I agree with Tom and Rick, but also because Tiresias's prophetic power is directly due to his sexual history. He was blinded by Hera for agreeing with Zeus; then Zeus, to compensate, gave him the gift of seeing the future. (In an alternative story, he was blinded by Minerva for seeing her naked, but she later relented and gave him the gift). But the two facts of his prophetic power are really not separable.
>>> "Rickard A. Parker" <[log in to unmask]
> 10/05/13 11:21 AM >>>
On Sat, 5 Oct 2013 11:05:03 -0400, Tom Colket <[log in to unmask]
> >Carrol writes:
> C> In the present instance, despite the highly sexualized context,
> C> I would think that it is the prophetic power of
> C> Tiresias, NOT his sexual history, that is most relevant.
> Carrol:If the relevant thing about Tiresias is his prophetic power,
> and not his unusual sexual story, then why does TSE _TWICE_
> call the readers attention to it ("man with wrinkled female breasts"
> and "man with wrinkled dugs"). Isn't that a peculiar overemphasis
> on something that is not intended to be the main focus for the reader?
Not TWICE but THRICE. We have Eliot's note (and discounting the Latin
that again brings up Tiresias's two sexes) Eliot writes "the two sexes
meet in Tiresias." But then on Carrol's side he adds "What Tiresias sees,
in fact, is the substance of the poem."