Eliot asserts that every great
poet such as Virgil, Dante and Shakespeare adds something to the literary
tradition and the experiences accumulated over the ages gives rise to new
poetry. Eliot puts forward a classical view of history as opposed to Arnold’ liberalist or Romantic belief. Eliot anticipates the criticism that his theory will invite. The criticism is that the doctrine requires a ridiculous amount of erudition. Further, they were great poets who were not men of letters, and too much learning kills
poetic sensibility. Here learning is not used in the limited sense of knowledge from books, and the ability for absorbing knowledge varies from
person to person. For instance, Shakespeare could know more about Roman history from Plutarch than most men can from the British museum . This leads us to what Eliot called depersonalization or extinction of personality The artist must relegate himself to something more important than himself, the literary tradition. He must enable his poetic sensibility to be moulded by the past. Eliot likens the mind of the poet to a catalyst, and the process of poetic creation to a chemical reaction. Consider a jar containing sulphur dioxide and oxygen; these two gases combine to
form sulphurous acid only when a fine filament of
platinum is introduced into the jar. The reaction takes place only in the presence of platinum, but the metal itself does mot undergo any change. Likewise, the mind of the poet remains neutral and unaffected .Eliot compares the mind of the poet to a receptacle in which are stored numerous feelings, emotions ,ideas, figures of speech, concepts which lie there in a chaotic form till the entities that can form an organic compound are present together. Therefore poetry is skillful organization rather than mere inspiration. Poetry is objective and does not reflect the mind of the poet but is an escape from the same.
More summaries about the tradition and Individual talent-2