While I agree that WW1 images are depicted throughout TWL, I also was thinking
about Tim's point concerning the TSE letter to E.M. Forster (For your
convenience, I'm reposting that letter at the end of this post).
It's worth discussing what TSE meant when he wrote to Forster that "the WasteLand
might have been just the same without the War." I don't think he meant
that the exact text of TWL, the exact images, would have been the same. For
example, the lines about Mrs. Porter and her daughter are from a bawdy song
sung by Australian solders in the War, so those lines would have been different
if there had been no WW1.
I think he's really talking about "the substance of the poem," the
thing he identifies in the notes as being "what Tiresias sees." If
the poem's focus was on war in general or on WW1 in particular, Eliot could
have written in the notes something like, "The scene involving Stetson and
the ships at Mylae is the substance of the poem." But that is not what he
wrote in the notes.
What the blind prophet 'sees' is a rape, sees a person using another person
sexually purely for selfish gratification, without love. The language used in
the rape scene, when sexual selfishness and brute force are depicted
("Well now that's done: and I'm glad it's over") is the polar
opposite to the language used when the narrator reflects back on a sexual
relationship truly rooted in love ("What have we given?/My friend, blood
shaking my heart/The awful daring of a moment's surrender/Which an age of prudence
can never retract/By this, and this only, we have existed"). To the extent
that WW1 caused the death of loved ones, the war _is_ in TWL. But when I look
for "the substance of the poem," I keep coming back to description
after description of failed sexual relationships. These failed relationships
(the 'Cleopatra woman,' Lil, Ophelia, Philomel, the Thames
maidens, Mr. Eugenides' homosexual proposition, the typist rape) often involve
some kind of force. These relationships all stand in stark contrast to
"the awful daring of a moment's surrender," with its emphasis on the
implied willingness, the total lack of force, in the idea of a 'daring . . . surrender.' Note that, when applied to
war, "surrender" is a term of utter defeat; but when applied to love,
it is a term of utter bliss.
In essays, TSE expressed the religious notion that human physical sexuality,
that is, physical union, is "made reasonable" only by consideration
of the soul's union with God after death (that is, human love is, at its
essence, "practice" to prepare us for and teach us about divine
love). In that context, the substance of the ending of TWL revolves around the
peace that eventually overwhelms the narrator during his initial sorrowful
contemplation of the one experience he has had with human love ("The awful
daring of a moment's surrender") and the implied longing for that love in
the multi-language fragments that conclude the poem [e.g., "Le Prince
d'Aquitaine à la tour abolie"]. This experience with human love allows
him, in the end, to connect with and finally experience divine love
("Shantih Shantih Shantih").
Sorry for the long (and perhaps rambling) post.
-- Tom --
Forster letter repost:
Note: E. M. Forster, had just published an essay in June, 1929 titled
"T.S. Eliot and His Difficulties." This is the essay that Eliot is
referring to in his August 10th letter (below):
From "The Letters of T. S. Eliot, Vol 4 - 1928-1929."
To E. M. Forster 10 August 1929 Faber & Faber Ltd My dear Forster, I am not sure whether I wrote to thank you for
your essay in Life and Letters or not. If I did, please forgive the repetition. On account of the flattery implied by being
written about by you, my opinion is anything but reliable, but I liked the
article very much. You are right about the 'horror'; and may be interested to
know that the first quotation I chose for the Waste Land, before I hit on the
more suitable one from Trimalchio, was a sentence from the end of Heart of Darkness,
which you may remember, ending with Kurtz's words 'the horror . . . the
horror'. I only think that you exaggerate the importance of the War in this
context. The War crippled me as it did everyone else; but me chiefly because it
was something I was neither honestly in nor honestly out of, but the WasteLand
might have been just the same without the War. I am not sorry that you detect the
element of bluff in much of the prose. The relation to James may however be
pressed too far, because I do think that I succeed in distinguishing the City
of God from London in the Season; but the bluff is there right enough, and I
believe that I was the first person to detect it. As for the 'impersonality'
doctrine, it has its personal motives of course, and is neither more true nor
more false than the opposite doctrine; but I believe that it may have been of
some value in its time. I wish that we might meet occasionally. Yours sincerely, T. S. Eliot
Forster's reply to TSE was dated September 9, 1929:
Your letter gave me very great pleasure; thank you so much for it. As to the
war, I put that part wrong in my article. I did see that the _The Waste Land_
would have been written anyhow. On the other hand, but for the war, I shouldn't
myself have had any preparation for the poem. The article ought to have
contained a sentence to the above effect. As it stands, it's misleading. - I'll
think over what you say about the "impersonality" doctrine. I want,
when your next book or books come out to go through your work very carefully
again. - The poems, of course, I keep on reading on and off for
"pleasure" as I call it; the sort of thing I love comes to me out of
their words again and again, and out of different words as re-read.
I recall that claim, but I don't think it's true, though he may have felt that way by then. For one thing, the poem is, in fact, full of references to the War--many quite explicit--that would presumably not be there otherwise. In that sense, it could not have been "just the same." For another, the letters are also full of references to how very hard it was and how Americans did not understand. Eliot said so many and often such contradictory things that in this case I don't find that claim fits the text itself any more than his claim in the notes about Weston. Her book obviously had some impact, but it is not the explanation Eliot said and even then it is pretty much only in section V. I think the "might" is the key word here. I think it really could not have been "quite the same."
>>> "Materer, Timothy J." <[log in to unmask]> 08/09/13 9:19 AM >>> I agree about significance of the war, but keep in mind Eliots letter to E M Forster in vol four of the Letters, p 573, that the poem "might have been just the same without the war."
> I think it will become a major topic to see TWL in relation to WWI since next year is the centennial of the War's start. Paul Fussell called the poem "a memory of War," though of course Eliot never went. Its impact on him, though, was very great. The letters have many places where he speaks of how hard it is and later how it was. And of course he was in Germany when it started and had to get his way out while surrounded by troop trains and German soldiers and general chaos. So in many ways, the poem is as much a poem of War--experienced from the Home Front--as post war. And chunks of it were written during the War. The post-war composition was not the same as a post-war poem. So Fussell's view is especially interesting now. > > I think it was in Fussell that I first read the claim that "rat's alley" was a name for a trench, and the dead bodies were those of soldiers in and between trenches as much as any other place. David Jones described his own great War poem as being about "day by day in the Waste Land," and he did mean literally the devastated land of France as well as King Pellam's Land. The War does turn up in many places--Stetson, Albert who was just demobbed, the rats and dead bodies, and the passage from Hesse, for example. > Nancy > >