In any case, in 1921 Eliot went to Vittoz whom he liked partly because he
was not a psychoanalyst. He did not base his ideas on Freud in his prose
on consciousness or in his descriptions of his own problems. And in 1913
in Britain, Freud was not the dominant figure in psychology he became
Date sent: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 22:03:22 -0600
Send reply to: "T. S. Eliot Discussion forum." <[log in to unmask]>
From: Carrol Cox <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Love at first? sight
To: [log in to unmask]
John Ryskamp wrote:
> That incredibly important history of Freudian psychology by
> Macmillan. You can have an orientation toward Eliot which is that of
> 1913, or you can have an orientation toward Eliot which is that of 2002.
> Guess which one Eliot would have you have, if he were alive today? Le
> docteur Nosferatu est mort, dit le docteur Jeckel.
Freudian psychology has been fundamentally undermined long ago. Why is
this particular history of it important?
My "orientation" towards Eliot or anyone else has never been influenced by
psychoanalysis, or any other theory of mystical entities such as "The
Unconscious." Of course psychoanalysis is also a historical fact, like
neoclassical economics, phrenology, and other mythologies of the 19th