Skip to main content

T. S. Eliot’s influence upon Modern Literary Criticism: Unification of Sensibility and Dissociation of Sensibility



In the seventeenth century a dissociation of sensibility set in from which we have never recovered.

- T. S. Eliot (1888 - 1965) 
 Selected Essays, "The Metaphysical Poets"

By ‘Unification of sensibility’, T. S. Eliot means ‘a fusion of thought and feeling’, ‘are creation of thought into feeling’, and ‘a direct sensuous apprehension of thought’. He argued that the Metaphysical poets, together with the Elizabethan and the Jacobean dramatists, had a mechanism of sensibility which could accommodate any kind of experience. Eliot points out to Donne's most successful and characteristic effect secured by 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 associations of 'bright hair' and of 'bone'… This telescoping of images and multiplied associations were characteristic of some of the dramatists of the period Shakespeare, Middleton and Webster, and is one of the sources of the vitality of their language. He further states that the poets of the seventeenth century (up to the Revolution) were the direct and normal development of the precedent age. However, a dissociation of sensibility set in after the age of Donne, in the late 17th century; there was a split between thought and feeling. The influence of Dryden and Milton has been particularly harmful in this respect.

In essays and lectures
and as well as an 
editor of The Criterion,
T. S. Eliot profoundly
influenced modern
literary criticism 
and provided 
a literary forum
for many prominent
contemporary writers.

It is the difference between the intellectual poet and the reflective poet. 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 experience; the ordinary man's experience is chaotic, irregular, and 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 these experiences are always forming new wholes. We may express the difference by the following theory: The poets of the seventeenth century, the successors of the dramatists of the sixteenth, possessed a mechanism of sensibility which could devour any kind of experience. In the seventeenth century a dissociation of sensibility set in, from which we have never recovered; and this dissociation, as is natural, was aggravated by the influence of the two most powerful poets of the century, Milton and Dryden. But while the language became more refined, the feeling became cruder. The feeling, the sensibility, expressed in the "Country Churchyard" (to say nothing of Tennyson and Browning) is cruder than that in the "Coy Mistress." The sentimental age began early in the eighteenth century, and continued. The poets revolted against the ratiocinative, the descriptive; they thought and felt by fits, unbalanced; they reflected. In one or two passages of Shelley's "Triumph of Life," in the second "Hyperion" there are traces of a struggle toward unification of sensibility. But Keats and Shelley died, and Tennyson and Browning ruminated.




The poets in question have, like other poets, various faults. But they were, at best, engaged in the task of trying to find the verbal equivalent for states of mind and feeling. And this means both that they are more mature, and that they were better, than later poets of certainly not less literary ability. It is not a permanent necessity that poets should be interested in philosophy, or in any other subject.

Our civilization comprehends great variety and complexity, and this variety and complexity, playing upon a refined sensibility, must produce various and complex 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.

Comments

Post a Comment

Drop any query, suggestion or comment here.

Popular posts from this blog

Dr. Samuel Johnson's Preface to Shakespeare: Points to Remember

E ighteenth-century writer Samuel Johnson ((1709-1784) is one of the most significant figures in English literature. His fame is due in part to a widely read biography of him, written by his friend James Boswell and published in 1791. Although probably best known for compiling his celebrated dictionary, Johnson was an extremely prolific writer who worked in a variety of fields and forms. Chief Critical Approaches of Dr. Johnson are: Johnson tried teaching and later organized a school in Lichfield. His educational ventures were not successful, however, although one of his students, David Garrick, later famous as an actor, became a lifelong friend.

Critical appreciation of Rabindranath Tagore’s Gitanjali (NO. 50) – “I had gone a-begging from door to door in the village path”

Gitanjali (NO. 50) Rabindranath Tagore I had gone a-begging from door to door in the village path, when thy golden chariot appeared in the distance like a gorgeous dream and I wondered who was this King of all kings! My hopes rose high and methought my evil days were at an end, and I stood waiting for alms to be given unasked and for wealth scattered on all sides in the dust. The chariot stopped where I stood. Thy glance fell on me and thou camest down with a smile. I felt that the luck of my life had come at last. Then of a sudden thou didst hold out thy right hand and say `What hast thou to give to me?' Ah, what a kingly jest was it to open thy palm to a beggar to beg! I was confused and stood undecided, and then from my wallet I slowly took out the least little grain of corn and gave it to thee. But how great my surprise when at the day's end I emptied my bag on the floor to find a least little gram of gold among the poor heap. I bitterly w

Aristotle’s Theory of ‘Poetic Imitation’: Salient Features of Theory of Imitation and Contrast with those of Plato

  “Mimesis, then, or imitation is, in Aristotle’s view, the essential in a fine art. It is that which distinguishes creative or fine art from all other products of the human mind” - THE MAKING OF LITERATURE (SOME PRINCIPLES OF CRITICISM EXAMINED IN THE LIGHT OF ANCIENT AND MODERN THEORY)   BY R. A. SCOTT-JAMES In Aristotle’s view, poetic imitation is an act of imaginative creation by which the poet draws his poetic material from the phenomenal world, and makes something new out of it.  Plato and Aristotle on Poetic Imitation: It was Plato, not Aristotle who invented the term ‘Imitation’. In Platos’ view, a work of art is no more than an imitation of imitation. He argues that a carpenter can make no more than an imitation of the reality, and the bed he makes is once removed from the truth. But, the painter’s bed is, argues Plato, twice removed from the truth. Read More Drama It is an imitation of imitation. In like manner the poet too creates only a copy of a copy,