Previous
Intro
Eliot states that the word traditional is rarely talked about in terms of writing, except in a derogatory sense. At least, the word is seldom used to praise writers, either living or dead ones. This is because readers often look for the way a writer stands out from their predecessors before appreciating their work. Eliot seeks to remove this prejudice, claiming that the best parts of a poem are actually the ones that are alive with the past.
However, by “following tradition,” Eliot does not mean imitating one’s most recent ancestors. Instead, he means that a traditional poet has a “historical sense” which makes them conscious of the whole past as if it were the present. Together, all poetry makes up a simultaneous whole that is changed by new poetry and guided by old poetry. Eliot goes on to claim that a critic cannot value contemporary poetry without setting it in relation to poetry of the past. The past and the present works measure each other, the new conforming to the old and the old adjusting itself to include the new.
Eliot states that the traditional poet is aware of the entire flow of time, which is always developing but never abandoning anything or improving. Art never improves but only develops. The present is only different from the past in that it understands the past in a way that the past can’t understand itself. The immature poet won’t understand this.
Eliot next addresses some objections that say his vision of poetry involves too much learning that gets in the way of a poet’s intuition and spontaneity. Eliot explains that it doesn’t matter how much material the poet uses to obtain their knowledge, only that the poet develops a consciousness of the past throughout their life. In this process, the poet surrenders constantly to the greater value of their work.
Eliot opens Part II of his essay by stating that true criticism criticizes the poem, not the poet. A poet is accomplished not because of how much personality they have, but because of how perfect a medium they are for combining feelings in new ways. This is like when a piece of platinum causes sulphur dioxide and oxygen to transform into sulphurous acid without itself being involved in or affected by the result.
To illustrate this, Eliot argues that artistic experience is different than any other kind of experience. Artistic emotion is complex, whereas personal emotion need not be. Poets create new feelings out of complex combinations of detail, and the effect is always intense, even if the emotions are different. Eliot claims that what the poet expresses is not their personality, but the “medium” in which these combinations of detail occur. Eliot demonstrates that the overall tone of a passage is not just the result of the situation the passage comes from. Rather, it’s the result of its new combination of feelings.
Lastly, Eliot claims that the poet is not remarkable because of their own personal experiences. In fact, the poet may even have a boring life while still being a good poet. What’s more, seeking new experiences does not help the poet enrich their poetry because artistic emotion is of an entirely different form than personal emotion. Poetry is not an expression of emotion and personality, but rather an escape from both.
In summary, Eliot dedicates his conclusions to anyone genuinely interested in poetry. The poet’s work must be impersonal, and they only achieve this depersonalization if they develop a consciousness of the past as if it were alive in the present.
