An Ideal Critic: His Qualifications and Functions

An Ideal Critic: His Qualifications and Functions
His Qualifications and Functions

In a number of critical essays like The Perfect Critic, The Imperfect Critic, The Function of
Criticism and The Frontiers of Criticism, Eliot has dealt with the qualifications and functions of a
critic. His views in this respect may be summed up as follows:
An Ideal Critic: His Qualifications
1. A good critic must have superior sensibility. He must have greater capacity of receiving
impressions and sensations from the work of art he studies.
2. He must also have wide erudition. This would increase his understanding. His mind would be
stored with impressions which would be modified and refreshed by each successive impression
he receives from the new works he contemplates. In this way would be built up a system of
impressions which would enable him to make generalised statements of literary beauty. Such a
universalizing or generalising power is essential for an ideal critic, and he can get it only through
erudition.
3. A good critic must be entirely impersonal and objective. He must not be guided by the inner
voice, but by some authority outside himself. Eliot instances two types of imperfect critics,
represented by Arthur Symons and Arnold. Symons is too subjective and impressionistic, while
Arnold is too dry, intellectual and abstract. Eliot regards Aristotle as an instance of a perfect
critic, for he avoids both these defects. In his hands, criticism approaches the condition of
science.
4. A good critic must not be emotional. He must be entirely objective. He must try to discipline
his personal prejudices and whims. He must have a highly trained sensibility, and a sense of
structural principles, and must not be satisfied with vague, emotional impressions. Critics who
supply only vague, emotional impressions, opinions or fancy, as he puts it, are great corruptors
of taste.
5. An ideal critic must have a highly developed sense of fact. By a sense of fact, Eliot does not
mean biographical or sociological knowledge, but a knowledge of technical details of a poem, its
genesis, setting, etc. It is a knowledge of such facts alone which can make criticism concrete as
well as objective. It is these facts which a critic must use to bring about an appreciation of a work
of art. However, he is against the ‘lemon-squeezer’ school of critics who try to squeeze every
drop of meaning out of words and lines.
6. A critic must also have a highly developed sense of tradition. He must be learned not only in
the literature of his own country, but in the literature of Europe down from Homer to his own
day.
7. Practitioners of poetry make the best critics. The critic and the creative artist should frequently
be the same person. Such poet-critics have a thorough knowledge and understanding of the
process of poetic creation, and so they are in the best position to communicate their own
understanding to their readers.
8. An ideal critic must have a thorough understanding of the language and structure of a poem.
He must also have an idea of the music of poetry, for a poet communicates as much through the
meaning of words as through their sound.
9. Comparison and analysis are the chief tools of a critic and so a perfect critic must be an expert
in the use of these tools. His use of these tools must be subtle and skilful. He must know what
and how to compare, and how to analyse. He must compare the writers of the present with those
of the past not to pass judgment or determine good or bad, but to elucidate the qualities of the
work under criticism. In other words, he must be a man of erudition, for only then can he use his
tools effectively.
10. He must not try to judge the present by the standards of the past. The requirements of each
age are different, and so the cannons of art must change from age to age. He must be liberal in
his outlook, and must be prepared to correct and revise his views from time to time, in the light
of new facts.
In short, an ideal critic must combine to a remarkable degree, “sensitiveness, erudition, sense of
fact and sense of history, and generalising power.”
The Critic: His Functions

1. The function of a critic is to elucidate works of art. This function he performs through,
‘comparison and analysis’. His function is not to interpret, for interpretation is something
subjective and impressionistic. Critics like Coleridge or Goethe, who try to interpret works of art,
are great corruptors of the public taste. They supply merely opinion or fancy which is often
misleading. The critic should merely place the facts before the readers and thus help them to
interpret for themselves. His function is analytical and elucidatory, and not interpretative.
“Analysis and comparison, methodically with sensitiveness, intelligence, curiosity, intensity of
passion, and infinite knowledge, all these are necessary to the great critic.”
2. The critic must also have correct taste. He must educate the taste of the people. In other words,
he must enable them positively to judge what to read most profitably, and negatively what to
avoid as worthless and of no significance. He must develop the insight and discrimination of his
readers.
3. A critic must promote the enjoyment and understanding of works of art. He must develop both
the aesthetic and the intellectual sensibilities of his readers.
4. It is the function of a critic to turn the attention from the poet to his poetry. The emotion of art
is impersonal, distinct from the emotion of the poet. The poem is the thing in itself, and it must
be judged objectively without any biographical, sociological or historical considerations. By
placing before the readers the relevant facts about the poem, the critic emphasizes its impersonal
nature, and thus promotes correct understanding.
5. Criticism must serve as a handmaid to creation. Criticism is of great importance in the work of
creation itself. The poet creates, but the critic in him sifts, combines, corrects and expunges, and
thus imparts perfection and finish to what has been created. No great work of art is possible
without critical labour.
6. The function of a critic is to find common principles for the pursuit of criticism. To achieve
this end, “the critic must control his own whims and prejudices, and co-operate with other critics
in the common pursuit of true judgment.” He must co-operate with the critics both of the past
and the present. He must also realise that all truths are tentative, and so must be ready to correct
and modify his views as fresh facts come to light.
7. The function of a critic is not a judicial one. A critic is not to pass judgment or determine good
or bad. His function is to place the simpler kinds of facts before the readers, and thus help them
to form their own judgment. He does not supply statements or communicate feeling; he merely
starts a process. A critic is a great irritant to thought; he tries to secure the active participation of
the readers in the work of criticism.
8. A critic should try to answer two questions: “‘What is poetry?” and “Is this a good poem?”
Criticism is both theoretical regarding the nature and function of poetry and the poetic process,
and practical concerned with the evaluation of works of art. With this end in view, he should
bring the lessons of the past to bear upon the present.

An Ideal Critic: His Qualifications and Functions

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

An Ideal Critic: His Qualifications and Functions

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

An Ideal Critic: His Qualifications and Functions

His Qualifications and Functions

An Ideal Critic: His Qualifications

The Critic: His Functions

You might also like