Delmore Schwartz
THE LITERARY DICTATORSHIP
OF
1.
S. ELlOT*
When we think of the character of literary dictators
in
the
past, it is easy to see that since 1922, at least, Eliot has occupied a
position in the English-speaking world analogous to that occupied
by Ben Jonson, Dryden, Pope, Samuel Johnson, Coleridge, and Mat–
thew Arnold. It is noticeable that each of these dictators has been a
critic as well as a poet, and we may infer from this the fact that it is
necessary for them to practice both poetry and criticism.
Another characteristic is that each of these literary dictators has
in some way reversed the judgments of his immediate predecessor.
For example, Arnold denied that Pope and Dryden were really poets,
declaring that they were merely "wit-writers." Eliot in the same way
declared that Pope and Dryden were truly poets and that Keats and
Shelley, two of Arnold's favorites, were really insufficient and inade–
quate as poets.
One can hardly use such a term as dictatorship without suggest–
ing unfortunate political associations. A literary dictatorship, how–
ever, is quite unlike a political one because you cannot force people
to like poets or poetry, although you can persuade them. The re–
markable thing about most of the literary dictators I have mentioned
is
that they succeeded in persuading at least one generation of readers
to accept their literary taste.
When we come to Eliot's
rei~
we find that something has
really been added: 'we have virtually two dictatorships from one
literary dictator. Between 1922 and 1933 Eliot, in a series of unpre-
• This is a shortened version of a lecture given at the English Graduate Union of
Columbia University on April
6, 1947.
At thl time,
1
did not know that Eliot
Aad already delivered his lecture on Milton in England. A different version of
tAis may will appear
in
a book
on
T.
S.
Eliot which New Directions will publish
111%1
spring.-D.S.
119
