Print

Print


Yes, allegory is, unlike symbolism, a one-for-one relation between sign and meaning (like "Christian" on his way to "the Heavenly City" through the "Slough of Despond" and "Vanity Fair"). Symbolism, in the words (or very close approximation) of Conrad, is like an aura of meaning around an image, not like a nut in a shell. It has a range of possibility. Eliot began his work deeply influenced by French Symbolists. I do not think any of it fits the absolute definition of "allegory" despite the use of allegory. I may have to rethink that; it's an immediate reaction.
Nancy

>>> Carrol Cox 04/01/10 10:03 AM >>> 
> Nancy Gish wrote: 
> 
>> 
> II. I have denied mere allegory in many specific instances; I have not 
> and do not deny that some of the poetry has allegory or allegorical 
> elements. So I repeat, "I never said that every time. . . he didn't 
> write allegory." I don't need to reread my posts: I know what I think 
> and therefore said, and I've been writing about Eliot all my life, so 
> I do have a pretty good knowledge of what I say. 

Allegory, of course, is a formal element, not an expression of meaning. 
When the reader recognizes and construes an allegorial element in the 
pome (say Virgil as human reaso ), she is not recognizingh the poem's 
meaning bur, rather, psoing the question of how this allegory is used by 
the poet in order to develop his/her meaning. If we had Dante here to 
query about his poem and asked him if he was trying to express the 
limits of humanreason he would laugh uproarously and snarl, any fucking 
fool knows that human reason is limited. Why in the hell would I spend 
half a lifetime merellymaing that obvious poitn? Allegory, when 
successful or uiseful, is always obvious (and this is the case even in 
those instances where the allegory has gotten complexc enough to offer 
some puzzle: it remains _obvious_ in principle, and in soving the puzzle 
we are doing the same thing as when we recognize the rhume scheme in a 
poem by Marianne Moore: we are grasping a complex technical featue but 
not saying anything about the poet's meaning., 

Carrol