�ݺ�ߣ

Tradition and the individual talent

A Manifesto of Eliot’s Critical Creed

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 sown here come to
fruition in his subsequent essays. It is a declaration
of Eliot’s critical creed, and these principles are the
basis of all his subsequent criticism.

Its Three Parts
The essay is 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 a
conclusion, or summing up of the whole
discussion.

Tr adition and the individual talent

 Traditional Elements: Their Significance

Eliot begins the essay by pointing out that the word ‘tradition’ is
generally regarded as a word of censure. It is a word disagreeable
to the English ears. When the English praise a poet, they praise him
for those-aspects of his work which are ‘individual’ and original. It is
supposed that his chief merit lies in such parts. This undue stress
on individuality shows that the English have an uncritical turn of
mind. They praise the poet for the wrong thing. If they examine the
matter critically with an unprejudiced mind, they will realise that the
best and the most individual part of a poet’s work is that which
shows the maximum influence of the writers of the past. To quote his
own words: “Whereas if we approach a poet without this prejudice,
we shall often find that 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.’

 The Literary Tradition: Ways in Which It Can Be Acquired

This brings Eliot to a consideration of the value and significance of tradition. Tradition
does not mean a blind adherence to the ways of the previous generation or
generations. This would be mere slavish imitation, a mere 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 the past writers.
It is the critical labour of sifting the good from the bad, and of knowing what is good
and useful. Tradition can be obtained only by those who have the historical sense.
The historical sense involves a perception, “not only of the pastness of the past, but
also of its presence: One who has the historic sense feels that the whole of the
literature of Europe from Homer down to his own day, including the literature of his
own country, forms one continuous literary tradition” He realises that the past exists
in the present, and that the past and the present form one simultaneous order. This
historical sense is the sense of the timeless and the temporal, as well as of the
timeless and the 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. In brief, the sense of tradition implies (a) a recognition of the
continuity of literature, (b) a critical judgment as to which of the writers of the past
continue to be significant in the present, and (c) a knowledge of these significant
writers obtained through painstaking effort. Tradition represents the accumulated
wisdom and experience of ages, and so its knowledge is essential for really great and
noble achievements.


Tradition Tradition: Its Value individual talent
Dynamic Conception of
and the
Emphasising further the value of tradition, Eliot points out that no writer has his value
and significance in isolation. To judge the work of a poet or an artist, we must
compare and contrast his work with the works of poets and artist 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 a dynamic
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 to the literary tradition. But just
as 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 the present is not one-sided; it is a reciprocal relationship. The past directs
the present, and is itself modified and altered by the present. To quote the words of
Eliot himself: “The existing monuments form and ideal order among themselves,
which is modified by the introduction of the new (really new) work of art among them.
The existing order is complete before the new work arrives; for order to persist after
the supervention of novelty, the whole existing order must be, if ever so slightly,
altered.” Every great poet like Virgil, Dante, or Shakespeare, adds somebiing to the
literary tradition out of which the future poetry will be written.

 The Function of Tradition

The work of a poet in the present is to be compared and contrasted
with works of the past, and judged by the standards of the past. But
this judgment does not mean determining good or bad. It 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 the 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 purposes of
analysis, and for forming a better understanding of the new.
Moreover, this comparison is reciprocal. The past helps us to
understand the present, and the present throws light on the past. It
is in this way alone that we can form an idea of what is really
individual and new. It is by comparison alone that we can sift the
traditional from the individual elements in a given work of art.

 Sense of Tradition: Its Real Meaning

Eliot now explains further what he means by a sense of tradition. The sense
of tradition does not mean that the poet should try to know the past as a
whole, take it to be a lump or mass without any discrimination. 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 does not also 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 it will not constitute
a sense of tradition. A sense of tradition in the real sense means a
consciousness, “of the main current, which does not at all flow invariably
through the most distinguished reputations”. In other words, to know the
tradition, the poet must judge critically what are the main trends and what
are not. He must confine himself to the main trends to the exclusion of all
that is incidental or topical. The poet must possess the critical gift in ample
measure. He must also realise that the main literary trends are not
determined by the great poets alone. Smaller poets also are significant.
They are not to be ignored.

 Works of Art: Their Permanence

The poet must also realise that art never improves, though its
material is never the same. The mind of Europe may change,
but this change does not mean that great writers like
Shakespeare and Homer have grown outdated and lost their
significance. The great works of art never lose their
significance, for there is no qualitative improvement in art.
There may be refinement, there may be development, but
from the point of view of the artist there is no improvement.
(For example, it will not be correct to say that the art of
Shakespeare is better and higher than that of Eliot. Their
works are of different kinds, for the material on which they
worked was different.)

 Awareness of the Past: The Poet’s Duty to Acquire It

T.S. Eliot is conscious of the criticism that will be made of his theory
of tradition. His view 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 merely mean bookish
knowledge, and the capacity for acquiring knowledge differs from
person to person. Some can absorb knowledge easily, while others
must sweat for it. Shakespeare, for example, could know more of
Roman history from Plutarch than most men can from the British
Museum. It is the duty of every poet to acquire, to the best of his
ability, this knowledge of the past, and he must continue to acquire
this consciousness throughout his career. Such awareness of
tradition, sharpens poetic creation.

 Impersonality of Poetry: Extinction of Personality

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 throughout 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 passions must be
depersonalised; 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. A good poem is a living whole of all the poetry that has
ever been written. He must forget his personal joys and sorrows, and he
absorbed in acquiring a sense of tradition and expressing it in his poetry.
Thus, the 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 Eliot holds that, “Honest criticism and
sensitive appreciation is directed not upon the poet but upon thepoetry.”

 The Poetic Process: The Analogy of the Catalyst

In the second part of the essay, Eliot develops further his theory of the impersonality of
poetry. He compares the mind of the poet to a catalyst and the process of poetic creation
to the process of a chemical reaction. 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
sulphur dioxide. These two gases combine to form sulphurous acid when a fine filament of
platinum is introduced into the jar. The combination takes place only in the presence of the
piece of platinum, but the metal itself does not undergo any change. It remains inert,
neutral and unaffected. The mind of the poet is like the catalytic agent. It is necessary for
new combinations of emotions and experiences to take place, but it itself does not undergo
any change during the process of poetic combination. The mind of the poet is constantly
forming emotions and experiences into new wholes, but the new combination does not
contain even a trace of the poet’s mind, just as the newly formed sulphurous acid does not
contain any trace of platinum. In the case of a young and immature poet, his mind, his
personal emotions and experiences, may find some expression in his composition, but,
says Eliot, “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 men digests and transmutes the passions which form the
substance of his poetry. The man suffers, i.e. has experiences, but it is his mind which
transforms his experiences into something new and different. The personality of the poet
does not find expression in his poetry; it acts like a catalytic agent in the process of poetic
composition.

 Emotions and Feelings

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
or 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, “Nowhere else in
his writings”, says A.G. George, “is this distinction
maintained’, neither does he adequately distinguish
between the meaning of the two words”. The distinction
should, therefore, be ignored, more so as it has no
bearing on his impersonal theory of poetry.

 Poetry as Organisation: Intensity of the Poetic Process

Eliot next compares the poet’s mind to a jar or receptacle in which are stored
numberless feelings, emotions, etc., which remain there in an unorganised and
chaotic form till, “all the particles which can unite to form a new compound are
present together.” Thus poetry is organisation rather than inspiration. And the
greatness of a 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
process of 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 emotion and the personal emotions of the poet. For example, the famous Ode
to Nightingale of Keats contains a number of emotions which have nothing to do with
the Nightingale. “The difference between 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 unexpected ways. Impressions and experiences
which are important for 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.

 Artistic Emotion: The Value of Concentration

The emotion of poetry is different from the personal emotions of the poet. His personal emotions
may be simple or crude, but the emotion of his poetry may be complex and refined. It is the
mistaken notion that the poet must express new emotions that results 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. (For example, 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 tranquillity”, and points out that in the process of
poetic composition there is neither emotion, nor recollection, nor tranquillity. 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 a 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, an Escape from Personality and Personal Emotions

The poet concludes: “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.” Thus Eliot does not deny personality or
emotion to the poet. Only, he must depersonalise his emotions.
There should be an extinction of his personality. This impersonality
can be achieved only when poet surrenders himself completely to
the work that is to be done. And 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 of what is dead, but of what is
already living.

�ݺ�ߣ

Tradition and the individual talent neo

More Related Content

Tradition and the individual talent neo