The Alchemy of Impersonality: T.S. Eliot’s Re-Engineering of the Literary Canon
This blog is written as a task assigned by the head of the Department of English (MKBU), Prof. and Dr. Dilip Barad Sir. Here is the link to the professor's research article for background reading: Click here.
Here is Mind Map of my blog: Click Here
Here is Infograph of my Blog:
.png)
Here is My youtube video upon this blog:
Introduction: The 1919 Revolution and the Modernist Crisis
In 1919, the publication of "Tradition and the Individual Talent" in The Egoist marked a seismic shift in literary criticism. This was not merely an essay; it was a tactical strike against the remnants of Romanticism. Emerging from the literal and metaphorical ashes of World War I, T.S. Eliot sought to dismantle the cult of the "inspired genius" the idea that poetry is a self-indulgent spill of personal biography and replace it with a rigorous, almost scientific framework for understanding artistic creation.
For the postgraduate student, Eliot’s work represents the transition from the subjective "I" of the 19th century to the objective "Eye" of the 20th. He argued that the poet's mind is a finely tuned medium rather than a personality to be displayed. This demands a recalibration of how we view the "new" in relation to the "old," suggesting that the greatest innovation is actually rooted in the deepest continuity.
1. Defining 'Tradition': Not a Hand-Me-Down, but a Conquest
Eliot’s concept of tradition is arguably the most misunderstood aspect of his critical oeuvre. In the popular imagination, "tradition" implies a stale adherence to the past, a dusty collection of rules, or a blind following of predecessors. Eliot vehemently rejects this passive inheritance.
Tradition as Active, Exhausting Labor
For Eliot, tradition is not something you receive by birthright or through the mere accident of being born into a specific culture; it is something you conquer through rigorous discipline. He writes: "It [tradition] cannot be inherited, and if you want it you must obtain it by great labour." The Intellectual Burden: This "labour" involves a tireless study of the classics not as dead artifacts in a museum, but as living pressures that shape the present language. To be traditional is to be acutely aware of the "Mind of Europe."
The Aesthetic Sacrifice: It requires the refinement of one's taste to recognize the "ideal order" of existing monuments. The poet must sacrifice their own eccentricities to conform to the standards of excellence established by their predecessors.
Against Blind Imitation: Eliot warns that tradition is not about mimicking the style of the generation immediately preceding us. Blind imitation actually leads to the death of tradition. True tradition requires an understanding of the essence of the past, which often leads the poet to innovate in ways that appear radical to the untrained eye.
The 'Historical Sense' and the Perception of Time
The "Historical Sense" is the psychological and philosophical engine of Eliot's theory. He defines it through a paradox of presence:
"The historical sense involves a perception, not only of the pastness of the past but of its presence."
Deep Analysis: To possess a historical sense is to live in a "simultaneous order." Eliot argues that the entire literature of Europe, from the antiquity of Homer to the present day, exists as a single, co-existing body of work.
The Pastness of the Past (Chronological Awareness): This is the recognition of historical distance. It is the awareness that Dante belongs to the Middle Ages and Shakespeare to the Renaissance. It respects the specific socio-cultural context that birthed these works.
The Presence of the Past (Aesthetic Immediacy): This is the realization that these works are not "over." They continue to exert a gravitational pull on the present. For a traditional poet, Homer is as contemporary as the morning newspaper because the "timeless" quality of his work transcends his specific era.
The Timeless and the Temporal
Eliot describes this sense as a "sense of the timeless as well as of the temporal, and of the timeless and of the temporal together." The Temporal: This involves a sensitivity to the "now" the specific linguistic shifts, the political anxieties of 1919, and the crumbling of old empires.
The Timeless: This is the grasp of universal human archetypes and the permanent standards of aesthetic beauty.
The Synthesis: The traditional writer is a "Janus-faced" figure. By looking back at the centuries while standing firmly in the present, they ensure that their work is both a product of their time and a contribution to eternity. This "simultaneity" makes the writer "most acutely conscious of his place in time, of his own contemporaneity."
2. The Relationship Between Tradition and Individual Talent
Eliot proposes a dynamic, organic relationship between the old and the new. He rejects the idea that a new work of art is an isolated event. Instead, he posits a "Mutual Modification."
The Shifting of the Ideal Order
Eliot envisions the "existing monuments" of literature forming an "ideal order." When a "really new" work of art arrives, it does not simply join the end of a chronological line. Instead, the entire order is slightly shifted to accommodate the newcomer.
"The existing order is complete before the new work arrives; for order to persist after the supervention of novelty, the whole existing order must be, if ever so slightly, altered."
The Organic Whole: This implies that the literary canon is not a static list but a living organism. When a work like The Waste Land appears, our understanding of Virgil, Dante, and Baudelaire is retroactively changed.
The Standard of Judgment: The new work is judged by the standards of the past, but the past is also re-evaluated by the light of the new work. This creates a reciprocal relationship where the individual talent gives new life to tradition, and tradition provides the framework for individual talent.
The Present Alters the Past
This is one of Eliot's most profound insights: the present has the power to change our perception of the past. Once we read a truly modern work, the "monuments" of the past are "re-adjusted" in our minds. Thus, the individual talent is not just "adding" to the pile; it is re-organizing the entire history of human expression. The "new" work creates a new context for everything that came before it.
3. Knowledge: The Sweat vs. The Intuitive Absorption
Eliot makes a provocative distinction between the accumulation of academic facts and the acquisition of "essential" history:
"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."
The Pedant vs. The Artist
The Tardy (The Academic/Pedant): These individuals gather data through sheer volume and "sweat." They may know every date and bibliographic detail in the British Museum, but they lack the "historical sense." Their knowledge is a collection of dead facts that does not inform their creative soul.
The Absorber (The Artist/Shakespeare): Figures like Shakespeare possess a "permeable" mind. They do not necessarily need a formal classical education; they possess the ability to "absorb" the spirit of an age. Shakespeare read North's translation of Plutarch and instinctively understood the essence of the Roman world. He didn't need the artifacts of the British Museum because he could feel the pulse of history through a single text.
Takeaway: Knowledge for the poet is not quantitative; it is qualitative. It is the "essential" history the feeling of what it was like to be a Roman, the weight of a crown, the specific texture of an ancient betrayal that matters. This essential knowledge becomes the "fuel" for the poetic catalyst.
4. The Theory of Depersonalization: The Catalyst of Platinum
.png)
Eliot’s most radical and controversial claim is that the poet’s personality is irrelevant to the poem. This leads to his Theory of Depersonalization.
The Chemical Analogy: The Scientist in the Laboratory
To explain this complex psychological process, Eliot utilizes a scientific metaphor. Imagine a reaction chamber containing two gases: Oxygen and Sulfur Dioxide. When a filament of Platinum is introduced, these gases combine to form Sulfurous Acid.
The Platinum (The Mind of the Poet): Crucially, the platinum acts as a catalyst. It facilitates the reaction but remains completely unchanged, neutral, and unaffected by it. It does not enter the acid; it merely provides the space for the transformation to occur.
The Gases (Emotions and Feelings): These represent the chaotic, raw experiences of the poet's life.
The Resulting Acid (The Poem): This is the finished work of art. It is a new substance entirely, distinct from the gases and containing no trace of the platinum.
The Depth of the Metaphor: Eliot argues that the more perfect the artist, the more completely separate in him will be "the man who suffers and the mind which creates." The poet's mind is 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." The poet is not a "personality" expressing itself; the poet is a "medium" in which experiences are synthesized into art.
5. "Honest Criticism" and the Death of the Author
"Honest criticism and sensitive appreciation are directed not upon the poet but upon the poetry."
With this sentence, Eliot anticipates the "New Criticism" and even the "Death of the Author" movement. He is attacking the "Biographical Fallacy" the belief that to understand a work, one must study the author's childhood, marriage, and personal neuroses.
The Autonomy of the Text
Eliot demands that we treat the poem as an autonomous object.
Against Impressionism: Criticism should not be about how the poem makes the critic feel personally, but about the "art-emotion" contained within the structure of the words.
The Shift in Focus: If we look at the poet, we see a "personality" which is often messy and idiosyncratic. If we look at the poetry, we see a "significant emotion" that has been distilled and universalized through the artistic process. The focus of the critic should be on the composition how the feelings and images are fused rather than on the "intent" of the individual who held the pen.
6. Poetry as an "Escape" from Personality
Perhaps the most famous dictum in the essay is:
"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."
The Disciplined Escape
This is not a cowardly escape from reality, but a disciplined move from the Subjective to the Objective.
Anti-Romanticism: Eliot is rejecting the Romantic notion of poetry as the "spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings" (Wordsworth). To Eliot, such an overflow is merely a "turning loose" of raw emotion, which is not art. Art requires the transformation of that emotion.
Art-Emotion vs. Life-Emotion: The emotion in a poem is not the same as the emotion felt in life. It is an "art-emotion" a complex, fused state that exists only within the aesthetic structure of the work. For example, a poet might feel the "emotion" of grief, but the "feeling" in the poem is something entirely new, created by the interplay of words and images.
The Universal Ego: By escaping their specific, petty personality, the poet taps into the "Mind of Europe." They become a vessel for a consciousness that spans centuries. The "personality" is a limitation; the "escape" is a liberation into the universal.
7. The Distinction Between 'Emotions' and 'Feelings'
In Part II of the essay, Eliot makes a subtle but vital distinction. He suggests that poetry is composed of two types of elements that the catalyst fuses:
Emotions: These are the large, recognizable structures of human experience (Love, Hate, Grief, Joy). They are the "macro" elements.
Feelings: These are the "minute" components the specific texture of a certain word, the sound of a phrase, the visual impact of a specific image (e.g., "the smell of steaks in passageways").
The Fusion Process: A poet may create a great work without ever having felt a "great" emotion in their personal life. They can build a masterpiece using only "feelings." The greatness of the poet lies in their ability to fuse these small, disparate feelings into a singular, intense "art-emotion." This reinforces the "catalyst" theory: the poet is a technician of language, combining fragments of experience into a new, complex whole.
8. A Critique of T.S. Eliot as a Critic
While Eliot’s contributions are monumental, a postgraduate analysis must remain critical. Here are two major points on which one can write a critique:
Point I: The Elitism of the "Mind of Europe"
Eliot’s definition of "Tradition" is strictly Western and Eurocentric. When he speaks of the "Mind of Europe," he is referring to a specific, elite canon of Great Books.
Exclusionary Nature: This definition ignores oral traditions, non-Western literatures, and the contributions of marginalized groups.
The "Great Labour" Barrier: By insisting that tradition must be obtained through "great labour," he implicitly suggests that only those with access to elite education can be truly "traditional." From a post-colonial perspective, this looks like a defensive fortification of Western cultural hegemony.
Point II: The Myth of Absolute Impersonality
The idea that there is a surgical separation between "the man who suffers and the mind which creates" has been challenged by modern psychology and later literary theory.
The New Historicist Critique: Critics argue that the "platinum catalyst" (the poet's mind) is itself a product of history, gender, and class. It is impossible for a mind to be completely "neutral" or "unchanged" by the experiences it processes.
The Subjective Choice: Even the act of selecting which "fragments" to fuse is a deeply personal, subjective choice. Eliot’s own poetry, despite his claims of impersonality, is deeply haunted by his personal anxieties and his specific cultural moment. "Impersonality" may have been a mask he used to give his personal views a universal authority.
The Dissociation of Sensibility
Eliot’s essay 'The Metaphysical Poets' introduces another critical concept: the dissociation of sensibility. He argues that 17th-century poets like Donne possessed a unified sensibility, seamlessly integrating thought and feeling. However,
"In the seventeenth century a dissociation of sensibility set in, from which we have never recovered."
(Kramer)
This fragmentation, according to Eliot, led to a decline in poetic quality, a trend he sought to reverse through his own work.
Eliot’s Influence on Modern Criticism
The Epoch-Making Impact of His Essays
Jürgen Kramer notes,
"The influence of Eliot's essay 'Tradition and the Individual Talent' was epoch-making in literary criticism"
(Kramer)
By redefining tradition, Eliot challenged critics to consider literature as a continuum rather than isolated works. His ideas provided a framework for evaluating art beyond temporal or cultural biases.
Beyond Time and Personality
Eliot’s criticism transcends temporal constraints, encouraging critics to view literature holistically. As Praz observes,
"The critic's task should be to see literature not as consecrated by time, but to see it beyond time; to see the best work of our time and the best work of twenty-five hundred years ago with the same eyes."
(Praz)
This timeless perspective ensures that criticism remains relevant and inclusive.
Evaluating Eliot’s Criticism
Strengths of Eliot’s Approach
Objectivity and Rigor:
Eliot’s emphasis on depersonalization and historical awareness brings intellectual rigor to literary criticism.
Integration of Past and Present:
His concept of tradition fosters a dynamic relationship between historical continuity and contemporary relevance.
Universal Application:
By focusing on the work rather than the author, Eliot’s criticism transcends cultural and temporal boundaries.
Critiques and Limitations
Elitism:
Eliot’s demand for intellectual labor may seem inaccessible to lay readers and writers.
Eurocentrism:
His focus on the Western canon excludes non-Western literary traditions, limiting the scope of his ideas.
Conclusion: The Living Monument
Despite these critiques, T.S. Eliot’s "Historical Sense" remains the most powerful tool in the critic's arsenal. He taught us that no poet has their complete meaning alone. By conceptualizing literature as a "simultaneous order," he saved the past from becoming a museum of dead relics and turned it into a living, breathing influence on the present.
In the laboratory of Modernism, Eliot was the platinum catalyst remaining cool, detached, and brilliant, while the chaotic emotions of the early 20th century were distilled into the enduring, acidic beauty of modern poetry. To read Eliot today is to realize that we are all, in some sense, "sweating" for the tradition he so masterfully redefined.
“The progress of an artist is a continual self-sacrifice, a continual extinction of personality.” In this extinction, according to Eliot, the poet finds immortality.
Additional Resources:
Here is Presentation of my blog:
References:
1. Barad, Dilip. “T. S. Eliot: Tradition and the Individual Talent.” ResearchGate, Jan. 2024, https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.32695.91047.
2. Eliot, T. S. Essay on Poetic Theory: Tradition and the Individual Talent. Poetry Foundation, 2009.
3.Eliot, T. S. The Sacred Wood: Essays on Poetry and Criticism. Project Gutenberg, 28 Aug. 2018,
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/57795/57795-h/57795-h.htm
4. Kramer, Jürgen. “T. S. Eliot’s Concept of Tradition: A Revaluation.” New German Critique, no. 6, 1975, pp. 20–30. JSTOR, doi.org/10.2307/487651.
5. Praz, Mario. “T. S. Eliot as a Critic.” The Sewanee Review, vol. 74, no. 1, 1966, pp. 256–71. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/27541397.
No comments:
Post a Comment