Paradox of Time and Cultural Order in T.S.

Eliots The Waste Land

Abstract
It is the intention of this paper to assess the significance of contradiction and paradox
in the poetry of T.S. Eliot. For the critic Cleanth Brooks there is a sense in which
paradox is the language appropriate and inevitale to poetry! "Brooks# $%. Certainly
Eliot&s poetic language approaches the li'its of logic and there is a sense in which he
can express his philosophical and theological considerations in no other ter's.
Indeed such a conviction 'ight e traced to Eliot hi'self in his clai's that poetry
'ust e difficult! and that when a poet&s 'ind is perfectly e(uipped for its work# it is
constantly a'alga'ating disparate experience.! "Eliot# )**+# ,+-,.%. The following
paper will thus identify and assess Eliot&s own /language of paradox&.
This paper will consider Eliot&s paradoxical language as the source of The Waste
Lands reputation as a difficult!# and at ti'es i'penetrale# poe'. The 0aste 1and
fre(uently denies traditional exegesis and si'plistic interpretation# opting for
transcendent 'eanings and 'etaphysical resolutions. For poetry# unlike the fields of
science# there is roo' for irony# a'iguity# contradiction and paradox. Eliot&s poetry
certainly challenges traditional /rational& thinking# linear historicis' and the e'pirical
clai's of the early twentieth century.
Several ele'ents of Eliot&s /language of paradox& will e delineated as a 'eans of
etter understanding the poet&s enterprise. The use of classical allusions placed in
opposition to scenes fro' the 'odern world# specifically in part II /2 3a'e of Chess&
and part III /The Fire Ser'on&# will e considered. These allusions to classical
anti(uity# and at ti'es urles(uing of the classic# give way to one of the conclusions
of this paper that Eliot&s allusions de'onstrate the li'its of literary analysis# rather
than estalishing further fields of poetic analysis. The paper will ulti'ately estalish
a distinction etween the the waste land of legend! and the 'odern waste land!.
The use of a'iguous language will also e considered# specifically in the opening of
/2 3a'e of Chess&# supporting the view of the 4ew Critics that a'iguity preserves
certain linguistic or the'atic oppositions rather than elucidating and resolving the'.
The argu'ent will incorporate a range of older "ie. E'pson and 3rover S'ith% as
well as current criticis' "1aurence 5ainey and Craig 5aine% ut will estalish a 'ode
of understanding and a fra'e of reference that 'oves well eyond Brooks into so'e
i'portant new territory. That is to say the paper will go eyond the for'al properties
of paradox "which Cleanth Brooks studies in several essays% to consider Eliot&s use of
paradox as a 'eans of suverting the cultural order. It should e noted that this paper
was the opening chapter to 'y undergraduate dissertation on /T.S. Eliot and the
1anguage of 6aradox& that considered oth The Waste Land and Four Quartets.
Paradox of Time and Cultural Order in T.S. Eliots The Waste Land
If paradox ena'ours the reader to find a transcendent or 'etaphysical unity etween
its contrary ele'ents# it 'ust also e recognised that paradox has disrupted traditional
'odes of interpretation and destailised the cultural order in which these ele'ents
exist. For the purposes of this paper several ele'ents of Eliot&s own /language of
paradox& that operate in The Waste Land will e exa'ined. These include# ut are not
restricted to# the use of allusion# E'psonian a'iguity# 7uxtaposition of words and
ter's in new and sudden co'inations!# anachronistic references# and the use of
'ultiple and contradictory poetic voices. In nu'erous instances this paradoxical
language contriutes to the poe'&s reputation as co'plex# i'penetrale and even
nonsensical. 8et it is the intention of this paper to consider# what Cleanth Brooks
calls# the poe' as a unified whole!
9
wherey these 'o'ents of paradox provide an
intriguing insight into the operations of the poe' itself and dislocate : language
into 'eaning! "Eliot# )**+# ,.%.
It is suitale to egin our investigation with part II of The Waste Land# /2 3a'e of
Chess.& The title itself de'onstrates the variety of ter's that overlap in the poe'. /2
3a'e of Chess& alludes to a Tho'as ;iddleton play of the sa'e na'e# yet it is in
;iddleton&s play /0o'en eware 0o'en& that we oserve the deeper 'eaning of
Eliot&s orrowing. In the latter play a ga'e of chess is played etween 1ivia and the
'other of 1eantio whilst on the other side of the stage the <uke of Florence seduces
1eantio. Thus to the audience the chess 'oves on one side of the stage 'irror the
sexual advances 'ade on the other. This section of the poe' is indeed 'arked y
9
It should e noted that the notion of a unified whole relates to the Classical 1iterary concept of
organic unity! in a text that =orace and 2ristotle praise in the poetry of Sappho and in the 'ode of
tragedy ut that was seen to e lacking in Epic poetry. It 'ay e posited that Eliot endorsed such
analyses of his poe' as a unified whole# stating in the final lines that these are frag'ents I have
shored against 'y ruins.!
sexual desire# ut in contrast to ;iddleton&s play this desire fails to 'aterialise in
action# with each frag'ent see'ing to present a stale'ate 'ostly devoid of sexual
encounters. 2 further layer to the title# revealed in Eliot&s original transcript is the
draft title to part II> /In the Cage& an allusion to the Siyl of Cu'ae that reinforces this
sense of stasis or stale'ate.
Fro' lines ??-@, we oserve how Eliot incorporates several overlaying the'es
through the a'iguity of the textA
The Chair she sat in# like a urnished throne#
3lowed on the 'arle# where the glass
=eld up y standards wrought with fruited vines
Fro' which a golden Cupidon peeped out.
To say these lines are a'iguous 'ay see' itself contradictory given the lavish
details and precision of the frag'ent. 8et the wo'an in the chair re'ains anony'ous
and the setting# whilst carefully descried# lacks the geographical place'ent of so
'any other frag'ents of the poe'. Into this a'iguous at'osphere Eliot places a
significant paradox wherein the ornate rhetoric of the scene is repeatedly 7uxtaposed
with personal and often sexually-charged ter'sA
Bnguent# powdered# or li(uid C troubled# confused
2nd drowned the sense in odours> stirred y the air
That freshened fro' the window# these ascended
In fattening the prolonged candle-fla'es#
Flung their s'oke into the la(uearia#
Stirring the pattern on the coffered ceiling. DItalics 'ineE
0hat we oserve is an incongruous presentation of an austere# decorative scene and
s'ouldering sensations that return us to the the'e of sexual desire. This conflict 'ay
e resolved if such extravagant vers were related to the unna'ed wo'an of the
opening# ut instead Eliot 'aintains the anony'ity and i'personality of the scene.
The paradoxical co'inations of words and 'eanings in this frag'ent is an effort
co'parale to that which Eliot ad'ired in the ;etaphysical poets and several
2ugustan poets as the perpetual slight alteration of language# words perpetually
7uxtaposed in new and sudden co'inations.! 0ith this in 'ind Eliot&s endeavour
see's to e a setting up of inco'patile words and ter's which are preserved y the
a'iguity of the frag'ent.
2ove the anti(ue 'antel was displayed
2s though a window gave upon the sylvan scene
The change of 6hilo'el# y the ararous king
So rudely forced> yet there the nightingale
Filled all the desert with inviolale voice
2nd still she cried# and still the world pursues#
Fug Fug! to dirty ears.
In the following frag'ent the ;iltonic si'ile as though a window gave upon the
sylvan scene! is i''ediately contradictory> this is not an Edenic scene ut rather the
rape of 6hilo'ela and her suse(uent transfor'ation into the 4ightingale that is
depicted upon the wall. =owever here too Eliot&s adherence to paradox is
illu'inating for the speaker is defining the painting itself as aesthetically /Edenic& as
it eautifully depicts a ararous! tale. This e(uiliriu' of the eautiful and the
disgusting is not dissi'ilar fro' the alance of ornate dGcor and sexual desire in the
previous lines and hinges upon the a'iguity of the poe'. In a si'ilar vein the
a'iguity surrounding what the painting specifically portrays is deserving of
attention. 0hilst the initial state'ent The change of 6hilo'el! i'plies her
'eta'orphosis into a 4ightingale at the end of Hvid&s tale# the change! displayed in
the painting is y the ararous king so rudely forced! throwing up the oscene
suggestion that this change! is in fact the physical derange'ent of 6hilo'ela as Iing
Tereus re'oves her tongue. Either way it is i'possile that the painting
si'ultaneously presents oth the rutal punish'ent of 6hilo'ela and her later
'eta'orphosis into the 4ightingale and thus the reader can deduce that Eliot has
'o'entarily taken us eyond the stasis of the painting and into the tale ehind it.
Such an assertion is supported y the following line which 'oves fro' the visual
depiction of the painting to the auditory with 6hilo'ela&s defiant cry yet there the
nightingale J Filled all the desert with inviolae voice.! Cleanth Brooks
acknowledges a latant paradox here in that for 6hilo'ela# through violation co'es
the inviolale voice.! It is once again Eliot&s pursuit of the 'etaphysical sensiility
that leads hi' to co'ine the word inviolale! with the voice.! The so'ewhat
a'iguous sense of inviolaility i'plies that the voice is i'possile to silence "unlike
6hilo'ela% ut also perhaps that it is sacred or sacrosanct> achieving a state of purity
eyond the rape and torture that 6hilo'ela has endured. This transfor'ation 'ay e
co'parale to Christian concepts of salvation through persecution and to the idea of
asceticis' that runs through /The Fire Ser'on& the inherent paradox of which is
worthy of further acade'ic attention.
These disorienting and discordant scenes evidently revolve around Eliot&s language of
paradox. =owever the 'ost intriguing# and perhaps 'ost revealing paradox in /2
3a'e of Chess& involves the tying together of ti'e past and ti'e present. In the
following line Eliot gives a contradictory change of tenses# 2nd still she cried# and
still the world pursues.! To the reader this presents an i''ediate and irreconcilale
conflict etween the past and present. 2s a 'eans of explaining this paradox it 'ay e
posited that we oserve two separate events> the historical allusion and the 'odern
fra'e of 'ind# wherey there is oth the tale of 6hilo'ela&s rape and the divergent
i'pact it has upon the 'odern worldA still the world pursues# /Fug Fug& to dirty ears.!
This paradox in ti'e is only resolvale if we conclude that the defiant# /inviolale&
voice of the previous lines# and indeed of the past tense# has eco'e the vulgarised#
and thus trivialised# sexual referenceA Fug Fug! of the present tense. It 'ight appear
i'possile to reconcile such religious i'plications of inviolale purity with the
vulgarity of the following lines# however this disparity 'ight e identified as a shift
fro' the rich history of 3reek 'yth to the sense of 'oral relativis' and loss of faith
in Eliot&s post-war Europe. The 'odern cry Fug Fug! is incoherent# in keeping with
a ;odernist fascination with the failure of language and the idea that articulate hu'an
speech has degenerated into the pri'itive iterations of noises and sounds fro' the
ani'al kingdo'.
0hat Eliot called a cultural reakdown! in /4otes towards the <efinition of Culture&
'ight e identifiale through this 7uxtaposition of past and present in /2 3a'e of
Chess&. Indeed Cleanth Brooks identifies a separation of the waste land of legend!
and the 'odern waste land!# stating that The rich experience of the great tradition
depicted in the roo' receives a violent shock in contrast with a ga'e that sy'oliKes
the inhu'an astraction of the 'odern 'ind. 1ife has no 'eaning> history has no
'eaning! "Brooks# 9+,%. Brooks is correct to identify this cultural reakdown as
exclusive to 'odernity# as this appears to e Eliot&s central enterprise in several
frag'ents of the poe'. The decadence of 'odernity is 'ade aundantly clear when
the speaker is vulgarising# or even urles(uing# the tale of 6hilo'ela. Indeed despite
the poet&s later clai's that The Waste Land was not a Lcriticis' of the conte'porary
worldL ut a personal Lgrouse against lifeL# the use of paradox challenges the
conte'porary cultural order y putting it at odds with the past.
This inti'ate conflict etween religious elevation and vulgar sexual references is not
restricted to /2 3a'e of Chess&# ut rather per'eates 'ultiple frag'ents of the poe'.
/The Fire Ser'on& centres on scenes of sexual pleasure placed in contradiction to the
endeavour to transcend these te'ptations and earthly pleasures. The title alluding to
the Buddha&s /Fire Ser'on& suggests a scene of spiritual elevation and enlighten'ent#
yet the opening lines present a contrary settingA
The river&s tent is rokenA the last fingers of leaf
Clutch and sink into the wet ank. The wind
Crosses the rown land# unheard. The ny'phs are departed.
Sweet Tha'es# run softly# till I end 'y song.
Hn an ele'entary level the allusion to /fire& in the title conflicts with the focus on
water in the opening line# whilst on a for'al level the title&s theological i'plications
conflict with sexual innuendos and the vulgarity of the opening lines. 5eturning to
the conclusions of the /Change of 6hilo'ela& scene# it 'ay e posited that Eliot is
again presenting a distinction etween the archaic# aleit coherent# 'oralistic voice
and the 'odern# decadent voice.
2 further paradox of ti'e features in /The Fire Ser'on& as the references to the
ny'phs! and the loitering heirs of City directors! present an anachronis' etween
the past and present. This indeter'inacy of period is perhaps the result of Eliot&s use
of classical allusions in contradiction to their original 'eaning. For exa'ple in lines
9@,-9@M Eliot 'akes an allusion to lines fro' ;arvell&s /To =is Coy ;istress&A
But at 'y ack fro' ti'e to ti'e I hear
The sound of horns and 'otors which shall ring
Sweeney to ;rs. 6orter in the spring.
=owever as Cleanth Brooks identifies# Instead of /Ti'e&s winged chariot& the poet
hears /the sound of horns and 'otors& of conte'porary 1ondon.! "Brooks# 9.)%. In
displacing the archaic i'age of the chariot with the 'odern i'age of 'otor vehicles
we see the speaker e'ploy a classical allusion in order to 7uxtapose the past with
i'ages of the present day.
Bnlike the frag'ent fro' /2 3a'e of Chess& in which we oserve a paradox in ti'e#
it is see'ingly i'possile here to separate past and present# or distinguish a clear
'o'ent in which the tenses shift. Craig 5aine acknowledges this disorienting
paradox and concludes that The Waste Land operates under the concept of the
si'ultaneity of ti'e!. Certainly there are scenes such as those in /2 3a'e of Chess&
and /The Fire Ser'on& in which the inco'patiility of the past and present is
delierately highlighted and where this idea that all ti'e is si'ultaneous appears to e
the only logical resolution of such anachronis's and paradoxes of ti'e.
In his essay /Blysses# Hrder and ;yth& "9@)$% Eliot co''ends Fa'es Foyce&s novel
for creating a continuous parallel etween conte'poraneity and anti(uity! as a
'eans of controlling# of ordering# of giving a shape and a significance to the
i''ense panora'a of futility and anarchy which is conte'porary history! "Eliot#
)**+# 9??%. In relation to Eliot&s The Waste Land we oserve an incongruous parallel
of past and present focussed perhaps upon the sa'e panora'a of futility and anarchy
in the 'odern world. 8et as Craig 5aine notes# The Waste Land lacks any such fluid
parallel etween past and present. 5ather past and present displace each other in a
series of disruptive exfoliations: we hear a cla'our of separate voices# suddenly
focused# and 7ust as suddenly silent. There see's to e no ovious hierarchy: Eliot
collapses ti'e.! "5aine ?M-?@%. It 'ust e deduced therefore that the anachronistic
references and contradictory voices which per'eate The Waste Land wish to
destailise any for' of cultural structure or foundations.
The allusions do not serve up a si'ple 'oral or 'eaning of the poe' in its entirety#
the li'its of exegesis are 'ade clear# ;r Foyce is pursuing a 'ethod which others
'ust pursue after hi'. They will not e i'itators# any 'ore than the scientist who
uses the discoveries of an Einstein in pursuing his own# independent# further
investigations! "Eliot# )**+# 9?M%. The Waste Land itself acknowledges that these
historical parallels are perpetual and irresolvale through the co'plex allusion of the
nightingale 6hilo'ela# whose ancient cry is pursued into the present day and still she
cried# and still the world pursues.! That this inviolale voice! is paradoxically
deased to the sound /Fug Fug& to dirty ears! is testa'ent to the li'its of historical
exegesis in resolving any discernile 'oral or 'eaning fro' the 'odern world in the
poe'.
Blti'ately Eliot&s language of paradox appears foreoding as it co'plicates The
Waste Land through dis7ointed syntax# an inconsistent visual for'at and constant
switching etween speakers and location# offering the reader no logical connection
etween verses. Craig 5aine&s notion that The 0aste 1and is predicated on the
unstated assu'ption of /the si'ultaneity of ti'e& gains credence when the reader
considers the anachronis's and i'penetrale paradoxes of ti'e throughout the poe'.
2t this stage however the reader 'ust concede that the use of paradox has disrupted
traditional 'odes of interpretation and destailised the cultural order in which the
poe' was pulished. If we consider Eliot&s language of paradox to e an effort to
dislocate: language! into his own 'eaning it 'ay e concluded that the poet
endeavours to deny any such logical# rational /'eaning& fro' the 'odern waste
land!. The atte'pt to interpret the poe' as a unified whole! or containing so'e
sense of unity 'ight see' to e in vain as Eliot&s language of paradox leads the reader
towards notions of a 'etaphysical or theological level of unity eyond the confusion
and cynicis' of 'odernity.
Bibliography
Brooks# Cleanth. The Language of Paradox in The 0ell 0rought! 1ondonA Brn
;ariner Books# 9@.,.
Brooks# Cleanth. The Waste Land: Critique of the !th in ;odern 6oetry and the
Tradition! 1ondonA 6oetry 1ondon ltd.# 9@+M.
Eliot# Tho'as Stearns. T"S" #liot: Collected Poe$s %&'&(%&)* ed. 1ondonA Faer and
Faer# )**).
Eliot# Tho'as Stearns. Selected #ssa!s ed. Frank Ier'ode. 1ondonA Faer and Faer#
)**+.
Eliot# Tho'as Stearns. +otes towards the ,efinition of Culture" 1ondonA Faer and
Faer 1td.# 9@+M.
E'pson# 0illia'. Se-en T!pes of .$biguit!" 1ondonA Chatto and 0indus# 9@.$.
;ilton# Fohn. Paradise Lost" 1ondonA 6enguin 6ulishing =ouse# )**?.
5aine# Craig. T"S" #liot: Li-es and Legacies" HxfordA Hxford Bniversity 6ress# )**,.
5ainey# 1awrence. The .nnotated Waste Land with T"S" #liots Conte$porar! Prose"
1ondonA 8ale Bniversity 6ress# )**,.
S'ith# 3rover. T"S" #liot/s poetr! and pla!s: a stud! in sources and $eanings"
1ondonA Bniversity of Chicago 6ress# 9@?+.