<P> Eliot presents his conception of tradition and the definition of the poet and poetry in relation to it . He wishes to correct the fact that, as he perceives it, "in English writing we seldom speak of tradition, though we occasionally apply its name in deploring its absence ." Eliot posits that, though the English tradition generally upholds the belief that art progresses through change--a separation from tradition, literary advancements are instead recognised only when they conform to the tradition . Eliot, a classicist, felt that the true incorporation of tradition into literature was unrecognised, that tradition, a word that "seldom...appear (s) except in a phrase of censure," was actually a thus - far unrealised element of literary criticism . </P> <P> For Eliot, the term "tradition" is imbued with a special and complex character . It represents a "simultaneous order," by which Eliot means a historical timelessness--a fusion of past and present--and, at the same time, a sense of present temporality . A poet must embody "the whole of the literature of Europe from Homer," while, simultaneously, expressing their contemporary environment . Eliot challenges the common perception that a poet's greatness and individuality lie in their departure from their predecessors; he argues that "the most individual parts of his (the poet's) work may be those in which the dead poets, his ancestors, assert their immortality most vigorously ." Eliot claims that this "historical sense" is not only a resemblance to traditional works but an awareness and understanding of their relation to his poetry . </P> <P> This fidelity to tradition, however, does not require the great poet to forfeit novelty in an act of surrender to repetition . Rather, Eliot has a much more dynamic and progressive conception of the poetic process: novelty is possible only through tapping into tradition . When a poet engages in the creation of new work, they realise an aesthetic "ideal order," as it has been established by the literary tradition that has come before them . As such, the act of artistic creation does not take place in a vacuum . The introduction of a new work alters the cohesion of this existing order, and causes a readjustment of the old to accommodate the new . The inclusion of the new work alters the way in which the past is seen; elements of the past that are noted and realised . In Eliot's own words, "What happens when a new work of art is created is something that happens simultaneously to all the works of art that preceded it ." Eliot refers to this organic tradition, this developing canon, as the "mind of Europe ." The private mind is subsumed by this more massive one . </P> <P> This leads to Eliot's so - called "Impersonal Theory" of poetry . Since the poet engages in a "continual surrender of himself" to the vast order of tradition, artistic creation is a process of depersonalisation . The mature poet is viewed as a medium, through which tradition is channelled and elaborated . They compare the poet to a catalyst in a chemical reaction, in which the reactants are feelings and emotions that are synthesised to create an artistic image that captures and relays these same feelings and emotions . While the mind of the poet is necessary for the production, it emerges unaffected by the process . The artist stores feelings and emotions and properly unites them into a specific combination, which is the artistic product . What lends greatness to a work of art are not the feelings and emotions themselves, but the nature of the artistic process by which they are synthesised . The artist is responsible for creating "the pressure, so to speak, under which the fusion takes place ." And, it is the intensity of fusion that renders art great . In this view, Eliot rejects the theory that art expresses metaphysical unity in the soul of the poet . The poet is a depersonalised vessel, a mere medium . </P>

T.s eliot tradition and the individual talent analysis