A study of The Rock by T.S. Eliot : a thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in English at Massey University

Copyright is owned by the Author of the thesis. Permission is given for

a copy to be downloaded by an individual for the purpose of research and

private study only. The thesis may not be reproduced elsewhere without

the permission of the Author.

A Study

of

The

Rock

by

T.

S. Eliot.

A thesis

presented

in

partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of

Arts

in English at

Massey University

D. J. Kennedy 1973

il°lif ii\l 1111111

2.l

ABSTRACT

Chapter I of thi s thesis is jus~ a brief account of the genesis of The Rock: brief for f ear of reproducing what has already be8n nbly said before by Mr E. Martin Browne in his book The Making of ToS. El iot's Plays. In this sect ion the pageant and ~usic-hal l revue, which were the vehicles for this vaguely propagandist work, ar e treat ed, and what is so strang~l y import ant about the music-hal l form of entert ainment i s that Eliot was very much attracted to i t . This chapter, although it just sets the scene , shows the author working at a much more superfi cial level than ever before.

Chapter II deals with the importance of El iot's socio- r el igi ous thi nking r Gl ative to The Rock in the 1930s. ~he authoritarian nature and very rigour of his ort hodoxy ma.y h:.ve been pc1rt ly the reason why Tl]o Rock nnd After Strange Gods were never r 0publ ished, but the import ant point is made clear, through these views on Christian orthodoxy and

tradition, that El iot was to be admired as p0rhaps the only poet and intel lectual of gr eat standing in Engl and in the 1930s who gave his allegiance to something whol ly outside himself. In addition, what i s m2de explicit in this chapter, and held i raplicit throughout , is that Bliot was no turncoat who now gl adl y and L :cilely embrc.cr.:;d the succour of Mother Church as some critics would have us believe. What is m~de plain is t hat this r elatively new convert was finding a via media betweun f acile hope and poin·tless despair - hence the very discipline and rigour of his Anglo-Catholic

affirmations.

Chapter III is about tho requirements of the medium in what Was in f dct the first t i me Eliot had moved beyond a cot erie audience. The demands and l imitations are listed as criteria against which The ___ Rock can only be measured;

and although the choruses may be the first bad poetry Eliot had written, i t is made clear that he was conscious of the

seeming hollowness of ecclesiastical utterances. It may seem paradoxical t hat Eliot , in this propaganda setting,

i i i was actually t rying to wring tho neck of rhetoric , and the mor al is even enf orced by his inclusion of a verse- sketch which clearl y shows an adulterati on through rhetoric.

Chapter IV r everberates on the two preceding chapters in its delineation of a return t o a purified yet traditional language as wel l. Al though the nobili ty of language from biblical books is sti l l thers , EJ.iot was for the first time using a democratic, and non-hieratic, l anguage of ordinary man. There is a new distrust of the cunning and rhetorical, as cont ained in the 'objective corrol ative¹ of before, and the author i s attempting a personal atone through what seems to be an authenticity and sinceri ty of tone.

The Rock could conceivably exist without the .choruses at al l but they are important, unlike tho prose episodes,

because they were written without tho v2ri ous col laborators. Chapter V attempts, very bri efl y, to establish thut The Rock was not a propagandist' s h2ckwork but that the author was consciously gropi ns for new forms of prosody and dramatic techniques preparatory to his later pl ays and poetry and, as such, the work is seen in the perspdctive of an

importent stage midway i n Eliot' s careur as an artist and thinker.

iv

I-'REHACE

The Rock wa s the fi r st of T. S . Eliot's co mmissi oned reli gi ous plays and it was primarily written for perform ance at Sadler ' s Wells Theatre, Jslington~ London fro m 28 May - S Jun e , 1 934, on behalf of the Forty- five C hu rches Fund of the Diocese of Londo n. After its fir st pub lications in Eng land by Faber arnl Faber and in the United St at es by Harcourt Brace and Compa ny , the author allowed the work to

30

out of print a nd for it to r em a in an occ

asional piece

, except for the ten choruses whi c

h

have been re pub lished w ithin his Co llec ted Po ems .

This ttes i s is not intended to be a pat i ent e lucida tion of thi s for gotten text , bu t much rat her its poi nt a nd pur po se i s to st udy the wor

^1·~

i n r e l

,?..tion

t o T oS . Eli ot ' s

^01:m

poet i c , d ram atic , critic

a

l

a

nd soc i a l writin~s nnd , by scanning its before and after, to

endeavour t o f

ind some cont i uuit i es ,

li nks and a perspe c ti v e o As for the sup

pl

ementary el uc idation t

ti

ere

a

r e three most he l p.1.'ul

ho

oks : E . tvmrt in Browne ' s

_i;r;_h_~

_tvi_ a

1.:i

ng_

9_f __ 'l\ _0_. }~lj_ot'

_ s_ i.'l_

~_

J§. ( Cnmbr-idge : Cai ~b

r

idge

Universit

y

Pre'-,s,

1969);

Grove r f.)mith ' s

'1.¹

. S • .Slio t ' s

_

Poeg;z_

-~~_d_: __

_P_~ ay s: A_ S~2,l,?-/ _ _ _ ~.1::~ . .f~?_ U_J?ces

. nd

U_eani1~ ( Chica

0

o: University

of C h ic 2t2, o Fress ,

1SV1);

nd B. C. Uo utham' s A St1.,~de_21~t §__ _

_

_ Q_u id_ ~.

to _t_he S el8_c_!ed _

_

_ l

'_o_9_~n

s_ of

1¹of.,.

:2liot (London : Faber

a

nd .Fabe r Ltd,

1969) -

t hese all c ontain useful 3u i cl e .s , esp

<'JC

iaJ.ly the forme r w ork by l'-lart i n Br o

¹

.me \'Jh o c olla borated w ith the autho r to write T ho R oc k , and t he l att er work

by

Sou t ham not on l y bears the Impri m a tur of Faber and Faber, but w a

c

al s o prep a red with the authoritative advi c e of Mrs Va l erie Eliot whom th e author thanks i n his ' A c kno

~l

edgment s'.

This thesis wi ll also attempt to show how and why the man con sidered to be the most sophisti cat ed and maj or British poet of the twentieth ce ntury , accepted of his own volition, a pedestri an and unpretensious duty to his faith to express his own personal and idiosyncratic views about church and

society. What is more, i t seems i ncongrous but interesting

that this particular author should have conveyed thes e ideas,

not throue;h

.hi

ghly wrou ght and intens e ly a l lusive methods as

he was w ont, but th a t he did so by taking instead mere ly an

V

ad h

oc

impro v isation of the vill ~ge pa seant f r om the past , and

a

type of revue which

vm.s

enjoying some populari ty in Eng l and a t the time . N ot on

l

y d oes s

uch

a conc a t enation • eem strans e

ly

regres fJ i ve to

To S.

Elio t but, m oreover, this cosmopo li tt1.ti poet expre ~s ed through them a sectarian apolo[ i u for D i

G

h An~lic a nism .

The Roc k , there fo r e

,

show s ~l i ot wo r k ing

a·t a

shallow er

leve

l than ever b efor e

, i

n wlw.t

vrn.r;

hi s f irs t vJo r k written out

-

side a s~ecif ic ally

li·

tera ry , cote r i e audi ence

.

Ne verth e less

,

this thes

i

s wil

l

endeavou:;_:, to s how t hat The Ho ck was s·t:il

l

the work

o

f

a

major and subt

l

e m i nd f-'._; r c.pp ling w i th se

v

ere l imi

t D-

tions

and

th en transfo r mins them

.

There is still

a

c ont i nu i ty

of

th e auth or ' s co ncerns and mot i f s fr om his earli er writinss a. nd

,

even wit hin

L:he

str:i.c·tures of

^fl

provided

s

cenario

,

th e poet was ab

l

e to

z

i ve this pag eant- p

l

ay a distin

c

t l y El ioti c fl avo ur . Yet co nv erse l y , this thes i s w ill

be

somewhat like

a

b

i

olog ic a l field trip

and

i t wi ll sh ow how the ecolOGY i s

chunt i n~ in Eli ot ' s work

.

H is e ar li er hab it nt of e~treme human s el f - encl osure i [: now markedly csone

and

it

\IilJ_

b e sh own that t~1er e is a more hum ane o.nd pos itive con ce rn fi l terinr; through in

'L'hE; _

_Jtoct .

All quot at io ns w i1J_ be

t,:;_!.:en

fr ou1 the l~ e,ber edj_tion of '.r½~J:.-?.o ck wh i ch was fi:cs t pub li shr-;d in En(.., l o.nc: in 19Y~ but , for th e

s

a ke of

c

onvenience, the te n choru s es w

i

l J. be numbered co

rr

espondi n g to those reprinted in Col lect ed_Poems 1909- 1962.

I \•J ish to thank

Mro

I'e

t

er Alcoc

k

for h is SU[S_.es tio tl S and

co rre

c

tions wh ic h he has s,) ki nd l y ancl patiently adva "i:,.cecl J:' or

the preparation

of

thi ::.; m a nu s cri pt

o

H i n help with the text

and hi s L:no w l ed ge and supc

^•

rvisio n have been a n immen se help .

I

should a

ls

o

li

ke to thank lTofesso r R.G . Fr ean for his int ro-

duci n g me to

ToSo

Eli ot's p

oetry

some

y

ea

rs ago.

CHAPTER II.

CHAF:L1ER IIL

CHAP1¹-8R IV"

CHAP'.CER V.

BIBLIOGRAPHYo

CONTENTS

THE OCC.ASION -'~ND r.LiH_S WOHK - th~ ye:c.rs of l ¹Gntrc dcux gu~

r

rcs

ELIG'l1' S SOCIAL, lrnLIGICUS AND

Lil~RARY THEORY - thu frame of ideas

the Word flesh

SOQSUOUS ~mbodiment

Ai-:. EVAL

u

A ^.L1 I c.. {J

vi

1

14

30

45

_/

69

80

vii

Her e i s a pl~ce of dis~ffcction •• •

Burnt Norton III