NEW DIRECTIONS IN RELIGION AND LITERATURE

SCHOLARSHIP ON T. S. ELIOT

122

Religion & Literature

INTRODUCTION: "IN OUR BEGINNING"

Dominic Manganiello and Graig Woelfel

It seems appropriate to devote a forum to the work of T. S. Eliot since
the writer's seminal essay on "Religion and Literature" served as a main
source of inspiration for the interdisciplinary focus of this journal at its
inception.' In broad terms, the essay is a mandate for our particular type
of scholarship: Eliot argues that religion and literature necessarily intersect,
and that as readers and critics we limit our understanding of either to the
extent that we attempt to study the latter while reducing the former out of
the picture. The two disciplines can achieve a proper balance, he suggests,
by ensuring that each respects the legitimate autonomy of the other. In its
engagement with the true and the good, religion would consequently avoid
the risk of falling into mere propaganda, whue literature's high devotion to
beauty would not degenerate into mere aestheticism. And yet beyond the
enunciation of general principles and the establishment of parameters, as
can be said of much of Eliot's best criticism, it is an essay that is at its most
elusive with regard to precisely those questions that it would seem to raise as
most imperative. To say nothing of his case for a Christian cultural reform,
this is certainly true of those questions that would be most relevant to our
scholarly practices. In this case: aside from serving as proof of the complex
relationship between its two defining terms, what ought scholarship in religion and literature actually look like in practice? Eliot says that religion
offers "a definite ethical and theological standpoint" that must "complete"
literary criticism.^ But what exactly is that definite standpoint? What separates the literary criteria from the religious, and how do we practice both
appropriately? What ought to constitute our object of study, and why? Eliot
says that "only literary standards" can determine what constitutes literature.
But what does that mean for religion and literature when literature itself, as
Eliot argues, is produced by a world that knows of Christianity only as "an
anachronism"?^
In the details, of its actual argument, Eliot's essay still stands as a timely
reminder about the nature and purpose of interdisciplinary criticism. To
investigate the intersection of religion and literature is simultaneously a perennial task of criticism and one that uniquely reveals, the greater historical'
and cultural context in which it is situated, as well as the particular point of
view of the critic doing the investigating: In Eliot's case, that context is secu44.1 (Spring 2012)

EORUM

123

larization, and that point of view is grounded in Eliot's Anglo-Catholicism.

As such, it is tempting to attribute Eliot's interest in religion and literature
to the fact of his religious conversion in the mid-1920s, confirmed by his
baptism into the Church of England on June 29, 1927. Eliot himself is
pardy responsible for the temptation. Although he distanced himself from
the idea of a sudden or epiphanic turn to religion, Eliot nevertheless expressed his conversion as a turning point in his interests. In the preface to
tiie 1928 (2"'') edition of The Sacred Wood, Eliot explains that the original
1920 coection finds its coherence through a subject related, we might now
say, to professionalization: foowing the influence of Remy de Gourmont,
he was interested in "the integrity of poetry," when poetry is considered as
itself and not something else. Writing the second edition preface in March
of 1928, less than one year after his conversion, he says that he has "passed
on to another problem not touched upon in [The Sacred Wood]: that of the
relation of poetry to the spiritual and social life of its time and of other
times." His early and strictly secular work had not been left behind, but it
was, "logicay and chronologicay.. .a beginning" point; his recent spiritual
concerns signal a movement in a different direction (vi).
A closer examination of the essays in the original 1920 edition of The
Sacred Wood, however, shows abundant evidence that Eliot's pre-conversion
work deals explicitly with "the relation of poetry to the spiritual and social
life." How else to characterize Eliot's interrogation of the religious vision
and its role in the poetics of the Commedia in "Dante," or of the visionary
poetry of Blake (in the essay now titled "Blake," originay "The Naked
Man")? Apart from the criticism, might not this be the central question of
The Waste Land? In a variety of forms and from its earliest days, both Eliot's
creative and critical work represents his engagement withto invoke the
motto of this journal"the intersection of language and the ineffable."
In sum, religion and literature provides a constant reference point for the
development of Eliot's own thought, one that is uniquely prescient in its
revelation of his own shifting point of view set against the backdrop of a
broad canvas of historical and cultural determinants. And yet, once again at
this pivotal interdisciplinary crossing, we find Eliot's work the least definite
where it is the most suggestive. The impossibity of reducing his sustained
concern for religion and literature to any single position mirrors the mystery
at the heart of our own critical engagement, and gives Eliot his enduring
value. His body of work excels at exploring boundaries and sketching out
uncharted territory without declaring such spacesfixed,at asking questions
without insisting on final answers. He demands that we look, and that we
keep coming back to look again more closely, as if for the first time.

124

Religion & Literature

This, too, makes the Eliot corpus a continual site for exploring new
directions for scholarship. The issues are never definitively addressed; the
methods of inquiry are never set in stone. Such openness represents "the
possibility of the possible." to invoke Aristotle on poetry: a fresh reading is
always waiting there to be discovered, and his work also seems unusually
useful as a sounding board for our own thinking-through of the relationship
between religion and literature from different vantage points. As Eliot puts it
in "The Perfect Critic," "there is no method, except to be very intelligent."
If we seek to fulfill this criterion, then we can call Eliot a lasting influence
on our common critical enterprise.
In the range of their arguments, methods, and subjects the contributions
to this forum offer eloquent testimony to the richness of Eliot's work for
both emerging and more established scholars in the field. Each contributor
points to a new direction that future criticism on Eliot might profitably take.
Craig Woelfel's "T. S. Eliot and Our Beliefs about Belief" takes our critical reception of Eliot's conversion as a jumping-off point for exploring the
implicit narrative of secularization by which modernist literature is read
more broadly, and which Eliot evinces in an acute fashion. In response to
this narrative, Woelfel explores the implications of the debates ongoing in
a variety of fieldsreligious studies, philosophy, history, and sociology
about the nature and scope of secularization for our work as religion and
literature scholars. In doing so, he calls for a more direct interrogation of
the models of narrative and subjectivity through which we engage belief
in modernity, the ways that we define the "religion" half of our discipline,
and the questions that we ask about belief
Woelfel's piece is not alone in insisting on the necessity of re-thinking
the implications of the narratives we have written about religion in Eliot's
life and work. Barry Spurr's "Anglo-Cadiolicism and the 'religious turn' in
Eliot's poetry" interrogates critical reception of the central event of any
narrative of Eliot's religious life, his conversion. Spurr argues that we must
better understand Eliot's Anglo-Catholicism in its historicized context, and
in the context of Eliot's own thought, than we have previously done. He
shows convincingly that such contexts give the lie to the recurring temptation
to view Eliot's conversion as a dramatic turn, a "revolutionary tita nuova in
both his personal existence and his birth" leading to fulfillment in AngloCatholic belief Instead, he offers a better picture of what it really meant to
be a convert to Anglo-Catholicism in Eliot's particular time and place. By
extension he suggests that, as a narrative model, we might do better to follow
the dominant leitmotif in Eliot's own work, the frustrated hero's journey.
This journey extends in both directions across the particular moment of
Eliot's conversion such diat the onset of Christian belief can hardly be said

FORUM:

125

to represent a dramatic break, or the seed of an ultimate fulfiment.

Lee Oser's essay, "Back to the Poetry," opens with the provocative admonition that in order to break new ground in the area of Eliot and religion
critics must necessary be awareand perhaps be waryof the received
"official portraits" of Eliot offered by the work of scholars and editors past.
To regain a clear view of the man and the poet Oser foows his own advice
by returning to what Eliot actuay wrote. He accordingly offers an illustrative reading of the relation between Eliot and the litde-considered poet
Robert Southwe against the narrative about Eliot's religious development
presented in the influential work of Ronald Schuchardtouching on the
metaphysicals, George Herbert, and Jesuitismbeginning with his editorship of The Varieties of Metaphysical Poetry (1993) and culminating in Eliot's
Dark Angel {199%

Jewel Spears Brooker's '"Our First World': T S. Eliot and the Edenic
Imagination" offers, in some senses, a counterpoint to Spurr's historicized
conception of Eliot's unconsummated religious journey. It offers instead an
entirely new critical framework for understanding Eliot's religious development retrospectively, and as a whole, taking Eliot as an exemplar of her
concept of "the Edenic imagination, a religious version of the dialectical
imagination." The Edenic imagination is a retrospective pattern that Brooker
argues characterizes both particular works and Eliot's overa life. She illustrates the pattern through a reading of the ways in which "Little Gidding"
"loops back dialecticay" to the beginning of Four Quartets, and second, to
Eliot's earliest unpublished prose. The result gives a shape to Eliot's work
and life that, as Brooker says, is reflected in both ancient religions and "the
landmarks of Western literature."
John Morgenstern's "The 'Centre of Intensity': T. S. Eliot's Reassessment
of Baudelaire in 1910-11 Paris" starts in Eliot's beginnings as a poet rather
than his end. The piece iustrates that promising avenues of research on
Eliot and religion wi also come from a deeper investigation of the poet's
religious engagement in the time well before his conversion. Morgenstern
analyzes the literary and cultural contexts converging in Eliot's reassessment
of Baudelaire in the time surrounding his "Paris year" (1910-1911). Again
using Schuchard as counterpoint, he convincingly demonstrates the ways in
which the work and thought of Jacques Rivire deserve attention in Eliot's
complex poetic-religious development. The resulting argument shows that,
despite the wealth of extant scholarship on Eliot's inteectual and literary
sources and influences, much that has been overlooked remains to be discovered. To borrow from Eliot himself, it also shows that such discoveries bear
fruit not as ends in themselves but because they add to our understanding
of the matrix of the writer's work.

126

Religion & Literature

Hazel Atkins's contribution, "Ways of Viewing Churches in The Waste

Land and 'Little Gidding,'" looks to Eliot and religion both pre- and postconversion, but explores his work through a fresh angle: his intense and
abiding interest in the history and architecture of church buildings. By examining the images of church buudings in The Waste Land and Eour Quartets
Atkins shows how "it is possible to read Eliot's symbolic representations of
churches very closely, ung an interpretive method grounded in the concrete
historical realities of the buildings themselves." Her reading shows these
buildings to be significant markers through which we can track Eliot's understanding of the relationship between belief and the material world. In
turn, she also shows that the real churches Eliot used in his work resonate
with meanings which Eliot was aware of and which need to be historicized
more thoroughly.
Ben Lockerd's essay, "'Superficial Notions of Evolution': Eliot's Critique
of Evolutionary Historiography," shows that to understand Eliot's mature
religious poetry, even at its most apparently inward-looking, we must pay
closer attention to the way it draws in and speaks to those concerns most
central to "the popular mind." Proposing to gloss a single passage in "The
Dry Salvages" in which Eliot speaks of "superficial notions of evolution,"
Lockerd situates Eliot in conversation with contemporary debates about
evolutionary philosophy in the work of Herbert Spencer, H. G. Wells, and
the Catholic historian Hilaire Belloc. He triangulates EHot's position in
order to show that, though Eliot was quiet about the work of Darwin, he
nevertheless engagedfrom the early pre-conversion days of his philosophy
studieswith popular interpretation of the work of Darwin and others
who extrapolated evolutionary theory to spheres in which it had no proper
authority, using it to undergird a myth of inevitable human progress.
The contributions to this forum hopefully open up paths in Eliot studies
that await further critical exploration. It is important to note, in closing,
that the fruitfulness of the promising approaches suggested here will doubtless be greatly enhanced once the complete materials in the Eliot archives
become available to scholars. Fortunately, an unprecedented scholarly and
publishing projectmade possible by and coordinated between the Estate
of T. S. Eliot, Faber & Faber, The Institute of English Studies, University
of London, the AHRC, the Hodson Trust, Johns Hopkins and Emory
universities, and the Harry Ransom Humanities Research Center in Texas
(plus a host of individual scholars)has been underway for some six-plus
years to edit and publish new editions of Eliot's published and unpublished
writings. We have just seen the tip of the iceberg: last year volume two
of Eliot's Letters was published under the editorship of Valerie Ehot and
Hugh Haughton, along with a revised edition of volume one (1898-1922).

EORUM

127

Volume 2, in over 800 pages, takes us only to the year 1925. Volume 3 of
the Letters (1926-1927) has just been published this September, from series
editor John Haffenden; the seven-volume Complete Prose, under the general
editorship of Ronald Schuchard; the two-volume Complete Poems, edited by
Christopher Ricks and Jim McCue; and the Complete Plays, again edited by
John Haffenden. The impact that such efforts will make on future research
in Eliot cannot possibly be underestimated. For researchers who might feel
daunted, or perhaps just exhausted, by the staggering volume of scholarship
that already exists on Eliot's work, the thought of gaining full access to all
of the primary material represents a truly refreshing prospect for further
innovation.
Of course, such new materials wl only go as far as scholars are willing
to push them. This forum humbly presents its own sense of what some new
directions may be; but, more than that, it represents the promise that Eliot's
work and thought wl be a continued source of inspiration and of critical
conversation.

NOTES
1. See John J. McDonald, "Religion and Literature," Religion & Literature 16.1 (^'Vinter
1984): 61-71.
2. Eliot's argument is developed over the course of his essay. "Religion and Literature"
can be found in his Selected Prose ed. Frank Kermode (New York: Harcourt, 1975), 97-106
Unless otherwise noted, quotations from Eliot's poems and plays throughout the forum refer
to published versions in The Complete Poems and Plays:] 909-1950, (New York: Harcourt Brace
&Company), [1971] 1980. For references to The M&ffeZflM, an abnormality in Eliot's printed
works in the sense that it is printed with line numbers, both page and line are provided. .
3. Eliot later tackled some of these pivotal questions in Notes Towards the Definition of
Culture, where he emphasizes the point that Christianity played a foundational role in the
formation of a common culture in the West. Even the skepticism of a Voltaire or a Nietzsche,
Eliot reckons, was itself a byproduct of Christian religion. The Bible, moreover, exerted a
seminal literary influence on Western culture, as he claims in "Religion and Literature,"
"not because it has been considered literature, but because it has been considered the report
of the Word of God."

Copyright of Religion & Literature is the property of Religion & Literature and its content may not be copied or
emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.