In this second lecture the biographical sketch of Eliot’s life is continued, and episodes from it are juxtaposed with scenes from the Waste Land. The biographical review alludes to episodes, themes, and interests such as Charles Maurras and Action Française, Eliot’s editorship of The Dial, his work in philosophy, his Harvard dissertation on Bradley (though it was never defended), and (as early as 1917) the interest in Thomism. Dr. White also explores the pain Eliot experienced in his unhappy marriage to Vivian Haigh Wood (though she loved his work and appreciated its significance).
The additional emphasis of this lecture is the beginning of a detailed consideration and explication of the first three sections of the Waste Land, consisting of a repository for imagery, allusions, and fragments, that are themselves assembled but also remain for reassembly in other settings. Considered, among other things, are the significance of World War I, the use of myths – inherited from Joyce (though Eliot abhorred his Ulysses in many ways) – such as the fisher-king, the Grail. Dr. White notes the opening reference to Chaucer, and the poem’s contrasting the joy of Medieval, Catholic spring with the misery of living in a useless, hideous world. The doctor also emphasizes the role of the poetic reader – who brings a legitimate element to a poem, coloring its meaning based on the reader’s own experience – is contrasted with that of the poet.
Here Dr. White begins his detailed analysis of the groups of lovers in A Midsummer Night’s Dream by describing the different poetic forms in which Shakespeare has them speak, i,e., iambic pentameter, rhymed couplet, prose, etc. It is, he says, a play about weddings, with recurrent themes such as the moon and dreams. White points out the absurdity of young lovers who go to extremes to break the law, and he sites ones of Shakespeare’s most famous lines, “The course of true love never did run smooth.”
In Shakespeare’s Henry V, Prince Hal, who was in effect the subject also of the preceding plays, Henry IV (parts 1 and 2), finally takes center stage in this play that chronicles the struggle of former Prince Hal to put away youthful ways and adopt the persona and integrity of a king. Dr. White, in this last of his four presentations on the Henry plays and Richard II, posits that Henry V is an epic of sorts, tracing as it does the chronological, emotional, and moral quest of the new young king Henry for greatness, maturity, nobility, justice, and mercy. Of note is the effort expended by Henry to become the opposite of the man of our age – integrated rather than alienated; a coherent whole rather than fragmented parts; a genuinely moral and stately figure, rather than a pathetically amoral and degraded vagabond.
Dr. White continues his detailed analysis of the interaction between the lovers in A Midsummer Night’s Dream. Now he concentrates on the group known as the mechanicals, as they prepare to put on a play within the play. It is farce, burlesque, even slapstick, as Shakespeare makes loving fun of these characters. Dr. White reveals how they have no imagination, which he proclaims to be the meeting ground between love and art; and he goes on to explore the theme of the real play, i.e., that love is irrational. But that Shakespeare sees unity in the human condition.
Dr. White’s second installment in his series of four comprehensive presentations on Shakespeare’s English history plays. This conference delves into the world of Henry IV, a historical comedy that affords a background glimpse into the life of Prince Hal, who will be the main character in Henry V. According to Dr. White’s account, the play unfolds simultaneously in three different settings: the court, the tavern, and the battlefield; and each one is dominated by a different character. Hal’s presence in each setting weaves the disparate dramatic backdrops together, and he learns vital lessons in each. Also discussed substantively is the nature and role of Falstaff, Henry’s bawdy and ultimately tragic companion.
Dr. White concludes his discussion of A Midsummer Night’s Dream with an in-depth examination of reality versus illusion. He stresses the idea that the play teaches that there is more to reality than what we perceive. To demonstrate he describes the unreality of movies, which are by their nature unreal, using The Truman Show as an example. Film is an image, i.e., not real; that which occurs on a stage is real. He warns of the unreality of our lives but proclaims that out of great evil God will bring great good.
