T.S.Eliot as a critic

Literary Criticism.
Topic: ‘T.S.Eliot as a critic’
Prepared by: Avani N. Dave
M.A. - SEM – 2
Roll No: 02
Date: 18/03/'13
Department of English
Maharaja Krishnakumar Sinhji
Bhavnagar University                           

·       Introduction :

                                    T.S.Eliot is probably best known and most influential English poet of 20^th century. His critical output was uniting diverse; he wrote theorical piece as a critic is equally significant. His critical output was unite diverse, he wrote theorical pieces as well as study of particular authors he was a classicist and supported orderliness both in art and criticism. He was one of the greatest literary critics of England from the point of view of the bulk and quality of his critical writings. His five hundred and odd essays occasionally published as reviews and articles had a far-reaching influence on literary criticism in the country. His criticism was revolutionary which inverted the critical tradition of the whole English speaking work- john Hayward says,

                             “I cannot think of a critic who has been more widely read and discussed in his own life-time; and not in English, but in almost every language, except Ruskin.”

                                    As a critic Eliot has his faults. At times he assumes a hanging-judge attitude and his statements savor of a verdict. Often his criticism is marred by personal and religious prejudices blocking an honest and impartial estimate. Moreover, he does not judge all by the same standards. There is didacticism in his later essays and with the passing of time his critical faculties were increasingly exercised on social problems. Critics have also found fault with his style as too full of doubts, reservations and qualifications.

                                      Still, such faults do not detract Eliot’s greatness as a critic. His criticism has revolutionized the great writers of the past three centuries. His recognition of the greatness of the Metaphysical poets of the 17th century resulted in the Metaphysical revival of the 20th century. The credit for the renewal of interest in the Jacobean dramatists goes to Eliot. He has restored Dryden and other Augustan poets to their due place. His essay on Dante aroused curiosity for the latter middle ages. The novelty of his statements, hidden in sharp phrases, startles and arrests attention. According to Eliot, the end of criticism is to bring readjustment between the old and the new. He says:

“From time to time it is desirable, that some critic shall appear to review the past of our literature, and set the poets and the poems in a new order.”

Such critics are rare, for they must possess, besides ability for judgment, powerful liberty of mind to identify and interpret its own values and category of admiration for their generation.

·                               

                                                Eliot’s criticism offers both reassessment and reaction to earlier writers. He called himself “a classicist in literature”. His vital contribution is the reaction against romanticism and humanism which brought a classical revival in art and criticism. He rejected the romantic view of the individual’s perfectibility, stressed the doctrine of the original sin and exposed the futility of the romantic faith in the “Inner Voice”. Instead of following his ‘inner voice’, a critic must follow objective standards and must conform to tradition. A sense of tradition, respect for order and authority is central to Eliot’s classicism. He sought to correct the excesses of “the abstract and intellectual” school of criticism represented by Arnold. He sought to raise criticism to the level of science. In his objectivity and logical attitude, Eliot most closely resembles Aristotle. A. G. George says:

“Eliot’s theory of the impersonality of poetry is the greatest theory on the nature of the process after Wordsworth’s romantic conception of poetry.”

·       Eliot’s views on Tradition and Individual Talent.

                           

                                  Eliot’s essay ‘Tradition and individual Talent’ clearly expresses Eliot’ concept about poetry and the importance of tradition. He says “Criticism is as inevitable as breathing.” He believes that tradition plays a vital role in artistic creation and lays stress on the impersonality of poetry. Tradition is dynamic and can be obtained by great labor. To be tradition means to be conscious of main currents of art and poetry. A poet has to take many things from his ancestors in the process; he has to surrender himself to the dead poets.

·       Eliot’s views on Impersonality in Poetry.

                                  

                                      Poetry was an expression of the emotions and personality for romantics. Wordsworth said that poetry was an overflow of powerful emotions and its origin is in “Emotions recollected in tranquility”. Eliot rejects this view and says that poetry is not an expression of emotion and personality but an escape from them. The poet is only a catalytic agent that fuses varied emotions into new wholes. He distinguishes between the emotions of the poet and the artistic emotion, and points out that the function of criticism is to turn attention from the poet to his poetry. 

·       Eliot’s definition of Criticism:

                             Eliot wrote “The function of criticism.” To express his views on criticism as “the connection and on the methodology it should adopt. He defines criticism as “The cementation and exposition of works of art by means of written words.” Criticism unlike literature is not an auto telic activity, it is dependent on literature. The purpose of criticism is the elucidation of works of art and the correction of taste.”

                       

                                    According to Eliot, the critic should not allow his personal prejudices to come in his way. A Critic should go in the direction of “Common pursuit of true judgment. For Eliot, criticism is equally an important activity. He doesn’t see any apparent difference between creative artist and the critic. For him, criticism is an inherent constituent of creation because the larger part of the labor of an author in composing his work is critical labor.

·       The difference between critic and creator :

                    

                                One writer is greater than the other because his critical faculty is superior. A critic can fulfill his function by using comparison and analysis with a strong sense of fact. The critic must have the imagination and the heart to feel literature as something alive. The critic then will help others to feel it in the same way.

                          The critic’s task is not to interpret an author or his work, but what is the critic is not to judge works in what way can he elucidate them. The answer to this is a critic must have a highly developed sense of fact. This sense of fact is something very difficult to develop and its complete development means the very pinnacle of civilization.   

·       The dissociation of sensibility and the objective correlative.                      

              

                      The phrase objective correlative is used by Eliot to explain how emotions can be best expressed in poetry. The poet cannot communicate his emotions directly to the readers. He has to find some objective suggestive of it and only then he can evoke the same emotions in his readers. It is the reason he finds hamlet defective and an artistic failure. He also says that in Macbeth, Shakespeare is successful in finding an objective correlative to express the emotions of Macbeth and Lady Macbeth.

                     The phrase “ Dissociation of sensibility.” Occurs in Eliot’s views on the metaphysical poets. He uses this phrase to describe the characteristics of the late 17^th century poetry. in this theory of poetry is a union of thought and feeling is very essential. The poet should have a unified sensibility and should transform his thought into feelings.

                               Eliot’s views on the nature of poetic are equally revolutionary. According to him, poetry is not inspiration; it is organization. The poet’s mind is like a vassal in which are stored numerous feelings and experiences. The poetic process fuses these distinct experiences and emotions into new wholes. In “The metaphysical poets” he writes,

             “When a poet’s mind is perfectly equipped for its work, it is constantly amalgamating disparate experiences; the ordinary men’s experience is chaotic, irregular, and fragmentary.”

                    Perfect poetry results when instead of

 “Dissociation of sensibility” there is ‘unification of sensibility’. The emotional and the rational, the creative and the critical, faculties must work in harmony to produce great work of art. Critics stressed that the aim of poetry is to give pleasure or to teach morally. However for Eliot, the greatness of a poem is tested by the order and unity it imposes on the catholic and disparate experiences of the poet. Wimsatt and brooks are right in saying, “hardly since the 17thcentury had critical writing in English so resolutely transposed poetic theory from the axis of pleasure versus multiplicity.”

                 Eliot devised numerous critical concepts that gained wide currency and has a broad influence on criticism as men timed earlier ‘objective correlative’, ‘Disassociation of sensibility’, ‘unification of sensibility are few of Eliot’s cli0ches hotly debated by critics. His dynamic theory of tradition of impersonality of poetry, his assertion on ‘a highly developed sense of fact’ tended to impart to literary criticism catholicity and rationalism.

·       Eliot’s achievements as a critic :

                               

                             Eliot made an important contribution to ideas concerning the integrity of poetry. The process of poetic composition, the importance of tradition and the relation of past and present and the fusion of feeling and thought. He was the first critic to apply the method of comparison and analysis to the elucidation of works of literature. His successful practice as a po et gave special weight to his criticism. The applies the method of science to the study of literature so that we can see it as it really is for him George Watson writes:

“Eliot made English criticism look different, but not in a simple sense. He offered it a new range of rhetorical possibilities, confirmed it in its increasing contempt for historical processes, and yet reshaped its notion of period by a handful of brilliant institutions.” 

    

                               To conclude, Eliot’s influence as a critic has been wide, constant, fruitful and inspiring. He has corrected and educated the taste of his readers and brought about a rethinking regarding the function of poetry and the nature of the poet process. He gave a new direction and new tools of criticism. It is in the re-consideration and revival of English poetry of the past.