Thomas Stearns Eliot
The essay “Tradition and Individual Talent”
was first published in 1919 in “The Times Literary Supplement ” as a critical
article. The essay may be regarded as an unofficial manifesto of Eliot’s
critical creed , for it contains all those critical principles from which his
criticism has been derived ever since. The seeds which have been shown here
come to fruition (final result) in his subsequent essays. It is declaration of
Eliot’s critical creed and these principles are the basis of all his subsequent
criticism. It is a master piece of his literary art. He has exhibited his knowledge in an admiring manner.
ITS THREE
PARTS
The essay has been divided into three parts.
The first part gives us Eliot’s concept of tradition and in the second part is
developed his theory of the impersonality of poetry. The short third part is in
the nature of conclusion.
THE
SIGNIFICANCE OF TRADITION
Eliot begins by pointing out that the word
tradition is generally regarded as a term of censure (criticism), it sounds
disagreeable to English ears. When the English praise a poet , they praise him
for those aspects of his work which are individual and original. And it is
supposed that his chief merit lie in such parts. This undue stress on
individuality shows that the English have an uncritical turn of mind. They
praise the poet for wrong things. If they examine the matter critically with an
unprejudice mind , they will realize that the best and most individual part of
a poet’s work is that which shows the maximum influence of the writers of the
past.
TRADITION :
WAYS IN WHICH IT CAN BE ACQUIRED
Tradition does not mean a blind adherence to
the ways of the previous generation or generations. This would be mere slavish
imitation , a repetition of what has already been achieved and “ Novelty is better than repetition.”
Tradition in the sense of passive repetition
is to be discouraged. For Eliot tradition is a matter of much wider
significance. Tradition in the true sense of the term cannot be inherited , it
can only be obtained by hard labour. This labour is the labour of knowing ,
what is good and useful. Tradition can be obtained only by those who have the
historical sense. One who has the historical sense feels that whole of the
literature of Europe from Homer to his own day , including the literature of
his own country forms one continuous literary tradition. He realizes that the
past exists in the present and that the past and the present form one
simultaneous order. This historical sense of the timeless and the temporal as
well as of the timeless and temporal together. It is this historic sense which
makes a writer traditional. A writer with the sense of tradition is fully
conscious of his own generation , of his place in the present but he is also
acutely conscious of his relationship with the writers of the past.
Tradition represents the accumulated wisdom
and experience of the ages , and so its knowledge is essential for really great
and noble achievements.
DYNAMIC
CONCEPT OF TRADITION
Emphasizing further the value of tradition ,
Eliot points out that no writer has his value and significance in isolation. To
judge the work of an artist and an artist , we must compare and contrast his
work with the work of poets and artists in the past. Such comparison and
contrast is essential for forming an idea of the real worth and significance of
a new writer and his work.
Eliot’s conception of tradition is dynamic
(energetic / lively) one. According to his view , tradition is not anything
fixed and static , it is constantly changing , growing and becoming different
from what it is.
A writer in the present must seek guidance
from the past , he must conform (match) to the literary tradition.
“ But just as
a the past directs and guides the present , so the present alters and modifies
the past.”
When a new work of art is created , if it is
really new and original , the whole literary tradition is modified , though
ever so slightly. The relationship between the past and present is not one
sided ; it is a reciprocal relationship. The past directs the present and is
itself directed , modified and altered by the present.
Every great poet like Virgil , Dante or
Shakespeare , adds something to the literary tradition out of which the future
poetry will be written.
ITS FUNCTION
The work of a poet in the present is to be
compared and contrasted with works of the past. But this judgment does not mean
deciding whether the present work is better or worse than works of the past. An
author in the present is certainly not to be judged by the principles and
standards of the past. The comparison is to be made for knowing the facts , all
the facts, about the new work of art. The comparison is made for the purpose of
analysis and for forming a better understanding of the new.
Moreover the comparison is reciprocal. The
past helps us to understand the present , and the present throws light on the
past. It is in the way alone that we can form an idea of what is really
individual and new.
SENSE OF
TRADITION
The sense of tradition does not mean that the
poet should try to know the pasta s a whole , take it to be a lump. Such a
course is impossible as well as undesirable. The past must be examined
critically and only the significant in it should be acquired. The sense of
tradition also does not mean that the poet should know only a few poets whom he
admires. This is a sign of immaturity and inexperience. Neither should a poet
be content merely to know some particular age or period which he likes. This
may be pleasant and delightful , but I will not constitute a sense of
tradition.
“ A sense of
tradition in the real sense means , consciousness of the main current………………”
In other words , to know the tradition , the
poet must judge critically what are the main trends and what are not. He must also
realize that the main literary trends are not determined by the great poets
alone. Smaller poets also are significant. They are not to be ignores.
The poet must also realize that the art never
improves , though its material is never the same. The mind of Europe may change
but this does not mean that great writers like SHAKESPEARE and HOMER have grown
outdated and lost their significance. The great work of art never lose their
significance for there is qualitative improvement in art. There may be refinement
, there may be development , but form the point of view of the artist there is
no improvement.
T.S. Eliot is conscious of criticism that
will be made of his theory of tradition. His way of tradition requires , it
will be said, a ridiculous amount of erudition. It will be pointed out that
there have been great poets who were not learned , and further that too much
learning kills sensibility. However knowledge does not mean bookish knowledge
,and the capacity for acquiring knowledge differs from person to person. Some
can absorb knowledge and easily while others must sweat for it. Shakespeare ,
for example , could know more of Roman history from Pultrach than most men from
British Museum. It is the duty of every poet to acquire , this knowledge of the
past an d he must continue to acquire his consciousness through out his career.
Such awareness of tradition sharpens poetic sensibility and is indispensable
for poetic creation.
IMPERSONALITY
OF THE POET
The
artist must continually surrender himself to something which is more valuable
than himself i.e. the literary tradition. He must allow his poetic sensibility
to be shaped and modified by the past. He must continue to acquire the sense of
tradition through out his career. In the beginning , his self , his
individuality , may assert itself , but as his powers mature there must be
greater and greater extinction of personality. He must acquire greater and
greater objectivity. His emotions and passion must be personalized , he must be
as impersonal and objective as a scientist. The personality of the artist is
not important , the important thing is his sense of tradition. The poem is
living whole of all the poetry that has ever been written, he must forget his
personal joys and sorrows and be absorbed in acquiring a sense of tradition and
expressing it in his poetry.
Thus poet’s personality is merely a medium ,
having the same significance as a catalytic agent , or a receptacle in which
chemical reactions take place that is why the poet holds that
“Honest criticism
and sensitive appreciation is directed not upon the poet but upon the poetry.”
“Time present
and time past are both perhaps present in the time future and time future
contained in time past.”
(Burnt
Norton)
THE POETIC
PROCESS
In the second part of the essay , Eliot
develops further his theory of impersonality of poetry. He compares mind of the
poet to the catalyst and the process of the chemical reactions. Just as
chemical reactions take place in the presence of a catalyst alone , so also the
poet’s mind is the catalytic agent for combining different emotions into
something new.
Suppose there is a jar containing oxygen and
sulpher dioxide. These two gases combine to form sulphurous acid when a fine
filament of platinum is introduced into the jar. The combinations takes place
only in the piece of platinum but the metal itself does not under go any
change. It remains inert , neutral and unaffected. The mind of a poet is like a
catalytic agent. It is necessary for combination of emotions and experiences to
take place but it itself does not under go any change during the process of
poetic combinations.
The mind of the peot is constantly forming
emotions and experiences into new wholes but the new combinations does not
contain even a trace of poet’s mind , just as the newly formed suphuric acid
does not contain any trace of platinum. In the case of young and immature poets
, his mind , his personal experiences and emotions may find some expression in
his composition, but Eliot says ,
“The more perfect the artist , the more
completely separate in him will be the man who suffers and the mind which
creates.”
The test of the maturity of an artist is the
completeness with which his mind digests and transmutes the passion which form
the substance of his poetry. The man suffers i.e. has experiences , but it is
his mind which transforms his experiences into some thing new and different.
The personality of the poet does not find expression in his poetry ; i.e. it
acts like a catalytic agent in the process of poetic composition.
The experiences which enter the poetic
process, says Eliot , may be of two kinds. They are emotions and feelings.
Poetry may be composed out of emotions only , out of feelings only , or out of
both. T.S. Eliot here distinguishes between emotions and feelings , but he does
not state what this difference is , According to , AG George “Nowhere else in his writings is this distinction maintained ; neither does
he adequately distinguish between the meanings of the two words.”
POETRY AS
ORGANISATION
Eliot next compares the poet’s mind to a jar
or receptacle in which are stored numberless feelings , emotions etc which
remain in an unorganized and chaotic form till , “All the particles which can
unite to form a new compound are present together. “ thus poetry is
organization rather than inspiration. And the greatness of the poem does not
depend upon the greatness or even the intensity of the emotions , which are the
components of the poem but upon the intensity of the poetic composition. Just
as a chemical reaction takes place under pressure , so also intensity is needed
for the fusion of emotions. The more intense the poetic process , the greater
the poem. There is always a difference between the artistic emotions and personal
emotions of the poet. Fro example , the famous “Ode to Nightingale” of Keats
contains a number of emotions which have
nothing to do with the Nightingale. “The difference between the art and the
event is always absolute.”
The poet has no personality to express , he
is merely a medium in which impressions and experiences combine in peculiar and
expected ways. Impressions and experiences which are important fro the man may
find no place in his poetry , and those which become important in the poetry
may have no significance for the man. Eliot thus rejects romantic subjectivism.
The emotions of poetry are different from the
personal emotions of the poet. His personal emotions may be simple or crude but
the emotions of his poetry may be complex and refined. It is the mistaken
belief /notion that the poet must express the new emotions that result in much
eccentricity in poetry. It is not the business of the poet to find new
emotions. He may express only ordinary emotions , but he must impart to them a
new significance and a new meaning. And it is not necessary that they should be
his personal emotions. Even emotions which he has never personally experienced
can serve the purpose of poetry , e.g. emotions which result from the reading
of books can serve his turn. Eliot rejects Wordsworth’s Theory of poetry ,
having its origin in emotions recollected in tranquility, and points out that
in the process of poetic composition there is neither emotion nor recollection
nor tranquility. In the poetic process there is only concentration of a number
of experiences and a new thing results from this concentration. And this
process of concentration is neither conscious nor deliberate , it is a passive
one. There is , no doubt , that there are elements in the poetic process which
are conscious and deliberate.
The difference between a good and bad poet is
that a bad poet is conscious where he should be unconscious and unconscious
where he should be conscious. It is this consciousness of the wrong kind which
makes a poem personal whereas mature art must be impersonal. But Eliot does not
tell us when a poet should be conscious and when not. The point has been left
vague and indeterminate.
POETRY AS
ESCAPE FROM POETRY
Thus Eliot does not deny personality or
emotions to the poet. Only he must depersonalize his emotions. There should be
an extinction of his personality. This impersonality can be achieved only when
the poet surrenders himself completely to eth work that is to be done. Sand the
poet can know what is to be done only , if he acquires a sense of tradition ,
the historic sense which makes him conscious , not only of the present but also
of the present moment of the past , not only what is dead but of what is already
living.
