Skip to content

T S Eliot's La figlia Che Piange: Baffling the reader for beauty's sake?

    O quam te memorem virgo…
 

 
STAND on the highest pavement of the stair—
Lean on a garden urn—
Weave, weave the sunlight in your hair—
Clasp your flowers to you with a pained surprise—
Fling them to the ground and turn         5
With a fugitive resentment in your eyes:
But weave, weave the sunlight in your hair.
 
So I would have had him leave,
So I would have had her stand and grieve,
So he would have left         10
As the soul leaves the body torn and bruised,
As the mind deserts the body it has used.
I should find
Some way incomparably light and deft,
Some way we both should understand,         15
Simple and faithless as a smile and shake of the hand.
 
She turned away, but with the autumn weather
Compelled my imagination many days,
Many days and many hours:
Her hair over her arms and her arms full of flowers.         20
And I wonder how they should have been together!
I should have lost a gesture and a pose.
Sometimes these cogitations still amaze
The troubled midnight and the noon’s repose.

 

This is a stunning, yet profoundly baffling poem by T S Eliot. The sounds and images of the poem combine to create feelings of haunting abandonment, yet in this overwhelming sense of loss, there seems almost a luxuriation in that which seems to nearly destroy. But who is enjoying the pain and who is enjoying the  representation, the aesetheticism attached to this pain?

I do not read Italian but the ‘figlia’ of the title is commonly translated as ‘young girl’, though it can also signify ‘daughter’ too in Italian. So is the subject of the poem a ‘young girl weeping’ or a daughter weeping’? And when we have decided upon which translation best fits our own reaction to the poem, then where does this leave our understanding of the narrator? 

The poet seems here to be directing a scene in which another figure, a ‘daughter’ or perhaps an abandoned lover, strikes up poses or attitudes in order to give expression to their loss. The result of this slightly bizarre and theatrical encounter is this airy, elusive exploration  of the role of the intellectual writer with regard to emotion. Aestheticism seems to be more important than the emotions that cause this ‘thing of beauty’. If we feel the detachment of the narrator in this way, then he seems exploitative and even sadistic. His is a cruel art. He is enjoying the possibile aesthetic gains emanating out of another’s suffering. His  watchfulness is artistically predatory and without compassion.

Yet perhaps this is not so. Perhaps this is not how we read this poem?  For my initial impression lingers still. The narrator seems filled with wonder at the beauty of this weeping female, and his wonder baffles himself as much as the reader. We want to undertand and yet we don’t. Isn’t this a paradox of life? John Carey brilliantly suggests that it is the ‘vague’ quality of Eliot that makes him ‘poignant’. We are grasping after something that can never truly arrive-for anyone. And when we recognise just how the beauty and perfection of the langauge and images still cannot grasp what  can make life and beauty endure, then we are left with this poignant meeting of language, intellect and emotion.

It seems to be saying  perhaps: This is what I saw. it deepy affected me and perhaps it always will. And I do not understand it. I can only present it. Show it.  

Quite wonderful!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *