Skip to content

Log Out


Good Letters

aristotleIn my last post for Good Letters, I took minor issue with a point my friend and mentor Gregory Wolfe made about the relative prominence of Christian public intellectuals around the middle of the last century.

Wolfe named, as examples of such prominence, Jacques Maritain, Etienne Gilson, Allen Tate, T.S. Eliot, Reinhold Niebuhr, and Paul Tillich. It is, by any account, a damn impressive list of intellectual heavy-hitters. But I claimed that Wolfe’s nostalgia-tinged look at the days of past glory might be obscuring the way in which those same figures bear responsibility for the fading of Christian—or any other religious— voices from the American public sphere.

In a comment to that post, Mr. Wolfe noted that I’d misread his main argument and that, “The point I was making was not nostalgic, but factual. It was a statement about the way religious public intellectuals of the mid-20th century moved freely within (and were welcomed into) the public square.”

Wolfe is right about that. It was a mistake for me to use the word “nostalgia” or to suggest that Wolfe’s argument had anything to do with pining for bygone days. Anyway, that’s not Gregory Wolfe’s style. Wolfe is a conservative of sorts, but in the very best meaning of the term. He seeks proper balance between tradition and ‘the new.’

I doubly regret using the word “nostalgia” since it obscured my own main argument, which is that Eliot and the New Critics were (unintentionally) agents of their own demise. That’s to say, T.S. Eliot (and many of the later New Critics, but let’s focus on Eliot) crafted a set of arguments that lead necessarily to cultural irrelevance and are, moreover, unchristian (!).

Let’s look at Eliot’s famous essay “Tradition and the Individual Talent” to see what I mean. Eliot begins that essay with a pretty reasonable argument. The gist is that poets “must be quite aware of the obvious fact that art never improves, but that the material of art is never quite the same. He must be aware that the mind of Europe—the mind of his own country—a mind which he learns in time to be much more important than his own private mind—is a mind which changes, and that this change is a development which abandons nothing en route, which does not superannuate either Shakespeare, or Homer, or the rock drawing of the Magdalenian draughtsmen.”

Eurocentrism aside, the essence of Eliot’s sentiment is sound. But here’s where things get weird. Eliot goes on to argue that the poet, in creating new work that is in dialogue with tradition, must not only come to choose the public “mind” over his or her own private mind but transmute personal emotions into non-personal, artistic sorts of emotions. These artful emotions transcend the individual while, at the same time, remaining like “the ordinary ones and, in working them up into poetry, [the poet expresses] feelings which are not in actual emotions at all.”

Eliot senses that he’s in vague territory here and admits, a few sentences down, that it is probably time “to halt at the frontier of metaphysics or mysticism.” But he doesn’t halt before quoting—as the epigraph to Section III of the essay—a line from Aristotle: “ho de nous isôs theioteron ti kai apathes estin,” which we can translate as “Mind is perhaps something more divine and unaffected (apathes).”

Eliot’s use of the Aristotle quote from De Anima is, in fact, terribly out of context and misleading in about five different ways. But that I’m willing to overlook. Productive mis-readings are, after all, part of the fun of writing.

What’s harder to overlook is that Eliot is quoting Aristotle at his most pagan. Even that is not necessarily the worst thing in the world. Some of my best friends are pagans.

But Eliot was not a pagan. He was a Christian. And Christianity, for all its crimes, is an incarnational religion. Indeed, without the incarnation there’s not much point to being a Christian.

The idea that Eliot snatches from Aristotle is a profoundly non-incarnational idea. It is the idea that Mind in its true essence (the Mind of God, as it were, or we could even just say God) has nothing to do whatsoever with creation.

So what Eliot is saying is that poetry, at its deepest root, is out there twisting in the rarified air of Aristotle’s Nous—self-reflecting, self-involved, untouched by the realm of matter and safe from all possible determinations. That’s the implication if we take section III of Eliot’s essay seriously. (Mr. Wolfe would call this, I think, an error of apophatic over kataphatic thinking. And I would agree.)

That’s why (in my earlier Good Letters post) I quoted from William F. Lynch’s Christ and Apollo as a counter to Eliot’s point. Because Christ and Apollo is a deeply incarnational book. Lynch demands that art get very, very messy with the world precisely because that’s what Christ did and therefore what God does. Or, to put it another way, God becomes man because God is involved with creation and not at all apathes, as Eliot and Aristotle would have it.

“[O]nly those who have personality and emotions know what it means to want to escape from these things,” Eliot writes in this same essay. But that’s to get it exactly the wrong way around. The way you deal with having personality and emotions is not by trying to escape from them. The answer, as a man from Nazareth once recommended, is to dive deeper in.

Eliot, I’m afraid, was not inclined to take that aspect of the Gospel message very seriously. In the end, therefore, he used the tools of Modernism to shut the door on Modernity, and therefore to shut the door on life as it was actually lived in his time. No wonder the rest of the world slowly closed its ears to what Eliot and the New Critics had to say.

Image depends on its subscribers and supporters. Join the conversation and make a contribution today.

+ Click here to make a donation.

+ Click here to subscribe to Image.

The Image archive is supported in part by an award from the National Endowment for the Arts.

Written by: Morgan Meis

Morgan Meis is a contributor to Page Turner at The New Yorker. He has a PhD in Philosophy and has written for The Smart Set, n+1, The Believer, Harper’s Magazine, and The Virginia Quarterly Review. He won the Whiting Award in 2013. Morgan is also an editor at 3 Quarks Daily, and a winner of a Creative Capital | Warhol Foundation Arts Writers grant. He is the author of Dead People, with Stefany Anne Golberg. He can be reached at


  1. Fred K on October 3, 2016 at 8:08 am

    Can we trust what poets write in essays? After all, their prose is likely to be full of misdirection and secondary motives. Shouldn’t a consideration of Eliot be centered on his most robust poems?

    I read Lynch’s Christ and Apollo, and enjoyed it when I read it. However, I have not really had an interest to return to it. Why? Despite its incarnational ideas, it takes a dismissive attitude to the authors considered, like Proust (unlike someone like Henri de Lubac, who moves me to learn from the atheist humanists he examines). When I read Lynch, I feel the smugness of knowing what not to read. Eliot, instead, got his hands dirty in his times, and made scandalous friends. So, if professors are no longer interested in Eliot, perhaps that’s because he was too involved in his times, and the fashion has shifted.

  2. Gregory Wolfe on October 3, 2016 at 10:33 am

    Once again, I’m going to risk appearing defensive in the hope that I can actually contribute to the conversation! I’ll try to be brief.

    1) Eliot published “Tradition and the Individual Talent” in 1919. He became a Christian in 1927. So he was thinking like a pagan when he was, in truth, a pagan. Thus that essay is not strong evidence that Eliot rejected an incarnational perspective.

    2a) More importantly, Eliot’s attitude toward the relationships among author/work/audience evolved and it is a dangerous thing not to take a thinker’s evolution into account when making big generalizations. In 1919 Eliot was consciously embracing “classicism” in reaction to what he felt, with some justification, to be the prevailing decadent “romanticism” of his time, one that reduced literature to the emotive expressions (and subconscious urges) of the self rather than a crafted form that understood itself to be a part of a larger literary continuum.

    2b) You only have to read “Four Quartets” to see that Eliot’s perspective had changed a great deal by that time. His own childhood, family history, and other personal experiences become central to the poem’s meaning–indeed, become the names of the four sections. Eliot is incarnate in this poem but more importantly, his shift in 4Q, perhaps influenced by Maritain or in tandem with Maritain, signaled a growing awareness by mid-century Christian intellectuals that the modern “self” could not simply be ditched. The only way forward would have to take the form of a synthesis between self and world, subjective and objective–or, incarnationally speaking, God and man. “The hint half guessed, the gift half understood, is Incarnation.”

    3) It’s still not clear what Morgan believes the “through-line” connecting the entire cast of mid-20th century intellectuals I enumerated. So far he’s been tough on the New Criticism. Was the theologian Paul Tillich a New Critic? If not, what IS the “through-line”?

    4) Finally, while I understand why it is necessary to see the flaws in figures who have perhaps been uncritically lionized, I’m also not sure what the larger argument is here. I am guessing that under this sort of scrutiny we can deconstruct pretty much any generation of loosely affiliated thinkers. I’m still not sure that my original point — that religious public intellectuals moved freely — and in numbers — through the public square in the mid-20th century — is being addressed, much less refuted.

    Can’t wait for the next installment!

    • Michael Minkoff on October 3, 2016 at 12:11 pm

      What about a poet like Dunstan Thompson (a poet I learned about because of you—thank you for that again). He seems to have received a rather cold post-conversion reception in the same intellectual circles in which he once moved freely. Why would Eliot have been accepted and Thompson rejected? Or is it merely an accident of circumstance—a coincidence? If it is an accident of circumstance, then what’s the value of the original point: that Eliot and other “religious public intellectuals moved freely,” etc.?

      • Gregory Wolfe on October 3, 2016 at 12:40 pm

        Good question, hard to answer in a few words. Eliot was a major figure, a founding father, of modern Anglo-American literary life, an editor at a major London book publisher. Thompson was a young poet who came to maturity during the war and then who retreated from the mainstream literary life to live quietly in the countryside. Animosity to Eliot was building around the same time but he was so lionized that it was only after his death that the critics came out of the woodwork.

        • Michael Minkoff on October 3, 2016 at 6:48 pm

          Whereas Thompson would have been easier to sweep aside, especially given his own decision to exit the urban social/intellectual scene in the end. Thank you for the reply.

Receive ImageUpdate, our free weekly newsletter featuring the best from Image and the world of arts & faith

* indicates required