This was a lecture delivered by T. S. Eliot at Harvard and published in 1951. It was in memory of his friend Theodore Spencer who was a poet, and a Shakespeare scholar. The first part was a homily to Spencer.

The second part T. S. Eliot makes a case for poetry being better suited to drama than prose. He says that poetry is superfluous if it does nothing to enhance the drama on the stage, however it is best suited to chart the ebb and flow of the action. He is of the opinion that a mixture of poetry and prose should be avoided, because it loses the rhythm and the music of the words in the prose sections. He ends this section with an analysis of the first act of Shakespeare's Hamlet; demonstrating the melodic design of the act, how it is checked and accelerated by the use of verse

In part 3 Eliot talks about his own plays. It is at a time when his play [The Cocktail Party] was a big hit in New York. Writing in verse allows the dramatist to find his own voice and rhythm and this is what he tried to do in his first play [Murder in the Cathedral]. He says he was fortunate because it was written to be performed at a festival where there would be plenty of serious people; the play was performed in dress from a bygone age and so the audience were not surprised that they were speaking in verse and It was also a religious festival where people go expecting to be bored. He says he got by even if it did sound too much like Shakespeare. He makes the point that blank verse just sounds odd today. His next attempt was [The Family Reunion] and although he was happy with some of this he thought the structure was all wrong. He realises that he spent far too much time in Act 1 setting the scene and when the curtain rises in Act 2 he is still providing too much background, by this time the audience expects something to happen and when the action gets going in the final act it all feels rushed. He feels he was more successful with [The Cocktail Party]; he had sorted out structural problems, but wondered if he had lost some of the poetry. He says writing plays is a learning process and much can be gained with further study of Shakespeare.

He says he hopes that his study of his own plays does not come across as egotism, but will give food for thought to other playwrights. He says there is still the problem of marrying poetry with action, but he feels that it is better suited to the stage than prose. He does not come across as egotistical, but as a writer who sometimes with a wry sense of humour is almost showing the world his dirty linen. Perhaps you are entitled to do this with a hit play doing the rounds. Interesting, well written of course, but I am not sure that he did convince many playwrights to use verse. 3.5 ( )