Main Concepts of 'Tradition and Individual Talent'

Main Concepts of “Tradition and Individual Talent”

by T. S. Eliot
Name: Riddhi Jani

Roll No: 25

Paper: 7, Literary Theory & Criticism

Submitted to: Department of English

M. K. Bhavnagar University

• Introduction:

As a critic T. S. Eliot was very practical. He called himself “a classicist in literature”. According to Eliot, a critic must obey the objective standards to analyze any work. He thought criticism as a science. Eliot’s criticism became revolutionary at that time. 2oth century got ‘metaphysical revival’ because of Eliot. He first recognized or accepted the uniqueness of ‘metaphysical poets’ of 17^th century. Eliot came with new ideas in criticism’s world in19th century. Eliot believed that when the old and new will become readjusted, it will be the end of criticism. He says:

“From time to time it is desirable, that some critic shall appear to review the past of our literature and set the poets and the poems in a new order.”

Eliot demands, from any critic, ability for judgment and powerful liberty of mind to identify and to interpret. Eliot planned numerous critical concepts that gained wide currency and had a broad influence on criticism. ‘Objective co-relative’, ‘Dissociation of sensibility’, ‘Unification of sensibility’, ‘Theory of Depersonalization’ are few of Eliot’s theories, which becomes ‘cliché’ now. He emphasizes on ‘a highly developed sense of fact’. He gave new direction and new tools of criticism. George Watson writes about Eliot: 

“Eliot made English criticism look different, but not in a simple sense. He offered it a new range of rhetorical possibilities, confirmed it in its increasing contempt for historical process, and yet reshaped its notion of period by a handful of brilliant institutions.” 

·       Main Concepts of the Essay:

      The essay “Tradition and Individual Talent” was first published in “The Egoist”. “The Egoist” was a literary magazine, which is considered today as “England’s Most Important Modernist Periodical”. This essay was later published in “The Sacred Wood”, which is Eliot’s first book of criticism.

     
 This essay is divided into three parts:

1.     The concept of tradition

2.     The theory of impersonal poetry

3.     The conclusion with a gist that “the poet’s sense of tradition and the impersonality of poetry are complimentary things.”

Now I am explaining the main concepts of the essay.

1.     The Concept of Tradition:

In first pat Eliot speaks about tradition, He says: “Seldom, perhaps, does the word (tradition) appear except in a phrase of censure”. It means in English writings they don’t see the word ‘tradition’ in positive way.

He says about Englishmen’s attitude towards French Literature. Englishmen have a habit to feel proud on themselves. That is the proud for their creativity and more for their ‘less’ criticality. In French there is a mass of critical writing. Eliot compares English with French that they (French) have habit of critical method and English have habit of ‘conclusion’. He says:

“…we only conclude (we are such unconscious people) that the French are more critical than we; and sometimes even plume ourselves a little with the fact, as if the French were less spontaneous”. 
 

          Eliot seems quite in favor of such ‘criticality’. He thinks “criticism is as inevitable as breathing”. Then he talks about tradition. The Englishmen, while analyzing the poet, admire those aspects which are different from the poet’s predecessors. Means, they want to get ‘newness’ and ‘uniqueness’ from every poet to praise them. They always find isolation of the poet from his (mainly) immediate predecessors. Then Eliot says, if we put aside such prejudice; we can come to know that the poet’s individuality, which we are finding, is very much connected with his ancestors. According to Eliot the most individual part of any work is the part in which the dead poets are mirrored vigorously. And such resemblance is mostly seen in the period of maturity of the poet, not in the period of his adolescence. So, by this he asserts that tradition and individuality go together.

          Then Eliot talks about tradition and ‘historical sense’. He says that if the form of tradition remained only in blind adherence of dead people or ancestors, then it would be lost or such tradition should be destroyed. But, he says that tradition is not in following pre generation only. This word carries much wider meaning. According to Eliot, in every traditions also there is a bit of novelty. He says:

“Tradition is a matter of much wider significance. It cannot be inherited, and if you want it you must obtain it by great labor. It involves in the first place, the historical sense.”

            This historical sense is inevitable for any poet. And with this historical sense they should have perception about its presence as well as about its ‘pastness of past’. This historical sense forces a man to write not only with his own generation, but with the whole age of the English literature. Historical sense makes a poet to feel that the whole of the literature from Homer and the whole of the literature of his own generation has a simultaneous existence. It harmonizes two different things ‘timelessness’ and ‘temporality’ in poet’s work. This makes a poet traditional. Eliot says:

“No poet, no artist of any art has his complete meaning alone. His significance, his appreciation is the appreciation of his relation o the dead poets and artists. You can’t value him alone; you must set him, for contrast and comparison among the dead.”

          By this statement Eliot wants to prove that nothing can be individual in totality. Every poet or artist, consciously or unconsciously, keeps some bits of past. Eliot says about ‘conformity between the old and the new’. When a new work is created then the whole time is created with it. It makes vast changes in the universe of literature. Anything happens with that new work that is simultaneously happening with its preceded works. Means when a new work of art comes it is automatically connected with its past. So, Eliot says that nothing and nobody can be valued alone. There is some ideal order between the existing monuments. The whole order of existing monument is readjusted with the addition of new work. So, by this Eliot breaks that belief that ‘past is unchangeable’. He says that past and present has a strong connection with each other. That is the conformity between the old and the new. Eliot says:

“…the past should be altered by the present as much as the present is directed by the past. And the poet who is aware of this will be aware of great difficulties and responsibilities”. 
  

          When a poet is being judged, in that process two things (past and present) are being measured by each other. Eliot says about “a more intelligible exposition of the relation of the poet to the past”. A poet cannot use the past as a shapeless mass, or he cannot fit himself in one or two private admirations, and also he cannot fit himself in one preferred period. The port must know that ‘art never improves, but the substance of the art is changing’. Eliot puts one anonymous quote here:

“The dead writers are remote from us because we know so much more than they did.”

He talks about necessary of knowledge for poets. He rejects that belief that a poet requires a huge amount of learning. He believes that “much learning deadens or perverts poetic sensibility.” He is not in favor of confining the knowledge for examination, library or publicity. Knowledge is a matter of absorption. What he wants to be insisted is that a poet first must develop the awareness of the past. With this discussion Eliot softly comes on the point of ‘depersonalization’. At the end of the first part he starts making structure for second part. So, at the end he says:

“The progress of an artist is a continual self-sacrifice, a continual extinction of personality.”

2.    The Theory of Impersonal Poetry:

In this second part Eliot tries to define the process of ‘depersonalization’ and its relation with the sense of tradition. The main aspect of this theory is the relation of poetry with the poet. Eliot says:

“Honest criticism and sensitive appreciation is directed not upon the poet but upon the poetry.”

Eliot says that in most of the criticisms, we find the name & the creativity of poet, but when we seek for enjoyment of poetry we seldom get it. In this part Eliot says that the difference between mature and immature poets can be found out by liberty of special and very varied feelings that can enter into new combinations.

Eliot gives illustration from science-chemistry. In the process of being sulfurous acid; there are two gases needed: oxygen and sulfur dioxide. And also they must have the presence of filament ‘platinum’. He compares this platinum with the poet. In this whole process filament of platinum plays vital and inevitable role. But yet that role is indirect. In the process platinum remains quite unaffected by any gases. It remains inert, neutral and unchanged. Similarly the result (sulfurous acid) that comes out from the process has no any trace of platinum. Eliot insists that the mind of the poet should be like that shred of platinum. It should give its total contribution in creating poetry, then also it should remain unaffected and separate when poetry has come out.

According to Eliot the poet’s mind is like a tare or utensil in which numerous feelings, phrases & images can be stored or seized. When a poet wants them he utilizes them and unites them. It doesn’t mean that the poem created by the poet shows his personality or nature.

Eliot explains very basic thing of his point that, what is expressed by the poet is merely a medium, not a personality. He says:

“…the poet has not a ‘personality’ to express, but a particular medium, which is only a medium and not a personality…”

In this medium, the impressions and experiences come together in unusual and unexpected ways. And other thing is some impressions and experiences seem valuable for a person, yet they may not be important for poetry. Same way some trivial experiences & impressions can become so important for poetry. Then Eliot says about context that without context nothing can be understood. He says:

“This balance of constructed emotion is in the dramatic situation to which the speech is pertinent, but that situation alone is inadequate to it.”

          He gives example from “The Revenger’s Tragedy” (by Thomas Middleton). He puts some line from that without context to explain this point. Then he says that emotion in poetry remains very complex thing, and poet’s own personal emotion may be simple or flat. So every time poet’s own emotion cannot be taken place in poem. And if the poet is always looking for new emotion in poem, then it will be perverse. A poet has not to find new emotions but he has to use ordinary emotions. He has to deal with every known/unknown emotion. Eliot here twists ‘emotion recollected in tranquility’. He says it ‘an inexact formula’. To write poetry is a great deal. When a poet becomes personal while writing poetry, he will be considered as a ‘bad poet’. Because he becomes unconscious, where he should be conscious and he becomes conscious where he must be unconscious. When a poet escapes from his personality, then & then the great poem comes out. A poet must not show his emotion in poetry. Eliot says:

“Poetry is not a turning loose of emotion, but an escape from emotion; it is not the expression of personality but an escape from personality.”

3.   The Conclusion:

At the end, in this third part Eliot says that this essay stops at the starting of mysticism. And it can be applied by the responsible person, who really interested in poetry. It is very hard thing to take interest in poetry and to keep a poet aside. We usually read poem with the name and fame of the poet. We cannot separate them from each other. Eliot says:

“There are many people who appreciate the expression of sincere emotion in verse, and there is smaller number of people who can appreciate technical excellence. But very few know when there is expression of significant emotion, emotion which has its life in the poem and not in the history of the poet.”

          By this statement, he says that to admire a poem with the poet’s skill and his name is easiest thing. The harder is to know technical skill or art of the POEM. But the hardest thing is to find the significant emotions from the poem, which separates the poet from the poem. The reader must know that after giving birth of the work of art, the connection between that art and artist is ended. And a poet must know that to reach at the level of impersonality, he first has to scarifies himself  and has to surrender himself totally to that work.