Mr. Thomas Eliot, the writer of (The Waste Land), has been known as the leading poet of the 20th century. Eliot was born in Missouri, St. Louis, but became a British citizen in 1927. For these grounds, his works were perhaps studied in American or British literature subject. In the year 1906 he joined Harvard University, where he was influenced by student organizations who were attracted by Jacobean and Elizabethan literature, the humanism of (Babbitt), and Indian mystical values. He got further education at Oxford University and at Sorbonne. In the year 1914 he migrated to London and got an official position at Lloyd’s Bank. He kept this job for 11 years, that’s when he joined the publishing company of (Faber and Gwyer). After four years the firm became Faber and Faber in (1929), and Mr. Eliot was selected as the director. After 19-years he won the Nobel award for literature in 1948.
This poem first appeared in 1922, October, in the standard, a periodical established and edited by Mr. Eliot. In that same year November it was published in the (Dial), an American journal. After some time it was printed as a book with some notes included, and it has also emerged in different anthologies.
The poem (The Waste Land) is an allusive and intricate poem written by Eliot. By itself, it is an issue to different interpretations, and there are no two critics who fully agree on its meaning. The wasteland poem can be interpreted on three stages: the society, the person, and the human race. The personal understanding wants to disclose Eliot’s intentions and feelings in writing the poem. In the society stage, a critic looks at the significance/meaning of the poem in relation to the community for which the poem was written. In the end, the human stage widens the societal stage to contain all human communities – future, present, and past.
The World War I caused a global destruction at a point never before seen in human history. The whole generation of the best minds of France, Britain, Hungary, Germany, Austria, Italy, and Russia died in the mess and the mire of horrendous people like the Verdun, Marne and the Somme. War, while known in past times as hellish fires, at least apprehended some impression of duty and honor, but now, in the slime of the war, philosophers, artists, and poets died in thousands under sleet of un-merciful, mechanistic guns/bullets. After four years when the war was over (1918), a virus outbreak swept the globe, killing in a period of months more than the total victims of war and in areas previously unhurt by the fighting, like America and Spain. Surely, it was as if God himself was joining in on the killing. (Peter Jennings) once remarked.
In such situation, men like Eliot found wisdom itself gone. Maybe the West finally caused its own disgrace/downfall, or, at the very end, place in a coma, such as an etherized patient upon the operating table. Author’s reply to this death of civilization was maybe his biggest work, The Waste Land, an intricate and fragmentary job addressing this very devastation of society. The three finishing stanzas of the poem have the most significant, and maybe the hardest, points to analyze
Eliot’s final study of the west uses books as different as early Dante’s Purgatorio, Celtic Arthurian legends, and the Hindu holy book (Brihadaranyaka-Upanishad) to show an ultimate misery and hopeless vision of the future. Up to the last line, line, it shows that the falling Buildings of the West have collapsed into unreality at the final time.
Starting at line 424, the poem goes to a concluding channel. The heart of the poem suddenly changes from unintelligible sections of the lives of different individuals to the musings of a single figure.
With line quotations such as this one “I sat upon the shore / Fishing, with the arid plain behind me…” learners have recognized this outline as the (Fisher King from Arthurian grail legend), and cite two main pieces of evidence. At first, his connection to the very poem itself and to the wasteland or dry plain. The author takes the heading of his poem from (Celtic Arthurian myth) in Celtic legend, the Waste Land is the opposite of (Tír Tairngire), the place/land of Promise, and this idea of a heavenly kingdom later re-imaged once more, Christianized. Many critics believe that the chase for the divine Grail, rather than a quest for a factual object-the prize that caught the blood of Jesus Christ-signifies instead the unachievable state of exactness of the Tír Tairngire.
The closer the knights of Arthur’s Court draw nearer the Grail, the more elusive and insubstantial the holy vessel emerges. The Grail myth includes the emergence of the King Fisher, in the words of (William) “[The two main Grail legends concur] in unfolding a sect or ritual about a sick person, whose treatment apparently is to be achieved. Traditions recognize him as the King Fisher. Mr. Eliot makes these allusions in abundance clear by pointing the personality not only fishing but opposite from the arid plain, transverse the water.
The approach of the King Fisher gives the first meaning in this epilogue that expectation has deserted civilization. The emperor sits with his backside turned on his empty and infertile empire, just doing nothing but reflecting on himself and fishing. He questions himself if he should keep his lands in order, but the stanza instantly ends, and the issue remains unanswered. Both his thought and his only rhetorical question both indicate his unresponsiveness towards the destiny of the arid plain. This starts to become even more obvious upon a closer look at the book line.
The King Fisher repeats the familiar lines to a baby song: “London Bridge is crumbling/falling down. The chapter is ominous and weird precisely because the reader recognizes the song as a playful children’s song. Most Children repeat these lyrics without any idea of their outcome, but now the true meaning of the words about the fall and devastation of one of the signs of London comes to painfully clear. King Fisher obvious realizes the song this way, particularly because this chapter occurs after lines (377- 367), wherever Eliot shows the fall of the West in armed forces terms of collapsing towers and the famous towns of culture- Athens, Alexandria, London, Vienna, Jerusalem-crumbling into dirt.
The coming stanza has some of the most complex citations in this selection, basically due to the extracts are in four different cultures. Latin, English, French and Italian. After converting and relating all four extracts, the reader can sketch a clearer image of the meaning of these lines. The first passage comes from (Dante Aligheri’s Purgatorio). Which he wrote that “Then he vanishes himself in the flames that cleanses them.” This stanza comes immediately after the author Arnaut Daniel gives a nice impression of Purgatory in Provencal, a small minority native/language in Italy and Southern France. The coming passage, in Latin language, written by Pervigilium Veneris (Vigil of Venus), and indicates “When shall I come to be like the ingest? The Veneris Pervigilium has the tale of the raped Philomela, her sorrow changed into a swallow’s cry. At last, the French line comes Gérard de Nerval’s El Desdichado. The disowned provided, “The son of a king prince of Aquitaine in the neglected building.” The expression “Ile gratify you,” is ancient English meaning “I’ll thank you. At last, the expression “Hieronymo’s mad again,” comes from the actor Thomas Kyd’s who participated in the play (Spanish Tragedy) the personality/character Hieronymo pretends to be mad to find out the person who killed his son. But what do these unrelated expressions mean? The truth is revealed in the understanding that there should not be any connection between these incomplete quotations for the poem to have a complete meaning. Maybe their main idea is their uncertainty, their lack of arrangement; like that of the willful violence for the whole poem, the last stanzas give nothing more than chaotic glimpses into the past times of western literature.
However, there is another remains possible clarification of the meaning behind the poem. The characters in these texts group themselves together by their wish to bury themselves from what has been made of their magical world. Arnaut one of the character secretes himself from Virgil and Dante in the flames of purgatory; one character known as Philomela masquerades her sorrow at her ravishment as a flying bird; the son of the King, the prince of Aquitaine veils in his building, bereaving in the loss of his dear wife; Hieronymo masquerades his sorrow and hatred at the fatality of his son in shades of madness. Eliot’s Fisher King tumbles into the same stance as these mythical figures: he rests with his backside facing away from his kingdom, ignoring its failures. The effort of book shown by the poet reflects the feelings of the narrator.
When an understanding of the whole logical surge of these sections survives, one main question still remains: why these efforts? Why did T.S. Eliot choose this writing in particular kept as sections of the West? Where he was given the alternative, as a philologist or professor would perhaps maintain fire over Shakespeare, Purgatorio over Kyd, the second passage would read as “Arma virumque cano,” instead of “Quando fiam ceu chelidon.” The author T.S. Eliot has not selected a familiar literature, or even literature recognized worldwide as mainly great or time free. The selection of works invokes the image of an agitated professor rushing into the library as the fire of the collapsing towers dash about him. The unknown professor dashes from corner to corner, clutching books at random, and at end running out the door for shelter and safety. Maybe Eliot informs us that in the falling of Western civilization, a human cannot be too meticulous-better to save something than nothing at all. This passage finds hold up in the next line, “these parts I have won against my failures.” The King Fisher, in maintaining the similarity of the ocean, uses these sections of the West to support the banks holding back the grouping waves of “hooded crowds.” This choice of words to maintain civilization indicates fully the anxious times in which the West gets itself inside.
As the human stage is an extension of the societal stage, the important subjects are similar for both. The key subject is “present life as a squander land.” T.S. Eliot supports the subject by indicating what was wrong with community in the early 20th century. These inadequacies contain lack of communication, lack of confidence, trepidation of life and death, graft of the life-water signs, and forced sex.
There are only two types of people in the civilized wasteland, according to T.S Eliot. These are mentioned in the group that runs over Bridge London (65-62). He quotes, “I had not considered that death had unwrapped so many.” This is an allusion to Dante’s report of the inhabitants/people in Limbo. He referred to the victims who were neither the good nor the bad, just secularized.
This is just one class of people in the wasteland. The other quotation is given by a different reference to Dante: “exhale noisily, short and sporadic, were exhaled.” This is an example of people in the first stage of hell, the ones born before Jesus Christ. They have no understanding of salvation and cannot be delivered from their sins (by Dante.)The passage indicates that there are also people in the 20th century who don’t have faith (Brooks). Eliot shows lack of faith at numerous points. In the text lines (301-302), one of the Thames girls/daughters says, “I can relate/ zero with zero.” Since she didn’t have faith, there are no relations and no sense in her life (Wheelwright 97). There are quite a number of references in the stanzas to “hooded crowds walking in a ring.” Sosostris sees them, and the hero meets them as he travels to the Chapel of Perilous. The hooded crowds are covered because they cannot see the covered figure, the “third that always walks beside you,” who represents Christ (Brooks 26). They are hiking in a cycle, without direction or purpose, since they lack faith (Williamson 149).
Another sign of the lack of faith in people is the story of the merchant. Normally/ traditionally, the traders carried the secrets of the vegetation sect – the mythology which creates the foundation of the poem – to Avery the nation they visited. However, the merchant the author describes does participate in this. Instead of asking the protagonist to join them to a meeting that will introduce him to invigorating secrets, the merchant asks him to a holiday of homosexual corruption that can only convey death (Brooks 21). Additionally, Sosostris is restricted from seeing what the trader carries on his backside. She, prefers others in her world, can’t realize the undisclosed secrets of life (Wheelwright 97). The universe/world has lost its faith.
The inhabitants of wasteland have difficulties communicating with each another. This is initially represented in the Hyacinth girl part (41-35). She points out that she is not capable to speak, and therefore she cannot talk with the protagonist (Unger, Moments 120). Likewise, the woman of circumstances says “talk to me. Why don’t you ever talk? Talk.” She feels the importance of communication but she doesn’t know how (Traversi 35). The feedback to the order “Dayadhvam”, (commiserate) also indicates that the people cannot converse. They are all staying in their penal complexes, thinking of solutions that will set them free, yet never get freed. Their arrogance and egocentricity keep them from understanding one another.
In the end, the meeting between the typist and the young man strengthens the problem of egocentricity. Neither of the two i.e. typist nor her guest is concerned about the other. They only want to satisfy themselves. Because of their selfishness, there is no chance of communication between the countries. The starting lines of the poem show the emotion of the protagonist as springs begin. Instead of being happy, he is bothered. The fresh starting around him makes him afraid, because he does not want a fresh beginning in his sorry life. He is scared to live life to the fullest.
Nevertheless, he is also scared to death. The line “I will describe you fear in a handful of dirt” indicates the terror of death, or terror of coming to be just a handful of dirt (Traversi 26). The next example of fear of death is in the sowing of the corpse indicated in lines (69-75). The protagonists are concerned if the dead bodies have sprouted. He appears to be frightened of what may happen if it does (Williamson 134). However, the dismay of rats’ alley (115) shows the fear of death. Although the people of the wasteland do not want to complete life, they are very frightened of death.
An ancient sign of life is water, since human life is considered to have come from the water through the development of fish. Different religions, including the vegetation sects, held water as holy and life-preserving. Unfortunately, the inhabitants of the wasteland have mislaid this traditional belief, according to T.S. Eliot. They have dishonored the life signs and changed them into something to be feared instead of respected. E.g., the Phoenician sailor perishes by drowning.
Water definitely does not indicate life to him! The author (Sosostris) warns the protagonist to fear death by water. Since he does not believe/lacks faith. Water means the opposite to him i.e. death. He cannot exist in it (Williamson). He also points out “By the waters of Leman I settled down and cried…” (182). Leman indicating lust, the protagonist shows here that the occurrence of uncontrolled lust has bothered him. The corrupted Water – indicates the death that has been caused by the lack of personal control. It no longer represents life (Williamson 139). In the fables of the King Fisher a foot-washing celebration preceded the return of the king. These passages indicate to us that regular water can no longer be utilized in foot washing – its image that has been lost (Brooks 20). A significant theme is sin of sex — Eliot emphasizes this by giving several examples. The first example is indicated in the depiction of the lady of situations. A “sylvan part” is shown above her mantel. The part depicts “the recreation of Philomel,” who was forced into sex by King Tereus, Husband of her sister Procne. The author states in line 102, “And still she wept, and stills the world continuous.” The transformation of Philomela took place many decades ago, and yet it is still continuing up to date (Williamson 142). A second example of sinful sex is in the pub part (172-140- ). Albert “wants a private time” and he doesn’t mind who he impairs to get it. He is not worried about the likelihood of his wife dying when he is giving birth. Her buddy, who is speaking, is not bothered either. The sentiments of the community are that desires should be meet at any cost (Brooks 17-18). This subject is viewed again in the meeting of the typist and the immature man (222-256). The typist is “tired and bored.” The young gentleman is “decided and flushed.”T.S. Eliot states, “His pride needs no response, / and makes a welcome of lack of sympathy.” He is not concerned with pleasing or exciting her; he is only concerned with his own contentment. “Love” in civilized society does not actually love – it is simply the fulfillment of instinctive lust. It is practical, meaningless, and boring (Matthiessen 61).
These three parts are quite lengthy, but the author also indicates the sin of love in short references. E.g. lines 198-196 says “But at my backside from time and again I hear / the hums of motors and horns, which will bring / Sweeney to Mrs. Porter in the spring.” The initial line is a reference to Marvell’s “To His shy Mistress.” The other two sentences refer to Day’s “congress of Bees” — “A sound of horns and hunting, which shall cause / Actaeon to Diana in the spring.” The references are shown in Eliot’s notes. The distinctions of “hunting” with “motors” as well as” Diana and Actaeon “with “ Mrs. Porter and Sweeney “ explain the important changes in the chase of love. Love was once valued, but it is now condensed to sex for fun and nothing else. In addition, the author differentiates the love of Leicester and Elizabeth (279) with couples of today shown by the Thames daughters. The past love was real and enduring, while the love of today’s world is phony and transitory (Brooks 23).
The author is disappointed with the society he has presented as a wasteland, however he does give hope and a way of healing. In scene V “What the Thunder spoke,” the three explanations of DA – Datta shows Dayadhvam sympathize and Damayata control – are the means to new life for wasteland. They are the reverse of the present crisis. If people teach themselves to give, sex will get a new meaning as an expression of true love/emotion and it will no longer be misused. If people sympathize with one another, they will be able to tell they’re true feelings and pay attention to those of others. Lastly, if they increase personal control, their faith and trust will revisit and they will fear life and death no more.
Many critics have restricted themselves to the societal/human understanding of T.S. Eliot’s work, since the author had cautioned them away from trying to establish his true intentions in writing his poetry. However, one speculation has been put forward regarding his personal background and the intentions of the poem.
The time T.S. Eliot was pursuing his studies in Paris he had a close pal, known as Jean Verdenal, who was murdered at Gallipolli during First World War. T.S. Eliot was rather not sure how he passed away, but “death by water” is a likely explanation since the war took offshore.T.S Eliot devoted his first Volume of poems, Other Observations andPrufrock, to this pal. Idea gathered from his first wife/lady and from his own papers shows that he loved Jean Verdenal dearly. The story that has been unleashed is that he wrote The Waste Land to communicate and somewhat alleviate his sorrow, such as Tennyson did with his own words (In Memoriam Miller 19).
The continent/world might never be sure precisely what the author had in mind when he wrote his most celebrated poem. However, we can conclude the significance of the poem to the “Lost Generation” and to all age groups, as uttered in the themes I have indicated.
In the rouse of the anniversary celebration of T. S. Eliot’s delivery, queries about the poet’s anti-Semitism persevere. The issue produced a fierce debate in England last year, when a British Magazine, the Jewish weekly, questioned the involvement of several famous Jewish intellectuals in the founding of the T. S. Eliot centennial Fund at the London Library. Now different queries have been mentioned by Christopher Ricks’s fresh book, ”T. S. Eliot and Prejudice,” which was later excerpted in the Times legendary supplement, where it led to a spirited replacing of letters. It is to be published the following month by the University of California.
Amongst the notorious articles in Eliot’s work quoted by Mr. Ricks and others are these lines of stanza: My home is a rotten house, and the Jew cowers on the window ledge, the owner, produced in some estaminet of Antwerp – The rats are beneath the masses. The Jew is beneath the lot.
Rachel nee Rabinovitch Tears fall at the grapes with lethal paws; – ”Sweeney among the Night storm” Complete fathoming five your Bleistein stays under the flatfish and the squids. Graves ‘epidemic in a dead jew’s eyes! When the crabs have eaten the covers. Dropped than the wharf rats jump Though he experiences a sea-transformation yet strange and expensive rich – The funeral song,” posthumously printed with the document of ”The Waste Land”
Still more egregious, in the view of several critics, was a lecture given by Eliot at the campus of Virginia in the year 1933 and later published as ”After bizarre Gods: A Primer of current Heresy. In it, the author spoke of the possibility for stability and tradition, declaring: ”The populaces should be identical; where different cultures exist in the same area they are likely either to be violently self-conscious or both to become contaminated. What is yet more vital is union of religious settings, and reasons of race and religion unite to make any great number of free-thinking Jews undesirable.
T.S. Eliot didn’t permit a second copy of the book, amplification that it articulated his own confused state of mind at the moment. Different Critics have also tried to explain, even clarify away, many of the above texts. As recommended in the book by author Ricks, a professor of English at Boston campus, these clarifications – and justifications –are likely to fall into three groups. In the first place, there is what Mr. Ricks calls the disseminative claim -heightened by Edmund Wilson, among other writers – that bickers that ”Eliot’s relation to anti-Semitism is one thing; his poems talk about.
It’s ideas that do not take into consideration George Steiner’s study that ”Eliot’s uglier touches is likely to happen at the foundation of very famous poetry,” as well as the actuality that Eliot’s injustices were intimately connected to his conservative world vision, his espousal of Christian orthodoxy and the thoughts of a society kept together religious order and regulation.
Secondly, there is the biographical follow-up, which suggests that Eliot’s chauvinisms were intangible, that in the words of the author and writer David Daiches, he ”was not in person anti-Semitic,” that he was ”socially with and helpful to a number of ‘liberated-thinking Jews. Some critics have tried to debate that the poet unconsciously and consciously or equated ”liberated-thinking Jews” with his Unitarian father and the rejected coherent of his own childhood.
T.S. Eliot needed to complain about his father, and lambasted some invented Jews instead, (Mr. Empson) wrote. ”Unitarians portrayed themselves as committed Christians, but refute that Jesus was the almighty God, while Eliot was starting to feel a strong pull towards a return to the devotion of the tormented victim. Currently if you are disgusting a purse-pompous businessman who rejects that Jesus is God, into what typecast does he fit best? He is a Jew, of origin; and still this would be an awful profanity against his family and its ethnic pride, very much so that I hesitate whether Eliot ever permitted himself to understand what he was doing.
The ancient approach, continue by other scholars, tries to find mitigating events for Eliot’s statements by giving out that anti-Semitism was a common attitude in the 1920’s when Burbank, Gerontion, and Sweeney were printed, that in this time before the Nazi atrocities, it was yet a justifiable social wrong.
Actually you can get what would presently be called anti-Semitic statements in his early work, this is word altered by George Orwell regarding Eliot in the year 1948, ”but who didn’t speak out such things at that time? One has to make some differences between what was said in past and what was mentioned after 1934.
This clarification neither comes to provisions with the details that it was just such thoughts that contributed to Hitler’s upcoming to power, nor does it clarify Eliot’s silence in the wake of exposures about the Holocaust following the war, he neither retracted nor rejected the controversial statements in the cited poems, merely increased the ”j” in Jew’.
A lot of the confirmations regarding Eliot and anti-Semitism seen in Mr. Ricks’s book seem mainly damning. We studied that Eliot ”loved much in Charles Maurras,” the confrontational French anti-Semite. And we knew that in the1936, as editor of The Criterion, Eliot wrote an unsigned appraisal of a book about the maltreatment of the Jews in Germany.
Whether or not the analysis was by Eliot, Mr. Rick’s views, it had the stamp of his endorsement and the stamp of his character. The review analyzed the book as ”a try to rouse moral resentment byways of sensationalism. The text, the passage went on, failed to indicate ”why they, amongst all the unluckiest of the world, have a first say on our sympathy and willful to help.
In watching such information, Mr. Ricks views that Eliot had an unsettled resentful emotion/feelings about Jews; but he seems to take a big number of his book trying to keep away from getting this finale/conclusion. Through detailed, conscientious readings of their own poems and lines, Mr. Ricks suggests that prejudice was less a position of Eliot’s own than a concept -comprising a connection of psychology, philosophy, art and politics- to be investigated in his writing. T.S. Eliot’s poems, Mr. Ricks discloses, like much that he respected step by step, Coriolanus and the plays of Jonson, is planned to provoke its audience at once to firm judgments upon the world which it shows and to firm thought about the precise grounds on which anyone may genuinely pass such judgments.
Due to the volatile condition of prejudice as a subject, and because of the indefinable subtleties of Eliot’s lines, Mr. Ricks suggests that the sentiments given by the controversial stanzas in the poems are disclosed to misinterpretation and misreading. He proposed that the line in ”Gerontion, for example – the Jew squats on the window ridge – may simply indicate the perspective of the character Gerontion, rather than the perspective of the author of the poem ”Gerontion.” A suitable enough argument, as far as it goes, but one that does not explain just why Eliot felt obliged to create/build Gerontion an anti-Semite, or why he chose to utilize this ugly stereotype.
Additionally, Mr. Ricks suggests, the author was capable in his later poems to surpass prejudice and hatred to achieve a kind of salvation. He reads the following sentences from Four Quartets; this is the use of recall, For freedom – not less of love but increasing love further than desire, and so freedom. From the coming future as well as the passing history.
This need to see writers or an artist in his maturity rising above the limitations or prejudices of his youth is convincing. We would like to consider that generation – especially in the case of a writer genius – presents grace wisdom, and acceptance.
Several scholars have tried to advance a connected argument in the case of Pound, indicating that in old age the poet gives up his Fascist beliefs. But as Pound told Allen Ginsberg that the most horrible mistake he made was that stupid, suburban prejudice of anti-Semitism,” that declaration indicates not genuine regret or repentance; rather, it minimizes a question of morality to a inconsequential subject of a social faux pas.
What’s more, the psychiatrist (E. Fuller Torrey) challenges in his book ”The Roots of subversion: Ezra strike and the clandestine of Saint. Elizabeths (McGraw-Hill) that Pound’s indications seem to have been overstated by his doctor (Winfred Overholser), to keep the poet (on positions of insanity) from going on trial for sedition. That condition underscores the keenness to excuse artists or writers from many of the responsibilities of the community/society at large, as well as a reluctance to admit the possibility that a gifted people might logically choose evil. For example one doctor, quoted in Mr. Torrey’s text, express it as: ”Of course Dr. Overholser has made perjury.Mr Pound was a famous artist, a nationwide treasure. If needed I would have committed perjury too – well.
This desire to award art with an overarching value, pristine, and to place art in an equation with principles – to link truth and beauty, vision with talent – appears to lie beneath many of the arguments proceeded by Mr. Ricks and others on behalf of T.S. Eliot. In a society that likes to recompense talent with fame, respect with money, the idea that famous artists might hold morally disgusting views, that fine art may contain guilty thoughts, is not a congenial proposal. It’s very easy, more soothing, to either rationalize writer/ artists’ controversial speeches or distance their morality and politics from their art.
As a corollary, our conventional images of these two fathers of civilization are simple, unthreatening ones of a martyr as a poet. We tend to consider Eliot as putting upon bank clerk, trying to manage money difficulties. And as the scholar Peter Viereck suggested that, we tend to feel of Pound as ”the poet behind barbed wire (Pound caged at Pisa when Hitler lost the war) and an artist in the madhouse (Pound at Saint. Elizabeths Hospital).
In actuality, both men viewed themselves as social critics, as well as artists or poets, and to try to separate the two characters is ultimately to simplify the ambiguities of their cleverness. What is needed, instead, is a review of the connection between their beliefs and their art – and maybe, too, a re-consideration of our expectations of the role we want art to play in our daily lives.
Works Cited
Brooks, C. (1948). “The Waste Land: An Analysis.”. New York: Funk and Wagnall’s.
Eliot, T. S. (1922). The Waste Land. Boni and Liveright.
Fry, N. (1972). T.S. Eliot. New York: Capricorn Books.
Headings, P. R. (1964). T.S. Eliot. New York: Twayne Publishing.
Kenner, H. e. (1962). T.S. Eliot: A Collection of Critical Essays. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Martin, G. e. (1970). Eliot in Perspective. New York: Humanities Press.
Martin, J. e. (1968). A Collection of Critical Essays on “The Waste Land.”. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Mathiessen, F. (1947). The Achievement of T.S. Eliot. New York: Oxford UP.
Miller, J. E. (1977). T.S. Eliot’s Personal Waste Land. London: Pennsylvania State UP.
Thompson, E. (1963). T.S. Eliot: The Metaphysical Perspective. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP.
Traversi, D. (1976). T.S. Eliot: The Longer Poems. New York and London: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Unger, L. (1948). T.S. Eliot: A Selected Critique. New York and Toronto: Rinehart and Company, Inc.
Unger, L. (1966). T.S. Eliot: Moments and Patterns. Minneapolis: U. Minnesota P.
Ward, D. (1973). T.S. Eliot Between Two Worlds. London and Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Wheelwright, P. (1948). “Eliot’s Philosophical Themes.” T.S. Eliot,.ed. B. Rajan. New York: Funk and Wagnall’s.
Williamson, G. (1953). A Reader’s Guide to T.S. Eliot. New York: Monday Press.