By Ihe "objective correlalive,“ a verbal equivalenl for Ihe poel’s personal experience, T. S. Eliol meanl 10 end the abuse of language which he believed widely spread by the pemlclOus influence of Romanticism and Symbolism. Ironically, howcver, its ongm dates back to the Romantic I Symbolist aesthetes. Amold taught Eliot how to achieve a balance between “the style’‘ and “the subjecl matter." by curbing both Symbolist and Imagist indulgence in stylistic expcriments. Pater, on thc other hand, showed Eliot ho\V to be modem by denying Hegel’s transcendental self, someLhing he al50 leamed directly from the French poets. Even though the quasi-scientilìc tcml strips it of any historical context the exploration of it shows a continuous line which run5 from lhe Romantic' s idea of symbol, through the Symbolists, and into the 페nage" of Poutid and the Imagists. This is the line that slrived 10 make Creation self-sufficient by the indirecl method of evocation, and a line in which Amold and Paler form an important link. The idea of “objective correlalive" belongs to the tradition, starled by Ihe great Romanlic poels, that aimed to overcome Carlesian represenlalional realism as well as subjective idealism. Eliot’s contribulion is in adding further sceplicism aboul Ihe I.ranscendental self and his recognition of Ihe danger that poelic Iranscendence could lum into solipsism.