Introduction: A new work of art can not be evaluated in isolation without
reference to past literature and tradition. Evaluation is always comparative
and relative. It calls for a comparison with the past that is with tradition.
The value of a work depends on how well it is adjusted into the order of
existing literary works. Neither poet, nor artist of any art has his complete
meaning alone.
Description: Tradition does not
mean uncritical imitation of the past. Nor does it mean only erudition. A
writer draws on only the necessary knowledge of tradition. He must use his
freedom according to his needs. He cannot be completely detached. Often the
most original moments of a work of art echo the mind of earlier writers. It is
paradoxical but true that even the most original writings sometimes reflect the
thinking of the past or earlier writers. So, there is nothing which is absolutely
original.
Tradition:
In his essay “Tradition and the Individual Talent” Eliot
spreads his concept of tradition, which reflects his reaction against romantic
subjectivism and emotionalism. According to Eliot, is that part of living
culture inherited from the past and functioning in the formation of the
present. Eliot maintains that tradition is bound up with historical sense,
which is a perception that the past is not something lost and invalid. Rather
it has a function in the present.
It exits with the present. It exerts its influence in our ideas, thoughts and
consciousness. This is historical sense. It is an awareness not only of the
past ness of the past but the presence of the past. On this sense the past is
our contemporary as the present is.
Eliot’s view of tradition is not linear but spatial. Eliot does not believe
that the past is followed by the presence and succession of a line. On the
contrary, the past and the present live side by side in the space. Thus it is
spatial.
Relationship should
the writer have to the writings of the past:
Eliot holds that not only the past influences the present but the present, too,
influences the past. To prove this idea, he conceives of all literature as a
total, indivisible order. All existing literary works belong to an order like
the member of a family. Any new work of literature is like the arrival of a
member or a new relative or a new acquaintance. Its arrival and presence brings
about a readjustment of the previous relationship of the old members.
In his conscious cultivation of historical sense, a writer
reduces the magnification of personal self, which leads to depersonalization
and impersonal act. Eliot regrets that tradition in English world of letters is
used in prerogative sense. This is one reason of the undeveloped critical sense
of the English nation. They are too individualistic on intellectual habits.
Eliot criticizes the English intellectuals. According to Eliot to the English
intellectual tradition is something that should be avoided. They give much more
importance on individualism and are critical about the historical sense or
tradition.
Like Arnold , Eliot views tradition as something living. For both the word
“tradition” implies growth. Eliot recalls Edmund Burke what Burke did for
political thought, by glorifying the idea of inheritance, Eliot has done for
English literary criticism. Burke, famous English politician, gave emphasis on
the experience of the past in politics. In the same Eliot also gives emphasis
on the past regarding English criticism.
Conclusion: A partial or complete
break with the literary past is a danger. An awareness of what has gone before
is necessary to know what is there to be done in the present or future. A
balance between the control of tradition and the freedom of an individual is essential
to art and literature. Eliot said elsewhere that by losing tradition we lose
our held on the present. Hence, a writer should be aware of the importance of
tradition.
0 Comments