T. S. 엘리엇은 『네 사중주』에서 시를 창작하는데 가장 중요한 기능가운데 하나인 기억의 힘을 사용해서 작품을 썼으며, 기억은 정점(靜點)을 관상(觀想)하 는데 필수불가결하다는 것을 제시한다. 그는 베르그송의 순수기억에 영향을 받 았지만 베르그송의 철학을 절대가 없기에 허약한 신비주의라고 폄하 했다. 이런 점에서 『네 사중주』는 단테나 아우수스티누스의 기억의 전통을 따르며, 서양 철학의 전통을 계승하는 관점에서 정점은 이해된다. 이런 기억은 일종의 축복이 며 어둠의 길인 욕망을 제어하여 부정의 길에 거쳐서 정점에 이르게 하여 하나 님을 체험하는데 도움을 준다고 암시된다. 욕망을 제어하여 멸각에 이르는 부정 의 길은 정점에 도달하는 길이나 인간의 욕망은 제어할 수 없기에 인간이 정점 에 도달하는 것은 불가능하다. 『네 사중주』에서 기억은 신성한 기억과 정점을 이해하는데 중요하다는 암시를 준다. 신성한 기억과 정점은 기독교에서 하나님 을 만나는 정신적이고 신비스러운 경험으로 4차원의 종교적인 세계이기에 모순 인 역설로 설명된다. 리틀기딩 교회의 신성한 역사 앞에서 신성한 기억의 축복 을 받은 엘리엇은 과거의 집착과 욕망이 사라지고, 기억의 힘은 사랑으로 승화 되어 하나님을 만나는 신비로운 축복의 순간인 정점의 시간을 경험하게 만든다.

Many critics have observed that Bergson's time and memory have had a profound effect on the poetry and plays of T. S. Eliot. Observing his poetry as a student at Harvard, we find that Eliot was obsessed with the problem of time and eternity. Eliot attended the lecture of Henri Bergson at the Collège de France during the short period of 1910-11. After contacting Bergson, Eliot may have let his young sensibility of literature be under the deep influence of Bergson. It isn't difficult to find the evidence of pure memory of Bergson in Eliot's great poetry, Four Quartets. Eliot hoped that he could find ‘the promise of immortality’ in Bergson's philosophy, but later he dismissed it ith a ‘somewhat meretricious captivation’. Even though Eliot realized the religious depth and mystical experience shown in The Two Sources of Morality and Religion, his late work, Eliot's disappointment of the absence of immortality revealed in earlier Bergson's works made him reject the philosophy of Bergson. Eliot claims that memory is indispensable for contemplating ‘the still point’ and brings us nearer to a revelation of the divine, a concept adopted from Albertus Magnus and Thomas Acquina. Eliot considers memory not simply the repository for images of the past, but power for us to reshape and interpret past experience into a new and different form. But Bergson's pure memory gave Eliot a limited ability to regain the lost experiences and to realize the meanings of the past action, so Eliot found that he didn't have the hope to reach to reach eternity from Bergson, which resulted in denouncing his philosophy later. In 1948, Eliot confessed that his only “real conversion, by the deliberate influence of any individual, was a temporarily conversion to Bergson.” The philosophy of Bergson embodies the tendency towards anti-intellectualism found in western traditional philosophy. But Eliot wanted to be ‘the mind of Europe’ described in “Tradition and the Individual Talent” as well as to be the inheritor of the abstract and rational stream of western philosophy, from Plato to Dante, Kant, and Russel in western philosophy. Also he wanted to follow the tradition of royalist Maurras and classicist Irving Babbit. In the late 1920's, Eliot openly avowed the principles of Hulme's “religious attitude” in several essays, and that his critical theory owes some of its essential features to Hulme. The cornerstone of Hulme's position was the concept of original sin in christianity. After the temporary influence of Bergson's philosophy, Eliot denounced its positions, and famously declared that he would become “a classicist in literature, a royalist in politics and an anglo-catholic in religion”. This position and identity of Eliot's are why Eliot repudiated Bergson's philosophy even if he perceived the continuous transformation of Bergson himself.