Tradition : Individual :: Classic : Romantic :: History : Innovation

I must admit that the structure set forth in the essays by T.S. Eliot, Ezra Pound, and T.E. Hulme is intimidating for one that is just learning the “Modernism” basics. I also confess that criticism, in general, has puzzled me in the past. Understanding Eliot’s confines for stricture is not an easy task, but it may allow one to better understand writings and/or criticism stemming from him, in addition to his/her counterparts. Also, in reading “The Cultural Economy of Modernism,” I had to wonder if the “…threat of encroaching formlessness…” was an inspiration to both Eliot and Pound (34). Marinetti, the Futurist that made fun of English tradition, gained publicity over Pound with his “outspoken derision” (37). The public and its economy seemingly adored a Futurist for perspective that veered away from traditional notions or art and literature and welcomed an influx of technology, abstract art, and formless literature. This is not to say that Eliot, Pound, and Hulme were purists when it came to maintaining a traditional perspective. If this were the case, we would not be able to see Modernism as an era; instead, we would see Classicism or Romanticism repeated (maybe mimicked would be the better word choice). Consequently, we see Eliot, Pound, and Hulme (but more explicitly Eliot) create a new definition for Modernism’s “tradition” in literature and criticism.

Eliot establishes that tradition “…in the historical sense involves a perception, not only of the pastness of the past, but of its presence” (38). A poet should look to the past (and present) to set precedents for his/her future. A specific foundation from literature and philosophy’s past should be amalgamated into a poet’s good works. It is what is experienced, learned, and toiled over that should be maintained concretely in a poet’s craft. “The emotion of art should be in the poem rather than the poet” (Materer 5). There is a process and precision that must go into a poet’s creative process. This poet’s creative method is compared with a scientific procedure. Then, a reactionary outcome occurs, and the catalyst remains the same. This very unemotional catalyst is the same “dry hardness” that Hulme referred to when speaking of classic poets and the works that transpired as a result. Pound also uses science to explain the importance of classic poets and philosophers as a foundation for poetry in order to clarify what should and should not be done when attempting to create poetry. Just as a scientist should research the works of scientists before him to make new discoveries, a poet should research the works of poets and philosophers to form new pieces. Pound professes that “[e]ach age has its own abounding gifts yet only some ages transmute them into a matter of duration” (65). As clear as he is in acknowledging this to be true, he is confusing in other truths and/or directives.

Pound prescribes a “LIST OF DON’TS,” for writing poetry, but five paragraphs before this statement he explains that “Criticism is not a circumscription or a set of prohibitions” (59). Clearly for Pound, as well as Eliot and Hulme, there are several conventions that a poet should or should not adhere to, but this is because the critic has stipulated “a set of prohibitions” which make for good or bad poetry, respectively. I believe Hulme loses ground in his assertions of what is considered finite and infinite when proportioning “wonder” to either finite or infinite. When “…wonder must cease to be wonder,” wonder becomes finite and thus classical. However, when “[w]onder can only be the attitude of a man passing from one stage to another, it can never be a permanently fixed thing” (104). This would mean that this “attitude” could pass with the man “from one stage to another,” and wonder is seen as infinite or romantic. I could very well be misinterpreting this and am open to explanation/interpretation on this.

What I think I have come to terms with is this: Eliot’s formula for poetry and criticism formed because of Futurist formlessness. He, Pound, and Hulme affirmed that a poet must understand the history that came before him/her in order to create. Also, the poet serves as a catalyst for creation as opposed to being the creator. Furthermore, it is the words, phrases, and/or images that are chosen and placed within these works that culminate from past and present that would come to establish a new era in criticism and literature.