Sagar Bokadiya : Bridge Course: T.S. Eliot - Criticism

This blog task assigned by Dr.Dilip Barad sir. Here is the link to the professor's Research gate for background reading: Click here.

About T.S. Eliot:

T.S. Eliot (1888–1965) was a prominent American-English poet, playwright, literary critic, and editor, renowned for his significant contributions to the Modernist movement in literature. Born in St. Louis, Missouri, he later moved to England, where he became a central figure in 20th-century literature.

Playwriting and Criticism: Beyond poetry, Eliot made significant contributions to drama and literary criticism. His play "Murder in the Cathedral" (1935) explores the martyrdom of Archbishop Thomas Becket, while "The Cocktail Party" (1949) delves into themes of personal identity and societal expectations. As a critic, Eliot's essays, such as "Tradition and the Individual Talent," have been influential in shaping modern literary thought.

1) 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" as outlined in his seminal essay, Tradition and the Individual Talent (1919), remains one of the most influential ideas in literary criticism. Eliot redefined the meaning of tradition, challenging the conventional notion that it refers to a static set of past practices or conventions. Instead, he posits that tradition is a dynamic, living continuum that actively shapes and is shaped by contemporary artists. Eliot’s ideas about tradition and the "historical sense" underline his view that literature exists as part of a larger, interconnected historical framework. This essay examines Eliot's concept of tradition, the role of the historical sense, and whether these ideas remain relevant today.

Eliot's Concept of Tradition

Eliot begins by emphasizing that tradition is not merely inherited but must be actively cultivated by the artist. He asserts that tradition requires "a sense of the past" and an ability to recognize the enduring significance of previous works of art. According to Eliot, “The historical sense involves a perception, not only of the pastness of the past but of its presence.” This statement reflects his belief that the past is not merely a sequence of obsolete events but is alive and meaningful in the present. Great writers, Eliot suggests, have the ability to simultaneously understand the historical context of earlier works while incorporating their influence into their own writing in ways that are relevant to their time.

Eliot challenges the romantic notion of the poet as a wholly original genius, disconnected from historical or cultural influence. For him, true originality arises from an intimate engagement with the tradition that precedes an artist. He argues, "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." In this way, Eliot envisions tradition as a collective inheritance that enriches individual creativity.

The Role of the Historical Sense

Central to Eliot's concept of tradition is the "historical sense," a term that encapsulates an artist's ability to perceive the relationship between past and present. Eliot writes, “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, he highlights the dual nature of the historical sense: it involves both an appreciation of the timeless, universal qualities of literature and an understanding of how these qualities manifest in specific historical and cultural contexts.

The historical sense requires a writer to recognize that their work is part of an ongoing conversation that transcends temporal boundaries. By engaging with the tradition, a writer contributes to its evolution, ensuring that it remains vital and relevant. For Eliot, this does not mean imitating the past but rather engaging with it critically and creatively. He believed that this process enriches both the writer and the tradition itself.

Evaluation and Critique

Eliot’s concept of tradition has been lauded for its depth and its emphasis on continuity and dialogue between past and present. His idea that no writer exists in isolation resonates strongly with modern theories of intertextuality, which emphasize the interconnectedness of all texts. The historical sense encourages writers to adopt a broader perspective, situating their work within a larger cultural and intellectual framework.

However, Eliot’s concept has also been criticized for being overly Eurocentric and conservative. His focus on a canon of “dead poets” often excludes marginalized voices and traditions that fall outside the Western literary canon. Critics argue that this approach risks perpetuating a narrow, exclusionary view of literary excellence. Additionally, some question whether Eliot’s emphasis on tradition stifles innovation, as it places significant weight on adherence to past forms and conventions.

Personal Reflection

I find Eliot’s concept of tradition compelling, particularly his emphasis on the dynamic interplay between past and present. His assertion that the past is alive in the present resonates with the idea that literature is a cumulative and collaborative enterprise. However, I also believe that Eliot’s definition of tradition needs to be expanded to include a more diverse range of voices and perspectives. While the historical sense is invaluable for understanding literature as a continuum, it must also be open to reinterpretation and critique.

Eliot’s idea of the historical sense as the perception of “the timeless and of the temporal together” is especially significant. It underscores the idea that great literature transcends its immediate historical context while remaining deeply rooted in it. For instance, Shakespeare’s plays are timeless because they explore universal themes such as love, ambition, and mortality, yet they are also inextricably linked to the social and political realities of Elizabethan England.

Conclusion:

Eliot’s concept of tradition and the historical sense offers profound insights into the relationship between past and present in literature. His belief that tradition is not a static inheritance but a dynamic process of engagement encourages writers to view their work as part of a larger cultural conversation. While his ideas are not without limitations, they provide a valuable framework for understanding the complexities of literary creation. By balancing the timeless and the temporal, writers can create works that honor the past while speaking to the present. Eliot’s concept of tradition thus remains a powerful and enduring contribution to literary criticism.

2) What is the relationship between “tradition” and "individual talent,” according to the poet T. S. Eliot?

The Relationship Between Tradition and Individual Talent

Inhis essay Tradition and the Individual Talent (1919), T. S. Eliot argues that the relationship between tradition and individual talent is symbiotic and mutually enriching. For Eliot, tradition is not a passive inheritance but an active process of engagement with the literary past. Individual talent, on the other hand, refers to the unique creative ability of a poet to contribute to the ongoing literary tradition. He asserts that a great poet must simultaneously possess an awareness of the past and a capacity to create new, relevant works. This dynamic interplay forms the foundation of Eliot’s theory.

Eliot emphasizes that no poet works in isolation. He writes, “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.” This suggests that individual talent derives its depth and richness from its engagement with tradition. A writer must develop a "historical sense," which Eliot defines as “a perception, not only of the pastness of the past but of its presence.” This allows the writer to recognize the living relevance of the past while contributing to the evolution of tradition.

Absorbing Knowledge: Shakespeare and Plutarch

Eliot's statement, “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,” highlights the distinction between talent and labor in the creative process. Shakespeare, Eliot argues, had an extraordinary ability to absorb and internalize knowledge with remarkable ease. His engagement with Plutarch’s Lives provided him with profound historical and psychological insights that enriched his works.

This observation reflects Eliot’s belief that true genius lies in the ability to assimilate and transform existing knowledge into something new and timeless. Shakespeare’s talent exemplifies how an individual artist can interact with tradition, using it as a foundation to create something profoundly original. His use of Plutarch demonstrates how tradition serves as a reservoir of knowledge and inspiration for those with the talent to harness it.

Criticism of Poetry, Not the Poet

Eliot’s claim that “Honest criticism and sensitive appreciation are directed not upon the poet but upon the poetry” underscores his objective approach to literary criticism. He argues that the focus of criticism should be on the work itself rather than the personal life or intentions of the poet. This aligns with his broader argument about the "depersonalization" of art, wherein a poet’s individual emotions and experiences are transformed into universal expressions through their work.

For Eliot, poetry achieves greatness when it transcends the personal and resonates on a broader, more universal level. The emphasis on the poetry rather than the poet ensures that the work is judged on its intrinsic merits rather than on subjective or biographical factors. This approach allows for a more rigorous and impartial evaluation of artistic quality.

Conclusion:

Eliot’s essay presents a nuanced understanding of the relationship between tradition and individual talent. Tradition provides the foundation for literary innovation, while individual talent enriches and revitalizes that tradition. Shakespeare’s genius exemplifies this dynamic, as he absorbed and transformed existing knowledge into timeless works. Eliot’s focus on the poetry rather than the poet emphasizes the importance of evaluating art on its own terms. Together, these ideas highlight the enduring relevance of Eliot’s insights into the creative process and literary criticism.

3) How would you like to explain Eliot's theory of depersonalization?

Eliot’s Theory of Depersonalization

T. S. Eliot’s theory of depersonalization, articulated in Tradition and the Individual Talent (1919), redefines the role of the poet in creating art. Eliot argues that great poetry results from the poet's ability to separate their personal emotions and experiences from their creative work. Instead of channeling raw emotion, the poet functions as a medium, transforming feelings into universal expressions through an impersonal process.

Eliot likens this process to a chemical reaction. He writes that the poet's mind acts like a catalyst in a chemical process: “The mind of the poet is the shred of platinum.” In this analogy, raw emotions and experiences (reactants) interact within the poet’s mind (the platinum catalyst) to produce poetry (the product). The catalyst itself remains unchanged by the reaction, signifying that the poet’s personality does not appear in the final work. Just as platinum facilitates a chemical reaction without becoming part of the resulting compound, the poet's mind transforms personal feelings into artistic expressions while remaining detached from the finished work.

Eliot’s famous assertion, "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," reinforces this idea. He insists that poetry is not a spontaneous outpouring of feelings but a disciplined craft requiring the poet to transcend their individuality. This impersonal approach, he argues, allows poetry to achieve universality and resonate with readers across time and space.

Critique of T. S. Eliot as a Critic

1. Exclusionary Focus on Tradition:

Eliot’s emphasis on the literary canon often favors a narrow, Eurocentric view of tradition. His focus on “dead poets” as the foundation of literary excellence has been criticized for marginalizing non-Western and contemporary voices. This limits the scope of his theory, which could benefit from a more inclusive understanding of tradition.

2. Overemphasis on Objectivity:

While Eliot’s theory of depersonalization highlights the importance of craft, it may undervalue the role of personal expression in poetry. Critics argue that art cannot be entirely impersonal, as the poet’s individuality inevitably shapes their work. This rigid emphasis on objectivity risks alienating forms of literature that thrive on personal and emotional expression, such as Romantic poetry.

Conclusion:

Eliot’s theory of depersonalization challenges traditional notions of poetic creativity by emphasizing objectivity and the transformative power of art. While his ideas provide valuable insights into the nature of artistic production, they are not without limitations, particularly in their exclusionary tendencies and underestimation of personal expression in poetry.

Additional Resource:

1).