Nancy Gish wrote:
> Yes, I can read. And my point is that Eliot's claim was not that, and
> that the epigraph postdates the poem.
Me, too. Read, I mean, though I do postdate the poem.. So I take it
that we can consider Prufrock a persona? The chronology of the eipgraph
determines nothing in CR's admittedly speculative imagining. Which seems
simple enough, so I don't see what your objection is.
> Moreover, since this is becoming an increasingly speculative set of
> comments, Eliot hardly needed to read Dante to imagine the use of
> personae: IMH is full of them. They don't generally come from Dante,
> and it was a common poetic technique.
> I do not see the form of the claim as it was stated as legitimate
> since it starts from ignoring both language and Eliot's own /Notebook/
> dates. Your comments as well as CR's later point are reformulations
> but depend on the original notion of a "clue," as if Eliot needed one
> to come up with a persona. But the original discussion was about "you
> and I," and that was the focus of the interview claim that "Prufrock"
> is both Eliot and someone else. And of course--as he typically
> did--Eliot gave other explanations. If you want the extended,
> source-based, researched reasons I find the duality most convincing,
> read my article.
> >>> Ken Armstrong <[log in to unmask]> 02/03/10 8:51 AM >>>
> Nancy Gish wrote:
> > Why do you ignore the fact that the word does not mean "persona" in
> > Italian
> CR says explicitly "*a person who could/would/might..." etc. Do
> you see it? "Persona" he uses in reference to Prufrock. Can we not say
> Prufrock is a persona? "One can visualize," not
> "one can confirm that"...it is as legitimate a way of grasping (at)
> Eliot's poetry as any.