Thank you. I take the epithet 'picky' as a compliment. Two points on your
response to me:

JF>Secondly, the Furies are not *in* SA. The only place they appear is in
the epigraph
PM>Well that's what your pickiness gets you, Jennifer.
look at my words as you quoted the above.

I said alluded to, and if you don't consider an
epigraph an allusion, well....

JF(new): Yes, I do consider an epigraph an allusion. My point is that it is
not an allusion *in* a poem. It stands--and must stand, to be an epigraph
rather than an allusion--outside the poem, and in a particular relation to
it. You wrote 'alluded to in Sweeney A'; and that is where my pickiness gets
you, Peter.

POINT TWO: PM>I think we're getting a bit picky here, Jennifer.
All of the plays have figures of conscience with either
some ghostly dimension or connection with misdeeds of
the past. They have the effect of the furies whether they
are relatively nice as are the Gaurdians in Cocktail
Party, or painfully embarrassing ghosts from the past
as in Elderstatesman. They also resemble gaurdian angels
to some extent, but the Greek connection is just to easy
to see to ignore it.

JF (new): To have 'the effect of the Furies' is not the same thing as to be
the Furies themselves; nor are the Furies 'figures of conscience' or
'guardian angels'. Now *that* is stretching it. The Furies hound down like
dogs of prey those who have committed blood crimes; that is why they can
pursue Orestes, but not Clytemnestra. They are chthonic powers, something
much more than 'figures of conscience', which one can choose to ignore if
one likes. One can neither evade nor ignore the Furies; and moreover they
hunt for a reason. I think these facts ought to be stuck to. (By the way,
the play is entitled, I believe, not Elderstatesman but The Elder

Of course, I don't very much like Eliot's plays, and I think he ought to
have known better than to say in verse what he could, and did, say better in

Yours, Jennifer