What I mean is that you may of course write about what Eliot chose to
publish, but that does not mean you need not know the history of it.
Everyone now studying it takes into account the history and composition,
and to ignore it is to be limiting yourself in any literary continuum. That
does not mean you cannot write about the published version as what you
choose to examine but that you cannot really exclude its history, context,
sources, and so on. In other words, you have to know the facsimile
because it is there.
Date sent: Wed, 01 May 2002 18:05:01 +0200
Send reply to: [log in to unmask]
From: "erik verhaar" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: saint narcissus
Thanks for the advice, but actually I made a vow to myself to stick to the
published edition of 1922. The addition "il miglior fabbro" addressed to
Pound seems to imply that Eliot himself preferred this "broken image" of
his poem above the original draft. Moreover, I analyse the Waste land on
the basis of the ideas of some old forgotten literary philosopher nobody
seems to have heard of. But maybe I am just blind to some important points
here: what exactly do you mean by: "at this point in Eliot studies"??
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com