Page 315 - DENG502_PROSE

Unit 29 : T.S. Eliot: Tradition and Individual Talent ...

He begins the essay by repeating his views on tradition expressed in “Tradition and the Individual Notes
Talent”. That essay postulated a certain order of literary masterpieces which constituted tradition.
It is only in relation to this tradition that individual artists have their significance. He says that
criticism too requires the same sacrifice of the ego.
He defines criticism as “the commentation and exposition of works of art by means of written
words.” Criticism, unlike literature, is not an autotelic activity, it is dependent on literature. The
purpose of criticism is “the elucidation of works of art and the correction of taste.” Commenting
on the prevailing state of criticism, Eliot bemoans the fact that criticism, “far from being a simple
and orderly field of beneficent activity” is a field where critics excel in opposing each other. For
Eliot, criticism should be marked by “cooperative labour.” “The critic ... should endeavour to
discipline his personal prejudices and cranks ... and compose his differences with as many of his
fellows as possible, in the common pursuit of true judgement.” In the New Critics in America, we
find a demonstration of this co-operative venture. And much of Leavis’s criticism is expressed in
terms of friendly debate, as if he were discussing the work with a colleague, and trying to reach
a consensus. A collection of his essays has the very apt title, The Common Pursuit; the title pays a
graceful compliment to Eliot’s theory of criticism, and also demonstrates the use of this collaborative
method.
Eliot refutes a fellow critic Middleton Murray’s suggestion that progress is possible by following
the “Inner Voice”. He believes that following the “Inner Voice” is only an excuse for “doing as one
likes.” He feels that Matthew Arnold is among those who value “tradition and the accumulated
wisdom of time.” According to Eliot, Arnold distinguishes too sharply between the “creative” and
“critical”, he overlooks the importance of criticism in the work of creativity. Eliot believes that
“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 : this frightful toil is as much
critical as creative.” He says “some creative writers are superior to others solely because their
critical faculty is superior.” He believes that the criticism employed by a good writer on his own
work “is the most vital, the highest kind of criticism.” The vast amount of critical labour may not
be apparent, it may have “flashed in the very heat of creation.” Just because it is not obvious, and
we have no way of knowing what goes on in the mind of the creative artist, we should not assume
that this critical activity is absent. Here Eliot is presenting his concept of artistic activity; in “Tradition
and the Individual Talent”, he had talked about “impersonality” and criticized Wordsworth’s
concept of poetry as a “spontaneous overflow”. Here Eliot attacks the idea that “the great artist is
an unconscious artist”. Art does not arise just from inspiration; a lot of effort has to go into
perfecting it, “expunging, correcting, testing”.
According to Eliot, “The critical activity finds its highest, its true fulfilment in a kind of union with
creation in the labour of the artist.” It follows that creative artists would be the best critics. He
admits that at one time he believed that “the only critics worth reading are the critics who practised
and practised well, the art of which they wrote.” He says that what gives the practitioner’s criticism
its special force is his “highly developed sense of fact.” The best critics can make nebulous feelings
into something “precise, tractable, under control.”
Eliot then considers the importance of interpretation. A critic may feel that he has the true
understanding of a work, but there is no way of confirming this interpretation. Eliot feels that
such interpretations are of no use; far more useful would be to put the reader in possession of facts
about the work to enable him to respond to it fully. “Interpretation is only legitimate when it is not
interpretation at all, but merely putting the reader in possession of facts which he would otherwise
have missed.”
Eliot has already said that criticism is a common pursuit. Now he tells us how to go about it.
“Comparison and analysis, I have said before, and Remy de Gourmont has said before me, are the
chief tools of the critic.” But one must know what to compare and what to analyze, we should not

LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY 309