It operates as a refuge for a civilizing element in short supply in contemporary America: honest criticism
by Paul Dean
A review of T. S. Eliot (Lives and Legacies Series) by Craig Raine
On Craig Raine's T. S. Eliot.
was right!Support The
I heard Craig Raine interviewed on the radio about this book. Didnt he feel, he was asked, that his often abrasive dismissals of fellow critics (execrable, stupid) lowered the standards of academic writing? His answer was contemptuous: Yeah, but who reads academic writing, for Gods sake?
Well, quite a few people dohe has even read some himselfand they will have to go on doing so if they want real help in understanding T. S. Eliot. Raines book, in a series called Lives and Legacies, gives a biographical chronology, and adopts a chaotic approach to Eliots work, the continuity and development of which are obscured. There is no mention of Emily Hale, a key figure in Eliots life, in the chronology or the text. Raine is outraged, on behalf of the poets widow (to whom his book is dedicated with love), at any suggestion that Eliot treated his first wife, Vivienne, badly, or that his sexual orientation might have been open to question, and he wriggles uncomfortably with the indictment of Eliot as anti-Semitic. He has one central insightindeed obsessionto offer: that the master-theme of Eliots work is that of the buried life the idea of a life not fully lived.
Considering it is buried, this corpse sprouts prolifically. We hear that The Waste Land is a series of demonstrations of the theme, in which the Grail story itself has a buried life (Raine likes these heavy-breathing italics); that Eliots account of the subconscious tug of poetic rhythm describes the buried life of language; that in Four Quartets he touches on the buried life of his spirit; that his idea, such as it is, of the objective correlative involves the artists straining to objectify and embody his subjective inner murk; that the theme is omnipresent in the plays but has become a theorem for Eliot by now, an over-familiar, zestless platitude. Not only for him, we mutter to ourselves. Raine finds Eliots source, reasonably enough, in Matthew Arnolds poem The Buried Life, without remarking on the tension between two possible meanings of buriedstifled or unfulfilled, as in Prufrock, or deliberately repressed as in The Family Reunion. In the latter, incidentally, Eliots staging of what Raine himself calls his desire to be rid of his wife is hailed as an act of exemplary artistic courage, a verdict with which Vivienne Eliot, who was still alive when the play was staged, might have found it hard to agree. Too little, perhaps, remained buried on that occasion.
In fact, there is more of relevance in Arnolds poem than Raine indicates: its couple, bandying light words and strained smiles, and the male narrators fear of being received with blank indifference clearly underlie Prufrock and Portrait of a Lady. Raine is right to see Arnold as a literary father-figure Eliot could never quite make peace with; right also to see his influence on Eliots prose (though there is too little about this, and next to nothing about the contributions of Pater or F. H. Bradley to Eliots style and tone). He correctly attributes Eliots greatest unease about Arnold to the latters sentimentalizing of religion and his prophecy that poetry would come to do the work of religion. Yet what did Eliot believe in, according to Raine? In larger forces, in mystical experience, in the suprarational. No: he believed in Christianity, a faith rooted in history, which has specific doctrines, which are precisely formulated in creeds. Religion, for Eliot, could never be a matter of mere intuition, tinglings down the spine, opinion, or point of view.
Raine is impressed by the mystical experience evoked in the opening lines of Burnt Norton, and takes this as a license for fuzziness. He quotes Eliots terror of Original Sin (a very real and tremendous thing) without realizing its force. Crucially, he shies away from the sheer unpleasantness of much of Eliots religion, in which a dualism derived from his Puritan forebears, singularly lacking in joy and ill-at-ease with the life of the body, is bizarrely presented as a variety of Catholicism. It is simply untrue that Eliot writes acutely about sexin all its variety. It is true that he does accurate justice to the variety of its disappointments, but until his second marriage that was about the limit of his range. Raine compares him with D. H. Lawrence, but Lawrence at his best is a far greater poetin verse and proseof sex than Eliot ever was. It is no good praising, as Raine does, the line The awful daring of a moments surrender without adding its successor: which an age of prudence can never retract. What is expressed there is not fulfillment: it is fear.
Raine manifests a kind of dualism himself in two chapters which examine Eliots classicism and romanticismterms which Eliot relegated to the realm of literary politics and came to regard as virtually meaningless. Raine is led into some extraordinary contortions by his insistence on polarizing these concepts. Yes, Eliot called himself a classicist in literaturein 1928, later disavowing the statement. Classicist here simply means, according to Raine, anti-romantic; Eliot is torn between regret for opportunities not taken, and distaste for a life lived so intensely as to involve an excess of emotion (compare his celebrated deprecation of Hamlet). But to define classicism by a negative is to make little headway, as we see when Laforgue, of all people, is described as a classicistLaforgue, whose brittle ironic manner, like Eliots, descends from the Baudelarian dandy and whose poetic personae are late romantic constructs! Raine elsewhere attributes to classicism a scepticism about theoretical, exaggerated emotion. Yet a romantic can also be an anti-romanticwitness Arthur Hugh Clough, correctly cited by Raine as an influence on Eliot, but one less like Laforgue than Raine claims. Heine might a better comparison. (For more about Eliots debt to Clough, which is deeper than Raine acknowledges here, see my review of Antony Kennys Clough in The New Criterion for June 2006.) Conversely, as Eliots writing on Virgil and Dante testifies, the classical poet can also be a conduit for powerful emotion. J. Alfred Prufrock is both romantic in his idealism and classicist in his detached self-analysis. Eliots early admiration for Donne rests on the latters fusion of tendencies Raine treats as mutually exclusive. When we find him making a supposed distinction between the classicists interest in fugitive and unusual emotions and the standard powerful emotions of romantic literature, we are forced to conclude that he simply does not know what he is talking about.
Raines coverage of Eliots works, as previously hinted, is uneven. His target audience is ill-defined. There is not enough help for a beginner, and not enough new material for the more experienced. The manner often recalls that of the tutorial in which an impressionable student is to be stirred to a hazy excitement, and awed by what he takes to be the supervisors intellect, but not forced to think about anything particularly closely. Self-indulgence, irrelevant digressions, and awkward style are common. Some poems appear briefly or not at all. It is good to see Lune de Miel and Dans le Restaurant discussed, but this is at the expense of weightier items such as Rhapsody on a Windy Night, Conversation Galante, The Hippopotamus, Mr. Eliots Sunday Morning Service, La Figlia che Piange, and Coriolan, most of which receive no mention at all. Is The Boston Evening Transcript really a tiny masterpiece of comedy or Aunt Helen a great comically subversive anti-elegy crackling with mischief? The laborious analysis of Ash-Wednesday at least correctly recognizes that it is a poem about the search for belief rather than a statement of the belief itself. The chapter on The Waste Land is sketchy, that on Four Quartets frankly scrappy. Inexplicably, Raine fails to quote the lines on the Incarnation from the close of The Dry Salvages in which (as F. R. Leavis saw) Eliot performs his subterfuge of using the doctrine of embodied mortal Godhead as a reason for discounting life in time and in the body altogether. Perhaps there wasnt enough mysticism here.
After a cursory glance at the playswhich admittedly are worth no more, though the creepy religiose neurosis of The Cocktail Party could have been notedwe come to a chapter on the criticism. Why, when Raine sensibly urges that we should not be dazzled by the notorious catch-phrases by which Eliot in later life felt embarrassed (objective correlative, dissociation of sensibility, auditory imagination), does he give over most space to discussing these? How does he square his scepticism about these coinages with his belief that Eliots theoretical inclination was a positive advantage in the criticism? Why does he not supply any context for such various and miscellaneous writings? We hear nothing of Eliots predecessors or contemporaries in criticism, of Symons, Babbitt, Santayana, de Gourmont, Pound, Middleton Murry; nothing in detail of The Criterion and its relations with other journals; nothing of Richards, Leavis, or Eliots Bloomsbury affiliations. Why, when he says the real value of the critical essays lies in Eliots criticism of individual authors, does Raine not tell us which ones he has in mind? There is nothing of Eliots essays on the Elizabethan dramatists, which contain some of his best and some of his weakest writing and on which a new reader needs guidance; nothing on his later thoughts or changes of mind about Donne, Milton, or Dante; nothing in detail on the Clark Lectures (as yet the only prose of Eliots to have been properly edited), on the equivocal essay on Yeats (who is mentioned once, as a less successful poet of old age than Eliot, monotone, monochrome melodramatic); no hint of the decline in quality from the taut early reviews to the flabby later lectures; nothing about the revisions and little about the still extensive body of uncollected prose. For these matters we must go to Christopher Rickss scandalously ignored book Decisions and Revisions in T. S. Eliot. On the poetry we can be grateful to A. David Moodys Thomas Stearns Eliot: Poet and, of course, to Helen Gardners The Composition of Four Quartets. None of these is mentioned by Raine, doubtless because they come into the despised category of academic writing. (We do hear, as we should, of Valerie Eliots edition of The Waste Land drafts.)
I have left until last the matter of Eliots anti-Semitism, not wanting it to swamp the review. Raine opposes the case first made extensively by Anthony Julius in T. S. Eliot, Anti-Semitism, and Literary Form (1996) and since taken up by Ricks, George Steiner, James Fenton, and others. In brief, Raine contends that Eliots detractors have distorted his comments in After Strange Gods (but his suppression of the book is surely a material fact), have failed to see that the alleged anti-Semitic lines come in poems which are dramatic monologues (and hence are not authorial utterances), and have discounted Eliots explicit denials of malice and some later statements supporting Jews. Raine admits that clinching evidence for his defense is lacking, though without mentioning that this is partly because the Eliot estate is dragging its feet over publishing the relevant volumes of the poets correspondence. He wants to enter a plea of mitigation. The element of special pleading here arouses unease. My hunch, for what its worth, is that Eliot, when newly arrived in England, absorbed the casual anti-Semitism fashionable in the social circle to which he aspired to belong, and that when he realized the truth about the Holocaust (whenever that was) he felt, for whatever reason, unable either to repudiate his earlier views or to state his new ones plainly. It was too late to alter his poems, which had too long been in the public domain, but he put conciliatory statements into circulation as opportunity allowed. It seems very difficult to maintain that he had simply never been anti-Semitic at all.
Ultimately, as both Raine and, to do him justice, Julius insist, however much Eliot may have been compromised as a person, as we all are in our several ways, his greatness as a poet remains. I regret most of all that Raine has written a book which, with his name on it, will sell, but which so perversely hinders its readers from forming a balanced estimate of Eliots true achievement, his strengths and weaknesses. But there we are, what does my opinion matter? After all, who reads academic reviewing, for Gods sake?
This article originally appeared in The New Criterion, Volume 25 April 2007, on page 81
Copyright © 2013 The New Criterion | www.newcriterion.comhttp://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/academimic-3143
E-mail to friend
by Paul Dean
Shakespeare's actors brought his plays to life, but what kind of relationship did he have with them?
Poet George Green reads from his award-winning Lord Byron's Foot
Celebration of the Life of Robert H. Bork, 1927–2012
James Panero on price gouging at the Met, with Fred Dicker