T.S.

Eliot as a critic
Eliot is one of the greatest literary critics of England from the point of view of the bulk and
quality of his critical writings. His five hundred and odd essays occasionally published as
reviews and articles had a far-reaching influence on literary criticism in the country. His
criticism was revolutionary which inverted the critical tradition of the whole English
speaking work. John Hayward says:

“I cannot think of a critic who has been more widely read and discussed in his own life-
time; and not only in English, but in almost every language, except Russian.”

As a critic Eliot has his faults. At times he assumes a hanging-judge attitude and his
statements savor of a verdict. Often his criticism is marred by personal and religious
prejudices blocking an honest and impartial estimate. Moreover, he does not judge all by the
same standards. There is didacticism in his later essays and with the passing of time his
critical faculties were increasingly exercised on social problems. Critics have also found fault
with his style as too full of doubts, reservations and qualifications.

Still, such faults do not detract Eliot’s greatness as a critic. His criticism has revolutionized
the great writers of the past three centuries. His recognition of the greatness of the
Metaphysical poets of the 17th century resulted in the Metaphysical revival of the 20th
century. The credit for the renewal of interest in the Jacobean dramatists goes to Eliot. He has
restored Dryden and other Augustan poets to their due place. His essay on Dante aroused
curiosity for the latter middle ages. The novelty of his statements, hidden in sharp phrases,
startles and arrests attention. According to Eliot, the end of criticism is to bring readjustment
between the old and the new. He says:

“From time to time it is desirable, that some critic shall appear to review the past of our
literature, and set the poets and the poems in a new order.”

Such critics are rare, for they must possess, besides ability for judgment, powerful liberty of
mind to identify and interpret its own values and category of admiration for their generation.
John Hayward says:

“Matthew Arnold was such a critic as were Coleridge and Johnson and Dryden before
him; and such, in our own day, is Eliot himself.”

Eliot’s criticism offers both reassessment and reaction to earlier writers. He called himself “a
classicist in literature”. His vital contribution is the reaction against romanticism and
humanism which brought a classical revival in art and criticism. He rejected the romantic
view of the individual’s perfectibility, stressed the doctrine of the original sin and exposed
the futility of the romantic faith in the “Inner Voice”. Instead of following his ‘inner voice’, a
critic must follow objective standards and must conform to tradition. A sense of tradition,
respect for order and authority is central to Eliot’s classicism. He sought to correct the
excesses of “the abstract and intellectual” school of criticism represented by Arnold. He
sought to raise criticism to the level of science. In his objectivity and logical attitude, Eliot
most closely resembles Aristotle. A. G. George says:

“Eliot’s theory of the impersonality of poetry is the greatest theory on the nature of the
process after Wordsworth’s romantic conception of poetry.”
Poetry was an expression of the emotions and personality for romantics. Wordsworth said
that poetry was an overflow of powerful emotions and its origin is in “Emotions recollected
in tranquility”. Eliot rejects this view and says that poetry is not an expression of emotion and
personality but an escape from them. The poet is only a catalytic agent that fuses varied
emotions into new wholes. He distinguishes between the emotions of the poet and the artistic
emotion, and points out that the function of criticism is to turn attention from the poet to his
poetry.

Eliot’s views on the nature of poetic process are equally revolutionary. According to him,
poetry is not inspiration, it is organization. The poet’s mind is like a vessel in which are
stored numerous feelings, emotions and experiences. The poetic process fuses these distinct
experiences and emotions into new wholes. In “The Metaphysical Poets”, he writes:

“When a poet’s mind is perfectly equipped for its work, it is constantly amalgamating
disparate experiences; the ordinary man’s experience is chaotic, irregular,
fragmentary”.

Perfect poetry results when instead of ‘dissociation of sensibility’ there is ‘unification of

sensibility’. The emotional and the rational, the creative and the critical, faculties must work
in harmony to produce great work of art. Critics stressed that the aim of poetry is to give
pleasure or to teach morally. However, for Eliot the greatness of a poem is tested by the order
and unity it imposes on the chaotic and disparate experiences of the poet. Wimsatt and
Brooks are right in saying:

“Hardly since the 17th century had critical writing in English so resolutely transposed
poetic theory from the axis of pleasure versus pain to that of unity versus multiplicity.”

Eliot devised numerous critical concepts that gained wide currency and has a broad influence
on criticism. ‘Objective co-relative’, ‘Dissociation of sensibility’, ‘Unification of sensibility’
are few of Eliot clichés hotly debated by critics. His dynamic theory of tradition, of
impersonality of poetry, his assertion on ‘a highly developed sense of fact’ tended to impart
to literary criticism catholicity and rationalism.

To conclude, Eliot’s influence as a critic has been wide, constant, fruitful and inspiring. He
has corrected and educated the taste of his readers and brought about a rethinking regarding
the function of poetry and the nature of the poet process. He gave a new direction and new
tools of criticism. It is in the re-consideration and revival of English poetry of the past.
George Watson writes:

“Eliot made English criticism look different, but not in a simple sense. He offered it a
new range of rhetorical possibilities, confirmed it in its increasing contempt for
historical processes, and yet reshaped its notion of period by a handful of brilliant
institutions.”

His comments on the nature of Poetic Drama and the relation between poetry and drama have
done much to bring about a revival of Poetic Drama in the modern age. Even if he had
written no poetry, he would have made his mark as a distinguished and subtle critic.
The Metaphysical Poets
This essay was originally a review in the London Times Literary Supplement (October 20,
1921) of the book Metaphysical Lyrics and Poems of the Seventeenth Century. In this essay,
Eliot discusses three questions: To what extent did the so-called metaphysical form a school
or a movement? How far is this so-called school or movement a digression from the main
current? What is the importance in the modern age, of the study of these poets? The essay
may be summarized under four headings:

1) DEFINITION OF METAPHYSICAL POETRY

According to T. S. Eliot, it is extremely difficult to define metaphysical poetry. The difficulty
arises when we are to decide what poets practised it and in which of their poems. The poetry
of Herbert, Vaughan, Crashaw, Cowley and Donne is usually called metaphysical. However,
it is difficult to find any precise use of metaphor, simile or other conceit, which is common to
all these poets. Donne and often Cowley, “employ a device which is sometimes considered
characteristically metaphysical: the elaboration of a figure of speech to the farthest stage to
which ingenuity can carry it”. Donne develops a comparison of two lovers to a pair of
compasses. Sometimes we find in them “a development by rapid association of thought
which requires considerable agility on the part of the reader”. Donne is more successful than
Cowley because in developing comparisons, he uses brief words and sudden contrasts:

“A bracelet of bright hair about the bone”

where the most powerful effect is produced by the sudden contrast of the associations of
“bright hair” and of “bone”. So it is to be maintained that metaphysical poetry is the
elaboration of far-fetched images and communicated association of poet’s mental processes.

Johnson employed the term ‘metaphysical poets’, apparently having Donne, Cleveland and
Cowley chiefly in mind. In their poetry, he remarks:

“the most heterogeneous ideas are yoked by violence together”.

The force of this accusation lies in the fact that often the ideas are yoked but not united. But
this is not blameworthy in itself, as it has been practised by a number of poets and even by
Johnson himself. Johnson, shrewd and sensitive critic, Eliot concludes, failed to define
metaphysical poetry by its faults.

Eliot adopts the opposite method to define metaphysical poetry. Instead of calling these poets
metaphysical, he calls them “the poets of the seventeenth century”. He assumes that these
poets were the direct and normal development of the precedent age. Without prejudicing their
case by the adjective ‘metaphysical’, we may consider “whether their virtue was not
something permanently valuable”.

Eliot lays emphasis on the synthetic quality in these poets. Eliot praises the metaphysical
poets for their successful attempt to unite what resists unification. To unite thought and
feeling, the poetic and unpoetic, form and content, was the main quality of the metaphysical
poets. Eliot points out the difference by dividing the poets into two kinds: intellectual poets
and reflective poets.

“Tennyson and Browning are poets, and they think; but they do not feel their though as
immediately as the odour of a rose. A though to Donne was an experience; it modified
his sensibility. When a poet’s mind is perfectly equipped for its work, it is constantly
merging disparate experience; the ordinary man’s experience is chaotic, irregular
fragmentary”.

In the mind of the poet experiences are related to one another and from new wholes.

2) DISSOCIATION OF SENSIBILITY
The poets of the 17th century possessed a mechanism of sensibility which could devour any
kind of experience. They are simple, artificial, difficult or fantastic. In the 17th century
dissociation of sensibility set in and Milton and Dryden, the two great poets carried on with
this process. While the language became more refined, the feeling became cruder. The
language became unnatural and artificial. But this development of language reduced the
importance of feeling. The logical conclusion of the influence of Milton and Dryden was that:

“The sentimental age began early in the 18th century and continued. The poets revolted
against the ratiocinative”.

In Shelley and Keats, there are traces of a struggle towards unification of sensibility. But they
died and reflective poets Tennyson and Browning held the ground. If there had been no gap
between the 17th and 18th centuries, poets like Donne would not have been called
metaphysical. The poets in question have, like other poets, various faults.

3) THE METAPHYSICAL POETS AND THE MODERN AGE

It is not a permanent necessity that poets should be interested in philosophy, or in any other
subject. But our present civilization demands the poets to be difficult.

“Our civilization comprehends great variety and complexity, and this variety and
complexity, playing upon a refined sensibility, must produce various and refined
results. The poet must become more and more comprehensive, more allusive, more
indirect, in order to force, to dislocate if necessary, language into his meaning”.

Hence we get something which looks very much like the conceit. If this is done, the poets of
the present age will draw closer to the metaphysical poets, because both use obscure words
and simple phrasing.

4) CONCLUSION
In the end, Eliot defends the metaphysical poets that the charges such as quaintness,
obscurity, wittiness and unintelligibility are found even in serious poets. The metaphysical
ideas are not simply the possession of this group of poets. They are found in other poets as
well.

From this essay we can draw three conclusions: First, the main quality of the metaphysical
poets is their fidelity to thought and feeling, an attempt to merge into one whole the most
heterogeneous ideas; secondly, if dissociation of sensibility has not taken place during the
17th century and a gap had not occurred, they would not have been called metaphysical;
thirdly, modern poets are tending to become like them in their use of language and ideas and
hence the metaphysical poets are in the direct current of English poetry.
T. S. Eliot: Dissociation of sensibility
Another of the popular clichés of Eliot is the phrase, “Dissociation of Sensibility”, and its
opposite, “Unification of Sensibility”. The phrase was first used by Eliot in his essay on the
Metaphysical Poets of the early 17th century. By unification sensibility, T. S. Eliot means “a
fusion of thought and feeling”, “a recreation of thought into feeling”, “a direct sensuous
apprehension of thought”. Such fusion of thought and feeling is essential for good poetry.
This poetry results when there is, “dissociation of sensibility” i.e. the poet is unable to feel his
thoughts. Eliot finds such unification of sensibility in the Metaphysical poets, and regrets that
a dissociation of sensibility set in the late 17th century; there was a split between thought and
feeling and we have not yet recovered from this dissociation. The influence of Dryden and
Milton has been particularly harmful in this respect.

In his essay of “The Metaphysical Poets”, T. S. Eliot explains show this fusion of thought and
feeling takes place:

“Tennyson and Browning are poets; and they think, but they do not feel their thought
as immediately as the odour of a rose. A thought to Donne was an experience; it
modified his sensibility. When a poet’s mind is perfectly equipped for its work, it is
constantly amalgamating disparate experiences; the ordinary man’s experience is
chaotic, irregular, fragmentary. The latter falls in love, or reads Spinoza, and these two
experiences have nothing to do with each other, or with the noise of the typewriter or
the smell of cooking; in the mind of the poet thee experiences are always forming new
wholes.”

Eliot does not regard Browning to be a great poet, for, no doubt, he has ideas, but he fails to
transmit his ideas into emotions and sensations. Merely dry thoughts or logic do not make a
great poet. A poet creates in heat, in a moment of inspiration, but he corrects at leisure. The
poet must create, but he must also bring the critical faculty to work upon what he has created.
He must revise and polish, and thus lick his creation into shape. A great poet must of
necessity be a great critic as well, for he must constantly analyze, reject, and select.
Objective Co-Relative

Clive Bell rightly praised Eliot for his gift of phrasing, and this gift is displayed as much in
his prose as in his poetry. He has coined a number of memorable phrases, which bite in and
strike deep and hence have gained wide currency. Whatever may be the ultimate value of his
criticism – and it is too early as yet to make any final assessment – there can be no denying
the fact that he is a great irritant to thought. In order to understand Eliot's criticism, it is
essential to examine some of his critical concepts in some detail.

The phrase ‘Objective Co-relative’ was first used by Eliot in his essay on ‘Hamlet’. The
phrase has gained such wide popularity that Wimsatt and Brooks write:

“The phrase objective co-relative has gained a currency probably for beyond anything
that the author could have expected or intended”.

In the opinion of T. S. Eliot, emotion can best be expressed in poetry through the use of some
suitable objective co-relative. He himself defines ‘objective co-relative’ as “a set of objects,
situation, a chain of events, which shall be the formula” for the poet’s emotion so that “when
the external facts are given the emotion is at once evoked”. For example, in Macbeth the
dramatist has to convey the mental agony of Lady Macbeth and he does so in, ‘the sleep-
walking scene’ not through direct description, but through an unconscious repetition of her
past actions. Her mental agony has been made objective so that it can as well be seen by the
eyes as felt by the heart. The external situation is adequate to convey the emotions, the agony
of Lady Macbeth. Instead of communicating the emotions directly to the reader, the dramatist
has embodied them in a situation or chain of events, which suitably communicate the emotion
s to the reader. Similarly, the dramatist could devise in ‘Othello’ a situation which is a
suitable, ‘objective co-relative’, for the emotion of the hero. Hamlet is an artistic failure for
here the external situation does not suitably embody the effect of a mother’s guilt on her son.
The disgust of Hamlet is in excess of the facts as presented in the drama.

The phrase “objective co-relative” has been discussed threadbare by a number of critics, and
most divergent views have been expressed. Thus for Cleanth Brooks the phrase means,
“organic Metaphor”, for Elises Vevas it is a “vehicle of expression for the poet’s emotion”,
and for Austin, “it is the poetic content to be conveyed by verbal expressions”. What Eliot
exactly meant by the phrase is hard to determine. We can only say that it is a way of
conveying emotion, without direct verbal expression by presenting certain situation and
events which arouse a similar emotion in the readers. It is the way through which a poet, like
Eliot, de-personalizes his emotions.