138

T h e 'Philosophical

Critic

9

the c h a r a c t e r o f Eliot's o w n c o n f l i c t , o r does i t pose s o m e t h i n g of t h e c o n t r a d i c t i o n i n t h e n o t i o n o f t h e ' p h i l o s o p h i c a l c r i t i c ? I f w e t a k e i t as a r e f l e c t i o n o f Eliot's g r a d u a l m o v e m e n t a w a y f r o m t h e p h i l o s o p h i c a l t h i n k i n g o f h i s e a r l y years ( w h i c h t o W o l l h e i m suggests a g e n u i n e decline i n h i s i n t e l l e c t u a l powers) w e c a n o n l y do so b y p u t t i n g his c r i t i c a l w o r k a n d t h o u g h t a b o u t l i t e r a t u r e closer t o t h e centre o f h i s c o n c e r n t h a n i t r e a l l y was. I f l i t e r a t u r e m a t t e r e d , t h e t h i n k i n g a b o u t i t w a s s t i l l secondary, a n d t h e c o n f l i c t w i t h i n h i s t h o u g h t b e t w e e n schematic o r d e r i n g a n d c e n t r i f u g a l pressures h a d m a n y sources a n d t o o k m a n y forms. Y e t i t is possible t h a t t h e necessity t o situate h i m s e l f as a critic i n a workable point of v i e w brings o u t this conflict i n an especially v i v i d w a y . O u r q u e r y r e m a i n s o p e n a n d s t i l l before us. Does t h e f a i l u r e of t h e ' p h i l o s o p h i c a l c r i t i c ' reflect a n i m p o s s i b i l i t y i n Eliot's o w n s i t u a t i o n , a n e n q u i r y c u t o f f b y t h e terms o f its o w n c i r c u m ­ stances? W e c a n see h o w E l i o t was c a u g h t b e t w e e n t w o l a n ­ guages a n d t w o t r a d i t i o n s . H i s e d u c a t i o n , piecemeal as i t m a y h a v e been, drove h i m t o w a r d s a c o n t i n e n t a l t r a d i t i o n , d e r i v e d f r o m Hegel, b y w a y o f Royce a n d Bradley, w h e r e a l l is r a t i o n a l , w h i c h values u n i t y , wholeness, non-dissociated sensibilities, a n d w h e r e art is o f c e n t r a l i m p o r t a n c e i n t h e f o r m a t i o n a n d e c o n o m y of t h e h u m a n m i n d . O n t h e o t h e r h a n d he assimilated t h e A n g l o - S a x o n respect f o r t h e i n d i v i d u a l case v i e w e d e m p i r i c a l l y as s i m p l y a n o t h e r object o f a t t e n t i o n , t h e c h a r m o f t h e discrete p a r t i c u l a r , a n d t h e r a t h e r special E n g l i s h diffidence before great ideas, p r o m o t i n g a d e f l a t i o n a r y , i r o n i c a l , even w h i m s i c a l ('rhyth­ m i c a l g r u m b l i n g ' ) v i e w o f oneself a n d one's w o r k . T h e A m e r i c a n E l i o t was a n a t u r a l eclectic w h o h a d n e i t h e r t o h a n d n o r under­ t o o k his his o w n f o r m o f r e s o l u t i o n . O r does t h e p r o b l e m l i e b e y o n d h i m s e l f i n t h e n a t u r e o f t a l k a b o u t l i t e r a t u r e ? O n e can a t least see a w e a k a n a l o g y b e t w e e n his s i t u a t i o n a n d o u r o w n , w h e r e A n g l o - S a x o n c r i t i c a l t h i n k i n g seems a t t h e l i m i t s o f t h e e m p i r i c a l a n d toys, h o w e v e r uncer­ t a i n l y , w i t h t h e t h o u g h t o f methodologies d e r i v e d f r o m a n a l i e n philosophical tradition. B u t the implications of the analogy w o u l d r e q u i r e t h e i r o w n s t u d y . A n d i n s o f a r as w e m a y be asking i f the n o t i o n of the 'philosophical critic' contains its o w n c o n t r a d i c t i o n , t h e q u e s t i o n w o u l d lead us b e y o n d Eliot's example.

7 A Poet's Notebook: The Use of Poetry and the Use of W. W.

Criticism

ROBSON

I n one respect T. S. E l i o t is u n u s u a l a m o n g critics o f eminence: he l e f t o n r e c o r d ( i n 'To C r i t i c i z e t h e C r i t i c ' , 1961) a n extensive a n d severe c o m m e n t a r y o n h i s o w n c r i t i c i s m . O p i n i o n s a b o u t t h i s depend o n one's v i e w o f Eliot. Those w h o dislike h i m w i l l see i t as a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y s l i p p e r y a c t i o n , a c u n n i n g b i d t o steal his opponents' t h u n d e r . Those w h o a d m i r e h i m w i l l feel g r a t i t u d e f o r h i s candour, a n d m a y reflect o n h o w g r e a t l y w e s h o u l d h a v e v a l u e d such a n a p o l o g i a — a n d mm culpa—on t h e p a r t o f Samuel Johnson o r M a t t h e w A r n o l d . W h a t e v e r v i e w w e take, Eliot's remarks o n t h e scope, l i m i t a t i o n s a n d s h o r t c o m i n g s o f w h a t h e w r o t e o n o t h e r a u t h o r s are so p e n e t r a t i n g t h a t there seems l i t t l e f o r a n y o n e else t o add or subtract. O f course a m a n is n o t u s u a l l y a good j u d g e i n h i s o w n cause; b u t i n t h i s case t h e task o f j u d g e m e n t has been p e r f o r m e d so w e l l t h a t o n e m i g h t t h i n k i n q u i r y i n t o Eliot's prose w r i t i n g s s h o u l d n o w be l e f t t o those w h o s e chief interest is i n h i s a c c o m p l i s h m e n t i n t h e 'other har­ mony', o r i n m a t e r i a l r e l e v a n t t o t h e s t u d y o f h i s poems a n d plays. O r perhaps i t s h o u l d be l e f t t o those interested i n a p p r a i s i n g — n o w a d a y s o f t e n i n a h o s t i l e s p i r i t — h i s religious, social o r p o l i t i c a l p o i n t o f v i e w ; o r searching, w i t h t h e F. R. Leavis o f recent years, f o r evidence o f i m p u r e m o t i v e s a n d u n w o r t h y m o r a l a n d e m o t i o n a l a t t i t u d e s . T h e effect o f Eliot's r e m a r k s o n his o w n c r i t i c i s m has been t o p u s h i n t o t h e b a c k g r o u n d t h e question, h o w true—true f o r others, as w e l l as t r u e f o r h i m — is t h i s o r t h a t j u d g e m e n t o n t h i s or t h a t w r i t e r , a n d t h i s o r t h a t i n j u n c t i o n o n p o i n t s o f l i t e r a r y p r i n c i p l e . E l i o t h i m s e l f has become o u r m a i n g u i d e i n h e l p i n g us t o see t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h his c r i t i c i s m can be 'placed' a n d 'dated'. A s a w r i t e r o f c r i t i c a l

140

A Poet's

Notebook

prose he h a d t h e great advantage, over some m o r e r e c e n t p u n d i t s w h o i n v o k e his name, of t h e a b i l i t y t o w r i t e i n t e r e s t i n g l y . Y e t i t is he h i m s e l f w h o t e m p t s us t o find i n h i s c r i t i c i s m w h a t Professor R a l e i g h f o u n d i n Paradise Lost: a m o n u m e n t t o dead ideas. T h e r e is, however, one o f Eliot's books, d e a l i n g w i t h m a t t e r s of l i t e r a r y c r i t i c i s m , w h i c h he does u r g e us t o t a k e account o f f o r i t s i n t r i n s i c a n d n o t m e r e l y i t s d o c u m e n t a r y value. T h i s is The Use

of Poetry and the Use of Criticism

(1933), based o n t h e lectures

he gave i n 1932-3 o n t h e Charles E l i o t N o r t o n f o u n d a t i o n a t H a r v a r d . E l i o t changed h i s m i n d a b o u t these lectures. I n t h e preface t o t h e first e d i t i o n h e spoke o f 'another unnecessary book', w h i c h he h a d been o b l i g e d t o p u b l i s h b y t h e terms o f t h e F o u n d a t i o n . B u t re-reading t h e m m a n y years later h e f o u n d t o his surprise t h a t he was ' s t i l l prepared t o accept t h e m as a state­ m e n t o f [ h i s ] c r i t i c a l p o s i t i o n ' . 'The lectures', he declared i n t h e 1963 preface t o t h e second e d i t i o n (1964), 'seem t o m e s t i l l v a l i d . . . I a m ashamed n e i t h e r o f t h e style n o r o f t h e matter.' A l t h o u g h he ' [ d i d ] n o t r e p u d i a t e " T r a d i t i o n a n d t h e I n d i v i d u a l T a l e n t " ', he r e p r i n t e d The Use of Poetry ' i n t h e f a i n t h o p e t h a t one o f these lectures m a y be t a k e n instead o f " T r a d i t i o n a n d t h e I n d i v i d u a l T a l e n t " b y some a n t h o l o g i s t of t h e f u t u r e . ' So w e h a v e Eliot's o w n s a n c t i o n f o r i n q u i r i n g , i n t h e s p i r i t of t h e b o o k itself, w h a t is t h e use of w h a t h e offers us; h o w f a r h e helps us to cope w i t h t h e h a r d questions h e raises a b o u t c r i t i c i s m a n d poetry. B u t t o p l a y d o w n t h e book's b i o g r a p h i c a l interest is n o t t o d e n y t h a t t h i s is considerable. Indeed, The Use of Poetry m a y be r e m e m b e r e d n o w c h i e f l y f o r t h a t interest. I t is t o t h i s b o o k w e t u r n t o find w h a t E l i o t has t o say a b o u t h i s i n t e n t i o n s (or l a c k o f t h e m ) i n w r i t i n g Ash-Wednesday (p. 30), t h e h i s t o r y o f the d e v e l o p m e n t o f h i s o w n taste i n p o e t r y (p. 33), E v e l y n Waugh's father's a t t a c k o n h i m a n d Ezra P o u n d as ' d r u n k e n h e l o t s ' (p. 71), h i s p a r t i a l i t y f o r t h e Scots (p. 72), h i s o w n experi­ ence i n c o m p o s i n g p o e t r y (p. 144), his struggle, u p t o 1932, w i t h the problems of w r i t i n g poetic drama, a n d w h a t h e a i m e d at i n the d r a m a t i c f r a g m e n t s h e e n t i t l e d Sweeney Agonistes (p. 153). M e m o r a b l e , too, are t h e v i v i d glimpses w e are g i v e n o f t h e E l i o t of t h e personal p o e t r y . W r i t e r s o n E l i o t o f t e n q u o t e t h e passage, doubtless a u t o b i o g r a p h i c a l , a b o u t a c h i l d finding a sea-anemone

A Poet's N o t e b o o k

141

f o r t h e first t i m e (p. 78), p l a c i n g i t beside t h e lines o n t h e ' o l d crab' i n t h e e a r l y 'Rhapsody o n a W i n d y N i g h t ' . A n o t h e r passage is o f t e n related t o 'Journey o f t h e Magi'; i t reveals also a n a f f i n i t y b e t w e e n Eliot's s e n s i b i l i t y a n d V i r g i n i a Woolf's. W h y , f o r a l l o f us, o u t o f a l l t h a t w e h a v e heard, seen, f e l t , i n a l i f e t i m e , do c e r t a i n images recur, charged w i t h e m o t i o n , r a t h e r t h a n others? T h e song o f one b i r d , t h e leap o f one fish, at a p a r t i c u l a r place a n d t i m e , t h e scent o f one flower, a n o l d w o m a n o n a G e r m a n m o u n t a i n p a t h , s i x r u f f i a n s seen t h r o u g h a n o p e n w i n d o w p l a y i n g cards a t n i g h t a t a s m a l l F r e n c h r a i l w a y j u n c t i o n w h e r e t h e r e was a w a t e r - m i l l : such memories m a y h a v e s y m b o l i c value, b u t of w h a t w e c a n n o t t e l l , f o r t h e y come t o represent t h e depths of f e e l i n g i n t o w h i c h w e c a n n o t peer. W e m i g h t j u s t as w e l l ask w h y , w h e n w e t r y t o recall v i s u a l l y some p e r i o d i n t h e past, w e find i n o u r m e m o r y j u s t t h e few, meagre, a r b i t r a r i l y chosen set of snapshots t h a t w e do find there, t h e faded p o o r souvenirs o f passionate moments.

( . 148) P

H e r e t h e lecturer's dais a n d t h e prose f r a m e w o r k seem t o v a n i s h , and w e are alone w i t h t h e poet. T h e r e is a n o t h e r w a y also i n w h i c h t h e lectures s o u n d personal — a r a t h e r d i s c o n c e r t i n g w a y . T o w a r d s t h e end, w h e n E l i o t c u m b r o u s l y descends f r o m t h e l e c t u r i n g t o n e a n d endeavours t o meet his f e l l o w - m e n o n equal terms, t h e r e are sudden lapses f r o m t h a t p r i m prose. A s t h i n g s are, a n d as f u n d a m e n t a l l y t h e y m u s t a l w a y s be, p o e t r y is n o t a career, b u t a mug's game. N o honest poet c a n ever feel q u i t e sure o f t h e p e r m a n e n t v a l u e o f w h a t h e has w r i t t e n : h e m a y have w a s t e d h i s t i m e a n d messed u p his life f o r n o t h i n g (p. 154: i t a l i c s m i n e ) . Eliot's f r i e n d F r a n k M o r l e y has p l a u s i b l y suggested t h a t i n TJte Use o f Poetry t h e figure o f Coleridge is a persona o r s y m b o l o f E l i o t h i m s e l f . T h i s is t h e Coleridge w h o m h e sees as a h a u n t e d a n d a r u i n e d man, d o o m e d t o l i v e w i t h t h e k n o w l e d g e t h a t h e c o u l d never a g a i n reach t h e level h e h a d once reached i n a f e w great poems. H e r e E l i o t was i n fact, as h e came later t o realize, u n j u s t t o Coleridge; he d i d n o t e v i d e n t l y k n o w at t h a t t i m e h o w

142

A Poet's

Notebook

m u c h t h e earlier poet m a n a g e d t o achieve i n t h e l o n g years after his annus mirabilis. B u t t h e r e is n o d o u b t t h a t E l i o t himself, a t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e n i n e t e e n - t h i r t i e s , h a d grave d o u b t s w h e t h e r he w o u l d be able t o w r i t e a n y m o r e p o e t r y . H e t h o u g h t o f h i m s e l f n o t as a 'poet' b u t as a m a n w h o occasionally w r o t e poems. I t is n a t u r a l t h a t h i s t h o u g h t s s h o u l d t u r n t o t h i s classic e x a m p l e of t h e poet f r o m w h o m t h e M u s e has w i t h d r a w n ; how­ ever u n a w a r e h e m a y h a v e been o f Coleridge's second career, n o t o n l y as a c o m p u l s i v e t a l k e r , b u t as a w r i t e r o n c r i t i c i s m , meta­ physics, p s y c h o l o g y , p o l i t i c a l economy, a n d r e l i g i o u s t h o u g h t . A n d so h e chose t o e n d t h e lectures w i t h t h e sad ghost o f Coleridge b e c k o n i n g f r o m t h e shadows. ( W e m a y also remember, as E l i o t h i m s e l f perhaps d i d , t h e t r a g e d y o f Coleridge's b r o k e n marriage.) A l l t h i s is s y m p a t h e t i c . Y e t t h e final reference t o Coleridge seems tasteless. C e r t a i n l y E l i o t h a d t h e r i g h t t o suggest a p a r a l l e l b e t w e e n h i m s e l f a n d Coleridge. H e was at least as g r e a t a poet a n d c r i t i c . B u t h e s h o u l d have l e f t i t f o r others t o do so. F i n a l l y , t h e occasion o f t h e lectures s h o u l d be remembered. E l i o t h a d been b r o u g h t back t o t h e U n i t e d States, after seventeen years' absence, t o deliver t h e m . Before h i m w a s t o s t r e t c h t h e 'low dishonest decade' o f t h e nineteen-thirties. T i m e has n o t lessened t h e force of those w o r d s w h i c h E l i o t quotes f r o m a l e t t e r of 1869 i n Charles E l i o t Norton's Life and Letters ( N o r t o n is s p e a k i n g of t h e years after t h e A m e r i c a n C i v i l W a r ) : ... I w o n d e r . . . w h e t h e r w e are n o t t o have a n o t h e r p e r i o d of decline, f a l l , a n d r u i n a n d r e v i v a l , l i k e t h a t o f t h e first t h i r t e e n h u n d r e d years of o u r era. I t w o u l d n o t g r i e v e m e m u c h t o k n o w t h a t t h i s w e r e t o be t h e case. N o m a n w h o k n o w s w h a t society a t t h e present day r e a l l y is b u t m u s t agree t h a t i t is n o t w o r t h p r e s e r v i n g o n i t s present basis, (p. 15) A m i n a t o r y t o n e comes i n t o t h e lectures w h e n e v e r p o l i t i c a l a n d social problems l o o m i n t o v i e w . For The Use of Poetry m a r k s t h e b e g i n n i n g of Eliot's m a j o r concern w i t h p u b l i c questions i n t h e age o f H i t l e r , F r a n k l i n Roosevelt, a n d S t a l i n . Eliot's social a n d p o l i t i c a l v i e w s are to-day u n p o p u l a r . H e is seen as t h e m i l i ­ t a n t issuer o f r e a c t i o n a r y 'calls t o order'. I t m i g h t be f a i r e r t o r e m e m b e r h i m as a d e t a c h e d — t h o u g h f a r f r o m d i s p a s s i o n a t e — observer o f t h e p o s t - C h r i s t i a n w o r l d . A s a C h r i s t i a n t h e o r i s t h e

A Poet's N o t e b o o k

143

had, o f course, h i s confession, h i s 'commitment'. B u t h e w a s enabled b y his p h i l o s o p h y , as some o f today's ideologues m a y n o t be b y t h e i r s , t o a l l o w f o r the c o n t i n g e n t , c o n t r a d i c t o r y , u n ­ predictable w a y t h i n g s h a p p e n , a n d v a l u e is d i s t r i b u t e d , i n a r t and l i t e r a t u r e a n d l i f e generally. Eliot's p h i l o s o p h i c a l responsi­ b i l i t y overlapped w i t h his d u t y as a poet: t o m a i n t a i n t h e contact b e t w e e n l a n g u a g e a n d r e a l i t y w h i c h so m a n y forces i n t h e m o d e r n w o r l d collaborate t o destroy. I t seems t h a t h e f e l t m o r e i n c o m m o n w i t h people w h o manage to believe anything—such as sincere C o m m u n i s t s — t h a n w i t h half-believers, lost i n a m i s t of words. A r e m a r k about W o r d s w o r t h i n T h e Use o f Poetry m a y be applied t o E l i o t himself. . .. w h e n a m a n takes p o l i t i c s a n d social affairs seriously t h e difference b e t w e e n r e v o l u t i o n a n d r e a c t i o n m a y be b y t h e b r e a d t h o f a h a i r .. . W o r d s w o r t h m a y possibly h a v e been n o renegade b u t a m a n w h o t h o u g h t , so f a r as h e t h o u g h t at a l l , for himself, (p. 73) Some o f t h a t t o n e i n Eliot's w r i t i n g w h i c h readers t o d a y find disagreeable m a y be d u e t o his f e e l i n g o f f r u s t r a t i o n a t h a v i n g to contend, n o t w i t h the o p p o s i t i o n o f t h e i n t e l l e c t u a l commu­ n i t y , b u t w i t h i t s indifference. I t is t h i s i n d i f f e r e n t i s m t h a t , w i t h d a m a g i n g consequences f o r his l a t e r r e p u t a t i o n , h e calls Liberal­ ism. A c e r b i t y a n d increasing despair accompanied h i s efforts t o e x p l a i n t o Liberals t h a t C h r i s t i a n i t y is n o t a s e n t i m e n t b u t a h y p o t h e s i s a b o u t t h e w o r l d . O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , E l i o t d i d n o t feel h a p p y a m o n g t h e zealots. F o r t h e m t o o h e speaks w o r d s t o ponder, i n the a p p e n d i x to T h e Idea of a Christian Society (1939). So f a r as a m a n sees t h e need f o r c o n v e r t i n g himself as w e l l as the W o r l d , h e is a p p r o x i m a t i n g to the r e l i g i o u s p o i n t of v i e w . B u t f o r m o s t people, t o be able t o s i m p l i f y issues so as t o see o n l y t h e d e f i n i t e e x t e r n a l enemy, is e x t r e m e l y e x h i l a r a t i n g , and b r i n g s a b o u t t h e b r i g h t eye a n d t h e s p r i n g y step t h a t go so w e l l w i t h t h e p o l i t i c a l u n i f o r m . T h i s is a n e x h i l a r a t i o n t h a t the C h r i s t i a n m u s t d e n y himself, (pp. 95-6) W. B. Yeats, w r i t i n g t o L a d y G e r a l d W e l l e s l e y (6 July 1935), s t r u c k a s i m i l a r note; b u t his a l t e r n a t i v e to z e a l o t r y was d i f f e r e n t .

144

A Poet's N o t e b o o k

W h e n t h e r e is despair, p u b l i c or p r i v a t e , w h e n settled order seems lost, people l o o k f o r s t r e n g t h w i t h i n a n d w i t h o u t . A u d e n a n d Spender, a l l t h a t seem t h e n e w m o v e m e n t , l o o k f o r s t r e n g t h i n M a r x i a n socialism, or i n M a j o r D o u g l a s ; t h e y w a n t m a r c h i n g feet. T h e l a s t i n g expression of o u r t i m e is n o t i n t h i s obvious choice b u t i n a sense of s o m e t h i n g steel-like a n d cold w i t h i n t h e w i l l , s o m e t h i n g passionate a n d cold. Eliot's h u m i l i t y m a y be m o r e a t t r a c t i v e . T h i s sombre c o n t e m p o r a r y b a c k g r o u n d is a l w a y s present i n The Use of Poetry. B u t f o r t h e m o s t p a r t t h e b o o k i s concerned o n l y w i t h l i t e r a r y c r i t i c i s m . A s such, i t has sometimes been j u d g e d i n f e r i o r t o Eliot's earlier essays. T h i s j u d g e m e n t m a y be r i g h t : b u t some of t h e t h i n g s t h a t have been said t o s u p p o r t i t seem u n f a i r . T h u s m o r e t h a n one w r i t e r t h i n k s E l i o t m i s t a k e n i n a d o p t i n g a c h r o n o l o g i c a l approach, w h i c h d i d n o t s u i t h i m . B u t E l i o t h a d good reason t o seek f o r a place i n t h a t l i n e o f poetcritics w h o a d o r n E n g l i s h l i t e r a t u r e : Sidney, Ben Jonson, D r y den, A d d i s o n , Johnson, W o r d s w o r t h , Coleridge, Shelley, Keats ( o f t h e letters), and A r n o l d . A l l these poets are discussed i n T h e Use of Poetry, a n d t o discuss t h e m i n t h e i r h i s t o r i c a l succession seems r i g h t a n d n a t u r a l . F u r t h e r m o r e , over a n d above h i s personal a u t h o r i t y as a d i s t i n g u i s h e d poet, E l i o t was q u a l i f i e d as a n e x p e r t i n a t least some o f t h e l i t e r a r y periods t h a t h i s u n d e r t a k i n g r e q u i r e d h i m t o traverse. H i s connoisseurship o f t h e d r a m a o f Shakespeare's t i m e is w e l l k n o w n f r o m Elizabethan Essays, a n d i t is p u t t o g o o d use i n t h e second lecture. H i s e x a m i n a t i o n o f Dryden's c r i t i c a l t e r m i n o l o g y shows keen h i s t o r i c a l awareness, a n d does s o m e t h i n g t o atone f o r h i s i r r i t a b l e c a v i l l i n g , i n t h e s i x t h lecture, at some o f A r n o l d ' s phrases. S i m i l a r l y h e m a y be f o r g i v e n f o r his inadequate a n d p e t u l a n t remarks o n A d d i s o n because of h i s a d m i r a b l e c o m m e n t s a f t e r w a r d s o n Johnson. ( I t is i n t e r e s t i n g t o see h o w i n h i s l a t e r lectures o n 'Johnson as C r i t i c a n d Poet' (1944) some of t h e ideas h e t r i e d o u t i n T h e Use o f Poetry are developed i n a m o r e m a t u r e style.) H e r e a n d there, i t is t r u e , t h e s c h o l a r s h i p of T h e U s e of Poetry is f a u l t y , and E l i o t d i d n o t h i n g t o correct i t i n t h e second e d i t i o n . W e s t i l l read there, f o r example, t h a t Coleridge d i d n o t 'acclaim' D o n n e (p. 72), t h o u g h b y 1963 E l i o t k n e w t h a t Coleridge d i d indeed acclaim

A Poet's N o t e b o o k

145

D o n n e , a n d repeatedly. T h e h a s t y c o m p o s i t i o n o f t h e lectures is n o d o u b t responsible f o r such blemishes. ( I n t h e preface t o t h e second e d i t i o n E l i o t says t h a t t h e y w e r e w r i t t e n d u r i n g t h e course.) T h e y do n o t i n v a l i d a t e T h e Use of P o e t r y as a c o n t r i b u ­ t i o n t o l i t e r a r y h i s t o r y a t least as v a l u a b l e as a n y t h i n g b y t h e academic w r i t e r s E l i o t m e n t i o n s w i t h respect, such as K e r a n d Saintsbury. B u t t h e m a i n c o n c e r n o f t h e b o o k is n o t w i t h l i t e r a r y h i s t o r y b u t w i t h m a t t e r s o f c r i t i c a l p r i n c i p l e , a n d i t is i n t o these t h a t w e s h o u l d n o w look. E a r l y on, i n t h e first lecture, E l i o t makes a n often quoted pronouncement. T h e r u d i m e n t o f c r i t i c i s m is t h e a b i l i t y t o select a good p o e m a n d reject a b a d poem; a n d i t s m o s t severe test is of i t s a b i l i t y to select a good n e w poem, t o respond p r o p e r l y t o a n e w situa­ t i o n , (p. 18) T h i s p r o n o u n c e m e n t , l i k e o t h e r d i c t a of Eliot's, c a n be paralleled i n Sainte-Beuve, w h o remarks, i n h i s b o o k o n C h a t e a u b r i a n d a n d his l i t e r a r y g r o u p , t h a t t h e sagacity o f t h e j u d g e a n d t h e per­ spicacity o f t h e c r i t i c are tested b y w o r k s n o t y e t t r i e d b y t h e p u b l i c . 'To j u d g e at first s i g h t — t h a t is t h e c r i t i c a l g i f t ; h o w f e w possess i t ! ' Combicn pcu Ie posstdent, says Sainte-Beuve, a n d o u r first r e a c t i o n is t o w o n d e r w h e t h e r Sainte-Beuve possessed i t h i m ­ self. Proust t h o u g h t t h a t Sainte-Beuve f a i l e d t o appreciate all t h e great w r i t e r s of his t i m e , a n d contrasts h i m w i t h A n a t o l e France, w h o l a i d n o c l a i m t o t h e magisterium o f t h e judge, a n d offered solely h i s p e r s o n a l impressions; a n d y e t i n spite ( o r because) o f this, was f a r m o r e generous a n d p e r c e p t i v e a b o u t h i s r i v a l s t h a n Sainte-Beuve ever was. C o u l d one m a k e a s i m i l a r ad hominem r e t o r t t o Eliot? I n t o t h e field o f c o n t e m p o r a r y l i t e r a t u r e E l i o t r a r e l y v e n t u r e d ; a n d w h e n h e d i d , h e seems n o t t o h a v e come o u t w i t h a n y v a l u a b l e recommendations. A t a n y rate, I have never m e t a n y o n e w h o c o n c u r r e d i n h i s grave praise f o r t h e poems o f H a r r y Crosby. I t w o u l d seem t h a t f e w o f those w h o have been r e c o g n i z e d b y p o s t e r i t y as i m p o r t a n t c r i t i c s — a n d n o academic critics w h a t s o e v e r — h a v e been good talent-spotters. W e m i g h t conclude, o n p r a c t i c a l grounds, t h a t t h e test E l i o t proposes is t o o severe. A m o r e reasonable d e m a n d o f critics de carrierc w o u l d be t h a t t h e y w r i t e i n f o r m a t i v e l y a b o u t w o r k s

146

A Poet's N o t e b o o k

o t h e r readers h a v e discovered f o r t h e m . ( E v e n i n t h i s , some fail.) A m o r e t h e o r e t i c a l k i n d o f o b j e c t i o n m i g h t be made t o Eliot's seeming a s s u m p t i o n t h a t t h e goodness o f a p o e m is a n essence or q u a l i t y , w h i c h i t either has o r has n o t . T h i s w a y of l o o k i n g a t p o e t r y is o n l y plausible i f w e c o n f i n e o u r a t t e n t i o n t o poems w h i c h are u n i v e r s a l l y r e c o g n i z e d as good, a n d t o poems w h i c h are by-words f o r f a i l u r e . B u t these t w o categories exclude t h e b u l k o f poems t h a t h a v e been w r i t t e n . Tastes n o t o r i o u s l y v a r y , a n d m o s t o f us w o u l d agree t h a t t h e r e is a vast r a n g e o f p o e t r y i n w h i c h v a r i a t i o n s of j u d g e m e n t are p e r f e c t l y l e g i t i m a t e . I n a n y case, is goodness ( o r badness) a n essence o r q u a l i t y a t all? O n e m i g h t take t h e v i e w t h a t t o call a p o e m good o r b a d is t o do n o m o r e t h a n g i v e o r refuse endorsement t o t h e j u d g e m e n t t h a t i t possesses or lacks c e r t a i n p r o p e r t i e s w h i c h h a p p e n t o be h e l d i n esteem b y t h e i n d i v i d u a l c r i t i c , o r b y readers i n a p a r t i c u l a r l i t e r a r y period. A n d t h e course of l i t e r a r y h i s t o r y makes i t clear t h a t such properties v a r y greatly f r o m t i m e t o time, a n d f r o m reader t o reader. T h e test o f a critic's a b i l i t y m i g h t t h e n be w h e t h e r he c a n recognize t h e p r o p e r t i e s t h a t a g i v e n p o e m possesses; n o t w h e t h e r h e arrives a t a j u d g e m e n t o f m e r i t o r d e m e r i t w h i c h m a n y o f h i s contemporaries assume t o be auto­ m a t i c a l l y s u p e r v e n i e n t o r consequential u p o n t h e m . T h e test o f h i s q u a l i t y is h i s descriptions, n o t h i s evaluations. T h e t r o u b l e w i t h t h i s , as w i t h a l l o t h e r efforts t o find objective l i t e r a r y c r i t e r i a , is t h a t t h e properties of poems, as o f o t h e r w o r k s o f art, seem a c t u a l l y t o u n d e r g o change. T h e y appear t o possess c e r t a i n properties a t one t i m e a n d n o t a t another. Some i m p r o v e w i t h t h e years, some deteriorate, some v a n i s h . T h e p o e t r y o f E d w a r d Y o u n g , a n d perhaps t h e p o e t r y o f Boileau, g l o w e d b r i l l i a n t l y f o r a b o u t a h u n d r e d years; t h e n t h e l i g h t w e n t o u t . Perhaps t h e p a i n f u l search b y academic c r i t i c s f o r stable a n d e n d u r i n g m a t e r i a l — ' l i t e r a r y a r t e f a c t s ' — o n w h i c h t o base t h e i r judge­ m e n t s is as d e l u s o r y as t h e s i m i l a r belief, c o m m o n a m o n g p h i l o ­ sophers, i n t h e supra-historical persistence o f 'concepts'. A l l t h e same, Eliot's d i c t u m — t h a t n e w poems are t h e t e s t — r e t a i n s some value. B u t i t s h o u l d be regarded as a counsel o f p e r f e c t i o n , o r w o r d o f c a u t i o n , t o those w h o a t t e m p t c r i t i c i s m , a reminder of the l o n g history of their failure to anticipate the v e r d i c t o f p o s t e r i t y . T h e n e x t c r i t i c a l p r i n c i p l e h e proceeds t o

A Poet's Notebook

147

l a y d o w n is a r e v i v a l , i n m o d i f i e d f o r m , o f t h e o l d d o c t r i n e of t h e d r a m a t i c U n i t i e s . C l e a r l y there is s o m e t h i n g i n t h i s d o c t r i n e . A n audience g r o w s restless, w i t h o u t necessarily k n o w i n g w h y , w h e n t h e parts of a p l a y do n o t p u l l together. A m o d e r n discus­ sion w o u l d have t o take i n t o account t h e expectations of t h e a t r i c a l audiences i n p a r t i c u l a r h i s t o r i c a l circumstances ('conventions'). T h e possible i n f l u e n c e of films w o u l d also h a v e t o be considered. I n i t s Renaissance f o r m t h e d o c t r i n e of t h e U n i t i e s is perhaps n o t v e r y i n t e r e s t i n g . I t is h i s t o r i c a l l y i m p o r t a n t as regards t h e F r e n c h stage; b u t o n its i n v a l i d i t y as a n account o f t h e p r a c t i c e of a n c i e n t Greek d r a m a A . W. V e r r a l l p r o n o u n c e d i n c i s i v e l y . I t is, h e says, 'a mere piece o f c o n f u s i o n , a r i s i n g f r o m a false a t t e m p t to j u s t i f y practices w h i c h , so far as they existed [ V e r r a l l ' s i t a l i c s ] h a d a t o t a l l y d i f f e r e n t o r i g i n ' (Lectures on Dryden 1914). One's first r e a c t i o n , i n r e a d i n g of t h e wrangles of t h e s i x t e e n t h and seventeenth centuries o n t h i s topic, m i g h t w e l l be one o f w o n d e r . H o w c o u l d i n t e l l i g e n t m e n h a v e f o r so l o n g been spell­ b o u n d b y so a r b i t r a r y a prescription? ( A f t e r t h a t , i t is sobering to speculate o n w h a t f u t u r e l i t e r a r y h i s t o r i a n s w i l l see as a com­ parable d o g m a t i s m of o u r o w n time.) B u t t h e exposure o f t h e fallacies i n v o l v e d can be i n t e r e s t i n g . W e can read w i t h pleasure a classic piece of c o m m o n sense o n t h i s subject, t h e r e m a r k s of Johnson i n h i s Preface to Shakespeare (1765). A n d f o r a m o r e subtle discussion w e m a y go t o Johnson's c o n t e m p o r a r y Lessing, w h o i n h i s Laokoon (1766) d r a w s t h e d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n 'delu­ s i o n ' a n d ' i l l u s i o n ' t h a t is indispensable f o r a p r o p e r t r e a t m e n t of t h e p r o b l e m . T h e n , as a p a r a d o x i c a l defence of t h e d o c t r i n e o f t h e U n i t i e s , w e m i g h t consider t h e p e c u l i a r pleasure w e feel w h e n t h e y are v i o l a t e d t o g o o d purpose. T h i s m a y be p a r t o f t h e pleasure w e take i n t h e t r e a t m e n t o f Place i n Barrie's The Admirable Crichton o r o f T i m e i n B e n n e t t a n d Knoblock's Milestones. Is i t p a r t o f t h e pleasure w e t a k e i n The Winter's Tale? W h e n I last s a w t h a t p l a y t h e d r a m a t i z i n g o f t h e change of generations, b e t w e e n t h e b e g i n n i n g a n d t h e end, h a d a m o s t m o v i n g effect. F. R. Leavis has a fine suggestion i n a n essay i n The Common Pursuit (1952), w h e n he p u t s f o r w a r d as a possible s u p e r i o r i t y o f The Winter's Tale over The Tempest—a play that has o f t e n been praised o n a c c o u n t o f Shakespeare's i n g e n i o u s e l i m i n a t i o n of t h e t i m e - g a p — t h e 'depth a n d richness of s i g n i f i f

f

148

A Poet's N o t e b o o k

cance g i v e n , i n T h e Winter s Tale, b y t h e concrete presence of t i m e i n i t s r h y t h m i c processes, a n d b y t h e association o f h u m a n g r o w t h , decay a n d r e b i r t h w i t h t h e v i t a l r h y t h m s o f n a t u r e at large'. N o c r i t i c was better q u a l i f i e d t h a n E l i o t t o add s o m e t h i n g of real v a l u e to t h i s d u r a b l e debate. H i s o w n increasing struggle w i t h t h e problems of p l a y w r i t i n g s h o u l d h a v e been e n o u g h t o ensure t h a t . B u t w h a t h e says is b r i e f a n d d i s a p p o i n t i n g . H e endorses Sir P h i l i p Sidney's strictures o n t h e d r a m a of his day, w i t h o u t arousing o u r interest i n t h e conventional pedantry w h i c h is a l l Sidney has t o offer o n the t o p i c of t h e U n i t i e s . N o r is t h e a t t i t u d e E l i o t strikes as a defender of neo-classicism, i n v o k i n g t h e n a m e of A r i s t o t l e , s t r e n g t h e n e d b y his a p p e a r i n g to realize o n l y belatedly (p. 47, f o o t n o t e ) t h a t 'the U n i t i e s ' can c l a i m n o s u p p o r t f r o m t h e Poetics. A r i s t o t l e says n o t h i n g about t h e U n i t y of Place, a n d his reference t o t h e U n i t y of T i m e is casual; h e m e r e l y r e m a r k s t h a t t h e u s u a l practice of t r a g e d y w a s to confine itself, as f a r as possible, t o t h e a c t i o n of t w e n t y - f o u r hours. T h e r e is n o t h i n g p r e s c r i p t i v e a b o u t i t . N o r is Eliot's case i m p r o v e d b y his c i t i n g , as a case of t r i u m p h a n t f a i t h f u l n e s s to t h e U n i t i e s , of Joyce's Ulysses. ( N o d o u b t h e d i d so w i t h a t w i n k l e , since Joyce was n o t y e t a respectable a u t h o r i n the H a r v a r d of 1932.) I t is t r u e t h a t the a c t i o n of U l y s s e s — a n d of M r s Dalloway—like that of Oedipus Rex, takes place i n one day. B u t t h e reason is d i f f e r e n t i n each of these w o r k s . I n a n y case, n o one has ever t h o u g h t the U n i t i e s had t o do w i t h a n y t h i n g b u t plays. The c o n c l u s i o n E l i o t soon comes t o is t h a t t h e U n i t i e s of T i m e and Place are m e r e l y special cases o f w h a t h e calls U n i t y o f A c t i o n . A n d t h i s i n i t s t u r n proves t o be a special case of U n i t y of S e n t i m e n t , i g n o r e d to t h e i r d e t r i m e n t , E l i o t t h i n k s , b y some E l i z a b e t h a n plays, f o r e x a m p l e T h e Changeling. (Eliot was w r i t i n g before t h e appearance of W i l l i a m Empson's i n g e n i o u s defence o f t h e d o u b l e p l o t o f t h a t p l a y i n Some Versions of Pastoral, 1935.) T h e U n i t y of S e n t i m e n t is, t h e n , to use Eliot's o w n terms, a law, n o t a r u l e . A n d i t is t h i s l a w t h a t t h e defenders of t h e t r a d i t i o n a l U n i t i e s w e r e r e a l l y — a n d l e g i t i m a t e l y — u p ­ h o l d i n g . T h i s m a y be so. B u t the t r o u b l e w i t h the u p d a t e d d o c t r i n e E l i o t offers us is t h a t i t has n o teeth. T h e t r a d i t i o n a l U n i t i e s m a y be a r b i t r a r y , b u t at least w e are i n a p o s i t i o n t o

A Poet's Notebook

149

decide w h e t h e r a p a r t i c u l a r p l a y observes t h e m or not. M r C u r d l e i n Nicholas Nickleby c o u l d h a v e f o u n d p l e n t y o f plays w h i c h a n s w e r t o his d e m a n d f o r 'a k i n d o f u n i v e r s a l dovetailedness w i t h r e g a r d to place and time'. Perhaps t h e same c o u l d be said of t h e U n i t y of A c t i o n , t h o u g h w h e n E l i o t m e n t i o n s Shakespeare's Henry I V plays as a n e x a m p l e i t is n o t clear w h a t h e is t h i n k i n g of: i f H e n r y I V , Part I I e x h i b i t s U n i t y of A c t i o n i t is h a r d t o i m a g i n e a n y p l a y t h a t c o u l d be f a i r l y said to lack i t . B u t t h e final o v e r r i d i n g p r e s c r i p t i o n o f U n i t y o f S e n t i m e n t is v e r y vague. Does The Dynasts s h o w i t ? does Cavalcade? Does i t a m o u n t t o m o r e t h a n a s k i n g t h a t a p l a y s h o u l d have u n i t y of some k i n d ? to r e q u i r i n g , w i t h M r C u r d l e , 'a sort of general oneness, i f I m a y be a l l o w e d to use so s t r o n g a n expression'? I t has a l w a y s been the t r o u b l e w i t h neo-classicism t h a t the m o r e reasonable i t s pro­ positions, t h e m o r e t h e y slide t o w a r d s a n a l y t i c i t y . B u t Eliot's stance as t h e s t e r n neo-classicist seems to disappear i n the course o f the a r g u m e n t . W a s i t a n y t h i n g m o r e t h a n a pose? Perhaps h e f e l t t h a t his appearance i n t h i s r o l e was some­ t h i n g h e o w e d t o his o l d teacher I r v i n g B a b b i t t , o r t o t h e t w e n t i e t h - c e n t u r y F r e n c h neo-classicists h e so admired. I f so, h e compares u n f a v o u r a b l y , w h e n h e adopts i t , w i t h some o f t h e F r e n c h critics. H e does n o t s h o w t h e w i l l i n g n e s s of J u l i e n Benda, f o r example, to see m e r i t s i n his opponents' p o s i t i o n . T h e neoclassicism f o r w h i c h E l i o t became f a m o u s i n t h e nineteent w e n t i e s seems t o b r i n g o u t t h e least a l l u r i n g q u a l i t y o f h i s w r i t i n g : t h a t f r o s t y , s e l f - i m p o r t a n t t o n e w h i c h mars The Use of Poetry. T h e m a j o r i t y o f critics c a n be expected o n l y t o p a r r o t t h e o p i n i o n s of t h e last master of c r i t i c i s m . . . (p. 109). What I call t h e ' a u d i t o r y i m a g i n a t i o n ' . . . (p. 118) (italics m i n e ) T h i s t o n e is insufferable. E l i o t says of M a t t h e w A r n o l d t h a t 'he is m o s t at ease i n a master's gown', b u t t h i s does n o t seem to be t r u e o f E l i o t himself. A t ease is w h a t h e never sounds. These lectures l a c k t h e q u a l i t y t h a t c h a r m s us i n A d d i s o n ( t o w h o m h e is so harsh). I a m t h i n k i n g of t h i n g s l i k e Addison's discussion of t r u e and false w i t i n t h e Spectator f o r 7 M a y 1711:

150

A Poet's Notebook

I i n t e n d to l a y aside a w h o l e w e e k f o r t h i s u n d e r t a k i n g , t h a t t h e scheme of m y t h o u g h t s m a y n o t be b r o k e n a n d i n t e r r u p t e d ; a n d I dare p r o m i s e myself, i f readers w i l l g i v e m e a week's a t t e n t i o n , t h a t t h i s great c i t y w i l l be v e r y m u c h c h a n g e d f o r the better by next Saturday n i g h t . I n The Use of Poetry i t seems t h a t E l i o t c a n n o t smile. B u t t h e i m p o r t a n t o b j e c t i o n t o Eliot's neo-classicism is n o t t h a t i t is c h i l l y , b u t t h a t i t is half-hearted. I t is i n t e r e s t i n g t o l e a r n f r o m Q u e n t i n Bell's Virginia Woolf (1972) t h a t i n Septem­ ber 1933 E l i o t t o l d M r s W o o l f he w a s n o l o n g e r sure t h e r e c o u l d be a 'science of c r i t i c i s m ' . T h i s is i r o n i c , c o m i n g f r o m T. S. Eliot, t h e last of t h e great l i t e r a r y p u n d i t s , t h e i d o l o f t h e academies, m o r e responsible t h a n a n y o t h e r single i n d i v i d u a l f o r t h i s v e r y i n f l u e n t i a l c o n c e p t i o n o f c r i t i c i s m . H i s loss o f f a i t h i n i t m a y a c c o u n t f o r a bored, p e r f u n c t o r y e l e m e n t w e sense i n The Use of Poetry. I t m a y also be t h e reason w h y those enquetes i n t o Shaw, W e l l s , K i p l i n g , a n d o t h e r m o d e r n 'heretics', n o w a n d t h e n p r o m i s e d i n t h e Criterion, never appeared. Perhaps E l i o t h a d come to recognize t h a t his o w n interest as a c r i t i c was i n w h a t he liked i n a n o t h e r writer's w o r k . H e w a s also c o m i n g to have fore­ bodings a b o u t his o w n i n f l u e n c e o n c r i t i c i s m . These are suggested here b y his deprecatory reference to a ' c r i t i c i s m w h i c h seems t o d e m a n d of p o e t r y , n o t t h a t i t s h a l l be w e l l w r i t t e n , b u t t h a t i t shall be " r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of its t i m e " '. W h i l e agreeing w i t h this, w e m i g h t agree also w i t h Y v o r W i n t e r s , a m o r e f u l l - b l o o d e d l i t e r a r y conservative t h a n E l i o t , w h e n h e t a r t l y r e t o r t s t h a t i t w a s E l i o t a n d P o u n d a n d t h e i r disciples w h o h a d a l w a y s been d e m a n d i n g t h a t p o e t r y s h o u l d be 'representative of its time'. N o w h e r e is t h e r e l a t i o n i n E l i o t b e t w e e n t h e i n n o v a t i n g poet a n d t h e l i t e r a r y t r a d i t i o n a l i s t m o r e uneasy t h a n i n The Use of Poetry. B u t as t h e lectures proceed t h e self-conscious neo-classicism becomes m e r e l y a n o t i o n a l basis f o r t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f ideas w h i c h b e l o n g t o Eliot's m a t u r e t h i n k i n g . T h i s r e m a r k a b o u t ' c o m m u n i c a t i o n ' , f o r instance, is a b e t t e r p h r a s i n g o f h i s t h o u g h t o n t h i s t o p i c t h a n a n y he h a d f o u n d before. I f p o e t r y is a f o r m of ' c o m m u n i c a t i o n ' , y e t t h a t w h i c h is to be c o m m u n i c a t e d is t h e p o e m itself, a n d o n l y i n c i d e n t a l l y t h e experience a n d t h e t h o u g h t w h i c h have gone i n t o i t . (p. 30)

A Poet's Notebook

151

W e t h i n k here of h i s l a t e r r e m a r k i n 'The F r o n t i e r s of C r i t i c i s m ' (1956), w h e n h e i s d e p r e c a t i n g t h e claims o f H e r b e r t Read a n d F. W. Bateson t o h a v e i l l u m i n a t e d some o f W o r d s w o r t h ' s poems b y reference t o h i s b i o g r a p h y a n d p u r p o r t e d psychology. W h e n t h e p o e m has been made, s o m e t h i n g n e w has happened, s o m e t h i n g t h a t c a n n o t be w h o l l y e x p l a i n e d b y anything that

went before. (Eliot's italics) A n d to strengthen the force of this w a r n i n g to the practitioners of Quellenforschung ( o f a l l k i n d s ) w e c a n s u b j o i n a r e m a r k b y a l a t e r a u t h o r w r i t i n g f r o m a v e r y d i f f e r e n t p o i n t of v i e w — S a r t r e

i n What is Literature? (1947): 'The appearance of t h e w o r k is a n e w event w h i c h c a n n o t be explained b y a n t e r i o r data.' Eliot's discussion o f t h i s subject shows a m a t u r i t y o f t h o u g h t a n d c l a r i t y o f expression l a c k i n g i n passages m o r e o f t e n quoted, such as t h e f a m o u s p r o n o u n c e m e n t o n t h e 'objective c o r r e l a t i v e ' i n t h e essay o n Hamlet, o r t h e l o f t y sentence o n t h e ' a u d i t o r y i m a g i n a t i o n ' i n The Use of Poetry itself. Such passages offer p o r t a b l e phrases f o r o u r notebooks; b u t t h e y b r i n g a n arrest t o t h o u g h t r a t h e r t h a n a n advancement, a n d t h e y are n o t free f r o m t h e suspicion o f a t t i t u d i n i z i n g . T h e q u e s t i o n o f poetic greatness, or, as h e calls i t , o f differ­ ences o f degree a m o n g poets, is o n e t o w h i c h E l i o t recurs i n t h e lectures. H e observes i n t h e a p p e n d i x t o t h e first lecture, w h e r e he is c o n s i d e r i n g t h e place o f t h e s t u d y o f l i t e r a t u r e i n t h e e d u c a t i o n a l process, t h a t i t i s n o t a m a t t e r w h i c h i s easy t o c l a r i f y f o r s c h o o l c h i l d r e n o r undergraduates. I t seems t o have p u z z l e d E l i o t himself, a n d f o r good reasons. H e w a s a n x i o u s t o r e t a i n j u d g e m e n t s o f scale i n t h e c r i t i c i s m o f p o e t r y . Y e t h e w a n t e d t o reject t h e e t h i c a l c r i t e r i a proposed f o r t h e m b y M a t t h e w A r n o l d . H i s s o l u t i o n here, i n so f a r as h e finds one, is t o emphasize t h e historical c o n s t i t u e n t i n j u d g e m e n t s o f great­ ness. I n t h e course o f some sensible c o m m e n t s o n H e r b e r t Read's too eccentric post-Eliot m a p o f t h e h i s t o r y o f E n g l i s h p o e t r y h e remarks that ... t h e great poet is, a m o n g o t h e r t h i n g s , one w h o n o t m e r e l y restores a t r a d i t i o n w h i c h has been i n abeyance, b u t one w h o i n h i s p o e t r y re-twines as m a n y s t r a y i n g strands o f t r a d i ­ t i o n as possible, (p. 8 5 )

152

A Poet's

Notebook

A n d , w h i l e p r a i s i n g Landor, f o r w h o m P o u n d h a d a c u l t , E l i o t draws a useful distinction between h i m and W o r d s w o r t h , w h o was 'an essential p a r t o f h i s t o r y ' , w h i l e L a n d o r w a s ' o n l y a m a g n i f i c e n t by-product'. H e r e E l i o t generalizes: ' i n e s t i m a t i n g f o r ourselves t h e greatness o f a poet w e h a v e t o take i n t o a c c o u n t also t h e history o f h i s greatness.' T h i s g e n e r a l i z a t i o n c o u l d be used as a caveat against W i n t e r s ' s c u l t o f G r e v i l l e , as w e l l as Pound's c u l t o f Landor. T h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f E n g l i s h p o e t r y m i g h t w e l l h a v e been m u c h t h e same i f t h e y h a d n o t l i v e d ; t h e y w e r e n o t influences. B u t t h o u g h Eliot's suggestion seems acceptable so l o n g as w e are t h i n k i n g of a L a n d o r o r a G r e v i l l e , i t seems less persuasive w h e n w e t h i n k o f Blake. Blake is i n such c r i t i c a l f a v o u r t o - d a y — a n d , I believe, o n t h e w h o l e j u s t l y — t h a t t h e r e is some d i s c o m f o r t i n d e n y i n g h i m greatness. Y e t i t c a n n o t be denied t h a t he h a d l i t t l e or n o i n f l u e n c e o n later poets. T h i s is a case i n w h i c h w e see t h e v a l u e o f d i s t i n g u i s h i n g , as E l i o t does, b e t w e e n a poet's place i n l i t e r a t u r e a n d h i s place i n i t s h i s t o r y . I t is t h e relation b e t w e e n these t w o placings w h i c h is m y s t e r i o u s . M a t t e r s w o u l d be s i m p l e r i f w e c o u l d r e g a r d 'greatness' as p u r e l y — o r p r i m a r i l y — a h i s t o r i c a l t e r m . B u t i t is d i f f i c u l t t o use t h e w o r d l i k e t h a t , a n d E l i o t h i m s e l f does n o t so use i t , f o r h e speaks of ' e s t i m a t i n g f o r ourselves ( m y italics) t h e greatness of a poet'. A n d I i m a g i n e t h a t those w h o consider a Blake o r a G r e v i l l e or a L a n d o r great w o u l d r e p l y t h a t h e is a great poet f o r t h e m , w h a t e v e r h i s i n f l u e n c e or l a c k of i t . Eliot's discussion has t h e m e r i t o f c r i s p l y re-stating t h e p r o b l e m r a t h e r t h a n suggesting a plausible s o l u t i o n . T h i s m a y also be said o f a m o r e c o n t r o v e r s i a l p a r t o f t h e lec­ tures, w h i c h deals w i t h a subject m u c h canvassed i n t h e n i n e t e e n - t h i r t i e s , t h e so-called 'problem o f beliefs'. Eliot's dis­ cussion o f i t , t h o u g h t e n t a t i v e , is o f value. B u t t h e issue is clouded b y h i s decision t o m a k e i t t h e occasion f o r d i s p a r a g i n g t h e p o e t r y a n d p e r s o n a l i t y o f Shelley. I n some w a y s Eliot's frankness is commendable. I w i s h a l l l i t e r a r y eminences h a d been e q u a l l y f r a n k a b o u t t h e i r predecessors. A n d h e makes i t p l a i n t h a t h e is r e p o r t i n g h i s personal r e a c t i o n t o Shelley; h e lays n o c l a i m t o j u d i c i a l i m p a r t i a l i t y . B u t t o m a k e these r e m a r k s i n a c o n t e x t of s u c h s o l e m n i t y gave t h e m , f o r m a n y o f his f o l l o w e r s , t h e f o r c e of a p a p a l edict. A n d w e c a n n o t b a n i s h

A Poet's

Notebook

153

t h e s u s p i c i o n — i n v i e w o f h i s repeated s n i p i n g a t Shelley i n p r e v i o u s e s s a y s — t h a t E l i o t uses t h e occasion f o r o n e o f those c a r e f u l l y p l a n n e d a n d executed l i t e r a r y assassinations w h i c h C o n r a d A i k e n recalls f r o m t h e e a r l y days o f t h e Criterion. H o w e v e r t h a t m a y be, Eliot's r e m a r k s w e r e v e r y i n f l u e n t i a l ( T h e y w e r e t o be r e i n f o r c e d a f e w years l a t e r b y Leavis's chapter o n Shelley i n Revaluation.) A s a result, Shelley has become t h e least k n o w n o f t h e m a j o r E n g l i s h poets. Y o u n g e r school a n d u n i v e r s i t y teachers t o o k t h e i r cue f r o m E l i o t a n d Leavis, a n d t h e i r p u p i l s d i d n o t p r o p e r l y get t o k n o w a poet w h o m i g h t h a v e become o n e o f t h e i r greatest friends. T h e oracle h a d spoken: Shelley t h e m a n was 'almost a blackguard', a n d Shelley t h e poet 'almost unreadable'. T o t h i s day Shelley has n o t recovered t h e f a m e h e e n j o y e d i n t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y . A w r i t e r i n Essays in Criticism (October 1975) notes t h a t ' i n B r i t a i n a t least h e is s t i l l o u t of favour'. B u t t h e p r o b l e m E l i o t raises can be discussed w i t h o u t con­ s i d e r i n g t h e justice or o t h e r w i s e o f h i s r e m a r k s o n Shelley (or his references t o Goethe, w h i c h are m u c h m o r e outrageous). T h i s is t h e p r o b l e m o f h o w far, i f at a l l , i t is possible n o t o n l y t o e n j o y , a n d r a t e h i g h l y , b u t even f u l l y t o understand, a poet w h o pro­ pagates o r assumes a p o i n t o f v i e w f r o m w h i c h t h e reader seriously dissents. T h e r e is n o agreed s o l u t i o n t o t h i s p r o b l e m a m o n g l i t e r a r y critics, t h e o r e t i c a l o r p r a c t i c a l , a t t h e present day, and t h e r e v i v a l i n t h e W e s t o f M a r x i s t c r i t i c i s m has made i t a g a i n a l i v e issue. Eliot's c o n t r i b u t i o n is t o d i v i d e poets' 'beliefs' i n t o t h r e e categories. First, t h e r e are beliefs w h i c h t h e reader finds 'acceptable', w h i c h h e m a y a c t u a l l y share w i t h t h e poet. Second, t h e r e are beliefs w h i c h E l i o t describes as 'tenable'. These are beliefs w h i c h t h e reader does n o t share, b u t c a n i m a g i n e h i m s e l f s h a r i n g , w h i c h can be respected as w o r t h y o f credence b y a sane a n d i n t e l l i g e n t person. F i n a l l y , t h e r e are beliefs w h i c h t h e reader can n e i t h e r share n o r i m a g i n e h i m s e l f s h a r i n g ; a n d i t is these w h i c h , E l i o t t h i n k s , a n i m a t e Shelley's m a j o r poems a n d p r e v e n t Eliot's e n j o y m e n t a n d real compre­ hension of them. A n o b j e c t i o n m i g h t be made t o Eliot's p o s i t i o n , t h a t he d r a w s t h e d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n p o e t r y a n d p h i l o s o p h y too s h a r p l y . H e approves o f L u c r e t i u s a n d D a n t e because t h e y d i d n o t p h i l o -

154

A FoeVs

Notebook

sophize o n t h e i r o w n , b u t g o t o n w i t h t h e poet's j o b . B u t even i f w e g r a n t (as some w o u l d n o t ) t h e t h o r o u g h g o i n g Epicurean­ ism of Lucretius and the thoroughgoing T h o m i s m of Dante, w e do n o t h a v e t o a d m i t t h a t t h e y are i n t h i s respect t y p i c a l o f great poets. I t m i g h t r a t h e r be t h o u g h t t h a t t h e i r alleged sub­ o r d i n a t i o n t o a n e x t e r n a l system o f beliefs makes t h e m u n t y p i c a l . T h e r e h a v e been poets w h o t h o u g h t f o r themselves, a n d some o f t h e m h a v e even i n f l u e n c e d philosophers, as i n t h e case o f Goethe. B u t a t t h e t i m e o f The Use of Poetry E l i o t des­ pised Goethe, a n d one o f h i s m a j o r aims i n t h i s b o o k is t o dis­ c r e d i t t h e n o t i o n o f poets as i n d e p e n d e n t t h i n k e r s . W h a t seems t o be t h e r e a l l y c r u c i a l issue E l i o t evades. T h i s is t h e difference b e t w e e n ideas w h i c h c a n safely be relegated t o t h e musee imaginaire, w h i c h m a y r e q u i r e i n t e l l e c t u a l under­ s t a n d i n g b u t are n o l o n g e r a serious challenge, and, o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , ideas w h i c h are s t i l l alive a n d k i c k i n g . I t is s u r e l y these w h i c h c o n s t i t u t e t h e 'problem o f beliefs', f o r those f o r w h o m t h e r e is one. F o r t h i s reason w e m i g h t j u d g e t h a t E l i o t o n l y skirmishes w i t h i t here. B u t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n acceptable, tenable a n d u n t e n a b l e p o i n t s o f v i e w seems good c o m m o n sense. I t s h o u l d , h o w e v e r , be s u p p l e m e n t e d b y t h e p r a c t i c a l conclu­ sion, w h i c h E l i o t h i m s e l f was t o come t o l a t e r ( t h o u g h n o t i n t h e n i n e t e e n - t h i r t i e s ) , t h a t w h e n a c r i t i c finds a writer's p o i n t o f view utterly unsympathetic he should refrain f r o m w r i t i n g about h i m a t a l l . I t is t r u e t h a t sometimes a sincere a t t e m p t t o understand a difficult author m a y result i n unexpected insights. A s E l i o t remarks, w i t h a Yeats-like f l o u r i s h : ... a c r i t i c m a y choose a n a u t h o r t o criticise, a r o l e t o assume, as f a r as possible t h e antithesis t o himself, a p e r s o n a l i t y w h i c h has actualised a l l t h a t has been suppressed i n himself; w e can sometimes a r r i v e at a v e r y satisfactory i n t i m a c y w i t h o u r a n t i masks, (p. 112) ( H e says s o m e t h i n g l i k e t h i s about h i s state o f m i n d i n w r i t i n g his c r i t i q u e o f K i p l i n g , p u b l i s h e d i n 1941.) B u t t h e sense o f a m o r a l o b l i g a t i o n t o be f a i r is n o t u s u a l l y e n o u g h t o sustain t h e i m a g i n a t i v e effort o f e n t e r i n g a p o i n t o f v i e w one finds odious. O n e s h o u l d leave such a u t h o r s alone. Eliot's e n t a n g l e m e n t i n t h e d i f f i c u l t y about 'beliefs' is notice-

A Poet's Notebook

155

able t h r o u g h o u t t h e l a t e r p a r t of The Use of Poetry, w h i c h is concerned c h i e f l y w i t h M a t t h e w A r n o l d a n d h i s m o d e r n suc­ cessors. T h e t r e a t m e n t of A r n o l d has been t h e object o f some adverse c o m m e n t , a n d r i g h t l y . I n some w a y s i t shows E l i o t at h i s w o r s t . H e seems t o w r i t e i n a m o o d of peevish i r r i t a t i o n . H e is u n j u s t t o Arnold's lasting achievement i n propagating a h u m a n e c o n c e p t i o n of c u l t u r e , a n d sometimes descends t o mere gibes, as i n h i s reference t o Arnold's school-inspecting (p. 110). A n d his t o n e i n general is u n p l e a s a n t l y r e m i n i s c e n t of t h e ani­ mosity s h o w n towards A r n o l d b y W a l t e r Raleigh a n d L y t t o n Strachey i n t h e i r essays. T h e i r r i t a t i o n m a y be due i n p a r t t o h i s dislike of A r n o l d ' s h a b i t of p r e s e n t i n g a L o w C h u r c h p o i n t of v i e w i n a H i g h C h u r c h manner. B u t h i s deeper o b j e c t i o n is e v i d e n t l y n o t t o A r n o l d ' s style, b u t t o s o m e t h i n g else, s o m e t h i n g t h a t E l i o t seems t o h a v e f e l t as a challenge t o h i s o w n existence as a poet, a n a t t e m p t t o b l o c k t h e sources f r o m w h i c h his p o e t r y came. T h i s comes o u t i n h i s o f t e n q u o t e d d e m u r t o A r n o l d ' s saying, apropos of Burns, t h a t 'no o n e can d e n y t h a t i t is o f advantage t o a poet t o deal w i t h a b e a u t i f u l w o r l d ' . ... t h e essential advantage f o r a poet is n o t , t o have a beauti­ f u l w o r l d w i t h w h i c h t o deal: i t is t o be able t o see b e n e a t h b o t h b e a u t y a n d ugliness; t o see t h e boredom, and t h e h o r r o r , a n d t h e g l o r y , (p. 106) S i m i l a r l y , t a k i n g h i s t u r n i n t h e l o n g series of castigators of A r n o l d ' s f a m o u s d i c t u m : 'Poetry is at b o t t o m a c r i t i c i s m o f l i f e ' , E l i o t comments: A t b o t t o m : t h a t is a great w a y d o w n ; t h e b o t t o m is t h e b o t t o m . A t t h e b o t t o m o f t h e abyss is w h a t f e w ever see, a n d w h a t those c a n n o t bear t o l o o k a t f o r l o n g ; a n d i t is n o t a ' c r i t i c i s m o f life.' I f w e m e a n l i f e as a w h o l e — n o t t h a t A r n o l d ever s a w l i f e as a w h o l e — f r o m t o p t o b o t t o m , c a n a n y t h i n g t h a t w e say u l t i m a t e l y , of t h a t a w f u l m y s t e r y , be called criticism? W e b r i n g back v e r y l i t t l e f r o m o u r r a r e descents, a n d t h a t is n o t c r i t i c i s m , (p. 111) These r e t o r t s h a v e o f t e n been quoted. B u t t h e y h a v e been a d m i r e d f o r w h a t t h e y t e l l us a b o u t E l i o t himself, n o t a b o u t A r n o l d . T o m e t h e y s h o w a trace o f a t t i t u d i n i z i n g — E l i o t ' s

i 6 5

A Poet's N o t e b o o k

w o r s t f a u l t as a c r i t i c . A n d t o c o n c e n t r a t e o n t h e m is t o i g n o r e t h e m e r i t s o f Eliot's discussion, h i s a b i l i t y t o take f u r t h e r t h e questions t h a t A r n o l d h a d raised. M a n y of t h e p o i n t s he makes are f a i r c o m m e n t , a n d s h o w a deep k n o w l e d g e of h i s subject. H i s b r i e f c r i t i q u e o f A r n o l d ' s p o e t r y m a y be too severe, a n d i t con­ t a i n s one or t w o j u d g e m e n t s w h i c h s o u n d odd, as w h e n he calls 'The Forsaken M e r m a n ' a c h a r a d e — h a s one r e a l l y t o suppose, i n r e a d i n g t h a t poem, t h a t t h e speaker has a tail? B u t a j u d i c i o u s a d m i r e r i s l i k e l y t o find t h a t E l i o t , w h i l e d w e l l i n g o n A r n o l d ' s f a u l t s as a poet, does also m e n t i o n t h e t h i n g s t h a t m a k e us l i k e A r n o l d ' s p o e t r y , and describes t h e m as w e l l as a n y c r i t i c has done. A n d h i s closing reference t o A r n o l d ' s essay 'The S t u d y of P o e t r y ' is t h e best s u m m a r y ever m a d e of A r n o l d ' s d i s t i n c t i o n as a l i t e r a r y c r i t i c . ... t o be able t o q u o t e as A r n o l d c o u l d is t h e best evidence of taste. T h e essay is a classic i n E n g l i s h c r i t i c i s m : so m u c h is said i n so l i t t l e space, w i t h such e c o n o m y and w i t h such a u t h o r i t y , (p. 118) T h i s is s o m e t h i n g t h a t c o u l d be said of E l i o t h i m s e l f w h e n he is a t h i s best; a n d I w o u l d add t h a t w h e n he is a t h i s best he is a n even better q u o t e r t h a n A r n o l d . W h e n he comes t o A r n o l d ' s m o d e r n successors t h e heated t o n e disappears f r o m Eliot's w r i t i n g . H e sounds m o r e t r o u b l e d and more tentative, an i n q u i r e r rather t h a n an inquisitor. The p o s i t i o n of I . A. Richards, t h e n t h e m o s t i n f l u e n t i a l m o d e r n c r i t i c ( a p a r t f r o m E l i o t h i m s e l f ) , E l i o t regards as essentially t h e same as Arnold's; b u t h i s objections t o i t are m a d e w i t h a cour­ tesy and a s y m p a t h y he denies t o Richards's V i c t o r i a n predeces­ sor. H e p u t s f o r w a r d reasonable, i f s o m e w h a t l a b o r i o u s , stric­ tures o n Richards's ' r i t u a l f o r h e i g h t e n i n g s i n c e r i t y ' — t h e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n t h a t we s h o u l d m e d i t a t e o n t h e i m m e n s i t y o f t h e universe, a n d o t h e r p o r t e n t o u s subjects, as a p r e p a r a t i o n f o r r e a d i n g poems. ( C u r i o u s l y e n o u g h , E l i o t does n o t m a k e t h e p o i n t — p e r h a p s he t h o u g h t i t too o b v i o u s — t h a t t h e r e are m a n y poems t o w h i c h so s o l e m n a n a p p r o a c h is p l a i n l y u n s u i t e d : The Rape of the Lock, f o r example.) Eliot's real t a r g e t here is m o d e r n secularist r e l i g i o s i t y — R u s s e l l ' s 'bad prose' i n t h e Conrad-like 'Free Man's W o r s h i p ' , t h e s e n t i m e n t a l verbiage i s s u i n g f r o m

A Poet's N o t e b o o k

157

the twentieth-century equivalents o f Arnold's attempts t o 'mediate b e t w e e n N e w m a n a n d H u x l e y ' . Later a t t e m p t s i n t h i s v e i n o n l y serve t o s t r e n g t h e n t h e c o n v i c t i o n t h a t E l i o t was r i g h t . ' C u l t u r e ' i n t h e h o n o r i f i c sense has become a n i r r i t a t i n g l y vague w o r d , conducive t o c o m p l a c e n c y a n d w o o l l y t h i n k i n g . I t seems even possible t o defend Eliot's reference, t a k e n f r o m Jacques M a r i t a i n , t o t h e i n f l u e n c e o f t h e d e v i l o n m o d e r n l i t e r a ­ t u r e (p. 137). T h i s w a s m u c h r i d i c u l e d a t t h e t i m e , a n d E l i o t m a y have been u n w i s e i n h i s w o r d i n g , w h i c h made h i m s o u n d l i k e Peacock's M r T o o b a d ('He said, fifty times over, t h e d e v i l was come a m o n g us'). Belief i n t h e d e v i l is o p t i o n a l f o r C h r i s t ­ ians: h e is n o t m e n t i o n e d i n t h e Creeds. I n t h e second e d i t i o n E l i o t dropped t h e f o o t n o t e p r o m i s i n g f u r t h e r t r e a t m e n t o f t h i s s u b j e c t — w h i c h looks f o r w a r d t o A f t e r Strange Gods—and he came t o regret t h e later b o o k and, i n effect, t o e x p u n g e i t f r o m his canon. Y e t since E l i o t w r o t e these w o r d s a g r o w i n g propor­ t i o n o f t h e serious l i t e r a t u r e o f t h e W e s t e r n w o r l d has been perverse a n d abnormal. O n l y a reader t o t a l l y a t o n e w i t h t h e sceptical-permissive c l i m a t e o f o u r t i m e w o u l d d e n y t h a t ; a n d i f m a n y do, t h e c o n t i n u i t y o f h u m a n i t y w o u l d appear t o be i n p e r i l . Fear o f t h e 'stock response' seems t o have led some w r i t e r s a n d readers i n t o a state o f m i n d i n w h i c h a n y r e c o g n i z a b l y h u m a n r e a c t i o n is s t i g m a t i z e d as s e n t i m e n t a l i t y . H o w f a r t h i s d i s t u r b i n g t r e n d a c t u a l l y affects t h e lives o f m o s t people is n o t certain. B u t w e m a y reflect t h a t i n t h e cinema t h e p o r n o g r a p h y of t h e sixties is y i e l d i n g to t h e sadism o f t h e seventies, w h i l e t h e p r o p o n e n t s o f t h e n e w e n l i g h t e n m e n t are d i s t i n g u i s h e d b y t h e i r i n s i s t e n c e — s h a d e s o f Peter Q u i n t a n d M i s s J e s s e l ! — o n t h e i r r i g h t t o deprave c h i l d r e n . So E l i o t does n o t seem t o have been t i l t i n g a t w i n d m i l l s . T h a t t h e e v i l t r e n d h e discerns has some­ t h i n g t o do w i t h t h e decline o f C h r i s t i a n i t y t h e r e is n o doubt; a n d t h e questions h e asks i n t h e closing pages o f T h e Use o f Poetry r e m a i n v e r y p e r t i n e n t — e v e n , o r especially, f o r agnostics. B u t i n t h e e n d t h e b o o k m a y be remembered, n o t f o r its treat­ m e n t o f t h i s o r a n y o t h e r problem, b u t f o r its obiter dicta. I t is a poet's notebook, especially m e m o r a b l e w h e n concerned w i t h a subject o n w h i c h E l i o t is always i n t e r e s t i n g : t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f t h e poet. T h i s , o f course, is a t h e m e w h i c h has occasioned m u c h f r e n z i e d i n s i n c e r i t y , a n d one o f t h e a t t r a c t i v e aspects o f E l i o t is

158

A Poet's N o t e b o o k

t h a t he is q u i t e free f r o m t h a t f r a n t i c insistence, so c o m m o n i n bad artists a n d critics, so rare i n good ones, t h a t w e are a l l m a d l y concerned w i t h a r t a n d p o e t r y a t every m o m e n t of o u r lives. E q u a l l y s y m p a t h e t i c , a n d as s a l u t a r y n o w as w h e n he w r o t e , is his e f f o r t t o d i v e r t a t t e n t i o n f r o m t h e poet t o t h e p o e t r y . H e dis­ agrees w i t h B r e m o n d over t h e r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n p o e t r y a n d d i v i n e i n s p i r a t i o n ; a n d s u r e l y E l i o t is r i g h t here, a n d C o w l e y r i g h t w h e n he addresses t h e departed Crashaw: Poet a n d Saint! t o thee alone are g i v e n T h e t w o m o s t sacred names of E a r t h a n d Heaven. T h e h a r d a n d rarest u n i o n w h i c h can be N e x t t h a t of Godhead w i t h H u m a n i t y . A n d E l i o t already foresaw t h e e x a l t a t i o n of p e r s o n a l i t y w h i c h i n o u r times has p r o d u c e d s u c h p h e n o m e n a as N o r m a n M a i l e r , or the i n t e n s e c u r i o s i t y a b o u t t h e sex-lives of m i n o r B l o o m s b u r y figures. H i s o w n personal r e s t r a i n t a n d s o b r i e t y makes t h e seriousness of h i s claims f o r p o e t r y t h e m o r e impressive. T h e people w h i c h ceases t o care f o r its l i t e r a r y i n h e r i t a n c e becomes barbaric; t h e people w h i c h ceases t o p r o d u c e l i t e r a ­ t u r e ceases t o m o v e i n t h o u g h t and s e n s i b i l i t y . T h e p o e t r y of a people takes its l i f e f r o m a people's speech a n d i n t u r n gives l i f e t o i t ; a n d represents its h i g h e s t p o i n t of conscious­ ness, i t s greatest p o w e r a n d its m o s t delicate s e n s i b i l i t y .

(P-15) A n d i n a n o t h e r of these d i c t a w e have a n e x a m p l e of s o m e t h i n g f a m i l i a r t o readers of Eliot's poems, a p o i n t at w h i c h a character­ istic self-observation t u r n s i n t o a statement of general t r u t h . [ P o e t r y ] m a y m a k e us f r o m t i m e t o t i m e a l i t t l e m o r e a w a r e of t h e deeper, u n n a m e d feelings w h i c h f o r m t h e sub­ s t r a t u m of o u r being, t o w h i c h w e r a r e l y penetrate; f o r o u r lives are m o s t l y a c o n s t a n t evasion of ourselves, and a n eva­ s i o n of t h e visible a n d sensible w o r l d , (p. 155) For t h e rest, w h e n t h e neo-classical t r a p p i n g s are l a i d aside, w h a t E l i o t r e a l l y appeals f o r is a c a t h o l i c taste i n p o e t r y . H i s v i r t u e is t h a t he is a l w a y s r e m i n d i n g us h o w h a r d i t is t o acquire t h i s : m o s t critics' statements about ' p o e t r y ' o n l y a p p l y t o a

A Poet's

Notebook

159

l i m i t e d r a n g e o f i t , t h e p o e t r y t h e y themselves c a n appreciate. T h e m o r a l h e d r a w s c a n be f o u n d i n w h a t h e said i n w r i t i n g o f D r y d e n some years before. O u r v a l u a t i o n o f p o e t r y , i n short, depends u p o n several considerations, u p o n t h e p e r m a n e n t a n d u p o n t h e m u t a b l e a n d t r a n s i t o r y . W h e n w e t r y t o isolate t h e essentially poetic, we b r i n g o u r pursuit i n the end t o something insignificant; o u r standards v a r y w i t h every poet w h o m w e consider. A l l w e c a n h o p e t o do, i n t h e a t t e m p t t o i n t r o d u c e some order i n t o o u r preferences, is t o c l a r i f y o u r reasons f o r finding plea­ sure i n t h e p o e t r y t h a t w e l i k e . (Selected Essays, 1932, p. 309) A t a t i m e w h e n i n t h e l i t e r a r y w o r l d 'fashionable m a d m e n r a i s e / T h e i r p e d a n t i c b o r i n g cry', w e s h o u l d be g r a t e f u l f o r w h a t E l i o t gives us i n t h e best p a r t s o f The Use of Poetry: t h a t m e m o r a b l y expressed good sense w h i c h w e h o n o u r w i t h t h e n a m e of w i s d o m . H e does n o t offer n e w t h i n g s , b u t enables us t o see f a m i l i a r t h i n g s anew. 'But t o s a y t h i s i s o n l y t o say w h a t y o u k n o w already, i f y o u h a v e f e l t p o e t r y a n d t h o u g h t a b o u t y o u r feelings' (p. 155).

8

Eliot's 'Tone ROGER

5

SHARROCK

M u c h o f t h e s i g n i f i c a n t v o c a b u l a r y o f post-Romantic l i t e r a r y c r i t i c i s m reveals t h e a t t e m p t t o take over terms o r i g i n a l l y b e l o n g i n g t o t h e plastic a n d m u s i c a l arts a n d a p p l y t h e m t o l i t e r a r y structures. Form, t e x t u r e , atmosphere, r h y t h m , har­ m o n y , tone, supersede i n t h e age after Coleridge t h e older des­ c r i p t i v e tools, fable o r p l o t , manners, d i c t i o n a n d sentiments; l i t e r a r y analysis abandoned t h e r h e t o r i c a l mode i n f a v o u r o f a n aesthetic a p p r o a c h e n a b l i n g t h e c r i t i c t o see a l l t h e arts as con­ s t i t u t i n g a u n i v e r s a l expressive language, p o e t r y b e i n g d i s t i n c t f r o m t h e o t h e r arts o n l y i n i t s use o f h u m a n speech o r w r i t t e n characters t o achieve t h e c o m m o n e n d — t h e c r e a t i o n o f a r t i s t i c objects. I n a p p r o a c h i n g t h e elusive q u e s t i o n of t o n e i n a n y w r i t e r , a n d c e r t a i n l y i n one as c o m p l e x a n d evasive as Eliot, i t seems best t o avoid a n y too premature involvement w i t h theory a n d t o let m y p r e l i m i n a r y r e m a r k s s t a n d as a b a l d a n d n o d o u b t over­ s i m p l i f i e d a c c o u n t o f w h a t is a n h i s t o r i c a l fact. Y e t i t m i g h t as w e l l be a d m i t t e d t h a t t h e r e is a p r i m e d i f f i c u l t y a n d d i s t o r t i o n i n a p p l y i n g t o l i t e r a r y w o r k s terms suggestive o f e x t e n s i o n i n space, p h y s i c a l surface, plastic h a r m o n y o r t o t a l i t y : t h i s i s because t h e p o e m is a sequence o f w o r d s e x i s t i n g i n t h e t i m e o f r e a d i n g i t o r h e a r i n g i t recited; because o f t h i s time-character i t can never i n t h e s t r i c t sense be regarded as a n 'aesthetic object' at a l l . Lessing p o i n t e d t h i s o u t i n t h e e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r y before G e r m a n u n i f i e d aesthetics h a d been i n c u b a t e d b y G e r m a n ideal­ ist p h i l o s o p h y . T h e c r u c i a l passage i n Laokoon is t h a t i n w h i c h he demonstrates t h a t t h e a c c o u n t i n H o m e r o f t h e shield o f A c h i l l e s is p r i m a r i l y a d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e stages i n t h e f o r g i n g of t h e shield, n o t a p i c t u r e i n words, because o f t h e timecharacter o f t h e p o e t i c a r t . O n c e t h i s d i s c r i m i n a t i o n has been 1

2

161

Eliot's T o n e '

made, i t becomes necessary t o exercise e x t r e m e c a u t i o n i n employing visual metaphors f o r the f u n c t i o n i n g of poetry, and the same applies t o m e t a p h o r s f r o m music, i m p l y i n g p u r e s o u n d as d i s t i n c t f r o m v e r b a l m e a n i n g , t h o u g h here t h e necessary dis­ c r i m i n a t i o n is a d i f f e r e n t one, l y i n g as i t does b e t w e e n t w o arts e x i s t i n g i n t i m e . B u t c a u t i o n over terms need n o t i n v o l v e t h e wholesale dismissal o f t h e aesthetic c o n c e p t i o n o f t h e art-object, w h e t h e r t h e necessary m e t a p h o r s be v i s u a l or m u s i c a l . T h e r e are of course those w h o w o u l d reject a n y general aesthetic t h e o r y as a m e r e figment o f idealist metaphysics, mean­ ingless w h e n separated i n t w e n t i e t h - c e n t u r y p o p u l a r usage f r o m the o t h e r tenets o f absolute idealism. A e s t h e t i c i a n s l i k e R. G. C o l l i n g w o o d h a v e presented easy targets f o r these t o t a l critics who have d r a w n attention to their i g n o r i n g of particular works, t h e i r c l a i m t h a t n e i t h e r t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a l i n art, n o r r e l i g i o u s art, n o r t h e element o f c r a f t i n artefacts, has a n y t h i n g t o do w i t h a r t p r o p e r i n i t s disinterested p u r i t y . I t m u s t be recog­ n i z e d , t h o u g h , a n d here I suppose I am p r o p o s i n g a m e d i a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e h i s t o r i c a l a n d t h e n o r m a t i v e aspects of t h e q u e s t i o n , t h a t i f a c o h e r e n t b o d y o f ideas, h o w e v e r l i t t l e r e l a t e d i n i t s o r i ­ gins t o a r t i s t i c practice, has been a l l o w e d f o r a p e r i o d o f t i m e t o affect practice, n e w styles of a r t w i l l emerge. T h i s indeed is w h a t h a p p e n e d f r o m C o l e r i d g e a n d N o v a l i s t o R i m b a u d a n d Yeats, f r o m R i m b a u d t o t h e Surrealists, f r o m Picasso t o Jackson Pollock. I f 'the excellence o f e v e r y a r t is i t s i n t e n s i t y ' , i n Keats's phrase, then the artist w i l l tend to stretch technique to the limits i n order t o a t t a i n a h e i g h t e n e d a n d transcended self-consciousness, w h e t h e r he is d e l i b e r a t e l y a s p i r i n g after t h e A b s o l u t e or n o t . O n c e i n t e n s i t y o f p e r f o r m a n c e becomes t h e c h i e f aim, t h e i m a g i n a t i v e w r i t e r is l i k e a m o d e r n a t h l e t e f o r w h o m c o n s t a n t l y researched t r a i n i n g techniques are a l w a y s t a k i n g f r e s h seconds off t h e m i l e . I n a n y case, t h e critics o f R o m a n t i c a n d expressionist aesthe­ tics w h o base t h e i r r e j e c t i o n o n t h e l i n k b e t w e e n s u c h aesthetic theories a n d subjective idealist p h i l o s o p h y m u s t abide b y t h e logic o f t h e i r a r g u m e n t : f a s h i o n is one t h i n g , a n d t h e t h i n g i t i s m a y be said t o be t h a t y o u a c t u a l l y see v e r y clearly a n d w i t h a certain appreciation of a n u m b e r of the rational grounds w h y A ( i n ) m a y be r i g h t a n d B ( o u t ) m a y be w r o n g . A m a j o r i t y of 3

162

Eliot's 'Tone

E n g l i s h academic philosophers m a y s t i l l prefer t o float i n t h e w a r m c u r r e n t s o f t h e B r i t i s h e m p i r i c a l G u l f Stream. B u t t h e questions are open. I t m a y be t h a t i n a p p r o a c h i n g t h e ' r e a l i t y ' of w o r k s o f a r t a m e r e l y e m p i r i c a l o r p s y c h o l o g i c a l a p p r o a c h t h r o u g h signals a n d s t i m u l i i s n o t adequate a n d m a y o n l y sweep t h e t r u e p r o b l e m s u n d e r t h e carpet. T h e e x p l o r a t i o n o f the stream o f consciousness i n t h e great masters o f early t w e n t i e t h - c e n t u r y l i t e r a t u r e , i n E l i o t a n d Yeats as w e l l as i n t h e novelists C o n r a d , Joyce, V i r g i n i a W o o l f , Proust, a n d Lawrence, was conducted i n a m a n n e r closer t o t h a t o f t h e absolute ideal­ ists t h a n t o t h a t o f t h e i r p h i l o s o p h i c a l rivals; these w r i t e r s present a many-levelled c o n c e p t i o n o f consciousness a n d o f t h e r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e perceiver a n d h i s w o r l d : T h e f a c t t h a t w e c a n t h i n k o n l y i n terms o f t h i n g s does n o t c o m p e l us t o t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t r e a l i t y consists of t h i n g s . W e h a v e f o u n d f r o m t h e first t h a t t h e t h i n g is t h o r o u g h l y rela­ t i v e , t h a t i t exists o n l y i n a c o n t e x t o f experience, o f e x p e r i ­ ence w i t h w h i c h i t is c o n t i n u o u s . F r o m first t o last r e a l i t y is experience, b u t experience w o u l d n o t (so f a r as w e k n o w ) be possible w i t h o u t a t t e n t i o n a n d t h e m o m e n t o f o b j e c t i v i t y . 4

T h a t is t h e y o u n g E l i o t o n Bradley. A n d t o m a i n t a i n t h a t atten­ t i o n a n d render t h a t m o m e n t o f o b j e c t i v i t y r e m a i n e d t h e m a j o r goals o f Eliot's p o e t r y . T h e ghost o f t h e a u t h o r o f Appearance and Reality advances t h r o u g h t h e C i m m e r i a n e m p i r i c a l dark­ n e s s — i b a n t obscuri sola sub nocte per umbras—'Mr. Bain believes t h a t t h e m i n d is a collection, b u t i f t h i s is so, w h o col­ lects M r . B a i n ? B u t i f t h e ghost o f B r a d l e y is i n v o k e d i t i s t i m e to come t o E l i o t w h o w r o t e h i s thesis o n h i m a n d t o tone, w h i c h is a w a y o f t r y i n g t o define t h e i n d e f i n a b l e a d d i t i o n i n w h a t each said, as p h i l o s o p h e r a n d c r i t i c respectively. E l i o t t h o u g h t B r a d l e y h a d a n i n d u b i t a b l e c l a i m t o perma­ nence o n account of h i s g i f t of style; t h i s is perhaps a n u n u s u a l j u d g e m e n t f o r someone t r a i n e d as a professional philosopher, as E l i o t was, t o m a k e o n b e h a l f of a n o t h e r philosopher. I n h i s essay o n B r a d l e y h e compares h i m t o A r n o l d , h i s o w n predecessor as l i t e r a r y c r i t i c a n d schoolmaster t o those t o be saved f r o m t h e Philistines. H e sets side b y side A r n o l d ' s f a m o u s apostrophe t o an O x f o r d b a t h e d i n t h e last e n c h a n t m e n t s o f t h e m i d d l e age 9

Eliot's 'Tone* a n d a n e x t r a c t f r o m T h e Principles of Logic o n h o w m a y be f e l t t o h i d e 'some f u l l e r splendour':

163 appearances

... t h e sensuous c u r t a i n is a d e c e p t i o n a n d a cheat, i f i t hides some colourless m o v e m e n t o f atoms, some spectral w o o f of i m p a l p a b l e abstractions, or u n e a r t h l y ballet o f bloodless cate­ gories. T h o u g h dragged t o s u c h conclusions, w e cannot embrace t h e m . E l i o t c o m m e n t s t h a t t h e B r a d l e y passage m a y w e l l be s u p e r i o r to t h a t b y A r n o l d : A r n o l d ' s effort t o g l a m o u r i z e i n phrases l i k e 'ineffable c h a r m ' has n o t w o r n at a l l w e l l ; b u t he adds: ' A n y one w h o is at a l l sensitive t o s t y l e w i l l recognize t h e s i m i l a r i t y of t o n e a n d t e n s i o n a n d beat'. W h a t is r e m a r k a b l e i n Eliot's c o m m e n t is t h a t he effectively fuses, or perhaps confuses, t h e t w o m o s t available m e a n i n g s o f tone: t h e i n d i c a t i o n of scale or t o n a l i t y i n m u s i c a n d t h e o r d i n ­ a r y social m e a n i n g — s o c i a l style, ' I don't l i k e y o u r t o n e ' (per­ haps m e r g i n g w i t h 'of voice' a n d t h u s m o v i n g b a c k t o m u s i c b y w a y of t o n e o f voice). 'Tension a n d beat' d r a w t h e h i d d e n meta­ p h o r t o w a r d s t h e musical. T h e c o m m e n t o n t h a t t o u c h of emo­ t i o n a l self-indulgence i n A r n o l d w h i c h has m a d e h i s s t y l e w e a r less w e l l balances t h i s w i t h t h e o r d i n a r y m e a n i n g o f social tone. E l i o t is here speaking o f t h e c r i t i c a l or p h i l o s o p h i c prose w h i c h he m o s t admired, and, t o some e x t e n t , i m i t a t e d . T h i s is prose w h i c h offers a grave r h y t h m i c b e a u t y a n d a p l a y o f images w i t h o u t t h e opulence a n d t h e sheer n a i v e self-assertiveness o f R u s k i n or S w i n b u r n e i n t h e i r c r i t i c a l w r i t i n g s . Eliot's o w n m a n n e r has subdued t h e r h y t h m s a n d suppressed t h e m e t a p h o r s ( o r t r a n s f o r m e d t h e m i n t h e e a r l y c r i t i c i s m t o h a r s h pseudoscientific ones) b u t t h e essence o f t h e style, t h e H a r v a r d O x o n i a n d y i n g f a l l , is s t i l l there: ' [ T h e p o e t ] is n o t l i k e l y t o k n o w w h a t is t o be done unless he lives i n w h a t is n o t m e r e l y t h e present, b u t t h e present m o m e n t o f t h e past, unless he is conscious, n o t o f w h a t is dead, b u t o f w h a t is a l r e a d y l i v i n g ' ; 'The sad ghost o f C o l e r i d g e beckons t o me f r o m t h e shadows'. R h y t h m s , t h e balance o f u n i t s of m e a n i n g i n u n i t s of clauses, d y i n g cadences, are indeed present i n Eliot's prose, b u t i t is prob­ a b l y n o t p r o f i t a b l e t o pursue t h i s aspect of t o n e a t t h e expense 5

Eliot's

164

'Tone'

of t h e other, t h e o r d i n a r y o r social one. I t is t h e l a t t e r I a m m a i n l y concerned w i t h . B u t t h e t w o senses c a n n o t be e n t i r e l y separated a n d i t m a y be sufficient t o say i n passing t h a t f o r s u c h a m u s i c a l poet ( i n t h e s t r u c t u r a l sense, as he w o u l d h a v e under­ stood 'musical'), a p a r t f r o m t h e obvious r e l a t i o n o f t h e p a r t s a n d themes o f F o u r Quartets t o sonata f o r m , t h e r e l a t i o n o f w o r k s l i k e The Waste Land or ' G e r o n t i o n ' t o t h e tone p o e m has n o t received as m u c h a t t e n t i o n as i t deserves f r o m t h e critics. H u g h K e n n e r a n d others h a v e r i g h t l y stressed t h e o p e r a t i c - d r a m a t i c aspect o f The Waste Land; b u t as E l i o t says i n h i s lecture, 'The T h r e e Voices o f Poetry', ' i n every poem, f r o m t h e p r i v a t e medi­ t a t i o n t o t h e epic o r t h e drama, t h e r e is m o r e t h a n one voice t o be heard'. T h e character parts, M r E u g e n i d e s a n d t h e ladies i n t h e p u b , are subdued t o t h e 'voice o f t h e poet addressing a n audience', a n d even t o t h e 'voice o f t h e poet t a l k i n g t o h i m s e l f . T h e t o n e p o e m f r o m L i s z t t o Strauss w a s music's t r i b u t e t o t h e s u p r e m a c y o f R o m a n t i c l i t e r a r y aesthetics, b u t as m u s i c became l i t e r a r y a n d descriptive, p o e t r y i n its t u r n began t o practise t h e r e n d e r i n g o f m o o d a n d atmosphere achieved b y t h e t o n e poem, Debussy's L'Apres-midi d'un Eaune, say. T h e closest analogue f o r 'Gerontion', m u c h closer t h a n B r o w n i n g ' s or Pound's drama­ t i c monologues, is Elgar's Ealstaff Overture w h e r e t h e r e is t o be f o u n d a s i m i l a r e v o c a t i o n o f encounters i n t h e past a l l directed to t h e c r e a t i o n o f a single atmosphere a n d character. De la 6

7

musique avant toute chose, a n d I suppose t h e l i n k b e t w e e n musical tonality, or the m e t h o d of the tone poem transferred t o verse, a n d t o n e i n t h e social-literary sense, m y m a i n concern, is t h a t i n t h e f o r m e r t h e impossible a t t e m p t t o a p p r o x i m a t e u t t e r ­ ance t o m u s i c leaves a v e r b a l m e a n i n g d e l i b e r a t e l y b l u r r e d , v a g u e l y suggestive, o r m u l t i p l e , w h i l e i n t h e l a t t e r t h e v e r y n o t i o n o f 'tone' is u n d e f i n e d , a je ne sais quoi, a m o d e r n i s t ver­ s i o n o f t h e late A u g u s t a n p r i n c i p l e o f taste e m p l o y e d as a n escape-clause f r o m t h e neo-classical rules. L e t us, t h o u g h , t h i n k of E l i o t a n d t h e tone poem, n o t digressively, b u t i n terms o f t h e close c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e m u s i c o f m o o d o f D e b u s s y a n d others a n d t h e p o e t r y o f vague, y e a r n i n g , half-defined m o o d o f M a l l a r m e a n d others, t h e i r S y m b o l i s t contemporaries. T h e r e need be n o a r t i s t i c vagueness i n t h e precise, m u s i c a l r e n d e r i n g of a vague, half-defined mood; t h o u g h t h e a r t i s t is presented

Eliot's

'Tone'

165

w i t h a p r o b l e m s i m i l a r t o t h a t of t h e n o v e l i s t w h o has to m a k e a bore a m u s i n g , n o t d i r e c t l y b o r i n g t o t h e reader. T h i s w o r l d o f p u r e m o o d i n w h i c h t h e w o r l d o f g e t t i n g a n d s p e n d i n g is suspended o r rejected is the w o r l d of M a l l a r m e a n d Laforgue, o f Corbiere a n d Debussy; i t is also the w o r l d of P r u f r o c k a n d of t h e -persona of ' P o r t r a i t of a Lady'. T o reject t h e e v e r y d a y w o r l d is a l u x u r y , t h o u g h i f t h e w i l l a n d t h e i n t e l l i g e n c e are there i t need n o t be a too expensive one. A f t e r t h e direct, v i o l e n t attacks of t h e e a r l y Romantics, a n d t h e spectacular w i t h d r a w a l o f t h e i r successors i n t o Bohemia, nar­ cotics, a n d p r i v a t e w o r l d s (Poe, G e r a r d de N e r v a l ) , t h e later n i n e t e e n t h - c e n t u r y dissociation o f t h e a r t i s t f r o m t h e bour­ geoisie takes o n a n e w f o r m . T h e a t t i t u d e n o w , as w e e n c o u n t e r i t i n L a f o r g u e a n d t o some e x t e n t i n t h e e a r l y Eliot, is t o express d i s e n c h a n t m e n t w h i l e m a i n t a i n i n g a surface o f p o l i t e , i r o n i c c o n f o r m i t y . T h e a r t i s t n o w becomes t h e d a n d y w h o wears a correct u n i f o r m a n d appears t o m a k e t h e best t h i n g possible o u t of a l i f e essentially t r a g i c a n d meaningless b y p l a y i n g a l o n g i t s surface. A n o t h e r aspect of t h i s c o n f o r m i t y o r deliberate disguise is t h e pressure o n t h e a r t i s t o r w r i t e r o f t h e g r o w i n g cities; h e can n o l o n g e r p r e t e n d n o t t o be i n f l u e n c e d b y t h e n e w society o f t h e street a n d t h e c r o w d a n d t h e u r b a n cliche. So L a f o r g u e a n d E l i o t - P r u f r o c k celebrate Paris a n d L o n d o n even w h i l e t h e y c u l t i ­ vate H a m l e t a n d Pierrot. T h e n e w d a n d y o f t e n plays t h e role o f t h e flaneur w h o moves i n t h e c r o w d b u t n o t of i t , observing t h e stream of l i f e as i t flows: M a i s , lainages, caoutchoucs, pharmacie, reve, R i d e a u x ecartes d u h a u t des balcons des greves D e v a n t Pocean de t o i t u r e s des faubourgs, Lampes, estampes, the, petits-fours, Serez-vous pas mes seules amours!... ( O h ! et puis, est-ce q u e t u connais, o u t r e les pianos, Le sobre et vesperal m y s t e r e h e b d o m a d a i r e Des statistiques sanitaires D a n s les j o u r n a u x ? )

(Oeuvres de Jules Laforgue (Paris, 1947), ii, 146) For E l i o t , too, t h e y e l l o w f o g t h a t r u b s t h e window-panes, t h e m e n i n shirt-sleeves l e a n i n g o u t o f w i n d o w s , t h e s h o r t square

i66

Eliot's

'Tone'

fingers s t u f f i n g pipes, are as m u c h c o n s t i t u e n t s o f consciousness as t h e nostalgia a t i t s centre. W h a t I h a v e loosely called t h e suspension o r r e j e c t i o n of t h e accepted e v e r y d a y w o r l d operates a t t h r e e levels, a l l connected. T h e m o s t f a m i l i a r o f these is represented b y t h e a l i e n a t i o n o f t h e w r i t e r f r o m t h e p r e v a i l i n g assumptions o f bourgeois society. H o w e v e r , a t a deeper l e v e l t h i s d e n i a l o f social a n d m o r a l con­ v e n t i o n s is m a t c h e d b y a m e t a p h y s i c a l d e n i a l o f t h e ' r e a l i t y ' o f t h e extended, objective w o r l d , t h e same f o r e v e r y b o d y a n d s t i l l t h e r e w h e n w e t u r n t h e corner o f t h e street, belief i n w h i c h is a p r e r e q u i s i t e f o r l i v i n g t h e l i f e o f o r d i n a r y bourgeois a c t i v i t y . L i f e is a series, a n i n f i n i t e regress, o f finite centres o f conscious­ ness; ' t h i n k i n g o f t h e key, each c o n f i r m s a prison': t h e l i m i t e d p o i n t - o f - v i e w o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l consciousness a n d t h e c o m p l e x i t y of t h e series i n h i b i t t r u e k n o w l e d g e a n d p e r m i t o n l y guesses a b o u t a n y G o d o r A b s o l u t e i n w h o m a l l t h e finite centres o r m o n a d s are reconciled. B o t h L a f o r g u e a n d t h e e a r l y E l i o t i r o n i c ­ a l l y i n v o k e t h e A b s o l u t e . H o w one believes affects t h e w a y one sees a n d every sane m a n has h i s o w n m o d e o f h a l l u c i n a t i o n d e p e n d i n g o n his t h e o r y o f k n o w l e d g e . T h e b e a u t i f u l dead s t i l l ­ ness of a l o a f o r a c u p b y C h a r d i n reflects t h e observed otherness of a C a r t e s i a n w o r l d . So a t a t h i r d level t h e d a n d y o r flaneur w h o has dissolved t h e h a r d , objective w o r l d sees a l u m i n o u s , shim­ m e r i n g u n i v e r s e o f p o i n t s of l i g h t a n d p o i n t s o f v i e w , t h e w o r l d of I m p r e s s i o n i s m a n d o f -pointillisme, t h e t r a n s p a r e n t envelope of V i r g i n i a W o o l f ' s f a m o u s r e b u k e t o A r n o l d Bennett. F o r t h e modernist w r i t e r s of the early t w e n t i e t h c e n t u r y the prelude t o ' m a k i n g i t n e w ' w a s t o see i t new, t h r o u g h t h e e m p l o y m e n t o f f r a g m e n t e d u r b a n experience, o r t h e sharp j u x t a p o s i t i o n o f i m a g i s t verse, e c h o i n g t h e dissociated perspectives o f cubism. 8

W e h a v e come f r o m t h e m u s i c a l t o n e o f s y m b o l i s t p o e t r y a s p i r i n g t o become p u r e a r t a n d t o t r a n s c e n d t h e social m e a n i n g of w o r d s , t o find correspondances i n t h e v o w e l s as w e l l as i n n a t u r e . T h e need t o dispense w i t h social m e a n i n g a n d p a r t i c i p a ­ t i o n causes t h e poet, i n t h e w a k e o f Baudelaire's great example, to s t r i k e t h e pose o f t h e d a n d y a n d flaneur. T h u s w e come t o t h a t o t h e r k i n d o f 'tone', t h e s u b t l e r means b y w h i c h a speaker or w r i t e r establishes a n a t t i t u d e t o h i s audience. N i n e years after t h e p u b l i c a t i o n o f The Sacred

Wood a n d

Eliot's

167

'Tone'

three years before t h a t o f Selected Essays t h e r e appeared I . A . Richards's Practical Criticism (1929). I n t h a t b o o k Richards dis­ cusses t o n e as one o f t h e f o u r k i n d s o f m e a n i n g t o be f o u n d i n a l l a r t i c u l a t e speech. T h e speaker 'chooses o r arranges h i s w o r d s d i f f e r e n t l y as h i s audience varies, i n a u t o m a t i c o r deliberate recognition of his relation to them . A s m i g h t be expected Richards finds t o n e m o r e elusive t h a n t h e o t h e r aspects of mean­ i n g (sense, f e e l i n g , a n d i n t e n t i o n ) a n d less easy t o discuss. H e simply draws attention t o the manner i n w h i c h i n certain A u g u s t a n w r i t e r s , f o r instance, a n e x q u i s i t e l y a d j u s t e d t o n e m a y raise t o a h i g h r a n k a p o e m c o m m o n p l a c e i n t h o u g h t ( h i s example, a b o u t w h i c h n o t everyone w o u l d agree, is Gray's Elegy). For Richards t o n e is l i t e r a r y good manners, a n d h e uses i t as a stick w i t h w h i c h to beat t h e over-insistence or condescen­ sion of m u c h nineteenth-century poetry. T h e first e x t r a o r d i n a r y t h i n g a b o u t t h e success o f Eliot's l i t e r a r y essays is t h a t t h e i r appeal depends so m u c h o n a m a r k e d personal tone, a n d y e t t h e i r plea f o r i m p e r s o n a l , objective m e t h o d s i n l i t e r a r y s t u d y effected a c r i t i c a l r e v o l u t i o n . T w o generations of critics a n d teachers h a v e been i n f l u e n c e d b y t h a t r e v o l u t i o n , a n d even after N o r t h r o p F r y e a n d t h e S t r u c t u r a l i s t s i t is s t i l l a m a i n element, i f n o t t h e m a i n element, i n t h e schools of l i t e r a t u r e w h i c h g r e w u p i n t h e u n i v e r s i t i e s after t h e second w o r l d war. T h e second e x t r a o r d i n a r y t h i n g is t h a t E l i o t s h o u l d have established t h i s assured r e l a t i o n w i t h h i s readers w h e n h i s p e r s o n a l i t y is so r e m o t e a n d reserved; h e r e m a i n s t h e i n v i s i b l e poet, ' O l d Possum', as P o u n d l i k e d t o call h i m , p l a y i n g possum a n d l y i n g l o w . I s h a l l t r y t o i n v e s t i g a t e these t w o paradoxes of the success o f Eliot's c r i t i c i s m . T h e t o n e o f Eliot's m i n d as revealed i n t h e e a r l y essays ( u p t o , 9 9

10

say, The Use of Poetry and the Use of Criticism

i n 1933) is

fastidious a n d sceptical, a v o i d i n g p r e m a t u r e d o g m a t i c f o r m u l a ­ tions. H e d i s a r m i n g l y a d m i t s inconsistencies, but, i n n o t subscrib­ i n g t o a n y general aesthetic t h e o r y , holds t h a t such self-denial is a prerequisite f o r a n y honest l i t e r a r y p e r c e p t i o n , since 'a system almost i n e v i t a b l y requires s l i g h t d i s t o r t i o n s a n d omissions'. ' I n m y end is m y b e g i n n i n g ' : i t is necessary t o go back t o t h e g e r m i n a l w o r k , t h e essays collected i n The Sacred Wood (1920), t o find i n a p u r e f o r m t h e r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n w h a t is said 11

i68

Eliot's

'Tone'

i n h i s c r i t i c i s m a n d t h e a u t h o r i t a t i v e personal tone. T h e general m e t h o d o f each essay is t h a t ' r e v a l u a t i o n ' w i t h i n a n accepted E n g l i s h a n d E u r o p e a n p a t t e r n of l i t e r a r y r e p u t a t i o n s w h i c h has since become t h e stock f o r m o f c r i t i c a l a c t i v i t y here a n d i n A m e r i c a , p r o l i f e r a t i n g i n thousands o f articles. T h e o p i n i o n s advanced i n t h e r e v a l u a t i o n m a y be n o v e l or even r e v o l u t i o n a r y , b u t t h e terms i n w h i c h t h e y are offered are those of p u b l i c per­ suasion w i t h i n a recognized system. T h u s t h e r e is a shock effect: t r e n c h a n t o r t h o d o x y r u b s shoulders w i t h s t r i k i n g u n o r t h o d o x y . A r i s t o t l e is praised as 'a m a n o f n o t o n l y r e m a r k a b l e b u t u n i v e r ­ sal i n t e l l i g e n c e ; a n d u n i v e r s a l i n t e l l i g e n c e means t h a t h e c o u l d a p p l y h i s i n t e l l i g e n c e t o a n y t h i n g ' . I f t h e middle-aged, conven­ t i o n a l reader of t h e Times Literary Supplement i n 1919 h a d n o t b e g u n t o doze o f f h e w a s j e r k e d u p t w o pages later by: 'Of a l l m o d e r n critics, perhaps R e m y de G o u r m o n t h a d m o s t o f t h e general i n t e l l i g e n c e o f A r i s t o t l e ' . A n acceptance o f t h e t r a d i ­ t i o n a l pre-eminence of H o m e r a n d V i r g i l is f o u n d alongside t h e o b l i q u e disparagement o f M i l t o n . Each t y p e o f s t a t e m e n t i s made i n t h e same way, w i t h complete confidence, w i t h o u t q u a l i ­ fication, a n d u s u a l l y w i t h e x t r e m e b r e v i t y : ' . . . after t h e e r e c t i o n o f t h e Chinese W a l l o f M i l t o n , b l a n k verse has suffered n o t o n l y arrest b u t retrogression'. T h e r e is a r h e t o r i c o f these e a r l y essays a n d i t i s t h e r h e t o r i c o f t h e d a n d y , sober a n d correct, m o r e sober a n d correct t h a n t h e c r o w d , a n d n o w t u r n e d f r o m b e i n g a s y m b o l i s t poet t o b e i n g a perfect c r i t i c . T h e q u i e t , firm, precise tone is t h e exact e m b o d i m e n t o f t h e t h o u g h t , a n d a closer e x a m i n a t i o n o f i t c a n lead us t o l o o k m o r e closely a t t h e thought. I n The Sacred Wood t h e ideas a n d style are already f u l l y f o r m e d a n d t h e sense of speaking f r o m a n assured p o s i t i o n is i n t h e y o u n g E l i o t q u i t e d a u n t i n g l y middle-aged. Some critics, Coleridge, f o r instance, g i v e t h e sense o f h a v i n g b e g u n a n i n q u i r y w h i c h has s t i l l a l o n g w a y t o r u n ; t h e i m p r e s s i o n l e f t b y a r e a d i n g of The Sacred Wood is t h a t a c o m p l e t e l y honest and r i g o r o u s i n t e l l e c t u a l s u r v e y of t h e h i g h e s t order has been carried o u t as i t w e r e off stage, and t h a t w h a t one is g e t t i n g is n o t even a f u l l r e p o r t o f t h e results, b u t s i m p l y t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of a f e w of those results, d e v a s t a t i n g l y and accurately, t o c e r t a i n c u r r e n t p r o b l e m s of l i t e r a r y v a l u e t h a t have come i n Eliot's w a y .

Eliot's

'Tone*

169

I t is a m i s t a k e t o t h i n k t h a t t h e d a n d y is flamboyant. H e stands o u t b y t h e v e r y p e r f e c t i o n and r e s t r a i n t of his correct­ ness. A l l is i n place and he is never c a u g h t w i t h a loose cravat: My My

m o r n i n g coat, m y collar m o u n t i n g firmly t o the c h i n , n e c k t i e r i c h and modest, b u t asserted b y a simple p i n —

B u t P r u f r o c k f a i l e d t o m a i n t a i n t h e d a n d y stance. B r u m m e l P s dress was d a r k and r e s t r a i n e d and never v a r i e d m u c h . I n the l a t e r essays t h e d a n d y r e s t r a i n t , t h e m y s t e r y of w i t h h e l d k n o w ­ ledge, is absent; t h e s t y l i s t i c i m p a c t is b l u r r e d r a t h e r t h a n sharpened; c e r t a i n features of t h e o r i g i n a l a p p r o a c h are e x p l a i n e d and developed as E l i o t moves f u r t h e r t o w a r d s e x p l i ­ c i t l y t h e o l o g i c a l and sociological a t t i t u d e s t o l i t e r a t u r e . B u t t h e d a n d y does n o t e x p l a i n his elegance. H e leaves us t o w o n d e r h o w he does i t . Some of t h e s l e i g h t of h a n d of t h e y o u n g e r E l i o t is t o be a t t r i ­ b u t e d t o h i s u s i n g c r i t i c a l r e v i e w s and essays as p r o p a g a n d a f o r his o w n p o e t r y and t h a t of Pound; there is also some s u b t e r f u g e a b o u t t h e f a v o u r a b l e p r e s e n t a t i o n of o t h e r n e w w r i t e r s f e l t t o be i m p o r t a n t l y connected w i t h Eliot's creative w o r k ( s i g n i f i c a n t l y , Joyce). One can generalize and say t h a t a l l t h e great E n g l i s h critics h a v e been poets seeking t o j u s t i f y t h e i r o w n practice i n p o e t r y (F. R. Leavis is t h e o u t s t a n d i n g exception). E l i o t resembles Sidney, D r y d e n , Johnson, and W o r d s w o r t h i n t h i s respect. B u t his c r i t i c i s m is b y no means s i m p l y a p r o g r a m m e f o r t h e poems he was w r i t i n g i n t h i s period. The r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e c r i t i c and t h e poet i n E l i o t is a m o r e i n t i m a t e and subtle one t h a n t h a t b e t w e e n t h e o r e m and d e m o n s t r a t i o n . I t lies i n his c o n c e p t i o n of t h e disinterested i n t e l l i g e n c e , t h a t r a r e g i f t of m i n d possessed b y A r i s t o t l e and R e m y de G o u r m o n t . T h i s i n t e l l i g e n c e has t h e capacity t o possess and digest t h e past and m a k e i t comprehensible to the present. The p o i n t is made at the end of t h e s p i r i t e d o n s l a u g h t o n G i l b e r t M u r r a y , 'Euripides and Professor M u r r a y ' : We need a digestion w h i c h can assimilate b o t h H o m e r and Flaubert. W e need a c a r e f u l s t u d y of Renaissance H u m a n i s t s and Translators, such as Mr. P o u n d has begun. W e need an

170

Eliot's

'Tone'

eye w h i c h c a n see t h e past i n i t s place w i t h its d e f i n i t e dif­ ferences f r o m t h e present, a n d y e t so l i v e l y t h a t i t s h a l l be as present t o us as t h e present. T h i s is t h e creative eye; a n d i t is because Professor M u r r a y has n o creative i n s t i n c t t h a t he leaves E u r i p i d e s q u i t e dead. (p. 70) T h i s comes a t t h e e n d o f t h r e e c o n c l u d i n g paragraphs i n t o w h i c h are packed a c o m p e n d i o u s sketch o f r e c e n t a n d contem­ p o r a r y classical studies a n d t h e i r e m p l o y m e n t o f p s y c h o l o g i c a l a n d a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l methods, w h a t E l i o t terms 'the h e a v y f o o d of h i s t o r i c a l a n d scientific k n o w l e d g e t h a t w e h a v e eaten'. T h e process o f d i g e s t i o n b y t h e disinterested c r i t i c a l i n t e l l i ­ gence is analogous t o t h e w a y i n w h i c h t h e i m p e r s o n a l poet i n t h e essay ' T r a d i t i o n a n d t h e I n d i v i d u a l T a l e n t ' is described as a b s o r b i n g a v a r i e t y o f d i f f e r e n t experiences a n d c o n v e r t i n g t h e m to 'a n e w art-emotion'. T h e poet t o o m u s t master t h e past a n d m a k e i t present, f o r ... h e is n o t l i k e l y t o k n o w w h a t is t o be done unless h e lives i n w h a t is n o t m e r e l y t h e present, b u t t h e present m o m e n t o f t h e past, unless h e is conscious, n o t o f w h a t is dead, b u t o f w h a t is already l i v i n g , (p. 53) B o t h poet a n d c r i t i c use i n t e l l i g e n c e ; t h e difference b e t w e e n t h e m i s t h a t f o r t h e poet i t is l a r g e l y a n e g a t i v e i n s t r u m e n t e n a b l i n g h i m t o a v o i d unnecessary c e r e b r a t i o n a n d l e t t h e unconscious process o f a b s o r p t i o n o f experience take i t s course. I n passages l i k e those q u o t e d t h e r e i s a n u r g e n c y o f t o n e w h i c h c o m m u n i c a t e s i t s p e c u l i a r e x c i t e m e n t t o t h e reader. S o m e t h i n g is necessary; c e r t a i n measures m u s t be p u t i n t o a c t i o n i m m e d i a t e l y . 'This i s r e a l l y a p o i n t o f c a p i t a l i m p o r ­ tance': '... these are n o t f a u l t s o f i n f i n i t e s i m a l insignificance'. T h e reader is treated seriously as one fitted t o be t r u s t e d w i t h serious matters. T h i s is one reason f o r t h e l a s t i n g appeal o f t h e b o o k t o a n y one g e n u i n e l y interested i n l i t e r a t u r e a n d p a r t i c u ­ l a r l y t h e y o u n g reader. Does t h i s business-like seriousness con­ flict w i t h t h e image o f E l i o t as c r i t i c a l d a n d y w h i c h I h a v e pre­ sented? I t h i n k n o t . T h e d a n d y is serious b u t n o t solemn; he is concerned a b o u t w h a t i s t o h i m i m p o r t a n t , t h o u g h n o t t o t h e c r o w d . H e speaks i n t h e r e b u k e t o t h e s o l e m n s c h o l a r s h i p candi-

Eliot's

'Tone'

171

date i n C y r i l Connolly's sottise w h o said h e h a d n o t read Ray­ m o n d R a d i g u e t because h e w a s n o t i n h i s p e r i o d : 'On t h e con­ t r a r y , h e is v e r y m u c h i n o u r p e r i o d ! ' H e m a i n t a i n s t h e surface, t h e t e x t u r e ( o r t h e q u a l i t y of t h e language) because h e k n o w s t h a t is t h e o n l y w a y t o h o l d i n t h e chaos t h a t lies b e n e a t h t h e surface o f t h e h u m a n a n i m a l a n d its transience. W i t h t h e possible e x c e p t i o n o f t h e a m b i t i o u s ' T r a d i t i o n a n d t h e I n d i v i d u a l T a l e n t ' n o c l e a r l y defined p r i n c i p l e s emerge f r o m these essays. T h e p r e v a i l i n g t o n e is d r y , i r o n i c a n d cagey, as i f f u l l - b l o w n t h e o r i z i n g is f o r fools; j u s t as t h e touches of u r g e n c y f l a t t e r a n d excite t h e reader, so does t h e a i r o f s o m e t h i n g b e i n g h e l d i n reserve, u n s p o k e n : i t is as i f t h e r e are c e r t a i n under­ stood t h i n g s b e t w e e n c u l t i v a t e d people, n o t t o m e n t i o n a f o r m i d ­ able apparatus o f r e a d i n g i n a l l t h e p r i n c i p a l E u r o p e a n l a n ­ guages, w h i c h need n o t be paraded o r e x p o u n d e d a n d c a n s i m p l y be t a k e n f o r g r a n t e d . T h e r e are n o large gestures a n d a good deal of b a n t e r a t t h e expense o f t h e large gesture. 'Poetry is a s u p e r i o r amusement: I do n o t m e a n a n a m u s e m e n t f o r s u p e r i o r people. I call i t a n a m u s e m e n t . . . because i f y o u call i t a n y t h i n g else y o u are l i k e l y t o c a l l i t s o m e t h i n g s t i l l m o r e false'; 'the o n l y cure f o r R o m a n t i c i s m is t o analyse i t ' . ' I m m a t u r e poets i m i t a t e ; m a t u r e poets steal; b a d poets deface w h a t t h e y take, a n d good poets m a k e i t i n t o s o m e t h i n g better, or at least s o m e t h i n g different.' T h i s s p l e n d i d e p i g r a m m a t i c sentence m a y be t h o u g h t t o e m b o d y almost a l l of w h a t H a r o l d B l o o m h a d t o say over fifty years later, w i t h a great deal o f p o s t u r i n g a n d neologism, i n The Anxiety of Influence. I t comes f r o m t h e l o n g r e v i e w o f Cruickshank's s t u d y o f Massinger. T h i s is perhaps t h e least satisfactory o f t h e essays i n The Sacred Wood because i t is d i f f i c u l t t o see w h a t side E l i o t is on; is h e p r a i s i n g , b l a m i n g or e x c u s i n g M a s s i n g e r ? T h e f a c t is t h a t t h e discussion o f Massinger is m e r e l y a peg f o r i n s i g h t s l i k e t h e one q u o t e d a n d w i d e r observations o n t h e d e v e l o p m e n t a n d decline o f Jacobean a n d C a r o l i n e tragedy. T h i s is a case w h e r e t h e o b l i q u e j u s t i f i c a t i o n of Eliot's o w n p o e t i c practice a n d t h a t o f Ezra P o u n d b l u r s t h e focus o f t h e essay; i n a r e a l l y suc­ cessful essay l i k e t h a t o n Ben Jonson, t h e focus is clear, a n d E l i o t manages effortlessly t o c o m b i n e a r e v a l u a t i o n o f Jonsonian c o m e d y a n d its t w o - d i m e n s i o n a l t r e a t m e n t of character, step b y 12

172

Eliot's

'Tone'

step w i t h t h e o b l i q u e advocacy of t h e sort of f o r m a l nonn a t u r a l i s t i c design he was f o l l o w i n g i n h i s poems and already b e g i n n i n g t o aspire t o i n t h e drama: O f a l l t h e d r a m a t i s t s of h i s t i m e , Jonson is p r o b a b l y t h e one w h o m t h e present age w o u l d find t h e m o s t s y m p a t h e t i c , i f i t k n e w h i m . T h e r e is a b r u t a l i t y , a l a c k o f s e n t i m e n t , a polished surface, a h a n d l i n g o f l a r g e b o l d designs i n b r i l l i a n t colours, w h i c h o u g h t t o a t t r a c t about t h r e e t h o u s a n d people i n Lon­

d o n a n d elsewhere, (pp. 110-11) W h a t is r e m a r k a b l e is t h a t this b r i l l i a n t l y clever a n d k n o w ­ i n g p u f f f o r Jonson succeeded, and t w o generations o n t h e t h i r t y t h o u s a n d successors o f t h e t h r e e t h o u s a n d (or w h a t e v e r consti­ tutes t h e core audience of t h e R o y a l Shakespeare C o m p a n y ) n o l o n g e r need conversion; or r a t h e r , E l i o t p r o p h e t i c a l l y read t h e m i n d of t h e age; t h o u g h one suspects t h a t n o w a d a y s l a c k of s e n t i m e n t and t h e e n j o y m e n t of b r u t a l i t y are t h e m a i n ingre­ dients of a p p r e c i a t i o n a n d t h a t t h e pleasure i n t h e h a n d l i n g of large b o l d designs comes a poor t h i r d . T h e absence of t h e o r e t i c a l statement, unless i t is backed b y s o m e t h i n g l i k e scientific p r o o f or e x p e r i m e n t a l reference, means t h a t t h e r e are n o k e y phrases e n s h r i n i n g a d o g m a l i k e W o r d s ­ worth's 'the real l a n g u a g e of men', no w o o i n g slogans l i k e A r n o l d ' s 'the best t h a t is k n o w n and t h o u g h t i n t h e w o r l d ' . T h e m a n n e r is d r y a n d r e t i c e n t , a n d y e t i t is s t i m u l a t i n g because of a reserve of i n t e l l e c t u a l passion a l l t h e m o r e impressive because of t h e sense o f its b e i n g h e l d i n check. A n d we feel t h a t w h a t is b e i n g h e l d back is n o t so m u c h a b o d y o f u n d e c l a r e d p r i n c i p l e s as a b i t t e r l y a c q u i r e d k n o w l e d g e o f t h e business o f l i v i n g , pas­ s i o n as w e l l as i n t e l l e c t . I t comes o u t i n these w o r d s near t h e e n d of ' T r a d i t i o n and t h e I n d i v i d u a l Talent': P o e t r y is n o t a t u r n i n g loose of e m o t i o n , b u t a n escape f r o m e m o t i o n ; i t is n o t t h e expression o f p e r s o n a l i t y , b u t a n escape f r o m p e r s o n a l i t y . B u t , of course, o n l y those w h o have per­ s o n a l i t y a n d emotions k n o w w h a t i t means t o w a n t t o escape f r o m these t h i n g s . T h i s is a s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a t i o n o n V i l l i e r s de LTsle Adam's ' L i v i n g — o u r servants can do t h a t f o r us!' I t substitutes f o r an

Eliot's

'Tone'

173

aristocracy of taste a n d a r t a n aristocracy o f s u f f e r i n g , m a r k e d off f r o m o r d i n a r y m e n b y its a b i l i t y t o t r a n s f o r m t h e s u f f e r i n g p e r s o n a l i t y i n t o art. T h e n o t e o f d a n d y arrogance is sustained, b u t f o r a b r i e f m o m e n t i t looks as i f E l i o t is l i f t i n g a c u r t a i n to reveal his a t t i t u d e t o w a r d s a topic about w h i c h i n these e a r l y essays h e g e n e r a l l y r e m a i n s e x a s p e r a t i n g l y silent, t h e r e l a t i o n of p o e t r y t o t h e m o r a l l i f e . B u t the glimpse is t a n t a l i z i n g l y brief, a n d t h e escape f r o m p e r s o n a l i t y is presented as t h e p r i v i l e g e o f the poet, n o t s o m e t h i n g possible t o t h e reader or c r i t i c w h o i s n o t a poet. A s so o f t e n i n The Sacred Wood t h e a r g u m e n t i s sustained a t v i t a l p o i n t s b y w h a t are i n t h e n a t u r e o f confi­ d e n t i a l reports o n t h e a t t i t u d e o f t h e creative w r i t e r ; these r e p o r t s serve t o sweep aside a n y o p p o s i t i o n o n account o f t h e i r air o f a u t h e n t i c i t y . Since a t least t h e o u t l i n e o f t h e s t o r y o f Eliot's u n h a p p y first m a r r i a g e has been m a d e p u b l i c , i t is impossible n o t t o associate passages l i k e t h a t o n t h e escape f r o m e m o t i o n a n d p e r s o n a l i t y w i t h suppressed personal experience. Indeed t h e w h o l e t h e o r y o f poetic i m p e r s o n a l i t y is, one suspects, f e r t i l i z e d b y t h e strains o f personal u n h a p p i n e s s . E l i o t classes Hamlet as a f a i l u r e because Shakespeare d i d n o t find a suitable 'objective c o r r e l a t i v e ' f o r the s e x u a l disgust t h a t is t h e play's p o e t i c r a w m a t e r i a l ; h e h i m s e l f t o o k m o r e care t o achieve personal i n v i s i b i l i t y w h e n t w o years l a t e r i n The Waste Land h e assembled i t s m y t h s a n d d r a m a t i c collages i n t o a n i m p e n e t r a b l e disguise f o r h i s 'pro­ l o n g e d grouse'. T h i s is y e t a n o t h e r aspect o f t h e c r i t i c a l essays w h i c h reflects t h e preoccupations o f h i s p o e t r y . W e h a v e seen the absorbing, t r a n s f o r m i n g i n t e l l i g e n c e a t w o r k b o t h i n t h e c r i ­ tic a n d t h e poet, e x e r c i z i n g itself o n t h e l i t e r a r y t r a d i t i o n i n t h e f o r m e r , i n t h e l a t t e r o n t h e a c c u m u l a t i o n o f experience a n d e m o t i o n . N o w t h e c r i t i c , speaking f o r t h e poet, makes a k i n d o f m y s t e r y o f t h e personal e m o t i o n t o be overcome; so does t h e poet i n t h e o r i g i n a l e p i g r a p h t o The Waste Land: 'The h o r r o r , the horror.' T h e r e is a s h a d o w l i n e i n t h e essays as i n t h e poems. F i n a l l y , t h e strategic d i s p l a y o f l e a r n i n g i n t h e essays corres­ ponds t o t h e parade o f t h e m i n d o f Europe i n The Waste Land, b e l a t e d l y s u m m a r i z e d i n t h e notes added t o t h e p o e m a t t h e last m o m e n t : 'These f r a g m e n t s I have shored against m y r u i n s ' . I t w i l l be n o t i c e d t h a t i t is n o t t h e Toems o f 1920, w i t h t h e 13

174

Eliot's

'Tone*

e x c e p t i o n o f 'Gerontion', b u t The Waste Land, a p o e m s t i l l t o be w r i t t e n , w h i c h m o s t closely reflects t h e interests a n d m e t h o d s of The Sacred Wood. T h e c o n c l u s i o n is t h a t t h e p o e m was s l o w l y i n c u b a t i n g i n Eliot's creative m i n d a t t h e t i m e w h e n t h e essays w e r e w r i t t e n . T h e qualities o f i m p e r s o n a l i t y , m y s t e r y , a n d a u t h o r i t y , i n c o m b i n a t i o n w i t h t h e d i s p l a y o f reason a n d l e a r n i n g , are t h e i n g r e d i e n t s o f success. The Sacred Wood is essentially a b o o k t h a t spoke t o t h e i n d i v i d u a l w h o w a s w e a r y o f e m o t i v e u p l i f t i n criticism, tired o f the detritus o f the Nineties, a n d flattered t o be treated as a m e m b e r o f a n ideal c i v i l i z e d p u b l i c . T h e impres­ s i o n effected b y t h e t o n e is p r e d o m i n a n t because i n h i s h a n d l i n g of ideas E l i o t is h a b i t u a l l y c a u t i o u s a n d evasive. I n t h i s h e is the successor o f M a t t h e w A r n o l d , h o w e v e r t e m p e r a m e n t a l l y opposed t o A r n o l d h e m a y be o n o t h e r grounds. H e describes A r n o l d as m o r e a p r o p a g a n d i s t f o r c r i t i c i s m t h a n a c r i t i c ; t o b o t h of t h e m t h e c r i t i c a l i n t e l l i g e n c e is n o t m e r e l y w o r t h w h i l e b u t indispensable. T h e y share a c o m m o n aim: t h e defence o f t h e r i g o r o u s i n t e l l e c t u a l analysis o f a r t i s t i c w o r k s i n a n E n g l a n d w h i c h is f e l t t o be p o t e n t i a l l y h o s t i l e t o such a n approach. I n 1920, s i x t y years after A r n o l d ' s f u l m i n a t i o n s , a l l h i s w o r k w a s to do again; today, a t a l m o s t t h e same distance of t i m e , P h i l i s t i n ­ ism i n E n g l a n d is q u i t e dead a n d t h e c u l t u r a l danger is t h e q u i t e d i f f e r e n t one represented b y t h e m e d i a a n d s t i l l m o r e b y a mediag o v e r n e d a t t i t u d e of m i n d : s k i l f u l v u l g a r i z a t i o n w i t h a n eye t o the m a r k e t . A s A r n o l d h a d done, so E l i o t i n h i s later w o r k m o v e d t o w a r d s a broader i n t e r e s t i n t h e problems o f c u l t u r e a n d society. A r n o l d h a d t a k e n t h e s t r a i n o f t h e n e w l e a r n i n g o f Europe i n t h e e a r l y n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y , G e r m a n p h i l o s o p h y after H e g e l a n d F r e n c h p o s i t i v i s m ; h e h a d made h i s p i l g r i m a g e to Paris. So h a d Eliot, a n d w h e r e A r n o l d t e n d e d t o b e a t i f y Sainte-Beuve, E l i o t d i d t h e same f o r R e m y de G o u r m o n t . A s a E u r o p e a n i z e d A m e r i c a n , a Jamesian e x p a t r i a t e m o r e E u r o p e a n t h a n t h e Europeans, h e prepares w i t h h i s f r i e n d Ezra P o u n d t o l a y siege t o t h e l i t e r a r y capitals o f t h e r e a l Europe f o r t h e cause of a n ideal Europe, a Europe o f t h e m i n d . The Sacred Wood establishes a c r i t i c a l b r i d g e h e a d i n t h e face of possible o p p o s i t i o n f r o m t h e p r e v a i l i n g l i t e r a r y w o r l d ; heter­ o d o x v i e w s h a d been aired i n such sacrosanct places as t h e

Eliot's'Tone

9

175

r e v i e w c o l u m n s of t h e Times Literary Supplement T o use the t i t l e of one of t h e v o l u m e s o f M r L e o n Edel's l i f e o f H e n r y James, E l i o t a n d P o u n d l a i d deliberate siege t o L o n d o n , a n d L o n d o n f e l l i n t h e end, a n d a f t e r i t t h e w h o l e A n g l o - S a x o n l i t e r a r y a n d academic establishment. T h e r e w e r e o f course pockets of i n d i g ­ n a n t resistance w h i c h r e m a i n e d t o be m o p p e d u p a t a l a t e stage of t h e campaign: G a v i n Bone's d o n n i s h sneer at 'an A m e r i c a n c r i t i c , a M r E l i o t ' w a s p u b l i s h e d as late as 1943. T h e essays of The Sacred Wood as t h e y w e r e p u b l i s h e d i n t h e Egoist, t h e Athenaeum, a n d t h e T L S b e t w e e n 1917 a n d 1920 represent a deliberate seizure o f p o w e r b y a m i n o r i t y u s i n g i n f i l t r a t i o n r a t h e r t h a n direct a t t a c k s o m e w h a t i n t h e m a n n e r t h a t L e n i n a n d t h e B o l s h e v i k leaders seized p o w e r i n t h e same years. P o u n d has a r e m a r k i n a l e t t e r w h i c h i l l u s t r a t e s t h i s sense of conspiracy; he is c r i t i c i z i n g a r a r e f a i l u r e of t o n e i n a r e v i e w w h e r e E l i o t h a d abandoned h i s h a b i t u a l i n s i n u a t i o n f o r a b l u d g e o n i n g approach: 'That's n o t y o u r s t y l e a t a l l . Y o u l e t me t h r o w t h e b r i c k s t h r o u g h t h e f r o n t w i n d o w . Y o u g o i n at t h e back door and take o u t t h e swag.' 14

15

T h e characteristic i n s i n u a t i n g tone can be seen i n t h e c a r e f u l d r o p p i n g of c e r t a i n names i n t h e m a r g i n o f t h e m a i n a r g u m e n t s of t h e essays. T h e references t o M i l t o n and t h e Chinese W a l l of his b l a n k verse have o f course become n o t o r i o u s . T h e f a v o u r ­ able references t o Stendhal a n d t h e e x t r e m e l y h o s t i l e ones t o M e r e d i t h are also w o r t h m e n t i o n i n g : H o w a s t o n i s h i n g i t w o u l d be, i f a m a n l i k e A r n o l d h a d con­ cerned h i m s e l f w i t h t h e a r t o f t h e n o v e l . . . h a d s h o w n his contemporaries e x a c t l y w h y t h e a u t h o r of A m o s Barton is a m o r e serious w r i t e r t h a n Dickens, a n d w h y t h e a u t h o r of La Chartreuse de Parme is m o r e serious t h a n either, (p. x i ) 'The f e w people w h o t a l k i n t e l l i g e n t l y about Stendhal a n d F l a u b e r t a n d James...', 'the s u s p i c i o n i s i n o u r breast t h a t M r W h i b l e y m i g h t a d m i r e George M e r e d i t h ' ; 'The Charles Louis Philippes o f E n g l i s h L i t e r a t u r e are never done w i t h , because there is n o one t o k i l l t h e i r r e p u t a t i o n s ; w e s t i l l hear t h a t George M e r e d i t h is a master o f prose, or even a p r o f o u n d philosopher'. These allusions are p e r i p h e r a l t o t h e discussions of p o e t r y w h i c h are t h e concern i n the f o r e f r o n t o f t h e essays, as are t h e allusions

176

Eliot's

'Tone*

to i n n o v a t i o n i n t h e n o v e l b y C o n r a d a n d Joyce. Faults a n d v i r t u e s are h i n t e d at, b u t n o t even t h e suggestion o f a c r i t i c a l case is made o u t ; y e t t h e allusions occur i n t h e course o f care­ f u l l y reasoned arguments; t h e y therefore d r a w t o themselves f r o m t h e m a i n a r g u m e n t some o f its l o g i c a l persuasiveness a n d w e i g h t o f j u d g e m e n t . A r n o l d h a d made t h e mistake, i n E n g l a n d a f a t a l one, o f a r g u i n g w i t h h i s c o u n t r y m e n a b o u t r e l i g i o n before h e h a d c o n v i n c e d t h e m t h a t h i s l i t e r a r y v i e w s w e r e w o r t h l i s t e n i n g t o ; also, h e generalized t o o m u c h . E l i o t m a d e n e i t h e r o f these mistakes. I n s t e a d h e carried o u t a series o f small-scale reassessments o f p a r t i c u l a r w r i t e r s so w e l l t h a t t h e reader c o u l d fill i n t h e gaps b e t w e e n these n e w l a n d m a r k s f o r himself, as one j o i n s u p t h e dots i n a child's drawing-book, so t h a t a w h o l e n e w o r i e n t a t i o n o f E n g l i s h l i t e r a r y t r a d i t i o n began t o appear. I t w a s even possible t o deduce w h a t w a s w r o n g w i t h George M e r e d i t h ( I t a k e i t t o be t h e d o u b l e c r i m e o f fine w r i t i n g a n d home-made p h i l o s o p h i z i n g ) a n d w h y t h e S t e n d h a l n o v e l n a m e d s h o u l d be La Chartreuse a n d n o t Le Rouge et \e N o i r . T h e stock assumptions w h i c h these reassessments w e r e t o u n d e r m i n e need n o t be described a t l e n g t h . T h e y have been l u c i d l y analysed b y M r C. K. Stead i n The N e w Poetic. B r i e f l y , Eliot's p o l e m i c is directed against three presuppositions o f late n i n e t e e n t h - c e n t u r y poetic m y t h o l o g y : first, t h e idea t h a t o n l y t h e genius, t h e great m a n matters, a n d t h a t he is s o l i t a r y , o w i n g n o t h i n g t o t h e c o m m u n i t y o f h i s fellows. E l i o t calls t h i s 'the p e r p e t u a l heresy o f E n g l i s h c u l t u r e ' . A r n o l d h a d w r i t t e n i n t h e same w a y o f t h e f o l l y o f despising c r i t i c i s m as a n a c t i v i t y o f a l o w e r order a n d of n e g l e c t i n g t h e need f o r a free c u r r e n t of ideas to refresh t h e creative w r i t e r . E l i o t f o l l o w s A r n o l d ' s v e r y phras­ i n g closely, s p e a k i n g o f 'the r a p i d c i r c u l a t i o n o f ideas'. H e argues t h e need f o r second-order m i n d s w h i c h are n o t t h e same as second-rate minds. T h e great m a n m a y be greater f o r a c u r r e n t o f fresh ideas w h i c h o n l y t h e second-order m i n d s c a n m a i n t a i n , w h i l e t h e poet w h o is less t h a n great w i l l c e r t a i n l y p r o f i t f r o m t h a t c u r r e n t . H e r e a g a i n i n a n o t h e r s i x t y years t h e r e v o l u t i o n has been accomplished, n o t o f course e n t i r e l y o w i n g t o t h e i n f l u e n c e o f Eliot's w r i t i n g s , b u t t h r o u g h i m p e r s o n a l pressures i n o u r society a n d t h e a d v e n t o f mass e d u c a t i o n . T h e r e is n o l a c k n o w o f second-order m i n d s and, a t a n y rate u n t i l r e c e n t l y ,

Eliot's 'Tone*

177

o u r p u b l i c a r r a n g e m e n t s h a v e been geared t o t h e p r o d u c t i o n o f a g r e a t m a n y more. T h e second assumption, clearly l i n k e d t o t h e first, is t h a t t h e q u a l i t y o f a w o r k o f a r t is dependent o n a n u n a n a l y s a b l e per­ sonal e m o t i o n w h i c h lies b e y o n d i n t e l l e c t u a l discourse a n d w h i c h t h e beholder o r audience shares w i t h t h e artist. T h e t h i r d a s s u m p t i o n is t h a t p o e t r y offers some f o r m of u p l i f t , c o n s o l a t i o n or p h i l o s o p h y o r b e a u t i f u l t h o u g h t s . For i f t h e p o e m as p o e m c a n n o t be analysed, t h e ideas a n d m o r a l a t t i t u d e s t h a t are t a k e n u p i n t o i t are a t least detachable, a n d give t h e c r i t i c s o m e t h i n g to t a l k about. Eliot's c r i t i c i s m o f a l l these presuppositions is t h a t t h e y d r a w the reader's a t t e n t i o n a w a y f r o m t h e p o e t r y t o s o m e t h i n g else, the pleasant emotions generated i n h i m b y t h e poem, t h e i n t e r e s t o f t h e p e r s o n a l i t y h e feels is b e i n g revealed t o h i m , o r some k i n d o f e n n o b l i n g s t a t e m e n t about l i f e w h i c h m i g h t r a n g e i n v a l u e f r o m a w o r l d - v i e w t o a C h r i s t m a s cracker m o t t o . 'Honest c r i t i c i s m a n d sensitive a p p r e c i a t i o n is directed n o t u p o n the poet b u t u p o n t h e poetry.' A l l v i e w s are false w h i c h t r y t o s u b s t i t u t e s o m e t h i n g else f o r t h e poem. I n a r g u i n g f o r t h e s u b s t a n t i a l i t y a n d i n t e g r i t y o f p o e t r y as itself a n d n o t a n o t h e r t h i n g E l i o t is r e t u r n i n g t o t h e chief R o m a n t i c d o c t r i n e o f p o e t i c uniqueness i n order t o c r i t i c i z e l a t e r a b e r r a t i o n s of t h a t d o c t r i n e . T h u s over w h a t I have called t h e second assumption, o f a n u n a n a l y s a b l e p o e t i c e m o t i o n , h i s a t t i t u d e is ambiguous: h i s t r e a t m e n t o f t h e p o e m as i m a g i n a t i v e f u s i o n a c h i e v i n g a u n i q u e e m o t i o n t h r o u g h m a n i p u l a t i n g t h e associations a n d l e x i c a l m e a n i n g s of w o r d s p u t s h i m w i t h Coleridge a n d t h e Symbolists: For t h i s o r d i n a r y e m o t i o n a l person, e x p e r i e n c i n g a w o r k o f art, has a m i x e d c r i t i c a l a n d creative r e a c t i o n . I t is made u p o f c o m m e n t a n d o p i n i o n , a n d also n e w emotions w h i c h are v a g u e l y a p p l i e d t o h i s o w n l i f e . T h e s e n t i m e n t a l person, i n w h o m a w o r k o f a r t arouses a l l sorts o f emotions w h i c h h a v e n o t h i n g t o do w i t h t h a t w o r k o f a r t w h a t e v e r , b u t are acci­ dents of personal association, is a n i n c o m p l e t e artist. For i n a n a r t i s t these suggestions ... become fused w i t h a m u l t i t u d e o f other suggestions... and result i n t h e production of a n e w object w h i c h is n o l o n g e r p u r e l y p e r s o n a l . . . (p. 6 )

i 8 7

Eliot's

'Tone

9

H e r e i s a v i e w o f t h e self-sufficiency o f t h e a r t w o r k w h i c h echoes s y m b o l i s t t h e o r y a n d y e t is used t o d e m o l i s h t h e reliance o n i n d e f i n a b l e personal e m o t i o n d e r i v e d f r o m t h e same source. T h i s s t a t e m e n t appears i n t h e first essay o f T h e Sacred W o o d , 'The Perfect C r i t i c ' , w h i c h , w i t h ' T r a d i t i o n a n d t h e I n d i v i d u a l Talent', comes nearest t o l a y i n g d o w n a p r o g r a m m e t o be c a r r i e d o u t i n t h e reappraisals o f p a r t i c u l a r poets t h a t f o l l o w . A f t e r 'The Perfect C r i t i c ' come sketches o f v a r i o u s contem­ p o r a r y o r r e c e n t ' I m p e r f e c t C r i t i c s ' . A l l t h e l a t t e r are interested i n s o m e t h i n g o t h e r t h a n t h e p o e m as u n i q u e a n d i n d e p e n d e n t object. S w i n b u r n e has taste a n d e n t h u s i a s m b u t stops s h o r t o f a n a l y s i n g t h e special qualities w h i c h a t t r a c t h i m . George W y n d h a m is a r o m a n t i c aristocrat a n d h i s i n t e l l i g e n c e t h e r e f o r e is n o t s u f f i c i e n t l y disinterested. I n P a u l E l m e r M o r e a n d I r v i n g B a b b i t t t h e m o r a l i s t precedes t h e c r i t i c o f p o e t r y . O n l y A r i s t o t l e a n d R e m y de G o u r m o n t are a l l o w e d t o approach p e r f e c t i o n . T h e k e y w o r d s used i n t h e p a r a g r a p h describing t h e perfect c r i t i c are 'intelligence', ' f e e l i n g ' a n d 'feelings', 'emotion', a n d ' s e n s i b i l i t y ' ( t h e l a t t e r used less f r e q u e n t l y t h a n t h e o t h e r words). C o m b i n a t i o n s o f these terms occur t h r o u g h o u t t h e essays. T h e y suggest t h a t Eliot's h i d d e n t h e o r y o f p o e t r y i s based o n a t h e o r y o f h u m a n p e r c e p t i o n , m o r e precisely o n a scepticism l e a r n e d f r o m B r a d l e y a b o u t t h e e x t e n t o f t h e degrees of h u m a n k n o w l e d g e : ' H u m a n k i n d c a n n o t bear v e r y m u c h r e a l i t y ' . I n experience f r o m m o m e n t t o m o m e n t , f e e l i n g (sensa­ t i o n ) a n d t h o u g h t , or r e f l e c t i o n o n t h e f e e l i n g , come t o g e t h e r i n t h e c o n t i n u o u s stream o f consciousness, so t h a t t h e poet l o o k i n g f a i t h f u l l y a t h i s experience c a n never s a t i s f a c t o r i l y separate sensation-in-itself a n d f e e l i n g t h a t i s already o n i t s w a y t o b e c o m i n g a n object o f a t t e n t i o n . A b s t r a c t t h o u g h t comes later, after b o t h t h e o r i g i n a l experience a n d t h e fused t h o u g h t result­ i n g f r o m i t ; so does e m o t i o n , f o r i n Eliot's usage e m o t i o n i s s o m e t h i n g t h a t develops a r o u n d a n experience a t a l a t e r stage, n o t a p a r t o f i t l i k e t h e i m m e d i a t e f e e l i n g s — i t is b o t h a l u x u r y p r o d u c t a n d a step o n t h e r o a d t o w a r d s i n c r e a s i n g indefiniteness. T h e f o l l o w e r s o f Hegel, f o r i n s t a n c e ( l i k e Professor E u c k e n w h o b a n g e d t h e table a n d said 'Was ist Geist? Geist i s t . . . ' ) , 'have as a r u l e t a k e n f o r g r a n t e d t h a t w o r d s h a v e d e f i n i t e meanings, over­ l o o k i n g t h e t e n d e n c y of w o r d s t o become i n d e f i n i t e emotions'.

Eliot's

'Tone'

179

T h e classical s e v e r i t y o f t h i s , t h e austere i n t e l l e c t u a l tone, i s a i m e d a t g e t t i n g t h e c r i t i c a w a y f r o m emotions a n d personalities a n d abstract systems t o t h e h a r d facts o f r e a l m o m e n t s o f per­ c e p t i o n . T h e r e i s a p a r a d o x here. Eliot's i n t e l l e c t u a l i s m , h i s a p p r o v a l o f t h e h a r d d e f i n i t e o u t l i n e , as i n t h e comedies o f B e n Jonson o r t h e novels o f Stendhal, h i s d i s t r u s t o f t h e b l u r r e d e m o t i o n h o v e r i n g b e t w e e n c r e a t i o n a n d t h e o u t p o u r i n g o f per­ s o n a l i t y w h i c h h e s h r a n k f r o m i n M e r e d i t h a n d l a t e r i n Law­ r e n c e — a l l these are directed t o a c o n c e p t i o n o f l i t e r a t u r e w h i c h i s n o t i n t e l l e c t u a l i s t , b u t envisages a 'whole m a n ' i n w h o m t h o u g h t , f e e l i n g , a n d even m u s c u l a r sensation are blended. A l s o , t h e final e n d o f t h e creative process is n o t com­ p l e t e l y u n d e r t h e c o n t r o l o f t h e w i l l . A s i n h i s poems, ' H u m a n k i n d c a n n o t bear v e r y m u c h r e a l i t y ' , or, 'You k n o w a n d do n o t k n o w , w h a t i t is t o act or suffer'. T h e p r i m a c y o f sensation, t h e p o v e r t y o f abstract t h o u g h t , a n d t h e idea o f i n v o l u n t a r y p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n a h i g h e r r e a l i t y — these suggest t h e i n f l u e n c e o f Bradley. E l i o t h a d finished h i s d o c t o r a l dissertation o n B r a d l e y i n 1916, f o u r years before t h e p u b l i c a t i o n o f T h e Sacred Wood. H u g h K e n n e r a n d K r i s t i a n S m i d t h a v e d r a w n a t t e n t i o n t o B r a d l e y as a m o r e c o n t i n u o u s i n f l u e n c e u p o n E l i o t t h a n a n y poet he was s t u d y i n g i n t h i s period. I n B r a d l e y w e m e e t a stress comparable t o Eliot's o n t h e c o n c e n t r a t i o n a n d t r a n s f o r m a t i o n o f sensuous experience: 1 6

f e e l i n g a n d w i l l m u s t also be t r a n s m u t e d i n t h i s w h o l e , i n t o w h i c h t h o u g h t has entered. Such a w h o l e state w o u l d possess i n a s u p e r i o r f o r m t h a t i m m e d i a c y w h i c h w e find ( m o r e o r less) i n feeling; a n d i n t h i s w h o l e a l l divisions w o u l d be healed up. I t w o u l d be experience e n t i r e , c o n t a i n i n g a l l elements i n harmony. 17

E l i o t , l i k e Bradley, is e l e g a n t l y dismissive o f facile solutions; he too combines scepticism a b o u t t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f o u r k n o w l e d g e of r e a l i t y w i t h m e t a p h y s i c a l d e p t h i n r e c o g n i z i n g a n ideal system b e h i n d appearances. Before he embraced C h r i s t i a n belief a n d practice E l i o t i n d i c a t e d h i s adherence t o some u l t i m a t e level of u n d e r s t a n d i n g e x p e r i e n c e — ' t h e n o t i o n o f some i n f i n i t e l y gentle I n f i n i t e l y s u f f e r i n g t h i n g . ' T h e n o t i o n o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g is t r a n s f e r r e d f r o m t h e h u m a n reason t o t h e creative p e r c e p t i o n

Eliot's

i8o

'Tone*

of t h e artist. I t w a s a l i b e r a l i l l u s i o n , c o n d e m n e d at H a r v a r d b y I r v i n g B a b b i t t , i n Paris b y Charles M a u r r a s a n d Jules Lasserre, t h a t m a n w i t h h i s d i s c o n t i n u o u s n a t u r e c o u l d h o p e t o under­ stand himself; thus the artist m u s t cultivate impersonality t o m a i n t a i n t h e g a p b e t w e e n 'the m a n w h o suffers a n d t h e m i n d w h i c h creates', f o r t h r o u g h t h e l a t t e r o n l y c a n u n d e r s t a n d i n g come. T h e a s s i m i l a t i o n of B r a d l e y is a n i m p o r t a n t e l e m e n t i n Eliot's t h o u g h t b u t i t is n o t t h e w h o l e s t o r y . T h e r e is elegance, b u t n o n e o f t h e d a n d y i n Bradley; t h e arrogance, t h e occasional swagger, t h e d r a w i n g of t h e idea of i m p e r s o n a l i t y t o extremes of a b n e g a t i o n a n d d e s t r u c t i o n o f p e r s o n a l i t y — t h e s e elements i n Eliot's e a r l y m a n n e r he m a d e a l l h i s o w n , b u t I suspect t h a t R e m y de G o u r m o n t w a s t h e master w h o t a u g h t h i m h o w t o practise t h e m . W h e n E l i o t says t h i n g s l i k e 'The progress o f a n a r t i s t is a c o n t i n u a l self-sacrifice, a c o n t i n u a l e x t i n c t i o n of per­ s o n a l i t y ' , t h e accent o f de Gourmont's l o g i c a l a n t i - i n t e l l e c t u a l i s m is there. E l i o t quotes i n t h e essay o n Massinger f r o m Le 18

probleme du style: La v i e est u n d e p o u i l l e m e n t . Le b u t de l'activite p r o p r e de l'homme est de n e t t o y e r sa personnalite, de l a l a v e r de toutes les souillures qu'y deposa l'education, de l a degager de toutes les empreintes qu'y laisserent nos a d m i r a t i o n s adolescentes. A s w e l l as t h e t o n e of p a r a d o x t h e r e is i n de Gourmont's p r i n ­ cipal c r i t i c a l w r i t i n g s a n e l o q u e n t plea f o r t h e u n i o n o f m i n d a n d body, f o r t h i n k i n g w i t h t h e body: N o u s ecrivons, c o m m e n o u s sentons, c o m m e n o u s pensons, avec n o t r e corps t o u t entier. L'intelligence n'est qu'une des manieres d'etre de l a s e n s i b i l i t e . . . C a r t o u t se t i e n t et l'aisance i n t e l l e c t u e l l e est c e r t a i n e m e n t liee a l a l i b e r t e des sensations.

A s i n The Sacred W o o d , i n La culture des idees, Le chemin

de

velours, a n d Le probleme du style, i n t e l l e c t u a l precision is placed at t h e service o f t h e p r i m i t i v e , t h e i n v o l u n t a r y , t h e d i s c o n t i n u ­ ous a n d t h e immediate. T h u s t h e o n l y g o o d lines i n t h e 'dreary sequence' of D r a y -

Eliot's

'Tone'

181

ton's sonnets i n Idea's Mirror are said to be those i n w h i c h h e w r i t e s i n terms o f concrete a c t u a l i t y : Lastly, m i n e eyes a m a z e d l y have seen Essex' great f a l l ; T y r o n e h i s peace t o gain; T h e q u i e t end o f t h a t l o n g - l i v i n g queen; T h e king's f a i r e n t r y , a n d o u r peace w i t h Spain. S a l v a t i o n m a y be f o u n d t h r o u g h i m m e d i a c y , t h r o u g h t h a t ' b e w i l d e r i n g m i n u t e ' , t h e c o n t i n g e n t m o m e n t . I n t e l l i g e n c e is not a n abstract f u n c t i o n set over against t h e senses a n d emo­ tions, b u t t h e effort o f a s e n s i b i l i t y t o k n o w itself. T h e passages i n The Sacred Wood w h e r e t h e d r y logic is relieved b y a m o r e e m o t i v e phrase are those t h a t signal t h e poet's p o w e r t o l o o k i n t o t h e d a r k places of h u m a n l i f e ; such a phrase is ' l o o k i n g i n t o the Shadow' w h i c h evokes t h e d i f f i c u l t y o f t h e l i f e of reason. I n t h a t phrase t h e r e is m i n g l e d reminiscence o f t h e titles a n d themes o f t w o stories b y C o n r a d — a n o t h e r e x p l o r e r o f t h e d i m e n s i o n of h u m a n l i f e l y i n g b e y o n d t h e c o n t r o l o f r e a s o n — • The Shadow-Line a n d Heart of Darkness. T h e l a t t e r provides a n o u t s t a n d i n g case of t h e s p l i t b e t w e e n conscious, personal, c i v i l ­ ized i n t e n t i o n , a n d t h a t assertion of t h e d a r k side of h i s n a t u r e w h i c h teaches m a n m o r e about h i m s e l f — ' M i s t a h K u r t z , h e dead'. T h i s discussion o f Eliot's t o n e i n h i s e a r l y essays has d w e l t o n its u r g e n c y , its dandy's assurance a n d poise, its scepticism as to p r i n c i p l e , i t s f r e q u e n t deviousness a n d occasional m y s t e r y . These qualities c o m p o u n d a s t y l e o f r e m a r k a b l e f a s c i n a t i o n , u n i t i n g as t h e y do c r i t i c a l p r e c i s i o n a n d b o l d suggestiveness, t h e appeal t o t h e i n t e l l e c t a n d a n appeal t o t h e pre-logical sources o f h u m a n l i f e m o r e effective t h a n t h a t o f L a w r e n c e because less s t r i d e n t . T h e i m p u l s e t h a t drives these qualities has t w o p r i n ­ c i p a l sources: w h a t I h a v e called t h e v e r i t a b l e c a m p a i g n con­ d u c t e d b y E l i o t a n d P o u n d t o establish n e w objective canons o f l i t e r a r y taste, a n d t h e deep need t o w o r k o u t a personal creative p r o b l e m . A f t e r The Sacred Wood i t m u s t be a d m i t t e d t h a t t h e e x c i t e m e n t goes o u t o f Eliot's l i t e r a r y c r i t i c i s m . T h e r e are a n u m b e r o f reasons f o r t h i s , a n d i t w o u l d be u n f a i r t o d e m a n d f r o m t h e d i s t i n g u i s h e d e l d e r l y l e c t u r e r o n a n i n v i t e d occasion the special freshness o f a y o u n g man's book. S o m e t h i n g m a y be

i8z

Eliot's 'Tone*

a t t r i b u t e d t o t h e change f r o m t h e f o r m o f t h e b o o k r e v i e w t o t h e f o r m o f t h e lecture, t h e change f r o m t h e e x p l o r a t o r y t o t h e ex cathedra; Eliot's p l a t f o r m m a n n e r is d u l l a n d hedged r o u n d w i t h qualification: A l l I h a v e a f f i r m e d is, t h a t a w o r k w h i c h consists o f a n u m b e r of s h o r t poems, even o f poems w h i c h , t a k e n i n d i v i d u a l l y , m a y appear r a t h e r s l i g h t , m a y , i f i t has a u n i t y o f u n d e r l y i n g p a t t e r n , be t h e e q u i v a l e n t o f a first-rate l o n g p o e m i n estab­ l i s h i n g a n author's c l a i m t o be a 'major' poet. ('What is M i n o r Poetry?', 1944) T h e r e are m a n y sentences l i k e t h i s one i n t h e lectures collected

i n O n Poetry and Poets (1957). B u t m o r e i m p o r t a n t reasons f o r the change are s u r e l y t o be f o u n d i n t h e f a c t t h a t t h e impulses b e h i n d t h e earlier c r i t i c i s m h a d w o r k e d themselves o u t . T h e c a m p a i g n h a d been successful a n d t h e a r d o u r o f p r o p a g a n d a w a s no l o n g e r r e q u i r e d . O n e o f t h e m o s t e x p l i c i t o f t h e h i n t s t h r o w n out i n The Sacred W o o d , t h a t c o n c e r n i n g a r e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e E n g l i s h p o e t i c t r a d i t i o n based o n t h e l i n e o f w i t , was f o l l o w e d u p

by Eliot h i m s e l f i n The Use of Poetry and the Use of Criticism (1933) a n d m o r e l a b o r i o u s l y b y F. R. Leavis a n d t h e w r i t e r s i n Scrutiny. A s f o r t h e creative a n d personal p r o b l e m , w h i c h I w o u l d b a l d l y describe as t h e c r e a t i o n o f m e a n i n g o u t o f suffer­ i n g w h i l e p r e s e r v i n g t r u t h t o experience, i t w a s f u l l y w o r k e d

o u t i n The Waste Land, Ash-Wednesday, a n d Four Quartets. T h u s t h e e a r l y h i n t s a n d observations o n s t y l e a n d metre, v a l i d as some o f t h e m s t i l l seem, a n d t h e basis o f m u c h o f o u r t h i n k i n g a b o u t p o e t r y , m a y be traced t o a n e x t r e m e l y personal a n d special epistemology. Great poems are c o m p l e x a n d imper­ sonal because t h e y correspond t o those isolated m o m e n t s o f w h i c h c o n t i n g e n t experience i s composed; b o t h p o e m a n d m o m e n t o f experience are c o m p l e x s t r u c t u r e s o f feelings i n w h i c h p e r c e i v i n g subject a n d objective o u t e r w o r l d merge. I n

s a l u t i n g t h e a u t h o r o f The Sacred Wood one has t o add a n o t h e r name, Eliot's o w n , t o h i s l i s t o f i m p e r f e c t critics, a n o t h e r creative w r i t e r manque, b u t one w h o w a s t o realize h i m s e l f f u l l y i n t h e m e d i u m of verse over t h e n e x t t w e n t y years. A p a r t f r o m the w a y i n w h i c h they i l l u m i n a t e his m i n d , t h e m o s t l a s t i n g a c h i e v e m e n t o f these essays, i n spite o f t h e imper-

Eliot's

'Tone'

i8

3

sonal p r o g r a m m e , is, b y t h e close e x a m i n a t i o n o f l a n g u a g e a n d metre, t o c a t c h f o r us M a r l o w e , o r Jonson, o r Massinger, a n d render t h e 'feel' o f t h e i r w o r k . I t is b y a s c r u p u l o u s r e g a r d f o r the a c t u a l w o r d s w i t h w h i c h p o e t r y is made t h a t E l i o t , t h o u g h w r i t i n g i n t h e s y m b o l i s t t r a d i t i o n , avoids those e x t r e m e i l l u s i o n s a b o u t t h e p o e m as art-object o r p u r e m u s i c t o w h i c h I referred at t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h i s essay: T h e e n d is w h e r e w e start f r o m . A n d every phrase T h e sentence t h a t is r i g h t ( w h e r e every w o r d is at home, T a k i n g i t s place t o s u p p o r t t h e others, T h e w o r d n e i t h e r d i f f i d e n t n o r ostentatious, A n easy c o m m e r c e of t h e o l d a n d t h e new, T h e c o m m o n w o r d exact w i t h o u t v u l g a r i t y , T h e f o r m a l w o r d precise b u t n o t pedantic, T h e c o m p l e t e consort d a n c i n g t o g e t h e r ) E v e r y phrase a n d e v e r y sentence is a n end a n d a b e g i n n i n g , Every poem a n epitaph.

9

Eliot, Arnold, and the English Poetic Tradition c. K.

STEAD

The important critic is the person who is absorbed in the pre­ sent problems of art, and who wishes to bring the forces of the past to bear upon the solution of these problems. The Sacred Wood Every renewal of the sense of possibility within an art depends on a corresponding reappraisal of its history. Such a reappraisal was offered by T. S. Eliot in his essays written during the second and third decades of this century. Eliot i n effect changed our perspective on English literary history, and the influence of his essays was so strong and so widespread that by 1950 i t was scarcely possible for a critic to embark on any aspect of English poetry from 1600 to the modern period without at some point touching on, being influenced by, or at least dissenting from, something that stemmed from Eliot. The critical orthodoxy which Eliot replaced was that of Matthew Arnold—the late Arnold of Essays in Criticism Second SerieSy which was in its turn very largely an orderly reassertion of the basic principles of English Romanticism. Arnold had begun as something of a rebel against the great figures of the early years of his century; at least he had wanted to mark out for himself as a poet a space where he would not be over­ shadowed by them; and perhaps more particularly (like Eliot after him) to distinguish himself from their degenerate heirs, his now forgotten contemporaries. Hence the elements of ' classic­ ism in his early criticism. But Arnold was to find his place finally, not as a rebel against the great Romantics, but as the most persuasive latterday spokesman for their poetry and for 9

Eliot and the English Poetic Tradition

185

the tradition they had invoked to support i t . The reputations of W o r d s w o r t h a n d B y r o n i n p a r t i c u l a r , a n d also o f G r a y a n d M i l ­ ton, w e r e g i v e n n e w s u p p o r t b y A r n o l d , w h i l e t h e o b l o q u y i n t o w h i c h D r y den a n d Pope h a d f a l l e n since 1798 was confirmed. A r n o l d ' s i n f l u e n c e was l o n g l a s t i n g . I n 1933 Eliot wrote: ' E x a m i n a t i o n of t h e c r i t i c i s m of o u r t i m e leads me t o believe t h a t we are s t i l l i n t h e A r n o l d period.' I n 1941 A l l e n Tate wrote: ' A r n o l d is s t i l l t h e great c r i t i c a l i n f l u e n c e i n t h e u n i v e r ­ sities, and i t is perhaps n o t an e x a g g e r a t i o n of his i n f l u e n c e t o say t h a t debased A r n o l d is s t i l l t h e m a i n stream of p o p u l a r a p p r e c i a t i o n o f poetry.' To t h i s I can add m y o w n t e s t i m o n y , for w h a t i t is w o r t h . I n t h e fifth a n d s i x t h f o r m s i n New Z e a l a n d i n t h e late 1940s—a t i m e w h e n some l i t t l e l i t e r a r y h i s t o r y was s t i l l t a u g h t i n N e w Z e a l a n d s c h o o l s — I learned t h a t Pope and D r y d e n w e r e classics of o u r prose a n d t h a t W o r d s ­ w o r t h was t h e t h i r d great E n g l i s h poet after Shakespeare a n d M i l t o n . I d i d n o t hear m u c h a b o u t A r n o l d , b u t t h e j u d g e m e n t s were couched i n terms I n o w recognize as his. W h e n I e n r o l l e d at A u c k l a n d U n i v e r s i t y College i n 1951 I learned an entirely new v e r s i o n of E n g l i s h l i t e r a r y h i s t o r y , a n d I learned t h a t i t was Eliot's. These versions of h i s t o r y are at times so o v e r p o w e r i n g , so a l l pervasive, a n d so b o u n d u p n o t o n l y w i t h t h e c r i t i c i s m of p o e t r y b u t w i t h t h e p r a c t i c e of i t as w e l l , t h a t i t can be d i f f i c u l t t o see t h e m w i t h a n y degree o f d e t a c h m e n t . M y purpose here is t o t r y t o see afresh t h e h i s t o r i c a l o r t h o d o x y E l i o t established, w h i c h means i n p a r t t o see i t against t h e b a c k g r o u n d of t h e o r t h o d o x y i t replaced. T h e m o s t f a m o u s sentences w h i c h fixed i n t h e m i n d s o f h i s contemporaries a n d of several generations succeeding h i m a t least t h e negative aspect o f A r n o l d ' s v i e w of t h e l i t e r a r y h i s t o r y of E n g l a n d are those a b o u t ' D r y d e n , Pope, and a l l t h e i r school', w h o s e p o e t r y was 'conceived and composed i n t h e i r w i t s ' where­ as 'genuine p o e t r y is conceived a n d composed i n t h e soul'. T h e i r s was t h e l a n g u a g e of prose, n o t o f p o e t r y , a n d i t was Gray's m i s f o r t u n e , a n d t h e e x p l a n a t i o n of w h y 'he never spoke out', t h a t he was 'a b o r n poet' w h o ' f e l l u p o n an age o f prose'. T h e r e are some sentences A r n o l d w r o t e i n 1881 w h i c h fix t h i s v i e w i n a broader h i s t o r i c a l frame: 1

2

3

186

Eliot and the English Poetic

Tradition

W e h a d far better t h a n the poetry of the eighteenth century before t h a t c e n t u r y a r r i v e d , w e h a v e h a d b e t t e r since i t departed ... W e do w e l l t o place o u r p r i d e i n t h e E l i z a b e t h a n age a n d Shakespeare, as t h e Greeks placed theirs i n H o m e r . W e d i d w e l l to r e t u r n i n t h e present c e n t u r y t o t h e p o e t r y o f t h a t older age f o r i l l u m i n a t i o n a n d i n s p i r a t i o n , a n d t o p u t aside, i n great measure, t h e p o e t r y a n d poets i n t e r v e n i n g between M i l t o n and W o r d s w o r t h . M i l t o n , i n w h o m our great poetic age e x p i r e d , was t h e last of t h e i m m o r t a l s ... T h e g l o r y o f E n g l i s h l i t e r a t u r e is i n p o e t r y , a n d i n p o e t r y t h e s t r e n g t h of t h e e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r y does n o t l i e . 4

A r n o l d h a d a h i e r a r c h i c a l m i n d a n d h i s E n g l i s h h i e r a r c h y was headed b y Shakespeare, M i l t o n a n d W o r d s w o r t h i n t h a t order. M i l t o n , t h o u g h second t o Shakespeare, was superior t o h i m i n 'sureness o f p e r f e c t style'. H e was 'the one a r t i s t o f t h e h i g h e s t r a n k i n t h e great style w h o m w e have'. W o r d s w o r t h lacked style, b u t h e h a d ' f i d e l i t y ' , h e h a d ' l i f e ' ( t h e i t a l i c s are Arnold's, a n d n o t once b u t m a n y times), a n d h e t a u g h t u s 'joy'. T o these three poets m a y be added t h e others t o w h o m A r n o l d assigned t h e i r v a r i o u s a n d r e l a t i v e places; a n d t h e h i e r a r c h y is e x p a n d e d to i n c l u d e E u r o p e a n as w e l l as E n g l i s h poets. O n e s t r u c t u r e o f A r n o l d ' s c r i t i c i s m , therefore, m i g h t be represented as a simple tennis-club ladder. B u t a n o t h e r ( a n d here h e resembles E l i o t i n t h e s t r u c t u r e i f n o t i n t h e details o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ) is t h e h i s t o r i c a l curve, r e p r e s e n t i n g a h i g h p o i n t i n Shakespeare, o n l y a v e r y s l i g h t d r o p t o M i l t o n , a sharp d i p i n t o t h e e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r y , a n d a n u p w a r d curve w i t h t h e a r r i v a l o f W o r d s w o r t h . T h e d o w n w a r d curve i n p o e t r y , how­ ever, is accompanied b y a n u p w a r d one i n t h e q u a l i t y of prose. T h i s is t h e v i e w w e have l e a r n e d at least t o reject, i f n o t posi­ t i v e l y t o despise. For m y purposes a t t h i s p o i n t , however, i t s h o u l d be considered n e i t h e r r i g h t n o r w r o n g b u t s i m p l y one w a y of seeing, w h i c h E l i o t replaced b y another. 5

6

Eliot's p r i n c i p a l statements o n t h i s subject occur i n his essay o n t h e M e t a p h y s i c a l Poets a n d p u t f o r w a r d a t h e o r y w h i c h e x p l a i n s l i t e r a r y developments i n terms of w h a t m i g h t be called a piece o f h i s t o r i c a l psychology. I n t h e seventeenth c e n t u r y 'something . . . h a p p e n e d t o t h e m i n d o f England', a 'dissocia-

Eliot and

the English Poetic Tradition

187

t i o n of s e n s i b i l i t y . • • f r o m w h i c h we have never recovered'. The r e s u l t was a decline i n t h e q u a l i t y of p o e t r y , f o r w h i l e ' t h e l a n g u a g e became m o r e r e f i n e d , t h e f e e l i n g became m o r e crude'. W h e r e a s i n t h e best of t h e M e t a p h y s i c a l poets and Jacobean d r a m a t i s t s we find 'a direct sensuous a p p r e h e n s i o n of t h o u g h t or r e c r e a t i o n of t h o u g h t i n t o feeling', i n t h e poets w h o succeed t h e m f e e l i n g and t h o u g h t are progressively m o r e and m o r e dis­ sociated. By t h e t i m e we get t o t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y we find poets t h i n k and feel 'by fits'. One or t w o passages i n Shelley and Keats reveal 'traces o f a s t r u g g l e t o w a r d s u n i f i c a t i o n of sensi­ b i l i t y . B u t Keats and Shelley died and T e n n y s o n and B r o w n i n g ruminated'. T h i s 'dissociation of s e n s i b i l i t y ' was i n t h e first v e r s i o n o f t h e essay i n q u e s t i o n said t o be 'due to', i n t h e later v e r s i o n 'aggra­ vated by', t h e i n f l u e n c e of M i l t o n and D r y den. 'Each of these m e n p e r f o r m e d c e r t a i n poetic f u n c t i o n s so m a g n i f i c e n t l y w e l l t h a t t h e m a g n i t u d e of t h e effect concealed t h e absence of others' — a n d b y t u r n i n g t o t h e essay ' A n d r e w M a r v e l l ' , p u b l i s h e d i n t h e same year, we m a y find w h a t f u n c t i o n s each p e r f o r m e d . E a r l y i n t h e M a r v e l l essay E l i o t w r i t e s : 'Out o f t h a t h i g h style developed f r o m M a r l o w e t h r o u g h J o n s o n . . . t h e seven­ t e e n t h c e n t u r y separated t w o qualities: w i t a n d m a g n i l o ­ quence.' ' W i t ' here suggests D r y den, 'magniloquence' M i l t o n — a n d t h i s is c o n f i r m e d e i g h t pages on: ' D r y d e n was great i n w i t , as M i l t o n i n magniloquence'; b u t D r y den b y i s o l a t i n g w i t a n d M i l t o n b y dispensing w i t h i t , 'may perhaps h a v e i n j u r e d t h e language'. Eliot's h i s t o r y , t h e n , is l i k e A r n o l d ' s i n r e p r e s e n t i n g a decline i n E n g l i s h p o e t r y after a h i g h p o i n t reached i n t h e late six­ t e e n t h - e a r l y seventeenth centuries. B u t f o r E l i o t t h e decline begins a l i t t l e earlier ( i n M i l t o n ) a n d continues l o n g e r i n t o t h e R o m a n t i c s and beyond. I f t h e r e is recovery at a l l (and there are clear h i n t s of t h i s ) i t is i n t h e p o e t r y E l i o t h i m s e l f a n d P o u n d w e r e w r i t i n g i n the years f o l l o w i n g the First W o r l d War. The n a t u r e o f t h e decline, or its causes, are also d i f f e r e n t l y described. W h e r e a s A r n o l d sees a decline i n e i g h t e e n t h - c e n t u r y p o e t r y caused b y poets c o m p o s i n g i n t h e i r ' w i t s ' instead of i n t h e i r 'soul', E l i o t sees a n u n f o r t u n a t e separation of t h e faculties we m a y suppose ' w i t s ' and 'soul' to r e p r e s e n t — a separation of 7

8

9

10

188

E l i o t and the English Poetic Tradition

' i n t e l l e c t ' a n d 'feeling'; b u t h e adds t h a t w h e r e s u c h a separa­ t i o n occurred, t h e greater damage t o t h e poetic t r a d i t i o n w a s done b y t h e p o e t r y of 'souP ( M i l t o n ' s 'magniloquence') t h a n b y t h e p o e t r y of t h e ' w i t s ' (Dryden's ' w i t ' ) . Some years after h e first set f o r t h t h i s v i e w E l i o t r e i t e r a t e d i t , e m p h a s i z i n g a g a i n t h e s u p e r i o r i t y o f D r y d e n over M i l t o n as an i n f l u e n c e o n t h e p o e t r y t h a t f o l l o w e d : I have said elsewhere t h a t t h e l i v i n g E n g l i s h w h i c h was Shakes­ peare's became s p l i t u p i n t o t w o c o m p o n e n t s o n e of w h i c h was e x p l o i t e d b y M i l t o n a n d t h e o t h e r b y D r y d e n . O f t h e t w o , I s t i l l t h i n k Dryden's d e v e l o p m e n t t h e h e a l t h i e r , because i t w a s D r y d e n w h o preserved, so f a r as i t w a s preserved at all, the t r a d i t i o n o f conversational language i n poetry: a n d I m i g h t a d d t h a t i t seems t o m e easier t o get back t o h e a l t h y l a n g u a g e f r o m D r y d e n t h a n i t is t o get back t o i t f r o m Milton. 1 1

I n 1920 The Sacred Wood appeared, establishing E l i o t as a n i m p o r t a n t n e w c r i t i c a l voice. A year l a t e r h e w r o t e t h e three essays e n u n c i a t i n g t h e v i e w o f l i t e r a r y h i s t o r y w h i c h w a s t o become our v i e w — ' T h e M e t a p h y s i c a l Poets', ' A n d r e w M a r v e l l ' and 'John D r y d e n ' . T h e t h r e e essays appeared together u n d e r

the t i t l e Homage to John Dryden i n 1924, and i t is surely t h e i r i n f l u e n c e i n succeeding decades w h i c h p u t t h e M e t a p h y s i c a l poets and Jacobean d r a m a t i s t s at t h e centre of academic studies of E n g l i s h l i t e r a t u r e , made t h e s t u d y o f D r y d e n ( a n d b y exten­ s i o n of Pope) respectable, and set u p at least some barriers t o t h e a p p r e c i a t i o n o f M i l t o n a n d of w h a t E l i o t called 'the p o p u l a r a n d p r e t e n t i o u s verse o f t h e R o m a n t i c Poets a n d t h e i r succes­ sors'. 'The l i n e of w i t ' , as F. R. Leavis calls i t , is essentially Eliot's l i n e ; a n d Leavis, l i k e every o t h e r m a j o r m o d e r n c r i t i c , c o u l d trace his d e v e l o p m e n t back t o a source i n Eliot's e a r l y c r i t i c i s m , a n d i n p a r t i c u l a r t o those t h r e e essays. Y e t t h e essays c o n t a i n t h e i r o w n half-concealed u n c e r t a i n t i e s and disclaimers. T h o u g h t h e y appear finally t o b u r y A r n o l d , A r n o l d s t i l l speaks i n t h e m ; and i t is t h i s p o i n t I w i s h n o w to t u r n m y attention to. T h e essay o n M a r v e l l defines m o r e c l e a r l y t h e ' w i t ' of p o e t r y t h a t has n o t suffered t h e 'dissociation of sensibility'; and at t h e 12

E l i o t and

the

E n g l i s h Poetic Tradition

189

same t i m e , because t h e c o m p a r i s o n is i n p a r t w i t h D r y d e n , i t shows h o w t h e b e g i n n i n g s of t h a t * dissociation' place l i m i t s o n Dryden's achievements. M a r v e l l is n o t a great poet, as M i l t o n a n d D r y d e n are, b u t he is a * classic'. 'There is ... a n equipoise, a balance and p r o p o r t i o n of tones, w h i c h , w h i l e i t c a n n o t raise M a r v e l l t o t h e level of D r y d e n or M i l t o n , e x t o r t s an a p p r o v a l w h i c h these poets do n o t receive f r o m u s / H i s w i t is 'an alliance of l e v i t y w i t h seriousness ( w h e r e b y seriousness is i n t e n ­ s i f i e d ) ' ; whereas i n D r y d e n ' w i t becomes a l m o s t f u n , a n d t h e r e b y loses some c o n t a c t w i t h r e a l i t y \ W h a t t r o u b l e s E l i o t is a l a c k of 'seriousness' ('high serious­ ness' A r n o l d w o u l d have called i t ) i n D r y d e n — a n d he makes t h e same p o i n t a f e w years later w h e n he says t h a t Dryden's satire is ' i n t h e m o d e r n sense h u m o u r o u s a n d w i t t y ' b u t t h a t i t lacks 'the proper w i t of p o e t r y ' . I n t h e essay o n D r y d e n E l i o t quotes (misquotes, i n f a c t ) A r n o l d s a y i n g t h a t t h e p o e t r y of D r y d e n and Pope 'is conceived a n d composed i n t h e i r w i t s , g e n u i n e p o e t r y is conceived i n t h e s o u l ' and rebukes h i m f o r i t . 'Dryden', E l i o t insists, 'is one of t h e tests of a c a t h o l i c a p p r e c i a t i o n of p o e t r y ' — a n d he goes o n to t r y t o correct t h e v i e w of D r y d e n t h a t h a d been fashionable i n t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y and was, n o d o u b t , s t i l l c u r r e n t i n 1921. B u t l a t e i n t h e essay E l i o t concedes t w o p o i n t s against D r y d e n : first, t h a t he h a d 'a c o m m o n p l a c e mind'; second, t h a t a l t h o u g h Dryden's w o r d s 'state immensely', ' t h e i r suggestiveness is o f t e n n o t h i n g ' . E l i o t goes on: 'The question, w h i c h has c e r t a i n l y been w a i t i n g , m a y j u s t l y be asked: w h e t h e r , w i t h o u t t h i s w h i c h D r y d e n lacks, verse can be poetry? ' H a v i n g p u t t h e question, h o w e v e r , E l i o t retreats f r o m i t and does n o t answer. ' W h a t is m a n t o decide w h a t p o e t r y is?' he asks. H e proceeds t o q u o t e a n d t o praise Dryden's elegy o n O l d h a m . A n d he concludes: ' [ D r y d e n ] r e m a i n s one o f those w h o h a v e set standards f o r E n g l i s h verse w h i c h i t is desperate to i g n o r e ' — v e r s e , n o t p o e t r y , a n d i t is E l i o t h i m s e l f w h o has made t h e d i s t i n c t i o n . D r y d e n h a d 'a c o m m o n p l a c e m i n d ' , he ' l a c k e d . . . a large and u n i q u e v i e w of l i f e ; he lacked i n s i g h t , he lacked p r o f u n d ­ i t y ' ; h i s p o e t r y lacked v e r b a l 'suggestiveness': i t is, o n close i n s p e c t i o n , strange 'homage' t h a t is offered to D r y d e n i n t h e 1 3

14

15

16

1 7

1 8

19

2 0

190

Eliot and

the E n g l i s h Poetic

Tradition

b o o k of t h a t t i t l e . T h e q u a l i f i c a t i o n s are consistent, of course, w i t h Eliot's v i e w t h a t M i l t o n a n d D r y d e n t o g e t h e r represent t h e t w o halves of t h e d i v i d e d , or d i v i d i n g , E n g l i s h s e n s i b i l i t y — t h a t t h e y m a r k t h e m o m e n t at w h i c h 'the E n g l i s h m i n d a l t e r e d ' . B u t t h i s u n d e r t o n e seems r e m a r k a b l y close t o A r n o l d , f r o m w h o m t h e essay o s t e n s i b l y p a r t e d c o m p a n y — A r n o l d w h o was a l w a y s w i l l i n g t o concede t h a t D r y d e n was a 'master i n letters', a m a n of 'admirable talent', 'a man, o n a l l sides, o f s u c h ener­ getic and g e n i a l power', b u t w h o s e 'verse' lacks ' h i g h serious­ ness', lacks 'poetic largeness, freedom, i n s i g h t , b e n i g n i t y ' a n d w h o s e l a n g u a g e is essentially t h e l a n g u a g e of prose. T h e r e is, t h e n , at least some c o m m o n g r o u n d b e t w e e n E l i o t a n d A r n o l d o n t h e subject of D r y d e n . W h a t of M i l t o n ? W e are m o s t l i k e l y t o r e m e m b e r t h a t E l i o t said ' M i l t o n w r i t e s E n g l i s h l i k e a dead language', w h i l e A r n o l d said t h a t i n t h e m a t t e r of s t y l e M i l t o n is superior even to S h a k e s p e a r e — ' t h e one a r t i s t of t h e h i g h e s t r a n k i n t h e great style w h o m w e have'. B u t to discover i n m o r e d e t a i l w h a t A r n o l d t h o u g h t of M i l t o n , a n d of M i l t o n ' s epic, w e h a v e t o go back a f e w years before t h e essay ' M i l t o n ' ( w h i c h was no m o r e t h a n an address delivered at t h e u n v e i l i n g of a m e m o r i a l w i n d o w ) t o one called 'A F r e n c h C r i t i c o n M i l t o n ' , w h e r e A r n o l d asserts e q u a l l y firmly t h a t M i l t o n 'is o u r great a r t i s t i n style, o u r one first-rate master i n t h e g r a n d s t y l e ' , b u t allows t h e F r e n c h c r i t i c , Scherer, t o say f o r h i m , or t o s u p p o r t h i m i n saying, w h a t is u n s a t i s f a c t o r y i n Milton. M i l t o n the m a n is 'unamiable'; 'his w a n t of sweetness of temper, of t h e Shakespearean largeness a n d indulgence, are u n d e n i a b l e ' . M u c h o f Paradise Lost a w a k e n s m e r e l y ' l a n g u i d i n t e r e s t ' . Indeed i t s subject 'has no special force or effective­ ness'. I n substance i t is 'a false poem, a grotesque poem, a tiresome poem'; y e t i n s t y l e i t is 'the v e r y essence of poetry'. M i l t o n ' s 'power b o t h o f d i c t i o n and o f r h y t h m is unsurpass­ able.' Why t h e n is M i l t o n i m p o r t a n t ? I t is because, i n an age w h e n f e w readers l e a r n at first h a n d t h e greatness of style of t h e best of L a t i n and Greek l i t e r a t u r e , h i s p o e t r y , i n its 'flawless perfec­ t i o n of ... r h y t h m a n d d i c t i o n ' gives us t h e sense of t h a t a n c i e n t greatness, recreates i t i n o u r o w n t o n g u e , and t h u s acts as a 21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

3 1

Eliot and the English Poetic Tradition

191

b u l w a r k against 'the A n g l o - S a x o n c o n t a g i o n , a l l t h e f l o o d o f Anglo-Saxon commonness\ Is n o t A r n o l d s a y i n g w h a t E l i o t s a y s — t h a t ' M i l t o n w r i t e s E n g l i s h l i k e a dead l a n g u a g e ' — b u t s a y i n g i t a p p r o v i n g l y ? I n t h e case o f M i l t o n , as i n t h a t o f D r y d e n , A r n o l d a n d E l i o t are nearer agreement t h a n appears at first s i g h t t o be t h e case. N e i t h e r likes M i l t o n t h e man, n o r t h e substance o f M i l t o n ' s epic. B o t h see h i m c h i e f l y i n terms o f style. T h e differences i n w h a t t h e y choose t o emphasise a n d t o v a l u e depend, n o t o n a difference o f seeing, b u t o n w h a t each feels t h e needs o f t h e present m o m e n t t o be. A n d t e n years after his first essay o n M i l t o n E l i o t is prepared t o a c k n o w l e d g e t h a t even t o a poet o f t h e t w e n t i e t h c e n t u r y M i l t o n may, after a l l , be useful: 32

... i t is his a b i l i t y t o give a p e r f e c t a n d u n i q u e p a t t e r n t o every p a r a g r a p h ... a n d his a b i l i t y t o w o r k i n larger m u s i c a l u n i t s t h a n a n y o t h e r p o e t — t h a t is t o me t h e m o s t conclusive evidence o f M i l t o n ' s s u p r e m e mastery. T h e p e c u l i a r f e e l i n g , almost a p h y s i c a l sensation o f a breathless leap, c o m m u n i ­ cated b y M i l t o n ' s l o n g periods, a n d b y h i s alone, is impossible to p r o c u r e f r o m r h y m e d verse. Indeed, t h i s m a s t e r y is m o r e conclusive evidence of h i s i n t e l l e c t u a l power, t h a n is his grasp of a n y ideas t h a t he b o r r o w e d or i n v e n t e d . 33

Arnold's l a t e r essays restated a n d c o n f i r m e d t h e v i e w o f E n g l i s h l i t e r a r y h i s t o r y t h a t h a d served as t h e f o u n d a t i o n o f w h a t w e n o w recognize as t h e R o m a n t i c r e v o l u t i o n i n E n g l i s h p o e t r y . E l i o t p u t f o r w a r d a n e w v i e w w h i c h served t h e M o d e r n i s t r e v o l u t i o n . N e i t h e r o f these m e n w e r e l i t e r a r y historians. T h e y w e r e critics, n o t scholars; a n d l i k e a l l t h e g r e a t critics before t h e m , t h e y w e r e poet-critics. I t is n o t i n f a c t t h e l i t e r a r y h i s t o r i a n w h o c a n r a d i c a l l y alter o u r perspective o n l i t e r a r y h i s t o r y . H e sees t o o m a n y exceptions t o c o m m i t h i m s e l f t o t h e b r o a d sweep; a n d h i s e v a l u a t i o n s are u s u a l l y t e n t a t i v e a n d a l w a y s relative. Y o u need t o have some clear n o t i o n o f h o w t h e p o e t r y o f t h e past w i l l bear u p o n t h e poetic practice of t h e present before y o u c a n say c o n f i d e n t l y t h a t one k i n d o f p o e t r y is a m o r e v i t a l force t h a n another. T h e l i t e r a r y historian's tasks m o s t o f t e n prove t o be m e n i a l . H e f o l l o w s b e h i n d t h e m a j o r critic, confirming, completing, complaining, correcting.

192

Eliot and the English Poetic

Tradition

I t is d i f f i c u l t t o be sure h o w m u c h A r n o l d o r E l i o t k n e w i n depth and i n detail about t h e eighteenth century ( o n w h i c h b o t h h a d a good deal t o say a n d i n w h i c h n e i t h e r was p r i m a r i l y interested); b u t i t is c e r t a i n t h a t t h e i n s t i n c t f o r g e n e r a l i z i n g u s e f u l l y f r o m r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l areas o f r e a d i n g a n d k n o w l e d g e was h i g h l y developed i n b o t h o f t h e m . O n e c a n n o t be sure, f o r example, w h e t h e r e i t h e r o f t h e m q u i t e r e c o g n i z e d t h a t i n t h e m i d - e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r y poets w e r e c o m m i t t i n g themselves t o one o r a n o t h e r o f t w o styles ( w h i c h m e a n t i n effect t o a t o t a l poetic stance) b y a c k n o w l e d g i n g M i l t o n a n d Spenser o n t h e one h a n d , o r D r y d e n a n d Pope o n t h e other, as t h e i r great fore­ bears. Y e t w i t h o r w i t h o u t t h i s k n o w l e d g e , b o t h A r n o l d a n d E l i o t i n h e r i t e d t h e terms o f t h e a r g u m e n t , A r n o l d f a v o u r i n g M i l t o n , E l i o t c o m m i t t i n g h i m s e l f t o D r y d e n . For A r n o l d t h e dif­ ference b e t w e e n M i l t o n a n d D r y d e n , b e t w e e n 'genuine p o e t r y ' a n d t h e p o e t r y o f 'an age o f prose', was t o be located i n i t s g e n e s i s — i t s source i n t h e ' w i t s ' o r t h e 'soul' o f t h e poet. T r u e p o e t r y was i n some sense a p o e t r y o f ' i n s p i r a t i o n ' , w h i c h t h e ' u n a m i a b l e ' M i l t o n c o u l d produce a n d t h e 'genial' D r y d e n c o u l d n o t . I h a v e t r i e d t o s h o w e l s e w h e r e t h a t Eliot, f o r a l l h i s p r e s e n t a t i o n o f h i m s e l f as anti-Romantic, u n d e r s t o o d these 'Romantic' d i s t i n c t i o n s p e r f e c t l y w e l l f r o m his o w n experience of w r i t i n g p o e t r y . P o e t r y w h i c h d r e w a p a r t of its s t r e n g t h f r o m 'below t h e levels o f consciousness' offered resonances o f mean­ i n g a n d o f m u s i c w h i c h m o r e consciously c r a f t e d verse c o u l d n o t m a t c h : hence t h e l a c k o f 'suggestiveness' i n Dryden's words; hence too, perhaps, t h e l a c k o f a f u n d a m e n t a l 'seriousness' i n his w i t . B u t f o r E l i o t t h e r e was a n o t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n — t h a t o f dic­ t i o n ; a n d i t is t h i s w h i c h accounts f o r t h e pre-eminence g i v e n t o D r y d e n over M i l t o n i n Eliot's c r i t i c i s m . I t was o n e o f t h e tenets o f t h e Pound-Eliot r e v o l u t i o n t h a t p o e t r y o u g h t t o h a v e t h e v i r t u e s o f g o o d prose, a n d t h a t i t s h o u l d be free t o e m p l o y vernacular language and t o w o r k i n t o its t e x t u r e t h e music of c o n t e m p o r a r y speech. I t was i n t h i s respect t h a t i t seemed t o E l i o t i n t h e 1936 M i l t o n essay 'easier t o g e t back t o h e a l t h y l a n g u a g e f r o m D r y d e n t h a n . . . f r o m M i l t o n ' , because ' i t was D r y d e n w h o preserved, so f a r as i t was preserved a t a l l , t h e t r a d i t i o n of c o n v e r s a t i o n a l l a n g u a g e i n poetry': 34

35

193

E l i o t and the English Poetic Tradition

M i l t o n d o e s . . . represent p o e t r y a t t h e e x t r e m e l i m i t f r o m prose; a n d i t w a s one o f o u r tenets t h a t verse s h o u l d h a v e t h e v i r t u e s o f prose, t h a t d i c t i o n s h o u l d become assimilated t o c u l t i v a t e d c o n t e m p o r a r y speech, before a s p i r i n g t o t h e ele­ v a t i o n o f p o e t r y ... A n d t h e s t u d y o f M i l t o n c o u l d be o f n o h e l p here: i t was o n l y a h i n d r a n c e . 36

T h e p r o b l e m o f 'poetic d i c t i o n ' is c o m p l e x a n d c a n o n l y be t o u c h e d u p o n here. I n t h e e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r y G r a y believed t h a t 'the l a n g u a g e o f t h e age' w a s 'never t h e l a n g u a g e o f p o e t r y ' . Johnson censured G r a y f o r t h i s — f o r h a v i n g ' t h o u g h t his l a n g u a g e m o r e p o e t i c a l as i t w a s m o r e r e m o t e f r o m c o m m o n use', a n d censured M i l t o n ' s d i c t i o n i n t h e same terms; y e t Johnson also c o m p l a i n e d o f Shakespeare u s i n g w o r d s w h i c h h a d been made ' l o w b y t h e occasions t o w h i c h t h e y [ w e r e ] applied, or t h e general character o f t h e m w h o use them'. W o r d s w o r t h i n h i s Preface t o t h e Lyrical Ballads a n n o u n c e d a n e w p o e t r y t h a t w o u l d e m p l o y 'the real l a n g u a g e o f men', a n d insisted t h a t 'there n e i t h e r is, n o r c a n be, a n y essential difference b e t w e e n t h e l a n g u a g e o f prose a n d m e t r i c a l c o m p o s i t i o n ' . A r n o l d appreciated a n d praised t h i s 'perfect p l a i n n e s s ' o f W o r d s w o r t h ' s , y e t c o n d e m n e d D r y d e n a n d Pope as poets o f 'an age o f prose' elevated t h e o r n a t e G r a y above t h e m , a n d des­ cribed M i l t o n as t h e greatest master o f style i n t h e language. I n Eliot's essay o n D r y d e n w e c a n see t h i s h i s t o r y o f c o n f u s i o n a n d m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g c o n t i n u i n g w h e n h e quotes H a z l i t t s a y i n g ' D r y d e n a n d Pope are t h e great masters o f t h e a r t i f i c i a l s t y l e o f p o e t r y i n o u r l a n g u a g e as ... Chaucer, Spenser, Shakespeare a n d M i l t o n . . . [are] o f t h e natural'; a n d Eliot comments o n t h e ' a b s u r d i t y ' o f t h i s 'contrast o f M i l t o n , o u r greatest master o f t h e a r t i f i c i a l style, w i t h D r y d e n , w h o s e style ... is i n a h i g h degree natural'. W h a t i s s u r p r i s i n g perhaps is n o t t h e m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g s (deliberate o r o t h e r w i s e ) b u t t h e c o n t i n u i t y o f t h e debate a n d t h e consistency o f i t s terms. T h e r e is, o f course ( a n d t h i s is w h a t Eliot implies), a n element o f c o n t r a d i c t i o n i n t h e R o m a n t i c m o v e m e n t d e c l a r i n g itself t o be i n r e v o l t against a r t i f i c i a l i t y w h i l e m a i n t a i n i n g M i l t o n a t t h e centre o f t h e E n g l i s h poetic t r a d i t i o n . Y e t t h e c o n t r a d i c t i o n i s m o r e a p p a r e n t t h a n real. 37

38

39

40

41

42

43

f

44

194

E l i o t and the English Poetic

Tradition

T h e r e are d i f f e r e n t k i n d s o f ' a r t i f i c i a l i t y ' . T h e r e is t h e a r t i ­ ficiality of d e c o r u m — t h e t o t a l d e c o r u m Johnson stood f o r , of w h i c h a p l a i n ( b u t n o t 'low') poetic d i c t i o n w a s m e r e l y a part. A n d t h e r e w a s t h e other, m o r e p a r t i c u l a r , a n d p u r e l y l i t e r a r y a r t i f i c i a l i t y — t h a t o f t h e M i l t o n i c style, t h e M i l t o n i c h i g h sentence, w h i c h w a s o n l y o n e o f several means used b y poets i n t h e m i d - e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r y ( C o l l i n s , Gray, a n d others) i n t h e i r a t t e m p t s t o p e n e t r a t e beneath t h e p o l i s h e d sur­ faces of w i t and p r o p r i e t y . I n t h i s sense W o r d s w o r t h ' s 'simple' p o e t r y c a n be seen as a n o t h e r weapon, a p o w e r f u l n e w agent joining forces with Gray's a n d Collins's m o s t c o m p l e x odes, t o break d o w n t h a t t o t a l d e c o r u m of w h i c h Johnson w a s t h e last great spokesman. I t w a s n o t 'the real l a n g u a g e o f men' W o r d s ­ w o r t h w i s h e d t o represent so m u c h as t h e i r r e a l passions. A n d i f the M i l t o n i c m u s i c as i t r e v i v e d i n t h e e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r y h a d served a purpose i t w a s t h a t of p e r m i t t i n g t h e poet once a g a i n t o express a passionate c o m m i t m e n t t o his subject a n d t o h i s o w n role as poet, w h i c h D r y den's a n d Pope's w o r l d l y couplets seemed to preclude: C o l d is Cadwallo's tongue, T h a t hush'd t h e s t o r m y m a i n : Brave U r i e n sleeps u p o n his c r a g g y bed.

45

T h i s is ( t o e m p l o y Eliot's terms again) t h e 'magniloquence' o f M i l t o n r e v i v e d i n a n age o f ' w i t ' ; i t has ( t o e m p l o y A r n o l d ' s t e r m ) t h e M i l t o n i c 'movement'; a n d i t w a s because o f t h i s q u a l i t y of passionate, c o m m i t t e d , b a r d i c u t t e r a n c e t h a t t h e nine­ t e e n t h c e n t u r y ( a n d A r n o l d ) c o u l d see G r a y as a t r u e poet, a n d D r y d e n a n d Pope, f o r a l l t h e i r r e l a t i v e l y p l a i n d i c t i o n , as ' a r t i ­ ficial'. I f w h a t E l i o t h a d t o say about M i l t o n a n d D r y d e n h a d been at t h e centre o f h i s c r i t i c i s m i t c o u l d n o t h a v e h a d q u i t e t h e effect t h a t i t d i d . B u t b y p u s h i n g t h e M e t a p h y s i c a l s t o t h e centre and i n v i t i n g us t o see t h a t as t h e i r r i g h t f u l place, h e b r o u g h t about a c r i t i c a l r e v o l u t i o n . H e d i d n o t discover t h e Metaphysicals. H i s article o n t h e m w a s a r e v i e w of a selection of t h e i r poems b y Sir H e r b e r t G r i e r s o n — e v i d e n c e o f a n i n t e r e s t w h i c h already existed. B u t E l i o t made v e r y large claims f o r these poets, claims

Eliot and the English Poetic Tradition

195

w h i c h were b o t h n e w a n d difficult t o refute, and i n w r i t i n g a b o u t t h e m he p u t t h e m i n t o a f r a m e w o r k o f three centuries o f E n g l i s h p o e t r y . Here, a t i t s best, i n t h e best poems o f D o n n e a n d M a r v e l l ( a n d i n some o f t h e Jacobean d r a m a t i s t s ) was a p o e t r y o f w i t w h i c h was n o t m e r e l y a n a l y t i c a l b u t passionate as w e l l . T h e poet was n o t engaged i n r e n d i n g others b u t i n render­ i n g himself, o r a mask o f himself. W h y t h e ears o f E n g l i s h readers h a d been closed so l o n g t o t h e m u s i c o f M e t a p h y s i c a l p o e t r y w o u l d be d i f f i c u l t t o decide; b u t i t is c e r t a i n t h a t E l i o t t a u g h t t w e n t i e t h - c e n t u r y readers t o hear i t , a n d i n d o i n g so sig­ n i f i c a n t l y altered o u r c o n c e p t i o n o f t h e possibilities o f p o e t r y i n t h e language. T h e l y r i c a l a n d b e a u t i f u l became less interest­ i n g t h a n t h e d r a m a t i c a n d a u t h e n t i c . T h e poet capable o f com­ m i t t i n g h i s passion t o t h e h i l t w i t h o u t l o s i n g a precise sense o f the n a t u r e o f t h a t passion, i n c l u d i n g its defects a n d absurdities, c o m m a n d e d m o r e respect t h a n t h e poet w h o , i n t h e f u l l flood o f r h e t o r i c a l confidence, c o u l d be seen, b y a s l i g h t t w i s t o f t h e reader's perspective, as t h e v i c t i m o f h i s o w n feelings. W h a t was t o be a d m i r e d i n M a r v e l l , f o r example, was 'not c y n i c i s m ' b u t 'a c o n s t a n t i n s p e c t i o n a n d c r i t i c i s m o f e x p e r i e n c e . . . a r e c o g n i t i o n , i m p l i c i t i n t h e expression o f every experience, o f o t h e r k i n d s o f experience w h i c h are possible'. ' I r o n y ' , 'ambi­ g u i t y ' , 'paradox', t h o u g h n o t terms E l i o t h i m s e l f used v e r y m u c h , f o l l o w e d n a t u r a l l y u p o n h i s c r i t i c i s m as terms o f appro­ bation. E l i o t is a t h i s best i n w r i t i n g a b o u t these poets, a n d a t h i s m o s t genuine. H e is less satisfactory i n t h e c r i t i c i s m o f later ages, p a r t l y perhaps because h e gets e n t a n g l e d i n t h e terms o f a n o l d debate, a n d because he seems t o take sides less f r o m t h e p r o m p t i n g s of i n n o c e n t c r i t i c a l f e e l i n g t h a n f r o m a sense o f h o w his statements w i l l bear u p o n t h e l i t e r a r y p o l i t i c s o f t h e 40

m o m e n t . I n his Preface t o Homage to John Dry den, f o r example, he w r i t e s : I h a v e l o n g f e l t t h a t t h e p o e t r y o f t h e seventeenth a n d eight­ e e n t h centuries, even m u c h o f t h a t of i n f e r i o r i n s p i r a t i o n , pos­ sesses a n elegance a n d a d i g n i t y absent f r o m t h e p o p u l a r a n d p r e t e n t i o u s verse o f t h e R o m a n t i c Poets a n d t h e i r successors. A f e w years earlier he h a d w r i t t e n :

196

Eliot and the E n g l i s h Poetic

Tradition

Because w e h a v e never learned t o c r i t i c i z e Keats, Shell ey a n d W o r d s w o r t h (poets o f assured t h o u g h modest m e r i t ) , Keats, Shelley a n d W o r d s w o r t h p u n i s h us f r o m t h e i r graves w i t h the a n n u a l scourge of t h e G e o r g i a n A n t h o l o g y . 4 7

I n each o f these st a t e m e n t s ( a n d i n m a n y m o r e l i k e t h e m ) w e can see t h a t Eliot's p r i m a r y t a r g e t is h i s c o n t e m p o r a r y enemies the G e o r g i a n poets a n d critics, b u t t h a t h e strikes a t t h e m t h r o u g h t h e great Romantics, w h o s e heirs t h e y c l a i m t o be. F o r t h i s reason E l i o t never comes p r o p e r l y t o t e r m s w i t h t h e R o m a n t i c m o v e m e n t . A t t h e e n d o f h i s essay o n M a r v e l l h e a d m i t s t h a t ' w i t ' o f t h e k i n d he has been discussing i s 'irrele­ v a n t ' t o t h e best poems o f W o r d s w o r t h , Shelley a n d Keats; b u t he never extends t h e t e r m s o f h i s o w n c r i t i c i s m t o t a k e i n o r appreciate t h e best o f t h e i r p o e t r y . C o n s e q u e n t l y t h e e x p a n s i o n of o u r sense o f poetic possibilities w h i c h h i s c r i t i c i s m offers i n one area is achieved at t h e cost of c o n t r a c t i o n i n a n o t h e r . I n The Use of Poetry and the Use of Criticism, a series o f lec­ tures g i v e n a t F l a r v a r d i n 1932-3, E l i o t proposed t o m a k e a sur­ vey of the relation of criticism t o poetry f r o m the Elizabethan age t o t h e t w e n t i e t h c e n t u r y . Such a s u r v e y m i g h t h a v e been expected t o offer some c l a r i f i c a t i o n a n d e x p a n s i o n o f h i s a l r e a d y stated v i e w o f t h e h i s t o r y o f t h r e e centuries o f E n g l i s h p o e t r y , a n d t o b r i n g t h e R o m a n t i c m o v e m e n t i n t o clearer d e f i n i t i o n w i t h i n t h e o v e r a l l p i c t u r e . I n t h e c h a p t e r o n D r y d e n t h e idea o f a 'dissociation o f s e n s i b i l i t y ' seems t o be reaffirmed: I t i s n o t so m u c h t h e i n t e l l e c t , b u t s o m e t h i n g superior t o i n t e l l e c t , w h i c h w e n t f o r a l o n g t i m e i n t o eclipse; a n d t h i s l u m i n a r y , b y w h a t e v e r n a m e w e m a y call i t , has n o t y e t w h o l l y issued f r o m i t s secular o b n u b i l a t i o n . T h e age o f D r y d e n was s t i l l a great age, t h o u g h b e g i n n i n g t o suffer a d e a t h o f t h e s p i r i t , as t h e coarsening o f its verse r h y t h m s shows... I n t h e succeeding chapters, however, E l i o t does n o t m a k e f u l l use o f t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o 'place' t h e Romantics. H e is elusive, even defensive, seeming t o r e c o g n i z e t h e special claims t h a t m i g h t be m a d e i n p a r t i c u l a r f o r W o r d s w o r t h , b u t perhaps find­ ing i t s t i l l undesirable, i n t e r m s o f t h e p o l i t i c s o f c o n t e m p o r a r y

Eliot and the English Foetic Tradition

197

p o e t r y a n d c r i t i c i s m , t o a c k n o w l e d g e t h e m : '... m u c h o f t h e p o e t r y o f W o r d s w o r t h a n d Coleridge', h e w r i t e s , 'is j u s t as t u r g i d a n d a r t i f i c i a l a n d elegant as a n y e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r y die­ h a r d c o u l d w i s h ' (p. 7 2 ) — t h u s t r a p p i n g h i m s e l f i n t o w r i t i n g a b o u t t h e e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r y i n p e j o r a t i v e terms t h a t w o u l d have suited A r n o l d , a n d i n t o a c k n o w l e d g i n g t h a t there is some, at least, o f t h e p o e t r y o f W o r d s w o r t h a n d Coleridge, t o w h i c h these t e r m s do n o t a p p l y . T h e n , s u r p r i s i n g l y , he w r i t e s a f e w pages later: I n W o r d s w o r t h a n d Coleridge w e find n o t m e r e l y a v a r i e t y o f interests, even passionate interests; i t i s a l l o n e passion expressed t h r o u g h t h e m a l l : p o e t r y was f o r t h e m t h e expres­ sion o f a t o t a l i t y of u n i f i e d interests ... (p. 81) — a statement w h i c h s t r o n g l y suggests some k i n d o f ' u n i f i e d sensibility'. B u t at t h e e n d o f t h e chapter there is this: W h a t I see, i n t h e h i s t o r y o f E n g l i s h p o e t r y , i s . . . t h e split­ t i n g u p o f p e r s o n a l i t y . I f w e say t h a t one o f these p a r t i a l per­ sonalities w h i c h m a y develop i n a n a t i o n a l m i n d is t h a t w h i c h manifested itself i n t h e p e r i o d b e t w e e n D r y d e n a n d Johnson, t h e n w h a t w e have t o do is t o re-integrate i t . . . (pp. 84-5) I n t h e chapters w h i c h f o l l o w w e are t o l d t h a t W o r d s w o r t h and Shelley are g u i l t y o f a n 'abuse o f p o e t r y ' (p. 89) i n t h a t t h e y use p o e t r y as a v e h i c l e f o r ideas r a t h e r t h a n u s i n g ideas t o m a k e p o e t r y . Keats, o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , d i d n o t abuse p o e t r y i n t h i s w a y . N o r was he g u i l t y o f a n y ' w i t h d r a w a l ' i n n o t propa­ g a t i n g ideas: 'he was m e r e l y a b o u t h i s business' (p. 1 0 2 ) — t h e business o f m a k i n g p o e t r y . T h i s m u c h is consistent w i t h Eliot's a r g u m e n t , i n o t h e r essays o f t h e same period, t h a t t h e poet's use of language has t o be c l e a r l y d i s t i n g u i s h e d f r o m t h a t of t h e p h i l o ­ sopher o r ' t h i n k e r ' . T h e p h i l o s o p h e r makes t h e language serve his t h o u g h t o r idea; t h e poet makes a n idea serve h i s p o e t r y ; a n d t h e Romantics, o r a t least W o r d s w o r t h a n d Shelley, 'abused' p o e t r y b y m a k i n g i t serve r a t h e r t h a n use ideas. I n t h e case o f W o r d s w o r t h t h i s m a y n o t m a t t e r t o o m u c h ; b u t i n Shelley's case i t sets u p a barrier, because Shelley's ideas w e r e 'ideas o f adolescence' (p. 89), 'bolted w h o l e a n d never assimilated' (p. 48

92).

198

E l i o t and the English Poetic

Tradition

O n e m i g h t have t h o u g h t t h a t E l i o t w o u l d have f o u n d com­ m o n g r o u n d w i t h A r n o l d here. B u t w h e n h e comes t o A r n o l d i t is o n l y t o repeat w h a t h e said a f e w years e a r l i e r — t h a t A r n o l d was p a r t l y t o b l a m e f o r t h e decadence o f t h e 1890s. T h o u g h W o r d s w o r t h ' s use o f p o e t r y as a v e h i c l e f o r ideas w a s a n 'abuse', nevertheless A r n o l d is c o n d e m n e d f o r i n v i t i n g readers to set W o r d s w o r t h ' s ' p h i l o s o p h y ' aside. A r n o l d h a d w r i t t e n o f W o r d s w o r t h : ' H i s p o e t r y is t h e r e a l i t y , h i s p h i l o s o p h y t h e i l l u s i o n ' , a d d i n g t h a t o n e d a y w e m i g h t l e a r n t o m a k e t h i s pro­ p o s i t i o n general a n d t o say 'Poetry is t h e r e a l i t y , p h i l o s o p h y t h e i l l u s i o n . ' E l i o t describes t h i s as 'a s t r i k i n g , dangerous a n d sub­ versive assertion' (p. 113). 4 9

I t is n o m o r e ' s t r i k i n g , dangerous a n d subversive' t h a n several assertions o n t h e same subject made b y E l i o t h i m s e l f ; a n d A r n o l d ' s essay o n W o r d s w o r t h (one o f h i s best i f c a r e f u l l y a n d s y m p a t h e t i c a l l y read) rejects o n l y t h e e x t r a v a g a n t claims o f 'the W o r d s w o r t h i a n s ' t h a t t h e i r hero's p o e t r y s h o u l d be read f o r its 'scientific system o f t h o u g h t ' . B u t one c a n see t h e l i n e o f Eliot's t h i n k i n g . 'For W o r d s w o r t h a n d f o r Shelley p o e t r y was a v e h i c l e f o r one k i n d of p h i l o s o p h y o r another'; t h i s was bad, b u t at least ' t h e p h i l o s o p h y was s o m e t h i n g believed i n ' (p. 113). For A r n o l d t h e ' p o e t r y ' is n o t m e r e l y a t h i n g i n itself, d i s t i n c t f r o m t h e r e l i g i o n a n d p h i l o s o p h y i t m a y be said t o 'contain'; i t becomes a substitute f o r r e l i g i o n a n d p h i l o s o p h y — i t 'supersedes b o t h ' (p. 113); a n d i t is t h i s e l e v a t i o n of p o e t r y w h i c h E l i o t can­ n o t accept a n d w h i c h seems t o h i m t o lead t o some o f t h e excesses of aestheticism. O n c e a g a i n one notices t h e c o m p l i c a t i o n s o f a n a r g u m e n t t h a t takes place across decades a n d generations. A r n o l d , w h o was a w a r e o f t h e d r i f t t o w a r d s aestheticism, a n d w h o t r i e d t o c o u n t e r i t ( i n t h e essay o n Keats, f o r example, o r i n t h e passage o n L e o p a r d i i n t h e B y r o n essay) b y a r g u i n g t h a t s t y l e is n o t e n o u g h , t h a t i t m u s t be accompanied b y a n adequate i n t e r p r e ­ t a t i o n o f l i f e , is here f o u n d g u i l t y o f p r o m o t i n g aestheticism b y g i v i n g p o e t r y too h i g h a place a n d b y a s k i n g too m u c h of i t . 50

For t h e purpose o f t h i s essay I have been concerned almost e x c l u s i v e l y w i t h Eliot's e a r l y c r i t i c i s m . H i s later c r i t i c i s m , t h o u g h i t is f u l l o f i n t e r e s t a n d has m a n y v i r t u e s , lacks t h e pro-

E l i o t and the English Poetic Tradition

199

g r a m m e a n d c o n s e q u e n t l y t h e coherence o f t h e earlier. I t is less decided, less e m p h a t i c , m o r e demure, less o r i g i n a l . I t has n o par­ t i c u l a r p o i n t o f v i e w o t h e r t h a n t h a t o f t h e reasonable m a n o f letters. I t is n o t b r o a d l y i n f l u e n t i a l i n t h e w a y t h e e a r l y c r i t i c i s m was. T h e E l i o t w h o has r e m a i n e d a force i n m o d e r n c r i t i c i s m is t h e E l i o t of those early essays. T h u s i n p u t t i n g Eliot's most i n f l u e n t i a l c r i t i c i s m alongside, or against t h e b a c k d r o p of, Arnold's, i t is a m a t t e r o f p u t t i n g early E l i o t against late A r n o l d . A r n o l d f o u n d h i s w a y g r a d u a l l y t o w a r d s t h e general v i e w a r t i c u l a t e d m o s t clearly i n Essays in Criticism, Second Series, w h i c h r e m a i n e d i n f l u e n t i a l — a l m o s t ' s t a n d a r d ' — l o n g after h i s death. E l i o t a r t i c u l a t e d t h e n e w general v i e w w h e n h e was s t i l l r e l a t i v e l y y o u n g , a n d l i v e d l o n g e n o u g h t o l o o k back o n i t a n d c o m m e n t o n i t ( w h i l e i t c o n t i n u e d to have its effect) almost as i f i t h a d been p r o d u c e d b y someone else. T h e m e n w h o have come t o be recognized as t h e great critics i n E n g l i s h — S i d n e y , D r y d e n , Johnson, Coleridge, A r n o l d , E l i o t — have been poets a n d t h e i r c r i t i c i s m has related almost exclu­ sively t o p o e t r y a n d poetic drama. Each o f t h e m , a t least since D r y d e n , has offered o r i m p l i e d a v i e w o f t h e development o f E n g l i s h p o e t r y — a v i e w w h i c h accounted f o r t h e p o e t r y o f t h e critic's o w n age, a n d w h i c h w a s so b r o a d as t o be a t once com­ p e l l i n g a n d u n s a t i s f a c t o r y . T h e y are v i e w s w h i c h c a n n o t p r o p e r l y be t h o u g h t o f as ' r i g h t ' o r ' w r o n g ' b u t o n l y as m o r e or less persuasive, m o r e or less serviceable i n focussing t h e expec­ t a t i o n s of readers a n d t h e a m b i t i o n s o f poets u p o n t h e practice of p o e t r y i n t h e present age. A r n o l d ' s p o s i t i o n i n r e l a t i o n t o his age was n o t u n l i k e John­ son's, i n t h a t h e r e f o r m u l a t e d a v i e w o f E n g l i s h l i t e r a t u r e w h i c h h a d been established before h i m a n d w h i c h w a s already i n some degree b e i n g challenged. Eliot's p o s i t i o n w a s nearer t o t h a t o f W o r d s w o r t h ( t h e W o r d s w o r t h o f t h e Preface t o t h e Lyrical Ballads)—making w a y f o r something n e w i n poetry, something a p p a r e n t l y r e v o l u t i o n a r y , y e t f o r w h i c h t h e g r o u n d w a s already w e l l prepared. T h u s Eliot's c r i t i c i s m animates a n e w p o e t r y as A r n o l d ' s does n o t . C h i e f l y , o f course, i t animates h i s o w n , a n d i n p a r t i c u l a r The Waste Land. I have argued e l s e w h e r e t h a t The Waste Land has to be seen, 51

200

Eliot and the English Poetic

Tradition

n o t as t h e w o r k o f a n anti-Romantic, b u t as a p o e m w h o s e ante­ cedents are u n m i s t a k e a b l y R o m a n t i c ; a n d t h a t a great deal o f Eliot's c r i t i c i s m , p a r t i c u l a r l y as i t bears u p o n t h e i m p o r t a n t q u e s t i o n o f poetic c o m p o s i t i o n , is l i k e w i s e R o m a n t i c , despite its eye-catching a n t i - R o m a n t i c declarations a n d neo-classical catchphrases. E l i o t w o r e t h e r i b b o n s of one p a r t y w h i l e i n t h e secrecy of t h e p o l l i n g b o o t h c o m p u l s i v e l y v o t i n g f o r t h e other. B u t h e t r i e d v e r y h a r d t o believe h i m s e l f t o be a w i t t y poet a n d t o act as i f h e h a d i n h e r i t e d t h e neo-classical ' l i n e o f w i t ' r a t h e r t h a n the soul music o f Romanticism. H e w r o t e homage t o John D r y ­ den, b u t , as w e have seen, h i s doubts a b o u t D r y d e n crept i n . H e praised t h e M e t a p h y s i c a l s , b u t f o r t h e i r passionate w i t , n o t f o r w i t alone. H e c o m p l a i n e d o f M i l t o n a n d f o u n d h i m u n a m i a b l e , b u t k n e w p e r f e c t l y w e l l (as s h o w n b y t h e q u o t a t i o n above a b o u t t h e ' a l m o s t . . . p h y s i c a l sensation o f a breathless leap c o m m u n i ­ cated b y M i l t o n ' s l o n g periods') h o w c e n t r a l M i l t o n ' s m u s i c a l qualities w e r e t o t h e strongest elements i n t h e E n g l i s h p o e t i c t r a d i t i o n . A n d t h i s c o n f l i c t i n E l i o t , discernible i n h i s c r i t i c i s m , is n o w clearly revealed i n t h e m a n u s c r i p t s of The Waste Land. E v e n a casual glance a t M r s V a l e r i e Eliot's e d i t i o n o f The Waste Land m a n u s c r i p t s shows t h a t t h e p o e m i n its d r a f t f o r m was q u i t e d i f f e r e n t f r o m t h e p o e m w e have come t o k n o w as p r o b a b l y t h e greatest single i t e m i n t h e h i s t o r y o f t h e M o d e r n i s t m o v e m e n t i n p o e t r y . I n i t s e a r l y stages t h e p o e m w a s a n u n e v e n , o f t e n i n d i f f e r e n t , a t t e m p t a t a n e o - A u g u s t a n satire ( m u c h o f i t i n h e r o i c couplets), i n w h i c h t h e p r e d o m i n a t i n g voice was too personal f o r c o m f o r t , its feelings of s u p e r i o r i t y a n d disgust t o o naked, o v e r - r i d i n g t h e deeper a n d m o r e h u m a n e notes o f l y r i c i s m a n d despair. H o w those e a r l y d r a f t s w e r e t r a n s f o r m e d i n t o t h e p o e m w e k n o w has been traced p a r t i c u l a r l y closely b y Professor H u g h K e n n e r , w h o sees t h e i r possible b e g i n n i n g i n Eliot's w r i t i n g o f t h e r e v i e w w h i c h became h i s essay o n D r y d e n . 'To e n j o y D r y d e n ' , E l i o t w r o t e h o p e f u l l y i n t h a t essay, 'means t o pass beyond the limitations of the nineteenth century into a n e w f r e e d o m ' — a n d Professor K e n n e r sees D r y den's presence i n t h e earliest c o n c e p t i o n o f t h e poem, a n d i n p a r t i c u l a r i n t h e first v e r s i o n o f t h e 'The Fire Sermon'. I n t h e course o f t h e revisions, however, ' a l l i d e n t i f i a b l e trace o f D r y d e n v a n i s h e d . . . A l s o 52

201

Eliot and the English Poetic Tradition

gone was t h e l o n g o p e n i n g of " T h e Fire S e r m o n " w h i c h h a d i m i ­ t a t e d Pope. O f t h i s t h e r e was n o t h i n g l e f t at a l l , n o t a l i n e , a n d t h e r e was n o w a y t o t e l l t h a t t h e w h o l e c e n t r a l section of Eliot's l o n g p o e m h a d m o v e d t h r o u g h modes o f A u g u s t a n i m i t a t i o n / T h u s t h e poem's o r i g i n a l c o n c e p t i o n bore l i t t l e r e l a t i o n t o t h e i d e n t i t y a n d f o r m i t finally acquired; a n d t h e w h o l e c o m p o s i t i o n l a c k e d shape a n d d i r e c t i o n u n t i l p u l l e d t o g e t h e r a t a l a t e stage b y t h e w r i t i n g o f ' W h a t t h e T h u n d e r Said', w h i c h h a d ' l i t t l e ... t o d o w i t h w h a t seems t o h a v e been t h e poem's w o r k i n g p l a n . " W h a t t h e T h u n d e r S a i d " w a s v i r t u a l l y a piece o f auto­ m a t i c w r i t i n g . E l i o t m o r e t h a n once testified t h a t h e w r o t e i t almost a t a s i t t i n g . . . a n d t h e r a p i d h a n d w r i t i n g o f t h e holo­ g r a p h ... bears h i m o u t . False starts a n d second t h o u g h t s are few, a n d later r e t o u c h i n g w a s i n s i g n i f i c a n t . ' The Waste Land, t h e n , was 'reconceived f r o m t h e w r e c k a g e o f a different conception'. I n t h e extraordinary, exciting, a n d c o m p l e x process b y w h i c h n o t one creative m i n d b u t t w o w e n t to w o r k o n t h e o r i g i n a l m a t e r i a l a n d t r a n s f o r m e d i t , t h e centre of t h e p o e m h a d s h i f t e d f r o m 'the u r b a n p a n o r a m a r e f r a c t e d t h r o u g h A u g u s t a n styles' t o 'the u r b a n apocalypse, t h e great c i t y dissolved i n t o a desert w h e r e voices sang f r o m exhausted wells'. I n t h i s t r a n s f o r m a t i o n w a s achieved ' t h e v i s i o n a r y u n i t y t h a t has fascinated t w o generations o f readers'. N o w let us consider f o r a m o m e n t Eliot's p o s i t i o n as poet a n d c r i t i c d u r i n g t h e years w i t h w h i c h I h a v e been c h i e f l y concerned — t h e m o n t h s i m m e d i a t e l y f o l l o w i n g t h e First W o r l d W a r . B o r n a f e w years after t h e d e a t h of A r n o l d , E l i o t read t h e R o m a n t i c s a v i d l y as a n adolescent b u t f e l t h e h a d o u t g r o w n t h e m w i t h h i s y o u n g manhood. T h e conventions of Romanticism, i n their several forms, h a d been debased a n d d i l u t e d b y r e p e t i t i o n a n d b y the e n d o f t h e first decade o f t h e c e n t u r y t h e landscape seemed as c l u t t e r e d w i t h i n d i f f e r e n t neo-Romantics as i t seems n o w c l u t t e r e d w i t h i n d i f f e r e n t neo-Modernists. E l i o t was l o o k i n g f o r 'a n e w f r e e d o m ' a n d t h o u g h t perhaps h e h a d f o u n d i t , o r a w a y to i t , i n 'the l i n e of w i t ' . A c e r b i t y appealed especially, because i t was a w a y of s e t t i n g h i m s e l f a p a r t f r o m t h e s e n t i m e n t a l i s m a n d w e a k l y r i c i s m of so m a n y of h i s contemporaries. 5 3

54

55

56

I n t h e w r i t i n g o f The Waste Land A u g u s t a n i m i t a t i o n gave E l i o t a t least m a t e r i a l — a start, a n impulse, s o m e t h i n g l i k e a p l a n ,

202

Eliot and the English Poetic

Tradition

a n d i n due course lines of v e r s e — t o w o r k on. A f t e r t h a t i t was a m a t t e r o f creative i n s t i n c t , h i s o w n abetted b y Pound's, p r u n i n g , expunging, s h i f t i n g t h e fragments about a n d s p a w n i n g n e w ones, t h e e x c i t e m e n t o f s h a p i n g t h e p o e m itself c r e a t i n g t h e i m p u l s e f o r f u r t h e r w r i t i n g , u n t i l i n d u e course t h e unforeseeable because e n t i r e l y n e w masterpiece was b o r n . W h a t w a s E l i o t t o m a k e o f w h a t h e h a d done? H e w a s b o u n d t o be conscious of w h a t h a d h a p p e n e d consciously, a n d u n c e r t a i n about t h e r e s t — a n d w h a t h a d been conscious, a n d r e m a i n e d so, was some sense of a debt t o 'the l i n e o f w i t ' , a n d a belief t h a t h i s p o e t r y came f o r t h i n r e a c t i o n against s o m e t h i n g t h a t c o u l d be called R o m a n t i c i s m . I n some w a y s E l i o t was less w e l l placed t o see w h a t h e h a d done t h a n w e are fifty years l a t e r — j u s t as Coleridge, a m o n g t h e p r e v a i l i n g l i t e r a r y c o n v e n t i o n s of h i s t i m e , was incapable o f r e c o g n i z i n g t h a t Kubla Khan w a s a finished p o e m a n d n o t a f r a g m e n t . The Waste Land m u s t have seemed as strange t o E l i o t as i t w a s t o seem t o its first r e a d e r s — s t r a n g e , y e t c o m p e l l i n g . I n p r e s e n t i n g i t t o t h e p u b l i c E l i o t n e r v o u s l y added t h e n o w f a m o u s notes, w h i c h i n t u r n encouraged a g e n e r a t i o n o f critics t o treat t h e w o r k as a conscious a n d o r d e r l y construc­ t i o n w h o s e h i d d e n 'meaning' c o u l d be u n l o c k e d w i t h aids l i k e Jessie W e s t o n a n d Sir James Frazer. I n f a c t t h e p o e m was some­ t h i n g q u i t e different. F r a g m e n t a r y i n f o r m y e t also complete and self-sufficient, i t was essentially a m u s i c a l s t r u c t u r e , p l a y i n g u p o n c e r t a i n themes a n d m o t i f s t a k e n , m a n y o f t h e m , f r o m a c o n t e x t of ideas, b u t n o t used as such i n t h e p o e t r y . T h a t Eliot i n The Waste Land was m o r e t r u l y t h e h e i r o f t h e R o m a n t i c m o v e m e n t t h a n his Georgian contemporaries w h o l a i d c l a i m t o t h e i n h e r i t a n c e is s o m e t h i n g I suspect m a n y m o r e critics w o u l d n o w be w i l l i n g t o recognize t h a n w a s t h e case t e n o r fifteen years ago. T h e A u g u s t a n t r a d i t i o n — i n p a r t i c u l a r t h e t r a d i t i o n o f mock-heroic satire t h a t passed f r o m D r y d e n t o Pope — m a i n t a i n e d i t s surfaces a t a l l costs. I t w a s t h e p o e t r y o f a d e t e r m i n e d because precarious social s a n i t y . I t w a s beneath those surfaces t h a t R o m a n t i c p o e t r y i n its finer m o m e n t s successfully probed. T h e p r o b i n g was i n s t i n c t i v e a n d t h e results o f t e n obscure and f r a g m e n t a r y , l i k e t h e s a l v a g i n g of s o m e t h i n g f r o m t h e ocean — a n d Eliot's r e c u r r e n t i m a g e of t h i n g s b r o u g h t up, t r a n s f o r m e d , f r o m t h e depths is c e n t r a l t o his w r i t i n g a t t h i s t i m e . I n com-

Eliot and the English Poetic Tradition

203

p o s i n g The Waste Land h e created a mock-heroic surface a n d t h e n b r o k e i t , p l u n g i n g b e n e a t h t o sources of f e e l i n g w h i c h l a y deeper. I n t h i s process h e l i v e d o u t h i s o w n neo-Romantic r e v o l t against h i s o w n neo-classicism. T h e f o r m of t h e p o e m w h i c h r e s u l t e d is organic. I t g r o w s f r o m w i t h i n , d i c t a t e d b y i t s o w n m a t e r i a l s a n d h i s t o r y . Elements o f t h e o r g i n a l satire r e m a i n , b u t these are ( i n b o t h senses) contained w i t h i n t h e t o t a l f o r m . T h e y are p a r t o f t h e t o t a l consciousness, b u t t h e y are subdued b y a l a r g e r c h a r i t y , j u s t as t h e i r couplets are subdued b y a f o r m w h i c h is larger, m o r e expansive, m o r e generous. 'Modernism', l i k e The Waste Land, defined itself n o t accord­ i n g t o t h i s o r t h a t p r o g r a m m e o r p l a n b u t o n l y as i t came i n t o being. I t i n h e r i t e d e v e r y t h i n g t h a t w a s r e v o l u t i o n a r y i n Roman­ t i c i s m , y e t i t w a s n o dead r e p e t i t i o n o f R o m a n t i c themes a n d surfaces. B u t i f i t w a s t o u n d e r s t a n d itself i t needed t o under­ stand R o m a n t i c i s m , a n d i t is here t h a t i t s c r i t i c a l consciousness can be seen i n retrospect t o have been inadequate. I come back n o w t o M a t t h e w A r n o l d , a n d t o Eliot's c r i t i c i s m seen alongside Arnold's. E l i o t called h i s first b o o k o f c r i t i c i s m The Sacred Wood, t a k i n g h i s t i t l e , n o doubt, f r o m t h e first pages of Sir James Frazer's The Golden B o u g h , w h i c h describes a n a n c i e n t r i t u a l w h e r e b y a priest occupies a sacred w o o d as l o n g as h e c a n k i l l o r d r i v e off a n y contender f o r his priesthood. B u t w h o e v e r k i l l s t h e priest assumes t h e role h i m s e l f u n t i l h e i n t u r n is m u r d e r e d . 'The post w h i c h h e h e l d b y t h i s precarious t e n u r e carried w i t h i t t h e t i t l e o f k i n g . ' I t is d i f f i c u l t t o see w h a t else E l i o t c o u l d have m e a n t b y t h i s t i t l e t h a n t h a t , as c r i t i c , o r as c r i t i c a n d poet, h e w a s e n t e r i n g t h e sacred w o o d i n order t o challenge t h e r e i g n i n g priest; a n d i f t h a t is t h e case t h e t i t l e c a n be seen i n retrospect as a n o b l i q u e y e t d a r i n g d e c l a r a t i o n o f a n i n t e n t t h a t w a s i n d u e course carried out. I f t h e o l d priest, A r n o l d , 'died', i t w a s E l i o t w h o ' k i l l e d ' h i m ; a n d i f E l i o t n o l o n g e r breaths, as h e once d i d , i n v i r t u a l l y every piece o f c r i t i ­ cism w r i t t e n o n t h e subject o f p o e t r y i n E n g l a n d , n o full-scale contender f o r h i s p r i e s t h o o d has y e t made a n effective challenge. S u s t a i n i n g t h e m e t a p h o r f o r a m o m e n t one m a y add, however, t h a t n o n e o f t h e o l d priests r e a l l y 'dies'. T h e y f o r m , r a t h e r , a ' f a m i l i a r c o m p o u n d ghost' w i t h w h o m t h e n e w priest conducts 57

204

Eliot and the English Poetic

Tradition

his dialogues. A r n o l d i n some degree s t i l l speaks i n Eliot; a n d some of t h e questions h e asks r e m a i n t o be answered. W h a t is c o n f u s i n g a n d makes a n y a t t e m p t t o sort o u t t h e h i s t o r i c a l strands at once d i f f i c u l t a n d i n t e r e s t i n g i n t h i s p a r t i c u ­ l a r case is t h a t i n some s i g n i f i c a n t respects A r n o l d is m o r e ' m o d e r n ' t h a n Eliot. A r n o l d ' s c r i t i c i s m d i d n o t , a n d c o u l d n o t , a n i m a t e a n e w p o e t r y . I t d i d n o t a n i m a t e h i s own. I t was, m u c h of i t , a n u n h a p p y s u b s t i t u t e f o r t h e p o e t r y h e w o u l d l i k e t o h a v e w r i t t e n . H i s essay o n G r a y is p a r t l y a n essay o n h i m s e l f — a m a n w h o d i d n o t w r i t e m o r e because h e c o u l d n o t , a n d w h o c o u l d n o t because h e was b o r n at t h e w r o n g t i m e : '.. . a m a n b o r n i n 1759 c o u l d p r o f i t b y t h a t r e n e w i n g of men's m i n d s of w h i c h t h e great h i s t o r i c a l m a n i f e s t a t i o n w a s t h e F r e n c h R e v o l u t i o n . . . I f G r a y ... h a d been j u s t t h i r t y years o l d w h e n t h e F r e n c h Revolu­ t i o n b r o k e o u t , h e w o u l d have s h o w n , p r o b a b l y , productiveness and animation i n plenty.' I t h i n k i t is safe t o say t h a t E l i o t c o u l d never h a v e w r i t t e n s u c h sentences. H e c o u l d n o t h a v e seen t h e F r e n c h R e v o l u t i o n as 'the great h i s t o r i c a l m a n i f e s t a t i o n ' o f a ' r e n e w i n g of men's minds'. W h e n h e l o o k e d back i t w a s w i t h t h e n o s t a l g i a of t h e re­ a c t i o n a r y t e m p e r a m e n t t o a t i m e before ' s o m e t h i n g h a p p e n e d t o t h e m i n d o f England'. Y e t E l i o t l i v e d t o d e m o n s t r a t e A r n o l d ' s p o i n t , t h a t a t r u e poet, even one of deeply conservative tempera­ m e n t , c o u l d be a n i m a t e d b y the s p i r i t of his t i m e i f the t i m e was r i g h t f o r t h e appearance o f s o m e t h i n g new. E l i o t set o u t i n The Waste Land t o i m i t a t e D r y d e n a n d Pope a n d t o castigate his age, b u t w i t h o u t q u i t e k n o w i n g w h a t h e w a s a b o u t he passed b e y o n d h i s satiric i n t e n t i o n i n t o a n e w d e p t h a n d a n e w freedom; a n d i n t h i s t r a n s f o r m a t i o n o f t h e n e o - A u g u s t a n satire i n t o t h e neo-Romantic v i s i o n a r y poem, E l i o t offered a strange p r a c t i c a l c o r r o b o r a t i o n of t h e m o s t c e n t r a l , a n d t h e m o s t c o n t e n t i o u s , o f A r n o l d ' s c r i t i c a l statements. ' T h e i r poetry', t o repeat w h a t A r n o l d w r o t e of D r y d e n a n d Pope, 'was conceived a n d composed i n t h e i r w i t s ; t r u e p o e t r y i s conceived a n d composed i n t h e soul.' A r n o l d ' s terms, i f t h e y are less t h a n satisfactory, r e m a i n i n t e l ­ l i g i b l e . The Waste Land w a s conceived i n t h e w i t s b u t i t w a s composed i n t h e soul. T h u s a s t u d y o f Eliot's p o e t r y c a n lead one to precisely t h e same k i n d s o f questions t h a t arise f r o m p l a c i n g alongside o n e

Eliot and the English Poetic Tradition

205

a n o t h e r A r n o l d ' s and Eliot's respective statements o n t h e h i s t o r y of E n g l i s h p o e t r y , a n d i t is a p p r o p r i a t e n o w to r e t u r n w h e r e w e began. O n c e one has recognized, f o r example, t h e tentativeness of Eliot's 'homage' t o D r y d e n , and t h e l a c k of a n y developed c r i t i c i s m of Pope, i t becomes a p p a r e n t t h a t no m a j o r c r i t i c since J o h n s o n has spoken u n e q u i v o c a l l y f o r these figures w h o m A r n o l d described as 'classics o f o u r prose'. C a n A r n o l d ' s c r i t i c i s m , t h e n , be said t o h a v e been effectively answered? C a n i t be answered? O r does t h e c o m b i n a t i o n of satiric substance a n d c o u p l e t f o r m place such r e s t r i c t i o n s o n t h e r a n g e of f e e l i n g t h a t such p o e t r y is, even w h e n w r i t t e n b y masters l i k e D r y d e n a n d Pope, of a second order? Is t h e couplet itself, w h i c h breaks t h e f l o w i n g verse sen­ tence t h a t characterizes Shakespeare, M i l t o n a n d W o r d s w o r t h at t h e i r best, a l i e n t o t h e finest o f t h e E n g l i s h genius i n poetry? A n d o n t h e o t h e r f r o n t , does n o t Eliot's f a i l u r e to come clearly t o terms w i t h t h e R o m a n t i c poets leave A r n o l d ' s late assertions o n t h e i r b e h a l f — i n p a r t i c u l a r t h a t t h e y r e v i v e d a greatness lost after M i l t o n — s t i l l critically unchallenged? These are large q u e s t i o n s — s o large as to seem i m p e r t i n e n t . I t is m y p o i n t t h a t t h e y are questions raised b u t n o t answered b y re-reading Eliot's c r i t i c i s m against t h e b a c k g r o u n d of Arnold's. Eliot's m o s t o r i g i n a l c o n t r i b u t i o n l a y i n w h a t he had t o say a b o u t t h e M e t a p h y s i c a l s and a b o u t t h e verse of t h e Jacobean dramatists. B u t t h i s is s o m e t h i n g added on to t h e t r a d i t i o n a l a p p r e c i a t i o n o f E n g l i s h p o e t r y , w i t h o u t q u i t e a n s w e r i n g t h e questions raised i n t h e late e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r y or r e b u t t i n g t h e assertions made i n the nineteenth. T h e p r o b l e m s w h i c h t h e R o m a n t i c poets w e r e t h e first to con­ f r o n t head-on r e m a i n . Science, t e c h n o l o g y , t h e fact, c o n t i n u e t o advance at t h e expense o f t h e m y t h o l o g i e s o n w h i c h p o e t r y was t r a d i t i o n a l l y f o u n d e d . B u t w h i l e t h e m y t h o l o g i e s recede l i t e r a l l y , t h e i r i m a g i n a t i v e t r u t h becomes m o r e a n d m o r e essential t o t h e p r e s e r v a t i o n o f o u r h u m a n i t y . W e g r o w nearer t o , n o t f u r t h e r f r o m , a n u n d e r s t a n d i n g of Keats's ' I k n o w n o t h i n g b u t t h e t r u t h of i m a g i n a t i o n and t h e holiness o f t h e heart's affections'. M o d e r n i s m i n h e r i t e d , b y w h a t e v e r by-paths and i n d i r e c t i o n s , the Romantic c o m m i t m e n t to the ' t r u t h of imagination', adding n e w claims f o r t h e f r e e d o m o f p o e t r y t o r a n g e w i d e l y and t o create b o l d l y i n t h e search f o r t h a t t r u t h . Y e t because i n c l e a r i n g

206

Eliot and the English Poetic

Tradition

the g r o u n d i t h a d t o skirmish w i t h an indifferent poetry t h a t already i d e n t i f i e d itself w i t h t h e R o m a n t i c t r a d i t i o n , t h e M o d e r n ­ ist m o v e m e n t perhaps lost t h e proper sense of its o w n i n h e r i t a n c e . A t least i t seems t o m e t h a t i f there is t o be a c r i t i c i s m capable of a n i m a t i n g t h e g e n u i n e l y n e w i n p o e t r y today, i t m u s t l o o k once again t o those areas o f E n g l i s h p o e t r y — a n d chiefly t h e R o m a n t i c a r e a — w h i c h Eliot's m o s t i n f l u e n t i a l c r i t i c i s m f a i l e d t o l o o k at squarely. A n d i n t h i s task i t m a y p r o v e t h a t there is s t i l l s o m e t h i n g to be learned f r o m A r n o l d .

Notes 1. C R I T I C I S M ' S L O S T

LEADER

1 Selected Essays (1951), p. 368. 2 To Criticize the Critic (1965), p. 15. 3 Valerie Eliot, the second wife, has prefixed to her indispensable edition of The Waste Land (1971) a statement ascribed to Eliot by his friend Theodore Spencer, which she presumably knew to be authentic. It runs: 'Various critics have done me the honour to interpret the poem in terms of criticism of the contemporary world, have considered it, indeed, as an important bit of social criticism. To me it was only the relief of a personal and wholly insignificant grouse against life; it is just a piece of rhythmical grumbl­ ing.' From what I remember of Ted Spencer, whom I knew at Harvard, I am inclined to suspect that these are not all the ipsissima verba of Eliot, but some scraps of conversation that Spencer has cobbled together. Their general gist, however, need not be disputed, though in other moods Eliot certainly regarded The Waste Land as his masterpiece. 4 Selected Essays, p. 127. 5 Essays in Criticism, July 1952; April 1969. See also F. W. Bateson, Essays in Critical Dissent (1972), 'Variations on Some Eliot Themes', pp. 129-62. 6 The exact date of Verdenal's death was in fact 2 May 1915 (see George Watson, Sewanee Review, lxxxiv (Summer 1976), 3, p. 467). The heaviest English, French and Anzac losses in the whole Gallipoli operation were in April 1915. Eliot must have known this, even if he did not know precisely when Verdenal was killed or drowned. Some details about Verdenal—who was like Keats both a medical student and a poet when Eliot met him in Paris in 1910—will be found in Robert Sencourt's T. S. Eliot: A Memoir (1971). 7 She had been christened Vivienne but generally preferred to use the anglicized form. Sencourt acknowledges 'a particular debt of gratitude' for the information supplied by Vivien's family, who were also helpful to T. S. Matthews for his Great Tom (1974). 8 The Waste Land, ed. Valerie Eliot, p. xxii. 9 Ibid., p. xxvi. 10 Ibid. 11 Ibid., p. 129 12 TLS, 2 December 1920. 13 Pound confirmed this judgement (Letters, ed. D. D. Paige, p. 226). 14 Selected Essays, p. 30. 15 Riviere was the close friend and later the brother-in-law of Henri AlainFournier, the author of Le Grand Meaulnes, rightly described by Sencourt as 'a classic novel of adolescence'. Alain-Fournier gave Eliot lessons in French and French literature.

208

Notes, pages

13-74

16 To Criticize the Critic, p. 185. 17 E. M. W. Tillyard and C. S. Lewis, The Fersonal Heresy: A Controversy (1939), p. 69. 18 The Sacred Wood (1920), p. 132. 19 The Hound and Horn, 1 (1928), 294. 3. T H E P O E T A S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

CRITIC

'To Criticize the Critic', To Criticize the Critic (1965), p. 26. Ibid., p. 25. 'The Music of Poetry', On Poetry and Poets (1957X P- 6. In T. S. Eliot: the Man and his Work, ed. Allen Tate (1967). Both are reprinted in To Criticize the Critic. 'John Dryden', Selected Essays (1951), p. 305. 'Andrew Marvell', Selected Essays, p. 304. The final sentence is a slightly ungrammatical adaptation of the last line of Laforgue's 'Complainte du pauvre jeune homme': Cetait une belle dme comme on n en fait plus aujourd' huu An unlikely source for a tag applicable to Marvell; not so inappropriate to Eliot himself at this stage of his career. To Criticize the Critic, p. 184. 'Some Notes on the Blank Verse of Christopher Marlowe', The Sacred Wood (1920), p. 79. 'Philip Massinger', Selected Essays, p. 209. On Poetry and Poets, p. 89. Ibid., p. 97. Ibid., p. 98. 2

y

8 9 10 11 12 13

4. T H E T R I A L S O F A C H R I S T I A N

CRITIC

1 See for example Eliot's 'Introduction to The Sacred Wood', 'Arnold and Pater' and 'Francis Herbert Bradley' in Selected Essays, and 'Matthew Arnold' in The Use of Poetry and the Use of Criticism. 2 The Sacred Wood (1920), pp. xi-xii. 3 The Sacred Wood, p. ix; 'Francis Herbert Bradley', Selected Essays (1951), p. 449. 4 'Bradley', Selected Essays, p. 449. 5 'Preface to the 1928 Edition', The Sacred Wood (1928), pp. viii and x. 6 I. A. Richards, 'A Background for Contemporary Poetry', The Criterion, iii (July 1925), 520. 7 'A Note on Poetry and Belief, The Enemy, i (Jan. 1927), 16. 8 Ibid., p. 16. 9 Science and Poetry (New York, 1926), pp. 71-2. 10 'Dante', Selected Essays, p. 259. 11 Ibid., pp. 269 and 270. 12 Poetry and Propaganda', The Bookman, lxx (Feb. 1930), 598. 13 Ibid., pp. 601-2. 14 Ibid., p. 599. 15 The Dial, lxxxii, 5 (May 1927) 427. The essay was reprinted as 'Baudelaire in Our Time' in For Lancelot Andrews (1928), p. 91.

Notes, pages 7 4 - 1 2 2

209

16 17 18 19

'Baudelaire', Selected Essays, p. 421. Selected Essays, p. 270. The Use of Poetry and the Use of Criticism (1933), pp. 99-100. Quoted in Roger Kojecky, T. S. Eliot's Social Criticism (New York, 1971)* p. 78. 20 ' Possum', 'The Use of Poetry', New English Weekly, v (14 June 1934X p. 215. 21 Quoted in Kojecky, p. 77. 22 Quoted in Ezra Pound, 'Mr. Eliot's Mare's Nest', New English Weekly, iv (8 March 1934), 500. 23 After Strange Gods (1934), pp. 23, 56. 24 Ibid., p. 18. 25 Ibid., p. 42. 26 Ibid., p. 38. 27 Ibid., pp. 54-5. 28 Ibid., pp. 60-1. 29 Ibid., p. 63. 5. E L I O T ' S C O N T R I B U T I O N T O OF D R A M A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

CRITICISM

The Sacred Wood (1920), p. 60. Selected Essays (1951), p. 109. Ibid., pp. 50-2. Cf. for example the quotation from the 'obituary of the dead highwayman' in Byron's Don Juan, in On Poetry and Poets (1957), p. 204. The relevant discussion is in the Republic, Bk. III. On Poetry and Poets, p. 74. Ibid., pp. 86-7. Selected Essays, pp. 229-32. A close comparison of Murray and Eliot would be a useful exercise.

6. T H E

'PHILOSOPHICAL

CRITIC

1 Jean-Paul Sartre, interview in Le Nouvel Observateur, quoted from a trans­ lation in New York Review of Books, 7 August 1975. 2 'The Frontiers of Criticism' in On Poetry and Poets (1957), p. 106. 3 To Criticize the Critic (1965), p. 25. 4 The Sacred Wood (1928 edition), p. ix. 5 To Criticize the Critic, p. 25. 6 The Sacred Wood, p. x. 7 Ibid., p. 16. 8 Graham Hough, Critical Quarterly, 15 (1973), 108-9. 9 'Dante', Selected Essays (1951), p. 257. 10 'Shakespeare and the Stoicism of Seneca', ibid., p. 138. 11 Anne C. Bolgan, What the Thunder Really Said (Montreal, 1973), p. 99. 12 Richard Wollheim, On Art and the Mind (1973), p. 246. 13 On Poetry and Poets, p. 106. 14 Herbert Howarth, Notes 011 Some Figures Behind T. S. Eliot (1965), p. 215. 15 The Use of Poetry and the Use of Criticism (1933), p. 137, quoting Maritain.

210

Notes, pages 122-66

16 17 18 19

'Religion and Literature' (1935) in Selected Essays, p. 399. The Use of Poetry and the Use of Criticism, p. 136. Ibid., p. 143. 'Charybde et Scylla', Annales du Centre Universitaire Mediterranean, v, 1951-2 (Nice, 1952), pp. 71-82. I am grateful to Dr Newton-De Molina for some comments on this essay. He informs me that a typescript of this paper, in English, exists in the library of King's College, Cambridge. The source of the French text is unknown, but the French is very far from idiomatic and the English bones stick through the surface rather forcefully. Either it was felt necessary to stick very literally to the English, or perhaps Eliot's very style and method were not naturalizable into French. 20 'Charybde et Scylla', pp. 79-80. 21 Ibid., p. 80. 22 Donald Davie, Found (1975), pp. 99-100. 23 'Charybde et Scylla', p. 81. 24 Cf., To Criticize the Critic, p. 19. 25 On Poetry and Poets, p. 115. 26 The Use of Poetry and the Use of Criticism, pp. 155-6. 27 Ibid., p. 35. 28 Ibid., p. 35 n. 1. 29 Fei-Pai Lu, T. S. Eliot: the Dialectical Structure of His Theory of Poetry (Chicago, 1966), p. 117. 8. E L I O T ' S

'TONE'

1 This essay is derived from one on 'The Critical Revolution of T. S. Eliot', Ariel: A Review of International "English Literature (1971), 26-42. A few paragraphs of the earlier essay have been adapted in a revised form by the kind permission of the present editor of Ariel, Professor George Wing. 2 Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, Laokoon, translated by W. A. Steel and A. Dent (1930). 3 For a philosophical critique of the tautology of aesthetic theory see Margaret Macdonald, 'Art and Imitation', Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society (New Series, liii, 1952-3). An even more trenchant attack on idealist aesthetics is Vincent Turner, S. J., 'The Desolation of Aesthetics' in The Arts, Artists, and Thinkers, edited by John M. Todd (1958), pp. 271307. Collingwood's case is to be found in The Principles of Art (Oxford, 1938), in the chapters on 'Art as Magic' and 'Art as Amusement'. 4 T. S. Eliot, Knowledge and Experience in the Philosophy of F. H. Bradley (1964), p. 165. 5 T. S. Eliot, 'Francis Herbert Bradley' [1927] in Selected Essays (1951), p. 4476 T. S. Eliot, On Poetry and Poets (1957), p. ioo. 7 Mallarme was in raptures over Debussy's rendering of L'Apres Midi d'un Faune and wrote to him of 'votre illustration . . . qui ne presenterait de dissonance avec mon texte, sinon qu'aller plus loin, vraiment. dans la nostalgie et la lumiere, avec finesse, avec malaise, avec richesse'. See Henri Mondor, Vie de Mallarme (Paris, 1941), p. 370. 8 There is an interesting discussion of the Parisian flaneur of the nineteenth century in Walter Benjamin, 'On Some Motifs in Baudelaire', Illumina­ tions, translated by Harry Zohn (1970), pp. 157-202. Benjamin, on the

Notes, pages 167-87

211

basis of a passage in Gogol, suggests that the effort to adapt the eye to the lively crowds of the new cities produced a dazzle of images like the 'riot of dabs of colour' in Impressionist painting (op. cit., p. 199). 9 I. A. Richards, Practical Criticism (1929), p. 182. 10 The influence of Eliot's criticism has been discussed by George Watson, Critical Quarterly, vii (1965), 328-37. James Reeves has recorded how when he went up to Cambridge in 1928 he was handed two books, Poems 19091925 and The Sacred Wood, much as 'the stranger who enters an Anglican church at service time is handed two books, Hymns Ancient and Modern and The Book of Common Prayer' (T. S. Eliot: A Symposium, compiled by Richard Marsh and Tambimuttu (1948), p. 38). 11 All references to The Sacred Wood are to the first edition of 1920. 12 Cyril Connolly, The Condemned Playground: Essays 192J-1944 (1945), p. 140. 13 Cf. the judicious account of the biographical background of The Waste Land in Richard Ellmann, Golden Codgers (1974). 14 Gavin Bone, Anglo-Saxon Poetry (Oxford, 1943), p. 73. 15 Quoted in Hugh Kenner, The Invisible Poet: T. S. Eliot (i960), p. 83. 16 The chief indictment of Lawrence is in After Strange Gods (1934), pp. 5861, a book which Eliot was later to regret; cf. Stephen Spender, Eliot (1975), p. 143. 17 F. H. Bradley, Appearance and Reality (1893), p. 172, quoted in Kristian Smidt, Poetry and Belief in the Work of T. S. Eliot (1961), p. 163. A phrase of Bradley in another work, The Principles of Logic (1883), 'a way of thinking in which the whole of reality was a system of differences imma­ nent in each difference', seems to have a bearing on the treatment of unique moments of intense perception both in Four Quartets and the early essays. 18 There is a good summary account of de Gourmont's 'methode antilivresque et concrete' in Rene Lalou, Histoire de la litterature frangaise contemporaine de 1870 a nos jours (Paris, 1947), especially i. 225-8.

9. E L I O T , A R N O L D , A N D T H E E N G L I S H POETIC T R A D I T I O N 1 The Use of Poetry and the Use of Criticism (1933), p. 129. 2 'Literature as Knowledge', Essays of Four Decades (1968), p. 76. 3 'Thomas Gray', Essays in Criticism Second Series (1888); reprinted i960, pp. 54, 56-7. 4 The Six Chief Lives from Johnson's 'Lives of the Poets', edited with a Preface by Matthew Arnold (1881), Preface, p. xx. 5 'Milton', Essays in Criticism Second Series, p. 38. 6 'Wordsworth', op. cit., pp. 88, 91, 93, etc. 7 'The Metaphysical Poets' (1921), Selected Essays (1951), pp. 286, 7, 8. 8 'The Metaphysical Poets', Homage to John Dry den (1924), p. 30, and Selected Essays, p. 288. An interesting textual confusion arises from this emendation. In his second essay on Milton (On Poetry and Poets, 1957, p. 152) Eliot quotes himself as having written 'in an essay on Dryden' that the dissociation of sensibility was 'due to' Milton and Dryden. He appears to have quoted himself from Tillyard's book on Milton, thus

212

Notes, pages 187-96

mistaking the essay from which the quotation comes, and overlooking his own later emendation. 9 'Andrew Marvell' (1921), Selected Essays, p. 293. 10 Ibid., p. 301. 11 'Milton' (1936), On Poetry and Poets (1957), p. 142. 12 Homage to John Dryden (1924), p. 9. 13 'Andrew Marvell', Selected Essays, p. 302. 14 Ibid., p. 296. 15 Ibid., p. 301. 16 'Poetry in the 18th Century' (1930), The Pelican Guide to English Litera­ ture 4: From Dryden to Johnson, ed. Boris Ford (1963), p. 275. 17 'John Dryden' (1921), Selected Essays, p. 309. 18 Ibid., p. 305. 19 Ibid., pp. 314-15. 20 Ibid., p. 316. 21 'Andrew Marvell', Selected Essays, p. 297. 22 'The Study of Poetry', Essays in Criticism Second Series, pp. 22 and 24. 23 'Milton' (1936), On Poetry and Poets, p. 141. 24 'Milton', Essays in Criticism Second Series, p. 38. 25 Mixed Essays (1879), !9°3 edition, p. 267. 26 Ibid., p. 244. 27 Ibid., p. 249. 28 Ibid., p. 261. 29 Ibid., p. 264. 30 Ibid., pp. 265, 266. 31 'Milton', Essays in Criticism Second Series, p. 37. 32 Ibid., p. 40. 33 'Milton' (1947), On Poetry and Poets, p. 158. 34 The obvious case is Collins who, like Joseph Warton, liked to make this distinction. In 'Ode on the Poetical Character' Collins imagines Milton 'From Waller's Myrtle Shades retreating', Waller exemplifying the smooth versifying tradition that reached its peak in Dryden and Pope. (Here again we can see a poet offering a view of literary history to justify his own practice.) 35 'Eliot's Dark Embryo', The New Poetic (1964). 36 'Milton' (1947), On Poetry and Poets, p. 160. 37 'Mr. Gray to Mr. West', Gray's Poems, Letters and Essays, with an intro­ duction by John Drinkwater (1955), p. 136. 38 The Works of Samuel Johnson.. .in twelve volumes (1806), xi, The Lives of tfie Poets, p. 323. 39 '. .. through all his greater works there prevails an uniform peculiarity of Diction . . . far removed from common use . . . ' Ibid., xii, p. 157. 40 The Rambler No. 168, The Yale Edition of the Works of Samuel Johnson, v, p. 126. 41 The Lyrical Ballads 1798-1805, with an introduction and notes by George Sampson (1965), p. 5. 42 Ibid., p. 17. 43 'Wordsworth', Essays in Criticism Second Series, p. 93. 44 Selected Essays, pp. 309-10. 45 Gray, 'The Bard'. 46 'Andrew Marvell', Selected Essays, p. 303. 47 'Observations', The Egoist, May 1918.

Notes, pages 197-203

213

48 E.g. from 'Shakespeare and the Stoicism of Seneca': 'In truth neither Shake­ speare nor Dante [as poets, the context implies] did any real thinking—that was not their job... The poet makes poetry, the metaphysician makes metaphysics, the bee makes honey, the spider secretes a filament; you can hardly say that any of these agents believes: he merely does', Selected Essays, pp. 136 and 138; and from 'Arnold and Pater': 'The theory . . . of "art for art's sake" is still valid in so far as it can be taken as an exhor­ tation to the artist to stick to his job . . . The right practice of "art for art's sake" was the devotion of Flaubert or Henry James.' Selected Essays, pp. 442-3. 49 In 'Arnold and Pater' (1930). 50 See the quotations under note 48 above. And consider also the following from The Use of Poetry and the Use of Criticism, p. 151: 'The chief use of the "meaning" of a poem, in the ordinary sense, may be... to satisfy one habit of the reader, to keep his mind diverted and quiet, while the poem does its work upon h i m . . . This is a normal situation of which I approve.' 51 In The New Poetic. 52 'The Urban Apocalypse', in Eliot in His Time: Essays on the Occasion of the Fiftieth Anniversary of 'The Waste land', ed. A. Walton Litz (1973). 53 Ibid., p. 34. 54 Ibid., pp. 41-2. 55 Ibid., p. 48. 56 Ibid., p. 46. 57 Sir James G. Frazer, The Golden Bough, abridged edition (1923), p. 1. I thought I was the first to note this significance in Eliot's title but the editor of the present volume points out to me that it is made by George Watson in The Literary Critics (1964), p. 187.

Index Note. Italicized numerals in the Eliot entry indicate quotations. Addison, Joseph, 76, 144, 149-50 Aeschylus, 37, 91, 94 Aristotle, 10, 52, 130, 148, 168, 169, 178 Arnold, Matthew, 10, 11, 12, 14, 18, 30, 41, 44, 64-5, 66, 69, 77, 83, 86, 87, 120, 121, 139, 144, 149, 151, 155156, 157, 162, 163, 172, 174, 175, 176, 184-206 passim Babbitt, Irving, 3-4, 22, 24, 30, 31, 49, 149, 178, 180 Baudelaire, Charles, 2, 73-5, 132, 166 Blake, William, 18-19, 152 Bradley, R H., 30, 111, 118, 128, 133, 137, 138, 162, 163, 178, 179, 180 Browning, Robert, 1, 4, 57, 60, 103, 164, 187 Byron, George Gordon, Lord, 185, 198 Coleridge, S. T., 10, 11, 12, 44, 141-2, 144, 160, 161, 163, 168, 177, 197, 199, 202 Collins, William, 194 Conrad, Joseph, 30, 156, 162, 176, 181 Dante, 2, 8, 10, 16, 17, 24, 27, 41, 68, 70, 71, J2, 73, 75, 96, 97. i4> n*, 115, 117, 118, 122, 125, 130, 135, 153, 154 Donne, John, 49, 50, 52, 144-5, 195 Dryden, John, 10, 18, 33, 44, 144, 159, 169, 185-205 passim Eliot, T. S. Criticism After Strange Gods, 11, 76, 77, 78, 79-86 passim, 87, 88, 157 'Aims of Education, The', 63 'Andrew MarvelP, 50, 187, 188, 189, 190, 195 Athenaeum, The, 2, 18, 23, 47, 48, 175 'Baudelaire', 2, 74, 75 'Baudelaire in Our Time', 73, 74 'Ben Jonson', 100, 171, 172 'Charybde et Scylla', 117, 125, 126-7, 128, 130

'Classics and the Man of Letters, The', 63 Criterion, The, 2, 4, 8, 12, 20, 21-41 passim, 66, 150, 153 'Dante', 27, 70-1, 72, 75 'Dialogue on Dramatic Poetry, A', 44, 57, 90, 93, 95, 96, 97, 102 Egoist, The, 23, 40, 47, 48, 54-5, 175, 196 Elizabethan Essays, 144 'Euripides and Professor Murray', 107, 169-70 'Ezra Pound His Metric and Poetry', 17, 45 For Lancelot Andrewes, 1, 2, 3, 46, 65, 66, 74 'Four Elizabethan Dramatists', 90, 93-5,100 'Francis Herbert Bradley', 65, 163 'Frontiers of Criticism, The', 114, 119, 131-2, 133, 151 'Function of Criticism, The', 11-12, 13, 14, 15, 135 'Goethe as the Sage', 63 Homage to John Dryden, 2, 18, 46, 48, 188, 195 Idea of a Christian Society, The, 86, 120, 143 'In Memory' (Henry James), 40 'John Dryden', 50, 159, 188, 189-90, 193, 200 'John Marston', 100, 105-6 'Johnson as Critic and Poet', vii-viii, 144 Knowledge and Experience in the Philosophy of F. H. Bradley, 111, 162 'Metaphysical Poets, The', 9, 51-2, 186-8 'Milton I ' (1936), 16, 188, 190, 192-3 'Milton II' (1947), 16-17, 191, 193 'Music of Poetry, The', 10, 15, 16, 17, 43

'Note on Poetry and Belief, A', 67, 68, 69, 70 Notes Towards the Definition of Cul­ ture, 38, 86 On ?oetry and Foets, 9, 10, 16, 182

Index 'Philip Massinger', 18, 57, 100, 171, 180 'Poetry and Drama', 44, 58, 59, 60, 97, 101, 102, 103, 104-5* 106

'Poetry and Propaganda', 71, 72-3, 86 'Poetry in the Eighteenth Century', 189 'Possibility of Poetic Drama, The', 90, 91-3 'Reflections on Vers Libre', 13,17,45,

215 'Dry Salvages', 16, 27-8, 29, 31, 33 'East Coker', 13, 16 'Little Gidding', 13, 16, 183 'Gerontion', 8, 14, 28, 46, 49, 56, 57, 164, 174 'Hippopotamus, The', 3 'Journey of the Magi', 141 'La Figlia che Piange', 44, 51, 57 'Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock, The', 14, 44, 45, 49, 51, 56, 60, 165, 169 'Mr. Apollinax', 6 'Mr. Eliot's Sunday Morning Ser­ vice', 3 Murder in the Cathedral, 58 Poems Written in Early Youth, 11 'Portrait of a Lady', 44, 50, 51, 57, 60, 165 Prufrock and Other Observations, 5, 8 'Rhapsody on a Windy Night', 141 Rock, The, 15 'Sweeney Agonistes', 11, 140 'Sweeney Among the Nightingales', 8 'Sweeney Erect', 50 Waste Land, The, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 39, 46, 49, 55, 56, 51, 67-8, 70, 77, 121, 127, 164, 173, 174, 182, 199204

'Religion and Literature', 31, 122, 123 'Rhetoric and Poetic Drama', 58, 100 'Rudyard Kipling', 17 Sacred Wood, The, 2, 3, 8, 17, 18, 39, 46, 49, 64, 65, 66, 73, 76> 77, 78, H5> 163, 166, 167, 168-83 passim, 184, 188, 203 Selected Essays, 10-11, 46, 47, 49, 51, 167 'Shakespeare and the Stoicism of Seneca', 5, 100, 118, 197 'Social Function of Poetry, The', 17 'Some Notes on the Blank Verse of Christopher Marlowe', 18, 56, 100, 168 'Swinburne as Poet', 17-18 'Thomas Middleton', 108 Thoughts After Lambeth, 1-2, 3 Goethe, J. W. von, 10, 76, 92, 109, 153, 'Three Voices of Poetry, The', 44, 154 45, 55> 59, 60, 61, 62, 97, 101, 164 'To Criticize the Critic', 3-4, 10-11, Gourmont, Remy de, 3, 18, 49, 168, 42, 43, 52, 115, 139 169, 174, 178, 180 To Criticize the Critic, 11, 13, 17 Gray, Thomas, 130, 167, 185, 193, 194, 'Tradition and the Individual 204 Talent', 9-10, 14, 31, 44, 49, 54, 55> Hardy, Thomas, 83, 84, 86, 149 79, 80, 140, 170, 171, 172, 178 Use of Poetry and the Use of Criti­ Hegel, G. W. F., 117, 138, 174, 178 Homer, 96, 168, 169, 186 cism, The, 44, 64, 73, 76-7, 78, 87, Hough, Graham, 24, 32, 117-18 117, 121-2, 124, 133, 136, 140-59 Hulme, T. E., 14, 22, 23 passim, 163, 167, 182, 185, 196-8 'What is a Classic?', 17 Ibsen, Henrik, 92, 96, 108 'What is Minor Poetry?', 17, 182 'William Blake', 18-19 James, Henry, 11, 40, 48, 174, 175 Poetry and Plays Johnson, Samuel, 10, 11, 44, 46, 139, 'A Cooking Egg', 52 144, 147, 169, 193, 194, 197, 199, 205 Ash-Wednesday, 7, 8, 46, 88, 140, 182 'Burbank with a Baedeker: Bleistein Jonson, Ben, 50, 100, 104, 144, 171-2, 179, 183, 187 with a Cigar', 6, 8 Joyce, James, 23, 82, 148, 162, 169, 176 Cocktail Tarty, The, 58 Confidential Clerk, The, 58 Keats, John, 32, 48, 50, 53, 144, 161, Elder Statesman, The, 58, 107 187, 196, 197, 198, 205 Family Reunion, The, 11, 28, 58 Kenner, Hugh, 120, 164, 179, 200-1 Four Quartets, 7, 8, 13, 16, 28, 46, 59, Ker, W. P., 10, 15, 145 88, 97, 164, 182 Kipling, Rudyard, 17, 23, 30, 150, 154 'Burnt Norton', 12, 16, 88

2l6

Index

Laforgue, Jules, 3, 18, 23, 51-2, 53, 165, 166 Lawrence, D. H., 23, 76, 81-2, 83, 84, 85, 86, 162, 179, 181 Leavis, F. R., 20, 39, 41, 139, 147-81 153, 169, 182, 188 Lessing, G. E., 10, 147, 160 Lucretius, 153, 154 Mallarme, Stephane, 23, 125, 164, 165 Maritain, Jacques, 22, 23, 28, 118, 121, 122, 157 Marlowe, Christopher, 18, 56, 100, 183 Marston, John, 100, 105 Marvell, Andrew, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 187, 188, 189, 195, 196 Massinger, Philip, 18, 57, 98, 100, 171, 180, 183 Maurras, Charles, 4, 22, 23, 54, 180 Meredith, George, 175, 176, 179 Middleton, Thomas, 13, 57> 100, 108 Milton, John, 16/32, 56, 140, 168, 175, 185-205 passim Murray, Gilbert, 169-70 Murry, John Middleton, 2, 12, 14, 23, 24, 25, 28, 34, 107 Plato, 41, 96, 101 Poe, Edgar Allan, 62, 165 Pope, Alexander, 156, 185, 188, 189, 192, 193, 194, 201, 202, 204, 205 Pound, Ezra, 1, 3, 6, 8, 11, 14, 17, 23, 25, 39, 42, 53, 77-8, 83, 128, 140, 150, 152, 164, 167, 169, 171, 174, 175, 181, 187, 192, 202 Richards, I. A., 18, 23, 67-9, 70, 77, 86, 99, 113, 119, 121, 122, 123, 124, 127, 133, 156, 167

Russell, Bertrand, 6, 7, 22, 30, 156 Sainte-Beuve, Charles, 10, 145, 174 Sartre, J.-P., 113-14, 116, 151 Shakespeare, William, 2, 12, 18, 56, 57, 96, 100, 101, 103, 105, 107, 112, 122, 135, 144, 147-8, 149, 151, 173. 185, 186, 188, 190, 193, 205 Shaw, George Bernard, 22, 30, 92, 96, 150 Shelley, Percy Bysshe, 9, 18, 48, 50, 53, 73* 76, 144> 152, 153> 187, 196, 197, 198 Sidney, Sir Philip, 144, 148, 169, 199 Spenser, Edmund, 18, 192, 193 Stead, C K., 59, 176 Stendhal, 175, 176, 179 Swinburne, A. C , 17-18, 50, 56, 94, 163, 178 Symons, Arthur, 73-5 t

Tennyson, Alfred, Lord, 48, 56, 57, 187 Tourneur, Cyril, 56, 57, 100 Valery, Paul, 23, 126-7, 130 Virgil, 24, 41, 97, 168 Webster, John, 13, 57 Winters, Yvor, 150, 152 Wollheim, Richard, 111, 118, 120, 138 Woolf, Virginia, 23, 95, 141, 148, 150, 162, 166 Wordsworth, William, 4-7, 9-10, 16, 48, 50, 53, 76, 77, 143, 144, 151, 152, 169, 172, 185, 186, 193-9 passim, 205 Yeats, William Butler, 23, 30, 58, 83, 143-4, !54> !6i, 162