Yes, I can read.  And my point is that Eliot's claim was not that, and that the epigraph postdates the poem. 
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" is as legitimate a way of grasping (at)
Eliot's poetry as any.

Ken A
> and that Eliot did not use that epigraph when he first wrote the
> poem? It was not, chronologically, a starting point: the poem was
> written with a different epigraph. So it is not clear what point you
> are making.
> Nancy
> >>> Chokh Raj 02/02/10 10:00 PM >>>
> Words that struck a chord in Eliot
> One can visualize Eliot reflect on Montefeltro's words and make them
> into a starting point for a confessional monologue of * (conversely)
> never return to the world* -- a persona that lives out this philosophy
> of indifference to "the world" not just in 'Prufrock' but in the rest
> of Eliot's poetry.
> CR
> --- On *Mon, 2/1/10, Chokh Raj /<[log in to unmask]>/* wrote:
> Peter, going by Eliot's habits of mind (ref. Southam), the
> epigraph may have provided him with a clue, the
> all-important starting point, for conceiving this dramatic
> monologue as a disguised mode of confession [a la Montefeltro in
> Inferno] -- putting on the persona of a middle aged man. Apart
> from what "persona" denotes in the epigraph, it could
> easily suggest to Eliot the technique of "persona" as a masque
> for a character other than the poet himself.
> Thanks & regards,
> CR
> --- On *Mon, 2/1/10, Peter Montgomery /<venture_v@TELUS...NET>/*
> wrote:
> Let us not over look Dante's use of the word PERSONA in
> Eliot's epigraph
> of the poem.
> P.