Although T. S. Eliot＇s ＂The Journey of the Magi＂ is a religious poem in the profoundest sense, the title of my paper is intended to give only a sly wink at Trinitarianism. My real object is to explain how Eliot con...Although T. S. Eliot＇s ＂The Journey of the Magi＂ is a religious poem in the profoundest sense, the title of my paper is intended to give only a sly wink at Trinitarianism. My real object is to explain how Eliot contrived to manufacture a poem which, at fu＇st glance, resembles a dramatic monologue （generally understood as a poem for one voice----that of a historical/fictional/mythological character addressing a silent listener, group of listeners or reader）, yet which is slowly revealed as a lyrical monologue （for the poet＇s own voice） which yet--and this quite intentionally----contains considerably more than mere echoes of another two speakers： namely a Magus and the biblical translator and, most famously, sermon writer Archbishop Launcelot Andrewes （1555-1626） court preacher to James 1 and Charles 1 of England. I wish to show how Eliot, in writing what is ultimately confessional verse, goes out of his way to hoodwink the reader by allowing the first two of his ＂{The} Three Voices of Poetry＂ （1957） to overlap with and then incorporate the third. His own descriptions of these voices are （i） lyric, defined as ＂the poet talking to himself＂, （ii） that of the single speakerwho gives a （dramatic） monologuel ＂addressing an {imaginary} audience in an assumed voice＂ and （iii） that of the verse dramatist ＂who attempts to create a dramatic character speaking in verse when he {i.e. the author} is saying.., only what he can say within the limits of one imaginary character addressing another imaginary character＂ yet adding ＂some bit of himself that the author gives to a character may be the germ from which that character starts＂ （Eliot, 1957, pp. 38, 40）. The basis of my argument is that such an act of＂giving of the self＇ as the raw material for the creation of a dramatic monologue persona as well as a character designed for the stage had been part and parcel of Eliot＇s modus operandi up to and including ＂Prufrock＂ and The Waste Land; further, that in ＂The Journey of the Magi＂ and his later commentary upon it he fmally comes out and admits the fact, and in far clearer a manner than he does when defining the Objective Correlative in his essays on Hamlet. Far from attempting to erase the sense of selfhood from his poetry, I believe that Eliot, consciously or not, ended up by demonstrating to those who worshipped the Romantics and their cult of personality just how difficult it was to express the purely subjective self in poetry.展开更多
文摘Although T. S. Eliot＇s ＂The Journey of the Magi＂ is a religious poem in the profoundest sense, the title of my paper is intended to give only a sly wink at Trinitarianism. My real object is to explain how Eliot contrived to manufacture a poem which, at fu＇st glance, resembles a dramatic monologue （generally understood as a poem for one voice----that of a historical/fictional/mythological character addressing a silent listener, group of listeners or reader）, yet which is slowly revealed as a lyrical monologue （for the poet＇s own voice） which yet--and this quite intentionally----contains considerably more than mere echoes of another two speakers： namely a Magus and the biblical translator and, most famously, sermon writer Archbishop Launcelot Andrewes （1555-1626） court preacher to James 1 and Charles 1 of England. I wish to show how Eliot, in writing what is ultimately confessional verse, goes out of his way to hoodwink the reader by allowing the first two of his ＂{The} Three Voices of Poetry＂ （1957） to overlap with and then incorporate the third. His own descriptions of these voices are （i） lyric, defined as ＂the poet talking to himself＂, （ii） that of the single speakerwho gives a （dramatic） monologuel ＂addressing an {imaginary} audience in an assumed voice＂ and （iii） that of the verse dramatist ＂who attempts to create a dramatic character speaking in verse when he {i.e. the author} is saying.., only what he can say within the limits of one imaginary character addressing another imaginary character＂ yet adding ＂some bit of himself that the author gives to a character may be the germ from which that character starts＂ （Eliot, 1957, pp. 38, 40）. The basis of my argument is that such an act of＂giving of the self＇ as the raw material for the creation of a dramatic monologue persona as well as a character designed for the stage had been part and parcel of Eliot＇s modus operandi up to and including ＂Prufrock＂ and The Waste Land; further, that in ＂The Journey of the Magi＂ and his later commentary upon it he fmally comes out and admits the fact, and in far clearer a manner than he does when defining the Objective Correlative in his essays on Hamlet. Far from attempting to erase the sense of selfhood from his poetry, I believe that Eliot, consciously or not, ended up by demonstrating to those who worshipped the Romantics and their cult of personality just how difficult it was to express the purely subjective self in poetry.
