Tradition and the Individual Talent by T.S. Eliot
Tradition and the Individual Talent by T.S. Eliot
This blog is written as a task assigned by the head of the Department of English (MKBU), Prof. and Dr. Dilip Barad Sir. Here is the link to the professor's research article for background reading: Click here.
{getToc} $title={Table of Contents} $count={false}
 |
| Source: Tradition and the Individual Talent by T.S. Eliot |
Q.-1.|How would you like to explain Eliot's concept of 'Tradition'? Do you agree with it? What do you understand by 'Historical Sense'?
Ans.
1. Introduction
T. S. Eliot's essay, 'Tradition and the Individual Talent,' revolutionized literary criticism by redefining tradition. Eliot envisioned tradition as a dynamic and integral force that binds past and present art, encouraging writers to draw upon it while contributing uniquely to the literary continuum. This answer explores Eliot's concept of tradition, his notion of "historical sense," and critiques the feasibility of his ideas in contemporary times.
Eliot emphasized that—
"[Tradition] involves, in the first place, the historical sense... and the historical sense involves a perception, not only of the pastness of the past, but of its presence."(Eliot)
This answer examines how Eliot's insistence on tradition fosters artistic innovation rather than stifling creativity.
2. Understanding Eliot's Concept of Tradition
2.1. Tradition as a Collective Consciousness
Eliot perceives tradition not as a static inheritance but as an ongoing dialogue between the past and the present. He states,
"Tradition is a matter of much wider significance. It cannot be inherited, and if you want it you must obtain it by great labor."(Eliot)
Tradition, for Eliot, is not a mere repetition of past styles but an active engagement requiring intellectual rigor.
Jürgen Kramer highlights that Eliot's notion of tradition—
"means to take issue with it--this act implies change."(Kramer)
Far from blind adherence, tradition for Eliot coincides with intellectual critique, evolution, and the inclusion of new works into the larger framework of literature.
2.2. Tradition and Individual Talent: A Symbiotic Relationship
Eliot argues that no artist exists in isolation:
"No poet, no artist of any art, has his complete meaning alone. His significance, his appreciation is the appreciation of his relation to the dead poets and artists."(Eliot)
This interdependence demands that writers internalize the past, not to mimic it but to redefine it in light of contemporary concerns.
Mario Praz underscores this duality, suggesting that Eliot's tradition—
"coincides with what he calls classicism,"(Praz)
—a balance between innovation and respect for antecedents. Thus, writers harmonize past influences with their unique perspectives.
3. The Historical Sense: A Key to Tradition
3.1. Definition of Historical Sense
Eliot's concept of the "historical sense" lies at the heart of his idea of tradition. He writes,
"The historical sense involves a perception, not only of the pastness of the past but of its presence... timeless and of the temporal together."(Eliot)
This perception bridges temporal gaps, allowing writers to see past works as contemporaneous in their essence.
Jürgen Kramer expands on this, describing the historical sense as—
"an historical and structural one at the same time."(Kramer)
Writers, therefore, position their creations within a larger artistic network, acknowledging historical influences while reshaping them.
3.2. The Timeless and the Temporal
Eliot's insistence on viewing literature as both timeless and temporal challenges the notion of linear literary progress. He asserts that—
"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."(Eliot)
Each new work reshapes the literary tradition, creating a dynamic interplay between past and present.
This perspective resonates with Mario Praz’s argument that—
"the critic's task should be to see literature not as consecrated by time, but to see it beyond time; to see the best work of our time and the best work of twenty-five hundred years ago with the same eyes."(Praz)
4. Critiquing Eliot's Tradition
4.1. Strengths of Eliot’s Approach
4.1.1. Organic Development:
Eliot's view that tradition evolves through active reinterpretation, as highlighted in Dilip Barad’s assertion that tradition is—
"an invention of anyone who is ready to create his or her literary pantheon."(Barad)
4.1.2. Critical Inclusivity:
Eliot critiques the tendency to isolate works from their historical context, urging a holistic approach to literary appreciation.
4.2. Limitations of Eliot’s Concept
4.2.1. Elitist Undertones:
By emphasizing laborious intellectual engagement, Eliot’s tradition appears inaccessible to writers outside established literary circles.
4.2.2. Overemphasis on the West:
Eliot’s Eurocentric focus excludes non-Western literary traditions, a critique noted by many contemporary scholars.
5. Do I Agree with Eliot’s Concept of Tradition?
Eliot’s emphasis on interdependence between the past and present remains a cornerstone of literary criticism. However, I believe that his approach requires modernization to accommodate global perspectives. While I agree with Eliot’s rejection of blind imitation, his exclusion of marginalized traditions is a significant drawback.
6. Conclusion
T. S. Eliot’s concept of tradition, grounded in the "historical sense," offers a transformative vision of artistic creation. It challenges writers to situate themselves within a continuum of literary achievement while fostering innovation. However, for Eliot’s ideas to remain relevant, they must adapt to contemporary pluralistic discourses. Tradition, as Eliot envisioned, is not a limitation but an enduring invitation to dialogue.
Through his essay, Eliot immortalizes the interplay between the timeless and the temporal, leaving writers with the enduring task of shaping tradition in light of the ever-evolving present.
Q.-2.|What is the relationship between “tradition” and "individual talent,” according to the poet T. S. Eliot?
Ans.
Video Lecture on T.S. Eliot: Tradition & Association with Individual Talent on YouTube/DoE-MKBU: Click here.
1. Introduction
T. S. Eliot's seminal essay, 'Tradition and the Individual Talent,' has profoundly shaped literary criticism. It presents a nuanced understanding of how writers must engage with the past and their own creative faculties. Eliot’s key argument revolves around the symbiotic relationship between "tradition" and "individual talent," where the former signifies a dynamic continuum of literary history and the latter refers to the unique contribution of an artist. As Eliot succinctly puts it,
“Tradition is a matter of much wider significance. It cannot be inherited, and if you want it you must obtain it by great labor.”(Eliot)
This answer explores the theoretical and practical implications of Eliot's ideas, emphasizing his rejection of egocentric creativity in favor of a collective and historical approach to art. Through an examination of Eliot’s notion of "tradition" and the role of "individual talent," I argue that his framework fosters an organic evolution of literature, where the past and present coexist in a creative dialectic.
2. Tradition: A Framework of Literary Continuity
2.1. Definition and Scope of Tradition
For Eliot, "tradition" extends beyond its conventional meaning of inherited practices or beliefs. It is an active, intellectual engagement with the literary past, which—
“involves, in the first place, the historical sense... and the historical sense involves a perception, not only of the pastness of the past, but of its presence.”(Eliot)
This "historical sense" allows writers to recognize the simultaneous existence of past and present works, forming a "simultaneous order" of literature from Homer to modernity.
Dilip Barad elaborates that Eliot’s concept of tradition—
"does not refer to a legacy of writers which can be handed down... It has nothing to do with the idea of inheritance; rather it regrets a great deal of endeavor."(Barad)
Thus, tradition is earned through rigorous engagement and is not a passive inheritance.
2.2. The Interdependence of Old and New
Tradition, according to Eliot, is not static but undergoes constant renewal. He states,
“The past should be altered by the present as much as the present is directed by the past.”(Eliot)
This dynamic interaction ensures that every new work of art modifies the existing order.
“For order to persist after the supervention of novelty, the whole existing order must be, if ever so slightly, altered”(Eliot)
Jürgen Kramer interprets this as a dialectical process, where—
"the acquiring of tradition means to take issue with it—this act implies change."(Kramer)
Hence, tradition evolves as new works challenge and redefine its boundaries, maintaining its relevance.
2.3. Critique of Blind Imitation
Eliot critiques the tendency to celebrate originality at the expense of historical continuity. He writes,
“You cannot value [a poet] alone; you must set him, for contrast and comparison, among the dead.”(Eliot)
However, this does not imply blind adherence to past conventions. Instead, Eliot argues that genuine creativity requires engaging with tradition critically. As Kramer explains,
"Genuine tradition is a dialectical phenomenon: in it we grasp hold of what has been as being something else."(Kramer)
3. Individual Talent: The Artist’s Role in Tradition
3.1. The Creative Individual and Historical Engagement
Eliot posits that the individual talent of a writer is not in opposition to tradition but a part of it. He asserts,
“No poet, no artist of any art, has his complete meaning alone. His significance... is the appreciation of his relation to the dead poets and artists.”(Eliot)
By situating themselves within the continuum of tradition, writers contribute to and transform it.
This relationship demands intellectual rigor. As Eliot notes,
"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."(Eliot)
Video Lecture on T. S. Eliot's quote "some can absorb knowledge, the more tardy must sweat for it" on YouTube/DoE-MKBU: Click here.
Here, Eliot emphasizes the importance of assimilating tradition through dedicated study rather than superficial imitation.
3.2. Impersonality and Objectivity in Art
One of Eliot’s most radical ideas is the impersonality of the artist. He writes,
“The progress of an artist is a continual self-sacrifice, a continual extinction of personality.”(Eliot)
This perspective challenges Romantic notions of poetry as a spontaneous overflow of personal emotion. Instead, Eliot argues,
“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.”(Eliot)
Barad underscores this point by stating,
"The poet is not supposed to compose poetry which is full of his personal emotions... Thus, Eliot emphasizes objectivity in poetry."(Barad)
This objectivity is achieved through the poet's alignment with tradition, which serves as a mediating force between personal experiences and universal truths.
3.3. The Shred of Platinum: A Catalyst for Creativity
Eliot uses a scientific analogy to describe the artist's role in transforming personal emotions into universal art. He compares the poet’s mind to a catalytic agent, writing,
“The mind of the poet is the shred of platinum... the more perfect the artist, the more completely separate in him will be the man who suffers and the mind which creates.”(Eliot)
This process ensures that the poet's work transcends individual subjectivity, becoming a part of the timeless literary tradition.
4. The Dialectical Relationship Between Tradition and Individual Talent
4.1. Tradition as a Creative Constraint
Eliot’s framework does not suppress individuality but channels it through tradition. By engaging with tradition, the individual talent gains depth and context. As Eliot states,
“This historical sense, which is a sense of the timeless as well as of the temporal... is what makes a writer most acutely conscious of his place in time”(Eliot)
This interplay is dialectical, as Kramer notes:
"The active, i.e., the artistically critical acquisition of a certain tradition means to take issue with it, to negate the old convention... thus creating a new one."(Kramer)
The individual talent, therefore, revitalizes tradition while simultaneously being shaped by it.
4.2. The Evolution of the Literary Canon
Eliot's concept of tradition redefines the literary canon as a living entity. He writes,
“What happens when a new work of art is created is something that happens simultaneously to all the works of art which preceded it.”(Eliot)
Each new contribution reconfigures the relationships within the canon, ensuring its continual evolution.
This idea resonates with Barad’s observation that Eliot’s tradition is—
“an invention of anyone who is ready to create his or her literary pantheon.”(Barad)
By this logic, the canon is not fixed but open to reinterpretation and expansion.
5. Conclusion
T. S. Eliot’s 'Tradition and the Individual Talent' presents a compelling vision of literary creation as a dialectical process between tradition and individual talent. Tradition provides a framework of continuity and collective wisdom, while individual talent revitalizes it with innovation and critique. Together, they ensure the dynamic evolution of literature.
Eliot’s ideas challenge us to rethink the role of history in artistic creation, emphasizing that true originality lies not in rejecting the past but in engaging with it critically. As Kramer aptly notes,
"In tradition, we experience ourselves as something else."(Kramer)
By embracing this dynamic interplay, writers and critics alike contribute to the ever-expanding tapestry of human creativity.
Q.-3.|How would you like to explain Eliot's theory of depersonalization?
Ans.
Video Lecture on T. S. Eliot: Analogy of Chemical Reaction & Theory of Impersonalization on YouTube/DoE-MKBU: Click here.
1. Introduction
T. S. Eliot’s theory of depersonalization, as outlined in his seminal essay 'Tradition and the Individual Talent,' redefined the nature of poetic creation. Contrasting Romantic notions that emphasized the poet’s personal emotions and subjectivity, Eliot proposed that the essence of great art lies in its impersonality. He famously declared,
"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"(Eliot)
Through the metaphor of a chemical reaction facilitated by a catalyst, Eliot argues that the poet’s role is akin to that of a neutral medium through which raw emotions and feelings are transformed into universal art. This answer explores the nuances of Eliot's depersonalization theory, its scientific analogy, and its implications for literary creation and criticism.
2. The Foundations of Depersonalization
2.1. The Rejection of Personal Expression
Eliot’s theory stands in opposition to the Romantic ideal of poetry as an outpouring of personal emotions. He states,
"The emotion of art is impersonal. And the poet cannot reach this impersonality without surrendering himself wholly to the work to be done."(Eliot)
This surrender involves a deliberate separation between the poet’s personal experiences and the emotions expressed in their work.
Barad supports this view, observing that—
"Eliot refutes the idea that poetry is the expression of the poet’s personality. Experiences in the life of the man may have no place in his poems, and vice-versa."(Barad)
For Eliot, the poet’s life and art are distinct, and it is the art, not the individual, that holds significance.
2.2. The Progress of the Artist
Eliot describes the creative process as a journey of self-effacement:
"The progress of an artist is a continual self-sacrifice, a continual extinction of personality."(Eliot)
This self-sacrifice enables the poet to become a medium through which universal truths are articulated, transcending personal limitations.
3. The Catalyst Analogy: Depersonalization as a Scientific Process
3.1. The Role of the Catalyst
Eliot draws an analogy between the poet’s mind and the function of a catalyst in a chemical reaction. He explains,
"When the two gases previously mentioned are mixed in the presence of a filament of platinum, they form sulphurous acid. 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."(Eliot)
In this metaphor, the poet’s mind (the platinum) acts as a medium that facilitates the transformation of raw emotions and feelings (the gases) into poetry (the sulphurous acid). The poet does not impart their personality into the work; rather, they remain “inert, neutral, and unchanged,” enabling the creative process without directly influencing its outcome.
Barad elaborates on this analogy, noting,
"He suggests the analogy of a catalyst’s role in a chemical process in a scientific laboratory for this process of depersonalization."(Barad)
By aligning poetic creation with scientific principles, Eliot underscores the objectivity and discipline required in art.
3.2. The Transformation of Emotions
Eliot’s emphasis on the transformative role of the poet highlights the distinction between personal and artistic emotions. He writes,
"The experience, you will notice, the elements which enter the presence of the transforming catalyst, are of two kinds: emotions and feelings."(Eliot)
These elements, once processed by the poet’s mind, are no longer tied to the poet’s personal life but are transmuted into universal expressions.
4. Objectivity and Impersonality in Art
4.1. The Impersonal Nature of Poetic Emotion
Eliot argues that the emotions expressed in poetry are not reflective of the poet’s personal experiences. He states,
"It is not in his personal emotions, the emotions provoked by particular events in his life, that the poet is in any way remarkable or interesting."(Eliot)
Instead, the poet draws on ordinary emotions, transforming them into complex artistic expressions:
"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"(Eliot)
This impersonality ensures that poetry transcends individual subjectivity, enabling it to resonate universally. As Eliot notes,
"The business of the poet is not to find new emotions, but to use the ordinary ones and, in working them up into poetry, to express feelings which are not in actual emotions at all"(Eliot)
4.2. The Escape from Personality
Eliot’s theory demands that poets distance themselves from their personal identities to achieve artistic excellence. He asserts,
"The more perfect the artist, the more completely separate in him will be the man who suffers and the mind which creates."(Eliot)
This separation allows the poet’s mind to function as a neutral medium, free from the constraints of personal bias.
Barad supports this perspective, stating,
"Eliot emphasizes objectivity in poetry. Eliot believes that some sort of ‘physical distancing,’ to use Bullough’s term, is necessary for successful composition"(Barad)
This distancing enables the poet to engage with universal emotions, rather than confining their work to personal experiences.
5. Depersonalization and Literary Criticism
5.1. The Focus on the Work
Eliot’s theory also has significant implications for literary criticism. He argues,
"Honest criticism and sensitive appreciation are directed not upon the poet but upon the poetry."(Eliot)
By shifting the focus from the poet’s biography to the work itself, Eliot establishes a framework for objective literary analysis.
Barad highlights this shift, observing,
"For Eliot, poetry is not recollection of feeling, "it is a new thing resulting from the concentration of a very great number of experiences . . . it is a concentration which does not happen consciously or of deliberation""(Barad)
This perspective liberates poetry from the confines of individual subjectivity, allowing it to stand as an autonomous work of art.
5.2. The Universality of Artistic Expression
Through depersonalization, Eliot ensures that poetry speaks to universal human experiences rather than the idiosyncrasies of the poet’s life. He writes,
"And emotions which he has never experienced will serve his turn as well as those familiar to him."(Eliot)
This universality is essential for poetry to transcend temporal and cultural boundaries, making it accessible to diverse audiences.
6. Conclusion
T. S. Eliot’s theory of depersonalization redefines poetic creation as an objective and disciplined process. By likening the poet’s mind to a catalytic agent, Eliot emphasizes the transformative role of the artist in creating universal expressions of emotion. He rejects the Romantic ideal of poetry as personal expression, advocating instead for the separation of the poet’s life from their art.
This theory not only elevates the artistic process but also provides a robust framework for literary criticism, shifting the focus from the poet to the poetry itself. As Eliot aptly concludes,
"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."(Eliot)
Through this escape, poetry achieves its highest purpose: to illuminate the shared truths of human experience.
Q.-4.|T.S. Eliot as a critic.
Ans.
Video Lecture on T.S. Eliot: Tradition and Individual Talent: Summing up on YouTube/DoE-MKBU: Click here.
1. Introduction
T. S. Eliot, one of the most influential figures in 20th-century literature, is celebrated not only for his poetry but also for his profound contributions to literary criticism. His essays, particularly 'Tradition and the Individual Talent,' redefined the role of the critic and the artist in engaging with tradition, history, and creativity. As Mario Praz observes,
"T. S. Eliot is by far the most important critic of the twentieth century in the English-speaking world"(Praz)
Eliot’s criticism, rooted in his poetic credo, emphasizes objectivity, historical continuity, and impersonality. This answer examines his critical framework, exploring its key components, including tradition, depersonalization, and the interdependence of past and present. Furthermore, it evaluates his impact on modern literary criticism, underscoring why his ideas remain relevant.
2. Eliot’s Poetic Credo as Criticism
2.1. Criticism as a Reflection of Poetic Practice
Eliot’s critical theories are inseparable from his poetic practice. As Dilip Barad notes,
"Thus Eliot’s literary criticism can be seen as expression of his poetic credo."(Barad)
This alignment is evident in his focus on historical awareness, impersonality, and the rejection of egocentric creativity. For Eliot, the critic's role is not to exalt the poet but to analyze the poetry itself:
“Honest Criticism and sensitive appreciation are directed not upon the poet but upon the poetry.”(Eliot)
2.2. The Sacred Wood: A Critical Milestone
Eliot’s essays in 'The Sacred Wood' are hailed as a landmark in English literary criticism. Praz affirms,
"For him the essays of 'The Sacred Wood' were "among the most perspicuous and vital of English literature of all times""(Praz)
These essays, including 'Tradition and the Individual Talent,' laid the foundation for Eliot’s critical philosophy, addressing issues of tradition, impersonality, and poetic sensibility.
3. Key Concepts in Eliot’s Criticism
3.1. Tradition and the Historical Sense
One of Eliot’s most groundbreaking contributions is his concept of tradition. Rejecting the Romantic valorization of originality, Eliot argues that tradition is essential for artistic greatness. He writes,
"Tradition...cannot be inherited, and if you want it you must obtain it by great labor"(Eliot)
This labor involves cultivating a “historical sense,” which Eliot defines as—
"a sense of the timeless as well as of the temporal and of the timeless and of the temporal together"(Eliot)
Eliot’s notion of tradition is dynamic, emphasizing the interdependence of past and present. He asserts,
"What happens when a new work of art is created is something that happens simultaneously to all the works of art which preceded it."(Eliot)
This interaction reshapes both the new work and the existing canon, ensuring that literature evolves organically.
3.2. Depersonalization and the Creative Process
Eliot’s theory of depersonalization revolutionized notions of authorship and creativity. He famously stated,
"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."(Eliot)
For Eliot, the poet’s personal experiences are irrelevant; what matters is their ability to transform emotions into universal art.
Eliot illustrates this process through a scientific metaphor:
"The mind of the poet is the shred of platinum... When the two gases previously mentioned are mixed in the presence of a filament of platinum, they form sulphurous acid. This combination takes place only if the platinum is present; nevertheless the newly formed acid contains no trace of platinum."(Eliot)
The poet, like the catalyst, facilitates transformation without leaving a personal imprint.
Barad highlights the significance of this analogy:
"He suggests the analogy of a catalyst’s role in a chemical process in a scientific laboratory for this process of depersonalization"(Barad)
This scientific precision underscores Eliot’s emphasis on objectivity and discipline in art.
3.3.The Dissociation of Sensibility
Eliot’s essay 'The Metaphysical Poets' introduces another critical concept: the dissociation of sensibility. He argues that 17th-century poets like Donne possessed a unified sensibility, seamlessly integrating thought and feeling. However,
"In the seventeenth century a dissociation of sensibility set in, from which we have never recovered."(Kramer)
This fragmentation, according to Eliot, led to a decline in poetic quality, a trend he sought to reverse through his own work.
4. Eliot’s Influence on Modern Criticism
4.1. The Epoch-Making Impact of His Essays
Jürgen Kramer notes,
"The influence of Eliot's essay 'Tradition and the Individual Talent' was epoch-making in literary criticism"(Kramer)
By redefining tradition, Eliot challenged critics to consider literature as a continuum rather than isolated works. His ideas provided a framework for evaluating art beyond temporal or cultural biases.
4.2. Beyond Time and Personality
Eliot’s criticism transcends temporal constraints, encouraging critics to view literature holistically. As Praz observes,
"The critic's task should be to see literature not as consecrated by time, but to see it beyond time; to see the best work of our time and the best work of twenty-five hundred years ago with the same eyes."(Praz)
This timeless perspective ensures that criticism remains relevant and inclusive.
5. Evaluating Eliot’s Criticism
5.1. Strengths of Eliot’s Approach
5.1.1. Objectivity and Rigor:
Eliot’s emphasis on depersonalization and historical awareness brings intellectual rigor to literary criticism.
5.1.2. Integration of Past and Present:
His concept of tradition fosters a dynamic relationship between historical continuity and contemporary relevance.
5.1.3. Universal Application:
By focusing on the work rather than the author, Eliot’s criticism transcends cultural and temporal boundaries.
5.2. Critiques and Limitations
5.2.1. Elitism:
Eliot’s demand for intellectual labor may seem inaccessible to lay readers and writers.
5.2.2. Eurocentrism:
His focus on the Western canon excludes non-Western literary traditions, limiting the scope of his ideas.
6. Conclusion
T. S. Eliot’s legacy as a critic lies in his ability to redefine the relationship between tradition, creativity, and criticism. His insistence on objectivity, historical awareness, and the impersonality of art challenges conventional notions of authorship and originality. As Praz aptly summarizes,
"The great poet, in writing himself, writes his time"(Praz)
Through his criticism, Eliot not only articulated his poetic credo but also provided a roadmap for future generations of critics and artists.
Eliot’s ideas, though rooted in the early 20th century, continue to resonate, offering invaluable insights into the evolving nature of art and criticism. His work reminds us that great literature is not an isolated phenomenon but part of a larger, timeless continuum.
Additional Resources:
Video Lecture on contemporaries of T. S. Eliot and the works & persona of Eliot in three segments on YouTube/DoE-MKBU: Click here.
References
1. Barad, Dilip. “T. S. Eliot: Tradition and the Individual Talent.” ResearchGate, Jan. 2024, https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.32695.91047.
2. Eliot, T. S. Essay on Poetic Theory: Tradition and the Individual Talent. Poetry Foundation, 2009.
3. Kramer, Jürgen. “T. S. Eliot’s Concept of Tradition: A Revaluation.” New German Critique, no. 6, 1975, pp. 20–30. JSTOR, doi.org/10.2307/487651.
4. Praz, Mario. “T. S. Eliot as a Critic.” The Sewanee Review, vol. 74, no. 1, 1966, pp. 256–71. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/27541397.
