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
>         l
> Regards,
>    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.