Well, read Paul's article also. And some of the others. Paul was not
asserting the correctness of one over any others; he was rightly
acknowledging the originality of Manganiello's work in 1989 and also
stating what that work claims. He did not claim it himself. Nor did
Manganiello ignore the fact of alternative views: they were both being
authentic and grounded in reading the texts. As I quoted before (And I
was the one who brought in Manganiello): 

According to Dominic Manganiello, when Eliot received the Dante gold
medal in 1959, the Italian ambassador commended him "for restoring Dante
to our contemporary consciousness and to the European tradition." He
also notes that in the 19th C both Shelley and Matthew Arnold wrote on
Dante: according to Shelley, Dante had displayed "the most glorious
imagination of modern poetry." He also points out, being a serious
author, that "He [Eliot] has ruffled Dante scholars, who point out the
limitations of his criticism, while others testify that his contribution
to Dante studies surpasses that of Coleridge, Longfellow, and
Norton"--in other words, Eliot's role is debated. And Manganiello also
notes that Eliot "himself acknowledged in the Clark lectures [that one
idea] derives from Santayana" and that "Santayana was one critic in the
unbroken line of Dante scholarship at Harvard University." Those claims
are part of a major book (T.S.Eliot and Dante, Macmillan, 1989) and one
by an admirer but a very knowledgeable one, so readers here can follow
up if they like. But its based in research, not just remarks. (emphasis

For anyone on this list who cares about Eliot's poetry, I think it
matters very much to realize the degree to which it has been read from
many, many perspectives.


>>> Ken Armstrong 01/09/13 10:11 PM >>>
Paul's descriptiveness tends to support Peter's original thought in this
thread. Not too surprising, I suppose.

Ken A

On 1/9/2013 6:51 PM, Nancy Gish wrote:

Paul was being descriptive: doing what editors do. Perhaps you might
like to read the book as a whole and see the varied views, including

>>> Chokh Raj 01/09/13 6:38 PM >>>

this vis-a-vis Peter Montgomery's remark 

"Dante's influence on European literature was enhanced greatly by T. S.
Eliot, who in a sense renovated Dante for modern literature. ... 

It is fitting that the last word in this volume should fall to the
writer who brought the topic of T. S. Eliot and Dante to coalescence
over twenty years ago in T. S. Eliot and Dante (1989). One of the most
compelling responses to the Eliot-inspired embrace of Dante by
twentieth-century writers has come recently from the pen of American
writer Wendell Berry. The vital European tradition appears to form the
core of Berry's contemporary American literary project. On receiving the
T. S. Eliot Award for Creative Writing in 1994, Berry paid tribute to
Eliot's "pilgrimage of works" from "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock"
to The Elder Statesman. Eliot, according to Berry, presented
"dismembered" personalities who move out of the shadows of the wasteland
and into the light of what Berry calls "a love far greater… than their
own." Manganiello argues that Berry's own fragmented figures in novels
such as Remembering (1988) and Jayber Crow (2000) follow a similar
trajectory to become transfigured pilgrims in a divine comedy. The
exchanges of love and compassion that restore fractured family
relationships in Eliot's The Elder Statesman are echoed in Berry's work,
which Manganiello argues is founded on Dantesque themes that reaffirm
the importance of "Europe's Epic" and therefore an "idea of Europe"
propounded by Eliot." 

-- INTRODUCTION, PAUL DOUGLASS in T. S. Eliot, Dante, and the Idea of
Europe (2011), edited by Paul Douglass


Chokh Raj wrote Sunday, January 6, 2013 8:52 AM: 

Well, largely, if not solely, I would suppose. 


P wroP. M.

Chokh Raj wrote:

The Poet in Transformation: Dantean Aesthetics in T.S. Eliot's The Waste
Land (2012)

By Jamie Berlin


Dante was a seminal influence in T. S. Eliot’s poetry. Many scholars
have acknowledged Eliot’s professed debt to Dante and have examined
Eliot’s explicit imitations of Dante; however, few have pinpointed
Dantean influences in non-explicit references to Dante, and few have
credited the influence of a Dantean progress narrative across Eliot’s
poem The Waste Land. This thesis broadly analyzes the principles of
Dante’s aesthetic in the poem while analyzing the Sibyl, the Hanged Man,
and the Prajapati parable for their relevance to Eliot’s aesthetic
theory. When Dantean aesthetics and close readings of The Waste Land are
compared with Eliot’s contemporary essays on art, a fuller view of the
aspects of Dante’s fundamental influence emerges. In particular, the
prominence of Dante in the sub-text of Eliot’s The Waste Land reveals
the nature of their shared aesthetic—that art is a moral work by virtue
of a spiritual transformation endured by the artist, which involves both
a sacrifice of self and a substantiation of self. A deeper examination
of Dante’s influence on T. S. Eliot yields a vaster understanding of
Eliot’s aesthetics while helping to elucidate one of the central
mysteries in Eliot’s theory of art, the role of “personality.”