Print

Print


Dear Peter,

Two points, no bulls. First, if an allusion is too obscure, I should
think that its resonance cannot be felt at all, for the reader is
likely to fail to recognise it. I consider an allusion to be a
metaphor, a comparison of one context with another for both
similarities and differences. How could I, pray, possibly see how the
_name_ of Conrad's character evokes Christopher Marlowe, when that
_name_does not--I  repeat, does not--appear in the quotation itself?
And once again, I ask you, exactly what about Christopher Marlowe? The
man himself? Unlikely; but if so, what would his place be in the
epigraph? Can you describe the resonances you assert? If not the man
himself, then which of his works? How do they enrich the context then
in which they are placed?

Second, the Sibyl a sister to Tiresias (actually, she is a lot more
like Tithonus)? Hmm. Perhaps there is some resonance between them,
though we should keep in mind that the Sibyl does not appear in the
poem, but rather outside of it, in the epigraph (at once a part of the
poem and apart from it). Nor does the Sibyl say, in the tale Trimalchio
tells, that she 'has foresuffered all'. Tiresias says that, and that
the Tiresias in Eliot's poem. And once again, I point out that, as she
is outside the poem, properly, it would be hard for her--not, after
all, in any way the focus of the Satyricon-- to provide a 'sub plot',
the way Gloucester and his sons do in King Lear. Not only that, but the
provision of a supposed sub-plot would suggest that TWL has itself a
plot. You have asserted this, but given evidence of no such thing. I
invite you to do so.

Whatever Yeats may say, I cannot possibly see how a sub-plot could
remain utterly unconnected with a main plot. If it did, then the whole
thing, it seems to me, would make no sense whatever; nor would it be a
sub-plot, but another main plot operating on its own terms. You might
see Empson's brilliant writings (which are likely to be quite a bit
better than Yeats's, who could be a charlatan when he chose ) on Double
Plots in Some Versions of Pastoral.

If you wish to quibble with my doctoral status, please contact the
University of Cambridge, England.

Yours, Jennifer

On Sunday, October 24, 2004, at 06:11  PM, Peter Montgomery wrote:

> More papal bull from Jennifer.
>
> Your obvious lack of familiarity with how allusions resonate,
> esp. in terms of the symbolists who seemed to have thought
> the more obscure the better, does make me wonder at your
> graduate status. If you cannot see how the name of Conrad's
> character evokes the name of the Elizabethan writer (spelling be
> damned) there is little hope for you.
>
> Again, The sybil is a sister (figureatively -- since you seem to need
> to
> have these things spelled out) of Tiresias, who has foresuffered all.
> In effect she provides a subplot to reflect the main one in the poem.
> See Yeats' essay "Emotion of Multitude" to get the EFFECT created
> by a sub-plot, esp. when it DOES NOT connect with the main plot.
>
> I'm sorry you are incapable of accepting compliments.
>
> P.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jennifer Formichelli
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: 2004-Oct-24 1:47 PM
> Subject: Elizabethan? Marlow? : a reply to Peter; was Death by Water, a
> reply
>
> Dear Peter,
>
> Surely, if you were an Elizabethan, you would know that Marlowe is
> Christopher Marlowe, whilst Conrad's Marlow is MARLOW, without the 'e'.
> Nor does this name appear in the quotation Eliot chose for the expunged
> epigraph. Can you connect, with an example, the Conrad with anything by
> Marlowe, Christopher (from whom Eliot does take two other epigraphs)?
>
> Incidentally, how does the Petronius connect Cumae and Delphi? Cumae is
> in Italy, Delphi Greece; and the Sibyl, as you know, foresees
> absolutely nothing in the quotation. She is wishing; or waxing. Nor is
> she even there; Trimalchio, the centre of that scene, recalls her words
> (or makes them up, since in the Satyricon this story is a big lie which
> all the company guffaw at ).   I would like to write more on the
> quotation, and will do so in a reply to another post.
>
> As to my papal pronouncements, I'm afraid cannot accept the compliment.
>
> Yours, Jennifer
>
>
> On Saturday, October 23, 2004, at 11:33  PM, Peter Montgomery wrote:
>
>>
>> One significant English resonance which H. of D. does have that
>> Petronius doesn't is the name MARLOWE. That helps, considerably,
>> us Elizabethans. Still, Conrad did Eliot a disservice
>> (ahead of time, albeit, but then remember Trad. & Ind. Talent.)
>> by associating Marlowe with the Buddha. The Petronius quote
>> creates a direct connection between Cumae and Delphi. The seers
>> may indeed have been enlightened but it would seem to be in their
>> damnation.
>>
>> I know, I know. You're going to quote me the Fire Sermon. Go ahead.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> P.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Nancy Gish
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Sent: 2004-Oct-23 9:06 AM
>> Subject: Re: Death by Water: a reply
>>
>> It was Conrad--in the very symbolist H of D--who talked about the
>> meaning not being like a kernel in a nutshell but like an aura around
>> an
>> object (paraphrase).  "The Horror! The Horror!" is filled with mystery
>> and possibility; it is not at all simply a direct statement.
>> Nancy
>>
>>>>> [log in to unmask] 10/23/04 2:36 AM >>>
>> Some elements to consider:
>> Another language/another culture bring more context, more resonance.
>> There is a deeper level of irony given that the Petronius story is
>> really a joke.
>>
>> Then there is the question of symbolist style, which Eliot got from
> the
>> French poets, and Pound got perhaps more directly from the orient
>> (where the symbolists seem originally to have had it). It is the style
>> of the very indirect allusion which opens up many creative
>> possibilities
>> for the reader. Yeats was thinking of much the same thing with his
>> emotion of multitude.
>>
>> The Cornrad quote limits possibilities in its directness.
>> The Petronius has a direct level, but so many other shadowy
>> eleents waiting in the shadows which the reader is forced to
>> look at if he wants to make sense of the reference. It is of
>> the essnce of the Michaelangelo lines in Prufrock. Everybody
>> wants to know what Eliot meant by it. It seems opaque and yet
>> there are very pertinent possibilites there for the taking
>> if one only lets the resonances sink in.
>>
>> Just some possibilities.
>> P.
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Rickard A Parker
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Sent: 2004-Oct-22 10:48 AM
>> Subject: Re: Death by Water: a reply
>>
>> Jennifer Formichelli wrote:
>>>
>>> Regarding the epigraph, Eliot did not fret about it; where does he
>>> fret? Pound writes to him about it, and Eliot replies he has replaced
>>> it with the Petronius, 'or something like it' (there's a cryptic
>>> comment for you). And you will recall that Pound almost withdrew his
>>> insinuation about the epigraph all together: 'Who I am to grudge him
>>> his laurel crown?' , telling Eliot to 'do as you like'.
>>
>>
>> One account of Eliot's "fret" (TWL: A Facsimile ...  p. 125)
>>
>>     Pound: "I doubt if Conrad is weighty enough to stand the
> citation."
>>
>>     Eliot: "Do you mean not use the Conrad quote or simply not put
>>     Conrad's name to it?  It is much the most appropriate I can find,
>>     and somewhat elucidative."
>>
>>     Pound: "Do as you like about Conrad; who am I to grudge him his
>> laurel
>>     crown?"
>>
>>
>>
>>> And he did: he
>>> chose the far superior, far more rich, Petronius. If you like, I can,
>>> at some point, when I don't have to go to work, describe exactly why
> I
>>> think the epigraph Eliot selected is far superior to the one he
>>> expunged.
>>
>>
>> Jennifer, please do send this in.  I lean the other way but whenever
>> I try to reason it out or write why I just can't do it.
>>
>>
>>> And how, most of all, could such a unity be 'constructed' by
>>> excision?
>>
>> Sun, moon, puppy, stars, candle
>>
>> Regards,
>>     Rick Parker
>>
>