Print

Print


"Personae" is not Eliot's word.  In an interview in 1962 he said that Prufrock was partly himself and partly someone else.  It is a pretty obscure text: a reference librarian tracked it down for me, and I have a xerox somewhere, but I would have to go through a pile of papers to find it right now.  I learned about it first in Southam, however.  But he does not give the citation, possibly to avoid copyright problems, but I do not know that.  I did get the original interview, and my own view is based on that.
 
B. C. Southam referred to the "you" without citation:  "Eliot offered different identifications.  At some time in the 1950s, he answered an inquirer that 'anything I say now must be somewhat conjectural, as it was written so long ago that my memory may deceive me; but I am prepared to assert that "you" in The Love Song is merely some friend or companion, presumably of the male sex, whom the speaker is at the moment addressing, and that it has no emotional content whatever'. [One person he told this to was Kristian Smidt; there may have been others.] On the other hand, in a 1962 interview, Eliot said that Prufrock was in part a man of about forty and in part himself, and that he was employing the notion of the split personality, a concept which was first studied and widespread a few years earlier.  On yet another occasion, he referred to Prufrock as a 'young' man." (Southam, A Guide to The Selected Poems of T. S. Eliot, 6th ed., Harcourt Brace, 1968), 48-9.  Southam's statement is put into an indirect quotation, and I am not sure how exact it is on the phrase about "first studied and widespread."  I would have to find the interview.  But "split personality" was not only very widespread, it was much older.  It is the idea Freud used in his first studies with Breuer, and both Freud and Janet studied versions from Charcot.  There are much older descriptions of "split personalities," however, and they are frequent in Scottish literature.  I do not, myself, use the term "split," as it presumes a prior unity, and I see no reason to assume that; I use "multiple."  That is a very different perception.  See, for example, Dr. Jekyll's own explanation of his relation to Mr. Hyde.  And it is important that Jekyll also says the separation may be moral, as in his case, but need not be. 
 
I think I said before that Robert Lifton's is the most helpful book I have read on how to think about multiplicity.
 
The reason I read Eliot's claim about "you" as "split personality" is that he was at Harvard when Pierre Janet lectured there (though a freshman and pretty certainly would not have heard the lecture) and William James focused on that idea in The Principles of Human Psychology; James used it to explain mysticism. Eliot did his doctoral work in the philosophy department, where James taught, and he read James.  He later repudiated James, but it is clear he knew the terminology well:  I traced phrases and ideas from Janet, James, and others through a long series of Eliot's own work, notably his claims about Laforge.
 
I do not think he meant "personae" in any case.  I think he meant what he said, that it was partly himself and partly someone else, a double.  His poetry did come out of his own feelings and experiences.
 
(And before there is a mass insistence on the absolute validity of his "impersonality," I know the view that he transformed it into something universal.  But I do not find "universal" very convincing.  Nor do I mean that it was simply confessional in the way of, say, Sexton or Plath.  I mean the images and attitudes and feelings are Eliot's and often come from his own life.  That does not in any way reduce them.)
Cheers,
Nancy

>>> DIana Manister <[log in to unmask]>02/01/10 8:02 AM >>>
Dear Nancy,

Where Did Eliot discuss personae in Prufrock? I vaguely recall reading his description of an older persona -- this is an important iteration of the doubleness of the subject position in poetry. Thanks for mentioning it.

Diana

Sent from my iPod

On Jan 31, 2010, at 5:57 PM, Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Well, Eliot said that Prufrock was both himself and someone else, someone older (he wrote it when he was very young).  But I do not see his doubles (of which there are many) simply as personae, though, in the sense that he presents himself as doubled in the form of various narrators, I see them as many aspects of self which he experienced, and in the case of Prufrock two aspects of himself--or, if you choose, the "narrator" as dual.
 
As to the second question, no.
 
But I think the whole issue is very complex, and I would have to repeat the essay to make it clear and convincing--which I think it is.  So I can only suggest you read it.  The first or second note lists a series of ways the "you and I" has been read with key scholars who did.  It's obviously selective: it has been a topic since the poem was published.
Cheers,
Nancy
>>> DIana Manister <[log in to unmask]>01/31/10 5:31 PM >>>
Nancy you say two selves or personae of the poet; I take that to mean the poem's narrator, correct?

Do you see "talk of you and me" as referring to a third "you"?

Best,

Diana 

Sent from my iPod

On Jan 31, 2010, at 4:07 PM, Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

I think you're probably right, but I also think Eliot especially found too much reality more than he could bear.  His generalization assumes that his own conception of "reality" is Truth.  I think a great deal can be borne if one sees it as a more complicated mixture of sensual and emotional joy and beauty as well, clearly, as horror.  And I don't, obviously, mean his concept of a joy beyond sensual joy as the only possibility.  Ironically, his early poetry, full of yearning and desire for just that, seems never to have been something of a world he discovered until perhaps in his last few years.
Nancy

>>> David Boyd <[log in to unmask]>01/31/10 3:32 PM >>>
'('We') humankind cannot bear much reality' maybe illuminates the personae involved here ??.
 
Regards
 
David  

On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 1:36 AM, Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Dear Tom,
 
I've  been out of town, so there are no doubt many responses to this already.  But Eliot himself gave different answers to the question.  I've written about it several times, but the most recent, and the one I stand by because of all the research behind it, is the discussion in my article in T. S. Eliot and Gender, Desire, and Sexuality (Cambridge, 2004).
 
It has been read in many, many ways, but I think it is two personae or selves of the poet; in a 1962 interview Eliot says pretty much that.
Best,
Nancy

>>> Tom Colket 01/24/10 11:53 AM >>>

In Eliot's "Prufrock" there are numerous places where the narrator
addresses or refers to another person, a "you" or a "we".  My question
is: Is the narrator referring to one specific person (i.e., the same
person) in all these lines, or is more than one single individual
being referenced?

Here are the six references (among all Prufrock lines with "you/your"
or "we/us/our") that I'm particularly interested in:

1) "Let us go then, you and I . . . Let us go and make our visit."

2) "And indeed there will be time . . . Time for you and time for me"

3) "And the afternoon, the evening, sleeps so peacefully! . . .
Stretched on the floor, here beside you and me."

4) "And would it have been worth it, after all, . . . Among the
porcelain, among some talk of you and me,"

5) "Would it have been worth while,. . . To say, 'I am Lazarus, come
from the dead,/Come back to tell you all, I shall tell you all' "

6) "We have lingered in the chambers of the sea/By sea-girls wreathed
with seaweed red and brown/Till human voices wake us, and we drown."


-- Tom --




Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.

<[log in to unmask]>
<[log in to unmask]>