LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for TSE Archives


TSE Archives

TSE Archives


TSE@PO.MISSOURI.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

TSE Home

TSE Home

TSE  October 2003

TSE October 2003

Subject:

Re: 'La Figlia che Piange'---"should find"

From:

Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

T. S. Eliot Discussion forum.

Date:

Sun, 5 Oct 2003 10:06:38 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (116 lines)

Dear Steve,

I have to say that I do not think the poem justifies your reading
because it assumes that we need to imagine events not mentioned
and dismiss the standard meaning of "should" as it parallels the
syntax.  For example, of course such a leaving "would have" been
gut-wrenching----for her or for someone who is facing what it is.  The
narrator is not:  he is like the man in "Portrait of a Lady" who
imagines such leaves can be "light" (though even he is aware of the
effect, as is this character).  For another, it requires adding a future
that is not in the poem.  If one says "I would / I would / I would," it is
the apt verb to say "I should" when shifting to indicative.

I would have to spend longer on this to make the point I suppose,
but it is not about what Eliot "meant"--which we cannot really
retrieve; it is about the words in the text and what they create.
I think the rarity of this "I should" in contemporary American English
means one has to return to reading is as one does other earlier
texts.
Nancy


Date sent:              Sun, 5 Oct 2003 09:17:33 EDT
Send reply to:          "T. S. Eliot Discussion forum." <[log in to unmask]>
From:                   [log in to unmask]
Subject:                Re: 'La Figlia che Piange'---"should find"
To:                     [log in to unmask]

In a message dated 10/4/03 11:16:56 PM EST,
[log in to unmask] writes:

>  The "should" in this line is not, as far as I can see, "ought" in the
>  present tense; it is the past tense of "shall."  What happens, I think,
>  especially given the subjunctive mood of the whole, is that the tense
>  shift is from the past perfect to the past. Thus "I would have had. .
>  ." "expresses a conditional statement" about a past already finished at
>  an earlier point, so all those lines are about what might have been
>  done but was not.  But "should" is the past indicative of "shall," and
>  so means that under those conditions [if he had done the other in the
>  past] the narrator [would] find something; it would happen then: "I
>  should find."

Dear Nancy,

I had not considered this reading, and it's certainly a valid way of
looking at the poem. However, respectfully, let me make the case
as to why I think "should find" means "ought to find" in the poem.

The scene that the narrator describes in the first stanza (and
continues to describe in the opening lines of the second stanza)
definitely do NOT have a tone of "light and deft". They are dramatic
and awful. The abandonment of the woman by the man is described
as "As the soul leaves the body torn and bruised, /As the mind
deserts the body it has used.". Pretty ugly stuff. I do not see that
the narrator would then add, "If I had him leave like that, I **shall
find** that the departure is light and deft, simple and faithless".
Rather, if the man leaves like THAT, the departure is gut-wrenching.

In other words, there is a big shift in tone between the first five lines
and the second four lines of the second stanza. Visually, the shift is
demarcated by the very short line, "I should find", a line that calls
attention to itself (by its shortness). Eliot seems to repeatedly leave
**visual** clues that some shift in tone or meaning is about to occur
in his poems, like the dots in Prufrock that separate main scenes.

In the second stanza, the emotional, 'heavy' tone in the first five
lines is evoked with words and phrases like "leave", "stand and
grieve", "torn and bruised", "deserts", and "the body it has used.".
The 'emotionless' tone in the last four lines is evoked with words and
phrases like, "incomparably light and deft", "Simple", "faithless",
"smile", "shake of the hand."

Taken together, I think the narrator has shifted thoughts, from
contemplating how he "would have" staged the abandonment if he
were a God-like figure directing everything in a melodramatic
manner, versus the reality of how he REALLY is planning on
breaking up with his lover, in an emotionless way that is
"incomparably light and deft" and protects HIM from a emotional
scene that would make him feel like a worm.

>  It has never occurred to me to read it as "ought to," though that is
>  another meaning of "should."  But I do not think it fits the context
>  because there is no future tense at all.  The narrator says, in the
>  last stanza, that if he had done that, he "should have lost" something.
>   He does not mean he ought not to have lost it:  it never did happen.
>  Presumably because what he "would have done" he did not do.  In any
>  case, at the end, we are left with speculation only, about something
>  that never did happen and is not happening and is not expected to
>  happen.

Nancy, I think there is "hidden, missing action" between stanzas
two and three. Namely, in stanza two the real breakup **hasn't
happened yet**; then, before stanza three starts, the breakup has
taken place "off-stage" of the poem (that is, we don't get to see, in
poem-lines, the real breakup as it unfolded).

But, in stanza three, we DO get to see the narrator's reflections on
the breakup now that it did happen. Upon reflection, he wishes he
had handled it differently. He wishes that he "should have lost a
gesture and a pose" during the time he was breaking the news to
her that he was leaving..  His cogitations that "still amaze/The
troubled midnight and the noon's repose" are about this: he
THOUGHT he was going to mitigate his feeling like a worm by
having an emotionless breakup that was "light and deft". However,
the real breakup was traumatic anyway ("she turned away"), that is,
his plan to protect himself didn't work. He ends the poem feeling
just as much of a worm as Aeneas, even though he tried a "light
and deft" abandonment scene in real life. That's the irony. He ended
up feeling just as awful with his "light and deft" breakup as if he had
staged a dramatic breakup (per the opening twelve lines)..

Anyway, as always with TSE. there's lots of room to discuss what
he meant, and I hope I've made a case for an alternative reading to
the one you outlined.

-- Steve --

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
March 1996
February 1996
January 1996
December 1995
November 1995

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



PO.MISSOURI.EDU

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager