.
.
.
Xanthe recently published a brief account of an Ash Wednesday visit to St. Xavier's, and Wurdzgurl recently published a handsome printing of Eliot's "Hollow Men".
Here was a coincidental posting of a reference to one of my intellectual and spiritual heroes, and a reference to one of his greatest works.
I was inspired to find "Ash Wednesday", and to select two stanzas of the six stanzas that comprise the poem.
For those who are rusty on English literature of the 20th century, Eliot is one of the seminal writers of the epoch.
Born in St. Louis in 1888, he was educated at Harvard, receiving his B.A. and Ph.D. there. He studied at the Sorbonne between his years of study for the Masters and Doctoral degrees. Eliot planned to visit and study in Germany, but the eruption of WW I ended that plan. After 1914, he pursued his business and writing career in England. He became an English subject in 1927, and was received into the Church of England. His essays and critical writings were largely responsible for the re-discovery of the English Meditational Poets, and especially the revival of John Donne.
Americans recognize him mostly as the author of "Old Possums Book of Practical Cats", his one collection of light verse from which the musical "CATS" is derived, or as the author of the play, "Murder in the Cathedral". Of his poetry, only "The Love Song of J. Alfred Pufrock" is well-known.
As literary essayist and critic, and as an author of plays and poems, Eliot had few peers. No one exercised the same literary influence that he did upon 20th Century English letters. He was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1948, and died in 1965.
Ash Wednesday
I
Because I do not hope to turn again
Because I do not hope
Because I do not hope to turn
Desiring this man's gift and that man's scope
I no longer strive to strive towards such things
(Why should the agèd eagle stretch its wings?)
Why should I mourn
The vanished power of the usual reign?
Because I do not hope to know
The infirm glory of the positive hour
Because I do not think
Because I know I shall not know
The one veritable transitory power
Because I cannot drink
There, where trees flower, and springs flow, for there is nothing again
Because I know that time is always time
And place is always and only place
And what is actual is actual only for one time
And only for one place
I rejoice that things are as they are and
I renounce the blessèd face
And renounce the voice
Because I cannot hope to turn again
Consequently I rejoice, having to construct something
Upon which to rejoice
And pray to God to have mercy upon us
And pray that I may forget
These matters that with myself I too much discuss
Too much explain
Because I do not hope to turn again
Let these words answer
For what is done, not to be done again
May the judgement not be too heavy upon us
Because these wings are no longer wings to fly
But merely vans to beat the air
The air which is now thoroughly small and dry
Smaller and dryer than the will
Teach us to care and not to care Teach us to sit still.
Pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death
Pray for us now and at the hour of our death.
* * * * * *
VI
Although I do not hope to turn again
Although I do not hope
Although I do not hope to turn
Wavering between the profit and the loss
In this brief transit where the dreams cross
The dreamcrossed twilight between birth and dying
(Bless me father) though I do not wish to wish these things
From the wide window towards the granite shore
The white sails still fly seaward, seaward flying
Unbroken wings
And the lost heart stiffens and rejoices
In the lost lilac and the lost sea voices
And the weak spirit quickens to rebel
For the bent golden-rod and the lost sea smell
Quickens to recover
The cry of quail and the whirling plover
And the blind eye creates
The empty forms between the ivory gates
And smell renews the salt savour of the sandy earth
This is the time of tension between dying and birth
The place of solitude where three dreams cross
Between blue rocks
But when the voices shaken from the yew-tree drift away
Let the other yew be shaken and reply.
Blessèd sister, holy mother, spirit of the fountain, spirit of the garden,
Suffer us not to mock ourselves with falsehood
Teach us to care and not to care
Teach us to sit still
Even among these rocks,
Our peace in His will
And even among these rocks
Sister, mother
And spirit of the river, spirit of the sea,
Suffer me not to be separated
And let my cry come unto Thee.
T. S. Eliot
1930
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 51
Or, does The Waste Land remind you of the Dakotas? :-)
There aren't many who could challenge you on Gather.
I don't think that appreciating Eliot is a test of intellectual aptitude- familiarity with his work may reflect a liberal arts education.
The more you know of history and literature, the "easier" his work becomes.
These are just a few of the great lines from this poem:
Because I know that time is always time
And place is always and only place
And what is actual is actual only for one time
This portion has become a mantra for me:
"Suffer us not to mock ourselves with falsehood
Teach us to care and not to care
Teach us to sit still
Even among these rocks,
Our peace in His will..."
It was "The Holow Men" that inspired this posting.
He lamented modernism, the blind faith in "progress", the loss of passion, the technological revolution of thinking and feeling.
The only thing Liz and Geoffrey haven't developed is the loss of history.
Highly technological and capitalistic cultures are always about replacement and obselescence. Not about the "spititual" qualities of connection and tradition and "loyalty" (literally, keeping faith) to roots and remembered things.
In 1957, an American university professor published under the pseudonym, "Ancilla", a short biography that described her unsought, unplanned "spiritual "posession" during a routine scholarly tour of Europe.
The book is called "The Following Feet", and it is a great intellectual and spiritual exploration of the event.
Geoffrey, spot on. As you know, Eliot came from a very old American family, and was buried in the tiny Church of St. Michael from which the Eliot's had departed England in the 17th Century.
Everything is about 'getting home", and knowing it for the first time (as he said).
Zacariah, this is the theme of my Lenten posting - renew.
Travis -I thought the umlaut was a German diacritical mark. Is this something else?
Great to hear from you.
I am not surprised that you respond to Eliot. I didn't plan to "dip into" him this Lenten season, but it has been a blessing.
Or, is one apprehended by the work - taken, caught, and bound by it?
I bless his memory for the revival of interest in John Donne alone. Donne, like George Herbert and Richard Crashaw, had been almost "forgotten" to the general English student by the 1920's.
Did you ever see the play "Wit". A magnificent meditation on many things, among them a life-long romance with Donne.
When I was a teenager, we used to read and perform his plays. They were much more "fully human," perhaps because they reached beyond Eliot's personal limitations in a way that he was not able to do in his poetry. He abandoned writing poetry early, at about the same time he began to write plays. So he probably recognized in some way he had reached a point he could not go beyond as a poet.
It was his poetry, the Four Quartets, that was cited by the Nobel Prize Committee -and they are achievement enough for any life.
I agree with you, Clarke, that the plays are magnificent.
I performed in "Murder in the Cathedral", and still love it. "The Cocktail Party" is perhaps the finest "drawing room" play ever written in English.
Socrates deeply loved poetry, yet he valued truth (which is the practice of being true or sincere ) more highly. Poets don't make it up the mountain. Socrates realized that poets did not qualify as citizens in a true community or state.
Only those who honor "Know Thyself" do.
Plato's distrust of "poets" is much cited, but the philosopher of modern times is often a poet.
Certainly, Eliot was as ruthless and wily as Socrates in his rummagng through the wasteland of modern civilization to find the spring of Truth.
His play "it is an eloquent debate about choice, the healing with divine connections, he gives his characters the wisdom one can only hopes the inhabitants of heaven have. Also, It must be noted that A.G. Gurneys "The Cocktail Hour" is also depicted as a sacred daily ritual, a time of for "uninterrupted flow of conversations & pleasantries." Speaking of Emerson, Bryon, T.S Eliot all clearly invoked. When, can't help to reason that Gurneys inspiration for his play was from his love & admiration of Eliot. I smiled when I once read that Eliot himself sums up his play stating: "Whatever you find in it depends on what you bring to it." Brilliant & oh so very true...on the stage and in life. Once again, great piece. TY. ~mo-zy P.S. I never told you & I feel it now must be said "I am truly glad you decided to stay. ;-)
In retrospect, WWI was a much greater world-fracturing event than WW II. Truly, the old ages died in the first World War. All the empires expired (except England, which limped along a little longer), and "pre-war" really did mark a division in eras.
Mo-zy, it is a remarkable piece of dramaturgy.
When you consider the popularity of comtemporary "cocktail dramas", from Noel Coward, to Nick and Nora, what Eliot did to the frivolous comedy of manners is mind-boggling.
It would be comparable to creating a meaningful liturgy in rap.
(I tried posting this earlier, but got hung up on the 10 PM slow down)
I think of other poets of his time whom I feel went farther into the heart of the life and darkness of the time in their work. I hate comparing poets.
In the realm of fiction, Thomas Mann, although "an artist's artist," opened himself to his time and committed himself to experience it and bring that through in his work. He was successful in Magic Mountain. In other works, he explored different themes and had different aims.
And the greatest of them all "Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolf." or "Who's dares to go for a drink at her home?" ~mo-zy
Homer was revered as the "Original" of Greek language; I am not sure that our veneration of Shakespeare compares to the honor accorded Homer in the ancient world.
It has been a few years since I had any serious discussion of "poets" in Plato's Republic, but I would bet that Homer is exempt. Plato, of course, was keenly aware of the role of Aristophanes in de-legitimizing Socrates.
I am not sure that I agree with the implications of your remarks about Eliot and "engagement." Eliot was largely indifferent to Marxism and to economics (which is another remove from the intellectual currents of his time), but this may have been prescient. He was very aware of the alienation and rootlessness of modern capitalistic culture.
I see him as a prophet - realizing an essential truth before it was fully conscious.
It is significant that his fame grew enormously during the world's confrontation with the horrors of WW II, although the conditions he defined were revealed in the first World War.
Although no one else will make this connection, I link Eliot to the humanist psychologist Rollo May.
May's work on "Love and Will" from the 60's, describes how the traditional solutions to the problems of adjustment (right attachments, right determination) have become the problems. Modern humans can neither love nor will to do.
I am going to make a seperate response to Maureen.
I love "Who's Afraid...", think it is Albee's masterpiece, and comparable in some ways to Eliot's Cocktail Party, without the Christian virtue of Hope.
The intellectual circles of the thirties in New York are enormously interesting: Leftist, brittle, shining, and very hard-drinking!
It is amusing and saddening that most of the people who admired and Mary McCarthy ended up not being able to be in the same room with her.
That would make a great reflective article on Gather.
I have a few antique engravings and prints representing some of my heroes, too.
When I first moved to New York, I haunted the short row of old book and print shops that were once located near St. Mark's place (4th Street) but have since disappeared. Pageant Books and Prints was the best.
So, Dante, and Erasmus, and Joseph Addison, and Joan of Arc, keep watch over me.
I also have lots of angels - not the insipid putti and fat little cherubs of debased times, but fierce, splendid, glorious figures adorning the walls.
I may write an article on angels.
Poetry and plays and song were all crass distractions. Some better than others, even he would admit. Didn't he like Aristophanes?"
>>>>
Geoffrey B.,
I agree with much of your comments on T S Eliot. I "read" Socrates a bit differently, although his words and his close association with Plato may be "read" much as you do. I think was Socrates was a master, as someone who had worked in a school, like Pythagoras': he had worked on body, mind and "soul." He was more than philosopher or mystic, closer to "sage," or perhaps a teacher like Gurdjieff or one of those Qi kung masters who could throw you across the room with glanceor his little finger. He was playing a role in the "public square" in Athens - a deadly role,just as many teachers have in history, Buddha , for example.
He had an ordinary sense of humor and he liked Aristophanes and enjoyed the arts and poets. Homer , I meant, was more than a poet or artificer. He had the qualities of a bard and the vision and the being of a shaman, which for Socrates meant Homer had the power to invoke or bring direct experience of life, not simply "represent" it. The poets after him were limited to experience through the mind . There is a parallel, on a lesser scale, in Eliot's recognizing the difference in the Elizabethan poets' integration of body,mind and feeling which later English poets have lost.
"Although no one else will make this connection, I link Eliot to the humanist psychologist Rollo May.
May's work on "Love and Will" from the 60's, describes how the traditional solutions to the problems of adjustment (right attachments, right determination) have become the problems. Modern humans can neither love nor will to do."
>>>>
Peter,
I see the connection. Eliot's weakness was to keep on seeking therapy through poetry and not getting beyond therapy. "The witness the cross but not accept to be crucified" His Celia in The Cocktail Party is his IDEA of what was demanded, which is not right, yet shows his lack of will and his egoism. Rollo May writes about the same thing: "It's all about ME." This is about dealing with the personality (and its many fragments) in order to live a "normal" life. What if "personal growth" reaches a dead end? That's when "love" and "will" may become meaningful. Therapy won't go there. What if "I" doesn't exist? When that becomes a real question , then therapy doesn't know and can't help. "Engagement" becomes necessary. A different field of experience opens.
In your mind, is this Eliot?
Eliot has been called "aged eagle" by others, but I think he intended it here to enable the idea ( in the Platonic sense) to manifest through art and express it as emotion. The Fisher King in "The Wasteland" also is used this way. This was based on Eliot's theory of poetry and art, which was influenced by Washington Allston's work. In the "Introductory Discourse"of his Lectures on Art (circa 1840) , Alston says:
" Will any one assert that the surrounding inorganic elements of air, earth, heat, and water produce its peculiar form? Though some, or all, of these may be essential to its developement, they are so only as its predetermined correlatives, without which its existence could not be manifested; and in like manner must the peculiar form of the vegetable preexist in its life,—in its idea,—in order to evolve by these assimilants its own proper organism.
No possible modification in the degrees or proportion of these elements can change the specific form of a plant, — for instance, a cabbage into a cauliflower; it must ever remain a cabbage, small or large, good or bad. So, too, is the external world to the mind; which needs, also, as the condition of its manifestation, its objective correlative. Hence the presence of some outward object, predetermined to correspond to the preexisting idea in its living power, is essential to the evolution of its proper end, — the pleasurable emotion."
The other lines in Eliot's poem are, in a sense, dependent on the image of the eagle.
I don't recall if Eliot commented on the term "aged eagle"? It has associations for myself, purely subjective, with "ego," and perhaps the symbol of the Holy Roman Empire (which has not one head, but two - so there is a sense of irony, perhaps, for Eliot's eagle has no will and he denies the grace of the vision of "Thy will done" )
The needed vision of "Thy will be done" is expressed in many ways throughout the poem, as in lines that you don't quote:
II
The single Rose
Is now the Garden
Where all loves end
Terminate torment
Of love unsatisfied
The greater torment
Of love satisfied
End of the endless
Journey to no end
Conclusion of all that
Is inconclusible
Speech without word and
Word of no speech
Grace to the Mother
For the Garden
Where all love ends.
I do not see the brooding image of the eagle as Eliot specifically.
More on the lines of ego, and empire, and subdoing, and domination, some of which you note.
It is also the type of St, John the Evangelist, who is also the brooding figure of exile on Patmos and the vision of apacolypse.
"Thy Will" IS a leitmotif of the work, and leads to a "conclusion" in the final stanza whihch I love so well.
I re-read . I have to say I still see Eliot's aim was to express the one idea by his poem. I take such lines as 'Our peace in his will' (from Dante: in sua voluntate e nostra pace) and 'O my people, what have I done unto thee? ' ( from the church's liturgy of Good Friday) and so on, in that context.
You may be correct Eliot had in mind St John. An "Amfortas" figure? St. John (or Revelation) It doesn't work for me, perhaps because I don't relate it to the emotion the poem conveys of "lack of faith. "
The images of Christ on the Cross, Mary, the Church "empty and ignored," etc don't relate to St. John (and Revelation) for me. They may have for T S Eliot and reflect his view our times. and society. Revelation is viewed by some as a book of hope and warning for the persecuted, typical of Jewish Apocalyptic literature. I can accept that is the way Eliot saw it and related it to the other Christian references.
You may have identified my reason for saying Eliot did not "engage" with his time. The view of Revelation is a good measure. Those who see historical events (past or present ) as being more than representations of repeating patterns are not facing the here and now (where "the dark is light enough") and are at risk of "believing" (sentimentality) in some outer agency (be it dogma or false prophet) "looking after things." For those who engage, Christ comes "Like a thief in the night" and "No man knows the time." The more horrible it gets , the better the opportunity to work: greater help will be made available from on high as needed, or as my grandmother used to say, "It's a great life, if you don't weaken."
By the way, Eliot's images of Mary are more Catholic than how she is represented by St John in his Gospel. Catholics have tended to see in Mary as both the mother of Jesus and "the Mother of the Church, the New Eve, or the New Israel."
Nowhere in St John is Mary called the mother of Jesus. He mentions the mother of Jesus twice, first at Cana then in this passage:
"There stood by the Cross of Jesus, His Mother, and His Mother's sister Mary, the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene"
It doesn't seem likely that Jesus' mother was "Mary," because her sister was Mary. Is this an indication that John was seeking to tell us that he is not speaking of a physical mother, and this "mother" that Jesus on the cross entrusts to John as "his mother" is a power he possesses that he is transferring or transmitting to John?
And, I had not finished putting together some coherent htoughts about your earlier comments.
The Apocalypse of St. John the Divine.
Eliot wopuld not have entered into the debates about the identity of St. John the Beloved and St. John of the Book of Revelations - it is a matter of Catholic dogma that the authors are the same person.
Despite the popular identification of the book with the four horsemen and with devastation, the book is about triumph. But not the simple triumph of conquest, but the triumph by "being" or even survival. All that can be shaken, will be shaken.
The images of the seven churches, (each with it's particular triumph and particular shadow, the types of virtue and sin, and of ages of the Church militant) and the cries of the four an twenty elders, would have spoken to Eliot, I believe.
Your fouth paragraph, and the gloss on detachment and patterns of history is very fruitful. Here we agree about Eliot being "out of time". What a wonderful phrase: "out of time", his epoch, his span of days, and of time itself.
I have to leave this now, will return to comment about the Crucifixion.
I had not mentioned the question of two John's . I wonder why you mention it?
The passage quoted from St John suggests Jesus on the cross transmitted to John the power to write the Gospel, essentially the Gospel itself. The reference to mother and Mary was in keeping with John's way of giving several levels of meaning in his Gospel.
I don't have recollection of the Apocalypse to Eliot's poetry. I would have to research to see how he may refer to it. It came up because you mentioned the aged eagle as possibly being associated with St John.
I think Eliot's Christian view was influenced by Catholicism. I was speculating how he might view Revelation from his "sentimental" point of view, which would might correspond to the Catholic one.
In the Orthodox tradition, St John's Apocalypse is taken as a vision of humanity's - the body corporate's - future on an unknown scale of time : The individual looks forward to the resurrected Christ and the descent of the Holy City (the community) , much less to a relation with a suffering Christ on the cross.
Eliot's lack of engagement with his time corresponds to his personal version of faith, at least as it is represented in his writings. In effect, he seems to deny his own humanity - and that of his contemporaries -in his works.
It has been said that in the church you have guilt, but you have forgiveness; for a practical seeker of self-knowledge in ways appropriate to our time, there is no guilt and no forgiveness.
The path Celia chooses in The Cocktail Party, after the Watchers have guided her to the point where she can choose to re-engage in ordinary life or sacrifice herself in what seems to be missionary work in Africa appears to suggest a religious way, but which seems out of place for her, rather vapid in context of the play , an incursion of what Chogyam Trungpa would call "spiritual materialism."
It was a happy coincidence that I noticed your article about your Ash Wednesday pilgrimage to a neighborhood church on the same day that Wurdzgurl posted the text of the Hollow Men.
It's always good to meet another Episcoplaian on Gather.
The Peace of the Lord be always with you.
I don't remember where I was going with the comment about the identities of the blessed St. John's. It was not, as you note, in response to your introduction of the controversy.
I appreciate your introduction of the Orthodox view of the Apocalypse and will look further into this. I have been limiting my consideration to a conception of the proving and refining of the Church.
I am going back to read "The Cocktail Party" again before I comment further on it.
Your close reading of Eliot has taken me back to discussions of some twenty years ago, and I need to re-think a number of points about the primary texts.
In any event, you have inspired a fruitful discussion of ideas and challenges for the Lenten season.
I am not abandoning this thread!
Paul's Letter to the Ephesians, 6:10-19
Translation by Cynthia Hindes
What it comes to in the end is this: grasp the power which streams to you in the experience of Christ in the soul and in the powerful regency of his pure spiritual strength.
Put on the power of God as one puts on full armor, so that you may stand against the well-aimed attacks of the adversary. For our struggle is not to fight against powers of flesh and blood, but against
spirit beings mighty in the stream of time,
against spirit beings powerful in the molding of earth substance,
against cosmic powers whose darkness rules the present time,
against spirits who carry evil into the realms of the spiritual world.
Therefore take up the full armor of God, that you may be able to stand your ground on the day when evil unfolds its greatest strength, and victoriously withstand it.
Stand firm, then, girded with the truth, like a warrior firmly girded. Connect yourself with all in the world as is justified in the spiritual world, and this connection with the spirit will protect you like a strong breastplate.
And may Peace stream through you, down to your feet, so that on your path you spread peace, as the message that comes from the realm of the angels.
In all your deeds have trust in God. This trust will be like a mighty shield; with it you can quench all the flaming arrows of the evil one.
Take into your thinking the certainty of Christ's healing deed. It will protect your head like a helmet.
And the spirit, which has become living in you, you shall grasp as one grasps a sharp sword. The sword of the spirit is the working of the Word of God.
May this armor clothe you in all your prayers and supplications, so that in the right moment you raise yourself in prayer to the spirit, and at the same time practice wakefulness in inner loyalty.
Feel yourself united in prayer with all other bearers of the spirit-also with me, Paul, so that the power of the word will be given to me when I am to courageously bring the knowledge of that holy mystery which lives in the message of the gospel.
What his art brought to his time does not represent Christianity or any religion.
Art is one thing , religion is another. Those who approach art sentimentally or moralistically are taking it for for something else than it is. Eliot did not intend to reduce his art to moralism or sentimentalism.
That he quotes from Dante, the church liturgy, the Upanishads, Vedanta or whatever is for artistic reasons. The aim is to seek for the meaning and understanding of the time and express it as what Eliot would call an "emotion." Another way of saying this is that the aim of art is to make the spirit of the time perceptible to the senses. (I think Thomas Mann would accept this traditional view.)
The experience of the artist is featured in Eliot's early poems, of course: the focus is on how one individual experiences and engages with his time.
In later works, Eliot moves toward having others express their experience.
My view is that Eliot's weakness was that he did not fully engage with or express the spirit of his time to the degree some other artists did.
That is not to say that any artist did represent fully the currents of their time. The time between two wars was a time of transition within a much larger period of transition, which is still in process, and seems to be speeding up today. The currents that were less evident in Eliot's time are more developed since and knocking at the door, so to speak in ways not imagined then.
In this sense, the words of scripture, whether Christian or other, are above the level of ordinary history. They speak from the spiritual world and are intended to relate humanity to it. However, in themselves they are metaphors for an energy that is ever present and working to be received and expressed in the daily living of human beings in the the conditions in which they live. For the body corporate their aim is to provide strength and hope, to restrain their desires. In the historical struggle of evolutionary and involutionary forces , scripture and ritual have served to ameliorate the worst extremes in societies.
One of the features of our times is the loss of the effectiveness of all organized religions: they fail to provide the opening to spiritual energy they once did. This is not because of the lack of truth in the original teachings, but the lack of understanding of institutions. They serve other aims, through ignorance, attachment to material thinking, and service to "worldly" aims and values. Pseudo-religions have done worse, in many cases.
Eliot perceived this failure in his time, but he did not comprehend it in relation to all the currents of change or the underlying struggle of spiritual forces. In a way, he unwittingly interpreted spiritual currents in a materialistic way through his art. He encountered and sensed the spiritual ideas that were at work in his time, but could not bring them through, "make them sensibly perceptible." That is, as always, the problem artists deal with and we all face. We should value his accomplishment, as a support to our search. We can learn from it as we face the challenge before us. In understanding where he misperceived, we can learn to see more clearly.
I am thrilled that you have taken an interest in T.S., Eliot - he is not "easy reading"!
I only know very little of T. S. Eliot's work. We had to read him in English class (I grew up in Germany) and I loved his writings about the cats and I really enjoyed the sound of it - it rolled off your tongue - it was fun. The translation into German was hell and almost completely turned me off. I picked up a small book many years later to read again. I still enjoy it and was thrilled to see cats on stage.
Now, after reading this article I will take another look at his other works. This time at least there will no longer be a language barrier. Whatever possessed the English teacher to choose T.S.Eliot and later Pearl S. Buck for translation for 13/14 year olds I have never understood.
Peter, I have enjoyed reading the exchange in this article. Ash Wednesday sounds to me like the work of a much older man, contemplating death. If he wrote this in 1930 and passed away in 1965 then I would guess he had depression, guilt, faith and moral issues. More of a thinker than I gave him credit for.
As far as seeing and deploring the changes of the century, only a few of his generation saw it this clear. My grandfather was one of them.
The last verse included spirit of the fountain, spirit of the garden which I find interesting. Could it be a nod to the goddess?
The catholic influence is easy for me to recognize.
I am sorry that you were introduced to Eliot in the way that you were.
Many native speakers of English lack sufficient language skills to enjoy him fully; and no one has sufficient life experience to understand any of the serious poetry at age 13.
The richer your life experience, the more Eliot "speaks" to you, I believe.
There are comments "missing" in the delightful comment thread above, at least three voices are gone from Gather.
The "Geoffrey" to which some of my comments were addressed noted several things that are relevant to your perceptions.
Eliot was not quite fifty when he wrote this poem, but he felt himself to be something of a survivor from a a pre-modern past.
He seemed to understand how the twentieth century needed to cast off the bloddy weight of the past, yet saw no hopeful signs of a renewed future.
Eliot is hard to categorize in any neat way, but he "fed" on the richness of tradition - cultural, intellectual, and religious. He hated what was slick, contrived, and superficial.
I may write on angels; I have several antique prints of them (and one beautiful oil painting of Jacob's Ladder) adorning my study.
Thanks for your encouragement.