The poem as a whole reads to me as a
voyeuristic imagining by a movie director
as he or she plans his shots and hungers
after those incredible moments of emotional
disintegration, wanting to catch each
poignant instance of pain.
It is a poem about perception and feeding off
perception and how an instant of epiphany
totally consumes a powerful iamgination with
all its possibilities, and perhaps, in the
process, completely ignores the suffering
dimension of the people involved.
The grave and overwhelmingly enraptured
intensity is over the miracle of perception.
On the other hand, not that I mean to be derogatory,
for I certainly don't, if "arms full" meant simply
fully developed and displayed arms, might we not
find other such instances. It would be very fine so
to do, because it would add to the appreciation
of the resonances of the women's conversation about
Michaelangelo. Prufy is thin; David is full.
Dr. Peter C. Montgomery
Dept. of English
3100 Foul Bay Rd.
Victoria, BC CANADA V8P 5J2
[log in to unmask]
From: Rickard A. Parker [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 7:07 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Another thought on the Hyacinth Couple
Peter Montgomery wrote:
> On the other hand, just to state another possibility,
> there are these lines:
> 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.
> La Figlia Che Piane : 17 - 20.
> I find this, of all Eliot's work, one of the
> most compelling. I am always deeply moved by it.
Maybe Eliot's line 38 in TWL alluded to his own "La Figlia Che Piange"
line 20 so we might think of its line 21:
And I wonder how they should have been together!
The husband in Part II seemed to be wondering this
(v. Eliot's note for line 126).