The Murder in The Cathedral and Selected Poems

| 1. UOT'S I Ha arnt es AND SELECTED POEMS A GUIDE TO APPRECIATION OF UBJECT MATTER, 1UCTURE, AND STYLE: Be lol ee 1A Ca ty » HISTORICAL BACKGROUND Sree see Te eels ACTION, VERSE, CHARACTERS Tamera Le Le TREVIEW QUESTIONS, ee YorT WT1) A, NORLIMONARCH NOTES $1.25 Each Unless Otherwise Indicated Somer AESEHYLUS—Tme Mare OOH ALBEE = Tiny Aize ang ether woes 00007 ALBEE wna ara ot Negets wo coe0r AMERICAN POLIMEAL DOCUMENIS. (0874 AMERICAN POLITICAL PULILOSOPHY 20809 ANDERSON -Winerbure. Ob (coos ARISTOPHANCS—THe Plans en08 ARISTORLE=The Prceueony 81:50 ©9799 ARNOLD= The Fovtey (00704 AUSTEN Emma, wanatate Park (C0001 AUSTON= Pre and Prejoe ce ‘GORD BALOWTNE—The jor wrest 00974 manT=citer dont ootan LAT UTERATURE cosse eroruir 00775 BLAKE=The Petey (69840 BOLL —tayer wert (0931 DRCCHT=Tme Pers occa? BRONTE. C.=tane Cre (207 BRONTE. C.—Wtheing Meche (0776 BRowntin, ROBLAL=the Pontry ‘2240 DUBIN=THe Pruanseny 0087 BUCK The Cass Car oot? munDIe« one LeocRER~ ‘Tne Ueir Amarieon (COMI SYREN -Chide Maral, Dan Joa (00757 CAUUS-Te Sranate (0889 CERVANTES-Dom Quutete [0911 CMAVEER-Conterbury Tales (884 CHERHOW=™me Phare (0915 CLARR—Ie 04 Dow Inesert 0874 CLASSICAL CCONOMISI. [090K ELEAVER~Sout On ee (0178 CouERIOGE—Tne Mame ot he (00822 couuunisy THEORY FROM Mima'To mao tt 0 09816 CONHELLY=Crean Pastures uns CONSIITUTION~tescing Cates ©0650 COOPEA-TH4 Oeeraayee (00489 COOPER=The Ltt of wee Momcant 812 COOP ER=Tne Pantene (C860 CRANE Red Buoys of Coureey (0n19 €UUINGS—The Peat, (00820 OAMAMTwo Your Dale Toa tart (20110 GANTE—Mhe Dwine Comedy (28708 BLFOE—llenaere (20821 BCFOE—Robinsen Crvsce (00127 DESCAMTES THe Patoronny C0410 DICKENS. Orvat Eapectatont (ATE DICKCHS- Olver Tort C0708 DIEKENS=metmien Papers COLNE DICKCNS-ATsteot Too ates 99791 CONNEC —Tne Pastry andthe Sete raest Poste (0025 DOR PASSOR-UA engines worty 00388 DOSTOYCVERY=Orethers Karemetor 00017 postorevany—cime ane 00857 oostoveVEXY- The 100 [0538 vostorcvsxr—net (0661 ORCIEER=An Amencan Treueey (00662 OREISERsister Carle (00781 ORYOEN—Tne Postry 00826 CARLY CHURCH FATHERS The wotinen B50 corer cicurcentn ccutuRy 0108 KL10T-asern (0107 LO —sHsderemaren (09710 CLIOT—Halon eH co61? CLOT Sine Meemer Enimedat esa setetog poms (0702 ELIOT. ¥ 5.=The Waste Land 0k) CUE RSON Te Hangs coven Cummors. ateewyivs. Ano AnISTorMANS toe cot79 cunirioes Te coed FAULK 00 FAULANER = Lion Aue (0613 FAVLANER The Sound andine Fury (00899 FCOKRALISE PAPAS (721 iCLOING—Joneph Andrews 00614 ELOING Tem Jere ‘cose FIFAGERALO—Me Great oes HFLGERALD ATenest the Mi 00400 FAUBERT-Usdame Dever, Thee 0ADt FORBES—Jennny Tremain oon? roRstta—Pes Howards ina 00361 TRANKDiry of a Youns Out (0897 FRArERLIN—Avtob:enseBhy 00818, FREUD~ Te Writings (226 FACVO~Te Meier Worse (00967 FROMMThe Wray (0782 FROST—The Poster 0n38 aav=tay 00836 COLTHE-Serrows oF Young Wenn {20093 COLDING-The Inher Pree (L1G GOLDING Lord of Ne ont Srdouss ments (0837 COLDSUITH~ ne Stapp8 Eanauerandatber sor (G07Ss GOLBSMITH=THe Waar of Watatalé (0136 CRASS Tin Oram (000 GRCEX ANG ROWAN CLASSICS 12.35, (0828 GmCEME—TH9 aloe Worst (Gna Power ana tha GO 00089 HALE =item Wanovt 8 Cnty (014 WANsBCRRY—The Werte 00880 HARDY=Fer trom the Madang Cred 00713 HaRDF= 88 se Obncere (0817 WAROY- The Morar of Caterbrdee 00818 WAROY=TNe Rauen of OMe Hater 00470 KawernoRME— Tag Howey of Savon Gabler. wate us ‘0420 HAWTHORNE Toe Heat borer 00528 KEGEL=The Praesoohy m0 MELLEA=Coten 2 0021 HEMINGWAY=The Major Worms (00471 HEMINGWAY =A Farewell 1 Arms 00623 MEMINGWAT=The O44 Mon anon oe 0809 MCUMGmAaTre ta 00674 HEMINGHAV=The Sun Alto Reet 00102 KEACDOTUS— The Peeian Ware 00018 HESSE= Demian (07035 MESSE~The Clas Ovo Come (0299 MESEE=The Journey 10 Ihe Ca 0109 HESSE~The olor wore 0017 HESRE—tlepeenest OCH HEVEROAHL—Ken TAL Abu 00727 MOF SFADTER-Amancan els Tess ov ara The nee Belo [03NS OW TOAMALYZC DRAWASL 59 GEENG HOW 10 ANALYTE FICTION 919 (9887 HOW TO ANALYZE ROETAY $1.49 (e814 HOW TO WRITE THEMES ANB Reaves 08m HOW TO WANE THESES 11.80 (00675 HOMELLS~The Rite of Sas Laphom 559 MUME=—Tme PRcoNOOh cose2 1OECH me Mere (90743 mTROBUETION TO AUERICAN inom uneearune 00696 tevin ~The Lageng of Sieepy Moto sea saan ork 00699 JaUES =the Armbantadarn (00848 JAMES Mme aspam Paper 00679 JAMES=The Port of « Lady (00680 JAMES—"ne Tamm costa JOveeoUlruiee (00148 sUNa=me we (00820 mAMT=The Praesenhy 0nN8 ALAN TEARIS--Teroe me Gre ana our wor ING~Ceplains Cavtameons 0848 PING Kim. Te Sumas Beate 00716 LAWncnce—Sane and Levers (OSL LEC—To Kat» Meningie 0092 LOwtt-arrownmien Continued on inside back coverT. 5. Blots MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL AND SELECTED POEMS A CRITICAL COMMENTARY PAUL GANNON DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH, SPEECH, AND THEATER STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK SELECTED POEMS BY STEPHEN LEVENSOHN DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY LONG ISLAND UNIVERSITY KA MONARCH PRESSLines quoted trom “The Waste Land” on page 79 are from COLLECTED POEMS 1909-1962 by T. S, Eliot, copyright 1936 by Harcourt, Brace & World, inc. Copyright 1964, 196-4 by T. S. Eliot, Reprint by permission of the publishers Copyright ©1965 by SIMON & SCHUSTER, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be re- Produced in any form without permission in writing from the publisher. Published by MONARCH PRESS @ division of Simon & Schuster, Inc. 1 West 39th Street New York, N.Y. 10018 Standard Book Number: 671-00782-3 Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 66-1749 Printed in the United States of AmericaCONTENTS General Introduction Some Important Beliefs and Ideas of T. S, Eliot The Poetry of T. S. Eliot Introduction to Murder in the Cathedral Poetic Drama Historica] Background of the Play Detailed Analysis of Murder in the Cathedral Part I Interlude Part Il Character Analyses Review Questions and Answers Critical Commentary The Critics and Murder in the Cathedral The Poetry of T. S. Eliot The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock Introduction Analysis The Waste Land Introduction Summary Analysis Four Quartets Summary Review Questions and Answers Annotated Bibliography ll 13 15 21 21 37 39 52 57 80 62 64 69 69 73 76 76 - 76 78 92 92 101 104GENERAL INTRODUCTION REPUTATION: The number of books, articles, poems and pamphlets written by T. S. Eliot is impressive, but in some ways the number of books, articles, poems and pamphlets written. about T. S. Eliot is even more impressive. Few poets have meant so much to so many and, unfortunately, been understood by so few. Because Eliot is an important literary figure with an international reputation and a vast following amongst readers and imitators, no anthology of poetry nor discussion of literary criticism can ignore or omit him. In 1922, the publication of The Waste Land established Eliot's reputation; at the same time the publisher's inclusion of the poet's notes attested to the obscurity of many of the references and symbols and the inherent difficulties for the reader. Eliot once wrote of his feelings on the matter: “Our civilization comprehends great variety and complexity, and_ this varicty and complexity, playing upon a refined sensibility must produce various and complex results. The poet must become more and more comprehensive, more allusive, more indirect, in order to force, to dislocate if necessary, language into his meaning.” (Selected Essays, p. 289.) Although Eliot is not “easy,” he is not “impossible.” The poet has to say what he considers to be significant and important in the only way he can say it. Eric Thompson believes that the difficulties we experience in reading Eliot are our own fault, not his: “Eliot is difficult, not because he knows so much or the age is so complex, but because he is a special sort of poet, a philosophical poet in an age of unbelief.” (T. S. Eliot: The Metaphysical Perspective, p. xxi.) Certainly a great part of Eliot's work has been concerned with the problem of modern man’s belief or lack thereof. A brief review of T. S. Eliot's life, will, perhaps, help our understanding of the man and his work. 56 MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL BIOGRAPHICAL DATA: Thomas Stearns Eliot was born in St. Louis, Missouri, on September 26, 1888. His grandfather, William Greenleaf Eliot, had heen a Unitarian minister and for seventeen years chancellor of Washington University in Missouri. His father, Henry Ware Eliot, was a successful businessman, and his mother a sometime writer and poetess. T. S. Eliot was the youngest of seven children and spent the first seventeen years of his life in St. Louis. Eliot entered Harvard University in 1906, took his bachelor's degree in 1909, and his master’s in 1910. After spending a year at the Sorbonne in Paris, he returned to Harvard in 1911 and worked on his Ph.D. in philosophy for several years. Several of his professors, by his own admission, had a great inRuence on him and his work. One was Irving Babbilt, who was concerned with and often discussed the ills of the modem secular world as they show themselves in literature, education, poli- ties and philosophy. Another was George Pierce Baker, whose drama course had a tremendous influence on those who were later to write the modern American drama. (Eugene O'Neill is the most prominent example.) SOME IMPORTANT INFLUENCES: Francis Herbert Brad- ley (English writer on philosophy, 1846-1924) was the subject of Eliot’s doctoral dissertation. (The dissertation was completed but never published; Eliot never returned to Har- vard to take his final examinations for the Ph.D.) In a later essay Eliot spoke of Bradley's great gift of style and said that his philosophy was “catholic, civilized, and universal.” The following quotation from Bradley could have been written by Eliot as a tenet of his own philosophy and belief: “Reflec- tion on morality leads us beyond it. It leads us, in short, to see the necessity of a religious point of view.” As important if not even more important to Eliot’s development at this time were the great works of literature he read and the literary men he studied. In a book review Eliot spoke of having read The Symbolist Movement in Literature by Arthur Symons (British poet and critic, 1865-1945), and com-MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL 7 mented that “the Symons book is one of those which have affected the course of my life.” He often spoke of his in- debtcdness to various French symbolists. Of Jules Laforgue (French poet, 1860-1887) he said, “He was the Brst to teach me how to speak, to teach me the poetic possibilities of my own idiom of specch.” And of Baudelaire (French poet and critic, 1821-1867), “I think that from Baudelaire I learned first... of the more sordid aspects of the modern metropolis, of the possibility of fusion between the sordidly realistic and the phantasmagoric, the possibility of the juxtaposition of the matter-of-fact and the fantastic.” Echoes from many other authors and idioms can be found in Eliot’s poetry, criticism, and philosophy. ELIOT AND POUND: In the spring of 1914, Eliot decided to go to Germany, but when war broke out he left for England —for Eliot a fortuitous journey. In 1915, he met Ezra Pound (American poct, 1885- ) who was to have a profound influence on his development as a literary critic and poet. Pound immediately recognized the poet in Eliot and was influential in getting The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock published. Eliot spoke of Pound’s influence on himself and others as follows: “Pound did not create the poets; but he created a situation in which, for the first time, there was a ‘modern movement in poctry’ in which English and American poets collaborated, knew each other’s works, and influenced each other.” Between 1916-1917, Eliot wrote and published a few essays and reviews, and in 1917 Prufrock first appeared; from this time until his death in 1965, a prodigious number of essays, articles, reviews, introductions, poems, and dramatic pieces flowed from his pen. His first collection of essays, The Sacred Wood, appeared in 1920. The Waste Land, probably his most famous poem, appeared in 1922, and The Hollow Men, another poem expressing the same theme of pessimism and disillusionment, appeared in 1925. TURNING POINTS IN ELIOT’S LIFE: Two significant events8 MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL which occurred in 1927 affected his point-of-view and his subject matter. After having lived in England some ten years, Eliot became a British subject and entered the Angli- can Church. In his own words he became “classical in literature, royalist in politics, and anglo-catholic in religion.” His next important poem, Ash Wednesday, was the first of many works which showed his growing concem with the super’ natural and religion. This was followed in 1935 by his frst important drama, Murder in the Cathedral. Since that time the majority of his critical and creative works have obviously or subtly expressed his own religious beliefs and commit- ments. (By this we do not mean he teaches or preaches any religious doctrine; Eliot's concern is with the necessity ot belief and not a particular belief or doctrine.) In addition to his literary endeavors, Eliot put his talents to use in a number of capacities, He taught at the Highgate School in London for two years and was a clerk in the Colonial and Foreign Department of Lloyds Bank from 1917- 1925. During a two-year period he contributed many articles and reviews to two literary magazines, the Egoist and the Athenaeum. In 1923, he became editor of a quarterly review, The Criterion, and served in this capacity until 1939. He was appointed Charles Eliot Norton Professor of Poetry at Har- vard for 1932-1933, and he also worked at the Institute for Advanced Studies at Princeton and taught at the University of Chicago. In 1925, he became associated with the publish- ing house of Faber and Faber. Eliot for the most part kept his private life private. He married in the spring of 1915. He registered for the U.S. Navy in 1918, but was not taken into the service because of poor health. He lived quietly and unassumingly in London. His first wife died in 1947, and he married his private secretary in 1957. Until his death in 1965 he continued to write both poetry and criticism and to increase in stature as a poet and as a critic.MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL 9 SOME IMPORTANT BELIEFS AND IDEAS OF T. S. ELIOT Because Eliot was a critic as well as a poet, he often made pronouncements about what he believed to be important and valid considerations for a writer. Very often he wrote about the work of another in terms of his own work—what he tried to do and why he tried to do it. The few quotations given below may aid the student's understanding of Murder in the Cathedral and other works of T. S. Eliot. In his Selected Essays (p. 343) Eliot wrote, “The ‘greatness’ of literature cannot be determined solely by literary standards; though we must remember that whether it is literature or not can be determined only by literary standards.” Eliot used his talent as a poet not only to express the Beautiful but also to express what he considered to be the Good and the True. He believed literature could have (and perhaps should have) both an intrinsic and an extrinsic value. In either case he felt that certain values and certain criteria had to be applied. In a lecture which was later published (“Religious Drama: Mediaeval and Modem”) Eliot said, “We need to strive towards a kind of reintegration of both kinds of drama [religious and secular], just as we need to strive towards a reintegration of life [our religious life and our secular life].” Here Eliot expresses his concem for literature and life. He once stated that he wrote verse drama in order to reach more people—in many ways Eliot was an unabashed propagandist. THE POET’S CHOICE OF WORDS: In the Music of Poetry (p. 18), Eliot commented on the importance and significance of the poet’s choice of a particular word in a partcular context: “The music of a word is, so to speak, at a point of inter- section: it arises from its relation first to the words immediately10 MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL preceding and following it, and indefinitely to the rest of its context; and from another relation, that of its immediate meaning in that context to all the other meanings it has had in other contexts, to its greater or less wealth of association, to its greater or less wealth of disassociation. . . .” (If we realize that a single word has often been chosen with such great care, we will not be so quick to “run over” words in our reading.) Eliot's comment explains part of the difficulty we might experience when reading poetry—the problem of associating the particular word in a way that will make it meaningful for us. However, having said this, we must not think that the reader is supposed to be able to understand every allusion: which the poet makes or every symbol which he uses. William York Tindall once wrote: “What the reader gets from a symbol depends not only upon what the author has put into it but upon the reader's sensitivity and his consequent apprehension of what is there. . . . T. S. Eliot’s remarks about the poem seem relevant here; an independent object, the poem (or symbol) stands between the author and reader, related in some fashion to each, but the relationship between author and object is not necessarily similar to that between object and reader.” (The Literary Symbol, p. 17.)MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL ll THE POETRY OF T. S. ELIOT In Selected Essays, Eliot wrote concerning the necessity of seeing in an author's complete work a unity or progression of thought and idea in order to understand more fully the particular work. He commented that the “measure in which dramatists and poets approximate to this unity in a lifetime's work, is one of the measures of major poetry and drama.” (Selected Essays, p. 194.) Although our concem in this section is primarily with Murder in the Cathedral, a brief look at some of Eliot’s poems will indicate the unity apparent in his work. THE WASTE LAND: In what is probably his most famous poem, The Waste Land (1922), Eliot writes of the corrup- tion of civilization due to the decay of religion. The first four lines recall much of the imagery used in Eliot's play—time, dead land, memory and desire. (Very often a particular word in a particular context recalls for the writer a particular event ~—this single word often symbolizes much more than is immediately apparent.) THE LOVE SONG OF J. ALFRED PRUFROCK: Probably the most popular of Eliot’s poems, in terms of the number of times it is anthologized, is The Love Song of J. Alfred Pru- frock. This poem not only repeats much of Eliot's imagery but also expresses his concern with time, especially the past. It also describes various aspects of urban life—a life which Eliot often characterized as sterile and stifling. The hesita- tion and inability of Prufrock to make decisions reflects modem man’s desire to remain uncommitted and passive. Many of these characteristics and shortcomings are apparent in the speeches of the common people in Eliot's play. ASH WEDNESDAY: Following Eliot's conversion to the Ang- lican faith, his poetry became even more religion-oriented. (We say more since Eliot was always concerned with spiritual12 MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL problems; however, after his conversion he included more references to the liturgy and trappings of an organized religion.) His poem Ash Wednesday (1930) contains echoes of his past work but includes more religious symbols—leopard, lady, Virgin, and rose among others. The same is true of Journey of the Magi. PLAYS: After Eliot had been writing poetry for some twenty years, he wrote his first important drama, Murder in the Ca- thedral. That he should tum to the writing of drama was not unexpected. In his Selected Essays he expressed the belie! that “all poetry tends towards drama, and all drama towards poetry.” David E. Jones expressed the relevance of the one to the other in this way: “In a sense... the plays arise out of the poetry, and are illuminated by it.” (The Plays of T. S. Eliot, p. 21.)MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL 13 INTRODUCTION TO MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL In view of the fact that Murder in the Cathedral is considered by many to be one of Eliot's finest works and possibly the greatest religious drama ever written, his account of the motivation for his writing it should be noted. He.once told an audience that he wrote the play because he was requested to provide a play for a festival in Canterbury Cathedral, “under certain conditions and by a certain date.” We can only assume that Eliot had some very definite ideas about what he wanted to say and how he wanted to say it and that this invitation simply provided the incentive or opportunity to express what he had in mind. The year before he wrote Murder, Eliot wrote the choruses and dialogues for The Rock, a “pageant play.” Eliot often expressed his interest in the drama; in The Use of Poetry and the Use of Criticism (p. 123), he wrote: “The ideal medium for poetry, to my mind, and the most direct means of social usefulness for poetry, is the theatre. . . . For the simplest auditors there is the plot, for the more literary the words and phrasing, for the more musically sensitive the rhythm, and for the auditors of greater sensitiveness and understanding a meaning which reveals itself gradually. . . .” Probably the most important words here are “social usefulness.” RELIGION IN DRAMA AND POETRY: Eliot was not content to simply express what he felt and believed; he wanted others to feel and believe the same. Stanley Edgar Hyman once commented that “. .. the public function of drama for Eliot, [rests on] the fact that it can cross poetry and propaganda in the guise of popular entertainment.” (The Armed Vision, p. 73.) In a lecture on “Religious Drama, Mediaeval and Modem,” Eliot married religion and drama in his observations that an “essentially religious craving is latent in all serious14 MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL lovers of the drama,” and that the stage has always “dealt with moral problems, with problems which in the end required a religious solution—whether this necessity was present to the mind of the author or not.” Eliot realized that both his subject matter (the spiritual life) and his mode of communication (poetry) often presented problems to reader and critic alike. Too often they would ignore one or the other—they did not see that the two formed a unity, in conception and expression. In “The Social Function of Poetry,” Eliot warned that “we must avoid being seduced into one or other of two extreme opinions, The first is, that it is simply the value of ideas expressed in a poem which gives the value to the poetry. . . . The other is, that the ideas, the beliefs of the poet do not matter at all... .” (Adelphi, p. 158.)MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL 15 POETIC DRAMA The tradition of the poetic drama in the Western World goes back to the very beginnings of the drama in Ancient Greece. Wherever drama has evolved, its basic origin is the same— it arises from religious ritual. In Greece the dramatic performances were held to honor the god of vegetation and wine— Dionysus. Originally these performances involved simply a dialogue between leader and chorus, but in time actors and a stage were added. Following the Golden Age of Greece we hear little of the drama until the time of the morality and mystery plays which were popular during the Middle Ages. Again drama grew out of religious ritual. This time the dramatizations were made a part of the religious observances on certain important days in the Church calendar. The playlets usually involved scenes from the life of Christ and the Saints or alle- gories of good and evil. ELIOT AND THE DRAMA: Eliot, because of what he wished to do in the drama and teith the drama, studied and utilized a number of the ideas and techniques in these dramatic pieces. The dialogue between chorus and actors recalls the Greek drama; using a saint's life to teach a lesson recalls the mystery plays. But in no sense did Eliot copy either. In a radio address he commented that “we have to make use of suggestions from more remote dra too remote for there to be any danger of imitation. . . .” (“The Need for Poetic Drama,” The Listener, p. 994.) In the same address Eliot remarked that there are things that can be said in music that cannot be said in speech even as there are things that can be said in poetic drama that cannot be said in either music or ordinary speech. Again we sce that16 - MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL the poet must use the means of communication best suited to hin and his purpose. In a letter to Ezra Pound, Eliot wrote, “If you write a play in verse, then the verse ought to be the medium to look through and not a pretty decoration to look at.” Again we see his concern with the intimate relationship between form and substance, between mold and matter. There is no dearth of quotations from Eliot on this matter; since he wrote some five verse plays (seven if we include Sweeney Agonistes and The Rock), we can rest assured -he had very definite ideas about what he was trying to do and why. At another time he wrote: “A verse play is not a play done into verse, but a different kind of play: in a way more realistic than ‘naturalistic drama,’ because, instead of cloth- ing nature in poetry, it should remove the surface of things, expose the underneath, or the inside, of the natural surface appearance.” (Introduction to S. L. Bethell’s Shakespeare and the Popular Dramatic Tradition (Durham: Duke Uni- versity Press, 1945, p. 8.) UNIVERSALITY OF MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL: As_ noted earlier, in his writing of Murder in the Cathedral Eliot was not concemed with just one man: he was concerned with every man. He did not wish to present a single point of view, but many. He realized that different people would interpret different things in different ways. As he had Thomas remark, “For every life and every act consequence of good and evil can be shown.” Consequently he believed that it is the privi- lege of dramatic poetry to be able to show us several planes of reality at once. Of course, if we like things “spelled out for us in black and white,” if we like to be able to say a thing is “true or false,” if we do not want to look’ behind what is “patently obvious” to the most casual observer, then dealing with “several planes of reality at once” may be very difficult and very confusing, Although Murder in the Cathedral was written to be per- formed, poetry is also intended to be read, and the readingMURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL 17 of poetry demands that the reader be attentive and receptive. He must do more than simply read words: he must respond to them actively and intelligently. Fortunately, as Kristian Smidt noted, “Our response to Eliot's poetry is facilitated by its being, in general, closely relevant to the thought of our time.” (Poetry and Belief in the Work of T. S. Eliot, p. 229.)18 MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE PLAY Murder in the Cathedral is based on the life and death of Thomas a Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury from 1162 until his death in 1170. Most of the characters arid incidents in the play are historically accurate and are based on both written records and tradition. Although the play only covers a very short period near the end of Thomas’ life, many references are made to his early career as Chancellor and confidant to King Henry II. And in order to understand the play, it is necessary to understand some of the background of his life and times. Thomas was bor in 1117 or 1119 (the exact date is not definite), the son of a London merchant. At this time, and for many centuries before and after, the Church controlled all higher education. If a boy were clever and intelligent, most generally the only way he could take advanced studies was to take Holy Orders and become a minor minister in the Church. This Thomas did, and he studied in the schools of Oxford, London and Paris. During this time he joined the “official family” of Theobald, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and distinguished himself in civil and Canon (Church) Jaw. He won the favor of the King and became his chief companion and confidant. Thomas was an able soldier and politician and won the favor of many of the people, and the antagonism of some. In 1155 he was appointed Chancellor, and in 1160, when Theobald died Henry wanted to appoint Thomas as Archbishop of Canterbury. CHURCH-STATE RELATIONS: For some years prior to this time relations between the Church and the government in England had been strained. The dispute arose primarily from the King’s desire to have the Church pay taxes and to have the clergy be under the domination of the State. (Tradition-MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL 19 ally the Church did not have to pay taxes and its clergy were subject to ecclesiastical courts, not civil courts.) Henry hoped that the appointment of “his own man” as Archbishop would smooth the way for the reforms he felt were necessary and advantageous to him. According to all accounts, Thomas did not wish to become Archbishop. He had led a lusty life as courtier and soldier and felt himself unworthy of the honor and unsuitable for the position. However, Henry insisted and Thomas was con- secrated Archbishop in 1162, and immediately renounced his past life and assumed a life of virtue and humility. Rather than becoming a help to Henry in his dispute with the Church, Thomas became a thorn in his side. THOMAS AS ARCHBISHOP: The Archbishop complained ‘to Pope Alexander III of the infringements by the laity on the tights and immunities of the Church. He brought about the excommunication (ecclesiastical censure) of some of the barons and land-owners who continued to oppose him. Henry was enraged by the Archbishop's actions and, fearing for his safety, Thomas escaped to Flanders and then for a number of years took refuge in France. The King, meanwhile, won over to his side certain of the clergy and prelates who were more concemed with advancing themselves than advancing the cause of the Church. After seven years of exile, Thomas returned in triumph to Canterbury when a makeshift peace was arranged. with Henry. However, he refused to recommend that the excommunication imposed earlier be removed unless those excommunicated appeared before him as subjects of his. The prelates and noblemen who had been censured appealed to Henry, and in a moment of exasperation the King exclaimed, “Can no one rid me of this insolent prelate, the perpetual trouble of my life!” Among those who heard these words were Reginald Fitz-Urse, William de Tracy, Hugh de Morville, and Richard Brito.20 MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL THOMAS’ MURDER: Whether moved by the thoughts of the honors that would accrue or by a spirit of patriotism and a desire to serve the King, we do not know, but these four barons took it upon themselves to rid the King of this “insolent prelate” who was causing him such great distress, They proceeded to Canterbury and made their demands, but the Archbishop was adamant. They returned that same evening and killed him while he was at Vespers. Thomas showed no fear and endured their repeated stabbings without a groan. The four knights later repented and made pilgrimages to the Holy Land. Although Henry was not direclly responsible for the Archbishop’s death, he did do penance at his tomb. Within two years Thomas 4 Becket was canonized a Saint of the Church, and thousands upon thousands of people have made pilgrimages to his tomb. Today, almost 800 years later, the pilgrims (and tourists) are still going to Canterbury to see the Cathedral and the spot where ‘Thomas was murdered.MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL 21 DETAILED ANALYSIS OF MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL PART I The play opens with the Chorus commenting on its presence near the Cathedral. The women say they are there to bear witness—that seven years have passed since the Archbishop left—that they are waiting as the will of God commands. COMMENT: The opening chorus expresses the idea that mankind, as symbolized by the poor women of Canterbury, is waiting for something to happen, has been forced to bear witness to an act. Their questions regarding the purpose of their attendance near the Cathedral indicate their lack of understanding. Their first questions voice their curiosity—their last questions indicate their indifference. When Eliot says they are “forced to bear witness,” he infers that the action which we are about to witness has social, moral, and spiritual implications. Let us examine these three words: social means per- taining to a society or its organizationy moral refers to conduct from the point of view of right or wrong; spiritual refers to the soul of man or God. Each of these words not only implies but also demands that something or somcbody outside of the individual has relevancy to the individual. An individual is not alone in the sense that what he docs or what he does not do has implications for others; or-to put it another way, there is no such. thing as a purcly selfish act. John Donne (English poet and preacher, 1573-1631) expressed this idea thus: “No man is an island entire unto himself.”MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL CONTEXT OF THE ACTION: Having directed our attention to the relevancy of what we are to observe, the context of the action is then established. Eliot here joins the natural and supernatural in the imagery of the dying year and his concern with life after death. Note the parallelism in the harvesting of the apples and the “harvesting” of souls. (At this point Eliot alludes to the “Saints at All Hallows,” which is commonly called “All Saints Day.” On this day the Church honors all its saints.) Winter comes giving the promise of spring, and death comes giving the hope of a blessed after-life. The “coming” here refers to both the “coming of Christ,” or redemption, and the “coming of spring,” or rebirth. The reference to “seven years” is historically truc, and since Becket's return would provoke dissension, it would certainly not be well for him or the people if he should return. Like most of us, the Chorus, the common people, are content to be left alone. We might express it thus: “Live and let live” or “Don't rock the boat.” Because of the change in the attitude of the Chorus at the end of the play, it would be well to note their indifference at this point. The Chorus fears “disturbance of the quiet seasons”— they echo the ancient belief that if man disturbs the “natural order” on earth, he disturbs also the “natural order” of the whole universe. For many centuries man believed that certain immutable laws governed the universe—laws which all nature, including mankind, must obey. If these laws were violated, the natural order was violated, the harmony of nature was disturbed, and all mankind suffered. (This also repeats what was said earlier about man’s responsibility. ) DESTINY: A very important passage occurs in this Brst speech of the Chorus: “Destiny waits in the hand ot God, shaping the still unshapen.” This idea or belief appears several times in this play, and in other worksMURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL 23 of Eliot's. Commenting on destiny, or the pattern of life, Eliot once wrote, “It is the pattern drawn by what the ancient world called Fate; subtilized by Christianity into mazes of delicate theology; and reduced again by the modem world into crudities of psychological or eco- nomic necessity.” (Selected Essays, p. 232.) But because Eliot perceived a pattern in life, he did not, therefore, consider that man’s actions were determined by fate or predestined by God. Kristian Smidt commented on the possibility of misinterpreting Eliot's point-of-view: “His main position seems to be rather that there is an ideal pattern or design, a divine plan for every human life, but that we are free to conform to it or reject it at our own risk.” (Poetry and Belief in the Work of T. S. Eliot, p. 198.) When Eliot says that destiny waits in the hand of God, not in the hands of statesmen, he alludes to the historical conflict between Church and State. At the same time he acknowledges his belief that a moral, spiritual, or supernatural value supersedes the secular value. The statement that some statesmen do well and some do ill expresses the dichotomy of man’s nature—he is capable of both good and evil. As the play unfolds we will find that Thomas’ problem is concerned with determining whether or not a particular action is ultimately good or evil. THE CHORUS: The Chorus performs a number of functions in the play: 1. Although made up solely of women of Canter- bury, it nonetheless represents the people of Can- terbury and, therefore, presents the point of view of the common people of the time. 2. Because the play is symbolic, it represents Man- kind as a whole, and expresses many common views and beliefs.24 MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL 3. The allusions which are made to events which occurred prior to the time of the play provide the necessary background material for the audience. Because of the varied functions of the Chorus, we must see their remarks in a variety of contexts and, therefore, capable of a variety of interpretations. At one point in a particular scene we are to consider them simply Women of Canterbury; at another point we are to see them as spokesmen and witnesses for all mankind. The Three Priests allude to the various power struggles which are alienating the common people from the Church. A messenger informs them that the Archbishop is close outside the city. Knowing the animosity that exists Between Thomas and the King, they wonder whether the Archbishop's return her- alds good or evil. COMMENT: Like the Chorus, the Three Priests are more than actors in an historical drama—they are also spokesmen for particular points-of-view and representa- tions of particular ideas, But, unlike the Chorus, the Priests ordinarily remain “in character.” That is, when the Priests are “on stage,” the historical drama based on the life and death of Thomas moves forward with more emphasis placed on action than on motivation. (The problem for any playwright is to keep the audience's attention so that he can say what he wants to say or has to say. Consequently, Eliot must not stop the action for too long lest the audience lose interest.) REPETITION: Note that the opening lines of the First Priest repeat the exact words of the Chorus concerning the Archbishop's absence. This repetition is both a dramatic and a poetic device. Dramatically the repetition gives emphasis to the importance of the time-lapse since his exile began, and poetically the repetition contrib- utes to the over-all unity of the poem (the verse play).MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL 5) Throughout the play Eliot's use of repetition serves this dual purpose. The power struggles alluded to by the Priests are historically accurate and symbolically important. Our Eng- lish histories of this time relate these power struggles between the Church and the State (specifically Thomas and Pope Alexander III against Henry II); and between the King of England and the King of France. But in the play this power struggle is overshadowed by the struggle between the forces of good and evil, and the struggle which Thomas endures within his mind and heart and soul. And even as the secular struggle for power may lead to the alienation of the people from God, so also might the spiritual struggle within the individual lead ultimately to his alienation from God. TWO PROUD MEN: When the messenger announces Thomas’ imminent arrival and the Priests ask if the King and the Archbishop have been reconciled, they are spoken of as “two proud men.” This allusion to pride not only accounts for much of the antagonism between the two as manifested in their struggle for power (be it temporal or spiritual) but also marks the first reference to the vice or fault which Thomas must overcome if he is to attain sanctity. When the messenger says that the Archbishop comes in pride and sorrow, we learn that Thomas’ demeanor reflects the conflict within. (Remem- ber the pride referred to here is the “unpardonable” sin, not simply self-esteem.) When the messenger relates the Archbishop's triumphal entry into the city, with the people strewing his path with leaves and flowers, we are reminded of Jesus Christ’s entry into Jerusalem. The comparison is _in- tended because Christ's triumphal entry was followed by his martyrdom and death on the cross even as Thomas’ triumphal retum precedes his martyrdom by only a few26 MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL days. This parallelism between Christ and Becket, between the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and the sacrifice of the martyr, will receive further emphasis later. The Priests continue to question the messenger and again refer to the Archbishop's pride. (Note the insid- iousness of this vice which may feed on actions and inclinations which are apparently virtuous.) The historical Thomas did change abruptly from a worldly courtier to a seemingly humble, self-effacing Man of God. We say seemingly since a considerable part of Eliot’s concern centers on whether or not Thomas’ change of heart had been sincere and God-inspired or insincere and self-seeking. In other words, was the Archbishop's exemplary life but a way to obtain the love, affection, and esteem of the people and thus in the guise of humility to flatter his own vanity? THE TURNING WHEEL: At the conclusion of this conver- sation, the Third Priest says for good or evil, the wheel will turn. The wheel introduces a symbol often used in literature. The wheel, like the circle, is used to symbol- ize eternity and God—in India a prayer-wheel is used, and in the Catholic religion the rosary is a similar device. The tuming of the wheel also duplicates the cycle of the seasons referred to earlier. The Priests comment that the wheel has been still since the Archbishop’s exile— the struggle between Church and State has reached a stalemate. Also, as the chief representative of the Church in England, his absence in a sense cut the people off from the main body of the Church. The Chorus protests that the arrival of the Archbishop will bring about an unhappy fate for himself and for the whole world. They ask to be left in peace “living and partly living.” The Second Priest tells them to keep quiet, put on pleasant faces, and give a hearty welcome to Thomas.MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL 27 COMMENT: The Women of Canterbury are frightened at the possible consequences of the ‘Archbishop's return. They want to be left alone—they do not want anything to happen which will force them to take sides or to commit themselves to an idea or an ideal. Life has gone on as it always has, with good years and bad, with laughter and tears, with private terrors and secret fears. They do not wish to be “drawn into the pattern of fate.” Eliot knows that the ordinary man wants to be left alone, “living and partly living,” and that he does not want to be a hero, or a saint, or a great man. He wants, if possible, “to pass unobserved.” In Sweeney Agonistes, Eliot wrote of what he considered to be moder secular man’s values, beliefs, and concerns: Birth, and copulation, and death. That's all the facts when you come to brass tacks: Birth, and copulation, and death. The Chorus (the people) express their fear of something they cannot know or understand and they hon- estly express their fear and trepidation. But the Second Priest calls them foolish women and tells them to at least put on pleasant faces. This attempt to have the people put on a false front to impress the Archbishop indicates that the Priests have little understanding of the issues. This concern with a facade expresses the too human desire of the underling to have things “look good” in front of his superior. Thomas enters and tells the Priests to let the women alone since they speak better than they know and beyond their understanding. He tells them of his journey to Canterbury and hints at what is to follow. COMMENT: The first word that Thomas speaks— PEACE—would be the expected salutation, but because of the conflict that his presence causes, the word isMURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL somewhat ironic. Recalling the earlier attempt by Eliot to compare, in a sense, Thomas and Christ, the word also brings to mind certain significant Biblical quotations. To quote but a few: “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.” (Luke 2:14.) “Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division.” (Luke 12:51.) “Peace I leave with you, my peace. I give unto you; not as the world giveth, give I unto you.” (John 14:27.) As the play unfolds we will see a number of instances where the ideas expressed in these quotations are, if not directly applicable to Thomas, at least_significant regarding our understanding of him and of Eliot. If we realize that the coming of Jesus Christ and his acceptance as the Redeemer was responsible for more war, bloodshed, suffering and misunderstanding than any other’ single event in history, we will begin to understand and appreciate the irony of these quotations. At the same time we may begin to understand and appreciate the conflict within the individual (especially the conflict between good and evil) which Eliot is dealing with in his story of the martyrdom of the Archbishop of Canterbury. And since Eliot is not concerned with one man’s struggle, one man’s trials and tribulations, but with the struggles, trials and tribulations of all men, we may begin to understand and appreciate Eliot's attempt to show the universal in the particular and the particular in the universal. More about this later. ACTION AND SUFFFERING: Thomas speaks of the pattern of life being both action and suffering and refers also to the tuming of the wheel. He says that the Chorus (and Eliot thus says that mankind) knows and does not know what it is to act or suffer. This knowing and at the same time not knowing refers both to Eliot’s concern with man’s attempt to avoid facing the realityMURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL 29 of life and the few fleeting moments of comprehension and understanding he might experience. These concepts are difficult to explain and even more difficult to understand so perhaps a brief digression will help. Many contemporary authors have been concerned with the problem of reality and a great deal of what we might call “modern literature” simply reflects the attempts of particular poets, novelists, and playwrights to discuss the problem. More often than not a particular play, novel, or poem will concern some aspect of this problem or relate a particular character's attempt to clude reality and live in illusion. Eliot was also concerned with reality, and in an address to Unitarian clergymen he expressed his belief that the “supernatural is the greatest reality here and now.” But Eliot’s belief in and concern with the supernatural was not characterized by religiosity—it resulted from his attempt to find what was real and meaningful in life. A few quotations may help clarify these points. In The Use of Poetry and the Use of Criticism (p. 155), Eliot referred to man’s avoidance of reality: “. . . our lives are mostly constant evasion of ourselves, and an evasion of the visible and sensible world.” The central point in Eliot's Notes Towards a Definition of Culture is that we must see “the culture of a people in the incarnation of its religion.” But he did not refer to any particular sect, religious practice or belief; as F. O. Matthiessen pointed out, “. . . it is one of his fundamental assumptions that men cannot avoid wor- shiping something, whether they know it or not.” (The Achievement of T. S Eliot, p. 203.) In The Rock Eliot wrote: The Church disowned, the tower overthrown, the bells uptumed,30 MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL What have we to do But stand with empty hands and palms turned upwards In an age which advances progressively backwards? Thomas, in his speech prior to the entrance of the First Tempter, makes known his premonition regarding the turn events will take. He says the end will be Cod- given, that the waiting is harder to bear than the cul- minating event, and that first there must be the strife with the shadows (spirits). These references recall the Biblical account of Christ's temptation in the desert and His prayer on the mount of Olives that “not my will but Thine be done.” The Archbishop's remarks also “prepare” us for the entrance of the Tempters—personified abstractions of Thomas’ inclinations toward evil. The First Tempter reminds Thomas of his past pleasures and attempts to entice him into desiring and seeking them again. Thomas resists him easily, and the Tempter says he will leave him “to the pleasures of your higher vices.” COMMENT: The Tempter recalls the past in the vain hope that Thomas may retum to his former, lustful ways. When Thomas says these things are in the past, forever, he speaks of the cycle of life and repeats the imagery of the wheel referred to earlier. Notice also the reference to all life and to all nature—the seasons, night and day, the flowers, the animals, and man. A rather interesting juxtaposition of words and ideas occurs in the line, “Sever the cord, shed the scale.” The cut- ting of the umbilical cord and the shedding of the snake's scale not only join the idea of man and beast, but they also have a religious connotation since the common symbol of the Devil is a snake and the liturgical season referred to in the play is Advent—the time when man awaits the coming of the Christ.MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL 31 The Tempter tells Thomas he is too proud, echoing the comments of the Three Priests earlier in Part I. The allusion to “higher vices” would give added emphasis to the importance of pride in this play and would again raise the question, “Are the Archbishop's actions moti- vated by love of God or love of self?” The Second Tempter offers Thomas power; he replies that since he has spiritual power he has no use for a punier power. COMMENT: Again Thomas easily resists the temptation—now he holds a greater power than he ever held as Chancellor. Again the Tempter refers to the Arch- bishop's pride—Thomas recalls his former power and says, “I was the King, his arm, his better reason.” Once again his pride in what he has done and can do is made manifest. The Third Tempter tells Thomas he should align himself with a new party opposing the King—thus he will supposedly benefit both the Church and the State. Thomas replies, “No one shall say that I betrayed a King.” COMMENT: The Third Tempter hopes to sway Thomas by appealing to his patriotism and his nationality, and by offering an opportunity for Thomas to peacefully settle the dispute between Church and State by helping to depose the king. This Tempter, in a sense, makes his appeal to Thomas the man rather than to Thomas the Archbishop. What he offers will seemingly benefit others more than it will benefit Thomas, although it would, in tum, assure his retention of his ecclesiastical power. Still Thomas remains adamant. The Fourth Tempter offers Thomas glory after death—the glory of martyrdom. He tells Thomas to seek the way of martyrdom, to make himself the lowest on earth that he might be amongst the highest in heaven. Thomas admits that he himself had thought of these things.MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL COMMENT: Thomas says he expected three visitors (Tempters), not four, since traditionally we speak of the temptations of the world, the flesh, and the devil. And it is the Fourth Tempter (the fourth temptation) which Thomas has the most difficulty repulsing or over- coming—and that is the temptation to do “the right thing for the wrong reason.” The Tempter says that the Archbishop is too intelligent to be seduced by temptations which offer only worldly gain or fame. When he tells Thomas to think of “glory after death,” the Arch- bishop has to admit that he has. Note the subtlety with which Thomas is baited. The Tempter repeats and verifies that what Thomas had replied to the others is true—the Tempter now offers an appeal to Thomas’ pride. Pride—one of the seven deadly sins, an insidious vice, the unforgivable sin. Thomas recognizes: this and fears it—he asks himself if there is any way that does not lead his soul to damna- tion in pride, Thomas is brought face to face with his soul; his most secret desires are laid bare before him. This temptation is not from without, but from within. The Tempter not only tells Thomas what he has alread; thought and desired, but he also uses the Archbishop's own words, images, arguments, and phrases. In his last speech the Fourth Tempter repeats verbatim the Arch- bishop’s words to the Women of Canterbury and the Three Priests. Thomas said that they did not know or understand the ways of God; the Fourth Tempter indicates that Thomas does not know or understand either. One more thing is necessary—faith and trust in God. Eliot's interest in the supernatural prompted him to read and study the writings of theologians, saints, and mystics. Because he believed that the “supernatural is the greatest reality,” he wished’ to know as much as possible about various manifestations and interpretationsMURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL 33 of the supernatural. One of the’ mystical writers he studied was Saint John of the Cross (Spanish mystical poet, 1552-1591). In The Dark Night of the Soul, which relates his own experiences and beliefs regarding man’s painful confusion and ignorance of God's will, St. John of the Cross wrote that the soul must “empty itself of itself in order to be filled with God.” This emptying of self would demand true humility and the renouncing of all self-interest and pride. The Chorus relates the turmoil in the land; the Four Temp- ters allude to the turmoil in the mind of man; the Three Priests advise Thomas to abide by the dictates of nature. The Chorus implores Thomas to save himself that they might be saved; if he destroys himself, they are destroyed. COMMENT: When the Chorus relates the restlessness of nature, the heaviness of the sky, the sickly smell, we see repeated the allusion made earlier to the effect that discordant elements in one aspect of nature has on all nature. If any part of the “natural order” is disturbed, all nature is disturbed. Recall the Biblical account of the crucifixion of Christ: “And it was about the sixth hour [noon] and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour. And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst.” (Luke 23:44,45) When the Four Tempters speak of life as being unreal and disappointing, they make reference to the Catherine Wheel (a kind of fireworks), a scholastic prize, an academic degree, a statesman’s decorations. These references are used to make the events, ideas, and concerns in the play real and contemporary, and not simply vague and historical Eliot is saying hat if life was a, “cheat and a disappointment” then, it remains so today. The Tempters at first refer to mankind (the general) and then to Thomas (the particular); in Murder in theMURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL Cathedral Eliot at first refers to the life, hopes, dreams, trials and tribulations of Thomas (the particular) and then relates them to all mankind (the general). SANCTITY AND MARTYRDOM: When the Tempters say Thomas is intent on self-destruction, that he has deluded himself, that he is blinded by the dazzling view he has of himself and his virtue, they express the ordinary man’s reaction in the face of sanctity, mysticism and martyrdom. Writing about this play R. P. Blackmur expressed the view that Murder in the Cathedral “deals with an emotion I can hardly expect to share, which very few can ever expect to share, except as a last possibility, and which is certainly not an emotion of general interest to all; it deals with the special emotion of Christian martyrdom.” (“T. S. Eliot: From Ash Wednes- day to Murder in the Cathedral,” in T. S. Eliot: A Selected Critique, pp. 258-259.) But because the subject matter is difficult to compre- hend and the philosophy perhaps even more difficult to accept, we must not, therefore, immediately reject what Eliot is trying to say as unreasonable or absurd. (Often if we but attempt to understand others, we come to better understand ourselves.) David E. Jones. having surveyed Eliot's dramatic, critical, and philosophical writings, made the following comment about Murder in the Cathedral, “In his first play Eliot turned immediately to what was to be the central theme of almost all of his plays—the role of the spiritually elect in society, the fructification of communal life by the example of the saint and the saintly.” (The Plays of T. S. Eliot, p. 50.) The Three Priests, whom we would expect to sympathize with and support the Archbishop, implore Thomas not to fight the intractable tide, the irresistible wind. Eliot's choice of imagery here is marvelously revealing. The Three Priests, who should represent the super-MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL 35 natural and the spiritual, refer to the natural and physical clements in attempting to dissuade him. When they join the Chorus and the Tempters in a chant, we see that Thomas is alone—none of them understand what he wishes to do or why he wishes to do it. A comment by Theodore Spencer may clarify this: “Eliot's characters are deliberately divided into a hierarchy of four spiritual levels: the blindly passive and suffering women of Canterbury who form the chorus, a kind of pedal point in humanity; then the worldly tempters, themselves representing four levels of increasingly potent worldliness; then the priests who are on Thomas’ side, but for merely human and literal reasons; and finally Thomas, himself, achieving a spiritual pinnacle where he can catch a wink of heaven.” (“Man's Spiritual Situa- tion as Reflected in Modern Drama,” in Spiritual Prob- lems in Contemporary Literature, p. 55.) Although the Chorus speaks of its unhappiness—of oppression, destitution, sin, disease—the women stil! maintain that somehow they have gone on living, living and partly living. But now they Believe God is leav- ing them and the Lords of Hell are taking possession of the earth. This triumph of evil over good parallels the temporary triumph of evil over good as seen in the crucifixion of the Christ—and the lack of faith of the common people duplicates the lack of faith of Christ's disciples. (Again Eliot stresses the similarities between the Christ and the Christ-like Thomas.) Thomas declares that now the way is clear and the meaning is plain. He reviews his life—his delights in pleasure, his ambition, his desire for praise. He recalls his appointment as Archbishop, and says that as a servant of God his temptations were greater than as a servant of the King. He speaks to the audience directly and tells them that what they are going to observe will seem to most of them “at best futility.” He concludes by telling the audience that each of them must be punished for every evil, crime, wrong, oppression, indif-w MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL ference. Calmly he goes forward secure in his belief that he is fulfilling the will of God. COMMENT: This is one of the longest speeches of Thomas and certainly one of the most important in the play. Not only does it review what has gone before and include further references to the historic Thomas of the play, but it also directly involves the audience in the action and in the consequences of the action, But because the concept of martyrdom and the idea of personal sacrifice is foreign to most of us, Eliot says (through Thomas) that many of us will consider this action lunatic or fanatic. Two lines often quoted occur in this speech: The last temptation is the greatest treason: To do the right deed for the wrong reason. The crux of the problem for Thomas is to determine once and for all the sincerity of his actions. If he is humbling himself in order to gain the praises of mankind or to merit a high place in heaven. his sacrifice has no meaning and no merit. The Archbishop's sacrifice will have meaning only if it is done for the love of God (with charity). “And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profteth me nothing.” (1 Corinthians 13:3) PLEASURE AND AMBITION: Thomas looks back over his life and recalls the pleasures that he had once sought. Note that Eliot does not simply speak of sensual pleas- - ures but speaks also of the delight to be found in learning and in thought. This reference to intellectual inquiry and contemplation tells us a little about Thomas and a lot about Eliot. Throughout his writings we see Eliot's concern that those who should lead mankind by reason of their greater wisdom and ability too often subvertMURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL 37 or Povert those whom they should aid. In On Poetry and Poets (p. 87), Eliot wrote: “For it is ultimately the function of art, in imposing a credible order upon ordinary reality, and thereby eliciting some perception of an order in reality, to bring us to a condition of serenity, stillness, and reconciliation. . . .” When speaking of ambition, Thomas says that sin “grows with doing good.” This refers to the sin of pride which may prompt an “apparently” good act which is in reality a self-secking act—and consequently “the right deed for the wrong reason.” This danger increases when the cause one serves is greater. (When Thomas says he never wished to become a Servant of God, he is accurately pre- senting the historical Thomas. At the same time his becoming a Servant of God would be interpreted by the Christian as God’s will for him.) The last few lines, which directly involve the audience— you, and you, and you—make Eliot’s intentions clear. The play is not simply entertaining, or informative, or inspiring; it is Eliot's attempt to proselytize, to propa- gandize, to help mankind to realize the Truth as he perceives it. INTERLUDE In his Christmas moming sermon, the Archbishop uses as his text, “Glory to Cod in the highest, and on earth peace to men of good will.” He speaks of the special significance of the Christmas Mass, which celebrates Christ's Birth at the same time that it reenacts his Passion and Death. He reminds them that the next day is the feast of St. Stephen, the first martyr. He tells them that a Christian martyrdom is never an accident—that it is always the design of God, for the true martyr has lost his will in the will of God. He concludes by reminding them of the blessed Archbishop Elphege, the martyr of Canterbury, and hints that soon they may have another martyr.MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL COMMENT: The Archbishop’s sermon in the Cathedral on Christmas moming occurs in the middle of the play, and in a number of ways acts as a focal point for the action. Attention is drawn to the importance of this Interlude by Eliot’s use of several dramatic and literary devices. In this particular scene the Archbishop appears alone and addresses the audience directly. For the’ first time thus far in the play, the dramatist presents the dialogue in prose rather than in poctry. And, lest anyone “missed the point” before, Eliot repeats his concern with the supernatural, specifically his concern with the idea of sacrifice of self, or Christian martyrdom. Speak- ing of the sermon, Louis L. Martz noted that it forms a “nodus of theme, symbol, and tradition, of past and present, binding the play’s two parts, and binding Beck- et’s search for Peace with our own.” (“The Wheel and Point: Aspects of Imagery and Theme in Eliot's Later Poetry,” in T. S. Eliot: A Selected Critique, p. 461.) That Eliot intended to involve the audience actively in the play was alluded to earlier. The play is directed primarily at a Christian audience, and the sermon would (or should) call to mind other religious services and thereby emphasize again the spiritual content of the play. And since the Archbishop appears alone, we see him as both solitary and unique, having been selected by God to perform a certain function and serve a certain purpose. (Although in some stage productions the Chorus may be on the side, for all practical purposes the Archbishop is alone. ) THE USE OF PROSE: Eliot’s use of prose in this sermon is, in a sense, demanded since the scene is “realistic.” (Perhaps Eliot also felt that the audience might better understand what the play was all about if this “resumé” of the action were in prose rather than in verse.) The use of prose also provides variety in the play, and this variety emphasizes and calls attention to what is being said. It also rather nicely illustrates a comment of EliotMURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL 39 in After Strange Gods, that “in one’s prose reflections one may be legitimately occupied with ideals, whereas in the writing of verse one can only deal with actuality.” In the Sermon, Eliot (through the Archbishop) uses Christian theology to explain and illustrate the significance and the value of martyrdom and again uses Christ as the prototype. He begins by referring to the Christ- mas Mass—Christmas being the feast day when the birth of Christ is celebrated; the Mass being the re- enactment of Ilis passion and death. Thus, on a single day and within a single religious service the Church joins lite and death, joy and sorrow. This dichotomy is developed further by the reference to Peace. (Recall the comments made carlier.) The reference to St. Stephen repeats the concern with life and death, joy and sorrow. (Recall also that a prime tenct of Christian belief is life- after-death.) The references to St. Stephen also make possible Eliot's inclusion of a remark which justifies the Archbishop's actions—a martyrdom is always the design of God. This remark about the “design of God” repeats in essence the references made earlier to destiny waiting in the hand of God, the pattern of life, and the image of the turning whcel. All refer to, acknowledge, and in a sense illustrate the rote which God plays in the lives of men by “shaping the still unshapen.” PART Il The Women of Canterbury speak of the deadness of winter and their desire for spring to come bringing the promise of new life. The Three Priests enter bearing banners: the first, of St. Stephen; the second, of St. John the Apostle; and the third, of the Holy Innocents. COMMENT: The first speech of the Chorus refers to the year which is coming to an end and the winter whichMURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL symbolically and actually concludes the old and brings promise of the new. The Three Priests enter bearin banners commemorating the three feast days which mar! the beginning of the ecclesiastical (Church) year. (The Church year actually begins with the first Sunday of Advent, which introduces a four-week period of preparation for Christmas; however, the three feast days here commemorated are actually the first feast days of the new Church year.) By his positioning of these references to the Church year and the solar years, Eliot joins the two ideas and indicates a close relationship between the two. For hundreds of years the Church wielded a tremendous influence on the people and the times, and this influence permeated every aspect of life. And because the people were dependent on the natural world for the sustenance necessary to maintain life even as they were dependent on God as the giver of life, the two concepts were often joined in their thinking. Consequently, in the Church we find the products of the earth used in the religious service—bread for communion, water for baptism; and in their everyday life we find the people acknowledge their dependence on God and the Church—grace before meals, the blessing of homes, crops, and animals. But perhaps more important than his illustrating the obvious interdependence of the spiritual and physical life (which Eliot is much concerned with) is the playwright’s wish to show that martyrdom and sacrifice are part of the divine plan and are not the result of lunacy or fanaticism. In this first speech the Chorus says the world must be cleaned in the winter—the old must die to give birth to the new. The people of the time saw this repeated each year in their fields and forests. And in the Church they heard that they must be willing to die that they might have life and have it more abundantly. Any number of quotations from the Old or New Testa-MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL 4l ment would attest to this belief that one must die to self to live in God. “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone; but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.” (John 12: 24, 25) Because Eliot accepted these statements as the Truth, he not only accepted the apparent conflict but also attempted to identify and clarify these apparent conflicts for others. THE THREE BANNERS: The Three Priests with their three banners illustrate the apparent conflict noted above, especially the reference to St. Stephen and the Holy Innocents. Stephen worked with Christ's apostles in the early days of the Church, and he was stoned to death because of his beliefs. The Holy Innocents refer to the infants which Herod ordered massacred in an attempt to kill Jesus Christ. (Hearing that an infant of Bethlehem had been born “King of the Jews,” Herod had feared for his own crown.) But recalling the Biblical text printed above, having died for Christ they will now live in Christ. In the statement of the Three Priests, the lines in italics are taken from the Introit (opening prayer) of the Mass celebrating the particular feast. Because these texts are also taken from the Bible, we see further illustrations of the dichotomy alluded to earlier; a little later we will’ see how other parts of the Introits are significant for the Archbishop. A few of the phrases from the Introit: “they persecute me wrongfully”; “The Lord filled him with the spirit of wisdom and understanding”; “Thou hast per- fected praise because of thy enemies. The references here to the Mass provide still another point where Eliot brings together a number of seemingly unrelated concepts and ideas and then proceeds to show how they are related. A Mass is the repetition or com-42 MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL memoration of Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross. The sacrifice of the martyrs in a sense repeats Christ's sacrifice and derives from it. At the same time, the shedding of Chast's blood and the martyr’s shedding of blood are similar—and Thomas later sheds his blood for Christ. But, foremost, above and over-all, what is most important is that the individual have faith. (The importance of faith was noted earlier and will be alluded to again.) The Third Priest declares that one day is like another—that the critical moment is here and now. Four Knights enter and ask to see the Archbishop. Thomas enters and they tell him they wish to speak to him alone. COMMENT: Note the Third Priest’s comment that the critical moment is always here and now—that in all things the eternal design appears. IF one views life (as Eliot does) with the supernatural always in mind, then a particular action or event which the ordinary man would classify as sad, or unfortunate, or disheartening would be accepted by him as an expression of God's will. Consequently, a particular action may appear to be ambiguous because two individuals may interpret it in two different ways. The Three Knights tell Thomas he is in revolt against the King; he whom the King raised up out of poverty now uses his power to betray the King. Thomas replies that he is the most loyal subject in the land unless the King’s commands are in opposition to God's (“saving my order"). The Knights scold and blaspheme him, and Thomas says if they have charges to bring against him, to make them in public. The Priests and attendants have quietly retuned and when the Knights attempt to attack the Archbishop, they stand in their way. COMMENT: The first part of the speech of the Knights is historically accurate insofar as Thomas’ humble background is concerned. The King did raise him up to power. When they say the Archbishop has now used thisMURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL “a power against the King, they are expressing the belief of some of the ruling class at this time. (Remember there was much conflict between the King and the barons, and when Thomas was Chancellor he undoubtedly made many enemies. ) PUBLIC ACCUSATION: Thomas says that any charges they have to make against him should be made in public. If they accuse him of having betrayed the King, then he also betrayed the people and they should know of it. But if he is being unjustly accused, then they should know that also. The Chorus stated at the beginning that they are there to bear witness, (Like so many other words Eliot uses in this play, witness is used in a variety of contexts, with slight or great differences in meaning and significance. ) When the Knights attempt to attack the Archbishop they say “here and now” and Thomas says “now and here”; prior to the entrance of the Knight, the Third Priest said that the critical moment is “now and here.” This use of the same words is not accidental; it is Eliot's way of showing the will of God in operation. The Knights will fulfill the will of God by murdering the Archbishop even as the Archbishop will fulfill the will of God by accepting his martyrdom humbly and willingly. Eliot's use of the Four Knights repeating in a sense the roles of the Four Tempters in Part I is not accidental. God allows temptation in order that “His will be done,” even as He allows evil doings in the world so that “His will be done.” Throughout the play Eliot shows the conflict in man (good and evil), and the conflict in nature, in order to prepare us to accept the conflict we might see in the supernatural when God allows evil to apparently or temporarily triumph over good. The Knights state their charges: Thomas has stirred up44 MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL trouble abroad; he has denied the legality of the coronation of the young prince; he has excommunicated those who had opposed him. Thomas replies that the contempt shown him also discredits the Pope and Church and that for this reason he acted as he did. They tell him that the King commands that he leave the country; Thomas replies that his place is with his people, Hurling threats at him, they leave. COMMENT: Again Eliot returns to the historical account of Thomas’ life when reference is made to his “voluntary exile” and the uneasy peace which cxisted when he first returned to England. The King had ordered the coronation of his son by one of the Bishops who supported him instead of by the Archbishop in order to embarrass Thomas. (The crowning of the heir- apparent prior to the death of the reigning king was not unusual at this time—it was more svmbolic than actual since the father retained the power during his lifetime. ) The “chains of anathema” refer to excommunication which is an ecclesiastical censuring of an individual for opposing the Church. Certain clergymen, barons, and courtiers were excommunicated because they had in- fringed upon the rights of the Church and had threat- ened the Archbishop. Thomas’ reply that only the Pope can lift the excommunication is not completely historical, but is in accordance with ecclesiastical law. Note that when the First Knight says that the King has ordered the Archbishop to leave the country, Thomas’ reply indicates his doubt as to whether or not the King really did command his dismissal. Historical accounts indicate that the King never did issue such a command and that the four knights had taken it upon themselves to go to the Archbishop. When Thomas says that he will not leave the country, that his place is with his people, we sympathize withMURDER IN .THE CATHEDRAL 45 his viewpoint at the same time that we realize the possible consequences of his refusal. The Chorus urged his departure so they would be left alone and would not be forced to commit themselves one way or another. The Priests advise him to leave because it is the prudent thing to do. But Thomas remains because it is the will of God: “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” Thomas expresses his conviction that any insult directed at him, the representative of the Church in England, is also directed at the Church. And sinee the Church has been established by God, the insult is also directed at Him. The Archbishop's remarks reflect his belief that he is but the spokesman for God—that he is not important but that God is all-important. The Chorus relates the subtle forebodings which wam of the impending doom—they speak of how all nature is in turmoil. What happens in heaven and on earth they cannot change— all they can do is wait. Thomas attempts to calm them by telling them that soon God's purpose will be shown. The Three Priests return and urge Thomas to hide himself belore the Knights return. Thomas replies that he is not in danger, only near to death. The Three Priests force him to enter the Cathedral with them. COMMENT: Once again Eliot repeats his reference to the “natural order” of the world and how man disturbs this natural order by ignoring or violating God’s laws. When the Chorus indicates that the Divine Plan is woven into all nature, this allusion recalls the “chain of being,” a popular philosophical theory for many centuries. According to this theory, all nature is arranged on a vertical scale with God at the top, and, in descending order of importance, the angels, man, animals, plants. With nature so arranged, the “natural order” places God in dominion over all—and man in dominion over the things of the carth. If anything or anyone is “out of order,” all nature is disturbed.46 MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL The reference of the Chorus to the spiritual flesh of nature and the animal powers of spirit apparently unites opposites. But since all nature was created by God, all nature is in a sense spiritual; and since the spirit or soul of man is joined with bone and blood and marrow, the spirit is in a sense animal. Eliot indicates that because God is God, He can and does join together what are apparently opposites. “PEACE”: The first word Thomas here speaks to the Chorus—Peace—repeats his first word upon his entrance in Part I. He tells them that they will be filled with joy once they see God's purpose. He says that in time they will forget what has happened because man cannot bear to face reality too long. Once again Eliot makes his pronouncement for all mankind since, as noted earlier, Man often tries to avoid reality and live in illusion. When the Priests admonish Thomas to hide in the Cathe- dral before the Knights return, he replies that all his life has been spent in preparation for this moment. Since he believes that he is fulfilling the Divine Plan by submit- ting to martyrdom, then, in truth, all his life has been but a preparation. He wishes now to make perfect his will that he might then be united with God's will and thus maintain the “natural order.” The Priests, of course, cannot understand since they do not share Thomas’ vision and belief. They are still too much attached to self-will and the world. Therefore, they urge Thomas to hide, and at last force him to go into the Cathedral. While a Dies Irae is sung in the background, the Chorus expresses its fear and horror of the unknown which lies beyond death and the moment when man comes face to face with Reality (God).MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL 47 COMMENT: At this point Eliot uses the chanting of the choir as a background for the fearful words of the Chorus. The Dies Irae is a chant taken from the burial service of the Church. A few lines will indicate its ap- propriateness at this time: “Day of wrath! O day of mouming—Death is struck, and nature quaking—Noth- ing unavenged remaineth.” When the Chorus speaks of what lies behind the face of Death, they say man will then no longer be able to escape reality through distraction, delusion or pretense. This reference recalls the earlier comment about the way man secks to escape reality. Eliot says that once man has departed this life, he can no longer hide or delude himself. Remember also that the Women of Canterbury said they wanted to “pass unobserved”—man, however, is held accountable for both his sins of omission and commission. The Priests order the doors of the Cathedral barred, but Thomas says to open them. He tells the priests they think he is reckless and mad and that they judge actions and results as the world does. Thomas says he will give his life to the Law of God above the Law of Man. COMMENT: When the priests bar the door in order to protect Thomas, he forces them to open the doors saying the Cathedral shall not be tumed into a fortress. (Ac- tually, for hundreds of years a church was considered a sanctuary and anyone within a church could not be touched by civil authorities.) Thomas tells the Priests that the Church will protect her own in her own way— Thomas feels spiritually “safe” even though he is threat- ened with bodily harm. When the Archbishop speaks of the good and evil which exists in and results from every life and every act, he is again expressing Eliot's view that a conflict is inherent and apparent in every aspect of life only because we do48 MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL not “see” the complete design. Eliot is purposely redun- dant about this point because it is basic to an understanding of the play. (Remember, also, that a playwright often’ repeats certain points many times because it is impossible for the spectator to re-read a particular part or ask questions about it; if he doesn’t “hear” it, he doesn’t “know” it.) The Knights enter, slightly tipsy, and hurl insults at Thomas. He comes forward and declares his willingness to suffer and die for Christ. They again repeat their demands—he says he is willing to die that Christ's Church may have peace and hiberty. As he kneels in prayer the Knights come forward with swords drawn and kill him. COMMENT: The fact that the Knights are slightly tipsy is a kind of “saving grace” since the drunkenness takes away some of their responsibility for the murder. As one of the Knights indicates later, they had to “steel” themselves to commit such an abominable act. Eliot might also intend that we recall Christ's words as He hung on the Cross, “Father forgive them for they know not what they do.” The Archbishop’s speeches also join the Christian concept or belief only hinted at earlier—that the Christian martyrdom repeats Christ’s sacrifice and derives its efficacy from it. When Thomas says he is ready to die for His Church, he refers, of course, to Christ, and repeats what he said earlier about the importance of God's will and God’s desire over Man’s will and Man’s desire. At the moment when the Knights approach with swords drawn, in most stage productions the Archbishop falls to his knees in prayer and offers himself as a sacrifice for Christ. Also, the Knights usually make a circle around him, repeating the wheel imagery alluded to earlier. Thus the wheel tums, with Thomas, united with God, at the center.MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL 49 The Chorus exclaims that the land and air are foul and must be cleansed—that they did not wish anything to happen, only “living and partly living.” COMMENT: Once again the Women of Canterbury repeat that they desired only to be left in peace, “living and partly living.” They did not want to make a decision—to be forced to choose. But now that the catas- trophe is upon them, they and the whole world must suffer for it. It is out of time—what has happened affects all time and all men, Thus we see the universal in the particular and the particular in the universal. The Knights now step forward and address the audience. The First Knight introduces the others and each presents his own point of view about why the Archbishop had to be murdered, and each, in turn, attempts to justify his action and thus excuse himself. The Third Knight says “a sense of duty” necessitated the action; the Second Knight says it was the only way in which “social justice” could be secured; the Fourth Knight says that the Archbishop was determined to suffer death by martyrdom and that it was “Suicide while of Unsound Mind.” They conclude by asking the audience to leave quietly and not do anything to provoke’ any public outbreak. COMMENT: The names given to the Four Knights are the names of the actual murderers of Thomas. The Fourth Knight calls to mind the allusion made earlier to Thomas’ pride and his desire for martyrdom. Each of the Four Knights repeats in essence the arguments and ideas of their respective counterparts (the Tempters). The closing comment of the First Knight makes the audience a participant in the action as well as an observer of the action, and, consequently, the members of the audience share the blame. Eliot (through Thomas) said earlier that all of us must share the punishment for every crime, oppression, indifferenceft MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL and exploitation—we cannot hide and pass unobserved. After the Knights leave, the Three Priests come forward. The First Priest bemoans their lot now that Thomas is dead; the Third Priest says the Church is stronger than any untoward action; the Second Priest implores Thomas to remember them. COMMENT: The specch of the Third Priest indicates the new understanding he has of the meaning of the sacrifice Thomas has made. He says the weak, sad men are homeless in earth or heaven and weave a fiction in their attempt to forget. He maintains that their hell is the make-believe which is never belief, recalling the comments made earlier about man’s desire to fool himself by denying or ignoring reality. With a choir singing the Te Deum in the background, the Chorus brings the play to its conclusion with a hymn of praise. The Women of Canterbury declare that all things cxist to praise and glorify God. They thank God for His mercy and for the saints and martyrs who have sanctified the earth by their blood and by their deeds. They ask forgiveness for having denied God and implore His mercy and the prayers of the Blessed Thomas—the new martyr and saint of Canterbury. COMMENT: The Te Deum is the chief hymn of praise of the Church, and like the Dies Irae provides an appropriate and symbolic background for the words of the Chorus. Here the Chorus praises God for His glory which is made manifest in all things—in snow, rain, and storm; in all the creatures of the earth; in darkness and in light. This acceptance and recognition of the glory of God in all things makes manifest their new faith in God. They say that both the darkness and the light, the good and the evil, make known His glory. With this new faith comes greater understanding; the Chorus declares that man was made to be conscious of God in all thingsMURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL 51 and to praise God in all things. They thank God for his mercy and goodness and for the saints He has given them. They, too, ask forgiveness and acknowledge that they were like the ordinary people who shut the door and sit by the fire hoping “to pass unobserved.” This acknowledgement of their past failings gives hope of a new and better future. In this last speech of the Chorus, Eliot injects a somewhat facetious note when he refers to “sightseers with guidebooks.” However, he is not only telling the truth about the way Canterbury Cathedral is today, but he is also indicating that the efficacy of the saints cannot be diminished by the lack of understanding of those who come as unworthy pilgrims or uncouth tourists. God and the glory of God are seen in all things great and small, good and bad, in spite of man and his failings.52, MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL CHARACTER ANALYSES An historical drama presents particular and often peculiar problems for the playwright as does the verse play. When Eliot began to write Murder in the Cathedral he thus compounded his problem by writing an historic verse play. If a drama is based on historical characters or on historical incidents, the playwright must first form his own opinions based on the facts he has available to him. ‘Then, because poctry deniands a spe- cialized language and must ordinarily conform to certain conventions, considerable effort must be expended to make the language fit the character and the action. E. Martin Brown in his commentary, “The Poct and the Stage,” made the following observation: “The individual, seen through the poct’s cye, is still an individual unique in his personality—a true character: but he is presented not for his individuality but as typifying some aspect of man.” (In The Penguin New Writing, p. 84.) Because the individual must represent the particular and the general, and the particular in the general, the believability of the character being presented may leave much to be desired. On the other hand, since the audience does not expect a verse play to be “realistic,” they very often make this transfer of ideas from the general to the particular and the particular to the general without “batting an eye.” In Murder in the Cathedral, Eliot uses only one “realistic” character—Thomas. (By “realistic” we mean fully developed and capable of “being believed.”) The other characters are spokesmen for particular ideas and are more allegorical than real. They lack individuality even though some slight differences can be noted in each of the three priests and four knights. ARCHBISHOP THOMAS BECKET: The Archbishop, of course, dominates the play and towers over everyone else intellec-MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL 53 tually, spiritually, and morally. The play concerns the last few days of his life, what he thought and beheved, what he did, and why he did it. But we must realize that Eliot's primary concern is to present the soul of a saint rather than to present the murder of a man. Because Eliot wrote the original version of this play for the Canterbury Festival, he could not simply write an historical drama. The people “knew” the story of Thomas Becket and his murder so there was nothing “new” or “startling” he could say. However, Eliot was deeply interested in the supernatural and religion, and he had studied and attempted to understand the mentality of the saint. The invitation to write for the Festival gave him the impetus he needed, the ideal subject, and a2 dramatic problem, I am afraid we must admit that sainthood and sanctity are somewhat out of style. Even though the play was originally presented at a religious festival, the people still expected to be entertained-as well as inspired. (“To entertain” means “to hold the attention of.”) As Patricia Adair commented, “The dramatic problem, of course, is that the more perfect the saint's surrender the more difficult it is to keep him a real s by our weaknesses that we are most human.” (The Cambridge Journal, November, 1950, p. 84.) Fortun- ately Eliot was a talented dramatist as well as a great poet. In Part I the Fourth Tempter makes necessary the “moment of truth” for Thomas. The Archbishop, and the audience expect the first three temptations—and these are easily overcome. But the temptation to do the “right thing for the wrong reason” forces Thomas (and each of us) to examine his actions and to questions his motives. By making the thought behind the action all-important, Eliot is able to command our interest, engage our attention, and provide an element of suspense, even though we know beforehand what is going to happen to Thomas at the end of the play. Although Thomas is the most “realistic” character in the play54 MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL (as noted earlier), Eliot makes him “more than a man.” He is not only an historical character, he is also a symbol. Kristian Smidt commented: “A typical attitude in some—if not all— of the plays of Eliot is the conception of the central character as representative of a family or community and therefore as embodying their failings and their hopes.” Because the Arch- bishop sought and found God, Eliot is saying each of us can do the same. A CHORUS OF WOMEN OF CANTERBURY: The Chorus acts as a witness to the action, expresses the point of view of many of the people of Thomas Becket’s time, provides background material for the audience, and represents us (mankind) in the play. Because of the variety of functions they serve, a particular chorus or speech must be interpreted according to the context in which it appears. The attitude of the Women changes and their speech reflects this change. David E. Jones commented: “Each chorus of Murder in the Cathedral has an emotional shape determined by its place in the dramatic development. ” (The Plays of T. S. Eliot, p: 48.) In the first speech the Chorus furnishes necessary background material and expresses its wish to be left alone. In the second speech the Women voice their hope that Thomas will leave them in peace, “living and partly living.” In the last speech in Part I they show their fear that Evil may triumph over Good and that they will be destroyed. These three principal speeches of the Chorus in Part I build to a crescendo which expresses their dismay at the turn of events. In Part II their first speech expresses their concern and dismay as they stand and wait, knowing that something evil is about to happen. Their second long speech concerns the por- tentous signs they read in nature, and in the next speech they express their fear not only of death but of the unknown. Following the murder of Thomas, the Chorus declares that the whole world is foul and must be cleansed. Finally in the last speech the Chorus admits its guilt, acknowledges its de-MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL 55 pendence upon God, and offers prayers of contrition and thanksgiving. THREE PRIESTS OF THE CATHEDRAL: Like the Chorus, the Priests are used as spokesmen for particular ideas and particular points-of-view which Eliot wishes to include in the play. Each of the priests presents slightly different points-of- view and slightly different dramatic interpretations. However, for the most part it would be very easy to substitute one priest's speech for another's since Eliot has given them few distinguishing characteristics. Although the Priests are supposed to be Men of Cod, they seem to have little understanding of the values and beliefs Thomas holds so dear. Because they are more concerned with the things of the world than they are with the things of God, we see that the Archbishop symbolically and actually stands alone. We might say they represent that segment of mankind which should know better, but does not. However, by the end of the play they have, through the suffering and death of Thomas, reached a degree of understanding. In Part I the Three Priests discuss the events that have taken place and their significance. There is little in the individual speeches to distinguish one from another. In Part II we see them carrying out the ritual of the Church more out of force of habit than anything else. When they fear that the Knights will attack and kill the Archbishop, they attempt to intervene to save “their own necks.” (Recall Thomas’ words to the Knights forbidding them to harm anyone else.) But the martyrdom of Thomas gives them greater strength and a renewed faith in God and His Church. FOUR TEMPTERS: The Four Tempters who appear in Part 1 as personified abstractions of Thomas’ inclinations toward evil reappear in Part II as the Four Knights who kill him. By serving this dual function, they repeat the dichotomy inherent in all Nature—that the pattern may subsist, that the. wheel may turn and still be forever still.” Remembering that God58 MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL allows man to be tempted in order to prove him, when Eliot gives the Four Knights the same names as the actual four murderers of the Archbishop, he indicates that they are also part of God's design. In Part I the Four Tempters lend an element of suspense to the drama at the same time as they provide necessary background material for the audience. The Fourth Tempter is most important because he offers the one thing which Thomas really wants. And because Thomas knows that there is no merit in doing the “right deed for the wrong reason,” the dramatic problem is to convince the Archbishop and us that his motives are unselfish. In Part II the Four Knights—Baron William de Tracy, Reg- inald Fitz-Urse, Sir Hugh de Morville, and Richard Brito— simply play the parts Eliot (and God) has assigned them. Their speeches to the audience following the murder of Thomas are most interesting because they sound like political speeches, which in a sense they are. They attempt not only to justify their actions but to win the applause and the praise of the people. We might say they are attempting to justify the ways of man to God, even as Thomas attempted to justify the ways of God to man. A MESSENGER: The Messenger appears briefly in Part 1 and provides additional background information for the audience. Like the Chorus of Women, he represents the common people and expresses their point-of-view.MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL 57 REVIEW QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS QUESTION t: Why does Eliot have the Archbishop and the Knights address the theatre audience directly? ANSWER: One of Eliot's primary considerations in writing drama was to reach a larger audience. He felt he had important things to say and that one of the best means of saying these things and of influencing more people was the theatre. At the same time Eliot had no delusions about his audience— he realized that many would ignore or misunderstand what he said. In order to make the people realize he was speaking to them, that he was telling them truths as he saw them, he had certain pertinent comments addressed directly at the audience. Thus in Murder in the Cathedral, Thomas tells us that we will be punished for sins of omission and commission, and comments about the necessity of martyrdom during his sermon; and after the murder, the Four Knights attempt to justify their actions by saying that we, the members of the audience, benefitted from it. QUESTION 2: Why does Eliot use the same four characters for the Four Tempters and the Four Knights? ANSWER: = Eliot uses the same four characters for the Four Tempters and the Four Knights in order to make manifest the workings of the Divine Will. The Four Tempters in Part I are personified abstractions of the Archbishop’s temptations toward evil—the pleasures of the flesh, the desire for power, and pride. Eliot believed God allows man to be tempted in order to prove his worthiness—thus it is a part of the Divine Plan that Thomas be tempted. The Four Knights in Part I are named for the four knights who actually (historically) killed the Archbishop. Since it was part of the Divine Plan that Thomas be killed, the actions of the Knights were necessary to fulfill this Plan.58 MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL QUESTION 3: Discuss the significance of the line, “Living and partly living.” ANSWER: = Scveral times throughout the play the Chorus refers to the life and times, the trials and tribulations, sorrows and brief moments of joy, of the people of the time. Eliot indicates that they were “living” because they had physical existence and were able to carry on the ordinary activities of men and women; and at the same time they were only “partly living” because they were neglecting or ignoring the spiritual part of their nature. Remember that Eliot often spoke of the importance of the supernatural to man and his existence; since these people were unconcemed about morality and God, they were only “partly living” for they were denying a part of themselves. Man is composed of body and soul—to live “fully” man must take cognizance of both. QUESTION 4: Why docs Eliot again and again refer to the “turning wheel”? ANSWER: — Eliot uses the “turning whee]” to express or sym- bolize the cycle of man’s life—from birth to death—even as the solar year repeats the cycle of life—from spring to winter. But Eliot goes one step further since he not ‘only speaks of the cycle of man’s life but also of the influence of God, whom he considers to be at the center or hub of the wheel, the “still- point.” Eliot believed that God concerns Himself with the affairs of men and directs and influences their actions. Since God does not change, since He is constant, since God is all- knowing and all-powerful and the Center of Force and Power, Eliot places Him in a “constant” position at the center of the wheel, and then envisions man in movement around Him by reason of God's will. “ QUESTION 5: Why have literary critics and commentators spoken of the first half of the twentieth century as the “Age Eliot”?MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL 59 ANSWER: The first half of the twentieth century might well be considered the “Age of Eliot” since no literary man has had a greater influence on the writings of others and no literary man has better expressed the disillusionment, indecision, and despair of the times. Three poems of Eliot, The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock (1917), The Waste Land (1922), and The Hollow Men (1925), have been quoted, anthologized, and footnoted again and again because no one has better expressed what has been for so long the emotional and psychological temper of modern man. As a critic, Eliot’s lucid and penetrating comments about writers and writing have influenced the opinions of many readers and the direction and tone of many writers. And Eliot's experimenting with the form and language of poetry to make it say more and mean more has inspired others to do the same. For the public Eliot has made poetry palatable, and for the poet Eliot has made poetry profitable.60 MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY Few critics or commentators would disagree with the statement Robert Penn Warren (poct and critic) madc regarding T. S. Eliot: “He is the key figure of our century in America and England, the most powerful single influence.” As a poet, Eliot has no peer; as a critic, he has Tad a profound influence on the work and attitudes of others; as a dramatist, he has utilized the dramatic conventions of the Greek and medieval writers of note. Our main consideration here will be to review reasons for his being held in such great esleem and to note why his reputation is merited. In the New York Times of January 5, 1965, Thomas Lask made the following statement: “Ié is very likely that when the literary history of our times comes to be written, it will be characterized as the Age of Eliot, just as we now speak of the Age of Pope or Tennyson.” Undoubtedly these words will prove to be true. The world knows and loves the poetry of Robert Frost; many critics have spoken highly of the poctry of Richard Wilbur, W. H. Auden, Stephen Spender, and many others; a number of poets have exceeded Eliot in terms of sheer volume—but still he towers over all. His virtuosity, craftsmanship, range of power, and belief distinguish him and set him apart from all other pocts of his time. ELIOT AS A LITERARY CRITIC: In the realm of literary criticism the same is true. To name but a few notable critics: William York Tindall is interesting; Eric Bentley is witty; Stanley Edgar Hyman is often profound; and C. M. Bowra is provocative. But all these labels and many more can as aptly be applied to T. S. Eliot. The range of his interests and abilities and the depth of his perception and understanding are phenomenal. He wrote seven major critical volumes in addition to innumerable pamphlets, major addresses, and introductory essays for a variety of books. His criticism and comments are quoted and referred to again and again. JohnMURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL 61 Ciardi commented thus on the continuing influence which he believed Eliot and his work would have: “. . . because his genius was pervasive, Eliot opened the frontiers for all future writers.” (Saturday Review, XLVIL, (January 23, 1965) 36.) Eliot was not content to sit back and let the world go by—to “pass unobserved.” He believed in committing himself to ideas and ideals which he considered worthwhile and important. (In his secuiar life he went from the New World to the Old, and in his spiritual life he went from disillusionment with the lot of man to Faith in God.) Eliot spoke often of his faith and his beliefs, not to convert others to his way of thinking but to inspire others to stait thinking. Hugh Kenner sces Eliot in a slightly different perspective. In The Invisible Poct: T. S. Eliot, he wrote, “He commands vast influence, partly through moral consistency, partly through inscrutability, partly because, in an academic context, his prose is so quotable.” (p. x.) Kenner’s use of inscrutability points up one of the criticisms often directed at Eliot's poetry. But as noted earlier, Eliot felt that life was inscrutable; thus the poctry which proceeds from and relates to life would be, perhaps needed to be, inscrutable. In this connection, Ed- mund Wilson’s comment on The Waste Land is interesting: “... he succeeds in conveying his meaning, in communicating his emotion, in spite of all his learned or mysterious allusions, and whether we understand them or not.” (Acxel’s Castle, p 111.)62 MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL THE CRITICS AND MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL The first notable drama Eliot wrote, and the one which many critics consider to be his most significant and his best, is Murder in the Cathedral. David E. Jones commented: “Of the greatness of Murder in the Cathedral, there can be no doubt —it may even be the greatest religious play ever written. . ..” (The Plays of T. S. Eliot, p. 215.) John Peter indicated his belief that Murder ig great theatre as well as great poetry since “. . . the play does as a rule come across in the theatre as a balanced and dramatic experience.” (“Murder in the Cathedral,” Sewanee Review, LXI, No. 3, p. 381.) If a production of this play does not come through as a “balanced and dramatic experience,” Eliot must share the blame. In writing the play Eliot left much to the discretion of the director and the producer since he included practically no stage directions. Consequently, the placement of actors, the emphasis to be given to certain words and speeches, the stage setting, even certain entrances and exits of the chorus— all must be decided by the director. If the director understands Eliot and the play’s dramatic problems, the play will “come across”—if not, the play will suffer. One of the few adverse criticisms of Eliot’s dramatic works was written by Eric Bentley. He asserted: “. . . Eliot has never yet created a drama. He has written down his ideas about drama, and he has put together many admirable dramatic passages. But no number of dramatic passages adds up to a drama... . We require a dramatic conception and a dramatic whole.” (In Search of Theater, p. 297.) Perhaps Bentley never saw a good production, and after all, “the play’s the thing.” Francis Fergusson begs the question of whether or not EliotMURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL 63 wrote great dramas in the sense of their being great theatre pieces. Nevertheless his comment is significant: “Moreover, any study of drama must discover a more particular debt to Eliot: he has been over this ground before; he is one of the very few contemporary writers in English who are directly concerned with drama as a scrious art.” (The Idea of a Theater, p. 21.) The variety of comments on Eliot would secm to indicate that if he was not all things to men, he certainly meant something to most men. We might best conclude this study guide with two quotations from Eliot—one from his criticism, and one from his poetry. What Eliot wrote in “Virgil and the Christian World” might well be applicable to his own work: “He [the poet] need not know what his poetry will come to mean to others; and a prophet need not understand the meaning of his prophetic utterance.” And since our hope is that these too brief comments on Murder in the Cathedral will help the student in his understanding and appreciation of this play, we might say in time, recalling Eliot's words in Little Gidding (Four Quartets),~ We shall not cease from exploration And the end ofall our exploring Will be to arrive where we started And know the place for the first time.4 MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL THE POETRY OF T. S. ELIOT GENERAL INTRODUCTION The poetry of T. S. Eliot has left an indelible impression upon much, if not all, of modem literature. Without exception, his later major poems, as The Waste Land and Four Quartets, have raised great clamor among critics, teachers and students. Nor is this difficult to understand, for his writing is virtually undecipherable to a great many readers. It is comparatively easy to pick “p a book of poems of Frost or Stevens, or even Yeats—each of whom is a poet of considerable stature—read a few lines, and make some reasonably appropriate comment as to the intention of the author. Yet, it is doubtful that there is a ten line sequence in the later works of Eliot which could be treated in the same way. For, in place of such normally evocative images as others generally employ, Eliot is content to render what amounts to a catalogue of vague, historical references. Thus, the general reader is constrained to carry alongside his copy of The Waste Land some one or other of the innumerable commentaries which the poem has gen- erated. On the strength of this, many people have asked if reading the poetry was worth thé effort involved. And this is not as foolish a question as the literati make it out to be. For if we combine the almost inaccessible nature of some of the more significant passages of his work with the highly sophisticated prosody which Eliot often uses, it is dificult to see how even the most gifted reader could come away completely satisfied. Yet if we are patient we may, and we shall try our best to see that we do, find that if one approaches Eliot's poetry in a special way, it will not only be worth reading, but will prove an invaluable literary experience. PHILOSOPHICAL CONTENT: Let us speak for the moment of the philosophical significance of these poems, for this is usually what we refer to when we try to establish such works as good, or bad, or meaningless, or the like. Quite obviouslyMURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL “65 we can only find them emotionally satisfying if we understand them. Yet we have already suggested that the poetry is so highly intellectual that reading it is, at very least, a formidable task. Well, this is true if we jump right in and immediately bump our heads against such phrases as: Twit twit twit Jug jug jug jug jug jug So mdely fore'd. Then, the most immediate impulse is to apply the rules for a simple explication de texte, that is, to take each line, examine the significance of the words individually and collec- tively, and attempt to develop as many ramifications of thought as possible. Now this is an acceptable way of dealing with poetry. Unfortunately, tradition has found it of value only under those conditions where the general purpose of the text in question was clearly understood. In this respect, apply- ing a full explication to the Four Quartets is like learning to swim in a creek, and then proceeding to try out one’s strokes in a riptide. It can be done, but it usually is greeted with a remarkable lack of success. METRIC CONTENT: Our next step, after a first abysmal effort, might well be to examine the metric quality of the lines in question, hoping that the rhythm will somehow give us a glimpse into the meaning of the poem. And this is, also, an adequate procedure. Certainly, poetry is distinguishable from prose because of the lyrical quality of the former, where the structure (that is rhyme, rhythm, alliteration, and so on) is just a vehicle through and by which the message of the work is enhanced. Thus, a somber thought is given a somber air, a fanciful notion is introduced in fanciful fashion. It is difficult, of course, to determine the meaning of a poem from its “musical style,” but it is not impossible. It is more usual to go the other way, i.e., to proceed programatically. None- theless, the method of establishing significance through an analysis of structural devices has enjoyed considerable currency and some success. However, and this is a very big how-66 MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL ever, when we apply this principle to the rather elaborate passages in The Waste Land, we meet with resounding failure, since the structure is continually shifting. And this would seem lo leave us with no allernative but to put aside the book, since neither line nor lyric has given us what we nced—some way to grasp, if even prematurely, the general purpose, meaning, or significance of the poems. Still, we would agree that if we could understand the philosophical premises from which the pocms emerge, if we knew the fundamental issues with which the poct was involved, i! we could be certain as to the disposition of the poctry itself, there might be good reason to persevere. Fortunately, cach of these is immediately evident, if we treat the major poems of T. S. Eliot as, themselves, elements of one huge poems in which the early works are read first, the poems of the middle period next, and the later poctry last. Yet, simple as this explanation is, many have, aud will, take exception to il on the grounds that a poem is an autonomous and independent work, having an integrity of ity own, Conse- quently, any attempt to see it as part of a greater whole somehow, to falsify it. Nor could this objection be taken lightly, if it were an accurate reply to our suggestion. For- tunately, it is somewhat misleading. We don’t ask that the aesthetic value of the poetry of T. §. Eliot be cstablished through a single assessment of the collection of his works, All we suggest is that Eliot himself, that is, the poct’s own growth and development, is the best index of the meaning of his poetry. Quite obviously, we can’t go to Eliot and ask him what he meant by this or that line, or how he felt about some particular issue on, say, his 34th birthday. Even if he were still with us, his replies would have to be held as invalid criteria upon which to judge his work. (If this were not the case, we would have.a very difficult time saying anything at all about the poetry of Homer). No, we only ask that we be given access to the visible manifestation of the poet's personality—his poems. And if we assume that the man and his works grew concomitantly, it is doubful that we have seriouslyMURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL 67 jeopardized aesthetic theory. At the very worst, we should find little or no continuity of thought—at which point we might want to declare the poems, once and for all, inaccessible. This, of course is still to be seen. THE THREE POEMS: Let us begin with the earliest of the major poems, The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock. Compara- tively simple, that it poses a problem of great moral consequence is unmistakable. Now, our task is to see what the moral problem is. Once we have done this to our own satis- faction, and tied it to the poem in question, we can proceed to some later work like The Waste Land. Taking our “philosophical issue” in tow, we can see if there is a lace for it in this newer work. And we sce that there is. However, it is clothed differently. Originating in a contemporary and secular world, we find that our circumstance has shifted and a whole new body of references are brought into play. But, since we have a hold on the philosophical basis of the work, explication no longer presents an insuperable difficulty. And, parsing with increased success, we can go on to an even later poem, this time with two instruments at hand: not only the philosophical issue, but now, some of the historical antecedents derived from our explication de texte. As we might suspect, the scene of this new poem, Four Quartets, has changed radically from those which preceded it. Still, with our instruments at the ready, we can begin our analysis anew, almost, if not quite, undaunted. And now we can inquire into the structure of the poem, and soon we have achieved what at first sight seemed all but impossible—a reasonable understanding of the poetry of T. S. Eliot. Our next step? That is easy enough. We shall take all of our newly acquired information and return to the very first poem, The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock, in order to gain a fuller and more complete understanding of that work, so that we may read, once more, through the later poetry. In line with this, our analysis will be divided into three parts. The first, dealing with The Love Song, will expose the philosophical foundation of the work, emphasizing the importance68 MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL of this method of inquiry. We shall then take up The Waste Land, where our effort will be directed to explicating some of the more important passages of that poem. ally, we shall arrive at the Four Quartets, where the lyrical aspect of Eliot's poctry will be evaluated. At this point, we shall perhaps understand that a poetic masterpiece exits not in spite of, but precisely because of, the complexities of human imagination, will, and wisdom.MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL 69 THE LOVE SONG OF J. ALFRED PRUFROCK INTRODUCTION The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock, written in 1910-11, is the earliest of the major works of T. S. Eliot. Because of this, it is doubly important. First, the poem itself is of substantive value. In terms of its structure, metric quality, and essential depth, it is often referred to as a poem to which all other poets might aspire. Second, it is exceedingly valuable insofar as the povt makes a first strong philosophical statement which he develops through all of his subsequent major poetical efforts. Becanse of the singular importance of The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock, then, we shall examine it in a very specific way. We shall be primarily concerned with the message it entails, hoping for a greater insight into The Waste Land, “and the Four Quartets, than might otherwise be had. A full enough statement of the philosophical enterprise of T. S. Eliot, with special regard to this poem, will be more than an adequate substitution for a rigorous line-by-line explication for two reasons.. First, a detailed analysis of even the most highly structured poem often fails to take into consideration the very poetic quality of the work which makes it significant. Second, The Love Song is meaningful only insofar as it presents itself to the reader in a unity of apprehension. To dissect the poem, then, without understanding the philosophical dilemma which Eliot addresses, would be of little academic value. In order to avoid this, we must make a brief inquiry into the history of moral philosophy. MORAL PHILOSOPHY: Of all the moral speculation from the time of Socrates to the late nineteenth century, two “philoso- phies” enjoyed great currency. The first, the so-called teleo- logical position, went something like this: the moral nature of70 MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL a man will be defined in terms of those objects which he values and, consequently, which he pursues. Thus, the assert- able value of the goals of individual men will determine whether such men are to be declared good or cvil. Briefly, the position assumes that the attainment of a predetermined end is ample justification for the means of its appropriation, The second major philosophy, and called Formalism, t first sight the complete contradiction of this. Its adherents mai tain that, notwithstanding the legitimate value of the goals in question, a man’s worth can only be defined by the way he arrives at those goals. The assumption here is that means are more important than, and validate, individual or collective ends. For a long time even until today, people took sides on this issue, all the while declaring that it was a truc paradox, i¢., that the views were in total opposition and could not be resolved. If we examine the sentiments together, however, we shall see that they are not quite so far apart as they at first appear. For example, Jet us suggest that some man, X, has, as a personal goal, the desire to establish himself in as an immeditate way as possible with the spiritual source of the Universe—that is, God. It should not surprise us to find him, at the outset, struggling to know what it was exactly that God wanted of him. Nor should it surprise us if our mythical figure, X, decided that God wanted him to pray, to be kind— in short, to adopt all of the positive Christian attributes. Finally, we would not be at all surprised when we find X treating his neighbors as well as he possibly can for the sake of God. Now, let us think about another hypothetical man, Y. Let us assume that Y is also concerned with establishing himself as one with God. Yet, let us further suppose that Y is less concemed with God for God’s sake, and more concerned with how he comes to God. Thus, we shall not be at all disap- pointed if and when we find our hypothetical man, Y, being kindly to his neighbors for his neighbor's sake. It is true that some sense of divinity will direct the efforts of Y. But it isMURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL 7 equally truc that the object of his aspiration, in this case, God, will be subordinate to the relationship which he hopes to maintain among his peers. No matter how closely we examine our two men, X and Y, it is obvious that their acts will be indistinguishable one from the next. Moreover, our examples suggest that one man’s goal could well be the means by which another man might realize his goal. It is precisely this interaction of ends and means which confounds the philosophical paradox and makes it less of a dilemma than people at once thought it was. 19TH CENTURY CHANGES: It was not until the end of the nineteenth century that a new way of looking at this fundamental problem of moral philosophy was developed. Men felt that other men’s actions, on occasion, left a great deal to be desired. Such men were called bad. Some men, as well, found other men morally impeccable. These men were called good. Strangely, the attribution of geod or bad depended in every case upon the specific act of the man involved. A teleo- logist might call one man bad whom a formalist might, alternately, call good, and, of course, the opposite was just as liable to happen. Yet, through a new understanding of the psychological and emotional depths of individual men, moral philosophy became increasingly concerned with the “why” of men’s actions. That is, they were not so concerned as to how men acted as to why in the world they did act such a way in the frst place. Probing this problem, and on the strength of as much faith as psychological information, a brand-new Position in moral thought came into existence. Most effectively stated in the writings of Jean-Paul Sartre, the assumption was: it is at best arbitrary to define any single act or any single goal as good. Objects and methods of obtaining them will be determined as good or bad depending upon such contingent " elements as time, place, and circumstance. Yet, one will notice that every action of a rational man, regardless of the particular reason, is the outgrowth of some deep-rooted psychological or emotional awareness, and if men examine closely into themselves, they will see that not all such moments of awareness72 MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL ramify themselves in readily observable acts. In fact, any sensitive speculation upon one’s self must reveal to the observer that he is constantly faced with the possibility of not acting at all. Thus, each and every man is given a far more fundamental choice than the mere opting between and among established goals. Men are constantly at war within themselves as they face the decision of whether or not to act. This indecision is true of every reasonable man. It is equally true that some men overcome the indecision and others do not. Because of this, Sartre and others have reconstructed the whole field of moral inquiry. Recognizing the frailty of im- puting the concepts “good and evil” to external choices, they suggested that good and evil belong more properly to that intemalized struggle which is common to all men. Conse- quently, they elected to call the failure to choose, evil; and the ability to choose, good. Thus, the man who could overcome indecision and act, regardless of the nature of that act itself, would from now on be known as a good man. Alter- nately, the man whom indecision conquered would be, by definition, a bad man. Thus, morality and immorality were redefined. THE NEW MORAL DILEMMA IN PRUFROCK: While Sartre has since modified his position, the problem which he posed, as well its resolution into a new kind of moral philosophy, is the intellectual basis for the whole of the poem, The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock. Prufrock himself is the personi- fication of this new moral dilemma. Through him the poet makes a first major indictment of modem society, suggesting that contemporary man, with notably few exceptions, has been inundated by fear and, consequently, has capitulated to indecision. He submits, through the distended travels of the notorious anti-hero, that if man’s moral disease is not immediately apparent, it is because he veils it with the sackcloth of hypocrisy. This is the theme of the poem. It is given added dimension through a variety of literary devices as well as through its formidable structure. Structure, devices, and lyrical quality notwithstanding, however, we must bear inMURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL 73 mind that this thesis is an everpresent thread which continues throughout all of the poet's later writings. ANALYSIS The poem opens at the beginning of a joumey which Pru- frock and the reader will take together through the back alleys of human imagination. Unique in time, it is a journey without end. The depot is not one of place, but rather of sensation— the dread{ul sensation of disease and despair. Likening the time of our travel to a moment of sickness and isolation, Prufrock and the reader proceed through an assemblage of places which mark the decadence of the contemporary world. And when the initial stages of the journey become so strange that the reader is encouraged to make inquiry, the reply suggests that any meaningful answer is forfeit to the sterility of modern aesthetic and moral values. The second passage of the poem weaves the strangeness of surroundings into a simple statement of torpor and stagnation. Thus, the “yellow fog that rubs, muzzles, lingers and slides” evokes the total Jack of direction of the journey as well as the complete aimlessness of a life without value. Alluding to the question which has been anticipated and stilled, the poct suggests that there is an enormity of time left the reader before the question itself can even be formu- lated. Peculiarly, however, the reference to the time which a man will have is, itself, a sensitive answer to the question which is still unasked, for the very lines in which the statement is prepared recall a similar statement in Biblical literature. Thus, the intimation that there will be a time for this and a time for that is but the reaffirmation of an original sentiment in the Book of Ecclesiastes. And just as Eccle saw that all things return upon themselves and that all values vanish, being little more than a statement of the unfounded vanity of men, so Prufrock implies the worthlessness of the aesthetic and moral endeavor. Yet as he pursues the theme of74 MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL time and timelessness and the possibility of procrastination, he encourages his fellow traveler to dwell on how he, Pru- frock himself, is received by others. And once again, the poem takes a delicate direction, for now it is Prufrock’s turn to ask _a question. This question, unlike that which the reader has yet to articulate, absorbs all possible questions within itself. For it is not so much a question as a complete statement of the moral dilemma faced by contemporary civilization—"Do I dare disturb the universe?” Emphasizing the problem of indecision, "Eliot recalls Andrew Marvell's poem, “To His Coy Mistress,” in which a lover besceches his Tady to indulge him quickly because, in fact, there is not enough time. Marvell's poem reaches a climax in the lines, “Let us roll all our strength and all our sweetness up into one ball ‘and tear our pleasures with rough strife/thorough the iron gates of life.” By making an oblique reference to this poem, Eliot-Prufrock asserts himself as the opposite of the gallant lover, precisely because he lacks the courage to “bring the moment to its crisis.” Thus the theme of indecision, stamped by irrevocable failure, is introduced to the reader. And this theme is the basis of the remainder of the poem. On and on, yet never forward, Prufrock recounts the magni- tude of his sin. Shall I do this? Can I do that? May I do this? Will I speak or will I not? This continued questioning is the hallmark of contemporary immorality, and though some con- solation may be had from the role Prufrock is allowed to play in society, ie., that of an “attendant lord,” the affectation which this requires only makes him increasingly aware of his own weakness. Finally, J. Alfred Prufrock makes a last attempt to act. encouraged by beings of another world whose gaiety and free- dom are a continual torment to him. And as he turns his back upon these “mermaids,” he turns his back forever upon that world which, forever beyond his grasp, marks him, his gen- eration, and his society the ultimate moral stain on the escutchcon of human existence.MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL 15 CONCLUSION: Thus we have the story of the voyage of J. Alfred Prufrock through the miasma and stench which make up the modern world. We can speak about the many historic and mythological references of the poem. “The prophet,” who Prufrock fails to be, is John the Baptist, harbinger of the Christ; Hamlet, Shakespeare’s melodramatic prince of the Danes, establishes himself as something apart from Prufrock insofar as the prince was, in the final analysis, able to act; Lazarus, raised from the dead by the Son of God, is called upon because he of all men has an intimate knowledge of the righteousness of fear. Nor can we forego mentioning other of the references: the peach which Prufrock cannot quite eat is a secular symbol of the pomegranate, the traditional sign “of sexual desire; the “ragged claws which scuttle” are reminiscent of Shakespeare’s Polonius, whom Hamlet likens to a crab seeking a haven for his retreat. Yet, and not disallowing the virtue of such enumeration, the poem must, first and last, be understood as a statement of the dire straits of modem society. If only Prufrock could say with Andrew Marvell, “Thus, though we cannot make our sun/stand still, yet we will make him run,” he might still be able to eclipse the darkened moon of despair and desolation. That he cannot, is the fact; that he will not, is the fear. How he might is hinted at in the poem The Waste Land, and given full explication in the works which go to make up the Four Quartets.76 MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL THE WASTE LAND INTRODUCTION The Waste Land is a landmark of poctic complexity which attempts to represent a history of human hope and despair through those ideas which Eliot holds to as the metaphysical basis of reality. By metaphysical, we shall understand those fundamental truths or values which are the well-spring and source of all human affairs, aspirations, and futilities. The axiom, or truth, or metaphysical basis (and for Eliot these would be synonymous terms), is that the continuing despair of mankind is the result of an inability to free the purely emotional and spiritual character of man from ils intellectual cloak. Eliot suggests that the contemporary poet is in precisely the same circumstance as the prophet of Biblical times. Each in his own way has attempted to measure the helplessness of the human situation; each in his own way has attempted to show the true path to salvation; and each in his own way has been a voice crying in the wilderness. The effort on the part of the author to synthesize these, i.e., prophetic tradition with poctic insight, is neither more nor less then, than an effort to assimilate the purposes of morality with those of aesthetics. Whatever is to be held as momentful and significant in terms of the human endeavor (morality), must ultimately come to pass through the tive capacity (the aesthetic disposition), of man himself. T. is the foundation from which the entire complex expression, the pocin itself, emerges. 2 SUMMARY Much of the poem is based upon the myths and legends of ancient fertility cults and vegetation ceremonies. Figures suchMURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL 7 as. Tammuz, Osiris, Dionysios, and Adonis are evoked by the poet in an attempt to show the resurrection of the godhead as an experience and a hope common to all! of mankind. These various myths are brought together and given concrete form in the personality of Jesus Christ, at which point the author is content to let the Nazarene function as a symbol for all of the risen dead. In fact, all five parts of the poem are an attempt to reconcile these ancient religious rites and observances with the advent of the Christ for the explicit purpose of establishing a common and universal denominator. This common religious experience is the spiritual pilgrimage, epitomized in Christian mythology as the search after the Holy Grail. (The Grail, it is to be remembered, is the chalice or cup which Christ offered to the disciples with the admon- ishment to drink, for the wine was His blood.) This quest in “turn can only be successful, and salvation can only be obtained, through a proper synthesis of the moral and aesthetic capacities of rman. This synthesis is encouraged by the juxtaposition of such historico-religious figures as Isaiah and Ezekiel, Matthew and Luke, Sophocles and Shakespeare (who will be elaborated upon as they make their appearance in the text) in an effort to assert the signal valuc of men’s religious experiences. And the resolution of the poem is precisely that assertion, i.e., that the pilgrimmage, or search, or quest is valuable only insofar as it transcends the sheer intellectualism of traditional . religious institutions. Paradoxically, this synthesis can be had only after one has understood and passed through a rigorous study and appreciation of those self-same traditions Thus, it can be said of the greater part of Eliot's poetry, and The Waste Land specifically, that while the end of all :philosoph- ica] analysis might best culminate in the few lines of a simple poem, rigorous analysis is an essential first step to the crea- tion of that final simple statement.78 MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL ANALYSIS PART I—"THE BURIAL OF THE DEAD”: The poem opens as Eliot identifies the crucifixion of Christ with the deaths ot the vegetation gods of antiquity. Embroidcring the nostalgic circumstances which surrounded cach of these events, he makes a first, tentative statement as to the uncertainty of life and the concomitant difficulty of locating the spiritually significant. Thus, in the opening twelve lines, the poct augurs the dilemma of mankind. This theme of uncertainty—the hope and hopelessness, the possibility and impossibility, and all other paradoxical responses to the spirituality of human existence—is more fully developed in the passage which begins at 1. 19. In this, one of the most significant passages in the poem, Eliot calls upon the voice of a hyphenated personality, the poet-prophet, to speak of the drought and despair of human existence. Nor can the respective roles which the several poets and prophets play in this religious drama be too easily dismissed, for Eliot's use of the them is exact. He appropriates precisely those passages which not only give the fullest meaning to his statement, but do so with the greatest economy of words. Consequently, when he focuses on some phrase from Ezekiel or Isaiah, it would be well for us to know the full intention behind the original passage. For example, God's beseechment of the prophet Ezekiel ” (2:3-10) as the “son of man” is singularly important. In the writings of Ezckiel, this imputation is extended until it’ becomes the sole essential characteristic of the spiritually resurrect. Thus, the poet’s use of the phrase, “son of man,” is more than an attempt to conjure up the spirit of an age. It is a purposeful effort to establish the historical antecedents of an expression which at some distant time will justify, at least in the popular mentality, the transformation of Jesus of Nazareth into the Christ, i.e., the resurrected manifesta-MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL 79 tion of God. Alternately, the reference in 1, 25 to the prophet Isaiah (32:1-2) brings to bear the full source of the Isaiac message. When the prophet suggests to us that there is pro- tection only here under this red rock—only here with the remnant of Israel—we are not to think of individual salvation in any spiritual sense. Rather, we are to identify the passage with a very special kind of aid—that offered through social and political grace. For Isaiah speaks to us not of the coming of a son of man, not of a Christ, not of a resurrection, but of a messiah, an annointed one, a political and social healer after the fashion of David, second king of Israel. Thus, earlier in the prophecy of Isaiah when we are told that “there will come forth from the root of Jesse an everlasting counsellor,” we are encouraged to look forward to a time of political peace and prosperity. So it is that from two seemingly simple Biblical references, Eliot is able to bring together the twin motifs of individual hope and collective responsibility. And just as the poet is able to develop an anticipation of fulfillment from two nicely selected Scriptural passages, so now does he throw us into the depths of spiritual oblivion with an equally well chosen reference to Ecclesiastes (12:51). The cricket (1.32) is a symbol of the most pessimistic voice to appear in the whole of Scripture, a symbol of the voice of Ecclesiastes, the Son of the Preacher. Of all of the books of the Old Testament, none appear so difficult to reconcile with a dominant note of religious affirmation as that of this book. Spiritually dour from beginning to chd, from its con- fession that all of the aspirations of man are but a vanity to the intimation that man, himself, is of no more consequence than the dust of the earth, Ecclesiastes is that nadir whose chirruping cricket is a paradigm of complete futility. Thus we have a juxtaposition of hope and hopelessness, fulfillment and disillusion, desire and despair as Eliot places mankind at the brink of uncertainty. SPIRITUAL ISOLATION: To complete this image of uncertainty, as well as to give the moral judgments of the prophets an aesthetic direction, Eliot amplifies the sentiment of spirit80 MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL ual uneasiness by taking a short verse from Richard Wag- ner’s opera Tristan and Isolde: Frisch weht der Wind Der Heimat zu Mein Irisch Kind Wo weilest du? This verse, emanating as it does from the soul of a dying Tristan, is an expression of stark isolation, for just as the hero’s beloved Isolde is never to appear, so does Eliot suggest that the relationship of man and God has disintegrated beyond any point of possible repair. And, once again, the tone of the entire passage becomes increasingly nostalgic as, once again, the poet brings forth a ray of hope with the reference (1. 41) to“... the heart of light, the silence . . . ,” the poet’s own symbol of that still center of reality which might be found, and which is the source of all spiritual values. In the last two major passages which conclude Part I, “The Burial of the Dead,” the poet repeats his theme, but now in an entirely different vein. The concluding passages are a complete secularization of the former lines. As in the earlier case, where the poet calls up Isaiah and Ezekiel and Eccle- siastes, as well as that arch-romanticist, Wagner, to proclaim the sacred nature of hope and despair, so now does he bring forth their secular counterpart. Thus, we find the image of the spiritual resurrection of the Christ replaced by the phantasmagorical reappearance of Shakespeare's Alonso (The Tempest) as we read the line “those are pearls that were his eyes” in the full context of Ariel’s triumphant song: Full fathom five thy father lies; OF his bones are coral made; Those are pearls that were his eyes; Nothing of him that doth fade But doth suffer a sea-change Into something rich and strange.MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL 81 Not only does the song of Ariel give the reader another point of view from which to understand the unique possibilities latent within the concept of the risen dead, but it per- mits the author the additional juxtaposition of the sacred with the vulgar. This not only heightens the sense of uncertainty which has been slowly developing throughout the entirety of Part I but helps universalize the concept of a resurrection by showing its applicability to yet another case. Nor does the poet stop here in his statement of spiritual affirmation, but recalls still another instance of secular literature with an oblique reference (1. 53) to William Words- worth’s poem “Tintern Abbcy,” where the unknown Package, used to signify that still cen'er, “. . . the heart of light, the silence . . . ,” only enhances the mysterious sense of prophetic fulfillment which appears discontinuously throughout all of part one. “YOU! HYPOCRITE READER!”: Finally, and not without our anticipation, the entire first part is brought to a close on a final, crushing note of pessimism. As the passages of Isaiah and Ezekiel were off set by the negativism of Ecclesiastes, so now the beatific thoughts of Shakespeare and Words- worth are contradicted by the most piercing statement ot moral devastation in the history of modern literature. The final line—a thundering blow: You! hypocrite reader!—my double! my brother! This last line from the poem “Au Lecteur,” by Charles Bau- delaire, foremost of the French Symbolist poets, is the grand finale of a polemic which recites the major vices of mankind, ad nauseam. A flat statement of the complete baseness of man, his life, and the totality of his situation, this last line is used to emphasize the reader's own personal involvement in a world which is itself a menagerie of “filthy beasts that screech, howl, grovel, {and] grunt.” Moreover, the cause of this moral decay is boredom, which Eliot sees as sympto- matic of the modern wasteland.82 MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL Let us take a moment to survey “The Burial of the Dead.” First we have a development of the theme of uncertainty which is separable into distinct parts: one, an expression of hope, the other, a sense of despair. Second, and just as these two parts are juxtaposed, we are shown two different avenues by which we might approach the problem of uncertainty: the sacred and the secular. And these two approaches, like the twin ideas of fulfillment and disillusion, are, for the moment at least, brought together in a hyphenated moral-aesthetic structure which is Part I of the poem. PART ll—"A GAME OF CHESS”: This is a variation on the theme established in the “Burial of the Dead.” As in Part I, where we have been given the contradictories of the poct and the prophet, of the Crucifixion and the Resurrection, of the sacred and the secular, of hope and despair, and of antiquity and modernity; we are now given the contrapuntal voices of the wealthy and the poor,.the sane and the mad. The first reference, that to an unknown woman who sits in “a bumished throne,” sets the scene as a wilderness of the spirit which is pre-eminently of the upper class. This is borne out in a richness of imagery and color and is sustained through 1. 110. Specifically, the opening line of “A Game of Chess” brings to mind Act II, scene 2, of William Shake- speare’s Anthony and Cleopatra. In the play, Shakespeare gives us a view of a swashbuckling, heroic Anthony, a direct contrast to the enervated figures of the present poem. In exactly the same way, the glorious Cleopatra, Queen of all Egypt, may be seen as the antithesis of the neurasthenic lady in the “bumished throne.” Too, there is a suggestion in the play of the excessive and unholy nature of the liaison between Anthony and Cleopatra, a relationship which was doomed from its very inception to defeat and suicide, and whose simplistic pessimism is intended by Eliot to set the tone for the rest of this second ‘part.MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL 83 In this first passage we find one of the most subtle and important references of the entire poem. The mysterious woman, whose very possessions are as an albatross, looks upon a strange and eerie setting: As though a window gave upon the sylvan scene The change of Philomel, by the barbarous king So rudely forced; Now, the story of Philomel is an old, old, tale of a beautiful princess raped by the barbaric ruler of a far-away place. The gods, taking pity on the princess, transform her into a nightingale and give her a voice of purity and radiance. Once done, Philome] stations herself in the garden of the barbarian, where her songs accompany his downfall and destruction. Thus, we find the frst of several variations on a theme which establish the intrinsic harmony of the poem, The Waste Land. The nightingale, like the cricket and the poet-prophet before her, has become a harbinger of doom and desolation. And because the twittering of Philomel, the chirp of the cricket, and the plea of the prophet have gone unheeded, their songs relegated to the wastebin reserved for historical oddities, they have become indicative of the barren condition of mankind. Nor does this allusion complete the significance of the passage. By virtue of this image, the rape of Philomel, Eliot is able to portray the most sacred event in Christian meta- history within a larger framework of the crudities and frail- ties of human existence. “JUG JUG": The song of the transformed princess, ie., “Jug Jug,” is a simplified but proper extension of the theme which runs throughout Part I, “The Burial of the Dead.” At one level, a jug is the most common of all containers and it has, as its opposite number, that which is most sacred of all, the cup which Christ passed among the disciples. This84 MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL cup, or chalice, or Holy Grail, is inordinately significant because of the purpose it fulfills in Christian thought. Because the wine which it contained was supposedly one with the blood of Christ, Eliot is able to evoke one of the most sacred moments in the life of the Lord through a complete pro- fanation of the original circumstance. At the same time, he can speak to the great difficulty of the quest after the Holy Grail, since the frst step in that direction must be taken from a point of complete vulgarity, basencss, and sterility, ie, the plainess of the everyday “jug.” Again, and given the encouragement of Part I, we may liken the inverted shape of the jug to the ruptured womb of the “rudely fore'd” princess. (Note how this structural inver- sion is but another way in which Eliot establishes contra- position.) To complete this sequence, and in the same manner that we were able to extrapolate from the common-clay condition of an ordinary jug to the chalice of Christ, we can derive the spiritual purity of the Virgin Mother from the antithetical character of the violated womb. Thus, the poet, by bringing attention to the enormous disparity between the rape of the princess and the immaculate conception of the mother of God, achieves that sense of uncertainty which he forecast in the several sections of the “Burial of the Dead.” Because desolation is not only an attribute of the wealthy, but is characteristic of all mankind, the poet now enjoins us to see the spiritual poverty of the mass—which he drama- tizes through the inelegant, often unintelligible, use of language. The speaker, a poor, worried, and uncertain man who has received an insight into the holy, only to have it obscured by more pedestrian values, makes adroit reference to his vision in the lines: 1 remember Those are pearls that were his eyes. “Are you alive, or not? Is there nothing in your head?”MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL 8 This moment of spiritual awareness is a climax realized. The remainder of the section is but a denouement, proceeding at rapid pace, from a stylization of the ludicrously sane, through the tensions of the tedious and bored, to the nightmarish ken of the fitful Ophelia, who finds madness the only acceptable substitute for the unattainable Hamlet. And as she takes leave of normalcy with the haunting, “Goodnight sweet ladies, goodnight,” she epitomizes the hallucinatory aspect of The Waste Land. PART III—"THE FIRE SERMON”: — The third part of a five-part poem, “The Fire Sermon” has the importance of a third act of a five-act play, for. just as in a play, it is the point in the development of the poem where all of the different elements are brought together in a unity of tension. Our first task, by way of analysis, then, is to establish those threads which are to be woven into this single moment of literary apprehension. By the waters of Leman I sat down and wept . . This line, a variation on Psalm 137, makes special reference to the Diaspora or Babylonian Captivity—that period in the sixth century before Christ when the Hebrew people were sent into exile from Judea. This captivity, heralded by the prophets and marked by the destruction of the Temple ot Solomon, was a time of unspeakable spiritual desolation. Like all such waste times and all such wastelands, however, it drew forth from its very bowels a voice of hope and of promise—the voice of the prophet Ezekiel. Second, all of the previous illusions to the fantastic regenera- tion found in the Song of Aricl are summed up in 1. 191: Musing upon the king my brother's wreck. A corollary of the original statement in The Tempest which tuns, “The King my father’s wrack,” it prompts us to consider the great uncertainty of Ferdinand as he sat hoping8B MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL against hope for the reappearance of his father and the eventual return to his homeland. Next, we have two allusions to two diametrically opposed poets from two strangely unalike nations of two completely dissimilar ages. The first reference (1. 185) is to Andrew Marvell's poem, To His Coy Mistress. A playful yct profound work, the second of its three paragraphs introduces a metaphysical pessimism which Eliot tums to in an effort to depict the weariness of human existence. And just as he recalled Wordsworth's message of hope, so now does he use the same kind of imagery to evoke despair. Thus the “mysterious packet” of Wordsworth undergoes a metamorphosis into the “cold blast” of futility. In a like manner, he closes the passage with a quotation from Paul Verlaine’s Parcifal, whose “children singing in a cupola” (1, 202) suggest that their very naivety and wonderment is the new bastion of the spirit. And if this displays a kind of optimism, it does so at the expense of contradicting that other French Symbolist, Baudelaire, whose lines close “The Burial of the Dead.” "JUG JUG JUG JUG JUG”: Thus we have picked up four of the strands which first appear in the preceding parts of the poem. Nor are these all. In the three lines immediately prior to the quotation from “Parcifal,” we have a repetition of the vulgarization found in 1. 103. Reminiscent of Mary Magdelene’s washing of the fect of Christ, the holiness of the religious event has been reduced to ultimate profanity with the concomitant reference to soda water, itself an inver- sion of the blood-full chalice of the Son of God. Yet it is because of this that the chant on II. 203-205 takes on a more profound meaning: Twit twit twit Jug jug jug jug jug jug So rudely fore'd. Omitting the large middle passage for a moment, we find that we need but two more historical references to complete anMURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL 87 identification with parts one and two. And they are found immediately, for lines 266 following all but come from the pen of Richard Wagner. “Weialala leia Wallala leialala” is the refrain sung by the Rhine daughters in Wagner's momen- tous opera, Gotterdammerung. If the lines which follow it are not Wagnerian in tone, they certainly are in keeping with the spirit. Moreover, the reduction to a contemporary setting in a common world is a further example of Eliot's secularizing of the traditional. ST. AUGUSTINE: The last source we find at the end of Part III, “The Fire Sermon.” “To Carthage then I came,” is the opening sentence of St. Augustine’s Confessions, (III,1) where he reminisces on a profligate youth, recounting the emptiness of unholy love. This reference to St. Augustine, Father of the Church, bishop of one of the most important dioceses in Christendom, and one of the greatest spokesmen of that Holy Church in its long history, is a response to all of the Christian myth and theology which the author introduced in the earlier sections. This great visionary, mystic and theologian is at once a living example of spiritual fervor and religious authority, the kind of figure who is the prototype of Eliot’s “him” who, alone, can achieve salvation. It is important to remark that Augustine’s appearance at the end of this climactic section is not only a statement of the unifica- tion of the holy and the moral, but introduces, as well, such aspects of oriental mysticism as are essential to the comple- tion of the poem. With this clearly in mind we can inquire further into the significance of Part III, “The Fire Sermon.” We suggested that we would find the full flavor of those historico-religious references which had been introduced in the first part. That, has been done. Further, the unity of tension which we spoke of has been increased to a remarkable degree as such contra- dictory elements as the sacred and the secular, wealth and poverty, and all other paradoxes, are revivified in the linguis- tic and grammatical structure of the poem. And it is by virtue of this that the uniqueness of the title may now be explained.88 MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL GOTAMA BUDDHA: The great Eastern mystic, Gotama Buddha, spoke of the several natures of man in the light of some ultimate spiritual disposition. These sayings, codified and titled The Fire Sermon, complement the Nazarene’s Sermon on the Mount and converge in the ubiquitous final statement of this third section. The burning, burning, burning, the ‘ searching of the oriental soul, is thus seen as an additional dimension of St. Augustine’s prayer of thanksgiving to that super-abundant and merciful godhead who has plucked the saint from the trough of despair. Thus, “The Fire Sermon” teaches a climax as the author points the way to ultimate spiritual grace. TIRESIAS: However, and this notwithstanding, we arc still to consider the central passage of this third part. The indis- putable virtue of man’s religious experience is that it is a tradition-transcending perception which synthesizes the holy with the moral, the aesthetic with the sensual. In order that we may broaden our understanding, and reconcile this aesthetic-sensual aspect of the human personality with the ethereal character of St. Augustine and Buddha, we must return to the heart of Part III, “The Fire Sermon.” 1 Tiresias, old man with wrinkled dugs Perceived the scene, and foretold the rest— Tiresias. Eliot himself calls this figure the most important person in the poem. Yet who is he? Recall Sophocles’ Ocd- ipus Rex. The second play in a trilogy, it is the story of a man who inadvertently, albeit pridefully, murders his father, marries his own mother, and assumes the kingship of Thebes. Because of this double sin, a vanity of parricide and incest, the gods bring pestilence and famine to the city. To encour- age the gods to lift the plague, Oedipus vows to seek out and punish whatever or whomever is responsible. Upon find- ing himself at fault, and spurred on by his mother’s suicide, Oedipus blinds himself and wanders the earth a lonely and desolate man. This, then, is the story of the rise and the fall of Oedipus, King of Thebes. A monumental tragedy, it plumbs the depth of human tribulation. Yet even as it does, Sopho-MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL 89 cles plants the seed of wisdom and the miracle of hope— personified by an elderly blind soothsayer named Tiresias who alone knows the cause of the unhappiness which seizes the state of Thebes. Yet, his function is that of the prophet and not of an uncoverer of misdeeds. Consequently, he can only speak oracularly as to what the future holds. Eliot appropriates this figure of the old man precisely because of his ability to see to the very heart of affairs. Placed in the setting provided by The Waste Land, Tiresias, spectator though he is, and perhaps because he is a speaker and not an actor, alone understands the reason for the desolation and alone can prophesy the coming unto salvation. As the embodiment of this unity of apperception, Tiresias is the guimination of all sensuality, i.e., “an old man with wrinkled lugs. We may now bring to a close our analysis of “The Fire Sermon.” The poet has taken the strands which comprise the first and second sections of The Waste Land and woven them into a fabric which is rich and deep and strong. For the wook he has taken hope and desire and spiritual thirst, wringing the warp from despair and torment and desolation. If it is a Fire Sermon which the Buddha gives us, the fabric which Eliot has woven is a burning, yet unconsumed cloth—at once the vision, the awe and the fear of God. PART IV—"DEATH BY WATER”: While Part IV, “Death by Water,” is only ten lines long, its brevity ought not to imply insignificance. If it is primarily important because, it introduces the final part of the poem (and so sets the stage for the conclusion of the work and the resolution of the problem), it does have a special merit of its own. The very title itself is significant, for while “Death by Water” conjures up an image of ultimate despair, it is quite as suggestive of that primordial element whose sole function is a creative one—a generative aspect which is acknowledged in the Christian ritual of baptism. It is in this context that90 MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL Phlebis the Phoenician is representative of the still possible spiritual reconstitution of a mercantilistic and materialistic society. His forgetfullness of this-wordly matters, as well as his prgconcern with that powerful current which becomes a whirlpool, is Eliot’s way of re-establishing the possibility of a vision of the eternal from the vantage point of the temporal. Like other sections before it, Part IV, “Death by Water,” ends on a note of irony which, in the hands of the poet, becomes a classic treatment of the whole problem of uncertainty, fear and anguish. PART V—”WHAT THE THUNDER SAID”: This final section is a renewed attempt to reconcile the diverse elements found throughout the poem with the ubiquitous nature of salvation and grace. Consequently, we shall find all of the elements which make themselves felt in the preceeding four sections brought together into an integral whole. First, we have the Biblical references, and while those which are explicit are few, they are chosen advisedly. For the purpose of summation, Eliot selects two passages, both from the gospel according to St. Luke. The first reference (lines 322 following) is to the trial and crucifixion of Jesus. Here the implication is of a spiritual desolation which no longer has a place in the world. Contradistinctly, the next reference from Luke (lines 360 forlowing), concerns the risen Christ as he accompanies two of his disciples to Emmaus. The poet suggests that the disciple’s failure to recognize the son of man stems from an inability to believe, and not from the impossibility of there being a resurrected One. Thus, the poet avers that salvation can be possible and will become a reality for those who can and will believe. Again, we find a repetition of those hallucinatory passages which first make their appearance in Part I, “The Burial of the Dead.” Paradoxical with regard to the possibility of salvation, they advance a sense of sterility (lines 331 follow-MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL 91 ing) while at the same time they acknowledge the relentless urge of the visionary (lines 390 following). And now the references to secular literature follow one upon the other. Shakespeare, Webster, Dante, Hesse, Kyd, all are invoked in the name of that substantial truth which makes up the core of their respective works. Hesse is cited for his concern with the chaotic; Webster as he asserts the improb- ability of the temporal world; Dante for his expression of the necessity of purgation; Shakespeare, as he dwells upon the inevitable: and Kyd, who because he creates a literary hero who bites out his own tongue, suggests the ultimate inarticulateness of the poet-prophet. All of these clements are brought together in the title, “What the Thunder Said,” for according to a fable in the Upanishads (Hindu sacred writings), the thunderous voice was that of the godhead, who spoke the following words: Datta, Daya- dhvam, Damyata. Signifying the basis of the spiritual and religious life, the imperatives, give, symphasize, control, are to be read in conjunction with the sing song “Shantih, Shan- tih,” translated as, “The peace which passeth understanding.” Thus the poem ends. And as it does, all is wrought into a simple poetic truth—that the spiritual quest is valuable, that it can lead to salvation, only as it goes beyond the sheer mechanics of the mind and becomes a function. of the spiritual capacity of man. “The peace which passeth understanding” is the fitting, final statement of a highly complex and sophisticated poem whose essence is the double truth: as the foundation of grace is wisdom, so is wisdom itself built upon the beams of knowledge and the braces of rigor.92 MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL FOUR QUARTETS Four Quartets is a title given by T. S. Eliot to four separate poems which, together, display a subtle musical virtuousity. Its sonata-like structure abundantly evident, the movements which comprise it, while showing specific contrasts in mood and rhythm, are related tonally and stylistically. These con- sist of: 1) the exposition, in which the major (musi themes are presented; 2) the development, in which these major themes are worked out; and 3) the recapitulation, in which the themes are repeated. A final part, the coda, is a concluding passage in which the elements of the entire corn- position are reconciled and brought to a close. Thus, the twin motifs are introduced in “Burnt Norton,” developed in “East Coker” and “The Dry Salvages,” and repeated, once again, in “Little Gidding.” The choice of a sonata form is apt, not only because it provides an excellent vehicle for the systematic exposition, development, and reconciliation of ideas, but because it imbues the work with an essential lyricism. And this last is extremely important, for you will remember that the purpose of The Waste Land was to assimilate moral and aesthetic values. On the strength of this, we found that the most significant way of knowing was somehow a way which transcended the intellectual function of man, a way which, alone, could lead to “the peace which passeth understanding.” It is for this reason that the transference of the musical quality of the sonata form to the literary exposition of the spiritually significant themes of Four Quartets mark the latter poem a fuller representation of the final motif of The Waste Land. SUMMARY Now the two themes to be developed are present, embryon- ically, in the citations which follow the title of the first poem.

The Murder in The Cathedral and Selected Poems

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Murder in The Cathedral and Selected Poems

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like