THOUGH MUCH has been written on The Waste Land, it
will not be difficult to show that most of its critics mis-
conceive entirely the theme and the structure of the poem.
There has been little or no attempt to deal with it as a
unified whole. F. R. Leavis and F. O. Matthiessen have
treated large sections of the poem in detail, and I am ob-
viously indebted to both of them. I believe, however, that
Leavis makes some positive errors of interpretation. I find
myself in almost complete agreement with Matthiessen in
his commentary on the sections which he deals with in his
Achievement of T. S. Eliot, but the plan of his book does not
allow for a complete consecutive examination of the poem.

In view of the state of criticism with regard to the poem,
it is best for us to approach it frankly on the basis of its
theme. I prefer, however, not to raise just here the question
of how important it is for the reader to have an explicit
intellectual account of the various symbols and a logical
account of their relationships. It may well be that such
rationalization is no more than a scaffolding to be got out of
the way before we contemplate the poem itself as poem.
But many readers (including myself) find the erection of
such a scaffolding valuable--if not absolutely necessary--
and if some readers will be tempted to lay more stress upon
the scaffolding than they should, there are perhaps still
more readers who, without the help of such a scaffolding,
will be prevented from getting at the poem at all.

-136-