Dear Diana,
Two reasons for "two": That's what Eliot said (in an interview rather hard to find), and, in the late 19th and early 20th C, there was a great deal of discussion of duality but almost none of multiplicity.  Eliot knew the discussions:  he read William James and Janet and others and he used the language to describe, for example, Laforge.
I quote a lot of his own terminology in the article noted below.
As for Wimsatt and Beardsley, I don't care what they would say.  I base what I say on months/years of my own research, which fits with what Eliot said, and I don't feel bound by any of their theory.

>>> DIana Manister <[log in to unmask]>01/31/10 4:42 PM >>>
Dear Nancy,

Why only two, since "you" can be plural?

As for TSE's statement, what would Wimsatt &Beardsley say about that?



Sent from my iPod

On Jan 31, 2010, at 4:07 PM, Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

I think you're probably right, but I also think Eliot especially found too much reality more than he could bear.  His generalization assumes that his own conception of "reality" is Truth.  I think a great deal can be borne if one sees it as a more complicated mixture of sensual and emotional joy and beauty as well, clearly, as horror.  And I don't, obviously, mean his concept of a joy beyond sensual joy as the only possibility.  Ironically, his early poetry, full of yearning and desire for just that, seems never to have been something of a world he discovered until perhaps in his last few years.

>>> David Boyd <[log in to unmask]>01/31/10 3:32 PM >>>
'('We') humankind cannot bear much reality' maybe illuminates the personae involved here ??.

On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 1:36 AM, Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Dear Tom,
I've  been out of town, so there are no doubt many responses to this already.  But Eliot himself gave different answers to the question.  I've written about it several times, but the most recent, and the one I stand by because of all the research behind it, is the discussion in my article in T. S. Eliot and Gender, Desire, and Sexuality (Cambridge, 2004).
It has been read in many, many ways, but I think it is two personae or selves of the poet; in a 1962 interview Eliot says pretty much that.

>>> Tom Colket 01/24/10 11:53 AM >>>

In Eliot's "Prufrock" there are numerous places where the narrator
addresses or refers to another person, a "you" or a "we".  My question
is: Is the narrator referring to one specific person (i.e., the same
person) in all these lines, or is more than one single individual
being referenced?

Here are the six references (among all Prufrock lines with "you/your"
or "we/us/our") that I'm particularly interested in:

1) "Let us go then, you and I . . . Let us go and make our visit."

2) "And indeed there will be time . . . Time for you and time for me"

3) "And the afternoon, the evening, sleeps so peacefully! . . .
Stretched on the floor, here beside you and me."

4) "And would it have been worth it, after all, . . . Among the
porcelain, among some talk of you and me,"

5) "Would it have been worth while,. . . To say, 'I am Lazarus, come
from the dead,/Come back to tell you all, I shall tell you all' "

6) "We have lingered in the chambers of the sea/By sea-girls wreathed
with seaweed red and brown/Till human voices wake us, and we drown."

-- Tom --

Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.

<[log in to unmask]>