Eliot did, however, have great respect for Vittoz, whom he consulted in
Geneva and whose methods presumably helped Eliot recover from his
breakdown. I have not been able to determine what Vittoz would have
called himself, but surely not a psychoanalyst. He had a very rigid plan for
correcting what was considered neurasthenia. His book is available (in
libraries--no doubt not in print) describing it.
Date sent: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 17:23:37 EDT
Send reply to: [log in to unmask]
From: [log in to unmask]
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: psychiatrist or psychoanalyst?
In a message dated 9/25/01 4:45:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
> Check this out:
> "Alec Guinness Discusses His Role in Play By T. S. Eliot"
> By Maurice Zolotow
> February 26, 1950
> Rick Parker
Interesting article. But Zolotow doesn't distinguish between a
psychoanalyst and a psychiatrist, and uses the words interchangeably. I'd
forgotten, though, about the couch, which I think nobody used except
Freudian psychoanalysts. But I think Nancy's right too about his having
religious components. One comment that's been made for a long time about
Freudian psychoanalysis is that it sounds more like a religion than a
Sir Henry seems to me like a very sympathetic figure in the play, which is
surprising because Eliot didn't care much for Freud.