The Waste Land by T. S. Eliot

 Thinking Activity

The Waste Land by T. S. Eliot

          This blog is written in response to the thinking activity on 'The Waste Land' assigned by Dr. Dilip Barad sir, Department of English, MK Bhavnagar University. In this blog I am going to share my views on the prior speech of T. S. Eliot, while getting the Nobel prize in literature in 1948, remarks of Gustaf Hellstron of the Swedish academy of T. S. Eliot. So Before looking at these particular questions, let's first have a brief introduction of T. S. Eliot.

T. S. Eliot:-

           Thomas Stearns Eliot was an English-American poet, playwrite, literary critic and editor. He was born on September 26, 1888 in St. Louis, Missouri, U.S. and died on January 4, 1965 in London, England. He was also leader of the Modernist movement in poetry in his works such as The Waste Land (1922) and Four Quartets (1943). Eliot had a strong influence on Anglo-American culture from the 1920s until late in the century. His experiments in diction, style, and versification revitalized English poetry, and in a series of critical essays he shattered old orthodoxies and erected new ones. The publication of Four Quartets led to his recognition as the greatest living English poet and man of letters, and in 1948 he was awarded both the Order of Merit and the Nobel Prize for Literature.(Britannica)

Major works of T. S. Eliot:-

• The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock (1915)
• The Waste Land (1922)
• Four Quartets (1943)
• Murder in the Cathedral
• His essay 'Tradition and the Individual Talent' (1919)

The Waste Land:

         The Waste Land is  long poem written by T.S. Eliot. It was first published in 1922 in London in The Criterion (October), and next in New York City in The Dial (November), finally in book form, with footnotes by Eliot. This poem contains 434-line and five-parts which was dedicated to fellow poet Ezra Pound, who helped condense the original manuscript to nearly half of its size. It was one of the most influential works of the 20th century, which is divided into five parts:

• The Burial of Dead
• The Game of Chess
• The Fire Sermon
• The Death by Water
• What the thunder said

Nietzsche and Eliot's Thoughts

         Friedrich Nietzsche, through the concept of the Übermensch (Superman) in "Also sprach Zarathustra" (1883-85), appears to offer a progressive and forward-looking solution to the crisis of faith and self that plagued his time. When considering Nietzsche's ideas in relation to T.S. Eliot's "The Waste Land," one might view Eliot as regressive since he seeks answers to contemporary issues in Upanishads, Buddhism, and Christianity. However, it would be unjustified to assert that Eliot's thoughts are more regressive than Nietzsche's, for each philosopher operates in their own unique field of thought. Eliot, as a poet, achieves universality of thought by drawing upon mytho-historical explanations for contemporary malaise. Eliot does not merely look to the past, but rather considers the consequences of particular actions that might help us to cope with the crises of the present, which have parallels to those of the past.

Indian thoughts in 'The Waste Land'

              In "The Waste Land," T.S. Eliot alludes to Indian philosophy in a captivating manner. In the poem's final section, "What the Thunder Said," Eliot draws inspiration from the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, where Prajapati's thunderous proclamation, known to devotees as "akashwani," guides seekers towards salvation. In this passage, Prajapati employs three "Da's," and Eliot employs this element to illustrate a path towards spiritual rebirth through the wisdom of India. The Upanishad recounts a tale in which Devas (angels), Asuras (demons), and Manushyas (mankind) approach Brahma and request a single word that can guide them towards enlightenment. Prajapati responds to their request by giving them a word. Eliot's reference to this story serves to highlight the importance of seeking knowledge and wisdom in one's spiritual journey.

Devas  - Da- Datta - Be a giver

Asuras - Da- Dayadhvam - Sympathise

Mankind - Da- Damyata - Self Control

        In the concluding portion of this chapter, Eliot alludes to the phrase 'Shantih, Shantih, Shantih', which signifies an everlasting peace or a peace that transcends human comprehension. Despite the bleakness and desolation depicted throughout the chapter, it does not conclude on a note of hopelessness. On the contrary, the poet offers a message of optimism for the inhabitants of the modern wasteland. According to Eliot, it is indeed possible for individuals to experience spiritual rejuvenation, and he suggests a pathway towards this through the use of the three words, 'Shanti, Shanti, Shanti'.

T. S. Eliot and Sigmund Freud 

Click here to read about the Banquet speech of Eliot and also Gustaf Hellstrom's remarks, prior to the speech of Eliot.

         Prior to the speech of T. S. Eliot, while getting the Nobel prize in literature in 1948, Gustaf Hellstrom makes some remarks on T. S. Eliot, which is very much interesting to note some points about Eliot.

• Representation of 'Primitive instinct' of Freud in Comparison to Eliot 
• Eliot's view of 'Cultural tradition'

        Frued believes that there must be collective and individual balance, which should constantly take into account man’s primitive instincts. As per the opinion of Frued both Individual and collective balance is important. And yes, giving free vent to the repressed primitive instinct leads us to happiness and a satisfied life. Primitive instinct is itself Self-preservation, aggression, the need for love, and the impulse to attain pleasure and avoid pain. All these things are very important to make an individual happy and thus a culture happy and prosperous.

            If we come to the opinion of Eliot as he believes that salvation of man lies in the preservation of the cultural tradition, we can't directly come to the conclusion. Eliot focuses on culture and tradition and forgets the needs of an Individual.  But one point that should be noted here is that Eliot with the Tradition gives importance to an Individual.       

         For Eliot, tradition is a subject of much broader implication. In 'Tradition and the Individual Talent' he says that, "Tradition is not about following and complying with our predecessors blindly. Eliot states that we cannot inherit tradition; it can only be acquired by hard labour which includes the knowledge of past writers." Eliot also declares that this tradition can be acquired by those who possess the historical sense. Here historical sense plays an essential role to consider culture and tradition. Here he focuses on the 'impersonal' side of a poet or any individual in general



           If we consider the point of Eliot that 'salvation of man lies in the preservation of the cultural tradition' is also problematic. Yes, as Frued's view of primitive instinct is important, Eliot's view is also worth considering. Because culture and tradition is something which binds us together. Eliot used the metaphor of 'rosary beads' in his work 'The Waste Land'. In 'The Waste Land' Eliot gives so many illustrations together which makes this poem very much esoteric. If we have to understand the poem, it is compulsory to look back into the traditional and cultural aspects. He tooks so references of various cultures, myths and traditional beliefs from various parts of the Globe. Culture and tradition is here rosary beads to collage all different images together to enclose a single image and idea.

          But to consider Eliot's view is also problematic. When a person is connected to particular culture, he is in a kind of bondage, he then have so many limitations which are told by that culture. So while doing so his individual needs scattered nowhere. His individual and primitive instinct becomes minor and priority is given to the cultural and traditional counterparts. These sorts of needs are also very important so that the society can also live happily and satisfactorily. 

        So as per my point of view with these arguments, it is very much difficult to come to any one particular conclusion which one is more important in human life. Both 'Primitive instinct' and 'Culture and tradition' are important to make man happy. Both these needs should be satisfied if we want a happy and healthy world. We cannot say that either of them is completely right or wrong as Gustaf Hellstrom has compared both and gave superiority, not to Eliot as per my point of view, but to the culture and tradition. This is an ongoing and never ending debate - as I think.

       At last I would like to conclude this argument with my own remarks that no one from both ideas can make a man happy. Both Frued as a Psychologist and Eliot as a critic of the society, are right at their place. But it is highly problematic to claim anyone superior or inferior. 

Thanks for visiting….

Keep visiting….

{Words:- 1453

Images:- 4

Videos:- 1 }