.
“The Function of
Criticism” was written by Eliot as the result of a literary controversy in
1919. A famous romantic critic
Middleton Murray published an essay challenging Eliot’s views, in his
essay “Romanticism and Tradition”. This essay
“Function of Criticism” is a replay to the essay written by Murray.
Eliot begins his
essay stating or repeating his views which he had already expressed in his
essay “Tradition and the Individual Talent”.
Eliot repeats that there is a close bond [relation] between the present
and the past in the world of literature, as in the other fields of life. We cannot claim any any superiority which is
our own. In other words we continue the
work of the past. But it does not mean total
dependence. Eliot calls the bond a kind
of tradition. All literary works from
the time of the ancient masters Homer to the present generation form a single
tradition. A writer’s significance or
importance is measured in relation to this tradition.
By criticism
Eliot means the analysis of literary works.
Criticism can never be an autotelic [directed towards an end in itself]
activity. This is because criticism is
always about something. So that ‘something’
is to be considered. The main aim of
criticism is the clear explanation of literary texts and the correction of
taste. But often critics try to differ
from one another. This happens because
of their prejudices and eccentricities. Eliot
holds the view that critics should conform and co-operate in the common
pursuit, of true excellence. The result
of differences in reviews is that criticism has become like a Sunday park, full
of orators competing with each other to attract more audience. Even in this troubled situation, there are
some critics who are useful. It is on
the basis of their works that Eliot intends to establish the aims and methods
of criticism.
In the second
part of his essay on ‘the Function of Criticism’ Eliot mentions Middleton
Murray’s views on Classicism and Romanticism.
Murray makes a clear distinction between the two and states that one
cannot be Romanticist as well as a Classicist at once. Eliot does not agree with this view of
Murray. Murray seems to make it a
national or a racial problem, suggesting that the genius of the French is
classic and that of the English is romantic.
Eliot does not
agree with the view of Murray who says that the English as a nation are romantics,
humourists and non-conformists. Eliot does
not agree with Murray who says that the French are naturally classical.
In the last part
of the essay Eliot discusses the problem of criticism in all its manifold
aspects. He makes fun of Matthew Arnold
who rather bluntly distinguished between the critical and the creative
activities. Eliot blames Arnold for not
considering that criticism is of great importance, in the process of creation
itself. In Eliot’s view an author’s self
criticism is the best kind of criticism.
It is the self criticism of one’s own composition. He says that some writers are better creative
and superior to others, only because their critical faculty is superior. They are able to criticize their own
composition even at the time of composing them.
The result is that they corrected and refined. He does not agree with the view that the
great artist is an unconscious artist. He
argues that critical activities and creative activities cannot be
separated. The most important
qualification of a critic is that he must have a very highly developed sense of
fact. Eliot agrees that it is a rare
gift. Eliot does not think highly of ‘interpreting’
an anchor. The critic must be able to
give an insight into a text. He argues
that impressionistic criticism is false and misleading.
