T.S Eliot Classicism in Tradition and individual Talent

T.S Eliot occupies an important position in the history of modern literature both as a poet and as a critic. He declared himself to be a ‘classicist in literature’, and not a romantic. His Important contribution to literary criticism is that he strengthened the reaction against romanticism and paved the way for the rise of new- classicism.

T.S. Eliot has made a radical change in the field of literature. He has introduced the systematic order, excellence of traditional values and the sense of timelessness. His admiration of tradition makes him classicist critic. He does not allow subjectivity in poetry which makes him a classicist. The classicists, in general, are didactic. Eliot is not preaching in that sense. Yet like the classicists, Eliot supports orderliness both in art and criticism.

 
Eliot's classicism is seen in his emphasis on the importance of human personality. The Romantic believed in the inspiration and refused to recognise any authority outside themselves, which resulted in the vagueness and immaturity of romantic art. Eliot, on the contrary, gives emphasis on the value of tradition, the need and importance of an outside authority for the poet. 

In Tradition and the Individual Talent, Eliot gives importance to the knowledge of tradition. He asserts that tradition does not mean static habits, custom, convention of gone age.  According to Eliot, tradition involves a historical sense which makes one aware of not only his own generation but the generation of the whole continent in which he lives. 

The Romantics believed in inspiration and intuition. They believed that the poet should follow his ‘inner voice’, simply means doing what one likes. But to Eliot, the poet must owe allegiance to some authority outside himself. He must learn and practise artistic self-control He must revise and revise what he writes. Mature art is possible only in this way. T.S. Eliot values classical literature for its clarity and for its formal perfection. He says that the difference between the romantic and the classic art is:

that between complete and the fragmentary, the adult and the immature, the orderly and the chaotic.

Eliot was opposed to romantic subjectivity. It was the uncontrolled expression of emotion which lead the romantics into vulgar excesses of all sorts. But according to Eliot, emotion in poetry must be depersonalised. Artistic self-effacement is essential for great art. The romantic lacked such self-restraint, but Eliot emphasised the restraint which is the distinguishing feature of classical poetry.

Eliot is also against the romantic critics who judge a poet on the basis of their personal impressions and feelings. Eliot, on the contrary, advocates to judge a poet by means of comparison and contrast with the poets of the past. He says,

‘No poet, no artist of any art, has his complete meaning alone. The significance of his appreciation is the appreciation of his relation to the dead poets and artists. You cannot value him alone; you must set him, for contrast and comparison, among the dead.’

Thus further, a work of art must be judged with reference to some principles. For example, a critic must determine if a particular poet has succeeded in depersonalising his emotions, and whether his poetry shows a fusion of thought and feeling or not.

Thus ‘objective co-relative’, ‘unification of sensibility’ and, adherence to tradition, are the touchstones to judge the greatness of a work of art. Thus, Eliot's plea is for objective standards to judge the greatness of the work of art.

Eliot, again, has given his poetic theory which is completely anti-romantic. He criticises the romantic tradition of the expressions of powerful feelings. He believes that poetry is not the expression of the personality of the poet. He says, 

‘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.’

Wordsworth says that 

‘Poetry is the spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings; it takes its origin from emotion recollected in tranquillity.’ 

But Eliot calls it an inexact formula and says that in the process of poetic composition there is neither emotion, nor recollection, nor tranquillity. In the poetic process, there is only the concentration of a number of experiences, and a new thing results from this concentration.

To explain his theory of impersonality, Eliot draws a scientific analogy. T.S Eliot compares the mind of the poet to a catalyst and the process of poetic creation to the process of the chemical reaction. He critics the example by saying that when oxygen and sulphur-di-oxide are mixed in the presence of a filament of platinum, they form sulphurous acid. Platinum is the catalyst that helps the process of chemical reaction, but the metal does not undergo any change.

The mind of the poet is like the catalytic agent. It is necessary for a new combination of emotions and experiences to take place, but it itself does not undergo any change during the process of poetic creation. The personality of the poet does not find expression in his poetry; it acts as a catalytic agent. From the above discussion, we may say that Eliot is mainly concerned with the problem of order and traditional values.

Like a true classicist, he believes that the writer must have faith in some system of writing and that a work of art must conform to the past tradition. In his poetic theory, he opposed the subjectivity of the romantic writer. So, Eliot is essentially a classicist.