The criticism of T. S. Eliot shows an extraordinary lack of interest in what literary works actually say. Its attention is almost extremely confined to qualities of language, styles of feeling, the relations of image and experience. With Arnold, however, the emphasis is on substance rather than on form. Such emphasis led him into his attempted definition of poetry as criticism of life. In like manner, Leavis also emphasized that poetry be in serious relation to “Life,” have a firm grasp of the actual, of the object. If we may call Eliot a poet as poet, either Arnold or Leavis can be rightly labeled a poet as preacher. These two contrasting attitudes are illustrated in their criticism on such Romantic poets as Wordsworth, Shelley, and especially Keats, where the difference is most distinctly manifested. Though Eliot, in his later poems and essays, have passed on to other problems including the relation of poetry to the spiritual and social life of its time, he has never derailed himself from considering poetry primarily as poetry, not as any other.