Introduction: The Critical Revolution of 1919
In the immediate aftermath of the First World War, the Western world was searching for a new language to express a fragmented reality. In the literary sphere, the dominant "Romantic" mode—which prioritized the individual’s emotional experience and spontaneous expression—felt increasingly inadequate for the complexities of the 20th century. It was in this climate of transition that T.S. Eliot published "Tradition and the Individual Talent" (1919).
Originally appearing in The Egoist and later collected in The Sacred Wood (1920), this essay did not merely offer a new way of reading; it proposed a complete restructuring of how we view the history of art. By challenging the cult of personality and the Romantic obsession with the "self," Eliot laid the cornerstone for what would become known as New Criticism. This essay serves as a roadmap for understanding Eliot’s "Impersonal" theory of poetry, the "Historical Sense," and the dynamic, reciprocal relationship between the past and the present.
I. Redefining Tradition: Beyond the Ancestral Grave
The word "tradition" often carries a negative connotation, suggesting a blind adherence to the past or a refusal to innovate. Eliot begins his essay by acknowledging that in the English language, "tradition" is often used as a term of censure. However, he seeks to reclaim it as a vital, active force.
The Problem of Inheritance
For Eliot, tradition is not something you are simply born into. It cannot be inherited like a piece of property or a physical trait. He states:
"It [tradition] cannot be inherited, and if you want it you must obtain it by great labour."
This is a radical departure from the idea of the "natural-born" poet. It suggests that being an artist is a matter of erudition and intellectual effort. One does not become a poet by virtue of their genes or their family name; one becomes a poet by doing the work of engaging with the literary ancestors who came before.
The Historical Sense
At the heart of Eliot’s concept of tradition is the "Historical Sense." This is perhaps the most famous and misunderstood concept in his critical canon. Eliot defines it as:
"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 is a metaphysical view of time. To Eliot, the history of literature is not a linear timeline where one movement ends and another begins. Instead, it is a "Simultaneous Order." Homer, Dante, Shakespeare, and Milton are not "back there" in history; they are "here," existing alongside the modern writer. The historical sense is the ability to see the "timeless" (the eternal truths of art) and the "temporal" (the specific context of the present moment) as a single, unified experience.
II. The Reciprocity of Art: The Individual and the Order
A common critique of Eliot’s theory is that it leaves no room for "Individual Talent." If a poet must conform to tradition, how can they be original? Eliot solves this paradox by arguing that the relationship between the individual and the tradition is a two-way street.
The Existing Monuments
Eliot compares the history of art to a set of "existing monuments." When a new, truly significant work of art is created, something remarkable happens:
"The necessity that he [the artist] shall conform, that he shall cohere, is not onesided; what happens when a new work of art is created is something that happens simultaneously to all the works of art which preceded it."
In this view, the past is not fixed. When a modern poet like Eliot himself writes a masterpiece, it actually changes our perception of the past. For example, after reading Eliot, we might see the Metaphysical Poets (like John Donne) in a new light. The new work modifies the "Simultaneous Order." Thus, "conformity" for Eliot does not mean imitation; it means entering the system in a way that shifts the entire structure.
III. The Labour of Learning: Shakespeare and the Museum
Eliot addresses the practicalities of acquiring this tradition. He is careful to note that while "great labour" is required, this doesn't mean every poet needs to be a dry academic or a "pundit."
Absorption vs. Erudition
He famously observes:
"Some can absorb knowledge, the more tardy must sweat for it. Shakespeare acquired more essential history from Plutarch than most men could from the whole British Museum."
This distinction is crucial. It suggests that the "Historical Sense" is a quality of mind rather than a quantitative checklist of books read. Shakespeare possessed a high degree of "absorption"—the ability to take a single source and extract the essential spirit of the human condition and the literary tradition. For others, the process is more "tardy" and requires "sweat." Whether through intuition or rigorous study, the goal is the same: to move beyond the narrow confines of one’s own personality and time.
IV. The Theory of Impersonality: The Catalyst and the Mind
The second part of the essay shifts from the historical to the psychological. Here, Eliot introduces his "Theory of Impersonality," which stands in direct opposition to the Romantic "Spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings."
The Process of Depersonalization
Eliot argues that the progress of an artist is a "continual self-sacrifice, a continual extinction of personality." To write great poetry, the artist must lose themselves. The poet’s job is not to express their personal life, but to serve as a medium.
The Platinum Analogy: A Scientific Metaphor
To illustrate this "extinction of personality," Eliot uses a scientific analogy—a bold move in an age where literature was trying to claim the same objective authority as science. He describes a chemical reaction:
The Elements: Oxygen and Sulfur Dioxide.
The Catalyst: A filament of platinum.
The Result: Sulfuric acid.
In this reaction, the platinum is essential for the gases to combine, yet the platinum itself remains completely unchanged, neutral, and unaffected. It does not enter the sulfuric acid; it simply facilitates the transformation.
Eliot argues that the poet’s mind is the platinum. It must be a "receptacle" for seizing and storing up numberless feelings, phrases, and images, which remain there until all the particles which can unite to form a new compound are present together. The "personality" of the poet is irrelevant to the final product; in fact, the more "perfect" the artist, the more separate will be "the man who suffers and the mind which creates."
V. The Escape from Emotion: Art as a Craft
Eliot’s anti-Romantic stance reaches its climax in his discussion of emotion. For the Romantics, poetry was a way to share the poet’s inner feelings. For Eliot, poetry is a way to escape them.
Escape, Not Expression
He writes:
"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 is not to say that Eliot’s poetry is "emotionless." Rather, he distinguishes between personal emotions and artistic emotions. A poet may have a very boring life but produce intense poetry, or a very exciting life and produce dull poetry. The "emotion of art" is something that exists only within the poem itself—a concentration of experiences that are "transmuted" by the mind.
The "Objective Correlative"
Though the term is found in a different essay ("Hamlet and His Problems"), the seeds are here. Eliot believes that emotions must be externalized into art through specific images and structures. By the time the reader feels the emotion of the poem, the poet’s personal connection to that emotion has been severed. Only those who have strong personalities and emotions, Eliot adds with a touch of irony, know what it means to want to escape from them.
VI. Critical Evaluation: The Legacy of Eliot’s Logic
T.S. Eliot’s essay revolutionized the 20th century, but a century later, we can see the cracks in his "monuments." To provide a balanced view, we must look at both his contributions and the valid critiques against him.
The Strength of the New Criticism
Eliot’s focus on the text itself—"directed not upon the poet but upon the poetry"—gave birth to the "Close Reading" method. This liberated literature from being treated as a footnote to history or biography. It allowed us to appreciate poems as intricate, self-contained machines of meaning. His insistence on the "Historical Sense" also reminded us that art is a conversation across time, preventing culture from becoming purely "present-focused" or shallow.
Critique 1: The Elitist Guardrail
The first major critique of Eliot is his Elitism. By defining tradition as "the whole of the literature of Europe from Homer," Eliot effectively built a wall around literature. His definition of tradition is Eurocentric and patriarchal. It suggests that a "true" writer must be deeply versed in a very specific, Western, classical education. This leaves little room for oral traditions, non-Western literatures, or the experiences of those who were historically excluded from the "Museums" and "Monuments" he celebrates. In today’s globalized world, Eliot’s "Simultaneous Order" feels far too narrow.
Critique 2: The Coldness of Impersonality
The second critique focuses on his Emotional Distance. While the "Platinum" analogy is intellectually brilliant, many critics and readers argue that it is psychologically impossible. The "man who suffers" and the "mind which creates" are not separate rooms in a house; they are part of the same human soul. By demanding an "escape from personality," Eliot risks stripping poetry of its most powerful asset: human vulnerability. The "Confessional" poets of the 1950s (like Sylvia Plath or Robert Lowell) would later prove that the "expression of personality" could lead to some of the most profound art of the century, directly contradicting Eliot’s theory.
Conclusion: Why We Still Read Eliot
Despite these critiques, "Tradition and the Individual Talent" remains an essential text. We still read it because it forces us to ask the most important questions about art: What is our responsibility to the past? How much of the "self" belongs in a work of art? Is a poem a biological byproduct of a human life, or is it a crafted object?
Eliot’s genius was in making us see that a writer is not just a person with a pen, but a link in a chain. Whether we choose to "escape" our personality or embrace it, we are all working within a "Simultaneous Order" that began long before us and will continue long after we are gone. By treating literature as a living presence rather than a dead history, Eliot ensured that the "ancestors" would never stop asserting their immortality.
Key Takeaways for Students and Critics
Tradition is earned, not given: You must "sweat" or "absorb" to understand the past.
Art is objective: Judge the poem, not the poet.
The Past is fluid: New art changes how we read old art.
The Poet is a Catalyst: The mind facilitates creation but stays separate from the personal self.
References and Further Reading:
https://youtu.be/_svovtvE6uo?si=B9kGFFDQkVY3CDhq
https://youtu.be/W7-GwBor4fU?si=NyfLU95ZcWqmwiJ0
.png)
No comments:
Post a Comment