Thanks for satisfying my curiosity about some of your annotative
choices, Nate--and, for what it's worth, your gloss of "behovely"
seems fine to me, as the sense is of something fitting or proper
to the whole or the scheme of things. (And Eliot was quite right
to render Julian's _behovabil_ as "behovely," not as the dorky
"behovable"!)
Of course, you're not obliged (as you say) to give the extensive
commentary of a critical edition, but that's just why I was curious
about the choices you _did_ make, especially in terms of your view
on Eliot's "verbal borrowings" from the _Shewings_ as unimportant
relative to their original context. And I still don't know why you
think so, but, as you're no more obliged to explain that here than
you are in your "Little Giddings" annotation, I'll stop badgering
you about it now!
Thanks--Candice
>Candice: I've not tried tracking down the exact edition Eliot used but it's
>not the Warrack modernization, as the "behovely"/"behovable" variant
>reveals. I gave the text in modern spelling; the phrases appear in this
>particular form in the long version. The version I settled on for
>"behovely" was "necessary (to the divine plan)", though I gather from
>consulting a few editions that different interpretations are possible. --
>Brief notes aren't commentary or a full critical edition, & so it's not
>really my place to offer extensive commentary. I'd optimistically define
>"student" as not just the empirical students one encounters in class (where
>indeed it'd be the rare one who bothers to look up the original) but as
>"someone willing to learn"...who might be grateful for the pointer to the
>source while being willing to pursue it independently if seriously studying
>the poem.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|