Introduction of T .S Eliot :
T.S. Eliot was an American-born poet, essayist, publisher, playwright, and critic. One of the most prominent modernists, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1948 “for his outstanding, pioneer contributions to present-day poetry.”
Introduction of essay:
The essay "Tradition and the Individual Talent" was 1st published in 1919 in the "Times Literary Supplement" as a critical article which may be regarded as an unofficial manifesto of Eliot's critical thinking, for it contains all those principles which his criticism has been derived ever since.
Very important essay because it marks the beginning of what we later on come to be known as new criticism and that later development of were offshoots of this new criticism so very important.
The essay is divided into three parts:
1) concept of tradition
2) Theory of depersonalization
3)poet's sense of tradition and the impersonality
Concept of Tradition :
He defines traditions and examines the relationship of any particular poem or poet to the poetic tradition in which that poet works or in which that poem is written.
Second he talks about relationship between the poem and poet.
Third it talks about the close study of text.
"TRADITION IS NOT JUST FOLLOWING OR IMITATING THE DOGMAS OR THE CUSTOMS"
In the very 1st part Eliot discussed about the concept of "tradition" and its relevance in literature. Eliot begins his essay by pointing out that English critical mind is not sure of the concept of tradition. They use the term as a pejorative one, not for appreciation. In English when one says that the writing is "traditional or even too traditional", he means the writing is only a replica or imitation of old texts. It is actually used in the sense of robbery or plagiarism.
Now One can see this as certain aspects of being nagative or certain of being positive. Eliot mentioned that one means tradition often, in the sense of traditional and when a moment we utter somebody is traditional and specially Eliot speaking from MODERN critic's point of view there is always tension between somebody being traditional and somebody Modern.
As modern become automatically GOOD and traditionally automatically means not SO GOOD - undesirable.
And other hand country- nation try to preserve their tradition as haritage as something which is essential part of their culture and necessarily has to be handed down to generation to generation.
So Eliot actually Means the second positive sense. Although we have to be really reading between the lines of this Essay and when do so we realised Eliot is actually criticising romantics with their great deal emphasis on the INDIVIDUAL.
According to Eliot,
" THE WRITER WRITES WITH HISTORY IN HIS BONES"
A new poet contemporary modern poet has to write with the awareness of the literary tradition of his nation and larger European literary tradition. He has to then not merely imitate that tradition.
No poet, no artists of any art has his complete meaning alone. His significance, his appreciation is the application of his relation to the dead poets and artists.
So how he can contribute to the tradition
And there by the comes the aspect of individual talent.
Throughout the essay Eliot used the word such as SURROUNDING to the tradition, sacrificing one from self and these words come again as an opposite to Wordsworth and the Romantics upholding the self - begin the self in the focus where as Eliot seems to be saying that is not so important self has to merge in with the tradition.
For Eliot tradition has a three fold significance:
Firstly : Tradition can not be imitated and involves a great deal of labour and erudition.
Second : it involves the historical sense which involves appreciation not only of it presense.
Third : the historical sense enables a writer to write not only with his own generation in mind but with a feeling that the whole of the literature from Homer down to the literature of his own country forms a continuous literary tradition.
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.”
In context of England and America he says that it is not just limited to national boarder. Writer talks about western tradition and write from Homer and classical Greek writers to the present day.
"TRADITION IS NOT SOMETHING DEAD IT IS ALREADY LIVING"
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.
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”.
So pastness of past that is what he says it is timeless and yet temporary.
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.
The historical sense involves a perception not only of the pastness of the past ,but of 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 as simultaneous existence and composer a simultaneous order."
This historical sense which is a sense of the timeless as well as the temporal and of the timeless and of the temporal together is what makes writer traditional and it is at the same time what makes a writer most acutely conscious of his place in time of his contemporary.
Timeless in sense that it does not have any past or present and in temporary sense it exist even today.
Why Eliot disapprove romantic criticism ??:
The gist of matter is his idea of a tradition and he says sense of tradition applied certain things. One is RECOGNITION of the continuity of literature.
Nissim Ezekiel : he says that my poetic ancestors are sanskriti poet - so that is Tradition.
"Tradition is bad to great and great from the ordinary"
And that is the most important.
Concept of individual talent :
individualism means subjectivity.
Subjectivity is associated with the Romantics because they infused their personal emotions into poetry. Eliot does not agree with the Wordsworthian concept of poetry - a spontaneous overflow of powerful emotions. Eliot, however, suggests:
The business of the poet is not to find new emotions, but to use the ordinary ones.
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.”
Eliot 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.”
But ofcourse only those who have personality and emotions know what it means to want to escape from this thing.
Conclusion :
In short, we can say that Eliot’s idea of ‘Tradition and Individual Talent’ is similar with New Criticism. Unwittingly, Eliot inspired and informed the movement of New Criticism. This is somewhat ironic, since he later criticized their excruciatingly detailed analysis of texts. Yet, he does share with them the same focus on the aesthetic and stylistic qualities of poetry, rather than on its ideological content. The New Critics resemble Eliot in their close analysis of particular passages and poems.
Words count : 2165
No comments:
Post a Comment