One of the most fascinating things about T. S. Eliot's “Tradition and the Individual Talent” is that its meaning is so often taken for granted. Perhaps because of Eliot's tremendous influence as a critic, writers are often loath to take such an important work at anything other than its received meanings, and thus end up not really reading “Tradition and the Individual Talent” itself, but rather rereading its readings, resedimenting its sedimentations. Even the literary scholars who have been most influential in reshaping their field only seem able to view Eliot's criticism through the lenses Eliot himself crafted for them. To take one notable example, Edward Said's magisterial reconceptualization of the Western tradition, Culture and Imperialism, refers to “the occasion as well as the intention” of “Tradition and the Individual Talent” as “almost purely aesthetic,” with only the “almost” to distinguish Said's professed materialism from the formalism of Eliot's New Critical acolytes. This is a profoundly odd description; after all, Said's own work gives the lie to any claim for the autonomy of the aesthetic from the political. Yet Said's discussion of the essay offers only one sentence of quibble to two paragraphs of explanation, and presents itself not as an interpretation but as a definitive reading of the essay. Because “Tradition and the Individual Talent” is an essay whose meaning everybody already knows, Said can claim to understand Eliot's “intention” in writing it.