Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Function of The Criticism by TS Eliot
Function of The Criticism by TS Eliot
Paper V
Literary Criticism – Classical Approach
ENGBA(605)- Sem- 6
Unit- 2
Chapter 2 :
TS Eliot – THE FUNCTION OF
CRITICISM
About Author :
Charges of Anti-Semitism
Was T. S. Eliot anti-Semitic? Critics and biographers remain
divided on the answer, and the evidence seems to rest on a less-
than-favourable references to Jewish people in a handful of poems,
notably ‘Gerontion‘, ‘Burbank with a Baedeker: Bleistein with a
Cigar‘, and early drafts of The Waste Land (lines which Ezra Pound
actually cut out – surprisingly, given Pound’s vocal anti-Semitism).
There is also a controversial reference to ‘free-thinking Jews’ in a
book of Eliot’s American lectures, After Srived that he was to be
awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature.
Vivienne died in the late 1940s, and Eliot married his secretary,
Valerie Fletcher, in 1957. It is fitting, almost poetically so, that
Eliot married Valerie in the same London church in which Jules
Laforgue, the poet who had first showed him how he might forge
his own poetic voice almost fifty years ago, had married an English
girl in 1886. The following year, in 1958, his final play, The Elder
Statesman, was staged and published. Eliot died in 1965, aged 76.
His ashes were interred in the churchyard of St. Michael’s Church
in East Coker, the subject of the second of his Four Quartetsand the
village which his ancestors had left in the seventeenth century when
they had departed for the New World. Eliot’s widow, Valerie,
would survive until 2012, having acted, for the best part of fifty
years, as Eliot’s executor, editor, and devoted guardian.
They are both commemorated in the plaque that marks the final
resting-place of Eliot’s ashes. Fittingly, the first and final words of
‘East Coker’ are also inscribed on the stone: ‘In my beginning is my
end.’ ‘In my end is my beginning.’
If you enjoyed this very brief biography of T. S. Eliot, you can
find more information on the life of T. S. Eliot in the further reading
below, especially the biographies by Ackroyd and Gordon.
writers of all time form a singular ideal community and they all are united
by a common cause and a common inheritance.
Eliot’s views about criticism also follow his views about art and tradition.
However, works of art could have different ends like moral, religious or
cultural but criticism has only one end- i.e., “elucidation of works of art
and the correction of taste.”Criticism, thus depends on art and could not
be an independent activity.
To determine the success of a critic in his performance should be easy
considering that the end of criticism is clear and well defined. However,
Eliot states that in reality it is not that simple. The basic reason he
identifies is that critics believe in asserting their individuality rather than
conforming to the fellow critics. He states that critics trying to attract
audience by competing with others have no value or significance.
However, he also believed that some critics did prove useful on the basis of
their work.
Murry’s Views
In the second part of the essay, Eliot takes on Middleton Murry’s views on
Classicism and Romanticism. Murry had stressed on the belief that
Classicism and Romanticism differ very clearly and no one could follow
both at the same time. Eliot opposed Murry when the latter related the
difference between classicism and romanticism to the difference in French
and English, respectively. Murry also related Catholicism to classicism for
believing in tradition, discipline and obedience to an objective authority
outside the individual. According tohim, Romanticism and Protestantism
are related to social liberalism, for having full faith in the ‘inner voice’, in
the individual, and no restriction to follow outside authority or fixed rules
and traditions.Eliot objected to Murry’s views by stating that his concept
of inner voice was like advocating doing what one likes. He says that the
difference between classicism and romanticism is equivalent to the
difference between the complete and the fragmentary, the adult and the
immature, the orderly and the chaotic. He also disagrees that the French
and the English could be compared to Classics and romantics, respectively.
the laws and tradition of art which have been derived from the experience
of ages. Thus, someone believing in the ‘inner voice’ could not value
criticism. He calls the inner voice ‘whiggery’.
Creative Criticism
Eliot opposes one of the basic beliefs of literary studies that critical and
creative activities are separate. According to him, criticism forms a large
part of the effort undertaken for creation. However, he states that critical
writing cannot be creative. Because there is a fundamental difference
between creation and criticism, an effort for creative criticism would be
neither creative nor critical. Creation has no conscious aims but criticism
has fixed purpose concerned to something other than itself. Criticism
could not be autotelic and is aimed at elucidation of works of art.
Qualifications of a Critic
Eliot also mentions the qualifications of a critic. He considers a highly
developed sense of fact to be the most important quality of a critic. The
sense of fact is a rare gift and is very slow to develop. Eliot also states that
‘workshop criticism’, i.e. criticism by a person who practises creative art
himself is most valuable. He also says that the part of criticism attempting
interpretation of an author or a work is false and misleading.
According to Eliot, true interpretation is giving the possession of the facts
to the reader. The true critic puts his knowledge about facts about a work
of art before the reader in simple manner. He also suggests clearly that by
the term ‘facts’, he means the technical aspects concerned to a work of art.
Critic’s tools
Eliot considers comparison and analysis to be the chief tools of a critic that
should be used with care and intelligence. A critic needs to be fully aware
of the facts about a work to employ comparison and analysis. He believes
that the method of comparison and analysis is preferable over the
conventional interpretation even if used injudiciously.
concluding fourth part, the poet examines the different aspects of the
nature and function of criticism.
Eliot’s views on criticism derive from his views on art and tradition as
given above. He defines criticism as, “the commentation and
exposition of works of art by means of written words’“. Criticism can
never be an autotelic activity, because criticism is always about
something. Art, as critics like Matthew Arnold point out, may have
some other ends, e.g., moral, religious, cultural, but art need not be
aware of these ends, rather it performs its function better by being
indifferent to such ends. But criticism always has one and only one
definite end, and that end is, “elucidation of works of art and the
correction of taste.” In his essay The Frontiers of Criticism, he further
explains the aim of criticism as, “the promotion of understanding and
enjoyment of literature.”
Since the end of criticism is clear and well defined, it should he easy
to determine whether a critic has performed his function well or not.
However, this is not such an easy taste. The difficulty arises from the
fact that critics, instead of trying to discipline their personal
prejudices and whims and composing their differences with as many
of their fellow critics as possible and co-operating in the common
pursuit of true judgment, express extreme views and vehemently
assert their individually, i.e. the ways in which they differ from
others. This is so because they owe their livelihood to such
differences and oddities. The result is criticism has become like a
Sunday Park full of orators competing with each other to attract as
large and audience as possible. Such critics are a worthless lot of no
value and significance. However, there are certain other critics who
are useful, and it is on the basis of their works, that Eliot establishes
the aims and methods of criticism which should be followed by all.
there are critics who hold that classicism and romanticism are the
same thing, Murry takes a definite position, and makes a clear
distinction between the two, and says that one cannot be a classic and
a romantic at one and the same time. In this respect, Eliot praises
Murry, but he does not agree with him when he makes the issue a
national and racial issue, and says that the genius of the French is
classic and that of the English is romantic. Murry further relates
Catholicism in religion with classicism in literature, for both believe
in tradition, in discipline, in obedience to an objective authority
outside the individual. On the contrary, romanticism and
Protestantism, and social liberalism, are related, for they have full
faith in the ‘inner voice’, in the individual, and obey no outside
authority. They care for no rules and traditions.
But Eliot does not agree with these views. In his opinion, the
difference between classicism and romanticism is, the difference
between the complete and the fragmentary, the adult and the
immature, the orderly and the chaotic. To him the concept of the
inner voice sounds remarkably like doing, What one likes. It is a sign
of indiscipline leading to vanity, fear and lust. Neither does he agree
with the view that the English as a nation are romantics and so
‘humorous’ and ‘non-conformists’, while the French are ‘naturally’
classical.
In the third part of the essay, Eliot summarily dismisses the views of
Murry. The tone is one of light ridicule. He contemptuously calls the
inner voice, whiggery. For those who believe in the ‘inner voice’,
criticism is of no value at all, because the function of criticism is to
discover some common principles for achieving perfection in art.
Those who believe in the “inner voice” do not want any principles. In
other words, they do not care for perfection in art, which can result
only through obedience to the laws of art, and to tradition which
represents the accumulated wisdom and experience of ages.
In the fourth part, Eliot deals with the problem of criticism in all its
manifold aspects. In the very beginning, he comments upon the
terms ‘critical’ and ‘creative’. He ridicules Matthew Arnold for having
distinguished rather bluntly between the ‘critical’ and the ‘creative’
activity. He does not realise that criticism is of capital importance in
the work of creation. As a matter of fact, “the larger part of the labour
of an author in composing his work is critical labour’, the labour of
sifting, combining constructing, expunging, correcting, testing.” Eliot
further expresses the view that the criticism employed by a writer on
his own work is the most vital and the highest kind of criticism.
Elsewhere, Eliot calls such criticism, workshop criticism. Its high
worth and value cannot be denied, for a poet who knows from
personal experience the mysteries of the creative process is in a
better position to write about it than those who have no such
knowledge. Eliot goes to the extent of saying that some creative
writers are superior to others only because their critical faculty is
superior. He ridicules those who decry the critical toil of the artist,
and hold the view that the greater artist is an unconscious artist. He
calls such concepts whiggery and pours his ridicule on such people.
He comments those who, instead relying on the ‘Inner voice’, or
‘inspiration’, conform to tradition, and in this was try to make their
works as free from defects as possible.
Comparison and analysis are the chief tools of a critic. These are the
tools of the critic, and he must use them with care and intelligence.
Comparison and analysis can be possible only when the critic knows
the facts about the works which are to be compared and analysed. He
must know the facts about the work of art—technical elements like its
structure, content and theme—and not waste his time in such
irrelevant fact-hunting as the inquiry into the number of times
giraffes are mentioned in the English novel. However, the method of
comparison and analysis, even when used unjudiciously, is preferable
to ‘interpretation’ in the conventional sense.
Facts, even facts of the lowest order, cannot corrupt taste, while
impressionistic criticism, like that of Coleridge and Goethe, is always
misleading. The function of criticism is to educate taste or, as Eliot
puts it elsewhere, to promote enjoyment and understanding of
literature. Now facts, however trivial, can never corrupt taste; they
can only gratify taste. Critics like Goethe or Coleridge, who supply
opinion or fancy, are the real corruptors. In the end, Eliot cautions us
not to become slaves to facts and bother about such trivialities as the
laundry bills of Shakespeare. Such fact-hunting is not criticism.
Similarly, he warns us against the vicious taste for reading about
works of art instead of reading the works themselves.
Eliot’s emphasis on facts makes it clear that his critical stand is with
such New Critics as F.R. Leavis and I.A. Richards. He commands
textual criticism, but he is against the ‘lemon-squeezer’ school of
critics who try to squeeze every drop of meaning out of words. A critic
Reference