In T.S. Eliot’s Tradition and the Individual Talent, he situates tradition as the hallmark of significant works of art rather than uniqueness. Tradition can be loosely defined in the framework of Eliot’s writing as related to the reconstruction of the past or “archaeological reconstruction” (955). Eliot highlights the affinity of people to emphasize the individuality of a work of art as opposed to evaluating it based on how it fits into the existing tradition of art. Eliot states, “We dwell with satisfaction upon the poet’s difference from his predecessors, […], we endeavor to find something that can be isolated in order to be enjoyed” (956). This idea of isolating one component of a work underscores one of his major points which is that you can’t divorce the work of art from it context steeped in both the traditional past and the present. He states, “You cannot value [the artist] alone; you must set him, for contrast and comparison, among the dead” (956). According to Eliot, this is where a work of art finds its value and significance. However, Eliot doesn’t advocate for a mindless imitation of works past. He states, “novelty is better than repetition” (956). He promotes an active participation in tradition – in the learning and reproduction of it. He states, “[tradition] cannot be inherited, and if you want it you must obtain it by great labour” (956). He details the historical sense which he deems necessary to be a prolific artist past the years of one’s youth. He defines the historical sense as the perception of the “pastness of the past” coupled 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” (956). This simultaneous order isn’t depicted as static but constantly changing as new works of art are added to it which reorders the whole structure. In this way, the new and contemporary alters the past or more specifically our perception of the past. He states, “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, ever so slightly, altered; and so the relations, proportions, values of each work of art towards the whole readjusted” (957). This idea of some sort of trans-historical gallery of works of art with values determined by their comparison to one another seems plausible enough – although perhaps a little problematic. It is in my opinion, human nature to order entities of any kind and to make groupings of classifications. However, Eliot asserts that this order is in no way hierarchial. Order and comparison, in a way, connotes judgments of value. He states, “[the poet] must be quite aware of the obvious fact that art never improves, but the material of art is never quite the same” (957). He speaks of a “refinement” rather than “improvement” but that also seems to suggest a progression and judgment. It is hard to situate what exactly the basis of this order is.

                Eliot states, “Honest criticism and sensitive appreciation is directed not upon the poet but upon the poetry” (958). Eliot aims for art to be seen as a science with different elements that combine to make a new work of art. In order to do this he states that “the progress of an artist is a continual self-sacrifice, a continual extinction of personality” (958). This “depersonalization” divorces the artist from his work. As practical as this may be, it seems to be in opposition to his emphasis of context in the beginning of his argument in Tradition and the Individual Talent. He posits the more mature artist as a “more finely perfected medium in which special, or very varied, feelings are at liberty to enter into new combinations” (958). He states, “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” (959). This suggests that writing should be less cathartic for the author and more directed towards eliciting a desired effect upon the audience. This requires a mastery over the author’s self and their emotions. This provides more mastery over the audience and the desired response. This discipline involved and degree of separation/removal from the writing is required, for example, in the editing process. He states, “The poet’s mind is in fact 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” (959). He devalues the emotions and personality of the author in favor of “the intensity of the artistic process” and “technical excellence” (961).  For Eliot, this removal of the author creates a variety that would not be able to sustain itself otherwise.

Separate thoughts:

Can one actually divorce themselves from their writings? The artists and works he cites as good examples of that – do they continuously follow this pattern or do intrusions of their personalities always crop up in veiled ways?

(I could be interpreting this wrong but….)

His order of works of art and tradition might be seen as putting greater emphasis on “European” and “traditional” literature but he also states that “the poet must be very conscious of the main current, which does not at all flow invariably through the most distinguished reputations” (957). He emphasizes the “whole of literature” on several occasions. He also states that he has “suggested the conception of poetry as a living whole of all poetry that has ever been written” (958). Although he uses the male European writers in his examples and they are inextricably tied to what many think of as canonical or traditional writers/artist, he does speak of a whole that deviates from what is currently popular because what is popular today may be less so tomorrow. Perhaps we give him less credit for being inclusive because he doesn’t give specific examples of artists we think of as outside the standard conception of tradition such as female artists. When he says “all” he could mean “all”. Here again, context is valuable. He is perhaps writing from a context – a history that is exclusionary – and therefore we can’t really judge his theories as separate from that context.