Dialectic Ways T S Eliot and CounterRomanticism

transcript

‘Dialectic Ways’: T. S. Eliot and Counter‐Romanticism

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: University ofLiverpool; date: 02 October 2015

UniversityPressScholarshipOnline

OxfordScholarshipOnline

TheAll-SustainingAir:RomanticLegaciesandRenewalsinBritish,American,andIrishPoetrysince1900MichaelO'Neill

Printpublicationdate:2007PrintISBN-13:9780199299287PublishedtoOxfordScholarshipOnline:September2007DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199299287.001.0001

‘DialecticWays’:T.S.EliotandCounter‐Romanticism

MichaelO'Neill(ContributorWebpage)

DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199299287.003.0004

AbstractandKeywords

ThischapterarguesthatT.S.Eliot'spoetryisilluminatedbystudyinghimintermsofa‘counter-Romanticism’,whichhediscernsinBaudelaireandenactsinavarietyofwaysinhispoems;italsoattendstotheRomanticgroundofhisbeginningsasapoet.Theintentionisnotneatlytore-packagethepoet,buttofindappropriatewaysofdescribing,evoking,andvaluingthepoetry.Ithelps,forexample,inthinkingabouttheachievementof‘WhattheThundersaid’tosetitinrelationtotheapocalypticambitionsofmajorRomanticpoems.ThefirstsectionofthechapterlooksatearlypoemscollectedinInventionsoftheMarchHare,arguingthattheirquestioningmodeandidiomhavemuchincommonwith,andcaninplacesbereadaselegiacabout,theRomantic.ThesecondsectionarguesthatTheWasteLandcanbereadasa‘counter-Romantic’poem.ThethirdsectionexploreshowEliotcontinuestoworkatrewardingcrosspurposessofarasRomanticpoetryisconcerned;itexamines,amongotherthings,thelinksbetweenEliot's

‘moments’andWordsworth's‘spotsoftime’,andbetweenhisandtheRomantics'interestinthepresent-tensethisnessofwriting.

Keywords:Baudelaire,spotsoftime,elegiac,thisness

ITheyoungerT.S.EliotseemslessquestioningthanassuredinhisdismissalofRomanticism.Anamusingexampleoccursina1918reviewwhenhewrites,‘BecausewehaveneverlearnedtocriticizeKeats,Shelley,andWordsworth(poetsofassuredthoughmodestmerit),Keats,ShelleyandWordsworthpunishusfromtheirgraveswiththeannualscourgeoftheGeorgianAnthology.’1YetEliot'santi‐RomanticismmasksapowerfulaffinitywithRomanticpoetry;hisoverthostilitytoRomanticismconnectswithhiscomplexfeelingsaboutself‐expressioninpoetry.Thehighpriestofimpersonalityturnsouttobeapoetofaffectingemotionaldisclosure.Indeed,C.K.SteadissurelycorrecttosaythatEliot'sremarksinessays‘apparentlyabouttradition,Jonson,andHamlet’‘implyakindofpoeticcompositionatleastasdependentonspontaneous“imagination”and“inspiration”asthatwhichanyoftheromanticpoetsmighthaveaffirmed’.2AndStead'sacutereadingofthelater‘ThreeVoicesofPoetry’lectureshowsEliotengagedinapost‐Romanticsearch,notforthestigmatized‘InnerVoice...thevoiceof“opinion”’,butfor‘thevoiceofthepoet's“soul”—thatpartofhisbeingwhichisunknowable,eventohimself’andwhich‘expressesitself,notin“thought,”butbyarecreationofdiverseexperienceinto“feeling”—whichinturnbecomes...theessentialtextureofthepoem’.3

Stead'sEliotretreatsfromtheselfinordertodiscoveradeeperself.‘Oldmenoughttobeexplorers’(‘EastCoker’,V)placesstrongemphasison‘ought’,andaboutnothingisEliotmoreexploratorythanthenatureoftheself.4Thereisevidencefromhisearliestworkofadisinclinationfullytobelieveinthequotidianegoastherealself,adisbeliefthattakesonebacktoDavidHume(p.61) andhisscepticalconvictionthattheselfwasmerelyabundleofimpulses.ThisconvictionhauntsShelleyandotherRomanticsevenasthey,especiallyColeridge,seektorejectit.Humeanscepticismcallsintoquestion,too,therealityofthephysicaluniverse.ModifiedbyShelley'sreadingofBerkeleyandSirWilliamDrummond,suchscepticismissues,fortheRomanticpoet,inwhathecalls‘theintellectualphilosophy’inhisessay‘OnLife’.Thisphilosophyswithersbetweenvertigoandexcitementasitdemolishesdifferencesbetween‘ideas’and‘externalobjects’,andbetween‘distinctindividualmindssimiliartothatwhichisemployedinnowquestioningitsownnature’(p.635).Shelleygivessolipsismtheslip,muchasearlyEliotoftenendeavourstodo(‘TosaythatIcanknowonlymyownstates...isinnowisethefoundationofsolipsism’);butforbothpoetstherelationshipsbetweenselfandworldareperilous,givingriseinShelleytoayearningforthe‘One’,inEliottoinitialflirtationwithF.H.Bradley'snotionofthe‘Absolute’,thencommitmenttotheChristianGod.5

Eliot'searlypoem‘Ohlittlevoicesofthethroatsofmen’,fromInventionsoftheMarchHare,anotebookcontainingpoemswritteninhistwenties,findsacorrelativeforthisperilousuncertaintyinthesensethattheworldismerely‘Appearancesappearances’:aplacewherehealwaysfinds‘thesameunvaried|Intolerableinterminablemaze’(19–20),andwhereappearancesare‘unreal,andyettrue;|Untrue,yetreal’(26–7).Theseviews

areascribedtoa‘he’(25),buttheyhavemorethanasmackofShelleythescepticalPlatonist.LyndallGordonhearsthepoemasaPrufrockian‘debatebetweentwovoices’,an‘abjectself’(speakerofthefirsttwoandthe‘he’ofthefinalparagraphs)anda‘philosophicself’who‘exhorts[theabjectself]nottodelaytotakepossessionofsometruth’.6ButGordon'sbriskclarityunderplaystheextenttowhichtheidentitiescharacteristicallylosedistinction,asoccursin‘Prufrock’whenthe‘youandI’ofthefirstlinehauntinglycoalesce.In‘Ohlittlevoices’,Eliot'sartliesinthewaythevoicesblur,thesecondvoiceseemingtobearestatementfromanobjectivizedstanceofthefirst.TheRomanticfigureofthedoppelgängerblendswiththeLaforgianpracticeofdédoublement,and,asChristopherRickspointsoutinhisextensiveeditorialannotation,RomanticpoetryhasbequeatheditsshareofphrasestoEliot'swork.The‘Intolerableinterminablemaze’derivesitsadjectivesfromTheDaemonoftheWorld,Shelley'sreworkingofQueenMab,adjectiveswhichintheoriginaloccurincontextsdescribingthesublimeunendingnessofthephysicaluniverse,whilethenounrecalls‘Unendingorbsmingledinmazymotion’(244;qtdfromShelley:PoeticalWorks)fromthesamepoem.WhatfortheyouthfulShelleyisamatterforaweandexaltationisfortheyouthfulEliotthelanguageofennui(p.62) andexhaustion.Inthisrespect,hisattitudeisclosertoShelley'ssonnet‘Liftnotthepaintedveilwhichthosewholive|CallLife’(1–2),aveilwhichhas‘unrealshapes’(2)picturedonit:notleastbecause‘Ohlittlevoices’,oncloserinspection,flirtswiththeformandstructureofthesonnet.Itopenswithfourteenlines,arrangedasanoctavefollowedbyasestet,withavoltainline9,inwhichthepoetmockinglyapplaudsthe‘Impatienttirelessundirectedfeet’ofthosewhomakeupwhatColeridgecalls‘thepoorlovelessever‐anxiouscrowd’(‘Dejection:AnOde’,52).Sonnetformisdepartedfromthereafter,inthepoem'sthirdandfourthparagraphs,butitmakesrecurrentifbrokenattemptstoreappear:intheopeningsestetofthethird,intheapproachtoanoctavemadebythenexteightlines,intheclosingcoupletofthethirdparagraph,andinatendencytomonorhymewhichrecallssomethingoftheobssessiverhymingfoundinaPetrarchansonnet'soctave.

Theformofthepoemmimesinitsapproachtomimickedclosureasensethatallis‘nowisereal;unreal,andyettrue;|Untrue,yetreal’(26–7).Thetongue‐twistingwordingsuggeststheslipperinessofwhatis‘real’and‘true’.Somethingmaybe‘unreal’,lackingontologicalidentity,yet‘true’,inthatitisacceptedasfactuallythecase.Oritmaybe‘Untrue’,falsetoultimateideasof‘truth’,‘yetreal’,since,intheworldof‘appearances’,itisacceptedaspossessingsubstance.MuchinShelleyandKeatscorrespondstothesehesitationsandrevisions:‘RealarethedreamsofGods’(I.127),remarksthenarratorofLamiawithsomebitterness,andwiththeimmediatecorollarypressinguponhimandthereader,that‘Unrealarethedreamsofhumanbeings’.Shelley,foreverseekingtogetbeyondthe‘veilandthebar|Ofthingswhichseemandare’(PrometheusUnbound,2.3.59–60),andfascinatedbythelinksandgapsbetween‘thingswhichseem’and‘Thegatheredrayswhicharereality’(PrometheusUnbound,3.3.53),speaksofapoetcreating‘Formsmorerealthanlivingman’(PrometheusUnbound,I.748).RickscitesthisphraseastheechoicancestorofEliot'searlierlinein‘Ohlittlevoices’,‘Forwhatcouldbemorerealthansweatanddustandsun’(13),andthelaterpoet'suseseemsgrimlysardonic:theultimaterealityisthebrutematerialworld,notPlatonicessencesshiningly

extractedfromthephenomenalworld.7ButShelleycouplesappearancesandessenceswithenigmaticeffectinhiswork,sothattherelationshipbetweenhisandEliot'sattitudesisfinerthanoneofcontrast.If‘Weblowagainstthewindandspitagainsttherain’(12)sadlydefinesthefateofthosewhoshun‘thewrinkledwaysofwrong’,theyhavebehindthem,servingnotmerelyasanironizedorigin,theanti‐mockingcourageofBlake's‘Mockon’.‘MockonMockon!tisallinvain!|Youthrowthesandagainstthewind|Andthewindblowsitbackagain’(2–4),assertsBlake.Eliot's‘We’maysuffer(p.63) theindignityofineffectualstruggleagainstthewind,buttheprevailingwindiscomingfromanoppositequartertothatwhichisblowingthroughtheBlakeanpoem.Thus,tospitagainstitistobesomethingofalatter‐dayRomanticinaworldinimicaltoRomanticism.

In‘ImperfectCritics’,Eliotwrotethat‘theonlycureforRomanticismistoanalyseit’andtheformulationdoesmuchtoexplainthebehaviourofpoemssuchas‘Ohlittlevoices’anduptoTheWasteLand.8Inthesameessay,heshapesconfidentantithesesofakindbothsupportedandquestionedbyhispoetry.Thus,hearguesthat‘WhatispermanentandgoodinRomanticismiscuriosity’,buthethenbacktrackstosaythat‘Romanticismisashortcuttothestrangenesswithoutthereality,andleadsitsdisciplesonlybackuponthemselves...GeorgeWyndham[forEliot‘ARomanticAristocrat’]hadcuriosity,butheemployeditromantically,nottopenetratetherealworld’.9Eliothimselfseeksalwaystoobjectify,tofindaverbalequivalentfor‘therealworld’.Tothisdegree,heistruetohisanti‐Romanticcredo.Atthesametime,the‘realworld’issounstableanotioninhiswork,andhispoetrysooftenoccupiesa‘strangeness’whichisunsurewhat‘“thereality”is’,thathecanbeseentodramatizealatter‐dayRomanticstruggletoconnectwiththe‘real’whileacknowledging,howevercovertly,theinseparabilityof‘thereal’fromconsciousness.

Romanticpoetryitselfisoftenitsownseverestanalyst,asisapparentinShelley'sAlastorandEpipsychidion,bothpoemsofquestthatquestionthequester.WhenEliot'sspeakerin‘Ohlittlevoices’recordswhat‘hesaid’,hehearsthefollowing:

Appearancesappearanceshesaid,Ihavesearchedtheworldthroughdialecticways;Ihavequestionedrestlessnightsandtorpiddays,Andfollowedeveryby‐waywhereitlead;AndalwaysfindthesameunvariedIntolerableinterminablemaze.(15–20)

ShelleyprovidesthesourceforEliot'sinterrogativeidiom.HisnarratorinAlastorborrowsfromWordsworth's‘Ode:IntimationsofImmortality’ashehopesto‘stilltheseobstinatequestionings|Oftheeandthine,byforcingsomeloneghost|Thymessenger,torenderupthetale|Ofwhatweare’(26–9).Shelley'swordingisalert,initsverysyntax,totheelusiverecessivenessof‘whatweare’,knownonlyintheformofa‘tale’,andonespunoutofnever‐answered‘questionings’.InEpipsychidion,234–8,thelanguageisnearneigh‐bourtothefrustratedsearchingreportedbyEliot'sspeaker.Shelley,seekinganidealized‘Being’(190),asks‘“Where?”—theworld'sechoanswered

“where!”|Andinthatsilence,andinmydespair,|Iquestionedeverytonguelesswind(p.64) thatflew|Overmytowerofmourning,ifitknew|Whither’twasfled,thissouloutofmysoul’.10Thedifferenceisacute:Shelley'stoneisoneofdespairingardour,Eliot'soneofweariedenclosurewithinwhatfeelslikeamentalprison,whosebarsareconstructedfrom‘dialectic’andwhichfinallyconstitutesaninescapable‘maze’.But,aswithallthepoetsstudiedinthisbook,EliotshowstheimpactofRomanticmodesandpurposesintheactofstrugglingtoarticulatehisindividualvision.

Indeed,‘Ohlittlevoices’partlyshapesitselfasalamentforaversionoftheRomantic:the‘littlevoices’addressedatthestart‘comebetweenthesingerandthesong’inawaythatmakesitimpossibleforEliottorecoversomeperfectaccordbetween‘singer’and‘song’,anaestheticAbsolutehardwhollytodissociatefromRomanticpoetics.Coleridgecomesclosetoidentifying‘singer’and‘song’inthefinalsectionof‘KublaKhan’,wheretherevived‘song’(43)wouldconferonthenarratingsingerthesacred,ifisolated,statusimaginedintheclosinglines.InBiographiaLiteraria,hesuggestsacomparableidentificationwhenheasserts,‘Whatispoetry?issonearlythesamequestionwith,whatisapoet?thattheanswertotheoneisinvolvedinthesolutionoftheother’(chapter14,ii.15).Itisstrikinghowoften,infact,Romanticechoesservetosuggest,inEliot'swork,afascinationwithsomeflawless‘worldfarfromours’(‘ToJane:“Thekeenstarsweretwinkling”’,22),asShelleycallsit;fascinating,too,tonotehowtheRomanticsthemselves,especiallywhensearchingforharmonybetween‘singer’and‘song’,areconsciousofagap,ofallthatinterposesitself.Shelley'sconfessionofreachinglimitsatthecloseofEpipsychidionisoneexample.FortheRomantics,asforEliot,thepursuitofonenessoftenopensup‘dialecticways’,suchasthoseexploredbyBlakeinhisSongs;forthem,againsttheirbetterhopes,asfortheEliotof‘Ohlittlevoices’,poeticquestismiredinfrustration,totheaestheticbenefitoftheirpoetry,convertingwhatmightbeexpositorypropagandaintodrama.‘Contradictionisthedebtyouwouldcollect’(21),saysthevoicerecordedin‘Ohlittlevoices’,andonethinksofBlake'swrycouplet,‘DowhatyouwillthisLifesaFiction|AndismadeupofContradiction’(seeErdman,p.880)in‘TheEverlastingGospel’.

Eliot'sverbalantennaestirinresponsetoRomanticpoetry'sintimacywithcontradictoryabysses,theshadowoftheirlongingforsomeresplendent‘One’.Shelley'shopeinhistranslationof‘ToStella(fromtheGreekofPlato)’—theGreekwasplacedattheheadofAdonais—thattheaddressee(oncethe‘morningstaramongtheliving’)willgive‘Newsplendourtothedead’mayappeartobesnuffedoutbyitssaddenedreworkingin‘Ohlittlevoices’:‘ifyoufindnotruthamongtheliving|Youwillnotfindmuchtruthamongthedead’(32–3).11But,forallitsyearning,Adonaisexists,whenallissaid,in‘Noothertimebut(p.65) now,nootherplacethanhere’(‘Ohlittlevoices’,33),muchas,fortheByronofChildeHarold'sPilgrimage,oftenevokedbyAdonais,‘Therewoosnohome,norhope,norlife,savewhatishere’(IV.105.945).ShelleyandByronbothembraceafierceexistentialismintheactofwritingtheirpoetry,the‘here’thatemergesasthenearestthingto‘reality’forbothpoets.Eliotexploresin‘Ohlittlevoices’ableaklyproto‐Modernistsensethatitisinthe‘here’ofthepoem'snow,anowthatinvolvesawarenessoflanguage'shistory,thatsignificanceinheres,orfailstoinhere.Thepoem'sclosing

sectiondraws,asRicksagainsuggests,onaShelleyanimaginingofdivisionsandpossibleunification.12Eliotdescribesthephantasmagoricshapesthatmockthedozingfigurewhosespeechhasjustended:‘Acrossthefloortheshadowscrawledandcrept|Andasthethinlightshiveredthroughthetrees|Aroundthemuffledformtheydancedandleapt’(39–41).And,asRicksnotes,‘theshadows’and‘form’invitecomparisonwithlinesinapassagefromAct1ofPrometheusUnbound,Earth'sspellbindingevocationofan‘apparation’beheldby‘TheMagusZoroaster’(1.194,192):thelines,asquotedbyRicks,are,‘Forknowtherearetwoworldsoflifeanddeath:|Onethatwhichthoubeholdest;buttheother|Isunderneaththegrave,wheredoinhabit|Theshadowsofallformsthatthinkandlive’(1.195–8).Thelineaftertheseisamongthemostcrucialinthespeechandforunderstandingoftheallusion'sforce:‘Tilldeathunitethemandtheypartnomore.’Shelleyhauntinglydivorceshistwoworlds,butimaginesafinalmarriagebetweenthemin‘death’:apointoftengesturedtowardsbutneverattainedinhislinguisticstructures.IfShelleylooksinDeathforunion,asinAdonais,where,mockingthemarriageservice,hewrites,‘NomoreletLifedividewhatDeathcanjointogether’(477),heis‘bornedarkly,fearfully’(492)towardsitinthesamepoem,neverquitereachinghiscomplexlydesiredgoal.Eliotleaves‘shadows’and‘form’inanunappeaseddance,havingalreadyallowedthepoem's‘he’toshutthegateagainstthehopeoffinding‘truthamongthedead’.

IIYet,‘Ohlittlevoices’isghostedbythehopethatlivinganddyingwillcrisscross,thatdialecticwayswillresolveintounion,as,darklyandfearfully,theywilldowhenEliotreturnstothesameShelleyanpassageinTheCocktailParty,Act3.There,theconversationalidiomisinterruptedbyReilly'srequest,intalkingaboutCeliaCoplestone'sdeath,to‘quotepoetry’;hespeaksthelinesfromPrometheusUnboundtoconveya‘suddenintuition’,onfirstmeeting(p.66) Celia,of‘theimage’ofherfaceshowing‘theastonishment|Ofthefirstfiveminutesafteraviolentdeath’(CompletePoemsandPlays,pp.436,437).Moregenerally,thelongingforlossofselfinEliot'spoetrybearswitnesstotheholdoverhisimaginationofRomanticmodes.ThisholdwrestleswithadetachmentthatcanrecallthedynamicsofRomanticirony,butmightbeglossedmoreaccuratelybyEliot'sownterm,‘counter‐romantic’,usedinhis1930essay,‘Baudelaire’.OftheFrenchpoet,hesays:‘Inevitablytheoffspringofromanticism,andbyhisnaturethefirstcounter‐romanticinpoetry,hecould,likeanyoneelse,onlyworkwiththematerialswhichwerethere.Itmustnotbeforgottenthatapoetinaromanticagecannotbea“classical”poetexceptintendency.’13Therewouldappeartobeanelementoftacitself‐descriptionhere.Eliotasa‘counter‐romantic’makessenseinawaythatEliottheclassicistdoesnot,forallhisfamouspronouncementstothecontrary.

EliotseesRomanticismthroughthetragicprismofBaudelaire's‘counter‐romanticism’.TheFrenchpoet's‘LeVoyage’14functionsasadiagnosisofRomanticism'spathologiesandaclear‐sightedactofdesperatecommitmenttothe‘unknown’.Thepoemislucidandeloquent,causticbutrapt,paradisalyetnightmarish,aloofandatthesametimeinvolved;itisadialogicpoem,involvingdifferentvoices(ventriloquizedbythepoet),responses,andcounter‐responses.ItsdividedviewofRomanticquestfindsexpressionin

sardonicallyaptmetaphorsandcomparisons:‘Weimitate,ohhorror!topsandbowls|intheireternalwaltzingmarathon’;‘Oursoulisathree‐masterseekingport’(II).Forthesplenetic,doom‐ladeneyeitcastsonRomanticism,onemightcitelinessuchas‘Ourheartsarealwaysanxiouswithdesire’(IV).Infact,‘thetruevoyagers’,Baudelairecommentsderisively,‘arethosewhomove|simplytomove—likelostballoons!’(I).Thisconvictionsuggestslessquestthananinabilitytostaystill,and,forBaudelaire,thehumanneedtovoyageandquestveersbetweentheimpressiveandthecontemptible,asignofdesireforfreedomandconfirmationthatwearelimited.Anearlywarningnotecomesinthefirstsection:‘weswingwiththevelvetswellofthewave,|ourinfiniteisrockedbythefixedsea’.Thetamingoftheinfinitebythefiniteperformedinthatlineisinpartthewholeendeavourofthepoem;yetatleastthepoeticvoyagebrings‘anoasisofhorrorinsandsofennui’(VII).Itisableakvisionofwhatpost‐Romanticvoyagesmaydeliver.Butinitsimplicitsense,howevertargetedbyirony,ofthepurposeofwriting—‘Throughtheunknown,we'llfindthenew’(VIII)—thepoemis,initsowndeeplytroubledway,caughtupinRomanticpursuit.

(p.67) A.DavidMoodynotestherelevanceofBaudelaire'spoemto‘TheBurialoftheDead’,atthecloseofwhichBaudelaireisquoted(‘hypocritelecteur!—monsemblable,—monfrère!’,76)andtoTheWasteLandmoregenerally:‘Itisasifthepoethadbeenstrivingtocreate,outoftheconsciousnessoftheexperienceinthehyacinthgarden,anoasisofhorrorinadesertofEnnui.’15ThisassertionisclosetosayingthatEliot'svisioninTheWasteLandinvolvesanegativeRomanticism,oneinwhichthelost,elegizedexperienceofvisionaryintensityinthehyacinthgardenstirsthepoetandthereaderoutofthebe‐numbedconditionevokedsoofteninthepoem,aswhenthepoetdescribesandsummonsupthe‘UnrealCity’(60)inthefirstsection.Certainlythemomentinthehyacinthgarden,sandwichedbetweenthedesolateintensitieshintedatbytheallusionstoTristanundIsolde,offersadistilledrecollectionofRomanticconcernswiththeinexpressible,theepiphanic,andthenon‐rational.The‘I’‘couldnot|Speak,andmyeyesfailed,Iwasneither|Livingnordead,andIknewnothing,|Lookingintotheheartoflight,thesilence’(38–41).Artfulenjambmentscorrespondtothepassage'sdual,ambivalentmoodofrecollectedraptureandfearofnothingness.Thatthespeaker‘knewnothing’linkshimwithlaterfigureswhosaythatthewindisdoing‘Nothingagainnothing’(120)andwho‘canconnect|Nothingwithnothing’(301–2).Butitassociateshim,too,withtheRomanticsforwhomexperience,even‘Anordinarysight’,sometimescalledfor‘Coloursandformsthatareunknowntoman’,and,liketheWordsworthianpassage,ithasitsown‘visionarydreariness’(ThePrelude,1805,XI.309,310,311).Ifthehyacinthgirlpassageisaspotoftime,itannulsitsmeaningintheactofaffirmingit.Wordsworth's‘visionarydreariness’connects,howeverobliquely,withaconvictionofhavingbeen‘Fosteredalikebybeautyandbyfear’(ThePrelude,1805,I.306).Thereisadestinythatshapeshisends.Eliot'snegativeRomanticisminTheWasteLandowesitsachingpowertotheabsenceofanyguaranteethat‘memoryanddesire’(3)haveanygroundsbeyondthemselves.Nature,Wordsworthianorotherwise,collapsesbeneathaweightofironictextuality,evidentinthepoem'sfirstline,orstrugglestoreassertitselfamidstthecity'sman‐madewilderness.Christisaslainvegetationgod,lostinawelterofcompetingsyncreticmyths.Religiouslongingisthere,asinfewotherpoems,butitispresentedwith

obliqueironyandasamatteroftextualdebris,asatthecloseof‘TheFireSermon’,wherewordsfromAugustineandtheBuddhaspeakoutofandtodesperatehumanneed,andarebuttruncatedquotations.Oritsurfacesaspost‐Rimbaudianhallucination,whenthejourneytoEmmausinvolvesa‘whiteroad’(361)hauntedby‘anotheronewalkingbesideyou’(362),almostadescriptionofthepoem'sdealingswith(p.68) othercultures,withthepast,andwith,Iwouldargue,EnglishRomanticism,‘walkingbeside’thepoemlikeitsspectralotherandghostlybegetter.16Politicaloptimismhaslongsincevanished,gonewiththe‘reverberation|Ofthunderofspringoverdistantmountains’(326–7).IfWintercomes,Springmightnotbefarbehind.YeteveninShelley's‘OdetotheWestWind’,thereistherepressedfear,communicatingthroughthefinalquestion,thatAprilmayprovetobethecruellestmonthwere‘Spring’tobeamerelyliteralterm,merelynamingastageinaseasonalcycle,havingyieldedupitsmetaphoricalimplicationsindespair.

Theremarkableachievementof‘WhattheThundersaid’istoleavethepoempoisedinendlesslyoscillatinganbivalencebetweenhopeanddespair,itselfacharacteristicRomanticstance.Onemighthear,inthepoem'sfinalcollage,whichisalsoabarrage,ofallusions,adistantechoofthechoricvoicesattheendofPrometheusUnbound,admiredbyEliotasamomentwhen‘Shelleyrisestotheheights’in‘linestothecontentofwhichbeliefisneithergivennordenied’.17ThatfinalclauseisrelevanttothefreedomwhichEliotshapesfromhispoem'srefusalwhollytoendorseorreject,arefusalheardintheminutiaeofitsverbalbehaviour.InpraisingtheShelleyanpassage,Eliothasinmind,amongotherthings,Demogorgon'sinjunction‘tohope,tillHopecreates|Fromitsownwreckthethingitcontemplates’(PrometheusUnbound,4.573–4).Theformulationimplies,throughitsverywording,the‘creative’functioningofpoetryinthefaceofthewreckageofitsownbesthopes.ThestanceistypicalofShelley,butitcontributestotheairofresidual,stoicalhanging‐onwhichmarksthecloseofEliot'spoem.‘ThesefragmentsIhaveshoredagainstmyruins’(430),saysthespeaker,havingalludedtotragedy‐touchednurseryrhyme,Dantescanrefiningfire,thePervigiliumVeneris,anddeNervalathis‘tourabolie’(429):allmomentsthatcompressintothemselveswhatMoodycalls(p.69) ‘theaspiration,feltthroughoutTheWasteLand,fortheconditionofmusicinwhichanguishisatoncefeltandtransformed’.18Thisaspirationhaunts‘WhattheThundersaid’,yetEliotkeepsthepoemobjective;hedoesnotsay,asShelleymighthavedone,‘Oursweetestsongsarethosethattellofsaddestthought’(‘ToaSkylark’,90).If‘ThesefragmentsIhaveshoredagainstmyruins’isalinethatcommentsonthepoet'spost‐Romantic,post‐Christianstateofabandonment,italsowrylydescribes,metapoetically,thetextualnatureofthepoemhehasshaped.

Theeffectistocreateapurityoffeeling,inexcessofanyonesituation,yetattachingitselfoverandovertotheobjectivecorrelativesmetwithinthepoem.So,inthecaseoffemalefigures,post‐Romanticobjectsofmaledesireandcuriosity,onethinksofMarieinthemountains,ofthehyacinthgirl,oftheneuraesthenicwomanatherdressing‐table,ofthetypist,andofthesurreallyimaginedwomanwho‘drewherlongblackhairouttight|Andfiddledwhispermusiconthosestrings’(377–8).In‘AGameofChess’,thesecondpartofTheWasteLand,drawingondifferentsources,notablyAntonyandCleopatra,Eliot

bringsanornatelyaestheticizingstyletobearonthepredicamentofthenerve‐terrorizedwomanatherdressing‐table;thestylemirrorstheartificialityofherlife,cocoonedin‘strangesyntheticperfumes’(87),andprovidesastayagainstthetooeasypromptingsofsympathyordisgustwhicharealisticpresentationmightinduce.Those‘perfumes’takeusintoRomanticterrainwhentheyaresaidtohave‘troubled,confused|Anddrownedthesenseinodours’(88–9).TheimmediateallusionistotwoShelleyantexts:PrometheusUnbound,Act4,andPanthea'svisionofa‘multititudinousOrb’(253)whichgathersupallthatsurroundsit,including‘thewildodouroftheforestflowers’(256)into‘oneaerialmass|Whichdrownsthesense’(260–1),andEpipsychidion,inwhich‘awildodourisfelt,|Beyondthesense’(109–10).EliotfindsterrorandconfusionwhereShelleyseeksrapture;EliotdetectsbreakdownwhereShelleycelebratesbreakthrough.Yetthepoetsbothusewordstochallengethelimitsof‘thesense’.

Eliot'swomeninhabit,andarethevictimsof,socialworlds;Shelley'sEmiliainEpipsychidionisbothprisonerandemblemofspirit‐wingedhope,the‘Thou’whowillgiveobjectiveformtothepoet'slongingfortranscendenceofthesocial.ButShelley'squestconsciously,deliberately,facesthepossibilityoffailure;Eliotwillnotallowhisfemalefigureswhollytoeludetheauraofromanticdesire.Theconstantmovementtowardsandawayfromromanticsituationsandelevateddictionsuggestsamorethanmerelyironizingimpulseonthepoet'spart.Analogously,Byron,criticizedbyEliotforhis‘imperceptivenesstotheEnglishword’,affectshispracticeasmuch,itmaybe,asLafourge.His‘admirableantacidtothehighfalutin’ispresentinanallusionmadeby(p.70) ‘Goldfish(EssenceofSummerMagazines)’toBeppo.19‘August,withallitsfaults!’(8),Eliotmocks,echoingByron'splaywithCowper's‘England,withallthyfaults,Ilovetheestill’.20TheRomanticpoet'sflamboyantcomicrhymescanbeheardin‘Prufrock’,licensingrhymesbetween‘ices’and‘crisis’,asGeorgeBornsteinhasargued.21AndbehindtheswitchesofmoodsandmodesinTheWasteLandfloatsthewraithofByronicsatiricalinstability.Theepisodeofthetypistandyoungmancarbuncularowesitsimpacttothepoet'smanipulationofshadowscastbypastidioms.Keats'scasements‘openingonthefoam|Ofperilousseas,infaerylandsforlorn’(‘OdetoaNightingale’,69–70)swinglist‐lesslyopenandshutbehindthelines,‘Outofthewindowperilouslyspread|Herdryingcombinationstouchedbythesun'slastrays’(224–5).Sub‐PopeansatiremaycharacterizeTiresias'smannerofseeing,butonefinds,too,aRomanticorByronicinclusiveness.Awindowopensintoin‐betweenness,ofwhichTiresias'sownbiologicalstate(‘oldmanwithwrinkleddugs’,228)istheepitome.Satiremodulatesintoelegiacyearning:ifthe‘humanengine’(216)reduceshumanstomechanicalfunctionings,thepassage'sseconduseof‘throbbing’,asGarethReeveshasobserved,‘reinveststhehumanenginewith“throbbing”humanity’.22Inhabiting‘theviolethour’(215;emphasisadded),thepoetry,likeTiresias,canbefelt‘throbbingbetweentwolives’.

Eliot'srhythmsrefusesimplytosettlefortheassuranceofneo‐Augustansatire.Whensuchassuranceassertsitself,itservesasdefenceagainst‘foresuffering’(see243)andinresponsetoTiresias'sdeliberatelyforeshorteningverb‘foretold’(229).Beforethat,thesyntax‘throbs’betweenhoveringuncertaintyandattemptedresolution,sustaininga

senseofimminencein‘theviolethour’thatfocusesonhow,aswellaswhat,Tiresias‘cansee’.23Theforesufferingonlookertakesusintoaworldofnear‐voyeuristicloneliness,disgust,anddesire,andopensthepoemintootherregisters,muchasByrondoeswithhisswitchesoftoneinDonJuan.So,incantoIV,wemovefromtheaffectingimpactofHaidee'sdeathtotheshockof‘Butletmechangethistheme,whichgrowstoosad,|Andlaythissheetofsorrowsontheshelf’(74.585–6),Byronconsciously(p.71) sullyingthehallowedimagehehasmade;Eliothallowsthesulliedfigurehehasimagined,asOliverGoldsmithcomestoherrescue,inhoweveranaesthetizedaform:‘Whenlovelywomanstoopstofollyand|Pacesaboutherroomagain,alone’(253–4).Therecordsheputsonthegramophoneseemsamindlessattempttocancelthememoryoftherecentunfulfillingsexualencounter.Yet,inanotherreversalofRomanticirony'smovementfromthehighfalutintotheantacid,Eliotallowsthetransitionatthispointtotransformthepreviously‘UnrealCity’(207)intoaplaceofbeauty.

Transition,deftlyemployedbytheRomantics,andattheheartofByron'sself‐dividedcritiqueofRomanticism,enablesEliottoleavebehindtheunlit‘stairs’downwhichhislatter‐dayCorsair‘gropeshisway’(248).Briefly,unforgettably,weareagainwithFerdinandinTheTempest,asourcecovertlypresentinearlierreferences,butnowopenlyacknowledgedasaquotationintheline‘Thismusiccreptbymeuponthewaters’(257),andnowasanopenlyconcededsourceofaestheticpowerasitisinShelley's‘WithaGuitar.ToJane’.TheShelleyanpoemiscomplexinitsinflections;itsoctosyllabiccoupletstwistfrom‘joy’to‘pain’(7,8)intheopeninglines,partlybecauseofthehintofanemotionalscenarioinwhichShelley/ArielisexcludedfromthehappinessenjoyedbyFerdinandandMiranda,butpartly,too,becauseitisthenatureofartto‘Makethedelightedspiritglow’(6)byexhibiting‘harmony’(4).Eliotusesthe‘harmony’bequeathedbythequotationfromTheTempesttoenhancehissenseofpresent‐daypossibilities,inapassagewhichmayseemaninterludeinanoverallanti‐masque,butwhich,infact,alertsustothemany‐sidednatureofthepoem'smoodsandtones.Here,Eliotfindsthe‘UnrealCity’aplacetobeapostrophized(‘OCitycity’,259)withsomethingmorethanmerelyobviousirony.Thepoemshowsaloveof‘music’,bothextra‐textualandmetrical,thataddsuptoarecoveryofaestheticnerve:apentameterdwellswithqualifiedbutrealcontentmenton‘Thepleasantwhiningofamandoline’(261),beforethemetreadaptssensitivelyto‘aclatterandachatterfromwithin|Wherefishmenloungeatnoon’(262–3)(atransformationofthebanalitiesandedgedcommentsreportedinthepubscenetowardsthecloseof‘AGameofChess’);thewritingthenflowersintoanexuberantsavouringofverbalmelodyasitadmiresthe‘InexplicablesplendourofIonianwhiteandgold’(265)inawaythatrecallstheevocationofthe‘statelypleasure‐dome’(2)in‘KublaKhan’.

Thetonequicklyalters,butthepassageisaRomanticpoeminlittle,Wordsworthianinitssensitivitytothesignificanceoftheordinary,Coleridgeaninitsadmirationfor‘Inexplicablesplendour’.In‘WhattheThundersaid’,EliotalsocallsColeridge'spoemtomindattheheightofthepoetry'scounter‐Romanticversionoftheapocalypticsublime.Themusewhoreappearsasa‘ravingslut’(III.5)inYeats's‘TheCircusAnimals'Desertion’briefly(p.72) manifestsherselfasthe‘woman’who‘fiddledwhispermusicon

thosestrings’.Thiswomanisspiritualsisteracrossthedecadestothe‘womanwailingforherdemon‐lover’(16)andthe‘damselwithadulcimer’(37),paradoxicallycomplementarysourcesofinspirationin‘KublaKhan’.Eliotrespondedtothe‘haunted’musicofColeridge'sworkandcareer,remarkingoftheRomanticpoetinhisNortonLecturesof1932–3that‘forafewyearshehadbeenvisitedbytheMuse...andthenceforthwasahauntedman;foranyonewhohaseverbeenvisitedbytheMuseisthenceforthhaunted’.24The‘whispermusic’replaysinasinisterminorkeythe‘music’whichservesaspreludetotherevelationof‘Inexplicablesplendour’in‘TheFireSermon’;italsooffersavignetteofdistracted,autoteliccompositionthatmightsuggestartisticfiddlingwhileWesterncivilizationgoestoruin.Thetrajectorydescribedasawhole,however,by‘WhattheThundersaid’owesmuchtoanambivalentreinvestmentinRomanticmillennialimaginings.25Thepoetrybuilds,thatis,toanimaginingofthepurgedordestroyed,coupledwithsuggestionsorhintsor,inEliot'scase,‘aetherealrumours’(415)ofasubsequentlyrebuiltorregeneratedworld.However,whereasColeridge's‘ReligiousMusings’,Blake'sTheFourZoas,andShelley'sPrometheusUnboundgroundthemselvesontraditionalApocalypsenarratives,accordingtowhich‘anewheavenandanewearth’(Revelation21:1)willcomeintobeing,Eliot'spoemcommitsitselftonosuchvisionofrenewal.ButthewritingisimpossibletoimaginewithouttheRomanticnotionofthepoemas,inCharlesTaylor'swords,‘thelocusofmanifestation’.26Itisinthepoem,andasthepoetryworks,thatthepoet'sthoughtabides;thepoem'smeta‐description,‘fragments...shoredagainstmyruins’,pre‐emptsideologicalappropriation.Butbyattemptingtosethislandsinorder,thespeakersuggestsaresidualstayagainstconfusion.

Inthesection,Eliothallucinatesgospelnarrativeindeeplyaffectingways,and,indoingso,mayremindoneofRomanticism'srevisionaryworkings.TheChristianpromiseofresurrection,inparticular,trailsphantasmagoriccloudsofuncertainty.IfGethsemanesharpensintovisionarychiaroscurointhe‘torchlightredonsweatyfaces’(322)and‘agonyinstonyplaces’(324),thereisalsoasense,inthehypnoticbutbaffledrhythmsoftheopening,thatwhateverhashappened,happenedlongago:‘Wewhowerelivingarenowdying|Withalittlepatience’(329–30).Thelinescryouttobereadasacommentnotonlyonpost‐Christianbutalsoonpost‐Romanticculture.Butitisthepowerofthepoetrytorestoreasenseoftheprimitiveandthesacredevenasitseemsto(p.73) lamenttheirgoing.Questioning,thetechniquecentraltoWordsworth,Shelley,andKeats(asSusanWolfsonandothershaveshown27),meansthatthe‘littlepatience’passesintolargerinterrogation:‘Whoisthethirdwhowalksalwaysbesideyou?’(359)beginsthequestioningprocess,afterthebleakindicativedeclaration‘Butthereisnowater’(358);‘Butwhoisthatontheothersideofyou?’,theparagraphfinishes,transmittingitsenergytohistorical‐culturalinvestigationin‘Whatisthatsoundhighintheair’(366),alinestrippedofpunctuation,sincetheairisheavywithportentousanswers.Infact,thelines,‘Fallingtowers...Unreal’(373–6),bothrephraseandrespondto,themillennialquestionparexcellence,‘Whatisthecityoverthemountains’(371).Inthelinesfollowingtheaccountofthewoman's‘whispermusic’,Eliotrefersagainto‘towers’(382),thistime‘Tollingreminiscentbells,thatkeptthehours’(383),andto‘voicessingingoutofemptycisternsandexhaustedwells’(384).These‘towers’nowinhabitthepoetry'simaginaire,

asthoughdriftingapartfromthepost‐FirstWorldWarcitiesofwhich,afewlinesearlier,theyseemedtoberepresentatives.Andtruetothepoem'ssenseofcreatingaspacethatisitsown,aninfluentiallegacyofRomanticpoetry,Eliotinvitesustoattendtointra‐textualecho.Those‘reminiscentbells’recall,amongotherthings,themodern‐dayInfernoof‘TheBurialoftheDead’,inwhich‘SaintMaryWoolnothkeptthehours|Withadeadsoundonthefinalstrokeofnine’(67–8).Symbolistpoetryisaninfluencehere:onethinksofRimbaudreworkingphrasesandimagesin‘Mémoire’withaffecting,luminousintensity.ButafurtherinfluenceisthepracticeofRomanticpoets:examplesincludeShelley'sloveofrepeatingwordsandphrasesuntiltheytakeonasemanticcolouringunavailableinanydictionary,aswhenthe‘unimaginableshapes’(4.244)ofthefinalactofPrometheusUnboundsendusinpursuitofimagined‘shapes’(at,forexample,1.202,or2.5.108)inpreviousacts;orthe‘deadsound’withwhichKeatsrepeats‘Forlorn’atthebeginningofthefinalstanzaof‘OdetoaNightingale’.Suchpoetryintensifiesourawarenessofthefactandprocessofreadingapoem,notsimplyinaself‐regardingway,butinafashionthatalertsustothepoemasineluctablyitsownguarantor,evenas,haunt‐ingly,itsvoices,inthecaseofTheWasteLand,seemidentifiablewiththosearisingfrom‘emptycisternsandexhaustedwells’.Ifthephrasespeaksoftradition'sbankruptcy,itarticulates,too,thepoem'sdependenceforitsspiritualvisiononnothinglessthanthecapitalaccruedbypreviouscultures.

Forthecounter‐RomanticwhowroteTheWasteLand,allthingsfallandcanonlyberebuiltifthenewpoeticarchitecturebearsthescarsof‘Fallingtowers’,‘tumbledgraves’(387)andemptiness.Moodyarguesthat‘TheWaste(p.74) LandputanendtoEnglishromanticismbytakingabsolutelyseriouslythefeelingsithadsoothed.’28Thecommentunderestimatestherefusalsimplytobesoothedevincedbypoetsforwhom‘themiseriesoftheworld|Aremisery’(Keats,TheFallofHyperion,I.148–9).Indeed,TheWasteLand,howevercounter‐Romanticitscreator'spoetics,givesanewstarttoEnglishRomanticismbyremindingthereaderofthepersistentobduracyofthelongingsanddesiresitdramatizesandanalyses.Eliot'sidiommaynotbethatoftheRomanticpoets,butthisdifferencebearswitnesstotheongoingvitalityoftheverbalrevolutionwroughtbythePrefacetoLyricalBallads.29

IIIIntheessayonBaudelaire,EliotobservesthattheFrenchpoet‘gavenewpossibilitiestopoetryinanewstockofimageryofcontemporarylife’,admiringparticularly‘theelevationofsuchimagerytothefirstintensity—presentingitasitis,andyetmakingitrepresentsomethingmuchmorethanitself’.30Suchimagerypresentsthesubjectiveasthoughittalliedwiththeobjective.Eliot'sanalysisofitsworkingsallowsittoberelatedto,anddistinguishedfrom,Romanticpoeticsandpoetry.TheimageryusedbyBaudelaireandEliotdemonstratesandconjoinswhatWordsworthinhisanalysisoflinesfrom‘ResolutionandIndependence’calls‘theconferring,theabstracting,andthemodifyingpowersoftheImagination’(‘PrefacetoPoems(1815)’,p.633).Wordsworthlinks‘hugeStone’to‘Sea‐beast’andattachesthecompositeimageto‘thisMan;notallalivenordead’;Baudelaire,inlinesfrom‘LeVindesChiffonniers’quotedbyEliotinhisessay,finds‘Aucoeurd'unvieuxfaubourg’anequally‘vieuxchiffonnier’,andlinkscity‘mediately’andrag‐picker

‘immediately’,touseWordsworth'sadverbs(p.633),to‘unpoète’,searchingformeaningamongthemetropolitandebris.Itimplies,thissearchingforimageryofthefirstintensity,aspirituallyflayedresponsetothemodern,anditisunsurprisingthatEliotalsopraisesBaudelaireforhisbeliefin‘SininthepermanentChristiansense’,whichhedistinguishesfrom‘themodernistProtestantismofByronandShelley’.31

(p.75) Chapter5willexploreStevens'sresponsetotheRomanticsandtheirunderstandingofevilandsuffering.Eliot'scounter‐RomanticismrequiredhimtounderplayinhiscriticalpolemicthegraspdisplayedbypoetssuchasByronandShelleyofsufferingandevil,adouble‐headedopponentofwhatthelattercalls‘dreamsofbaselessgood’(‘JulianandMaddalo’,578)andtheformerdismissesyetyearnsafterasan‘unreach'dParadise’(ChildeHarold'sPilgrimage,IV.122.1096).ButoneofthelegaciesthatEliotinheritedfromShelleywasasenseofremorse,anemotionanalysedandexploredwithgreatintensitybythe‘modernistProtestant’poetW.B.Yeats.32In‘ToCriticizetheCritic’,Eliotcommentsonafamousphraseofhis(‘aclassicistinliterature,aroyalistinpolitics,andanAnglo‐Catholicinreligion’)thatithadfollowedhimthroughlife,‘asShelleytellsushisthoughtsfollowedhim:“Andhisownthoughts,alongthatruggedway,|Pursued,likeraginghounds,theirfatherandtheirprey”’.33Itisagenialuseofaseriousmoment,buttheallusion(toAdonais,278–9)remindsusthatthefigurepursuedbyhisownthoughtswhosurfaceshereandisrarelyabsentfromEliot'sworkowesmuchtoRomanticcharacterssuchasChildeHaroldandthePoetofAlastor.AtmomentsinTheFamilyReunionHarrybringstomindPrometheustorturedbytheFuriesinAct1,andtheimpactonhimoftheirpresencecallsforthfromEliotarecognizablyShelleyanconfessionofinexpressibility,‘Thatapprehensiondeeperthanallsense,|Deeperthanthesenseofsmell,butlikeasmell|Inthatitisindescribable’,andaShelleyanimageof‘avapourdissolving|Allotherworlds,andmeintoit’(1.2).ThewritingrecallstheJanus‐facednatureofimageryinShelley,inwhichdissolutionmightdescribelossofselfhoodthrougheroticencounter,asinPrometheusUnbound,2.1,whenPantheaspeaksofherencounterwithPrometheus,ordestructionofselfinanaltogethermoresinisterway,asinthethirdactofthesamework,whereJupitergloatsoverrecollectionsofThetis'sanguishedoutcryduringsexualcongress,‘allmybeing,|LikehimwhomtheNumidiansepsdidthaw|Intoadewwithpoison,isdissolved’(3.1.39–41).Harryisterrified,yetcuriouslyexultant;theFuriesheightenhisawarenessof‘anotherworld’,andthusserveasstringentspiritualguardians;theypoint,bycontrast,towards‘adoorthatopensattheendofacorridor,|Sunlightandsinging’.

DoublespopulatetheRomanticimagination;inspiringly,theyappearthrougharevolvingdoorbetweenthequotidianand‘anotherworld’.Moredarkly,theyriseuplikeprojectionsofaninnerdread.Bornstein,withthethornyissueofthepoet'sallegedanti‐Semitisminmind,arguesthat‘Amananxioustodenyforceswithinhimselfhasaninsatiableneedofscapegoats,andEliotmaintainedoneofthemostplentifullystockeddemonologiesof(p.76) moderntime.’34Certainly,the‘needforscapegoats’isevidentinhis1932–3NortonLecturesontheRomantics,and,indeed,inthelabellingofByron'sandShelley'sethicalawarenessas‘modernProtestantism’.ThephraseignoresByron'scritiqueofCalvinismandShelley'shintedmockeryofthe‘Protestantapprehension’inthe

PrefacetoTheCenci(p.317).YeatsthoughtShelleyamanratherlikeBornstein'sEliot,fightingself‐projectedshadowswhenoutofphase;butnoonegraspedprocessesofprojectionmorekeenlythanShelleydid.Yet,inhisverymisunderstandingsandsimplificationsofRomanticism,Eliotcontrivestowidenagapbetweenhisconscious,polemicalsuperegoandtheimaginativesecretplanneratworkinhispoems,andtoallowhimselftocontinueworking,atrewardingcrosspurposes,within,aswellasatoddswith,thepossibilitiesopenedupbyRomanticpoetry.

BythetimeofFourQuartets,hisownAnglo‐Catholicgoalofimpersonalordercouldbereachedonlythroughwhathemightthinkofas‘modernistProtestant’quest.JustasShelley'sworkispeopledwithdoubles,soEliot'spoetryinvolvesconfrontationsbetweenthebarelycoherentselfanditsfracturedmirrorings.Wordsworthisoftenthoughtofasponsoroftheegotisticalsublime,butamonghismostsignificantbequestsiswhatFrederickGarber,inhisstudyofthepoet,describesasthe‘poetryofencounter’.35Coleridge'sMariner,inturn,compareshispredicamenttoone‘thatonalonesomeroad|Dothwalkinfearanddread’(446–7),who‘knows,afrightfulfiend|Dothclosebehindhimtread’(450–1),afiendishprojectionwhichinfluencesEliot'sdescriptionin‘TheDrySalvages’of‘thebackwardhalf‐look|Overtheshoulder,towardstheprimitiveterror’.36A‘workof...pureimagination’thatlicensesandquestionsitsownimaginings,‘TheAncientMariner’suggeststhatpoetspayaheavypriceforsucha‘backwardhalf‐look’.TheColeridgeanwordforthatpriceis‘agony’,a‘wofulagony,|Whichforcedmetobeginmytale’(579–80),atermrepeatedinthefollowingstanzawhere‘Thatagonyreturns’(583).Itisstrikingthatin‘TheDrySalvages’,Eliot,straightafterhisallusionto‘TheAncientMariner’,refersto‘momentsofagony’,seeingthemassemi‐parodicyetpotentiallyilluminatingspotsoftime.‘Peoplechange,andsmile:buttheagonyabides.|Timethedestroyeristimethepreserver,’hecomments,half‐echoingandinvertinginthefirstlineShelley's‘TheOneremains,themanychangeandpass’(Adonais,460)andadaptingto‘Time’thedoublesense(p.77) ofthewestwind,inShelley'sode,asboth‘DestroyerandPreserver’(14).Involuntarily,almost,thepoetryacknowledgestheawarenessshownbyColeridgeandShelleyof‘agony’andofexperience'sequivocality.Thepoem,imbuedwithapost‐Romanticsenseofdanger,seeksto‘apprehend|Thepointofintersectionofthetimeless|Withtime’.Withitsairofdepictinganabstractspiritualgeometry,thewritingoffers,inBornstein'swords,an‘unromanticsolutiontoromanticproblems’.37‘Apprehend’hasaboutitthemind'seagernessfullytograsp,aswhenShelleyarguesinADefenceofPoetrythat‘tobeapoetistoapprehendthetrueandthebeautiful’(pp.676–7),but‘Thepoint’recedesfromanyattempttotakepossession,anelusivenessthatmakesEliot'smeaningforhim.

Yetthepoeticyieldofsuchwriting,annullingitselfinanactofreligioushumility,isambiguous.Moresuccessfulasamany‐layeredevocationofan‘intersectiontime’istheencounterwiththe‘familiarcompoundghost’in‘LittleGidding’.In‘WhatDanteMeanstoMe’,EliotmakescleartheinfluenceofShelley'saccountofRousseauinTheTriumphofLifeonthepassagein‘LittleGidding’.EliotpraisestheShelleyanpassageasconstituting‘someofthegreatestandmostDantesquelinesinEnglish’.38Shelleyusesterzarimatoofferwarning,confesserrror,andnarratecatastrophe:‘“Ifthoucanst,forbear|Tojoin

thedance,whichIhadwellforborne!”|SaidthegrimFeature(ofmythoughtaware).||“Iwillunfoldthatwhichtothisdeepscorn|Ledmeandmycompanions”.’EliotquotesthelinesfromatextultimatelyderivingfromMaryShelley'sversionofthepoeminPosthumousPoems,atextwhichdifferssignificantlyfrommoderneditions:thecommaafter‘canst’(omittedbymoderneditors)turns‘forbear’intoacommandratherthanpartofthe‘if’clause’,andthefullstopattheendofthetercet(acommainmoderneditions)makestheadmonitionmoreauthoritative.ThepassagerevealsaRomanticupdatingofDantescanconfrontationwith‘Life’,andisthemoreunsparingforrevealingRousseau'sattempt,half‐belyinghisposthumousself‐culpation,tolayblameforhisdownfallonthelackof‘purernutriment’(202).ThisblamemightinvolvecriticismonShelley'spart,butitalsoshowsdramaticallyaflaringupofsmoulderingspiritualpride.Indeed,themodernityofShelley'spassageliesinitsvisionarypsychologizing,itsdevelopmentofalanguageforfailure,anditsabilitytosee,inthethwartingsthatmaranindividuallife,therevelationofalargerculturalfailure.WhethertheNarratorcouldhaveavoidedRousseau'sfailureisimpossibletosay,giventhefactthatthepoemwasneverfinished.ButthepoemshowsthatRomanticismcouldinvolvecourageousquest,ratherthanself‐regardingpursuitofillusion,andwhileShelley'sanswerswould(p.78) neverbeEliot's,themannerofhissearchingleftastrongimprintonapassagewhich,asHarryBlamireshasshown,seems,likemuchofFourQuartets,‘anxious...toreflecthisindebtednesstothepoetsofthenineteenthcenturywhoseworkhadbeenputoutoffashionbythepoeticrevolutionhehimselfinitiated’.39

ShelleyandDantebothinfluencetheruthlessdictionappliedtothevanitiesofaliterarycareer,whentheghostsardonicallypromises,asafinalgift,‘therendingpainofre‐enactment|Ofallthatyouhavedone,andbeen;theshame|Ofmotiveslaterevealed,andtheawareness|Ofthingsilldoneanddonetoothers'harm|Whichonceyoutookforexerciseofvirtue’.Eliot'sgenitivesplungefromonewince‐inducingrevelationtoanother.WemightbeinYeats'sPurgatory,inwhichEliotfeltthattheIrishpoet‘givesamasterlyexpositionoftheemotionsofanoldman’.40YetEliotachievesapurgationofsortsinawaythatYeats'soldman,condemnedtoendlessrecurrence,isdenied,andthe‘LittleGidding’passageconcludeswithaminimalhope,‘Thedaywasbreaking’,whichrecallsTennyson's‘Darkhouse’section(VII)inInMemoriam.Tennysonwatchestheemergenceofanewly‘blankday’(12),onwhichlatersectionswillwritemessagesofglimmeringhope.41Eliot'sghostleavesa‘disfigured’ratherthana‘bald’street,butEliot'sfigurations—involvingallusionstomanyauthors,includingKeatsandShelley—prepareforthechangeimaginedinlatersections,when,itisasserted,‘facesandplaces,withtheselfwhich,asitcould,lovedthem’‘becomerenewed,transfigured,inanotherpattern’.

Itistemptingtothinkthat,atsomesub‐textuallevel,the‘LittleGidding’terzarimapassageisapologizingtotheshadeofShelleyforearlierwordsdonetohisharm.CertainlyitshowstheRomanticmovementbeing‘renewed,trans‐figured,inanotherpattern’.Thedesignisoneinwhichseculargriefsandethicalself‐lacerationserveasameansofentryinto‘apattern|Oftimelessmoments’,inwhichthepoemwereadisitself‘anepitaph’thatpromisesresurrectionofoldervoices.‘Wearebornwiththedead:|See,

theyreturn,andbringuswiththem.’Thepattern‐makingmightriskstaticpoeticalgebra,wereitnotbothforthelargermusicofEliot'ssequenceandforthenuancesthatvivifywhatmightotherwiseseemgestural.So,‘See,theyreturn’alludestoEzraPound's‘TheReturn’(‘See,theyreturn;ah,seethetentative|Movements,andtheslowfeet,|Thetroubleinthepaceandtheuncertain|Wavering!’),42itselfapoemaboutrecall,theemergenceintothepresentofpastvoices,andreminds(p.79) us,too,ofthecrucialvisionaryfunctionperformedby‘See’inShelley'sPrometheusUnbound.Theterzarimapassagehasallowedpreviousvoicesto‘return’:Keats,forexample,isevokedby‘loitering’intheline‘Imetonewalking,loiteringandhurried’,thewordconjuringuptheknight‐at‐armsof‘LaBelleDameSansMerci’,discovered‘Aloneandpalelyloitering’.43Blamiresreadstheallusionasbringing‘imagesthatappropriatelycanceloutthoseoftheBurntNortongarden—“Thesedgehaswitheredfromthelake|Andnobirdssing”’.44Allusionworkshereinamultiply‘compound’way,sincethegardenwasitselffoundbypassingthrough‘thedoorweneveropened’.Oncediscoveredbythepoet'sandthereader'simaginations,itcanneverbeforgotten,andtheeffectofEliot'sallusionsastheyleavedoorsajartotheeruptionofechoicvirtualitiesiscomparable.Inotherwords,thefateofKeats'sknight,reprisinginaminorkeythatofShelley'sRousseau,isthereforalltimeasanimaginativepossibilitythatbearsonEliot'sown‘exploration’;yetthatexplorationunavoidablyfollowsitsowncourse,searchingforawayofharnessingRomanticdespairtomodernspiritualstruggle,alwayspositioned,asallpoeticquestsare,‘Attherecurrentendoftheunending’.Somethingsimilarhappenswiththeleavesthatgustinto‘LittleGidding’fromShelley's‘OdetotheWestWind’;inthatpoemthe‘leavesdead|Aredriven,likeghostsfromanenchanterfleeing’(2–3);in‘LittleGidding’,‘thedeadleavesstillrattledonliketin’.Shelley'sleavesplayaprominentroleintheOde'ssymbolicdramaofdecayandrenewal;Eliotallowsthemtoserveaspreludetoacomingbacktolifeofonewho,likeShelleyandYeats,‘left[his]bodyonadistantshore’,butwhowillwalkwiththepoet‘inadeadpatrol’.The‘interminable’rhythmsoftheterzarimathatis,infact,onlythesimulacrumofterzarimasuitperfectlytheblendingsanddifferentiationswhichdistinguishEliot'simitationoftheencounterwithRousseauinTheTriumphofLife.Themovementoftheinitialfivetercetsisitself‘loiteringandhurried’,before‘pointedscrutiny’discerns‘Theeyesofafamiliarcompoundghost|Bothintimateandunidentifiable’.Eliot'slanguagehasaremarkablesuggestivenessandeconomy;sothe‘deadmaster’isone‘WhomIhadknown,forgotten,halfrecalled’,theverbsenactingade‐familiarizingprocessoffamiliarity.Inhisassumed‘doublepart’,Eliotisboth‘here’andnothere:heisatonceDanteaddressingBrunetto,ShelleyconfrontingRousseau,andhimselfseeinghimselfinrelationtoothers,doubledbytheghost,hearinghisownin‘another'svoice’.IfTheWasteLanddramatizessomethingclosetothe‘mindofEurope’,thepassagein‘LittleGidding’enactsEliot'scareer‐longdialogueandquarrelwithpreviouspoets,especiallyRomanticpoets,andremindsusthat‘themindofEurope—themindofhisowncountry—...isamindwhichchanges,andthatthischangeisadevelopmentwhichabandonsnothingenroute’.Andintheend(p.80) the‘LittleGidding’passageretainsitsautonomy,notsimplycollapsingintoaheapofliteraryallusions,againconformingtoEliot'sviewthatingreatpoetry,suchasDante'sPaoloandFrancescaorUlyssesepisodes,orKeats's‘OdetoaNightingale’,itis‘theintensityoftheartisticprocess,thepressure,sotospeak,underwhichthefusiontakesplace,that

counts’.45

BornsteinispartlyrighttoseeFourQuartetsasapoemthatseemsto‘divideagainstitself’.46Thepoemvaluesimaginativeexperience,butseekstodisciplineitinthelightofChristianbelief,asthoughit,too,mightotherwiseexistonlyassomething‘Drivenbydaemonic,chthonic|Powers’.Yetthose‘Powers’,pickedoutforemphasis,havetheirfullshareofthepoeticspotlight,andEliotseemslesshaplesslyself‐dividedthanpowerfullyabletopeerintotheveryhidingplacesofRomanticism'sappeal,takingRomanticismtobeonedomaininwhich‘daemonic,chthonic|Powers’areallowedexpression.Indeed,‘TheDrySalvages’arguesagainsttidyperiodicization;thepastisalwaystheretobe‘revived’;ithas‘anotherpattern,andceasestobeameresequence’.ThepoetinEliotknowsthattheRomanticshavenotbeensafelyputtobed,entombedasmonumentalirrelevances.Solongas‘voicelesswailing’,the‘suddenfury’,and‘momentsofhappiness’breakthroughthecarapaceofdailyexperience,solongwillthewordsofpoetssuchasColeridgeandShelley,thepoetrytacitlyconcedes,speaktous.Again,Wordsworth'sprivilegedmomentsbearheavilyonapassagesuchasthefollowingfromthecloseof‘TheDrySalvages’:

Formostofus,thereisonlytheunattendedMoment,themomentinandoutoftime,Thedistractionfit,lostinashaftofsunlight,Thewildthymeunseen,orthewinterlightningOrthewaterfall,ormusicheardsodeeplyThatitisnotheardatall,butyouarethemusicWhilethemusiclasts.

AModernistupdatingofWordsworth'sidiom,thewritingdoesnotseektoauthenticateitsintuitionofthe‘unattended|Moment’throughcarefullyrecreatedexperiencesintheWordsworthianmanner.Rather,itreliesonlocallimpiditiesofphraseandrhythmtocarryitsmeaningandfeeling.Thepoemisitself‘themomentinandoutoftime’,makingofitsmovementsrealitiestowhichitrefers:theenjambmentthatenrichesthestragglingadjective‘unattended’withsurprisedandbelatedsignificance,sothat‘unattended’nowspeaksofgraceratherthanofunawareness;theseriesof‘or'sthatrecallShelley'suseof‘like’in‘HymntoIntellectualBeauty’,stringingchance‘moments’(p.81) alongasilverythreadofemergentspiritual‘attention’;or,mostself‐reflexively,hardontheheelsofthe‘unseen’thyme,the‘musicheardsodeeply|Thatitisnotheardatall,butyouarethemusic|Whilethemusiclasts’.Keatsneverquitemadehis‘unheardmelodies’(see‘OdeonaGrecianUrn’,11)ascredible.Forhimtheywerepartofadebatedantithesis;forEliothis‘music’isheardonly‘Whilethemusiclasts’,comingintobeingforthedurationofaphrase.

ThevalueplacedbyEliotontheepiphanicmomentinFourQuartetsexemplifieshiscovertaffinitywiththeRomantics,evenasheseekstoredefineWordsworth'svaluationof‘spotsoftime’inThePrelude.ForWordsworth,suchspotsareofvaluefortheir‘deepestfeelingthatthemind|Islordandmaster,andthatoutwardsense|Isbuttheobedient

servantofherwill’(ThePrelude,1805,XI.271–3),wheretherepetitionof‘Is’reinforcesthemind'smastery;forEliot,epiphaniesserveashauntingguaranteesofalargernationalandreligiousmyth.ButEliotfulfilsWordsworthasmuchashereviseshimwhenin‘EastCoker’heasserts:‘Nottheintensemoment|Isolated,withnobeforeandafter,|Butalifetimeburningineverymoment’.Wordsworth'spracticemaysometimessuggestthatthereisonlyan‘after’,merelyarecollectionandre‐creationofextraordinaryexperience.Yet,whenBornsteinarguesthatWordsworth'sspotsoftime‘strengthenusforourexistenceintime’,whereas‘Eliot'smomentscatapultusoutoftime’,47hisjudgementseemslessthanfairandunderplaysEliot'scomplexcommitmenttotime;afterall,‘Onlythroughtimetimeisconquered’.Wordsworthre‐createsinadifferentwaytheexperiencewhosemeaningwemissed;hepersuadesthereadertolivethroughtheexperientialstagesuntilthespotoftimeinallitsunparaphrasabledirectnessandstrangenessissummonedup.Eliot'sintensitiesariseevenmoresuddenlyandinexplicablythanWordsworth's,asatthestartof‘LittleGidding’.There,thechariotofLifeinShelley'sTheTriumphofLife,whichemits‘acoldglare,intenserthanthenoon,|Buticycold’that‘obscuredwithlight|TheSunashethestars’(77–8,78–9),contributestothepoet'sapprehensionof‘Aglarethatisblindnessintheearlyafternoon,|Andglowmoreintensethanblazeofbranch,orbrazier’.Thesensoryintensity,sharpenedbythealliteration,isasstrongasinWordsworth.ButEliothasdispensedwithnarrative.

Eliotis,aboveall,athismostpowerfullycounter‐Romanticinhisfascinationwiththethisnessofwriting:‘Mywordsecho|Thus,inyourmind.’Theselinesatthestartof‘BurntNorton’interruptandquickenwhatmighthavebeenmerelypseudo‐philosophicalrumination.Thewordsmakeusawarethatinthepoemwehaveopenedadoorintotherosegardenbyhearingofthefactthatwedidnot;Eliot'swordscastaspelloverusastheyechoinourminds.Itisintriguingthatthesamepassage's‘bowlofrose‐leaves’istracedbyGrover(p.82) SmithtoShelley's‘Music,whensoftvoicesdie’;asthesamecriticpointsout,thepoemendswithlinesthatanticipateEliot'sself‐conscioushauntingofourimaginations:‘Andsothythoughts,whenthouartgone,|Loveitselfshallslumberon’(7–8).48Theensuingquestionin‘BurntNorton’—‘Shallwefollow?’—recallstheentranceintodifferentstatesinAct2ofPrometheusUnbound,whereAsiaandPantheaareurgedbyachorusof‘Echoes’to‘follow,follow’(2.1.173).Andthereaderdoes,trackingthecourseofFourQuartets’counter‐Romanticprocessofinspiration.Tryingtodescribewherepoems‘startfrom’,EliothadrecoursetothewordsofabelatedRomanticpoet,ThomasLovellBeddoes,andhis‘bodilesschildfuloflifeinthegloom|Cryingwithfrogvoice,‘“whatshallIbe?”.49IfthatisthequintessentialRomanticandpost‐Romanticcompositionalquestion,EliotalsoshowshisaffinitywithacrucialRomanticdrivein‘TheFrontiersofCriticism’.Heasserts:‘Whenthepoemhasbeenmade,somethingnewhashappened,somethingthatcannotbewhollyexplainedbyanythingthatwentbefore.That,Ibelieve,iswhatwemeanby“creation”.50‘Thatwhichiscreativemustcreateitself’(p.418),wroteKeats,andthetwoutterancessuggestthenatureofthecorrespondencebetweenEliot'sworkandthecreativeimperativesofRomanticpoetry.

Notes:

(1)T.S.Eliot,‘Observations’,Egoist,5(May1918),p.69.

(2)C.K.Stead,TheNewPoetic:YeatstoEliot(1964;Harmondsworth:Penguin,1967),p.131.

(3)Ibid.143.

(4)Unlessotherwiseindicated,allEliot'spoemsandplaysarequotedfromEliot,CompletePoemsandPlays.

(5)QuotedfromT.S.Eliot,InventionsoftheMarchHare:Poems,1909–1917,ed.ChristopherRicks(1996;SanDiego:Harcourt,1998);hereafterRicks,p.262.

(6)LyndallGordon,Eliot'sEarlyYears(1977;Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1978),p.48.

(7)Ricks,pp.261,258.

(8)Eliot,TheSacredWood(London:Methuen,1920),p.31.

(9)Ibid.31,24.

(10)FortheechoofEpipsychidion(ll.234–6only),seeRicks,p.260.

(11)Ibid.263.SeeShelley:TheMajorWorks,p.798.

(12)Ibid.265.

(13)Eliot,‘Baudelaire’,inSelectedEssays,3rdedn.(London:Faber,1951),p.424.

(14)QuotedfromRobertLowell'stranslation;textinGeorgeSteiner(ed.),ThePenguinBookofModernVerseTranslation(Harmondsworth:Penguin,1966).Thisparagraphdrawsonmaterialfrommyessay,‘“WhollyIncommunicablebyWords”:RomanticExpressionsoftheInexpressible’,TheWordsworthCircle,31(2000),pp.13–20.

(15)A.DavidMoody,ThomasStearnsEliot,Poet,2ndedn.(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1994);hereafterMoody,p.84.

(16)LawrenceRaineypointsoutthatEliot'snotedirectsustoSirErnestShackleton'sSouth:TheStoryofShackleton'sLastExpedition,1914–1917(London:Heinemann,1919),whichcontainsthefollowing:‘itseemedtomeoftenthatwewerefour,notthree....Onefeelsthe“dearthofhumanwords,theroughnessofmortalspeech”intryingtodescribethingstangible,butarecordofourjourneyswouldbeincompletewithoutareferencetoasubjectveryneartoourhearts’;quotedinT.S.Eliot,TheAnnotated‘WasteLand’withEliot'sContemporaryProse,ed.LawrenceRainey(NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,2005),p.118.RaineynotesthattheallusionistoKeats,Endymion,ii.819–20.

(17)T.S.Eliot,TheUseofPoetryandtheUseofCriticism(London:Faber,1933),pp.92.Eliotdoessaythatthelinescangiveonly‘regretfulpleasure’becauseembedded,forhim,inaworkthatcontainsindifferentwriting.UsefulreflectionsontherelationshipbetweenEliotandShelleyareofferedbyGeorgeFranklin,‘InstancesofMeeting:ShelleyandEliot:AStudyinAffinity’,ELH61(1994),pp.955–90,whicharguesthatbothwritersbelievethat‘wecannothaveanyobjectiveknowledgeofanalternate,externalreality’(p.961),andPeterLowe,ChristianRomanticism:T.S.Eliot'sResponsetoPercyShelley(Youngstown,NY:Cambria,2006).

(18)Moody,p.105.

(19)Eliot,‘Byron’,inOnPoetryandPoets(London:Faber,1957),pp.201,202.

(20)Ricks,p.149.

(21)Bornsteinarguesthat‘Prufrock’‘reversesEliot'searlierimitationsofromanticismpointforpoint...OnlyByronicrhymeslike“ices”and“crisis”survivetheseachange,andthecontexttransformseventhemintosomethingrichandstrange’(Transformations,p.130).SeealsoJoMoyle,‘“ANewByronism”:T.S.Eliot's“BoredButCourteous”Poetry’,ByronJournal,26(1998),pp.74–81,forasuggestivecomparisonthatstressestheimportanceof‘boredom’(p.76)forbothpoets.

(22)GarethReeves,T.S.Eliot's‘TheWasteLand’(NewYork:HarvesterWheatsheaf,1994),p.69.

(23)ForvaluablydetaileddiscussionofEliot's‘syntacticalfeats’inthepassage,seeibid.69–71;Reevesarguesthatthewriting's‘grammaticalslipperiness’servesto‘focusattentionasmuchonTiresias'sconsciousnessasonwhatheisconsciousof’(p.70).

(24)Eliot,UseofPoetryandtheUseofCriticism,p.69.

(25)SeeMortonD.Paley,ApocalypseandMillenniuminEnglishRomanticPoetry(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1999).

(26)CharlesTaylor,SourcesoftheSelf:TheMakingoftheModernIdentity(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1989),p.378.

(27)SeeSusanJ.Wolfson,TheQuestioningPresence:Wordsworth,Keats,andtheInterrogativeModeinRomanticPoetry(Ithaca,NY:CornellUniversityPress,1986).

(28)Moody,p.109.

(29)Eliotimplicitlyalignshisownpost‐Mallarméanattemptto‘purifythedialectofthetribe’(‘LittleGidding’,ii)withWordsworth's(pre‐Mallarméan)attemptwhenherefersin‘TheMusicofPoetry’to‘atimelikeours,whenarefreshmentofpoeticdictionsimilartothatbroughtaboutbyWordsworthhadbeencalledfor’(OnPoetryandPoets,p.35).

(30)Eliot,‘Baudelaire’,pp.425,426.

(31)Ibid.425–6(forEliot'squotationsfrom‘LeVindesChiffonniers’),427.

(32)SeePeterMcDonald,‘YeatsandRemorse’,ProceedingsoftheBritishAcademy,94(1998),pp.173–206.

(33)Eliot,‘ToCriticizetheCritic’,inToCriticizetheCritic(London:Faber,1965),p.15.

(34)Bornstein,Transformations,p.150.Forasubtleandthought‐provokingdiscussionofrelevantissues,seeChristopherRicks,T.S.EliotandPrejudice(1988;London:Faber,1994).RicksarguesthatEliot'spoemsinviteus‘tojudgeexactlyhowmucheasieritistoattacktheprejudicesofotherpeoplethanourown’(p.283).

(35)SeeFrederickGarber,WordsworthandthePoetryofEncounter(Urbana:UniversityofIllinoisPress,1971).

(36)CarlosBakercommentsthattheimageappears‘exactlywherearemembranceof“TheAncientMariner”mightmostbeexpectedtooccur’(EchoingGreen,p.273).

(37)Bornstein,Transformations,p.161.

(38)Eliot,‘WhatDanteMeanstoMe’,inToCriticizetheCritic,p.130.

(39)HarryBlamires,WordUnheard:AGuidethroughEliot's‘FourQuartets’(London:Methuen,1969),p.148.

(40)Eliot,‘Yeats’(1940),inOnPoetryandPoets,p.258.

(41)ThePoemsofTennyson,ed.ChristopherRicks(London:Longmans,1969).

(42)EzraPound,CollectedShorterPoems(London:Faber,1984).

(43)SeeBlamires,WordUnheard,p.143.

(44)Ibid.

(45)Eliot,‘TraditionandtheIndividualTalent’,inSelectedEssays,pp.16,19.Eliotwrites:‘TheodeofKeatscontainsanumberoffeelingswhichhavenothingparticulartodowiththenightingale,butwhichthenightingale...servedtobringtogether’(p.19).

(46)Bornstein,Transformations,p.157.

(47)Ibid.154.

(48)GroverSmith,T.S.Eliot'sPoetryandPlays:AStudyinSourcesandMeaning(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1956),p.259;ShelleyisquotedfromGroverSmith.

(49)Eliot,‘TheThreeVoicesofPoetry’,inOnPoetryandPoets,p.98.

(50)Eliot,‘TheFrontiersofCriticism’,Ibid.112.

Dialectic Ways T S Eliot and CounterRomanticism

Documents