In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

[ 273 The Perfect Critic To the Editor of The Athenaeum The Athenaeum, 4710 (6 Aug 1920) 190 Sir, – Mr. Hannay doubts whether I have justified my distinction between the critic and the philosopher, and suspects that I am making a distinction between a kind of philosophical criticism of which I approve and another kind of which I disapprove.1 If I have made this distinction between kinds to Mr. Hannay’s satisfaction, and not merely shown that I like some critical writings and not others, then I ought to be content. The frontier cannot be clearly defined; at all events I trust that Mr. Hannay would agree that Hegel’s Philosophy of Art adds very little to our enjoyment or understanding of art, though it fills a gap in Hegel’s philosophy.2 I have in mind a rather celebrated passage towards the end of Taine’s History of English Literature (I have not the book by me) in which he compares Tennyson and Musset.3 Taine is a person for whom I have considerable respect, but this passage does not seem to me to be good as criticism; the comparative vision of French and English life does not seem to me to issue quite ingenuously out of an appreciation of the two poets; I should say that Taine was here philosophizing rather than “developing his sensibility into a generalized structure.” I do not understand Mr. Hannay’s request that I should quote an instance of “this generalization which is neither itself poetry nor discursive reasoning.” I find in Chambers (the only dictionary within reach) that “discursive ” means “desultory,” “rational,” or “proceeding regularly from premises to conclusion.”4 Surely I have not pretended that criticism should avoid “discursive reasoning” in this last sense? As to the question whether my article on “The Perfect Critic” was itself philosophy or perfect criticism, I need only refer Mr. Hannay to the Principia Mathematica Chap. II., especially page 65 (The Theory of Types and the Cretan Liar: “Hence the statement of Epimenides does not fall within its own scope, and therefore no contradiction emerges”).5 I am, Sir, Your obliged obedient servant, T. S. Eliot 1920 274 ] Notes 1. A. H. Hannay (1889-1955), art critic for the London Mercury since Feb 1920, wrote to the editor of the Athenaeum on 30 July: “Mr. T. S. Eliot’s article ‘The Perfect Critic’ contains many interesting points, and I think that he is doing valuable work in investigating closely the interconnection between criticism and the work criticized; but his final conclusion is still to me rather obscure, and I doubt whether he has really justified his distinction between the critic who develops his sensibility into a generalized structure and the philosophic critic. . . . I suspect that Mr. Eliot is really making a distinction between a kind of philosophical criticism of which he approves and another kind of which he disapproves” (156). 2. A review of the new translation of Hegel’s Vorlesungen über die Aesthetik (1835), The Philosophy of Fine Art, trans. F. P. B. Osmaston, 4 vols (London: Bell, 1916-20), had appeared in the Athenaeum in Apr 1920. 3. Taine concludes book 5 of his Histoire de la littérature anglaise [History of English Literature] with a comparison of Tennyson’s England and Alfred de Musset’s France, arguing in favor of understanding writers in their social context: “we shall better understand the flowers if we see them in the garden.” Trans. H. Van Laun (London: Chatto & Windus, 1897), 454. 4. Chambers’s Twentieth Century Dictionary of the English Language, ed. Thomas Davidson (London: W. & R. Chambers, 1901). 5. Chapter 2 of the introduction to vol 1 of the Whitehead-Russell Principia Mathematica demonstrates how the theory of hierarchically organized “types” helps to solve contradictions in logic – like the paradox involving the sixth-century Cretan philosopher Epimenides and his claim that all Cretans are liars – by excluding certain sentences from their own scope of reference. TSE quotes from the Cambridge UP edition (1910). ...

pdf

Additional Information

ISBN
9781421412955
Related ISBN
9781421406770
MARC Record
OCLC
882598329
Pages
992
Launched on MUSE
2014-07-03
Language
English
Open Access
No
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.