Tradition and the Individual Talent: An Essay

by T.S. Eliot

a selection from the In English writing we seldom speak of tradition, though we occasionally apply its name in deploring its absence. We cannot refer to ?the tradition? or to ?a tradition?; at most, we employ the adjective in saying that the poetry of So-and-so is ?traditional? or even ?too traditional.? Seldom, perhaps, does the word appear except in a phrase of censure. If otherwise, it is vaguely approbative, with the implication, as to the work approved, of some pleasing arch?ological reconstruction. You can hardly make the word agreeable to English ears without this comfortable reference to the reassuring science of arch?ology. Certainly the word is not likely to appear in our appreciations of living or dead writers. Every nation, every race, has not only its own creative, but its own critical turn of mind; and is even more oblivious of the shortcomings and limitations of its critical habits than of those of its creative genius. We know, or think we know, from the enormous mass of critical writing that has appeared in the French language the critical method or habit of the French; we only conclude (we are such unconscious people) that the French are ?more critical? than we, and sometimes even plume ourselves a little with the fact, as if the French were the less spontaneous. Perhaps they are; but we might remind ourselves that criticism is as inevitable as breathing, and that we should be none the worse for articulating what passes in our minds when we read a book and feel an emotion about it, for criticizing our own minds in their work of criticism. 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 endeavour to find something that can be isolated in order to be enjoyed. Whereas if we approach a poet without this prejudice 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. And I do not mean the impressionable period of adolescence, but the period of full maturity.

Genres: Nonfiction, Essays, Literary Criticism, Classics, Poetry, Philosophy, School

130 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 1919

About the author

Thomas Stearns Eliot was a poet, dramatist and literary critic. He received the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1948 "for his outstanding, pioneer contribution to present-day poetry." He wrote the poems The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock, The Waste Land, The Hollow Men, Ash Wednesday, and Four Quartets; the plays Murder in the Cathedral and The Cocktail Party; and the essay Tradition and the Individual Talent. Eliot was born an American, moved to the United Kingdom in 1914 (at the age of 25), and became a British subject in 1927 at the age of 39.

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T.S._Eliot

Reviews

[Momina · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really liked this essay! Eliot talks of two things here:

1) The importance of "tradition" i.e. all the literature of the past and how its knowledge is necessary for any true artist.

2) The Impersonal theory i.e. the remoteness that must exist between an artist and his art. Eliot says:

... the more perfect the artist, the more completely separate in him will be the man who suffers and the mind which creates...

Out of the death of the author can the text find its own life and by suggesting this, he seems to have been prophetic of the New Critics of the modern time who believe in the hermeneutic autonomy of the text. Also, Eliot argues against the Romantic theory of poetry established by Wordsworth and the dictum:

Poetry is the spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings.

For Eliot:

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.

I might not agree completely but Eliot argues well and very eloquently. This is one great thing about these poet-critics: they write especially well even on seemingly trying topics. Eliot reconciles the above-mentioned points by arguing that the knowledge, understanding and reverence of the past will help the artist develop a consciousness larger and wider than his own and he will, thus, lose his narrow "individuality" and will gain a better, a more wider, a more significant and powerful individuality. He will become a "receptacle", a catalyst, a medium rather than a conscious human being writing for the catharsis of his own very personal feelings. And this is how the individual must die for the artist/art to be born.

This reminded me of Gadamer and his concept of Bildung and, though this kind of reasoning is subtle and often self-contradictory, it is still convincing and interesting enough for deliberation.

Anyways for a mere essay, this is very thought-provoking and interesting and it is recommended to all those who have an interest in literary theory.

[Basilius · Rating 5 out of 5]

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, of course, only those who have personality and emotions know what it means to want to escape from these things.

I’m told T.S. Eliot remains the most important Anglo-American poet-critic of the twentieth century. Which is curious, given how little poetry or criticism he’s written. To test this claim I’ve started reading a few of his essays on literary theory, to start: Tradition and the Individual Talent. I was also told, though not part of the movement himself, that Eliot’s writings heavily influenced the New Critics, an important theory school of the early twentieth century. The school emphasizes a book’s text over its author or audience, particularly its technical structure over its “meaning” or “purpose.” I don’t know about all that, but I do know Eliot’s essay is spectacular, and makes me excited to study him further.

The essay is in three parts, but as part three is an abstract summary, we’ll look at the first two. The crux of the entire piece is that a serious artist must study history, or his artistic heritage, in order to produce meaningful work. In the process he’ll find himself subsumed into history, where self-surrender will best allow him to complete his task.

The first part, while making safer claims than the second, is pure gold. Eliot argues that tradition is not something merely inherited, but earned through continual study. And why study history? A few reasons, the chief being that an artist cannot create something original if he does not know what came before, and art is not art if it’s not new. He cannot know what part of the past is past, and which still informs the present. He cannot know where he stands in the scheme of things. He cannot escape the judgment of history, so he must acquaint himself with the judges. And the truth of the matter is that the individual’s mind pales in comparison to the rich legacy of his culture, the (in Eliot’s case) “mind of Europe.” All very fine, but doesn’t this seem a bit harsh? Surely we can say something in defense of the “new”? Absolutely! Eliot argues this relationship is so important because it’s reciprocal. Just as the past informs the present, so must the present alter the past. In other words, once a genuine work of art enters history, it nudges, every so politely, everything that ever came before it. A meaningful creation both incorporates and defines history. In this way Eliot is celebrating both novelty and conformity. He wants artists to incorporate all that’s great in their tradition, while adding something unique to challenge it. The past needs us just as much as we need it.

Eliot’s second point is a bit more daring, and one that critics still debate. While outlining the artist and tradition relationship in the first portion, he now claims that it’s in the artist’s best interest to subsume his personality into his creation. That rather than art being a conduit for an artist-audience connection, we should instead privilege the artistic creation itself. After all, it’s neither the author’s ability to feel or think that’s unique, nor is it the reader’s ability, but the real miracle here is the poem’s mechanisms. The poetic machine—in which the artist’s life is merely a component (and not a focus)—is what creates wonder. Thus any arrogance on the part of the poet, or critic, to celebrate or attribute sublimity to the author, as being transferred to the audience, is strongly challenged. Eliot seems to be championing artifice over nature; rhetoric over truth. An artist is also seemingly subsumed into his own art, as his greatest purpose to develop the invention to its fullest potential. Likewise with the reader. It doesn’t really matter, per se, what the audience feels: it may or may not be unique or intended. The important thing is that the art itself is studied, as that’s what produces effect (or appreciation, or understanding). The artistic object inhales real world emotions/thoughts and exhales a completely new and unique experience, which cannot be accessed anywhere else in our world. Our focus should be on that wondrous device, not ourselves.

This is a powerful argument, by no means indisputable but strong enough to set the terms for further discussion. Off the bat I would challenge a number of claims in the second part, though the first is pretty tough to counter. What I love most is how Eliot manages to elevate the status of the individual while paradoxically advocating his self-effacement; one defines history and creates art (self-actualize) only if they are willing to absolve themselves of personality and emotion (in the artistic process). A mature opinion that’s tough to swallow.

[Samuel · Rating 4 out of 5]

MOJE HODNOTENIE
Krátka esej T.S.Eliota je skvelým príspevkom do debaty o dôležitosti tradície, o tom, čo to je tradícia a prečo je pre umelca (básnika) dôležitá. Nemusíme s mnohými Eliotovými tvrdeniami súhlasiť. Že umelec by nemal vyjadrovať svoje emócie? Že by nemal vyjadrovať svoju osobnosť? Určite sú to dôležité podnety na zamyslenie. Čo sa týka tradície, myslím si, že je jeho esej veľmi aktuálna a pokým ešte Eliota neodsúdili za niečo, čo dnes už nie je v móde, tak si myslím, že sa oplatí ju čítať. Je krátka, celkom v pohode sa číta. Občas by si zaslúžila viac konkrétnosti.

O AUTOROVI
T.S.Eliot je jedným z tých básnikov, ktorých by som si chcel niekedy prečítať. Pustatina vyšla aj v slovenčine, tak snáď inokedy. Roger Scruton o Elitovi napísal skvelú esej a tá taktiež vyšla v slovenčine v Impulze Na margo eseje Scruton píše: Za zmienku stojí ešte jedna esej zo zbierky The Sacred Wood, totiž esej Tradition and the Individual Talent (Tradícia a individuálny talent), v ktorej Eliot zavádza pojem, ktorý najlepšie zhŕňa jeho príspevok k politickému vedomiu dvadsiateho storočia: tradícia. V tejto eseji Eliot tvrdí, že skutočná originálnosť je možná len v rámci tradície – a ďalej, že každú tradíciu musí prepracovať skutočný umelec v samom akte tvorby niečoho nového. Tradícia je živá vec, a rovnako ako každý autor je posudzovaný v kontexte svojich predchodcov, tak sa aj význam tradície mení, ako sa k nej pridávajú nové diela. A bola to táto literárna idea živej tradície, ktorá mala postupne preniknúť Eliotovo myslenie a vytvoriť jadro jeho sociálnej a politickej filozofie.

O ESEJI
Eliot odmieta slepé nasledovanie minulých autorov. Tradíciu podľa neho nemožno len tak zdediť, ale ak ju chceme, dosiahneme ju len tvrdou prácou. Tradícia v prvom rade obsahuje "historický zmysel", ktorý zahŕňa nie len vnímanie minulosti minulého a aj jeho prítomnosť. "Historický zmysel núti človeka písať s pocitom, že všetka Európska literatúra už od Homéra a majúc sama v sebe celú literatúru svojej krajiny má simultánnu existenciu a vytvára simultánny poriadok. Tento zmysel je zmyslom pre nadčasovosť rovnako ako súčasnosť a on robí autora tradičným."

Podľa Eliota žiaden básnik či umelec vo všeobecnosti nemá význam sám o sebe. Jeho ocenenie je relatívne, závislé na už mŕtvych autoroch. Musíme ho postaviť do svetla tradície. Musíme ho porovnať s mŕtvymi. Umelec si musí byť vedomý, že bude hodnotený na základe štandardov minulosti. Hodnotený v zmysle porovnania. Samozrejme, ak by nové dielo "len" vyhovelo, nevyhovovalo by vôbec, nebolo by nové, a vlastne by to ani nebolo umením. Významom vyhovenia je test hodnôt diela, ktorý má byť pomalý a precízne aplikovaný, pretože nikto nie je neomylným kritikom konformity diela.

Básnik si má byť vedomý hlavného prúdu. Musí si byť vedomý faktu, že umenie sa nezlepšuje, mení sa len materiál umenia. A hlavne si musí byť vedomý, že myseľ Európy - myseľ jeho krajiny - ktorej sa učí v tradícii, je dôležitejšia ako jeho osobná súkromná myseľ. Je to myseľ ktorá sa mení a vyvíja, ale ktorá nepošle do dôchodku Homéra ani Shakespeara. Niektorí ľudia, podľa Eliota, hovoria, že mŕtvi autori môžu zapadnúť prachom, pretože my už vieme oveľa viac ako oni, vieme, čo oni nevedeli. Eliot na to hovorí, že áno, vieme, viac ako oni, ale práve preto, že vieme aj o nich. Autor si má vybudovať vedomie minulosti a toto vedomie zveľaďovať počas celej kariéry.

Jedným z najodvážnejších Eliotových tvrdení je, že umelec kontinuálne obetúva seba pre niečo väčšie, hodnotenie, pre tradíciu. Vývoj umelca je neprestajné sebaobetovanie, v ktorom sa umelec vzdáva vlastnej osobnosti.

Myseľ vyspelého básnika sa líši od nevyspelého práve v tomto prístupe k vlastnej osobnosti. Nie v tom, že by bola zaujímavejšia, alebo by mala viac čo povedať, ale v tom, že táto osobnosť je lepšie vypracované médium, v ktorom rôznorodé pocity majú slobodu vstúpiť do nových kombinácií a vyjadrení. Myseľ básnika môže pracovať len so skúsenosťami básnika samotného, ale tým lepším je umelec, čím viac dokáže odseparovať seba ako trpiaceho človeka a svoju myseľ, ktorá tvorí a tým lepšie dokáže táto myseľ spracovať vášne, s ktorými pracuje.

Eliot považuje myseľ umelca za nádobu, v ktorej sa zhromažďujú pocity, nálady, frázy, obrazy až pokým všetky časti, ktoré sú schopné vytvoriť nový prvok, nie sú pokope. Básnik nie je človek, ktorý má vyjadriť svoju osobnosť, ale je médium, skrze ktoré sa dojmy a zážitky zjednotia a vyjadria v určitých nepredvídateľných spôsoboch. Dojmy a skúsenosti, ktoré sú dôležité pre básnika, nepatria do jeho poézie a tie, ktoré sa objavia v jeho poézii, môžu byť zanedbateľné pre neho osobne. Umelec nie je zaujímavý tým, že dokáže vyjadriť svoje pocity a nálady, ale že dokáže vyjadriť všeobecné pocity a nálady novým spôsobom.

Eliot kritizuje aj iný neduh poézie a umenia, a síce hľadanie nových emócií, ktoré by umenie vyjadrilo. Úlohou umelca nemá byť hľadanie nových emócii, ale vedieť vyjadriť bežné emócie novým spôsobom alebo vyjadriť pocity, ktoré sa nedajú zachytiť emóciami. Poézia nie je neusporiadaný prúd emócií, ale únik od emócií. Nie je vyjadrením osobnosti, ale únikom od vlastnej osobnosti. Ale samozrejme, len tí, čo majú emócie a osobnosť vedia, čo to znamená chcieť uniknúť od nich.

[木漏れ日 · Rating 4 out of 5]

Eloquent insights from Eliot about the nature and role of the poet—and artist more broadly—under the sun.

"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. You cannot value him alone; you must set him, for contrast and comparison, among the dead."

[Stef · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very concise, yet thorough examination of poetics that absolutely must be taken in the context of the Modernist movement. This essay helped to establish Eliot's role as poetic critic, and provides thoughtful commentary on how to judge poet and poem separately, and in proper context.

Looks at identifying the poet's place in history, the place of emotion vs. feeling in a poem, the duty of poet to himself and his reader, and the necessity of "depersonalization."

[Katarína Valasová · Rating 5 out of 5]

Táto esejka ma prefackala o 23:15 lepšie ako doppio!! Odporúčam ju najmä tým, ktorí píšu alebo o tom vytrvalo uvažujú!

[Leland · Rating 3 out of 5]

A seminal essay in literary criticism. T.S. Eliot outlines his impersonal theory of poetry, which is essentially a critique of Romanticism and a precursor to New Criticism and structuralism.

There are two main parts. The first outlines how Eliot feels the modern poet sits in relation to tradition. It is important to point out that for Eliot tradition is not static. It is something which develops and changes. To mature, a poet must become increasingly aware of both their contemporaneity and the history of the medium they are working in. As this occurs the poet should experience what Eliot calls an "extinction of personality" as their personal thoughts and feelings disappear and they become a mere vessel in service of working with and developing tradition.

The second uses the scientific process of catalysis as a metaphor to describe the processes which govern this. If you mix oxygen and sulphur dioxide in the presence of platinum (a catalyst) it will produce sulphurous acid. By analogy, if you mix tradition with the thoughts and impressions stored in a poet's mind (also a catalyst) it will produce an altered tradition. Just as there is no trace of the catalyst platinum left in sulphurous acid, there is no trace of the poet's mind in tradition. Scientifically, I don't know how analogous the catalyst metaphor truly is, but as something which accounts for tradition in a manner which resembles the Hegelian dialectic it remains of interest.

Eliot's goal in Tradition and the Individual Talent is to draw attention to the poetry rather than the poet. It is in this way it was influential to New Criticism which privileged the text and close reading over just about everything else. It was also influential to structuralism in that Eliot insisted that emotions are caused by structural elements of the text, and to this end, he spends some time criticizing Romanticist views on emotions and the Sublime. He felt that in depersonalization art may be said to approach the condition of science, which would become the trend for much of early to mid 20th century poetry and criticism. It is important essay for these reasons but one I feel has been supplanted by later developments.

[Mary Tsiara · Rating 4 out of 5]

We are such unconscious people — criticism is as inevitable as breathing; [ yet ] ...only those who have personality and emotions know what it means to want to escape from these things
Exploring the idea of revival from the perspective of emotion, an emotion which 'has its life in the poem and not in the history of the poet'; and yet the poet must be fully conscious of the threads linking him to his predecessors, for history means judgement, and judgement is comparison. The 'escape' that is the successful conveyance of meaning can only be achieved through impersonality, of being aware, 'not of what is dead, but of what is already living'. So many principles of creative writing and poetry into play in this short essay. I have seen it quoted often in posthumanist studies, especially because it encloses this exploration of nonlinearity when it comes to identifying the human element in creation and art.

[Andy Zhang · Rating 5 out of 5]

Tradition is a matter of much wider significance. It cannot be inherited, and if you want it you must obtain it by great labour. It involves, in the first place, the historical sense, which we may call nearly indispensable to any one who would continue to be a poet beyond his twenty-fifth year; and the historical sense involves a perception, not only of the pastness of the past, but of its presence; the historical sense compels 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 a simultaneous existence and composes a simultaneous order. 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. And it is at the same time what makes a writer most acutely conscious of his place in time, of his own contemporaneity.

[Cipi · Rating 3 out of 5]

You can't escape the matrix. Everything has already been written. You're the sum of everyone and everything that's been before you. And you gotta do some work, gotta sweat, gotta accept the fact that all of that follows you and it's stuck somewhere in the back of your mind. If you get to know your history, our history, the universal one, you become part of the Tradition. You are the Tradition. And it's good. It's perfect. It's a sense of belonging.
Of course, you can still be original, and so on. But only by contributing to the Tradition. We've already discussed this, you are part of it and you can't get away from it. So don't be scared. Try to embrace it. And be smart. Contribute to it. It's wonderful to know that, even when you're unconscious of it, Homer and Dante and Shakespeare and Flaubert and Neruda are all present, right next to you, at every moment. They're not laughing at you for not being valuable, but are trying to express themselves through you, over and over, in a new way. You are the Inovation. You are the continuation of the Tradition. Speak your own language. Hug the legacy. It's proud of you.

[☀️Mehraveh · Rating 4 out of 5]

" 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, which we may call nearly indispensable to any one who would continue to be a poet beyond his twenty-fifth year; and the historical sense involves a perception, not only of the pastness of the past, but of its presence."

"In fact, the bad poet is usually unconscious where he ought to be conscious, and conscious where he ought to be unconscious. Both errors tend to make him “personal.” 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."

[Ada Bărbulescu · Rating 5 out of 5]

"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, of course, only those who have personality and emotions know what it means to want to escape from these things."

[T. Sendi · Rating 4 out of 5]

“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.”

“Poetry is not a turning loose of emotions, but an escape from emotion”

[Anne Oftedahl · Rating 3 out of 5]

Read as research for my Language-Writing-Reading essay

[Ivana · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a very enjoyable read. I do not completely agree with Eliot's view of a poet. However, there are some points I will most certainly remember!

[River · Rating 1 out of 5]

it oozed with classism :(

[Preetam Chatterjee · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Tradition and Individual Talent" is the essay of lasting significance in the history of modern criticism. The essay brought into being two principal aspects of Eliot's critical domain,

1) Tradition and impersonality in art and
2) Poetry, that rated over the realm of criticism.

The essay also brings forth Eliot's views on the inter-relation between traditional and individual talent. The essay brought into being the new approach with poets of everlasting significance and it also provided the parameters for the assessment of the genius and the shortcomings of the masters but contributed to the history of English Literature.

The idea of tradition with all its magnificence has a meaning beyond the conservative sense of term. It begins with a historical sense and goes on acquiring new dimensions along political and cultural dimension, and this creates a system of axes for the assessment of the worth and genius of a poet.

The idea of Eliot's theory of tradition is based on the inevitable phenomenon of the continuity of the values during the process called civilization, Eliot beings with a description that makes tradition a term of abuse and develops to metaphor of unquestionable authenticity.

"Seldom perhaps”, he says, “does the word appear except in a phrase of censure.” He further says: “You can hardly make the word agreeable to English cars without this comfortable reference to the reassuring science of archaeology.”

The above quoted lines from one of the most celebrated critical endeavours make it clear that Eliot aims at developing a new concept and structuring a new approach to the very phenomenon called poetry. Eliot, after beginning with the seemingly derogatory implications of the term imparts a new meaning and magnificence to the term when he identifies tradition with historical sense.

The identification discussed above makes it clear that the tradition according to Eliot is something more than mere conglomeration of dead works. The identification of tradition with historical sense serves to approve the stature of tradition in assessing the works and function of pets and poetry.

He elaborates the idea of historical sense and says: “and the historical sense invokes a perception not only of the partners of the past, but also of its presence. The historical sense compels a man to write not merely with his own generation in his bones, but with a feeling that whole of the literature of Europe from Homer and within it the whole of the literature of his own country has a simultaneous existence and composes a simultaneous order.”

Eliot in the above quoted line puts forth a vibrant exhibition of tradition which shapes the minds of different poets of different generation. Eliot also inkles that the poet's conformity into tradition is an act of rigorous intellectual efforts that constitute a poet in him. Eliot further defines the idea of historical sense and says:

The historical sense which is a sense of the timeless as well as of the temporal, and of timeless and temporal together, is what makes a writer tradition.

“And it is at the same time what makes a writer most acute by conscious of his place in time of his contemporaneity.”

The excerpt from the essay makes it clear that Eliot pus the whole term in a much wider context than it is otherwise used before. Eliot takes tradition to be an embodiment of alues and beliefs shared by a race which leads to the idea that there is a process of natural selection and rejection.

The values and the belief that die with the passage of time are subject to rejection. The values and beliefs that constitute the tradition are living one with capacity of mutual interaction. The old and the new interpenetrate and this interpenetration results into a new order defined in terms of the simultaneous existence of the values of the past and the present. The survival of past ratifies the presentness of it.

The instantaneous existence of the past and the present, of the old and the new. It is, thus evident that the poet is guided chiefly by the dynamics of the tradition.

Eliot further elaborates: “No poet, no artist has a complete meaning alone. His significance, his appreciation in the appreciation of his relation to the dead poets and artists. You cannot value him alone, you must set him from contrast and comparison among the dead.”

Eliot reaffirms that the poet, in order to survive as a poet must invite close contrast and comparison with the dead poets. Unless, a poet is capable of doing that he ceases to matter in the history of poetry Richard Shusterman rightly observes: that the enduring demands preserved in a tradition make it capable of functioning as a synchronized structural system.

Raman Selden observes that "the standard theories of literature often combine these apparently disparate modes of thinking. It is remarkable that these apparently disparate modes of thinking are disciplined by values.

The relation between the new work of art and the tradition is another very complex idea enshrined in the essay. It is however, true that the complete meaning of the poet is realized through his relationship with the tradition, but the importance of individual talent cannot be set aside in a discussion on the Eliot's poetics. It is again noteworthy that the tradition and- individual talent are not at a sharp contrast with each other, but they are mutually complimentary.

Eliot conceives tradition- and individual talent as unifiable and shows that the two have an equally important role to play in poetic creation. The views of Jean Michael Rabate capture our attention. He commenting on the function of historical sense in the caste of an individual talent says:

This requires that the "bones" belong to the individual who recomposes simultaneity at every moment without losing a combination of the timeless and the merely temporal.

Individual talent is needed to acquire the sense of tradition. Eliot lays good emphasis on the idea of interactivity between the tradition and individual talent. If the individual talent needs to acquire tradition, then the individual talent in turn modifies tradition. Eliot ratifies the dynamic nature of tradition.

Eliot's view on tradition paves way for the theorization of the impersonality in art and poetry. Divergent views about Eliot's theory of objectivity have been discussed, but it is observed that critics tend to generalize the theory to a common experience. It is noticeable that the impersonality that Eliot discusses in his criticism does not imply a mechanical objectivity of a hoarding painter, but, it owes its genesis to the personality that emerges out of the creative personality of the poet.

It is understandable that Eliot denies an outright and blind adherence to some peculiar faiths and belief, but emancipation from what is very personal on peculiar. He says: the poet has not a personality to express but a particular medium, which is only a medium and not a personality, in which impressions and experience combine in a peculiar and unexpected ways. Impressions and experiences which are important for the man may take no place in the poetry, and those important in the poetry may play quite a negligible part in the man, the personality.

It is clear from the above quotation that Eliot lays heavy stress on the two different aspects of a creator what he is as an individual and at the same time what he is as a creator. It is an easy inference from the above equation that Eliot's to his critical theories discards the emotion of strictly personal significance and centers his ideals on the transformation of what is personal, but something of universal significance.

The above quoted excerpts from "Tradition and Individual Talent" put forth a belligerently anti-romantic view of poetry which lays emphasis on poetry and discards the very idea of the personality of the poet. It is obligatory to remember Aristotle as this point of time who, against all odds takes 'plot' to be the 'soul of the tragedy and claims that "there can be tragedy than a character but not without a plot.

Eliot in these lines discovers a new possibility of a universal meaning, which free from the whims and eccentricities of the poet and has a wider significance. The comparison made out by Eliot between the mind of the poet and the catalyst in a chemical reaction further confirms the point of view. He says:

When the two gases, previously mentioned are mixed in the presence of a filament of platinum they form sulphurous acid. This combination takes place, only if the platinum is present, nevertheless the newly formed acid contains no trace of platinum, and the platinum itself is apparently unaffected.

The analogy that Eliot puts forth makes it clear that the poetry is something entirely different from what is the personal identity of the poet. This is principally the reason that Eliot, all along the length and breadth of his critical writings, makes frequent use of terms like 'transmate', 'transform", "digest", etc. He further suggests:

“... but 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…”

[Shiva · Rating 5 out of 5]

For now I can just say, WOW. I'm falling in love with Eliot. He's rich in everything.

[Ellie Spenceley · Rating 1 out of 5]

Just... ugh. Pretentious and excruciatingly navel-gazing ramble. Can't say I expected anything else. Sure, let's kill the author for the sake of art, but I just can't sympathise with Eliot's narrow-minded view of art and his motives behind depersonalisation. The death of the author should provide interpretative liberty, not force us to adhere to exclusionary canons even more. Lol. Boring.

[Eva Helena]

Read for my compulsory course called ‘western literature: concepts and questions’.

This was both quite interesting and extremely boring (but that might just be me who is too tired and can’t make sense of anything even slightly academic at the moment).

[Adriano Bulla · Rating 5 out of 5]

Simply put, anyone who says they read modern literature must have read this essay, otherwise it is mere scan reading.

[Bernie Gourley · Rating 5 out of 5]

While this is a controversial essay and I don't accept it wholesale, myself, I would wholeheartedly recommend it as required reading for poets (and other artists.) What is Eliot's controversial thesis? It's that poetry should be less about the poet. That broad and imprecise statement can be clarified by considering two ways in which Eliot would make poetry less about the poet. First, Eliot proposes that poets should be in tune to the historic evolution of their art and -- importantly -- should not be so eager to break the chain with the past masters. He's not saying a poet needs to be a literary historian, but rather that one be well-read in the poetry of the past. Second, Eliot advocates that a poet avoid packing one's poetry with one's personality, and - instead - let one's personality dissolve away through the act of creation.

A quote from the essay may help to clarify -- Eliot says, "Poetry is not a turning loose of emotion, but an escape from emotion; it is not an expression of personality, but an escape from personality."

One can imagine the accusations of pretension and dogmatism that Eliot received in 1919 from the mass of poets who were moving full speed ahead into poetry that was suffused with autobiography, was avant-garde, and which was free of meter, rhyme and other compositional elements that had once been seen as the defining characteristics of poetry.

I don't see this essay as being the map to our new home, but rather as the catalyst of a conversation that could move us to a more preferable intermediary location. I have, too often, picked up a collection by a young poet that was entirely autobiographical and (also, too often) of the "everybody hates me, nobody loves me, I think I'll go eat worms" variety of wallowing in personal feelings. And I always think, when I want to read something depressing, I'll read something from someone who has lived tragedy -- e.g. a Rwandan refugee, not something from a twenty-four-year-old MFA student at some Ivy League school.

So, yeah, maybe we could use more connection to the past and a bit less autobiographical poetry from people who haven't lived a novel-shaped life.

[Bond · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fascinating essay and, as with many of the Imagist writings, it feels way ahead of its time --separating poet from poetry, recommending ideas that would later become intertextuality, etc. His championing of the writer being well read in the classics makes sense considering Eliot's heavy use of allusions in his poetry. There is a lot one could write about it but I'll end it with a quote that would go a long way (speaking from experience) in freshman creative writing classes:
"It is not in his personal emotions, the emotions provoked by particular events in his life, that the poet is in any way remarkable or interesting."
Oh, one last thing: his argument is encouraging to the young artist. Eliot paints a challenging -- but feasible path -- for the artist. Study the classics (all of them), don't steal from a couple influences or from just the past generation (this idea would be later copied by so many "how to write" writers), and don't rely on your own emotions and feelings. He uses some version of the word "combination" seven times in the essay. In essence, the artist combines the classics (the "Tradition") with their feelings and emotions to create good art. The feelings exhibited, though, must be wrestled with drama and structure to make them interesting, or as Eliot writes "[to make them] a new art emotion."

[Næss · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really like this essay as a thought-provoking piece that is almost philosophical. I can’t say I agree with everything it proposes, however, I like the tenor of tolerance that Eliot brings to literary criticism; one that aims to value a text for what it is in relation to the literary tradition without undermining its individuality. Eliot’s criticism is well balanced and anchors the author in a neutral zone of poetic method and personal emotion. Without giving relevance to one over the other, Eliot takes us through a wonderful journey into the working forces of the poetic mind as a catalyst of emotions and feeling, and the poetic tradition that shapes and is altered by the production of new works of literature. For once, aesthetics, poetic cannons, and the creative mind are analysed in unity giving us a thorough understanding of what it means to write, and to read poetry.

[George Dibble · Rating 4 out of 5]

4/5

I love the idea of impersonalizing through art and that artists should purely progress the form while working in the past and adding to the present to influence the future and that Eliot's idea of real art is to have that artist / art disconnect only done through tremendous work research studying practice and in doing so creating a craft so much more powerful and effective, following a line of tradition. His poetry is so great it's difficult to disagree with the man at times. I have a friend who hates Eliot. I just wish he knew !!! Louise Glück has some amazing writing of Eliot, especially on his "Prufrock." It's a shame that lowkey he and Pound killed poetry readership. But modernism is so awesome. A needed sacrifice, maybe.

[Leanne · Rating 2 out of 5]

The only thing memorable enough for me is how there should be a certain humility in artists to acknowledge that they are part of a long-withstanding tradition of craftsmanship.

Someone said: 'The dead writers are remote from us because we know so much more than they did.' Precisely, and they are that which we know.

Kinda cool line lol. Other than that, this essay just felt very cold and impersonal (which is kind of his general goal for poetry), and I just don't subscribe to that brand of creative process. And again, his text is very much directed to the Western literary establishment, and I'm so tired of the caucasity lol

[grete · Rating 1 out of 5]

ma tahtsin nii väga sellest jutust aru saada, aga ma ei saanud.

lause ülesehitus oli jube, 1/10. kordas sama fraasi mitu korda yhes ja samas lauses.

nt: 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.

perhaps olen mina loll, aga mul vottis selle lause mõistmiseks liiga kaua aega ja kui arvestada, et terve tekst oligi selliseid lauseid täis siis..😀noh… ei olnud eriti meeldiv

[Bellatuscana Bellatuscana · Rating 3 out of 5]

Elliot says that a poet must be aware of emotions that have been previously expressed in other poems of the past. He describes the act of writing poetry as “escaping from emotion and personality.” That by knowing what past poets have done, making new words for new emotions, and seeking to escape tradition - the poet can use their poetry to serve the subsequent generations.

[Raj Nandani ( Wrap the Fury) · Rating 5 out of 5]

Just finished reading this marvellous piece of work.

Eliot has discussed a lot many things throughout the essay, and I loved and agreed and disagreed with them, but what I completely loved was the conclusion.

I simply adored the way in which Eliot criticised and concluded this essay, taking a dig at the romanticism in the process. It felt powerful and ruthless.

[Q.P. Moreno · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesantísimo. ¿Cómo se habla de una tradición sin hablar de Eliot?, ¿cómo se habla de Eliot sin hablar de una tradición?. ¿Cómo se habla del siglo XX sin el modernismo, del modernismo sin historia?

Hay cosas verdaderamente impresionantes en este ensayo. Es un golpe brutal al pensamiento metafísico y al misticismo en la poesía.