LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for TSE Archives


TSE Archives

TSE Archives


TSE@PO.MISSOURI.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

TSE Home

TSE Home

TSE  October 2011

TSE October 2011

Subject:

Re: The Jew in Eliot's poetry (anti-semitism and objective correlative)

From:

Carrol Cox <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

T. S. Eliot Discussion forum.

Date:

Fri, 21 Oct 2011 18:20:40 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (93 lines)

On 10/21/2011 8:59 AM, Nancy Gish wrote:
 > Dear Peter,
 >
 > I agree that there are odd, private symbols like the goat and 
squatting Jew, but that is part of what makes symbolist poetry and not 
the same as elaborate systems of riddles, the point of which is to 
figure out a code. I think code-breaking (having largely saved the West 
in WWII) is very serious. My point was not to trivialize that but to say 
we should bring in somone serious about codes if we meant to make poetry 
only an intellectual's crossword puzzle.
 >
 > I agree that the emphasis on Christ as fully human, defecation and 
all, is clearly part of the concept of Incarnation; I do not think Eliot 
would represent him in this degraded way, for all the reasons of the 
time and place during WWI and the very trivializing of the image itself 
as representing a god.
 > Cheers,
 > Nancy

(Way down at the end I bring this material back to poetry.)

"Code breaking" is a somewhat misleading term (partly because it 
obscures the difference between "codes" and "ciphers." I in a sense 
"broke" the cipher system used by the *Czech Border Guard when I was 
attached to NSA back in the early'50s. But the term is wrong. We had 
thought it was a one-time pad system: the key was never reused. (The way 
text was enciphered was first to convert it to numbers, then to 'add' 
the key to the text. (You added without carrying.,) For example:

  Plain Text: 		76204
Key		  		83305
Enciphered Text:	59509

If the key is never reused, it is in principle and practice unbreakable. 
Provided the key is random. Apparently the Czech key was produced by 
typists. And if you sit all day typing 5digit groups of numbers, you do 
it sort of mindlessly (I assume) and occasionally fall in to patterns. 
Then, somewhat painfully, it is possible for the cryptanalyst to 
decipher some messages. That way, before I got assigned to the project, 
they had accumulated quite a body of key and had studied it and divided 
it into “families.” One family was key that contained frequent groups 
such as the following:  58869, or LRRLR with a tencency to move across 
the keyboard for several groups.

Now, there were also families characterized by groups with that double 
digit in the 2 &3 positions, but which did not fit the LRRLR pattern. 
Now, I wondered if maybe there was some relationship. (The way I imaged 
it to myself was that this second kind of key could be produced by 
running the first through and electric typewriter (with paper tape) 
with the keys rewired.  One could, as it were, encipher the key to 
produce new key.  So I started moneying around (there was no systematic 
way to work with this traffic. One would pull some intercepts out of the 
file drawer, copy the text on to graph paper, then fiddle around until a 
‘recognizable’ key group produced some recognizable plain text. If 
lucky, if there was enough patterned key in a message, one could 
decipher it. (And add to the body of key we had.)   So I monkeyed around 
for a month or two, and one day I found an overlap: Two messages 
enciphered with the same key (if one first made the necessary 
substitutions in the key groups.) That gave us the ‘key’ to the 
encipherd key: We knew how the typewriter keys had been rewired to 
produce the new key. And then I found out that what I had discovered had 
a name: Isomorphic Key. And then we discovered that the key used in the 
Inter-sattelite borderguard traffic (the way, that is, the Czech Border 
Guard communicated with Hungarian Border Guard) was also isomorphic.

We hadn’t really “broken” anything, but we had discovered a somewhat 
systematic way to look for overlaps – that is, for different messages to 
be enciphered with the same key. That gave you a check on the accuracy 
of both decipherments. An overlap of only two was a bit iffy, but it was 
better than nothing. In WW2 they had overlaps of as much as 50 or more 
messages, and with that o ne could decipher almost faster than the man 
in the ship’s radio room.

Now here is the point for literary criticism. You cannot believe any 
“decoding” that is not certified by something like the Overlaps I speak 
of below. You have to have some sort of ‘check’ outside of and 
independently of the message you are decoding before there is any reason 
whatever to give any credence to your decoding. And that is almost NEVER 
available in poetry. You can’t just say X stands for Y in apoem unless 
you have other texts where the same system is used. You can’t have X 
sometimes standing for Y and then at other times have it standing for Z. 
And this is a problem even with more or less traditional “symbolism.” 
For example, quite often, going back to the Odyssey, the sea, or just 
bodies of water, tend to insert a sense of chaos into a text. It’s 
incorrect to say that “The Sea” ‘stands for’ Chaos: but it CAN, sort of, 
suggest chaos, give the poem the tone of dealing with chaos. But not 
always. Not always even in the same poem. Sometimes (as Freud said of 
cigars) The Sea is just the Sea. Even on the same page this can be the 
case. The first reference triggrs a sense of chaos; the second reference 
10 lines down does not. It just leads to nuttiness to try to treat poems 
like a coded system.

Carrol

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
March 1996
February 1996
January 1996
December 1995
November 1995

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



PO.MISSOURI.EDU

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager