Our focus should be on that wondrous device, not ourselves. The existing monuments form an ideal order among themselves, which is modified by the introduction of the new the really new work of art among them. This is a powerful argument, by no means indisputable but strong enough to set the terms for further discussion. In the poetic process, there is only concentration of a number of experiences, and a new thing results from this concentration. He should surrender his personality to something larger and more significant. He should be aware of the tradition. This labour is the labour of knowing the past writers.
Special thanks to the and for funding, and to and , for tireless research assisting. Tradition is a living stream. He should surrender his personality to something larger and more significant. It is an awareness not only of the pastness of the past but the presence of the past. The first outlines how Eliot feels the modern poet sits in relation to tradition. In fact, the bad poet is usually unconscious where he ought to be conscious, and conscious where he ought to be unconscious. His role is very crucial because without the poet, poetry is not possible to create but, in the creation he should be totally dead or absent like the platinum absent in acid.
Eliot said elsewhere that by losing tradition we lose our held on the present. Just as there is no trace of the catalyst platinum left in sulphurous acid, there is no trace of the poet's mind in tradition. And the poet cannot reach this impersonality without surrendering himself wholly to the work to be done. You cannot value him alone; you must set him, for contrast and comparison, among the dead. He cannot escape the judgment of history, so he must acquaint himself with the judges.
A good poem is a living whole of all the poetry that has ever been written. The emotion in his poetry will be a very complex thing, but not with the complexity of the emotions of people who have very complex or unusual emotions in life. It is a judgment, a comparison, in which two things are measured by each other. Like Arnold , Eliot views tradition as something living. At the very outset, Eliot makes it clear that he is using the term tradition as an adjective to explain the relationship of a poem or a work to the works of dead poets and artists.
If you mix oxygen and sulphur dioxide in the presence of platinum a catalyst it will produce sulphurous acid. It calls for a comparison with the past that is with tradition. The relationship between the past and the present is not one-sided; it is a reciprocal relationship. The existing monuments form an ideal order among themselves, which is modified by the introduction of the new the really new work of art among them. According to Eliot to the English intellectual tradition is something that should be avoided. It is by comparison alone that we can sift the traditional from the individual elements in a given work of art.
It is important to point out that for Eliot tradition is not static. Are lordships sold to maintain ladyships For the poor benefit of a bewildering minute? But, of course, only those who have personality and emotions know what it means to want to escape from these things. Nor does it mean only erudition. But, of course, only those who have personality and emotions know what it means to want to escape from these things. A work produced in a different language can be considered for a better appreciation of the work.
He must confine himself to the main trends to the exclusion of all that is incidental or topical. For example, the famous Ode to Nightingale of Keats contains a number of emotions which have nothing to do with the Nightingale. This combination takes place only if the platinum is present; nevertheless the newly formed acid contains no trace of platinum, and the platinum itself is apparently unaffected; has remained inert, neutral, and unchanged. But very few know when there is an expression of significant emotion, emotion which has its life in the poem and not in the history of the poet. In these aspects or parts of his work we pretend to find what is individual, what is the peculiar essence of the man.
Any new work of literature is like the arrival of a member or a new relative or a new acquaintance. A writer draws on only the necessary knowledge of tradition. The past is modified by the present also in the sense that we can look at the past literature always through ever renewing perceptive of the present. He must use his freedom according to his needs. A writer must be aware that he belongs to a larger tradition and there is always an impact of tradition on him. It will even be affirmed that much learning deadens or perverts poetic sensibility. It is not the expression of personality but escape from it In order to support his concept of depersonalized art, Eliot use and analogy related to a gas chamber.
However, knowledge does not merely mean bookish knowledge, and the capacity for acquiring knowledge differs from person to person. Whereas if we approach a poet without this prejudice we shall often find that not only the best, but the most individual parts of his work may be those in which the dead poets, his ancestors, assert their immortality most vigorously. An awareness of what has gone before is necessary to know what is there to be done in the present or future. Hence, a writer should be aware of the importance of tradition. These two gases combine to form sulphurous acid when a fine filament of platinum is introduced into the jar. 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, if ever so slightly, altered; and so the relations, proportions, values of each work of art toward the whole are readjusted; and this is conformity between the old and the new. The effect of a work of art upon the person who enjoys it is an experience different in kind from any experience not of art.