Eliot’s Concept of Tradition
According to Eliot, the word tradition is
generally regarded as a term of censure. It sounds disagreeable to the English
ears. The English praise a poet for those aspects of his work which are
‘individual and original’. This stress on individuality is a wrong thing. If
they examine the matter critically, they will realize that the best and the
most individual part of a poet’s work is that which shows the maximum influence
of the writers of the past.
Tradition,
according to Eliot, does not mean a blind adherence to the ways of the previous
generation or generations. This would be mere slavish imitation, a mere
repetition of what has already been achieved, and “novelty is better than
repetition.” Tradition for Eliot, is a matter of much wider significance.
Tradition cannot be inherited; it can only be obtained by hard labour. This
labour is the labour of knowing the past writers. It is the critical labour of
shifting the good from the bad, and of knowing what is good and useful.
Tradition
can be obtained only by those who have the historical sense, it is this
historical sense which makes a writer realize that the past exists in the
present, and that the past and the present form one simultaneous order. This
historical sense is the sense of the timeless and the temporal, as well as of
the timeless and the temporal together. It is this historic sense which makes a
writer traditional. In brief, sense of tradition implies (a) a recognition of
the continuity of literature (b) a critical judgement as to which of the
writers of the past, continue to be significant in the present, and (c) a
knowledge of these significant writers, obtained through painstaking efforts.
Tradition, thus represents accumulated wisdom and experience of ages, and so,
its knowledge is essential for really great and noble achievements.
According
to Eliot, tradition is not something fixed and static, it is constantly
changing, growing and becoming different from what it is. A writer in the
present must seek guidance from the past. Just as the past directs and guides
the present, so the present alters and modifies the past. When a new work of
art is created, the whole literary tradition is modified though ever so slightly.
The relationship between the past and the present is not one - sided; it is a
reciprocal relationship. The past directs the present, and is itself modified
and altered by the present. Every great poet like Virgil, Dante or Shakespeare
adds something to the literary tradition out of which the future poetry will be
written.
The
work of a poet in the present is to be compared and contrasted with works of
the past, and judged by the standards of the past. The comparison is to be made
for knowing all the facts, about the new work of art. The comparison is made
for the analysis, and for forming a better understanding of the new. The past
helps us to understand the present and it throws light on the past. It is in
this way alone that we can form an idea of what is really individual and new.
To
know the tradition, the poet must judge critically what are the main trends, and
what are not. A poet must realise that the main literary trends are not
determined by the great poets alone. Minor poets also are significant. They are
not to be ignored. The poet must also realize that art never improves, though
its material is never the same. The great works of art never lose their
significance, for there is no qualitative improvement in it. There may be
refinement, there may be development but from the point of view of the artist
there is no improvement. It will not be correct to say that the act of Shakespeare
is better and higher than that of Eliot. Their works are of different kinds,
for the material on which they worked was different. T.S. Eliot is of the view
that the duty of a poet is to acquire the knowledge of the past. This knowledge
of the past will make him aware of the traditions. Such awareness of tradition,
sharpens poetic sensibility and is indispensable for poetic creation.
Comments