Historical Sense and Impersonality in T. S. Eliot’s Criticism 

This blog has been written as part of an academic assignment given by my professor, Dr. Dilip Barad Sir, with the aim of developing a critical understanding of T. S. Eliot as a poet and critic. A blog, in this context, serves as a reflective digital space where literary theories can be explained in a clear, accessible, and engaging manner beyond the limits of the classroom. Through this blog, I attempt to explore Eliot’s major critical ideas such as tradition, historical sense, individual talent, and depersonalization, while also presenting my own understanding of these concepts. To make the discussion more interactive and learner-friendly, I have embedded five relevant videos that visually and conceptually support the theoretical explanations, helping readers grasp Eliot’s ideas more effectively.

How I Like to Explain Eliot’s Concept of ‘Tradition’

My Understanding of T. S. Eliot’s Concept of ‘Tradition’

When I read T. S. Eliot’s idea of tradition, I understand that he does not mean blindly following old writers or copying classical forms. For Eliot, tradition is something alive, not something locked in the past.

Eliot says,

“The historical sense involves a perception, not only of the pastness of the past but of its presence.” 

To me, this means that the past does not remain behind us as dead history. Instead, it continues to exist in the present. Every poem written today carries echoes of earlier writers, ideas, and literary movements. A poet, therefore, must be aware of this continuous relationship between past and present. Writing is never isolated; it is part of an ongoing literary conversation.

Eliot further explains that this historical sense is 

“A sense of the timeless as well as of the temporal, and of the timeless and of the temporal together.” 

I understand this as the ability of a writer to balance permanence and change. The timeless elements such as human emotions, moral struggles, and artistic values remain constant, while the temporal elements reflect the writer’s own age and personal experience. A truly traditional writer brings both together instead of choosing one over the other.

Thus, being “traditional” does not mean rejecting modern ideas. Rather, it means writing with a deep awareness of literary history while still expressing the spirit of the present age. In my view, Eliot’s concept of tradition encourages originality grounded in knowledge. A poet becomes traditional not by imitation, but by understanding how the past shapes the present and how the present, in turn, reshapes the past.

To develop my understanding of T. S. Eliot’s concept of ‘Tradition’, I have embedded the following video, which clearly explains how Eliot views tradition as a living relationship between the past and the present rather than a rigid imitation of earlier writers. The video helps in clarifying Eliot’s idea of historical sense and shows how a writer becomes truly traditional by remaining aware of literary continuity while responding creatively to the present age. This visual explanation supports the theoretical discussion presented in this section and makes Eliot’s concept easier to grasp.

Do I Agree with Eliot’s Concept of ‘Tradition’?

Yes, I largely agree with T. S. Eliot’s concept of tradition, because it gives a balanced and meaningful way of understanding literature. Eliot does not treat tradition as something rigid or outdated; instead, he sees it as a living force that connects writers across time.

When Eliot says,

“The historical sense involves a perception, not only of the pastness of the past but of its presence,”

I find this idea convincing. Literature does not grow in isolation. Every writer is influenced, consciously or unconsciously, by earlier writers. Agreeing with Eliot, I feel that understanding the past helps a writer become more aware of where their work stands in the larger literary tradition. The past shapes our language, themes, and even our ways of thinking.

I also agree with Eliot’s view that tradition involves 

“a sense of the timeless as well as of the temporal, and of the timeless and of the temporal together.” 

This suggests that great writing combines universal human experiences with the realities of the present age. A writer should not ignore contemporary life, nor should they dismiss the lasting values of literature. The fusion of both makes a work richer and more meaningful.

However, my agreement does not mean that a writer should feel burdened by the past. Rather, Eliot’s idea encourages writers to engage with tradition creatively. By understanding what has come before, writers can produce original work that still respects literary continuity. In this sense, I believe Eliot’s concept of tradition is relevant even today, especially in a modern world that often values novelty without depth.

What Do I Understand by ‘Historical Sense’?

By ‘historical sense’, I understand an awareness that literature is shaped by both the past and the present. It is not just the knowledge of old texts or literary history, but a deeper understanding of how the past continues to live within present writing.

When Eliot says, 

“The historical sense involves a perception, not only of the pastness of the past but of its presence,” 

I take this to mean that the past is never completely over. Earlier writers, ideas, and traditions still influence how we think, write, and read today. A writer with historical sense recognises that every new work is connected to what has already been written.

Eliot further explains that historical sense is “a sense of the timeless as well as of the temporal, and of the timeless and of the temporal together.” I understand this as the ability to combine permanent human values such as love, suffering, faith, and conflict with the specific conditions of one’s own time. The timeless gives literature depth and universality, while the temporal gives it relevance and immediacy.

Thus, historical sense does not restrict creativity; instead, it deepens it. It allows a writer to see themselves as part of a larger literary tradition while still responding to the modern world. In my understanding, this balance between continuity and change is what truly makes a writer traditional in Eliot’s sense.

1. Relationship between “Tradition” and “Individual Talent” according to T. S. Eliot

This image of a tree with deep roots and new branches symbolically represents T. S. Eliot’s relationship between tradition and individual talent. The deep roots stand for literary tradition the accumulated knowledge, forms, and values of past writers that nourish literature. Without these roots, the tree cannot survive, just as a poet cannot achieve greatness without an awareness of tradition. The new branches represent individual talent, showing how each new writer grows from tradition while extending it in fresh and original directions. This image visually explains Eliot’s belief that originality does not reject the past but develops from it, keeping tradition alive through creative renewal.

Aspect	Tradition	Individual Talent
Basic Meaning	Tradition refers to the collective literary heritage of the past that continues to influence the present.	Individual talent refers to the poet’s personal creativity, originality, and artistic ability.
Nature	It is dynamic, not fixed; the literary past changes slightly with every new work.	It is not raw self-expression but refined creativity shaped by discipline.
Key Requirement	Requires a historical sense awareness of the past as living and present.	Requires self-control and surrender of personal ego.
Role in Poetry	Provides a foundation and standard against which new works are judged.	Renews and reshapes tradition through fresh expression.
Relation to the Past	Engages deeply with earlier writers and literary forms.	Does not reject the past but transforms it creatively.
Effect on Originality	Does not limit originality; it strengthens it.	Becomes meaningful only when placed within tradition.
Eliot’s View	Tradition gives continuity and depth to literature.	Individual talent gives vitality and change to tradition.

According to T. S. Eliot, tradition and individual talent are not opposites; rather, they depend on each other. Eliot argues that a poet becomes truly original only when they understand and engage with literary tradition.

Tradition, for Eliot, is not mere imitation of past writers. It requires a historical sense an awareness that the literature of the past continues to live in the present. When a new work is created, it does not stand alone; instead, it slightly alters the existing order of literature. Thus, tradition is dynamic, not fixed.

Individual talent, on the other hand, is the poet’s personal creativity and originality. Eliot believes that this talent becomes meaningful only when it is shaped by tradition. A poet must surrender personal ego and allow their work to be judged in relation to the great writers of the past. In this way, individuality is not destroyed but refined.

Therefore, Eliot sees tradition as the foundation and individual talent as the force that renews it. True poetry emerges when a poet balances respect for tradition with personal originality.

To explain my understanding of ‘historical sense’, I have embedded the following video, which discusses how historical sense forms the foundation of tradition and literary awareness in T. S. Eliot’s criticism. The video helps clarify Eliot’s idea that the past is not dead or distant but continues to exist in the present. By connecting past literary achievements with contemporary writing, this video supports my discussion of historical sense as an essential quality for a writer who wishes to become truly traditional.

2. Explanation of the Quotation about Shakespeare and Knowledge

“Some can absorb knowledge; the more tardy must sweat for it. Shakespeare acquired more essential history from Plutarch than most men could from the whole British Museum.”

Through this statement, Eliot highlights the difference between mere accumulation of knowledge and true creative understanding. He suggests that some exceptional minds can absorb knowledge deeply and naturally, while others may study extensively but gain little insight.

By referring to Shakespeare, Eliot shows that genius does not depend on reading everything available. Shakespeare used a limited source Plutarch’s Lives but transformed it creatively into great dramatic works. In contrast, a person may read countless books without achieving such depth.

Eliot’s point is that creative intelligence matters more than quantity of learning. What makes a great writer is the ability to absorb, transform, and artistically reshape knowledge, not just collect information.

Together, these ideas suggest that literary greatness comes from a balance of tradition, intelligence, and creative power. A poet must engage with the past, but it is the quality of understanding not the quantity of reading that shapes true individual talent.

To explain T. S. Eliot’s quotation about Shakespeare and knowledge, I have embedded the following video, which highlights Eliot’s belief that creative genius depends not on the quantity of learning but on the ability to absorb and transform knowledge. The video clarifies how Shakespeare, by using limited sources like Plutarch, achieved greater artistic depth than many who merely accumulate vast information. This explanation supports my discussion of Eliot’s view that true literary greatness lies in insight and creative intelligence rather than extensive reading alone.

Eliot’s Theory of Depersonalization

T. S. Eliot’s theory of depersonalization argues that poetry should be impersonal. According to him, the poet’s personal emotions, feelings, and personality should not dominate the poem. Instead, poetry should transform emotions into an objective and universal form.

To explain this idea, Eliot uses the example of a chemical reaction. When oxygen and sulphur dioxide combine in the presence of a catalyst like platinum, they form sulphuric acid. The important point is that platinum itself does not change during the reaction. It helps the reaction take place but remains unaffected.

Similarly, the poet’s mind acts like the catalyst. The poet brings together emotions, experiences, and ideas, but their personal feelings do not directly appear in the poem. The poem becomes an independent artistic object, separate from the poet’s private life. Thus, the poet’s personality is not expressed; it is absorbed and transformed.

To explain Eliot’s theory of depersonalization, I have embedded the following video, which uses the famous chemical reaction analogy involving a platinum catalyst to illustrate Eliot’s idea of impersonality in poetry. The video helps in understanding how the poet’s mind functions like a catalyst bringing emotions and experiences together without being personally involved in the final poetic product. This explanation supports Eliot’s argument that poetry should move beyond personal emotion and become an objective and universal artistic expression.

Explanation of the Quotation

“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.”

Through this statement, Eliot rejects the Romantic idea that poetry is the direct expression of personal emotion. He believes that uncontrolled emotion weakens poetry. Instead of releasing emotions freely, the poet must discipline and shape them through technique and form.

By saying poetry is an “escape from personality,” Eliot means that poetry should not be a personal confession. The poet should rise above individual emotions and create something universal, allowing readers to connect with the poem beyond the poet’s personal life. Emotion is present in poetry, but it is objectified, not personal.

Two Points for a Critique of T. S. Eliot as a Critic

1. Overemphasis on Impersonality
   Eliot’s insistence on depersonalization has been criticised for undervaluing personal experience and emotion. Many critics argue that complete impersonality is neither possible nor desirable, as a poet’s individuality inevitably influences their work.

2. Elitist and Limited Critical Outlook
   Eliot often favoured classical and metaphysical poets while dismissing Romantic poets. Critics feel that this narrow preference makes his criticism selective and biased rather than fully inclusive of diverse literary traditions.

To present two critical viewpoints on T. S. Eliot as a critic, I have embedded Video which together provide a balanced critical perspective on his literary theories. Video 1 highlights the responses of Eliot’s contemporary critics, showing how his ideas were received, debated, and sometimes challenged during his own time. Video 5, on the other hand, summarizes and evaluates Eliot’s major critical arguments, allowing for reflection on both the strengths and limitations of his criticism. These videos support a critical assessment of Eliot not only as an influential thinker but also as a contested literary critic.

This blog has explored the major critical ideas of T. S. Eliot, focusing on concepts such as tradition, historical sense, individual talent, depersonalization, and his views on knowledge and criticism. Through these discussions, it becomes clear that Eliot redefined modern literary criticism by emphasizing discipline, objectivity, and a deep awareness of literary history. The embedded videos have supported these ideas by offering visual explanations that strengthen conceptual understanding. Overall, this study shows that Eliot’s criticism, though sometimes rigid and debated, continues to influence the way literature is read, written, and evaluated in the modern age. Engaging with Eliot’s ideas has helped me develop a more structured and reflective approach to literary analysis.

References: 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377083958_Tradition_and_Individual_Talent_-_TS_Eliot