Tradition, Historical Sense, and the Escape from Personality: A Study of T. S. Eliot’s Critical Theory
1. How would you like to explain Eliot's concept of 'Tradition'? Do you agree with it? What do you understand by 'Historical Sense'? (Use these quotes to explain your understanding.)- "The historical sense involves a perception, not only of the pastness of the past but of its presence."
- This 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.
The Past Has a Presence: T.S. Eliot's Radical Theory of Time and Tradition
We tend to view the past as a finished story, a distant country confined to history books and archives. But what if that view is wrong? The influential poet T.S. Eliot offered a radical idea that shatters this separation, arguing that the past has a tangible and powerful "presence" in our now .
Eliot’s Concept of Tradition
In his seminal essay “Tradition and the Individual Talent” (1919), T. S. Eliot radically redefines the idea of tradition. For Eliot, tradition is not the mechanical inheritance or blind imitation of past writers. Rather, it is an active, intellectual, and disciplined engagement with the entire literary past of Europe. Tradition, in Eliot’s view, must be earned through rigorous study and conscious awareness.
Eliot insists that a true poet writes with an understanding that the present work exists in constant dialogue with past literature. Every new work slightly alters the existing order of literature, just as the past shapes the present poem. Thus, tradition is dynamic, not static.
The Concept of Historical Sense
Eliot’s notion of historical sense is central to his understanding of tradition. He defines it as:
“The historical sense involves a perception, not only of the pastness of the past but of its presence.”
This means that the past is not dead or remote; it actively coexists with the present. A poet must feel the presence of Homer, Dante, Shakespeare, and the entire literary tradition while writing. The past lives on in forms, themes, symbols, and structures that continue to shape modern literature.
Eliot further elaborates:
“This 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.”
Here, Eliot suggests that a great writer is one who can unite the timeless (universal human experiences) with the temporal (the concerns of the present age). The poet must balance continuity and innovation—respecting tradition while also contributing something new.
Tradition and the Individual Talent
Eliot emphasizes that individuality in poetry does not come from rejecting the past, but from absorbing it so fully that the poet’s originality emerges naturally. The poet’s task is not self-expression in a romantic sense, but the transformation of personal emotions into universal art, shaped by tradition.
Thus, tradition becomes a framework within which creativity operates, rather than a constraint.
Do I Agree with Eliot’s View?
I largely agree with Eliot’s concept of tradition because it emphasizes discipline, intellectual responsibility, and continuity in literature. His idea prevents superficial originality and encourages writers to see themselves as part of a larger literary continuum.
However, Eliot’s theory has limitations. It privileges the Western literary canon, often marginalizing non-European, oral, or marginalized traditions. In a postcolonial and multicultural context, tradition must be understood as plural rather than singular.
Being 'traditional' isn't about copying the past; it's about seeing all of time at once.
This unique "historical sense" is the very foundation of what makes a writer truly "traditional." This redefines tradition not as nostalgic imitation, but as the difficult awareness required to channel the universal human cry (the timeless) through the specific, flawed microphone of one's present moment (the temporal).
"This 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."
This framework completely upends the modern conflict between originality and tradition. In a cultural landscape saturated with remakes and sequels, Eliot's idea suggests that genuine originality doesn't come from rejecting the past, but from engaging with it so deeply that you alter its composition. True artistic innovation is impossible without this profound dialogue with tradition, because it is only by understanding the entire structure that one can hope to meaningfully add to it.
* Explain: "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".
* Explain: "Honest criticism and sensitive appreciation are directed not upon the poet but upon the poetry."
1. Relationship between “Tradition” and “Individual Talent”
For T. S. Eliot, tradition and individual talent are not opposites; they exist in a dynamic, reciprocal relationship.
Tradition
Eliot does not define tradition as blind imitation of the past. Instead, tradition is:
-
A historical sense: awareness of the entire literary past as a living presence
-
A recognition that past and present modify each other
A poet must feel that:
“the whole of the literature of Europe… has a simultaneous existence and composes a simultaneous order.”
Individual Talent
Individual talent lies in:
-
Contributing something new
-
Writing poetry that rearranges the existing order of tradition
When a new poem is created:
-
It must conform to tradition
-
At the same time, tradition itself is altered by the new work
Relationship Explained
-
Tradition gives the poet discipline, standards, and continuity
-
Individual talent gives tradition renewal and vitality
True originality, according to Eliot, comes not from rejecting the past, but from entering deeply into it and transforming it.
2. Explanation of the Shakespeare–Plutarch Quote
“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.”
Meaning
Eliot contrasts:
-
Natural intellectual absorption vs.
-
Laborious, mechanical learning
Shakespeare did not read extensively like a modern scholar, yet:
-
He absorbed essential historical and human truths
-
He transformed Plutarch’s historical narratives into living drama
Key Implications
-
Creative genius does not depend on quantity of information
-
What matters is the capacity to internalize and transform knowledge
-
Tradition is not memorized—it is digested
Eliot suggests that a poet’s relationship to tradition is organic, not academic.
3. Explanation of the Quote on Criticism and Poetry
“Honest criticism and sensitive appreciation are directed not upon the poet but upon the poetry.”
Core Idea: Depersonalization of Art
Eliot argues that poetry should be judged:
-
Not by the poet’s biography
-
Not by personal emotions or intentions
-
But by the poem as an independent artistic object
Why This Matters
-
The poet’s feelings are merely raw material
-
The finished poem has an objective existence
-
Art transcends the personality of its creator
This view challenges Romantic ideas that poetry is self-expression.
Eliot insists that:
The poet’s personality must be extinguished, not expressed.
Critical Consequence
-
Literary criticism should focus on:
-
Language
-
Form
-
Imagery
-
Structure
-
-
Not on the poet’s life or psychology
4. Concluding Insight
Eliot’s essay reshapes modern literary criticism by asserting that:
-
Tradition disciplines individual talent
-
Individual talent revitalizes tradition
-
Poetry stands apart from the poet
-
Criticism must be objective and text-centered
This framework became foundational to Modernism and New Criticism, moving literary studies away from biography toward close reading.
3.How would you like to explain Eliot's theory of depersonalization? You can explain this with the help of a chemical reaction in the presence of a catalyst agent, platinum.
Eliot’s Theory of Depersonalization (Using the Chemical Catalyst Analogy)
T. S. Eliot explains his theory of depersonalization most famously in “Tradition and the Individual Talent.” According to Eliot, great poetry is created when the poet’s personal emotions and personality are suppressed, allowing the poem to exist as an independent artistic object.
The Chemical Reaction Analogy (Platinum Catalyst)
Eliot compares the poetic process to a chemical reaction:
-
Imagine a container with oxygen and sulphur dioxide.
-
When a platinum catalyst is introduced, these gases combine to form sulphurous acid.
-
Platinum itself remains unchanged—it does not become part of the final product.
In the same way, the poet’s mind acts as a catalyst:
-
Personal feelings, experiences, and emotions are present.
-
But they undergo transformation through tradition, form, and intellect.
-
The final poem is impersonal, not a direct outpouring of the poet’s emotions.
-
The poet, like platinum, remains separate from the poem.
Thus, poetry is not autobiography; it is an artistic transmutation of emotion.
Explanation of the Quotation
“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 does not deny emotion in poetry. Instead, he argues:
-
Poetry does not release raw, personal emotion.
-
It organizes emotion into a disciplined artistic form.
-
The poet must distance personal feelings to achieve universality.
-
True poetry moves readers not because it is personal, but because it is impersonal and objective.
In short:
-
Emotion → controlled, refined, universal
-
Personality → absorbed into tradition and form
Two Critical Points on T. S. Eliot as a Critic
1. Overemphasis on Impersonality
Eliot’s insistence on depersonalization has been criticized for:
-
Undervaluing emotion, imagination, and personal experience.
-
Neglecting Romantic and confessional modes of poetry.
-
Ignoring the fact that many powerful poems emerge directly from personal suffering or identity.
Critics argue that complete impersonality is neither possible nor desirable.
2. Elitism and Narrow Canon Formation
As a critic, Eliot:
-
Privileged European classical and Christian traditions.
-
Marginalized non-Western, popular, and experimental voices.
-
Set rigid standards that later critics saw as exclusive and hierarchical.
This makes Eliot’s criticism influential but also restrictive and culturally selective.
Comments
Post a Comment