I’ll give you that one you’re right Nancy, but before I give up the field can I observe that when Eliot reads the lines in the 1946 recording there is a lightness about the first  first lines before the mood is subjunctive.  I suppose the author can still produce a reading which is against the spirit of the written word but I feel that the  long run after “gaily’ something like an anapest on “gaily to" followed by seven spondees finishing on “your heart” is a crack of light. I think it needs to be so that the subjunctive carries its emotional lode. But I wouldn’t want my original post to be seen as a white ant criticism in contra of Carrol -  I was just asking. I prefer to be outrageously wrong if I’m going to be anything.

Have a peaceful Easter

Cheers Pete

On 17 Apr 2014, at 11:07 pm, Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

But Pete, it's in the subjunctive: "would have." So it didn't.

>>> Peter Dillane <[log in to unmask]> 04/17/14 1:39 AM >>>
there is a kind of shadow in the cave isnt there Carrol?

"the boat responded gaily to the hand expert with sail and oar the sea
was calm, your heart would have responded gaily, when invited , beating
obedient to controlling hands"

wistful I grant but something like it


On 4/17/2014 2:33 PM, Carrol Cox wrote:
> Eliot would have peed in his trousers if someone told him there was joy in TWL. Someone is confusing TSE with Joyce Kilmer.
> Carrol