LITERARY CRITICISM ASSIGNMENT

TOPIC: TRADITION AND THE INDIVIDUAL TALENT

BY T.S ELIOT (CRITIAL ANALYSIS)
Submitted to: Ma’am Hina Habib
Submitted by: Mansoor Ahmad
Roll No. 12
Semester: 5th
Section: B

Department of English and Applied Linguistics

University of Peshawar
INTRODUCTION:
“Tradition and the Individual Talent (1919)” is from T.S Eliot’s collection of essays-
The Sacred Writing (1920). It is one of Eliot’s major critical documents that offers
a profound exploration of the intricate relationship between literary tradition and
individual artistic expression. It has given new insights into the trend of writing
poetry, into the nature of criticism, the author, and the literary tradition. It
evaluates “tradition” and “individual talent” in the trend of writing work of art.
The author argues that poetry is impersonal. It avoids the expression of personal
emotion. In fact, poetry portrays emotions, but different from personal emotions.
In personal life, one may have agonies or not, but yet we find he or she writes
some agonies as if they were his or her own. The essay also argues one more
fascinating point that the creation of a major work of poetry alters the history of
poetry. The poetry of the past affects poetry of succeeding periods, and similarly,
poetry of the present can affect and alter the poetry of the past.
CRITICAL ANALYSIS: TRADITION AND THE INDIVIDUAL TALENT
Tradition:
Tradition means passing of beliefs or customs from one generation to the next.
Traditionally refers to a type of things that are practiced for many centuries.
“Tradition” is a general and usual belief or custom. It is a human conduct in
general and in common. It is not bound to any single conductor time. “A
tradition” is a particular practice or belief. It is a particular code or set of
conventions. It is specific and belongs to a person or class. “The tradition” is also
specific.
Eliot starts the essay with the term to describe so usual trend among us by
referring any poetry to the past. We often like to say the poetry of so- and –so is
“traditional” or “too traditional” which sounds very offensive to the poet. This
term also implies somehow the archaeological reconstruction. Hardly any man
likes his work to be called by the adjective. We do not hear the work referred by
“the tradition” or “a tradition”. It is really very interesting that people (or rather
critics) like to relate the recent work with past, but they do not identify the
specific poet of poetry or relevance.
Every nation, every race, every culture has its own creativities and critical turn of
mind. Not being wise, we argue that others are more or less critical than us. It is
necessary to remind ourselves that “criticism is as inevitable as breathing”. No
one resists all those things that have aroused in mind after reading or seeing
something. Criticism of criticism is also in practice.
In the process of criticism, we have a trend to find something individual, rather a
peculiar thing, something quite different from the poet’s predecessors. We satisfy
ourselves with the novelty of the poem- either in style or in content, but if we
approach a poet deeply without any prejudices and with the knowledge of the
past, we can see that not only the best, but the most individual parts of his work
may be related to the works of dead poets. This is the cause not only in the period
of adolescence of poet, but also in the period of full maturity. Eliot says:
“One of the facts that might come to light in this process is our tendency to insist,
when we praise a poet, upon those aspects of his work in which he least
resembles anyone else. In these aspects or parts of his work we pretend to find
what is individual, what is the peculiar essence of the man. We dwell with
satisfaction upon the poet’s difference from his predecessors, especially his
immediate predecessors; we endeavor to find something that can be isolated in
order to be enjoyed. Whereas if we approach a poet without his prejudices we
shall often find that not only the best, but the most individual parts of his work
may be those in which the dead poets, his ancestors, assert their immortality most
vigorously.”
Eliot argues that the tradition is never good if that is handed down to immediate
generation in a blind or timid adherence to its successes. This tradition should be
positively discouraged. What does he mean by “positively discouraged”? Surely,
he does not approve if “tradition” has been taken directly and blindly and without
labor. He doesn’t say that “tradition” is bad. It has much significance and probably
it is hardly possible that one can write without the influence of tradition. It has
been seen that many such simple currents soon lost in the sand. Most usually
people favor new things, novelty, rather than repetition or old work written in the
same form or revised again. Eliot means to say that it’d be better not to have old
work repeated. If it is so, it will fail soon. One must labor hard to inherit
“tradition”. Eliot shows significance of “tradition” in the following words:
“Tradition is a matter of much wider significance. It cannot be inherited, and if
you want it you must obtain it by great labor.”
Historical sense and Tradition:
Tradition involves historical sense, and historical sense, in turn, involves a
perception. The historical sense is very indispensable to anyone who would
continue to be a poet beyond his twenty-fifth year. Alexander Pope says that a
critic must have a sense of history because it is the knowledge of history that
makes one is able to judge any literary work. It is very interesting that Eliot says
that the historical sense is indispensable to anyone who would continue to be a
poet beyond his twenty-fifth years. He might have been telling us that the
historical sense is required for maturity. I heard a pop-singer say that she would
like to be a classical singer at the age of forty-five. In fact, the age of maturity has
much effect on the experience of a person. Such person keeps knowledge of past
and present. He says that “the historical sense involves a perception, not only of
the past ness of the past, but also of its presence. A man with historical sense
writes the knowledge of the past as well as of the present. A man’s writing with
historical sense is traditional. According to him:
“The historical sense, which is a sense of the timeless as well as of the temporal
and of the timeless and of the temporal together, is what makes a writer
traditional.”
Timeless is the never ending past and the temporal signifies the present or the
contemporary. One must have a sense of past or present or both together.
History records past and it relate to the present. Therefore, it is necessary to have
both sense of times. The writer naturally becomes traditional.
Furthermore, Eliot writes that “no poet, no artist of any art, has his complete
meaning alone. His significance, his appreciation is the appreciation of his relation
to the dead poets and artists. We cannot value him alone.” We must set him, for
contrast and comparison, among the dead. This is a principle of aesthetic, not
merely historical, criticism. It is not absurd that the present is directed by the
past. Usually it is seen that a building that has been recently built besides an old
building affects the old one, too. The landlord of the old building brings some
changes to it so that the old can be competitive with the new one. Old institute is
always effective to give directions to a new institute. Similar case is with the
poetry, too.
In a peculiar sense a poet will be aware of the past. He must be judged not saying
that he is good or bad. Neither he should be judged by the old principles set by
old critics. Eliot says that it is a judgement, a comparison, in which two things are
measured by each other. The work is set in the test to judge the value how one is
similar or dissimilar to another.
Eliot guides us to a very intelligent fact of the relation of the poet with the past.
He says that:
 The poet must not consider or take the past as a lump or a whole
 He should not confine himself to one or two admired works
 He should not confine himself to a certain preferred period
He gives reasons by saying that
 First is inadmissible because the past, or the history, is never a whole
 The second is an important experience of youth because only young are
more eager for private admirations
 Third is possibly pleasant and highly desirable because a poet is usually
more affected by a certain preferred period of literary importance like the
Metaphysical period, Age of Renaissance, Romanticism etc.
It is also remarkable that a poet must be quite aware of the obvious fact that art
never improves, but that the material of art is never quite the same. It means to
say that a glass (art) is same but the content or water (material) is always
changing. A poet’s mind is same but the experience is never quite the same. Art
originated in a period is usually the same, but the subject matter of art is usually
changed. The process or the method of art may remain same in different periods
or generations, but the materials like experience and feelings may be different
because the context changes according to the changing time. Eliot has differences
between the present and the past, too. The conscious present is an awareness of
the past in a way, but to some extent the past doesn’t show its awareness of
itself.
Education for Practice of Poetry:
Most people claim that they know more than the dead writers, but it is true that
they know about them too.
It is believed that, for the practice of poetry, one must have a good amount of
education. Eliot makes objection, saying that much learning deadens or pervert
poetic sensibility. A poet ought to know as much as he needs for receiving skills
and materials. Some people absorb knowledge easily, whereas some have to
labor hard for it. Shakespeare received knowledge from Plutarch’s history book.
He derived several stories and characters like Julius Caesar, Antony and Cleopatra.
Most people could not have knowledge of the whole British Museum as much as
Shakespeare got from single Plutarch’s work. Eliot emphasizes that a poet must
have historical sense. He insists that “a poet must develop or procure the
consciousness of the past and that he should continue to develop this
consciousness through his career.
Impersonal Nature of Art:
We must notice that a person is not important. His work is our target of
interpretation. It must not escape our study. An artist is recognized by his work
and the artist is not subject of recognition. Therefore, the person must sacrifice
his personality while creating works of art. He emphasizes on a continual
surrender of personality. A poet must vanish himself only just to create a new
personality, but this personality will be about the work of art. The poet himself
dies as his work of art is born. We should be more concerned with the creation
rather than with the dying or the dead personality of the poet.
Continual surrender of the poet is a process of depersonalization.
Depersonalization is the avoidance of limited, personal involvement in the work.
It refers to the transcending personal limits. A poet knows that tradition cannot
be inherited and if he wants to obtain it, it is possible only by great labor. He
labors hard being conscious about the past and present and the result is
transcendence. He overcomes the conditions of past and present and brings out
better work of art. Transcendence is, in fact, overcoming the personal limits.
Analogy of Catalyst:
Eliot writes that “it is in the depersonalization that art may be said to approach
the condition of science. He presents an analogy- an action in which a small piece
of pure platinum is introduced into a chamber in which there are oxygen and
sulfur dioxide. It so happens that when the platinum is presented in the chamber
of two gases, oxygen and sulfur dioxide there is an action and they form sulfurous
acid. The platinum acts as a catalyst. A catalyst is an element that brings other
elements into action, but it remains inert, neutral and unchanged. It is quite
interesting that the platinum itself is apparently unaffected and neither there is
any trace of platinum in the new form- sulfurous acid. The mind of the poet is also
a piece of platinum. It is inert, neutral and unchanged, whereas it brings action
into the experience, emotions and feelings. Experience, emotions and feelings are
materials which are mixed, given certain shape and changed into a new form-
work of art. Eliot differentiates the man who suffers and the mind which creates
in the following words:
The more perfect the artist, the more completely separate in him will be the man
who suffers and the mind which creates; the more perfectly will the mind digest
and transmute the passions which are its material.
Eliot discusses that honest criticism and sensitive appreciation are directed not
upon the poet but upon the poetry. Unfortunately, most critics base their
criticism on the “poet” rather than the poetry. It is same when we see that a man
looks at the name in one corner of a painting and appreciates that the painting is
beautiful. Very ironically, he does not have a glance over the painting itself. The
other aspect of this impersonal theory of poetry is the relation of the poem to its
author. He believes that the medium, in which the poet has been composed, is
worthy of our appreciation. When the question of the medium arises, mind of the
mature poet differs from that of the immature poet. Certainly, the mind of
mature poet can present a more finely perfected medium in which special or very
varied, feelings are at liberty to enter into new combinations.
Elements of the Catalyst:
It is an experience that is reacted or brought into action by the transferring
catalyst. The elements of the experience, or the elements that work and are
transformed by the catalyst, are of two kinds- emotions and feelings. An
experience that has been acquired from the effect of a work is different from the
ordinary ones. All of them are created out of words, structure, pattern or
medium. Emotions and feelings are produced from particular words, phrases or
images. A work of art may be formed of out of one emotion or may be a
combination of several. It may be formed out of various feelings produced by
particular words, phrases or images. Poetry may be made out of emotions and
feelings together or out of either. Great poetry may be made without the direct
use of any emotion whatever composed out of feelings only. Emotion and feeling
are combined to create the great poetry. The poet’s mind is only a container. Eliot
writes:
The poet’s mind is in fact a receptacle for seizing and storing up numberless
feelings, phrases, images which remain there until all the particles which can unite
to form a new compound are present together.
Medium and Personality:
There is a remarkable statement that Eliot makes about the medium. He says that
it is not the “greatness”, the intensity of the emotions, the components, but the
intensity of the artistic process, the pressure under which the fusion takes place,
is important. The artistic process is the medium which is also a base of literary
works. Usually a work of poetry may have a definite emotion, but the intensity of
the poetry is something quite different from whatever intensity, in the supposed
experience it may give the impression. John Keats’s The Ode to the Nightingale
has number of feelings which have nothing particular to do with the nightingale.
Yet the attractive name of nightingale and its reputation can be seen serving to
bring the feeling and bird together.
Eliot has attacked the metaphysical theory of the substantial unity of the soul. It
refers to the theory that the soul is no one with God and free of the quirks and
accidents of personality the metaphysical theory refers to 17 th century’s English
poets who blended emotion with intellectual ingenuity. He denies that there is
substantial unity of the soul. This unity means that man’s soul is one with God.
“Personality” has nothing to do with the particular medium of poetry. He says
that the poet has not a “personality” to express. The poet has particular medium
in which impressions and experiences combine in peculiar and unexpected ways.
It is not in his personal emotions, the emotions provided by particular events in
his life, that the poet is anyway remarkable or interesting. The emotion in poetry
can be complex thing quite different from personal ones.
Eliot presents few lines of a passage from The Revenger’s Tragedy (1607) by
English playwright Cyril Tourneur (1580-1626) in which he shows how there is a
combination of positive and negative emotions. There is an intensely strong
attraction toward beauty and an equality intense fascination by the ugliness
which is contrasted with it and which destroys it. A number of feelings have
relation with emotion.
Poetry-Escape from Emotion:
The business of the poet is not to find new emotions, but to use the ordinary ones
and, in working them up into poetry, to express feelings which are not in actual
emotions at all. Emotions which have never experienced will serve his turn as well
as those familiar to him. Eliot goes against William Wordsworth, who has said that
“poetry takes its origin from emotion recollected in tranquility”. He says that we
can’t believe that poetry is emotion recollected in tranquility. There is neither
emotion, nor recollection, nor without distortion, tranquility. There is a great deal
in the writing of poetry, which must be conscious and deliberate. In fact, the bad
poet is usually unconscious where he ought to be conscious. Both errors tend to
make him “personal”. Poetry is not a turning loose of emotion; it is not the
expression of personality, but an escape from personality. Eliot concludes that the
emotion of art is impersonal, the poet cannot reach this impersonality without
surrendering himself wholly to the work to be done, and for he must be conscious
of the past and present.
Eliot’s Rhetoric:
T.S Eliot is himself alert with a sense of history of English literature. He says that
present works may modify or alter past works as the past works as much as the
past works due to the present works. Eliot’s consciousness towards tradition and
the individual talent has resulted in the formation of the intelligent literary
criticism. He usually defines a term and continues his analysis of the term. He
makes the argument and gives his own conclusion. He is seen sometimes
concerned with tradition, then with individual talent next with experience or
emotion and finally with the conscious or unconscious mind. Every point has been
given with special attention and ended with the conclusion. It is interesting that
single issue has been illustrated in every paragraph. He moves carefully from
point to point. Allusions to Virgil, Dante, Shakespeare and Wordsworth have
added historical sense to the text.
One interesting style he has used in the text is the use of pithy maxims or
aphorisms. There are several memorable sentences or phrases used in the text.
Such remarkable sentences can’t escape from eyes of readers of criticism-
 Every nation, every race, has not only its own creative but its own critical
turn of mind.
 The progress of the artist is a continual self-sacrifice, a continual extinction
of personality.
 Poetry is not a turning loose of emotion, but an escape from emotion.
Eliot is able, like Francis Bacon, to produce more meaning from few words. His
criticism of critics is noteworthy for all kinds of readers, especially of literature.
Implications of Literary Criticism:
“Tradition and the Individual Talent” has had a profound impact on literary
criticism. Eliot’s emphasis on the importance of historical context has led to
greater appreciation of the interconnectedness of literary works. Critics have also
become more attuned to the subtle ways in which individual talent interacts with
tradition to produce unique and innovative works of art. However, Eliot’s
emphasis on the impersonal nature of art has also been subject to criticism. Some
argue that it undervalues the role of personal experience and emotion in artistic
creation. Others contend that it can lead to an overly intellectualized and
formalistic approach to literature, neglecting the emotional and human
dimensions of art.

CONCLUSION:
Eliot presents views that a poet’s mind works as a catalyst and experiences are
the materials of combination. For an experience as materials, he gives two other
elements- emotions and feelings- which he believes that “emotion recollected in
tranquility” is an inexact formula. He says that there is a great deal in the writing
of poetry which must be conscious and deliberate. Poetry is not a turning loose of
motion, but an escape from emotion; it is not the expression of personality, but
an escape from personality. The emotion of art is impersonal. The poet cannot
reach this impersonality without surrendering himself wholly to the work to be
done.