In Search of Genius: T.S. Eliot as Publisher

I should never advice any young writer even to go into a publisher's office, though that business had made living and writing possible for me—but fortunately, I think, I did not become a publisher until I was old enough to have developed a pretty strong resistance to the dangers of concerning myself with other people's books.

— T.S. Eliot to Keidrych Rhys, Easter Monday 1947, at The Harry Ransom Humanities Research Center, University of Texas at Austin.

Eliot's position as editor of The Criterion and as director, with responsibility for the poetry list, of Faber & Faber made him one of history's most influential publishers of poetry. His conviction that the critic and the poet should exist together in one person informed his activities as a publisher¹ ; the fact that he was so successful as a critic and a poet himself contributed to his being widely regarded as an authoritative arbitrator and disseminator of new poetry.² However, a systematic examination of Eliot's interactions as a publisher with almost every aspiring poet of his time is yet to be undertaken. Such an examination would be of interest for two reasons: It would reveal more about the creative and critical principles with which Eliot himself worked; and it would give some indication of the manner in which he molded English literary culture by introducing and sponsoring younger poets.

The paucity of research in this area is not surprising. To begin with, the available material is disparate in subject matter and approach. Some relevant material is found in commentaries on the significance of The Criterion as an inter-war periodical³ ; in biographical studies of (or relevant to) Eliot⁴ ; and in articles of reminiscence by his friends and colleagues.⁵ Such material is usually presented to gauge the broad social and cultural significance of Eliot's own productions, or to illuminate them in a biographical spirit. Pertinent information is also found in scholarly works about those writers who were indebted to Eliot as an editor, publisher and mentor.⁶ But in these the perspective is often narrowly focused on the primary subjects, and Eliot's role is only of incidental interest. Most of the material that needs to be taken into account for research in this area is buried in a wide range of archives across Britain and the United States (some of which are practically inaccessible)—and contained within voluminous (often poorly catalogued) correspondence. Generally, Eliot's correspondence with aspiring poets makes reference to standard policy (the familiar publisher's pleas of an oversubscribed list, costs of printing, etc.), or expresses a bland approbation or disapprobation. The correspondence with young poets whom Eliot approved of and promoted—W.H. Auden, George Barker, Vernon Watkins, Henry Treece, Ronald Bottrall and others—is often devoted to matters of personal concern, or is so specific as to make it difficult to discern any general pattern. Occasionally, insights into Eliot's editorial interventions are available more indirectly. Andrew Kappel's inferences from Eliot's arrangement of Marianne Moore's poetry for the 1934 Selected Poems volume comprise a splendid example of this.⁷ But instances where such ingenuity can be exercised are few and far between.

Interestingly, though, there is one accessible body of material that is revealing: Eliot's rejection notes. When Eliot felt that the aspiring poet had some promise but hadn't matured or when he felt that the aspiring poet had no promise whatever, he sometimes felt called upon to give extended comments and offer general advice. This is the case with respect to the poetry manuscripts of Keith Douglas (who, Eliot felt, had some promise)⁸ and John Vincent Healy (who, Eliot clearly decided, had none).⁹ The marginal comments on the manuscripts can be analyzed fruitfully in conjunction with the letters. This has been done with regard to Eliot's marginal comments on Douglas's manuscript and the accompanying rejection letter.¹⁰ The rejection letter to Healy (unpublished so far) has however not been so analyzed. Unusually, it states some general critical principles that...