The_Achievement_of_Eliot_as_a_Critic

___________________
#A_Poet_Critic: His Greatness
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Eliot is one of the long-line of poet-
critics extending from Sir Philip
Sydney to our own day and including
such names as Ben Jonson, Dryden,
Johnson, Wordsworth, Coleridge and
Arnold. Both from the point of view
of the bulk and quality of his critical
writings, Eliot is one of the greatest
of literary critics of England. His five
hundred and odd essays published as
reviews and articles from time to
time, have had a far-reaching
influence on the course of literary
criticism in the country.
Eliot made English criticism look
different says George Watson,
through not in a simple sense. His
criticism has been revolutionary; he
has turned the critical tradition of the
whole English speaking world upside
down. The Sacred Wood was
published in 1920 and since then his
authority has steadily increased. I
cannot think, say John Hayward, of
a critic who has been more widely
read and discussed in his own
lifetime; not only in English, but in
almost every language, except
Russian, throughout the civilised
world.
~~~~~~~~~~~
#His_Faults
~~~~~~~~~~~
As a critic Eliot has his faults, and
some of them are quite glaring ones.
Sometimes he is pontifical, assumes a
hanging-judge attitude, and instead of
sympathetic understanding his
pronouncements savour of a verdict.
Often his criticism is marred by
personal and religious prejudices, and
dislike of the man comes in the way
of an honest and impartial estimate.
In this respect he does not live up to
his own theory of the objectivity and
impersonality of poetry. His
condemnation of Milton, and that of
Shelley, can hardly be called sound
literary criticism. When he scoffs at
Arnold for his being an overworked
inspector of schools, he drifts away
from criticism proper and stoops to
personal invective. Moreover, he
does not judge all by the same
standards of criticism. For example,
in his essay on Dante he remarks that
knowledge of the ideas and beliefs of
a poet is not essential for an
appreciation of his poetry. But he
condemns Shelley for his repellent
ideas. There is an element of
didacticism in his later essays and
with the passing of time his critical
faculties were more and more
exercised on social problems. Critics
have also found fault with his style as
too full of doubts, reservations and
qualifications.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
#His_Contribution: Reassessment of
Earlier Writers
~~~~~~~~~~~~
However, such faults do not detract
from Eliots greatness as a critic. His
criticism offers both a reaction and a
re-assessment. Through his practical
criticism, he has brought about a
revaluation of the great literary
names of the past three centuries. His
recognition of the greatness of Donne
and the other Metaphysical poets of
the 17th century, has resulted in the
Metaphysical revival of the 20th
century. The credit for the renewal of
interest in the Metaphysicals and the
Jacobean dramatists must go to Eliot,
and Eliot alone. Similarly, he has
restored Dryden and the other
Augustan poets to their rightful place
in the hierarchy of the Englishmen of
letters. According to Bradbrook, his
essay on Dante resulted not only in a
greater appreciation of the Italian
poet, it aroused keen curiosity and
enthusiasm for the latter middle ages.
We may not, sometimes, agree with
his views, but there can be little
doubt that he is highly original and
thought-provoking. The novelty of his
statements, couched in tenchant
phrases, startles and arrests attention.
He has shed new light on a number
of English writers and has made them
look entirely differentAccording to
Eliot, the end of criticism is to bring
about a readjustment between the old
and the new, and his own criticism
performs this function to a nicety. 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, in addition to an
unusual capacity for judgment, an
independence of mind powerful
enough to recognise and interpret for
their generation its own values and
categories of appreciation. Matthew
Arnold was such a critic as were
Coleridge and Johnson and Dryden
before him; and such, to our own
day, is Eliot himself (John Hayward).
Eliots re estimation of the dramatists
and poets of the 17th century,
remains unrivalled in the history of
English criticism.
~~~~~~~~~~~
#Raised_Criticism_to_the_Level_of_Science
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Eliots practical criticism offers a re-
assessment of earlier writers; his
theoretical criticism represents a
reaction to romantic and Victorian
critical creed. He called himself, a
classicist in literature, and one of his
important contributions in the
reaction against romanticism and
humanism which he strengthened.
The reaction had been started by T.B.
Hulme. Eliot carried it on, made it a
force in literature, and thus brought
about a classical revival both in art
and criticism. He rejected the
romantic view of the perfectibility of
the individual, stressed the doctrine
of the original sin, and exposed the
hollowness of the romantic faith in
the Inner voice as merely doing,
what one likes. He stressed that a
critic must follow objective standards;
instead of following merely his, inner
voice he must conform to tradition.
A sense of tradition, a respect for
order and authority is at the core of
Eliots classicism, and in this respect
the essay Tradition and the Individual
Talent is the manifesto of his critical
creed. In this way, his criticism is a
corrective to the eccentricity and
waywardness of the contemporary
impressionistic school of criticism.
Similarly, he sought to correct the
excesses of what he contemptuously
called the abstract and intellectual
school of criticism represented by
Arnold. The critic must have a highly
developed sense of fact and he must
judge on the basis of these facts with
perfect detachment and impartiality.
He thus sought to raise criticism to
the level of science; in his objectivity
and scientific attitude Eliot is the
English critic who most closely
resembles Aristotle. In this stress on
facts, on comparison and analysis,
Eliot has exercised a profound
influence on the New Critics. He has
started many new trends in English
criticism.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
#His_Revolutionary_Theory_of_Poetry
~~~~~~~~~~
Eliots theory of the impersonality of
poetry, says A.G. George, is the
greatest theory on the nature of the
poetic process after Wordsworths
romantic conception of poetry.
According to the romantics, poetry
was an expression of the emotions,
the personality of the poet. Thus
Wordsworth said that poetry was an
overflow of powerful emotions, and
that it had its origins in, emotions
recollected in tranquillity. Eliot
rejects romantic subjectivism and
propounds the revolutionary doctrine
that poetry is not a letting loose of
emotion but an escape from emotion,
not an expression of personality, but
an escape from personality. The poet
is merely a catalytic agent in the
presence of which varied emotions
fuse to form new wholes. He
differentiates between the emotions
of the poet and the artistic emotion,
and points out that the function is to
turn attention from the poet to his
poetry. Thus his criticism is a
corrective to the excesses of the
biographical, historical and
sociological schools of criticism. He
thus changed the entire cause of
critical theory and practice in many
ways of far-reaching significance.
~~~~~~~~~~
#Poetry_as_Organisation: Break from
Romantic Tradition
~~~~~~~~~~
Eliots views on the nature of poetic
process are equally revolutionary.
According to him, poetry is not
inspiration; it is organisation. The
poets mind is like a receptable in
which are stored a number of varied
feelings, emotions and experiences.
The poetic process is the process of
fusing these disparate experiences
and emotions into new wholes. In his
essays on The Metaphysical Poets, he
writes, When a poets mind is
perfectly equipped for its work, it is
constantly amalgamating disparate
experiences; the ordinary mans
experience is chaotic, irregular,
fragmentary, but in the mind of the
poet varied experiences are always
forming new wholes. Perfect poetry
results when, instead of dissociation
of sensibility, there is unification of
sensibility. The emotional and the
intellectual, the creative and the
critical, faculties must work in
harmony to produce a really great
work of art. Until now critics had
either stressed that the aim of poetry
is to give pleasure and in this way to
mitigate pain, or that its function is
moral edification A great poet both
instructs and delights. However, for
Eliot the greatness of a poem is tested
not by the pleasure it gives or the
moral elevation it leads to, but by the
order and unity it imposes on the
chaotic and disparate experiences of
the poet. Wimsatt and Brooks are,
therefore, right in saying, Hardly
since the 17th century had a critic
writing in English so resolutely
transposed poetic theory from the
axis of pleasure versus pain to that of
unity versus multiplicity. In this
way, Eliots theory of poetry marks a
break from tradition, and gives a new
direction to literary criticism.
~~~~~~~~~~~
#His_Critical_Concepts_and_Their_Popularity
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Eliot has formulated a number of new
critical concepts which thanks to his
gift of phrasing, have gained wide
currency, and exercised a far-
reaching influence on criticism ever
since. Objective co-relative,
Dissociation of sensibility, Unification
of sensibility, are only a few of the
Eliot cliches which have been hotly
debated by a host of critics, and have
made people sit up and think. His
dynamic theory of tradition, his
theory of impersonality of poetry, his
insistence on, a highly developed
sense of fact, on the part of the
critic, have all tended to impart to
literary criticism both catholicity and
rationalism.
~~~~~~~~~~
#His_Influence: Wide and Continuing
~~~~~~~~~~~
To conclude: Eliots influence as a
critic has been wide and all-
pervasive, it has also been a
continuing one. He has corrected and
educated the taste of his readers and
has brought about a rethinking
regarding the function of poetry and
the nature of the poetic process. He
gave a new orientation, new critical
ideas and new tools of criticism. It is
in the re-consideration and
revitalisation of English poetry of the
past that his influence as a critic,
has been most fruitful and inspiring.
No critic, indeed, since Coleridge has
shown more clearly the use of poetry
and of criticism (John Hayward).
Estimating the achievement of Eliot as
a critic, 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
intuitions. It is not to be expected
that so expert and professional an
observer of poetry should allow his
achievement to be more nearly
classified than this. His comments on
the nature of Poetic Drama and the
relation between poetry and drama
have done much to bring about
revival of Poetic Drama in the
modern age. There is hardly any critic
now who does not bear the stamp of
his influence. Even if he had written
no poetry, he would have made his
mark as a distinguished subtle critic