Bridge Course: T.S. Eliot - Criticism - Tradition and Individual Talent
- This task given by Dilipsir Barad (Click Here)
- How would you like to explain Eliot's concept of 'Tradition'? Do you agree with it? What do you understand by 'Historical Sense'?
T.S. Eliot's concept of tradition is central to his theory of literature, and it challenges the idea of an isolated, individualistic approach to writing. For Eliot, tradition is not just about honoring the past; it is about acknowledging the continuity of artistic expression across time and recognizing how the past influences the present. To be a "traditional" writer, one must understand their place within the broader context of literary history, and appreciate how contemporary work both builds upon and interacts with past works.
Eliot's Concept of Tradition:
Eliot defines tradition as a dynamic force that links the writer to the entire history of literature. It is not merely about imitation or reverence for the past; it is about engaging with past works in such a way that they continue to shape and inform current writing. This concept can be best understood through the following quote:
"The historical sense involves a perception, not only of the pastness of the past but of its presence."
This line suggests that the writer with a strong sense of tradition does not simply look at the past as something that has already occurred and is irrelevant to the present. Instead, the writer perceives the past as something still "alive," influencing and interacting with the present. The historical sense, then, involves the writer's awareness of how the past continues to shape current culture, thought, and artistic expression.
A traditional writer, according to Eliot, is someone who recognizes that their work cannot be created in a vacuum, detached from the works that have preceded it. Each writer, consciously or unconsciously, is part of a literary continuum, and their work is a response to that tradition. For Eliot, the process of writing is not just about personal self-expression, but also about participating in a larger cultural and historical conversation.
The Historical Sense:
Eliot's idea of the historical sense is closely tied to the concept of tradition, but it has its own specific meaning. It is a form of awareness in which the writer perceives the past as something not just behind us, but still very much present. This understanding allows the writer to see the continuity between different time periods, styles, and movements. The historical sense combines the timeless and the temporal—the understanding that both the enduring qualities of great works and the particular context of the present moment must be considered when creating new work.
When Eliot says that the historical sense "is a sense of the timeless as well as of the temporal, and of the timeless and of the temporal together," he is emphasizing that both the universal and the specific must coexist in a writer's consciousness. The writer must recognize that while they are a product of their own time, they are also engaging with a broader literary and cultural history.
Do I Agree with Eliot's Concept of Tradition?
I do agree with Eliot's concept of tradition, particularly his insistence on understanding the continuity between past and present in literature. The idea that literature is not a series of isolated works, but a living, evolving tradition, resonates with how we experience and understand the world today.
In modern society, where rapid technological change often seems to place us in an entirely new era, it is easy to overlook how the past continues to shape the present. Eliot's emphasis on the historical sense reminds us that everything we create is influenced by what has come before us. Acknowledging this connection allows for a deeper, more thoughtful engagement with both our own work and the works of others. It also creates a more inclusive, interconnected view of culture, where the great works of the past are not relegated to dusty shelves but continue to speak to us across time.
However, some might argue that Eliot's definition of tradition can be too restrictive, especially for modern and postmodern writers who might want to break away from the past in more radical ways. While Eliot's emphasis on literary continuity is important, there is also room for innovation, rebellion, and the transformation of tradition. But even within these disruptions, the echoes of tradition remain, reminding us of the ways in which literature is always in conversation with its history.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, Eliot’s concept of tradition emphasizes the idea that every writer is part of an ongoing literary dialogue. The historical sense is the awareness that past works are not dead, but continue to shape how we understand and create literature today. This understanding allows for a deeper connection with the past and helps ensure that new works resonate with the weight of literary history. It reminds us that our engagement with literature, whether we honor or challenge it, is part of a timeless conversation.
- What is the relationship between “tradition” and "individual talent,” according to the poet T. S. Eliot?
Relationship Between “Tradition” and “Individual Talent”:
Eliot argues that there is an intricate relationship between tradition and individual talent, suggesting that a poet’s unique voice and creativity are shaped by their awareness and engagement with the literary tradition.
In his essay Tradition and the Individual Talent (1919), Eliot writes that the poet’s individual talent does not exist in isolation but is in constant dialogue with the tradition that precedes it. According to Eliot, the poet’s creativity is not merely an expression of personal experience but a response to the works of those who have come before them. The poet must not only be aware of the literary past but actively participate in it, as their work is defined by both what they contribute and how they relate to the existing tradition.
This relationship can be understood in two key points:
The poet as part of tradition: The poet does not create in a vacuum. Their individual voice emerges as part of the ongoing conversation within the literary tradition. In fact, Eliot suggests that a poet’s originality comes from their ability to consciously engage with the past and work within this historical continuum.
Talent as a part of a broader structure: Eliot contends that individual talent is often shaped by tradition. The more a poet understands the works of the past, the more they can contribute something original. Thus, individual talent grows from its roots in tradition, not by rejecting it.
Eliot uses an analogy of an “impersonal” creativity, where the poet is almost a vessel through which the tradition flows, rather than someone creating solely based on personal experience or emotion. The individual talent then takes on a new role it becomes the capacity to rework, respond to, and contribute to the tradition, rather than to escape or transcend it.
“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 quote from Eliot speaks to the importance of the selective and deep engagement with knowledge, as opposed to the mere accumulation of facts. What Eliot means by this is that truly profound and valuable knowledge often comes from the intense study of specific works or ideas rather than from an exhaustive or superficial attempt to learn everything.
Shakespeare and Plutarch: Eliot uses Shakespeare as an example of a writer who, by immersing himself in Plutarch’s Lives, acquired more profound understanding of history and human nature than many who may have access to vast amounts of information in places like the British Museum. Shakespeare’s engagement with Plutarch was not just about learning historical facts, but about absorbing deeper insights into character and motivation, which then became a foundation for his plays.
Absorbing knowledge deeply: The quote suggests that it is not about how much knowledge one can acquire, but how deeply and meaningfully that knowledge is absorbed. Some people, like Shakespeare, can assimilate knowledge quickly and intuitively, while others may have to work harder to understand and integrate it. But the value lies not in the breadth of knowledge, but in its depth and the ways it shapes a writer's work.
This idea reinforces Eliot’s broader literary philosophy that the best poetry and the most original talent come from the synthesis of past knowledge, refined through the individual’s talent and insight.
“Honest criticism and sensitive appreciation are directed not upon the poet but upon the poetry.”
This quote reflects Eliot's belief in the importance of criticism that focuses on the work itself rather than on the poet. For Eliot, literary criticism should be a detached, objective, and thoughtful examination of the poetry, independent of personal bias or judgment about the poet’s life or character.
Criticism of the poetry, not the poet: Eliot suggests that in order to appreciate and evaluate a poem properly, critics must separate their personal feelings about the poet from their evaluation of the poem. The poet’s personal life, personality, or reputation should not overshadow the intrinsic value of the poem itself. This means that criticism must be based on the quality of the poetry, its structure, themes, and the way it operates within the tradition not on subjective views of the poet’s character.
Sensitivity in appreciation: “Honest criticism” refers to an objective analysis, while “sensitive appreciation” implies that the critic should be attuned to the emotional and intellectual depth of the poem. The critic must be open to understanding how the poem works, how it resonates with the tradition, and how it engages with the timeless aspects of human experience.
In this context, Eliot is advocating for a more analytical, focused, and impersonal type of literary criticism—one that appreciates the poem for its own qualities rather than being influenced by external factors. For instance, rather than critiquing John Milton's Paradise Lost by evaluating Milton’s religious views or his life history, honest criticism would delve into the language, structure, themes, and how the poem communicates ideas about human nature, good, and evil.
Conclusion:
T.S. Eliot’s ideas about tradition and individual talent emphasize the importance of both understanding and contributing to a literary tradition. The writer’s talent is not merely an isolated phenomenon but an interaction with and response to the history of literature. His ideas about knowledge, as encapsulated in the quote about Shakespeare and Plutarch, emphasize the value of deep, meaningful learning rather than surface-level accumulation. Finally, his view on criticism encourages a focus on the work itself, advocating for impersonal and thoughtful analysis that treats the poem as a living, evolving part of the tradition. These ideas have been influential in shaping modern literary theory and continue to challenge how we read, interpret, and appreciate literature today.
- How would you like to explain Eliot's theory of depersonalization?
T.S. Eliot's theory of depersonalization compares the creation of poetry to a chemical reaction, using the analogy of a catalyst. Here's an explanation of his idea, followed by a discussion of the quote and a critique of him as a critic:
Eliot's Theory of Depersonalization:
Eliot draws a parallel between the poet's mind and a catalytic agent, like platinum in a chemical reaction. For example:
Chemical Reaction Analogy: When oxygen and sulfur dioxide combine in the presence of platinum, they produce sulfurous acid. The platinum itself remains unchanged throughout the process but is crucial for the reaction to occur.
Application to Poetry: Similarly, Eliot argues that the poet’s mind acts as a medium or "catalyst" that facilitates the creation of poetry. The poet's personal emotions, thoughts, or personality do not directly affect the final work; instead, the poet synthesizes experiences into a new, impersonal artistic product. This makes the resulting poem autonomous, detached from the poet's individuality.
Explanation of the Quote:
"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":
Eliot believes that poetry is not merely a direct outpouring of personal feelings. Instead, the poet transcends personal emotion and distills it into a universal, structured form. This means the poet must impose discipline, craft, and control, refining raw emotions into art.
Eliot contends that great poetry arises when the poet subordinates their ego or personal self. The poem should stand independently, as a universal expression, without revealing the poet’s individual quirks or autobiographical details.
Critique of 'T.S. Eliot as a Critic:
Point 1: Eliot's Emphasis on Objectivity
Eliot’s theory elevates objectivity and detachment in poetry, which has been praised for focusing on craft and structure. However, critics argue that his insistence on depersonalization downplays the importance of individual creativity, spontaneity, and emotional depth in poetry. Many Romantic and modern poets thrive on personal expression, suggesting Eliot’s framework is overly restrictive.
Point 2: Ambiguity in Practical Application
While Eliot’s theory is intellectually stimulating, it often appears abstract and difficult to apply in practice. How does one measure the extent of depersonalization? Some critics argue that Eliot himself did not adhere to this principle entirely, as his own poetry (e.g., The Waste Land) reflects personal trauma and emotion, despite his claims to depersonalization.
Conclusion:
T.S. Eliot’s theory of depersonalization and his critical stance revolutionized literary thought by emphasizing the autonomy of art and the impersonal nature of poetry. While his ideas are influential and enduring, they are not without flaws. His approach undervalues personal creativity and raises questions about its practical feasibility. Nevertheless, Eliot remains a cornerstone in the evolution of modern literary criticism.
Reference:
Comments
Post a Comment