Assignment Paper 7
Literary theory and criticism- 2
Ajit A. Kaliya
M.A. Sem 2
Roll No. 1
Enrollment No. 2069108420170013
Batch: 2016-18
Email- kaliyaajitbhai@gmail.com
Department Of English, MKBU
Department Of English, MKBU
To evaluate this assignment, please click here
Threefold significance of tradition by T.S. Eliot
T.
S. Eliot is an English essayist, publisher, playwright, critic and one of the
twentieth century's major poets. His essay "Tradition and individual
talent" was published first in 'The Egoist' in 1919 and later in Eliot's
first book of Criticism "The sacred wood' in 1920. In this essay he gave
concept of tradition, its importance in writing, depersonalization of poet,
where here I'm going to talk about three major significance of tradition given
by Eliot. But before understanding that; it is necessary to understand meaning
of tradition given by Eliot. So let us see first meaning of tradition.
Meaning of tradition
Eliot
defines tradition as living part of the past. It is living culture inherited
from the past and functioning in the formation of the present. Past is not
which is dead, but it shakes present. To Eliot, tradition is connected with
historical sense of poet or writer. Poet must have that historical sense. It influences
our ideas and thoughts. It is historical sense; it is an awareness not only of
the pastness of the past but the presence of the past. Eliot said that by
losing tradition we lose our hold on the present. Hence, a writer should be
aware of the importance of tradition. Eliot believed that author must have
aware of his nation's tradition.
Thus,
for Eliot importance of tradition, its awareness is so important and so he
gives threefold significance of tradition.
1)
Tradition cannot be inherited and involves a great deal of labor and erudition.
2)
It involves the historical sense which involves apperception not only of the
pastness of the past, but also its presence.
3)
The historical sense enables a writer to write not only with his own generation
in mind, but with a feeling that the whole of the literature from Homer down to
the literature of his own country forms a continuous literary tradition.
Now
let us discuss about these three points one by one.
1]
First Eliot says that tradition cannot be inherited and involves a great deal
of labor and erudition. Eliot says, “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 the historical sense””
Eliot
believed that tradition is not the thing which comes with birth. It is not the
thing which can inherit. According to Eliot tradition and indigo talent go
together. So it is important to know tradition. He says that poet has alone no
identity. But question is that how can one obtain tradition? Eliot answers that
tradition can be obtain only by great labor and your intelligence; there is no
other way, any simple way. If we think about inheritance, what do we inherit?
We do not inherit anything. We learn the things by seeing world. To get
knowledge of tradition one must read a lot. Eliot demands wide reading to bring
a writer. Writer's duty is to contribute in the stream of tradition. So writers
must have read lot, getting knowledge and receive tradition.
Eliot
says, 'consequently, we must believe that "emotion recollected in
tranquility" is an inexact formula. For it is neither emotion, nor
recollection, nor, without distortion of meaning, tranquility. It is a
concentration, and a new thing resulting from the concentration, of a very
great number of experiences which to the practical and active person would not
seem to be experiences at all; it is a concentration which does not happen
consciously or of deliberation.' So actually he is attacking on romantics and favored
university wits. Because romantics believed in freedom and connected poetry
with emotions but Eliot says first poet must read lot, achieve knowledge and
then should write. The tradition includes historical sense and if do not have
that you cannot contribute in tradition.
But
there are some writers who are not very educated and even then are very popular
and contributed in English tradition. The best example is William
Shakespeare. Now someone can argue, so
in defense he says, some can absorb knowledge, the more tardy must sweat for
it. Shakespeare acquire more essential histories from Plutarch than most men
could from the whole British Museum. What is to be insisted upon is that the
poet must develop or procure the consciousness of the past and that he should
continue to develop this consciousness throughout his career.
Gujarati
writer Pannalal Patel also have little education, but by experiencing tradition
surrounded him, he wrote and contributed lot.
These
writers absorbed tradition, but if one do not have this power then one must do
hard work to get it.
So
this was about Eliot's first idea of tradition.
2]
Secondly he says that tradition involves the historical sense which involves
apperception not only of the pastness of the past, but also its presence.
Eliot
says, "A creative artist, though he lives in a particular milieu, does not
work merely with his own generation in view. He does not take his own age, or
the literature of that period only as a separate identity, but acts with the
conviction that in general the whole literature of the continent from the classical
age of the Greeks onwards and in particular the literature of his own country,
is to be take as a harmonious whole."
In
simple language he wanted to say that writer should be aware about the history.
And history means not only past, but what can be found in present of that past
that is history. For example, colonialism. The nations which had been colonized
and what happened to them, hour they suffer, it is history. But, even today
after freed from them effects of colonialism can be seen. So when writer write
about this thing he or she must be aware of history and it’s present. Without
awareness of both the things writer cannot write true things.
One
good example for importance of having historical sense is Indian freedom
struggle against rule of East India Company in 1857. It was first freedom
struggle, but Britishers called it revolt and they wrote in history as revolt,
not as freedom struggle. Now if Indians have historical sense, they can correct
that it was not revolt but it was freedom fighting. So it is necessary to have
historical sense otherwise history can be changed. If people have historical
sense they can compare present things with history and can get idea about what
had happened in same circumstances in past so what can happened in present. So
in this way history does not remain only past, but becomes present also.
So
Eliot believed that for understanding tradition, historical sense also requires
and for writers, it is necessary to have historical sense so that they can
contribute important work in tradition.
3]
In third significance of tradition Eliot moves his idea of historical sense
further. He explains importance of historical sense in this point.
He
says," 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 contemporaneity."
By
this idea Eliot wants to say that writer should know that what he or she is
doing. They are contributing in long literary history from Homer to present
time. Maybe he suggests authors to write valuable things. For the relationship
of a poets work to the great works of the past he says, “In a peculiar sense he
will be aware also that he must inevitably be judged by the standards of the
past. I say judged, not amputated, by them; not judged to be as good as, or
worse or better than, the dead; and certainly not judged by the canons of dead
critics. It is a judgment, a comparison, in which two things are measured by
each other. To conform merely would be for the new work not really to conform
at all; it would not be new, and would therefore not be a work of art. And we
do not quite say that the new is more valuable because it fits in; but it’s
fitting in is a test of its value test; it is true, which can only be slowly and
cautiously applied, for we are none of us infallible judges of conformity. We
say: it appears to conform, and is perhaps individual, or it appears
individual, and may conform; but we are hardly likely to find that it is one
and not the other."
Further
he says, "The poet must be very conscious of the main current, which does
not at all flow invariably through the most distinguished reputations. He must
be quite aware of the obvious fact that art never improves, but that the
material of art is never quite the same. He writes: The difference between the present and the
past is that the conscious present is an awareness of the past in a way and to
an extent which the past's awareness of itself cannot show."
So,
in third point he says about relationship between past and present and writer's
duty when he or contributes in literary tradition.
Conclusion
So
by studying these three significance of tradition, we learn about what
tradition is? How can it obtain? What is important of knowing tradition, also
importance of historical sense. How it can be useful. Relations between past
and present and about writer’s duty of contribute in literary tradition.
Reference
Tradition
and individual talent (1919) T.S. EliotTo evaluate this assignment, please click here
No comments:
Post a Comment