6/9/23, 9:28 PM T. S.

Eliot’s ‘To Criticize the Critic’: An Empirical Evolution of A Critic | Dr Kalpna Rajput

23rd July 2013 T. S. Eliot’s ‘To Criticize the Critic’:

An Empirical Evolution of A Critic

[http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-
HoT1ENb5o0o/Ue394woClzI/AAAAAAAAAZY/9Mez9wVkup0/s1600/eliot.jpg]
Discussing T. S. Eliot as a critic is to plunge oneself in the ocean of loaded
discussions leading to a new vision. In the long list of critics his place is second
to none and this is also the unforgettable fact that he is more widely read than
other critics of his time. His greatness as a critic and poet is an undeniable
factor. His five hundred essays have been published as reviews and articles and
to a great extent they were succeeded in giving a revolutionary idea about
critics and their biased points while judging any piece of literary work. His
criticism awakened the interest of readers in metaphysical poets resulting in the
revival of Metaphysical writings of 20th century. His essays being highly original
and their serious concern of circumstances of creative writer made his essays
thought provoking and pervasive. His independent and powerful mind
compelled the readers to enjoy the writings of less desirable writers from an
entirely new outlook. His systematic discussion made his criticism a source of
origination of theoretical criticism. He coined the new concepts of criticism like
‘objective co-relative’, ‘dissociation of sensibility’ and ‘unification of sensibility’
and ‘theory of impersonality’ which had much practical and rational approach in
them. In one of his letter, he stated: “My chief reason for writing this letter is my
desire that the problem of critical principles should be more pondered and
discussed, and that both critics and readers should apply themselves to
consider the nature of criticism.” (Eliot V. , p. 381)
In his sixth convocation lecture in university of Leeds in July 1961 on the
functions of critics entitled ‘To Criticize The Critic’, he focused his eye on a
variety of critics, re-assessment of own writings, age factor in criticism, benefits
of different criticisms and failures of critics on many subjects. Eliot is of the view
that choosing a subject for criticism becomes a subjective matter and most of
the critics wish that other critics may also do same confessions. He says:
My justification must be that there is no other critic; living or dead, about
whose work I am so well informal as I am about my own. I know more
about the genesis of my essays and reviews than about those of any
other critic; I know the chronology, the circumstances under which each
essay was written and the motive for writing it, and about all those
changes of attitude, taste, interest and belief which the years bring to
poss. (Eliot T. S., To Criticise The Critic and Other Writings, p. 11)

kalpna111.blogspot.com/2013/07/t-s-eliots-to-criticize-critic.html?m=1 1/6
6/9/23, 9:28 PM T. S. Eliot’s ‘To Criticize the Critic’: An Empirical Evolution of A Critic | Dr Kalpna Rajput

When the work of some author is analyzed, we have not so much information
about him and his work in concern. So, general scales for criticizing a works of
art may not be applicable to all simultaneously. To meet this requirement, he
distinguishes among ‘several kinds of literary critics’. Firstly, he mentions the
professional critics who are weighed only for their work of criticism. Eliot calls
such critics ‘super reviewer’ because he owns the designation of official critic in
well known magazines and newspapers. He finds Sainte-Bevve, the French
critic, a professional critic because he wrote only two important works i.e. Port
Royal and Chateau briand et ses amis and rest of his works were the
compilation of essays previously published serially in newspapers and
magazines. But this does not mean that a professional critic cannot be a good
creative writer. He illustrates Edmund Gosse who in spite of being a good critic
was a creative writer too and his single work Father and Son proved a classic
work. On the second place, he discusses the critics who highlights the second
rate authors. He says:
This critic is not called to the seat of judgment; he is rather the advocate
of the authors whose work he expounds, authors who are sometimes
the forgotten or unduly despised. He calls our attention to such writers
helps us to see merit which we had overlooked and to find charm where
we had expected only boredom. (Eliot T. S., To Criticise The Critic and
Other Writings, p. 12)
He names George Sainsbury who had a genuine appetite to discover
excellence in second rate authors. He tried to extract something new in the
writings of these second rate authors.
On the third place, he mentions academic and theoretical critics who could
suitably compare the author of one age from the author of another age. I. C.
Knights or Wilson Knight the authors who mingled their critical work with
teaching and developed their own theories. Further, Eliot points out F. R. Leavis
who along with his ‘academic post’ studied specially one period but it will be
wrong to call him the specialist critic on account of his special study. He says:
And another critic of importance, Dr. F. R. Leavis, who may be called the
critic as moralist? The critic who is also tenant of an academic post is
likely to have made special study of one period or one author but to call
him a specialist critic would seem a kind of abridgement of his right to
examine whatever literature he pleases. (Eliot T. S., To Criticise The
Critic and Other Writings, p. 13)
On the fourth place, he puts the critics like Samuel Johnson, Coleridge, Dryden,
Racine and Matthew Arnold whose criticism is considered the outcome of their
original writings. For him their works are ‘probably more remarkable than those
of any other modern critic’. (Eliot T. S., The Sacred Wood, p. 14) According to
Eliot, poetry and criticism both must have their own spheres and must be
different from each other in the form and content. Eliot includes himself too in
this category of critics and shares his own experience when he was invited to
deliver the lecture.
I hope you need by now no further assurance that it was not laziness
that impelled me to turn to my own writings for my material. It almost
certainly not vanity: for when I first applied myself to the required
reading for this address, it was so long since I had read many of my
essays that I approached them with apprehension rather than with

kalpna111.blogspot.com/2013/07/t-s-eliots-to-criticize-critic.html?m=1 2/6
6/9/23, 9:28 PM T. S. Eliot’s ‘To Criticize the Critic’: An Empirical Evolution of A Critic | Dr Kalpna Rajput

hopeful expectations. (Eliot T. S., To Criticise The Critic and Other

Writings, p. 13)
Here, Eliot criticizes his own writings and sees his writings with apprehension
because ‘error of judgment, error of tone’ or chance of circumstances give a
vast change in the attitude of a critic. What is right today for him cannot be right
for him in the years to come. He says:
There are to be sure, statements with which I no longer agree, there are
views which I maintain with less firmness of conviction than when I first
expressed them, or which I maintain only with important reservations;
there are statements the meaning of which I no longer understand.
There may be areas in which my knowledge has increased, there are
areas in which my knowledge has evaporated. On re-reading my essay
on Pascal, for instance, I was astonished at the extent of the information
I seem to have possessed when I wrote it. (14)
Eliot experiences that writings written long ago create irritation in his heart
because he feels little doubt about the applicability of these writings in the
present context. So he ‘makes a point of indicating the original date of
publications, as a reminder to the reader of the distance of time that separates
the author when he wrote it from the author as he is today. (14) He gives several
of his personal example which indicate that an author when returns his own
writings after sometime, he finds his words ‘out of context’. Next, he switches
over his discussion on the quotations, references in his earlier essays which
made deep impression than the writings of afterlife. For him, ‘dogmatism of
youth’ is the chief reason behind defining the issues more confidently. On the
other hand, when man grows old, his tolerance and sympathy increases to a
great extent, so, he does not harm anyone. Surety in any matter becomes a key
factor to attract more readership that is beautifully done by confident young
readers. Eliot finds criticism on familiar creative works more lasting than
detached authors. He says:
The second reason for enduring popularity of some of my early criticism
is less easily apprehended, especially by readers of a young generation.
It is that in my earlier criticism, both in my general affirmations about
poetry and in writing about authors who had influence me, I was
implicitly defending the sort of poetry that I and my friends wrote. This
gave my essays a kind of urgency, the warmth of appeal of the
advocate, which my later, more detached and I hope more judicial
essays cannot claim. I was in reaction, not only against Georgian poetry,
but against Georgian criticism; I was writing in a context which the
reader of today has either forgotten, or has never experienced. (Eliot T.
S., To Criticise The Critic and Other Writings, p. 16)
In appraising or criticizing a work of criticism, Eliot gives greater importance to
time, age and circumstances to which the critic belongs. For giving a judicious
judgment on a critic, one must place oneself in one’s place and see one in the
same context. Although, it is a bit complicated task because the impact of the
time in which one is living, cannot separate one to make a tour in critics’ world
and give judgment accordingly. Eliot gives his own estimate about time and
circumstances which affected his writings. He puts a glaring question before his
readers that when on reviewing his own critical writings of past, he could not
recall all those previous circumstances under which he wrote a particular

kalpna111.blogspot.com/2013/07/t-s-eliots-to-criticize-critic.html?m=1 3/6
6/9/23, 9:28 PM T. S. Eliot’s ‘To Criticize the Critic’: An Empirical Evolution of A Critic | Dr Kalpna Rajput

writing, then how can an unfamiliar critic receive all the information, both
subjective and objective while criticizing a critic and if a critic cannot have all the
above information, how can his criticism be called apt and judicious? He states:
“In reviewing my own early criticism, I am struck by the degree to which it was
conditioned by the state of literature at the time at which it was written, as well
as by the stage of maturity at which had arrived, by the influence to which I had
been exposed, and by the occasion of each essay.” (17) He further says:
I cannot myself bring to mind all these circumstances, reconstruct all the
conditions under which I wrote; how much less can any future critic of
my work have knowledge of them, or if he has knowledge, have
understanding or if he has both knowledge and understanding, find my
essays of the same interest that they had for those who read them
sympathetically when they first appeared? No literary criticism can for a
future generation excite more than curiosity, unless it continues to be
use in itself to future generations, to have intrinsic value out of its
historical context” (Eliot T. S., To Criticise The Critic and Other Writings,
p. 17)
The taste that suits well to the temperament becomes the stimuli to literary
sensibility. Eliot chose contemporaries of Shakespeare to write an article upon
and not Shakespeare himself because they were best suitable to his ‘stage of
development’ at that time. At the age of fifty-five, he imitated Dante knowing
exactly the work he was doing.
Here and everywhere in his criticism we find Eliot using subjective vision. The
critics of Eliot raise question on his term ‘objective correlative’ and ‘dissociation
of sensibility’ and their applicability in his own writings. He answers:
Whatever the future of these phrases, and even if am unable to defend
them how with any forensic plausibility, I think they have been useful in
their time. They have been accepted, they have been rejected, they may
soon go out of fashion completely: but they have served their turn as
stimuli to the critical thinking of others. (Eliot T. S., To Criticise The Critic
and Other Writings, p. 19)
In the same essay, he again defends his subjectivity against his own theories of
objectivity and sensibility and says:
I am aware of course, that any ‘objective correlative’ and my
‘dissociation of sensibility’ must be attacked or defended on their own
level of abstraction and that I have done no more that indicate what I
believe to have been their genesis. I am also aware that in according for
them in this way, I am now making a generalization about my
generalizations. But I am certain of one thing: that I have written best
about writers who have influenced my own poetry. (20)
Eliot points out that the authors who have influenced his writings can be of value
to future readers because they will see the applicability of all his theories and
make necessary modifications there, but to study few great authors leave you
only in the mesmerizing gallery of those great authors.
Lastly, Eliot discusses that upto what degree can critics change the taste of
general readers. He makes the assessment of his own success as a critic in
‘arousing interest and promoting appreciation of the early dramatists or of the
metaphysical poets’. And finds himself at a loss in doing so. The taste, on the
parameter of age, fashion and style in literature vary that ultimately do not let

kalpna111.blogspot.com/2013/07/t-s-eliots-to-criticize-critic.html?m=1 4/6
6/9/23, 9:28 PM T. S. Eliot’s ‘To Criticize the Critic’: An Empirical Evolution of A Critic | Dr Kalpna Rajput

the readers accept the views or theories of a particular critic. According to Eliot,
even a good critic cannot create taste. He himself had read, so many critics like
Coleridge and Browning but when Grierson’s Metaphysical Poets was offered to
him for writing a review, he did it in better way than other critics could do. He
narrates this incident thus:
I think that if I wrote well about the metaphysical poets, it was because
they were poets who had inspired me. And if I can be said to have any
influence whatever in promoting a wider interest in them, it was simply
because no previous poet who had praised these poets and been so
deeply influenced by them as I had been. As the taste for my own poetry
spread, so did the taste for the poets to whom I owed the greatest debt
and about whom I had written. (Eliot T. S., To Criticise The Critic and
Other Writings, p. 22)
Not only this, critic’s own views also change with the passage of time, when he
grows mature. But Eliot finds that the primitive impression of the poet read in
early age always have a lasting impact which remains unaffected throughout the
life. In the long run, the excitement for the writings of these authors diminishes
and scholar searches new interests for ‘pure delight’. He says:
I turn more often the pages of Mallarme than those of Laforgne, those
of George Herbert that those of Donne, Shakespeare than of his
contemporaries and epigoni. This does not necessarily involve judgment
of relative greatness, it is merely that what has best responded to my
need in middle and later age is different from the nourishment I needed
in my youth. (Eliot T. S., To Criticise The Critic and Other Writings, p. 23)
Eliot through his example of D. H. Lawrence and his works reminds the critics
that howsoever great a critic might be, he cannot escape his personal bias, and
as far as his own writings are concerned, he wrote in the best way about
authors whom he knew from heart. He says:
I have found that my best work falls within rather narrow limits, my best
essays being, in my opinion, those concerned with writers who had
influenced me in my poetry: naturally the majority of these writers were
poets. And it is that part of my criticism concerned with writers towards
whom I felt gratitude and whom I could praise whole heartedly, which is
the part in which I continue to feel most confident as the years pass.
(Eliot T. S., To Criticise The Critic and Other Writings, p. 25)
In the end, Eliot takes out a pure literary criticism that is the criticism in which
articles write about their own art like Johnson, Wordsworth and Coleridge. For
him, historians, philosophers, moralists, sociologists and grammarians also can
play an important role in criticism but he favours the pure literary criticism and
says: “In so far as literary criticism is purely literary. I believe that the criticism of
artists writing about their own art is of greater intensity, and carries more
authority though the area of the artists’ competence may much narrower. (Eliot
T. S., To Criticise The Critic and Other Writings, p. 26) Thus, the whole essay of
Eliot focuses on his personal experience about critics and their writings through
which a literary work can be judged without any bias. He amazingly raises those
points which are inherently placed in the mind of each critic but these critics
cannot raise any of these points because their criticism comes under the
category of any of these points and is far from the world of pure criticism or
criticism for the sake of literature.

kalpna111.blogspot.com/2013/07/t-s-eliots-to-criticize-critic.html?m=1 5/6