Tradition and Individual Talent

Summary Points

T.S Eliot as a critic

One of the most seminal critics of his time.

His literary criticism can be seen as an expression of his poetic credo.
His critical works may be grouped under:
o theoretical criticism dealing with the principles of literature,
o descriptive and practical criticism dealing with the works of
individual writers and evaluation of their achievements, and
o Theological essays.

Tradition and the Individual Talent

A Manifesto of Eliots critical creed;

First published in 1922 in Sacred Woods, and was subsequently included in
the Selected Essays (1917-1932);
Forms the basis of all his subsequent criticism.
Divided into three parts
o The first part gives us Eliots concept of tradition;
o The second part develops his theory of the impersonality of poetry;
and
o The third part is a conclusion

Redefining the term Tradition

The word tradition generally regarded as a word of censure, disagreeable

to English ears.
The English praise a poet for those aspects of his work in which he least
resembles anyone else, i.e.,for his/her individuality
Shows the uncritical English mind; they praise the poet for the wrong
thing. But,
. . . 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

Tradition and How It Can Be Acquired

Tradition is not blind adherence to the ways of the previous generations,

not a slavish imitation of what has already been achieved, asnovelty is
better than repetition.
For Eliot, Tradition, is a matter of much wider significance.
It cannot be inherited, can only be obtained by hard labour.
It can be obtained only by those who have the historical sense.

What is Historical Sense?

1
 the historical sense involves a perception, not only of the pastness of the
past, but of its presence; the historical sense compels a man to write not
merely with his own generation in his bones, but with a feeling that the
whole of the literature of Europe from Homer and within it the whole of the
literature of his own country has a simultaneous existence and composes a
simultaneous order. This historical sense, which is a sense of the timeless
as well as of the temporal and 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 acutely conscious of his place in time, of his
contemporaneity.

What does historical sense do?

It thus makes a writer fully conscious of :

o his own generation,
o his place in the present,
o his relationship with the writers of the past.

Thus the sense of tradition implies . . .

a recognition of the continuity of literature,

a critical judgment as to which of the writers of the past continue to be
significant in the present, and
a knowledge of these significant writers obtained through painstaking
effort.

The value of a writer

No writer has his value and significance in isolation: No poet, no artist of

any art, has his complete meaning alone. His significance, his appreciation
is the appreciation of his relation to the dead poets and the artists.
A poet has value if he conforms or fits in to the tradition; you must set
him, for contrast and comparison, among the dead, but this is not a one-
sided process and is not passive

Tradition as a dynamic concept

Tradition or the past is not static; when a really new work of art is
created something happens simultaneously to all the works of art which
preceded it.
The ideal order among existing monuments is modified by the
introduction of the new work of art among them
Conformity between the old and the new happens when
the whole existing order is, if ever so slightly, altered in terms of the
relations, proportions, values of each work of art toward the whole
Therefore the past should be altered by the present as much as the
present is directed by the past.

2
 The poet is thus judged by the standards of the past but not as good or
bad, right or wrong, but will be measured against each other by
comparison; this is conformity or fitting in.

The relationship of the poet to the past

To the poet the past is not

o An indiscriminate lump, or
o One or two favourite authors, or
o Any preferred period
The past is a consciousness of the the main current of tradition, which
however does not at all flow invariably through the most distinguished
reputations.

Criticism of Eliots conception of tradition

Eliot is aware that his doctrine seems

o To require a ridiculous amount of erudition (pedantry), and
o To deaden or pervert poetic sensibility

He replies that . . .

Knowledge of the past does not mean book knowledge of literature from
Homer to the present;
Some absorb this while others have to sweat for it; Shakespeare acquired
more essential history from Plutarch than most men could from the whole
British Museum.
It is a consciousness of the past which must be developed throughout
the career of the poet.

Theory of Impersonality

The thesis statement: The progress of an artist is a continual self-

sacrifice, a continual extinction of personality.
Poetry is not individual talent or feeling but a living whole of all the poetry
that has ever been written.
The mind of a mature poet is only a more finely perfected medium in
which special, or very varied, feelings are at liberty to enter into new
combinations.
It is not personality or interesting/ great thoughts which make it mature.

The poetic process: The analogy of the catalyst

The mind of the poet is like a catalyst, like a filament of platinum when
oxygen and sulphur dioxide combine to from sulphurous acid;
The combination takes place only in the presence of platinum, the
platinum is neutral and unaffected, the new acid has no traces of platinum.

3
 The more perfect the artist, the more completely separate in him will be
the man who suffers and the mind which creates.

The poetic mind

The poets mind is a receptacle for seizing and storing up numberless

feelings, phrases, images which remain there until it can unite to form a
new compound.
What counts in not the greatness, the intensity, of the emotions (the
components) but the intensity of the artistic process, the pressure, so to
speak, under which the fusion takes place
the poet does not have a personality to express, but a particular
medium, which is only a medium and not a personality,
impressions and experiences combine in peculiar and unexpected ways
in this medium.
So impressions and experiences important for the man may have no place
in the poetry, and important feelings in the poetry may have only a
negligible part in the personality.

Eliots critique of Wordsworths definition

The particular emotions of a poet may be simple, or crude, or flat but the
emotion in his poetry will be a very complex thing because of the poetic
mind.
The emotional complexity in the poem is not the same as the complexity
of the emotions of people who have very complex or unusual emotions in
life.
The poet works up ordinary emotions into poetry and creates feelings
which are not in actual emotions at all
Poetry is a concentration, and a new thing resulting from the
concentration, of a very great number of experiences, not necessarily
relevant or ones own
This concentration does not happen consciously or of deliberation.
Thus there is no emotion or recollection or tranquillity in poetry and
Wordsworths definition is an inexact formula.
Thus 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

Conclusion:

The emotion of art is impersonal.

The poet cannot reach this impersonality without surrendering himself
wholly to the work to be done.
Thus Honest criticism and sensitive appreciation is directed not upon the
poet but upon the poetry.

4
5