Tradition and Individual Talent by T.S Eliot and its Role in Poetic Process

Thomas Stearns Eliot (1888-1965), was an Anglo-American poet and critic. He was the founding father of new criticism in English literature, especially between, 1910-1939. Eliot’s narrative of himself in his preface to ‘For Lancelot Andrews’ as a classicist in literature, a royalist in politics, and an Anglo-Catholic in religion sets the tone for his enduring obligation to criticism. His peculiar essays and articles have exerted a marvelous encouragement on the critical temper of the twentieth century. He wrote almost five hundred essays. Eliot came with new concepts in criticism’s world in19th century. Eliot thought that when the old and new will become readjusted, it will be the end of criticism. In his own words, he added: “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.” As George Watson remarks, “Eliot made English criticism look different, but not in a simple sense. 

He presented it a new range of rhetorical prospects, set it in its growing disrespect for historical process, and yet redesigned its idea of the period by a trickle of bright institutions.” In 1919 his famous essay appeared on the literary scene ‘Tradition and the Individual Talent’ in the journal “The Egoist”. The essay is regarded as the unofficial philosophy of Eliot’s critical creed, for it covers all those doctrines which are the foundation of his succeeding criticism. “Tradition and the Individual Talent” was composed early in Eliot’s career; it remains one of his well known and most prominent essays, having contributed greatly to the establishment of the New Criticism movement. New Criticism applies close reading and stresses the artistic and literary elements of poetry rather than the philosophical or biographical ones. In “Tradition and the Individual Talent,” Eliot campaigns for the separation of art from artist and claims that tradition has less to do with imitation and more to do with accepting and rising the logical and literary setting in which one is writing. The essay is divided into three parts first part is comprised of Eliot’s concept regarding tradition, the second half is about his theory of the impersonality of poetry, and the third presenting a summary. 

Eliot starts his essay by directing that the word ‘tradition’ is a word that is disagreeable to the English who acclaim a poet for those features of his work which are ‘individual’ and original. According to him, this extreme pressure on individuality demonstrates that the English have an uncritical mind. The best and the most individual part of a poet’s work is that which shows the supreme effect of the writers of the past. To quote his own words: “not only the best but the most individual part of his work may be those in which the dead poets, his ancestors, assert their immortality most vigorously.” Tradition does not mean a blind agreement to or illogical imitation of the works of the previous generations. For Eliot, tradition is a matter of much wider importance. Tradition in the true sense of the term cannot be inherited; it can only be acquired by hard work. This work is the labor of knowing the past writers. It is the critical work of sifting the good from the bad, and of knowing what is good and valuable. Tradition can be attained only by those who have the chronological sense. T. S. Eliot 2and of the timeless and of the temporal together is what makes a writer traditional. And it is at the same time what makes a writer most intensely aware of his place in time, of his contemporaneity.’ In brief, the knowledge of writers of the past makes current writers both part of that tradition and part of the contemporary scene. The historical sense encompasses an insight, “not only of the pastness of the past but also of its presence”. 

 

The sense of past forces a man to jot down not only with his generation in his bones but with a touch that the entire literature of Europe from Homer down to his day, including the literature of his own country, forms one incessant literary tradition. He comprehends that the past exists in the present and that the past and the present form one instantaneous order. This past sense is the sense of the timeless, and the temporal, and the combination of the timeless and the temporal together. It is this historic sense which makes a writer conservative. A writer with a sense of tradition is fully aware of his generation, of his place in the present, but he is also acutely conscious of his relationship with the writers of the past. In brief, the sense of tradition implies:

1.     A recognition of the steadiness of literature

2.     A critical judgment as to which of the writers of the past continue to be important in the present.

3.     A knowledge of these significant writers gained through effort. 

Tradition signifies the added wisdom and experience of ages, and so its knowledge is vital for a good writer.

 In this second part, Eliot attempts to define the procedure of ‘depersonalization’ and its relation with the sense of tradition. The main feature of this theory is the relation of poetry with the poet. Eliot says:

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

 Eliot says that in most of the criticisms, we find the name & the creativeness of the poet, but when we pursue the pleasure of poetry we hardly get it. In this part, Eliot says that the difference between mature and immature poets can be found out by the liberty of special and very diverse spirits that can enter into new blends.

 According to him, the poet must continuously surrender himself to something more valuable than himself, i.e. the literary tradition. He must let his poetic sensibility to be formed and improved by the past. He must continue to obtain a sense of tradition his entire career. In the starting, his self, his individuality, may assert itself, but as his influences mature there must be greater and greater extinction of personality. He must gain greater and greater objectivity. A good poem, he must understand, is a living entire of all the poetry that has ever been written. Hence a poet must be engrossed in obtaining a sense of tradition and expressing it in his poetry. As Eliot says, “the progress of the artist is a continual self-sacrifice, a continual extinction of personality”. In other words, the poet’s feelings and passions must be depersonalized; he must be as impersonal and objective as a scientist.

 Eliot relates the mind of the poet to a catalyst and the development of poetic creation to the progression of a chemical reaction. When a piece of platinum is kept in a vapor chamber comprising oxygen and sulfur dioxide, the two combine to form sulphuric acid, but the platinum remains unaffected. The poet’s mind is this platinum, the catalytic agent. The emotions and feelings are sulfur and oxygen. The poet’s mind is essential for new amalgamations of feelings and experiences that occurs, but it does not undertake any change during the process of poetic combination. The personality of the poet does not find expression in his poetry. The more perfect the artist, the more completely separate in him “will be the man who suffers and the mind which creates.” 

There should be the extermination of his personality. He cleared his points in these words: “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.” 

This impersonality can be attained only when the poet gains a sense of tradition, the historic sense, which makes him mindful, not only of the present but also of the past and its presence.

 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.”

 

 Conclusion

 In the last of his essay, Eliot concluding and says that this piece of content stops at the starting of holiness. And it can be practical by the responsible person, who is captivated by poetry. It is very difficult to take an interest in poetry and to keep a poet aside.

 Eliot remarks:

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

 By this statement, he tells that to respect a poem with the poet’s talent and his name is the easiest thing. The harder it is to know the technical skill or art of the poem. But the hardest thing is to find substantial sentiments from the poem, which separates the poet from the poem. The reader must know that after the creation of the work of literature, the link between that art and artist is ended. And a poet must know that to grasp the level of impersonality, he first has to scarify himself, and has to submit himself completely to that piece of work.