This might be something interesting about another character or two (depends on how you look at it) in “Descent into Hell” by Charles Williams . . . though what the full significance (or lack thereof, as may be the case) of this may fully entail, I am not quite sure.
In chapter four (pg. 63 of my edition), Pauline is telling Stanhope that she would like to know her “name” for her part in Stanhope's play. Stanhope's reply is, simply, “I was thinking of something like Periel. Quite insignificant.” (Personally, I think a name like “Periel” sounds anything BUT insignificant. At the very least, it sounds a bit obscure . . . though I do happen to like the sound of the name: obscure, “insignificant,” or not.)
What is intriguing is that, from this point on in the book – as much as I can recall – Stanhope does not talk to Pauline without calling her anything other than the title he has given her, “Periel.” Even when he says “good-bye” after this original “christening” (for want of a better term) he does not say “Good-bye, Pauline,” but “Good-bye, Periel” (pg. 65; emphasis added).
Another example of this is on page 149 (towards the end of chapter eight), when Stanhope urges Pauline – “Periel” – to carry the fear of her ancestor who was burned in the fire, regardless of the fact that this ancestor had died hundreds of years before. Soon after, Stanhope sends Pauline back to her immediate task (i.e. her role in the play), saying, “To your tent, O Periel” (pg. 150). Another such reference is located towards the end of chapter nine (pg, 173-175).
Why would Stanhope do this, do you think? Is he just using the name “Periel” for Pauline because he gave the new name to her and he likes it, and possibly as a term of endearment? Or might there be more to it than this . . . ?
In chapter four (pg. 63 of my edition), Pauline is telling Stanhope that she would like to know her “name” for her part in Stanhope's play. Stanhope's reply is, simply, “I was thinking of something like Periel. Quite insignificant.” (Personally, I think a name like “Periel” sounds anything BUT insignificant. At the very least, it sounds a bit obscure . . . though I do happen to like the sound of the name: obscure, “insignificant,” or not.)
What is intriguing is that, from this point on in the book – as much as I can recall – Stanhope does not talk to Pauline without calling her anything other than the title he has given her, “Periel.” Even when he says “good-bye” after this original “christening” (for want of a better term) he does not say “Good-bye, Pauline,” but “Good-bye, Periel” (pg. 65; emphasis added).
Another example of this is on page 149 (towards the end of chapter eight), when Stanhope urges Pauline – “Periel” – to carry the fear of her ancestor who was burned in the fire, regardless of the fact that this ancestor had died hundreds of years before. Soon after, Stanhope sends Pauline back to her immediate task (i.e. her role in the play), saying, “To your tent, O Periel” (pg. 150). Another such reference is located towards the end of chapter nine (pg, 173-175).
Why would Stanhope do this, do you think? Is he just using the name “Periel” for Pauline because he gave the new name to her and he likes it, and possibly as a term of endearment? Or might there be more to it than this . . . ?
posted by Christensen at 2:04 PM
3 Comments:
Something else I noticed (belatedly) is that Stanhope is not the only one involved in this Pauline/Periel seeming dual-identity . . .
On the second page of chapter ten (pg. 177), Mrs. Parry is wondering whether she will lose an actress due to the worsening condition of Mrs. Anstruther (Pauline's / Periel's grandmother). “[S]he wanted, in effect, to know what Periel was going to do about it . . . Periel, however, had been entirely sensible . . .” Why the book records that Mrs. Parry was wondering about “Periel” and not “Pauline” is strange, though one might simply interpret it as the over-efficiency of Parry's play-organizing. (In other words, perhaps Mrs. Parry is having difficulty keeping “real” names and “character” names straight when she is working with people; then again, maybe she does not think it is worth the bother, and finds it to be, simply, easier (or more efficient) to refer to people by their made-up names . . .)
It does seem, at least, that Mrs. Parry's worrying over “Periel” is of a different nature than Stanhope's referral to Pauline using a new name . . .
I am wondering if, perhaps, this "new name" given to Pauline might signify a new life, or, more specifically, what became her new life after she had accepted certain things (such as the doctrine of substitution and her role within it) and applied them to herself.
This may, possibly, be evidenced in a few places in “Descent into Hell,” namely where Pauline and Stanhope are having some of their deep discussions. In chapter 12, as Pauline is leaving for London, she asks Stanhope what she is to do now. (“And I?” she asked . . . “Incipit vita nova,” he answered [pg. 212].) “A new life begins.” Perhaps Stanhope is simply referring to the fact that Pauline/Periel is going away and will be starting a new job in a new city, finding new friends and new things to do; however, it also seems as though Pauline has done much growing and learning throughout the course of time recorded in the book (e.g. accepting her role [in a way] as her ancestor's substitution, no longer fearing her doppleganger, delving deeper into her faith, etc.), that such a limited definition might be not quite satisfactory . . .
“Behold, I make all (things) new,” is a phrase often repeated throughout the book. (“Ecce, omnia nova facio” [pg. 151, as well as other places].) Perhaps, then, might “Periel” be a way of showing things in a new way, or people with new/different/better/changed [er . . . (in some way) “reformed” :) ] lives?
At first glance, I thought that the change in name for Pauline was, on Stanhope's part, one of snobbish pettiness. "I gave you this new name, and I'm going to call you it." I have a friend who has taken to calling me "toph", and refuses to call me anything else. I thought that such a choice on Stanhope's part made sense.
I think that perhaps it's Williams' attempt at aking things new, yes, but also just a way to help us remember who Pauline is in relation to Stanhope.
Someone has undoubtedly already said this, but I thought that Stanhope's renaming of Pauline was ultimately derived from the Tempest's corresponding character, Ariel. Just as Prospero in the Tempest commands Ariel to use his magic, Stanhope "commands" Pauline/Periel to use her substitutive power to free her ancestor from pain.
Also, the Periel/Ariel correlation may explain Pauline's spiritual "release" when Stanhope "takes her parcel" of fear. Likewise, Ariel is imprisoned in a cloven pine by the evil sorceress Sycorax. When Prospero arrives on the island, he frees Ariel from the cloven pine, but is only released from Prospero's service until after he has performed all that is required of him.
Post a Comment
<< Home