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
17th 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.