Tradition and Individual Talent
T.S Eliot (1888-1965) – An Introduction
T.S. Eliot is an Anglo-American poet and a critic of the
twentieth century. He is often considered as the pioneer of the modernist
movement in literature. In his well-known preface to For Lancelot Andrews, Eliot openly described himself as a
classicist in literature, a royalist in politics, and an Anglo-Catholic in
religion (Nagarajan 105). As George Watson remarks, “Eliot made English
criticism look different but not in a simple sense”. He held very strong and
dogmatic beliefs, and turned the critical tradition of the English speaking
world upside down with his revolutionary criticism.
Thomas Stearns Eliot was born in St Louis, Missouri (USA) and
later became a naturalised citizen of England. He was the seventh and the
youngest child of Henry Ware Eliot, a businessman and Charlotte Stearns Eliot,
an amateur poet and volunteer social worker. From 1898 to 1905, he attended
Smith Academy where he studied Greek, Latin, Rhetoric, French and German.
During 1905-06, he was a student at Milton Academy. In 1906, he entered Harvard
University, receiving his bachelor’s degree in 1909 and masters in 1910. After
a brief experience of teaching, he entered business and had a short banking
career. At this time, he was the assistant editor of the journal The Egoist. In 1923, he began his career
as the editor of The Criterion. He
had won many literary awards – Nobel Prize for Literature in 1948, Order of
Merit (1948). His poem The Waste Land is
considered as the most influential poem of the 20th century. His
influence was so great that Dylan Thomas called him as the “pope” and Delmore
Schwartz as “a literary dictator”
Many scholars, critics and philosophers had influenced his writings
– George Santayana, Irving Babbitt, French philosopher Henri Bergson etc. He
can be grouped with Matthew Arnold and F.R. Leavis in establishing new trends
in literary criticism.
Eliot has written poems, dramas and prose pieces. His most
famous poems are The Waste Land and The Love Song of J Alfred Prufrock. His
major plays are The Cocktail Party and
The Confidential Clerk. He has also
penned many prose works. His first collection of essays appeared in 1920 and
was titled The Sacred Wood.
His critical work consists mostly of essays and lectures,
written or delivered from time to time and collected together in book form
subsequently. The more important of these books are: The Sacred Wood, Homage to
John Dryden, For Lancelot Andrews, Selected Essays, The Use of Poetry and the
Use of Criticism, Elizabethan Essays, and Essays Ancient and Modern. Through these books, he popularised his
famous concepts and phrases.
Objective Correlative is an important concept of Eliot. This
appears in his essay “Hamlet and his problems”. M.H Abrams defines it as a set
of objects, a situation, a chain of events which shall be the formula of that
particular emotion, and which will evoke the same emotion from the reader
(261). That is, the poet cannot communicate his emotions directly to the
readers. He must find some object or medium suggestive of it to evoke the same
emotion in his readers.
Another of the popular phrases of Eliot is ‘Dissociation of
Sensibility’. This is found in his essay “The Metaphysical Poets”. He was one
among the 19th century writers who discovered the Metaphysical
poets. This essay instantly made the Metaphysical poets as models for good
poetry. He defends the metaphysical poets from the criticism poured on them by
writers like Johnson.
Tradition and Individual Talent
Tradition and Individual Talent is one of his most
influential and widely discussed essays. It was written in 1919. It appeared in
two instalments in the journal The
Egoist. This essay is considered as
the unofficial manifesto of T.S. Eliot’s criticism.
The Essay is divided into three parts. In the first part, he
talks about the concept of tradition and historical sense. In second part, he
talks about his theory of impersonality of poetry. The last is apparently a
small section where he summarises the ideas he discussed so far.
He begins the essay by saying that we rarely speak of
tradition in the context of English writing except for deploring its absence. The
Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary defines tradition as a belief or
principle which people in a particular society or group have continued to
follow for a long time. Eliot is of the view that we mostly use the word
‘tradition’ as an adjective to say that the poetry of so and so is traditional
or too traditional instead of referring to something as ‘the tradition’ or ‘a
tradition’.
Eliot uses the word tradition to explain the relationship of
a work of art to the works of dead poets or the ancestors. He says it is a common
tendency of ours to praise a poet on those aspects of his work where he least
resembles anyone else. It is in that part of his work that we find the essence
of the poet in him. As readers, we are keen to find something which makes him
different from his predecessors especially his immediate predecessors. We are
satisfied only when we find something that can be isolated in order to enjoy
the work of art. Eliot believes that if we approach a poet without this
prejudice, the best and the most individual part of his work maybe those where
he resembles his ancestors.
Eliot points out that the word ‘tradition’ is disagreeable to
the English who praise a poet for those aspects of his work which are
individual and original. This undue stress on individuality shows that the
English have an uncritical mind. 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: “Not only the best, but the most individual part of his work maybe those
in which the dead poets, his ancestors, assert their immortality most
vigorously” (Norton 1093).
He goes on to say that if tradition consists of following the
ways of the immediate generation before us blindly, it should positively be
discouraged. His view of tradition is negative so far as it distrusts novelty
or originality or any kind of individualistic attempt. Tradition does not mean
a blind adherence to or slavish imitation of the ways of the previous
generations. For Eliot, tradition is a matter of much wider significance. It
cannot be inherited but can only be obtained by hard labour. This labour is the
labour of knowing the past writers. It is the critical labour of distinguishing
the good from the bad, and of knowing what is good and useful. It can be
obtained only by those who have a historical sense.
Historical sense is a quality indispensable to anyone who wants
his works of art to be read by people even after years of his death. It
involves a perception “not only of the pastness of the past, but also of its presence”
(Norton 1093). This forces 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 to his own day 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.
The critics should be able to see literature not within a
particular time period, but see it beyond time. The best works of our age and
the best works of twenty five hundred years ago should be seen with the same
eyes. Eliot’s view of tradition is positive in the sense that it recommends the
poet should have a sense of the history of poetry. It is this sense of
historical past which makes a writer traditional. This sense denies chronology
and conceives the past as timeless and existing here and now. Every new writer
is to be judged by the standards which exist already in the past. The writer
should be conscious of the dead writers.
Eliot also talks about the concept of unity or wholeness of
Literature. He understands literature as a single large unit which is in a
state of balance. When a work of art is created, this order is disturbed. Then
the relation between the works is readjusted. This decides the consistency
between the old and the new. He gives least importance to the individuality of
poet. He points out that no writer has his value and significance in isolation.
He dismisses the idea of poet’s greatness related to his originality because he
believes that no poet can be understood in isolation. Every new writer is
judged by the existing standards only. 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. Such comparison and contrast is essential for estimating the real
worth and significance of a new writer and his work.
Tradition, Eliot believes, is not fixed or static. It keeps
on changing and becomes different from what it is. A writer in the present must
seek guidance from the past and conform to the literary tradition. Each work of
art exists within the tradition from which it takes shape and which in turn
reshapes it. A good poem is a living whole of all the poetry that has ever been
written. As Eliot says, “the progress of the artist is a continual
self-sacrifice, a continual extinction of personality” (Norton 1094).
In the second part of the essay, he talks about depersonalization
or the theory of impersonality. He says “Honest criticism and sensitive
appreciation is directed not upon the poet but upon the poetry” (Norton 1095).
The importance is given to the work of art than the creator or author. This is
the rudimentary concept from which the basic idea of New Criticism emerged.
Eliot uses the analogy of a chemical reaction to explain his
theory of depersonalization. He compares the mind of the poet to a catalyst and
the process of poetic creation to the process of a chemical reaction. When a
piece of platinum is introduced into a gas chamber containing sulphur and
carbon dioxide, the two combine to form sulphurous acid. But the platinum
itself remains unchanged. The mind of the poet is like that of platinum. The
emotions and feelings are sulphur and carbon dioxide. The more perfect he is as
a poet, the less involved is his own personality. The artist’s mind keep
forming new compounds, but he remains separate in the process of creation. The
experiences, which are important to the poet as man, do not have much of a
place in his poetry, and those that are important in his poetry have
practically nothing to do with the poet’s personality.
Eliot through these observations asserts that the
individuality of a poet is of no concern. He says, “Poetry is not turning loose
of emotion, but an escape from emotion; it is not the expression of
personality, but an escape from personality” (Norton 1097). This impersonality
can be achieved only when the poet acquires a sense of tradition, the historic
sense which makes him conscious of the present and the past.
For Eliot, the business of a poet is not to find new
emotions, but to use the ordinary ones and to “work them up to poetry” and to
express feelings which are not in actual emotions at all. This is why he
considers “emotions recollected in tranquillity” an inexact formula. For Eliot,
poetry writing is a result of the unification of several emotions that gets
concentrated in our mind. This unification is not a deliberate process. The
experiences are not recollected but combined under the right atmosphere. The
right atmosphere is obviously a tranquil one. He dismisses the romantic
definition proposed by Wordsworth which explains poetry writing as a
spontaneous overflow of powerful emotions. Eliot on the other hand thinks
poetry is not an expression of emotions but instead an escape from it. This concept
of Eliot echoes the concept of negative capability of Keats.
Eliot also makes a distinction between artistic emotion and
personal emotion of a poet. A poet may express ordinary emotions but he must
impart to them a new significance and a new meaning. Even emotions which he has
never personally experienced can serve the purpose of poetry.
Eliot compares the poet’s mind to a receptacle where emotions
and feelings are stored in an unorganised and chaotic form. Just as a chemical
reaction takes place under pressure, intensity is needed for the fusion of
emotions. The more intense the poetic process, the greater the poem. The poet
is merely a medium in which these experiences and impressions combine. He says
that concepts like sublimity, greatness, or intensity of emotion are
irrelevant. It is not the greatness of the emotion that matters, but the
intensity of the artistic process, the pressure under which the artistic fusion
takes place, that it important. In this way he rejects the Romantic emphasis on
genius and the exceptional mind.
The last part of the essay is a small section where he
summarises the ideas he has discussed so far. He emphasises that the interest
of the critics should be diverted from poets to poetry. He also at length talks
about the significant emotion which helps in understanding the total meaning of
poetry. Significant emotion for him is “emotion which has its life in the poem
and not in the history of the poet” (Norton 1098).
Eliot does not deny personality or emotion to the poet. However
since the emotion of art is impersonal, he must depersonalise it. The poet
cannot reach this impersonality without surrendering himself wholly to the work
to be done. This can be done by the use of a set of conceptual symbols or
correlatives which endeavour to express the emotions of the poet. The artist
can achieve this impersonality only by cultivating the historical sense, by
being conscious of the tradition.
Conclusion
Immature poets imitate,
mature poets steal, bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it
into something better or at least something different.
-T.S. Eliot
This is the critical concept of Eliot in a nutshell.
The Essay “Tradition and Individual Talent” is of immense
significance in the history of English criticism. It initiated a movement
towards a new method of criticism. He made important contribution to ideas
concerning the integrity of poetry, the process of poetic composition, the
importance of tradition to the maturing of the individual talent, the relation
of the past and the present, and the fusion of feeling and thought. His
emphasis on historical sense helps us identify the relation between the old
poets and the contemporary poets. This is very evident in the first lines of
his poem The Waste Land. The poem
consists of a number of borrowings and allusions from a number of sources. The
very first lines of the poem is a reference to Chaucer:
April is the cruellest month,
breeding
Lilacs out of the dead land,
mixing
Memory and desire, stirring
Dull roots with spring rain.”
Similarly, in the poem Love
Song of J Alfred Prufrock, he experiments with his theory of impersonality.
The essay clearly expresses his ideas on poetry and the
importance of tradition. He questions the need for critical thinking. He thinks
it is unfortunate that the term tradition is mentioned only in a derogatory
sense. He also questions the habit of praising a poet for those elements which
differentiate him from others. He emphasises the objective and intellectual
element of work of art. He envisages a dynamic relationship between the past
and the present writers. An artist can only be judged by the standards of the
past. The old and the new should be measured by each other. To some extent,
this resembles Matthew Arnold’s “touchstone”; the “ideal order” formed by the
“existing monuments” provide the standard, a kind of touchstone, for
evaluation. As with Arnold’s touchstones, Eliot’s ideal order is subjective and
in need of modification from time to time.
Eliot also wants the poet to merge his personality with the
tradition. He suggests the analogy of the catalyst in a scientific laboratory
for this process of depersonalisation. He also shifts the critical focus from
the poet to poetry. He refutes the idea that poetry is the expression of the
personality of the poet.
It is now generally believed that Eliot’s view of tradition
is narrow on two accounts. Most importantly, he is talking of only the poetic
tradition and forgets that the poetic tradition is a combination of written and
oral poetry and the related elements. Only later did he realize that many
elements are involved while making a verse. He seems to have worked on it for
his later writings on poetic drama he gives evidence of having broadened his
scope. He also seems to be neglecting other traditions that go into social
formations.
Eliot was deeply interested in contemporary writing. This can
be seen in his criticism of writers like Joyce, Yeats etc. A major charge
against him is that his interest was restricted to poetry and he turned a blind
eye to American literature and American literary tradition.
Eliot as a critic can be considered a successor of Matthew
Arnold, because he assumed the role of a guardian of culture. Like Arnold, he laid
stress on impartiality, and proper evaluation of a poet. Like Arnold, he became
a legislator of literary culture, as his later writings testify.
Many fellow critics have expressed
their dissatisfaction with Eliot’s criticism, inspite of its great influence.
F. R. Leavis grants Eliot’s eminence as a poet, but feels that his criticism is
not of much importance. He says that “Tradition and Individual Talent” is
“notable for its ambiguities, its logical inconsequence, its pseudo-precisions,
its fallaciousness, and the aplomb of its equivocations and its specious
cogency (Leavis 178-179). He attacks the “falseness” of Eliot’s doctrine of
impersonality, and says that it is designed to eliminate the conception of the
artist as an individual distinguished by his openness to life. For the critic
W.K. Wimsatt, the essay lacks clarity.
There are many gaps between his
theoretical formulations and his practical criticism. He insisted that critics
should not indulge in interpretation or judgement. But in his best essays, he
makes clear value judgements. Even the concept of tradition implies a
hierarchy, for it is the best works which make up the tradition that Eliot
considers so important.
Bibliography
·
Abrams,
M.H. A Glossary of Literary Terms. Wadsworth:
Cengage, 2012. Print
·
Nagarajan,
M.S. English Literary Criticism and
Theory; An Introduction. Hyderabad: Orient Blackswan, 2008. Print
·
Eliot,
T.S. “Tradition and Individual Talent”. The
Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Ed. Leitch B Vincent. New York:
W.W Norton and Company Ltd, 2001, Print.
·
Leavis,
Frank Raymond. “Anna Karenina and other essays” (1970).
No comments:
Post a Comment