Classics and the Man of Letters - Essay Example

ics and the Man of Letters Introduction Although born in the United s, T.S. Eliot moved to the United Kingdom later in life becoming a British citizen in 1927. Eliot’s work as a writer is ripe with allusions to classic literature, as Eliot himself worked as a Professor many times throughout his life. Although most famous as his work as a poet (Eliot won the Nobel Prize for literature for his poem Four Quartets), he also gained considerable acclaim as a literary theorist. In his influential essay ‘Tradition and the Individual Talent’ he argued that a work of literature should be judged within the literary canon that preceded it. It’s no surprise then that in 1942 Eliot was asked to become president of the Classical Association in April 1942. The Classical Association is an organization established in English in 1902 devoted to the preservation and teaching of classic literature in the humanities. The presidency switches yearly between a notable writer and a member of the academy (Stray 2003). This essay examines Eliot 1942 Presidential Address, ‘Classics and the Man of Letters,’ to this association and considers the structure of Eliot’s argument, and the relative importance Eliot attaches to its various elements. Classics and the Man of Letters Eliot begins his address by paraphrasing from an article that he read which promoted studying Greek, but only as one might study Egyptology. Eliot object to this characterization as it, while promoting the classics, downplays their central significance to a proper and complete education. Rather than refuting this claim from a theoretical perspective, Eliot states that he will refute it from the perspective of the ‘man of letters.’ Eliot notes that he has chosen to use this term instead of using the term ‘poet’ since poet carries with it the connotations not of scholarship and literacy, but rather the transitory act of creation through the mind of genius. The view of the poet as central to literature then examines literature as “merely a succession of great writers, instead of looking at the literature of one European language as something which forms a significant whole in itself” (pg. 7). Eliot argues that in this poetic concept, the writer’s shortcomings in education are excused and merely attributed to his ‘genius;’ instead, Eliot argues that despite the undeniable success these writers have achieved through their creative works, they oftentimes remain flawed in certain respects as they lacked a education in classic literature, or associated with the wrong people, “The life of a man of genius, viewed in relation to his writing, comes to take a pattern of inevitability, and even his disabilities will seem to have stood him in good stead” (pg. 7) Rather than excusing these faults, they should be recognized as hindering the writer’s realization of their full literary potential. While Eliot acknowledges that a education in classic literature is not necessarily essential to the man of genius, he has used the term ‘man of letters’ as it denotes not only men of genius, but also men of lower literary ranks who comprise the literary establishment. In one of the central statements of his argument Eliot states, “The continuity of a literature is essential to its greatness; it is very largely the function of secondary writers to preserve this continuity, and to provide a body of writing which is not necessarily read by posterity, but which plays a great part in forming the link between those writers who continue to be read” (pg. 8). Essentially Eliot is stating here that while the creation of the work of literature might not be directly related to the author’s understanding of classic literature, its appreciation and place in the literary canon should be understood as a progressive element in a long line of writing going back to at least ancient Greece. After a discussion on the merits of reading Shakespeare and the Bible, as both were informed by a pantheon of scholarship, Eliot goes on to address the qualitative nature of the education that he believes is most appropriate. Even while Shakespeare’s education wasn’t as comprehensive as his contemporaries, it was nevertheless a ‘classic education.’ Eliot notes that this is the essential distinction that separates him from many contemporary writers, as it’s not his breadth of education but the quality. Regarding Milton, who had this comprehensive and classic education, Eliot argues that it’s essential for scholars to have read Latin to full appreciate, much less instruct, the works of this poet. In a sense Eliot argument goes beyond merely lamenting the disconnect between classic and contemporary literature, but mourns the possible death of a cohesive European language. For him literature goes beyond merely creative writing; he argues, “We are then justified in inquiring what is likely to happen, to our language and our literature, when the connection between the classics and our own literature is completely broken” (pg. 13). In this regard it’s not merely the literature, or even the language that is breaking down through this disconnection, but rather the very fabric of culture and society. Eliot goes on to offer a qualitative statement on the aesthetic nature of art, “The novelty of a work of imagination which is only popular, and has nothing really new in it, soon wears off: for a later generation will prefer the original to the copy, when both belong to the past” (pg. 15). That is, while popular fiction (today largely embodied in mainstream film and television) is immediately appealing, it is merely a facsimile and as soon as its immediate social references wear off, so does the cultural artifact. Ultimately for Eliot then, true literature has within it knowledge of the past. Conclusion While Eliot’s protestations are now in great part left to history, a number of research including that of Stay (1998) and Gross (1969) illustrate the decline of the classics from a central element of education to a marginalized study similar to, as Eliot states, ‘Egyptology’. Indeed, New Criticism has become itself a highly marginalized mode of literary inquiry. While there is a significant amount of social snobbery in the claims that society is losing touch with culture, one also begins to wonder if something is being lost as educational institutions gradually move away from the foundational elements of Western literature. References Eliot, T.S. (1942) The Classics and the Man of Letters, Oxford. (ed. J. Hayward, 1953) Selected Prose, Harmondsworth. Gross, J. (1969) The Rise and Fall of the Man of Letters, London. (in Short Loan) Stray, C. (1998) Classics Transformed: Schools, Universities, and Society in England 1830- 1960, Oxford. Stray, C. (ed. 2003) The Classical Association: The First Century 1903-2003, Oxford. Read More