# Talk:Four Quartets

Well, here it is. Very polishable and perfectible, but I think this poem requires a long article. It may not be Eliot's most important (The Waste Land has influenced XXth Century Literature much more), but it is what he considered his masterpiece. Anyway, hope you like it. Pfortuny 15:40, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The article claims there is Buddhist thought and symbolism in Four Quartets. Where? I fear the author may have confused it with The Waste Land, which was composed in a time closer to Eliot's Sanskrit studies at Harvard and includes a section titled "The Fire Sermon." There is, as far as I can tell, no Buddhist content in Four Quartets. However, there is Hindu thought, for The Dry Salvages aludes to the Bhagavad Gita.

I mistook Hindu thought for Buddhism due to my little knowledge... :(. I'll change the word. Pfortuny 20:43, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
There is some Buddhist influence in Four Quartets (see TSE and Mysticism by Paul Murray), but the reference to Krishna in The Dry Salvages is clearly to the Hindu Bhagavad Gita. I would be happy to try to make the change, but I'm also happy to leave it to an expert - Agingjb 17:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
I've changed the word "Buddhist" to "Hindu", Agingjb 14:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I can say that Eliot's later poetry has been half understood and at many places misunderstood as yet. The reason is a flood of allusions from different sources. Critics have taken those allusions differently. Eliot is unsurpassed in using literary symbols which steers to the direction n depth of his poetry. It is difficult to express them in a few lines. For a proper understanding my book  TS ELIOT'S POETRY EXPLORED may be consulted. Divine soul (talk) 10:19, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

The article mentions that as well as Eastern religion and philosophy The Four Quartets shows evidence of Eliot's interest in Christian mysticism. I find it very interesting that, characteristically, we find his Eastern references more worthy of exploration than the Western (NB this is not a comment on the article, I'm talking about the critical world etc). I have known this poem for almost half my life and am surprised that no-one has ever really probed the depths of its profusion of esoteric Christian images - the Rose Garden is a central metaphor in both Christian Alchemy and Rosicrucian mysticism as are images such as those in the final lines:
'All shall be well/
And all manner of things shall be well/
When the tongues of flame are infolded/
Into the crowned knot of fire/
And the fire and the rose are one'
There is a fascinating study still to be written which really plumbs the depths of the esoteric Christianity of this poem and its use of images of transformation, harmony and the still centre. Someone should analyse it via Jung's Psychology and Alchemy. We forget that Eliot's central poems all use these images - the Grail Quest in The Waste Land, the images of mystical death and resurrection in Ash Wednesday. His work is steeped in this Christian mysticism and yet we probably know more about the influence of Hinduism and Buddhism in his work. 
More syncretism please! 
Also, I absolutely agree with the original poster - this may not be his most influential poem but it is his masterpiece and (in my mind anyway) his greatest. The man was a genius. ThePeg  13.7.2006
A useful source might be: T.S.Eliot and Mysticism by Paul Murray - ISBN 0-333-61406-2, Agingjb 17:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Another: The Composition of Four Quartets by Helen Gardner - ISBN 0-571-11504-7 Agingjb 09:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is the first papragraph of each section indented with a ':'??  This looks strange to me, and is not part of standard style in Wikipedia.  Am I missing something?? Stumps 13:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

T.S. Eliot's estate is infamous for prohibiting the quotation of his poetry. Many academic projects were abandoned when they could not get the estate's permission. The amount of text quoted in the article now is far beyond fair use (which much precendence  suggests is only a single line of poetry or less), and we need to trim it. CRCulver 22:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Well it's a long time since I studied Eng. Lit. but I find this claim very surprising. Linuxlad 12:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

See the Eliot estate's refusal to allow the text of Stravinsky's "The Dove Descending" to be printed with the record. CRCulver 12:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Um, yes, but that hardly sounds like a single line! Bob aka Linuxlad 13:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
The Eliot estate has indeed been draconian about use of his poetry at times, though honestly, nowhere near as difficult to deal with as some authors' estates.  (Stephen James Joyce comes immediately to mind.)  That said--I work for a scholarly journal in literature and fair use, as we deal with it, means one single line or up to ten percent of a work, whichever is greater.  The single-line clause is important in dealing with incredibly short pieces (Emily Dickinson's, for example).  I'd have to count lines; the Four Quartets are pretty long, but still, I think we're well over ten percent in this article. PoetrixViridis 16:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Besides the use of excessive quotation, the article has another major problem, namely original research. Many of the assertions of what Eliot was writing about or the supposed connections between the poems are presented as if they came from the personal interpretation of the editors. We need to cite all discussion of the poems to formally published commentaries. There are plenty, so it shouldn't take much work. CRCulver 16:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know how to reply within the section in question, so I'll put this in another (new) question.
Putting aside the citation issue raised, the use of small bits of the long poems within the body of the article is exactly what the fair use (or, in the UK, fair dealing) exceptions to the copyright holder's exclusive rights are meant for.
The Eliot Estate is certainly famous for their ferociousness with which they administer their rights.  But don't allow this to mean that they have more rights as a result.  In my opinion the amount and nature of the use is well within fair use allowances and the Eliot Estate (or rather, Faber & Faber, who hold the rights), should they choose to challenge the use, would have a hard time proving that a four-factor fair use analysis would weigh so heavily to their side so as to cause a finding that the use was not fair.
In other words, they'd have no case.
To help frame my point, I'll mention that I own a rights and permissions agency which deals with these kinds of permissions questions all the time.

MORE ON FAIR USE: I don't know where the poster above got the idea that fair use is limited to a single line of poetry(!). I would suggest familiarizing yourself with matters on which you choose to pronounce in public forums.
The Copyright Act says:
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include--
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

That fair use can be limited to a single line of poetry may be read in the Chicago Manual of Style, among other places. Also, while the United States has a seemingly generous explication of fair use, the UK does not, and WP tries to cover both systems. CRCulver 00:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

There's a lot in this article about spirituality, but very little about the presence of WWII in the poem, which is an important backdrop, to say the least.  Even in terms of mysticism, much more could be said.  Overall, I feel like a lot of the commentary overreads, or at least limits its interpretation to one idea when multiple ideas should be invoked.  Not that what's there is wrong, just that there's often much more going on than this article mentions.  I'm hesitant to take on a massive revision of an article myself, since I'm a grad student & therefore both busy & not much of an authority yet but. . . it seems like this could use it. PoetrixViridis 16:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The WW2 thing is a very good point. Eliot talked about the emotional affect of the war on himself and the rest of the country of war breaking out, causing him to turn in on himself and reexamine everything. In many ways the Four Quartets is an attempt to enter the heart of darkness of that time and reemerge with some message of hope. There are copious references to the War - the air raid imagery of Little Gidding, the 'incandescent terror' of the Dove Descending etc. Worth exploring, Viridis. Thank you. As for citing all the different interpretations, well that would be almost impossible! ThePeg 11:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

If you have any interest in reading some fantastic hypertext commentary on the Four Quartets or adding your own thoughts to the text as it appears on TheFinalClub.org, go to http://www.thefinalclub.org/work-overview.php?work_id=29.  There is also a thoughtful and authoritative essay on the Four Quartets as well as the texts and commentary for hundreds of other public domain books and poems.
Andrewmagliozzi (talk) 19:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

"Burnt Norton is a deep meditation on the meaning of time and its relationship with human beings and the Christian meaning of Redemption", Wikipedia
How can you possible know this?. For instance, I could equally say; Burnt Norton is a deep meditation on the meaning of time and its relationship with human beings and the Buddhist meaning of Dharma. I do believe the Wiki author is merely demonstrating his own biases.
"reflecting his devotion for the Church's teaching concerning poverty and detachment"
Same again, how could you possibly know what he was thinking when he wrote those lines.
"The poem starts again with .. with a clear parallel of Ecclesiastes 3:1-9:"
Enough already, are you trying to make converts of us all. How about just reading the work for its own sake, or getting out that BBC Audio book of it. You don't have to analyze the poem to death, you know .. :)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emacsuser (talk • contribs) 18:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC) 

No image?
The list about structure cant be removed but use bullets, not nos.
None of the reference books have ISBN?
Hometech (talk) 19:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

There are no images that can be used - there are no images available for the author or the publication, as they are still in copyright unfortunately. The numbering is a quote from Stead (it should be seen as a blockquote but formatting is a little screwy). I can add ISBNs right now. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Verification of the quoting. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
You mean there is an image of 4 quartets? Put it, fair use is ok fior a main image. Hometech (talk) 19:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
There is one image of Eliot, and someone keeps removing it because of copyright issues (see the T. S. Eliot page). There are no images of the Four Quartets. I lack access to a first edition to take a copy, but it would have to have strict fair use rationale and even then it is problematic. The Eliot copyright holders are very litigious and very annoying. We've been trying to get a good image to go along with Eliot pages for a long time. It is unfortunately near impossible. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm one of the people watching out over the copyright issue.  I think the 1918 or so photographs of Eliot by E.O. Hoppe are likely public domain in the US as they may have been publicity shots for Eliot but I haven't found any publication of them prior to 1923 (that would make them public domain.) Since there is a site that claims copyright I want to be really careful.  Besides, a 1918 picture of Eliot wouldn't be so good for a page of his later work. Since each of the poems is named for a place how about using pictures of the places? WikiParker (talk) 22:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
About the ISBNs: Ottava did most the article and its references so her ISBNs probably match to the cited works and their date of publication but I'm a bit concerned that an ISBN from a different version of the cited work. Ottava? WikiParker (talk) 22:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
First, I am a male. :) Poeta in Latin follows the feminine pattern but is masculine (so all poetic related words follow the same, an odd feature). Which works don't match their ISBN? And sometime there are multiple ISBNs for the same version, which is an annoying feature. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps this discussion should be moved to Talk:Four Quartets/GA1, and that page transcluded back here? Cirt (talk) 05:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the above discussion would really matter so much, so you can just transclude the GA review without worrying about copying this over. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Well I guess Hometech (talk · contribs) put this on GA Hold, so that's the editor doing the GA Review? Cirt (talk) 16:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
He seems to be a new editor that is eager but didn't follow the normal GA process and hasn't responded since the original posting. It seems like his standards were just those above, so, it would seem as if his qualifications were met. Obviously, you would probably find a lot more stuff, so I don't really see it as a problem for another reviewer, like yourself, to take up the GA and put up more things to fix before it can be given the status (especially when there is no complaint from myself in higher standards or additional fixes needed). Ottava Rima (talk) 17:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay, well I left some notes on his talk page. I could finish up the review process if nothing else happens in a while. But if there is already another reviewer - either way is fine by me. :) Cirt (talk) 17:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Care to put up any concerns or things that need to be improved? Even if you don't pass it or review it, I would still like to know of your thoughts as if you were the one to do the above. That way, I have something to work on in order to ensure this is a "good article". Ottava Rima (talk) 18:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I'll wait a little while to hear back from Hometech (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 19:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I have never heard C.K.Stead referred to as Christian Stead. Usually it is just C.K.Stead or sometimes Karl Stead. I have changed it to C.K.Stead. hypotaxis (talk) 21:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I did not notice anything in the article regarding the epigraph attached to Burnt Norton, either here or in the article on Burnt Norton.    There are two quotes from the fragments of Heraclitus: tou logon deontos xenou zōousin hoi polloi/ hōs idian echontes phronēsin. which is something like, "although the word is from without, the many live as if they have knowledge of their own."  The second is hodos anō katō mia kae ōutē, which is, "the way upward and the way downward are one and the same."  Someone who knows more about this poem than I do should include it in the appropriate place in the article, either before the Burnt Norton section, as a preface to the poem as a whole, or under the Burnt Norton section.  Also a citation and a more polished, professional translation should be provided.Ocyril (talk) 04:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me why there is no external link to an online version of the poem. I'd guess copyright but that seems unlikely.
Daedalus 96 (talk) 22:33, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

n. 1 to M. H. Abrams gets the title of his book wrong. It is Natural Supernaturalism: Tradition and Revolution . . . (NOT "Traditional Revolution") 2601:190:4280:160:C0C8:5403:3703:399E (talk) 14:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I had typed some other things here that I've since deemed unnecessary. I thought when I wrote the second edit summary that I had at least mentioned, in the first one, the other issue besides the minor one that was fixed in my first edit (the unnecessary space, that is). If anyone is unhappy with the second edit, tell me.
AndrewOne (talk) 01:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC)