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.

Psychological Study of the Novel "Frankenstein"

Psychological Study of the Novel “Frankenstein: The Modern Prometheus” by Marry Shelley

Name: Riddhi Jani

Roll No: 25

Paper: 5, The Romantic Literature

Submitted to: Department of English

M. K. Bhavnagar University

• Psychological Study of the Novel:

Psychology is very wide and vast branch. But literature is more vast and wider than it. So in literature we can find reflection of most of the branches like philosophy, sociology, science, astrology, astronomy, anatomy, psychology etc. And every work of literature has not only story or moral, but apart from it, it accommodates many lives, many pearls, many beautiful shells and numerous billows, waves and ripples. So, it becomes like an ocean.

Freud’s theory and complexes can be applied here. There are three parts of mind ‘id’, ‘ego’ and ‘super ego’. Here Victor is a protagonist, and he cannot make balance between his ‘id’ & ‘ego’. So, his fall happens. In the character of Frankenstein we find narcissism. He is too much obsessed by his knowledge and success. He almost lost himself in quest of his creation. Because of his enlarged ego he becomes like an isolated soul. He almost loses himself by allowing “passion and transitory desire to disturb (his) tranquility” In this quest he goes far and far from his friends and family and falls dipper and dipper into his passionate consumption. He becomes slave of his power of the ‘ego’.

Freud’s theory on the conscience is applicable here. Freud’s ‘id’ is shown through primitive actions of certain characters. We have here ‘Monster’ for id. Basic decisions & thought that are taken without the influence of conscience. Here we can see Victor’s some kind of behavior with other characters like Monster and Elizabeth is the result of his ‘Ego’. And the ‘Super ego’ is the conscious thoughts. They are often defined by guilt or other feelings that are come as a result of ‘id and ‘ego’. At some point, in this novel, Victor goes or reaches at the level of this super ego. These three consciences Freud are inter-connected with each other.

The novel reveals many aspects of conscious and unconscious mind. The character of Victor is shown with struggle between these both. His conscious behavior is clouded by his unconscious repressed desires. He lost his mother from his childhood. So may be this thing led him towards creation of life.

Now, I am applying the ‘id’, ‘ego’ and ‘super ego’ on the characters. ‘Id’ comes in a person from birth. It includes primitive and instinctive behavior. At this level of conscience, a person has no awareness of risk and fear. The ‘id’ is the source of all physical energy. The main task of ‘id’ is instant satisfaction. And the action done in id is the result of whim or unrealistic thoughts.

When Victor decides to create a life and he creates, that is the result of his id. Though he makes it after wide research, experiments and hard work, it is his unrealistic decision. Because while creating Monster, he never thought about the result or consequences of it. He just, in thoughtless condition creates Monster. At the level of id, a person thinks himself able to do everything.

“Beware; for I am fearless, and therefor powerful.” 

          

No matter whose words are these in the novel, but they shows the level of id. There is no fear so there is power. But it may become dangerous also. As for Victor Monster is the consequence of his id. Before creating it, he was not aware about reality or its danger. So, in id person doesn’t know even about his/her own self. And Victor passes through this level of mind.

And then, Monster also passes through this level as he is just born. As a new comer in this world, he is like a child. So, id is primitive in him. He also does action without thinking. The murder of William is an example of his id. And the quote that I wrote above can be applicable to the id of both Victor and Monster. But there is different between both ‘id’. Victor is the grown up person. He very soon knows about disaster, while the id of Monster takes longer time to go.

Then comes ego. It is a consciousness about reality and circumstances. It is a component of personality that is responsible for dealing with reality. It is an organized part of one’s mind and thought. We can see this component also in characters of “Frankenstein”.

After creating Monster, Victor realizes what he has done. After seeing him he frightens first. This fear is his ‘ego, his acceptance or rather knowledge about his work. He runs away from Monster and he abandons him. These are the parts of his ego.

“…I was unable to tingle with the access of sensitiveness…I was unable to remain for a single instant in the same place; I jumped over the chairs, clapped my hands, and laughed aloud”.

These words show the component of ego. When one works under the power of id, then he/she realizes reality…his/her ego gives such a response to that work. And Monster’s demand for a female partner is also the result of ego. There we can see Monster’s mental development. Because while demanding for a partner he was quite aware from its result, and he seems ready for it.

           

“I am alone and miserable. Only someone as ugly as I and could love me”.

           

          And then comes super ego. It can be seen as guilt feeling that is a result of ‘id’ and ‘ego’. It plays critical and moralizing role. Super ego prevents a person from doing what his/her id may want to do. Super ego gives moral standards, by which ego operates. It is ethical component of mind.

          

          We can see mental development of all the characters throughout this novel. And in this novel we can also see that the development of Victor’s consciousness is higher than Monster. So, where Monster’s ego works, Victor’s super ego works. And because of it conflict takes place between both. For example, when Monster demands a lady partner, it is a demand from his ego. But there Victor’s super ego prevents him. Because he is now in situation to know about the consequences of the work priory. So he denies first but Monster’s ‘ego’ component cannot accept it.

“Hateful day when I received life! Accursed creator! Why did you form a monster so hideous that even you turned from me in disgust. God, in pity, made man beautiful and alluring, after his own image; but my form is filthy type of yours, more horrid even from the very resemblance.” 

           

          This is Monster’s level of ‘ego’. He is in reality now. He can understand what is going on with him. But yet he can’t take decision rationally and morally. So in such agony he demands partner as grotesque as him. But Victor is now at the level of ‘super ego’. So, his mind stops him. Yet he has to do because of fear. And his agony comes out:

“Learn from me, if not by my percepts, at least by my example, how dangerous is the acquirement of knowledge, and how much happier that man is who believe his native town to be his world, than he who aspires to become greater than his nature will allow.”

It is Victor’s super ego.

          

           And Monster reaches at the level of super ego, when victor dies. Means at the end of the novel, we become able to see the super ego component in Monster. When he himself gives fire to Victor’s dead body, when he starts to think him as his father…These show his super ego, his feeling of guilt. It seems that if again such situation will come, then his super ego will surely remind him, prevent him.

           

           As “Frankenstein” is too worthy novel, too many branches find their place into it. So, apart from Freudian theory here another psychological term can also be applied.

• ·       Androgyny and Bifurcation in “Frankenstein”:

This type of study of “Frankenstein” is done by William Veeder, in his work named “The Book, The Monster and Human Reality” Veeder’s discourse is that all of Mary’s novels…

“…reflect her lifelong concern with the psychological ideal of androgyny and its opposite, bifurcation- the harmonious balance of traits traditionally considered masculine and feminine, and the desolating polarization of these traits.”

If we see simple meaning of androgyny, that is: “the combination of masculine and feminine characteristics. And the meaning of bifurcation is “forking into two branches.” I am interpreting  and applying these two terms in my own way, in brief.

See, Indian belief says that in every man and woman there are both aspects ‘masculine and ‘feminine’. But in men masculine aspect is powerful, while in women feminine aspect is powerful. But when both aspects remain equally powerful in a person, then he/she can be called ‘androgynous’. Their biology is having both female and male characteristics. And if a person is not totally androgynous, then at some point of life the characteristic of opposite sex becomes powerful. That is done with our literary characters also.

In “Frankenstein”, at some extent the character of Victor is portrayed like ‘androgynous”. Though he is male the desire to give birth to a life is in him. This is his androgenic aspect. But after creating a life his masculine aspects comes back. So, he left Monster. If he would be a female, then he will never do this. Because a female can love her child whole heartedly, without leaving it. And Elizabeth’s masculine aspect comes when she all alone manages the family when William is killed.

And other thing about Victor’s feminine aspect is that, in a female. There is unconscious or conscious desire for a boy child, similarly in a male for a girl child. But here Victor creates first male as a Monster. It is too much discussed issue in literary world, that why first male is created? So one interpretation goes towards this androgyny of Victor. His feminine aspect play main role in creating Monster (and can it be possible that later in creating female Monster Mary’s masculine aspect works?). So, androgyny can be applied in this way in the novel.

And ‘bifurcation’ means splitting of a main body into two parts or forking of a thing or body into two branches. Here we can say Victor is divided. This interpretation also I found from Veeder. That he is lover of Elizabeth at the same time Elizabeth is his enemy also. Because Elizabeth is a root cause for growing desire for partner in Monster.

And thus, the psychology of characters works in this novel. And James Rieger says about “Frankenstein”:

“When the dust has settled, neither the Shelleys, nor this novel will ever look quite the same.”