This line is quoted from De Nerval's El Desdichado. "The prince of Aquitaine, his tower in ruins:" this line directly refers to the tarot. The line that directly follows the quoted one is "ma seule étoile est morte" or "my sole star is dead." In tarot decks, The Star directly follows The Tower card. The Tower is often called the most dreadfall card as it often implies a sudden disaster which instates a change in your world. This change is extreme. However, after the tower falls, the Star appears, the tarot card of hope. However, Eliot ends with this reference. The Star is dead, there may not be a hope after the destruction of The Tower. Eliot then says "These fragments I have shored against my ruins." However, those same fragments may be the result of the ruins, the result of the Tower. Yet this entire poem was full of fragments. We have somehow returned to the beginning. The Waste Land may have all started with the destruction of The Tower. As we were in constant search of the star, we found red herrings such as "the violet hour," but in the dark without a star, we cannot see. We cannot prophetize.

There is some difficulty identifying what "this" is in the sentence due to the lack of punctuation. "This" could "moment," "daring," or any abstract idea presented by Eliot in the past lines. I think this specific line tries to interpret Bradley. We exist due to blood--our body--a container for the soul. We exist due to moment's surrender–each part of life connected. We exist due to age--the passage of time--the certainty of death. Yet the question is, what have we given? Datta. We give blood. We give age. We give age. Yet who is the recipient? According to Bradley, we may not have communication or a recipient. However, we do have an absolute--a god. Are we living to sacrifice ourselves to God, the soul a seed for a farm?

This line also references Visuddhi-Magga where the elder obtains sainthood after looking upon looking at a decorated body.

The elder gazed upon her teeth, / And thought upon impurity; / And ere that he had left that spot, / The stage of saintship he attained.

The elder realized the similar repulsive nature that all human bodies share. However, through ego, humans used upkeep as a form of ranking and separation. However, from the bare moment of birth to the point of death, human bodies are all reduced to the same vileness.

However, according to Luke, the third character who walks is also God. Why is it that God is characterized by humans? Perhaps Eliot was attempting to criticize the vanity of the church and the idea of different gods accomplishing one thing. Christianity always separated itself from Pagans despite its firm roots in the Pagan religion. Despite the fact they are all heavenly forces, they are all rooted in humanity, and that makes all of them inherently disgusting.

Throughout this section of the poem, Eliot consistently refers to the discomfort of the narrator amidst the waste land, placing specific emphasis on the relation between rock and water. The mountain most likely mirrors the mountains many thunder-rites took place on. However, it is interesting how the narrator searches for water within the mountain as water flows downwards. The mountain is the least likely space to contain water.

Scientifically, dry thunderstorms occur when the cloud is so high that the rain evaporates before making landfall. The act of traveling to a mountain could be attempting to reach that rain.

Eliot states that the narrator could be unsuccessfully searching for silence or solitude in the mountains. This mimics conditions for meditation as if traveling through the mountains is some pilgrimage. This does make sense as a mountain's elevation could be seen as a proximity to heaven or God. This idea of thunder is also in proximity to God. Yet thunder, the voice of God, seemingly disrupts the meditation of the narrator--a contradiction. Lightning, a harmful weapon of the Gods, also produces an auspicious symbol--the thunderstone. Thunder is sterile, and so is God: no more revival.

"Wheel" here plays with multiple ideas. Eliot could be referring to the actual wheel of a ship, "you" being the helmsman. More directly, by facing windward, Eliot recalls the gulls and swells previously mentioned. Seagulls normally fly windward for an easier takeoff. Swells form where the wind is blowing. While this may have been a "Death by Water," it was also a death by wind.

By relating the wheel to the death of Phlebas, Eliot also brings forth the imagery of the wheel of life--the continuity of the life cycle. Phlebas has already been through the wheel, "He passed stages of his age and youth / Entering the whirlpool." The idea of a whirlpool also mimics the rotations of a wheel. Thus, the one who turns the wheel becomes God.

Now, in the context of this interpretation, do these two lines become a plea to God? In 1 Corinthians 12, it is stated "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body -- Jews or Greeks, slaves or free -- and all were made to drink of one Spirit." Phlebas, God's creation, "was once handsome and tall as you." This mirroring of creation and creator was repeated throughout the bible; Adam was made in the image of God. Everyone becomes "a part" of God in ritual. Everyone can somehow turn the wheel.

As a side note, wheel may also refer to the Wheel of Fortune which also plays with the idea of fate previously stated.

According to his footnote, Eliot was attempting to reference Sappho’s Fragment 149. Hesperus is the Evening Star in Greek mythology. Within the poem, he is “the violet hour, the evening hour.” Eliot attempts to recall the night and day cycle, similarly to Sappho. When daybreak comes, the people awake and scatter, completing their own individual jobs. However, when nightfall comes, people return home to rest, regathering.

This cycle of night and day reflects the cycle of life and death. The day is the living, active, and in movement. The night is death, forever sleeping and still. However, one must come after the other. There is no such thing as eternal day or eternal night.

Another interesting note is the fact that Hesperus, the evening star, and Phosphorus, the morning star, are seen as the same person. They are both categorized as the planet Venus seen from Earth at different times. This sort of symmetry is also applied to life and death–to sides of the same coin or even potentially the same thing. Phosphorus is also sometimes called Lucifer, which Christianity later took and changed into the devil.

In the context of the sailor, Tiresias, the blind prophet, can see nightfall or death. He can see the sailor returning home. Perhaps this is the making of the Drowned Phoenician Sailor within the past stanzas. Additionally, Tiresias described in detail the assault of a woman despite being blind. In fact, he envisioned the entire future. Tiresias can see cruelty through his blindness. The blindness may be representative of a surface level of ignorance.

As a further connector, in Ovid’s Metamorphose, Hesperus is the father of Daedalion. Deadalion was a great warrior but enjoyed the cruelties of war. This is a slight connection to the ongoing idea of war within the poem. Life enjoys war just as much as death does.

This quote comes from the final line of Parsifal, an ancient legend and opera about a man who completes the Grail Quest due to his ignorance. However, Parsifal is categorized as a "pure fool." This could be in correspondence with my previous comment about the Fool tarot card. Earlier in the text, Lil was called a "proper fool." The difference between "pure" and "proper" here shows the difference of the word "fool" when applied to men and women. As a woman, you are a fool for not following the world of the man. It has nothing to do with knowledge and everything to do with power. However, when applied to men, the word "fool" is synonymous with protagonist. Their ignorance is their power. This concept also has some backing within the story of Adam and Eve. For Parsifal, his power comes from ignorance that becomes complicity. He does not understand sin. But within that lack of understanding, he cannot save those who are victims. Rather, he becomes a mindless puppet accomplishing these tasks. The king he saved, Amfortas, was a man who had fallen to sin and seduction.

The Fool is also in reference to a tarot card. The Fool, as a major arcana, is numbered either zero (the beginning) or XXII (the end). However, historically, the Fool was an unnumbered card, remaining outside the 21 other Major Arcana, which each serve a unique purpose. The Fool could be placed anywhere in the cycle of tarot cards, not having a specific place or role.

The Fool usually symbolizes the beginning of a new journey or the finalization of an old one (which leads to the beginning of a new journey). Additionally, the concept of the "Fool's Journey" led to the popular characterization of the Fool as a protagonist.

In relation to "A Game of Chess," the Fool in traditional Italian decks was named "Let Mat" and "Ll Matto." This can almost be seen as a direct reflection of checkmate in chess. In the role of tarot card games, the Fool could be used as both the lowest and highest trump, an excuse, and a wildcard.

The Fool could be categorized as a pawn in the game of chess. Despite potentially being the lowest trump, the Fool has infinite potential (promotion of a pawn). When Lil is categorized as a fool, and therefore a pawn, she is trapped within her potential. However, the potential for what is unclear.

We see the idea of fertility and the potential for children. We also see the idea of feminine power trapped within Albert. Lil is a female story in the making, the conclusion not yet complete--she is an unfinished game of chess and The Fool of the tarot.

I'd also like the point out the violence inflicted on women throughout multiple the multiple sources this time around. Especially in Ovid's Metamorphoses, we see both a forceful taking of fertility/virginity with the rape of Philomel, as well as a rejection of fertility from Procne killing her son and feeding it to her husband.

Fertility is an important theme throughout the entire poem with the idea of new life. Cupid specifically is seen as the son of Venus, inflictor of love. However, the corruption of fertility leads to death rather than life. Within the earlier rituals referenced where fertility is very important, it is unspecified whether the sacrifice is voluntary or forced.

The quote 'You! hypocrite lecteur!—mon semblable,—mon frère!' comes from the preface of Baudelaire's Les Fleurs du mal, meaning "You! hypocritical reader!—my second self,—my brother!" However, in the original work, the quote appears as "Tu le connais, lecteur, ce monstre délicat,—Hypocrite lecteur—mon semblable,—mon frère!" meaning "Dear Reader, you are well acquainted with that fastidious monster—hypocritical Reader,—my second self—my brother!"

The notable changes Eliot makes are the removal of the beginning of the quote, replaced with "You!" as well as the change in punctuation through the rest of the quote. Within its original context, the quote serves as an introduction, a preface to set the tone for the rest of the poem. However, Eliot uses this quote to end the stanza, a close on a previous thought.

When thinking about Eliot's intentionality, both context and use is important. This last sentence of dialogue is between the narrator and a man by the name of "Stetson." While Alex Cheng last year interpreted this line as between the narrator and the reader themself, I believe that Eliot was attempting to connect every mentioned character of the poem, including the reader themselves. This "You!" can be seen as a royal we, including the narrator. In a sense, in war, we are all complicit. Stetson seemingly planted a corpse last year, hoping for life to come out of death. However, a dog wants to dig up the corpse, unable to be buried.

Earlier in the poem, lilacs bloomed out of "dead land." It may be possible that dead land becomes land where the dead are buried. However, does that concept of dead land equate to wastelands? Do wastelands appear after war, such as with the First Punic War of Mylae?

Once again, all the characters are unreliable. Eliot references his changed title of He Do the Police in Different Voices. Not only are all the characters hypocritical, Eliot is mocking society as a whole (including himself), categorizing everyone as sinners. In context with the rest of the poem alongside allusions to works like Dante's Inferno, Eliot's addition of You! alongside an exclamation after "lecteur" emphasizes the role of the reader, and how the reader themself might be any of the characters (including the narrator).

An empty card in terms of tarot means an unpredictable future, the clairvoyante unable to see. However, this blank card is associated with the one-eyed merchant, a seller of things. This creates a monetary relationship with the blank card. Is this implying that future could be bought and sold? Or, does the one-eyed nature of the merchant identify him closer to that of a pirate? Is future something to be plundered? Weston's interpretation of the tarot relate to her idea of life and death balance--the rise and fall of water. A blank card shows the uncertain nature of life and death. Water in Tristan and Isolde represents both healing and desolate death.

Marie (alongside the context with cousin) refers to My Past by Marie Larisch. In the book, Marie alongside the empress, meets a mother whose son lies at the bottom of a lake. The mother states, "he will return... When god wlls... But another will take his place" (4). The Empress always declared this statement as a prophecy, and while the revival may not have come true, the death of Archduke Ludwig was fulfilled. This prophecy references the larger cycles of life and revival alongside godly powers. Throughout the poem, Eliot alludes to different rituals and the revival of a wasteland through the powers of a god. Life will come back at a god's will, but not without an exchange. Later on, Marie and the Empress see "[a] beautiful rainbow [that] spread its coloured arch over the lake" (4). This rainbow connects to Isis, a Greek goddess who often brings the messages of the gods through rainbows, linking heaven and Earth. While in the text, Marie's aunt categorizes the rainbow as lucky, the goddess Isis often brought news of war and judgment. Since this sign appeared above the lake, Marie connects Isis to the prophecy of the mother, perhaps evoking God's will.

Additionally, Isis is commonly pictured with a pitcher. This idea could be referencing a later part of the poem about dust, as Ecclesiastes states,

Or ever the silver cord be loosed, or the golden bowl be broken, or the pitcher be broken at the fountain, or the wheel broken at the cistern. Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it. (6, 7)

Perhaps when God's will and messages (Isis) fall alongside her pitcher, life will return to death in the form of dust. A wasteland is created.

By changing both the title and epigraph of the poem, Eliot creates an entirely different foundation to his original text. He Do the Voice in Different Voices, alongside a quote from The Heart of Darkness, Eliot introduces concrete ideals and morals. He Do the Police in Different Voices is from Our Mutual Friend by Dickens. In the context of the original work, He Do the Police in Different Voices suggests what it means in a literal sense. Sloppy (the originator of the quote) reads a newspaper and provides the police with distinct voices and accents. Sloppy essentially embodies different characters as he reads this story aloud. In the original text, Eliot portrays multiple characters by name. These characters were never properly introduced, only thrown into the mix. The poem continues with a retelling of an event including dialogue. This suggests that the narrator in the original text is "he [who] do the police in different voices." Thus, the other characters can be seen as extensions of the original narrator (perhaps existing in reality, perhaps existing only in imagination). This introduction and title set up a tangible narrator, familiar to the readers as if we are being told a story by some relative.

From The Heart of Darkness, Eliot quotes Kurtz, who on his deathbed, comes to some epiphany. realization, or reflection of his life. Kurtz wanted to continue living, however, his mortality caught up to him. This quote introduces the theme of a final lament alongside the power of death to change.

In his decision to change the title and epigraph, I believe Eliot wanted to move from the concrete into the implicit. Using The Waste Land as a title, Eliot connects more to religion, cycles, and the idea of a physicality outside humans (the land itself). Rather than speech, The Waste Land becomes synonymous with the results of humanity (rather than the actions of humanity from He Do the Police in Different Voices). Additionally, Eliot moves away from the explicit naming of characters. Even within the epigraph, both the children and Sybil of Cumae are titles for characters, not explicit names. The poem also starts with heavy usage of pronouns rather than proper nouns (such as I, we, you). By using these unnamed characters, the story itself becomes more vague. Perhaps the narrator is still all the characters in the text. Only later on, the narrator assumes the name "Marie" (15).

Originally, the narrator is not specifically named. However, using the language Eliot uses, I assumed the narrator to be a man. However, in this change, Eliot gives the narrator a female name along with an epigraph from a female character. Alongside the title of The Waste Land, I believe Eliot made this change to emphasize ritual and the morality of man. Sibyl herself heavily emphasized her own virginity. She maintained her virginity even in the face of a God offering youth and immortality. However, due to her extended life (but unextended youth), Sibyl now wants to die. This is a direct opposite to Kurtz, who died after wanting to live. Kurtz also received a reflection of his past whereas Sibyl (a prophetess) received knowledge of the future. Perhaps from this change, Eliot is suggesting both a happier past and a desolate future. Another direct contradiction appears within the idea of "voice." For Kurtz, after he died "[t]he voice was gone" (4). Upon Marlow's reflection of Kurtz's final words, he states,

I was within a hair’s-breadth of the last opportunity for pronouncement, and I found with humiliation that probably I would have nothing to say. This is the reason why I affirm that Kurtz was a remarkable man. He had something to say. He said it.

Kurtz's voice made an impact, but now no longer exists. He was remarkable because of the existence of his voice. Sybil, too, is remarkable because of her powers to foretell the future. However, she states, "I will go as far as having to suffer transformation, and I will be viewed as non-existent, but still known as a voice: the fates will bequeath me a voice." Even in death, Sybil will maintain her voice of the future. In my interpretation, I saw this as a reflection of Eliot himself. Within Kurtz, a poet's death will result in a final burst of voice, only to fade. However, with The Waste Land, even in death, Eliot continues to foretell a certain future ever coming (perhaps repeating). However, these interpretations are all uncertain and unconfirmed. Only Eliot, in death, knows the truth.

By separating his title into "The Waste Land," Eliot creates a relationship between three words: waste, land, and wasteland. The OED defines land as "the solid portion of the earth's surface, as opposed to sea, water," "a country, territory," or regarding to the element "earth." Waste (n) is defined as, "uninhabited (or sparsely inhabited) and uncultivated country; a wild and desolate region, a desert, wilderness." Finally, wasteland is defined as "land in its natural, uncultivated state" or "a waterless or treeless region, a desert." Thus, by using "The Waste Land" as the title, Eliot plays with all the definitions of these words.

Put into the context of Weston's From Ritual to Romance, Malory's Le Morte D’Arthur, and Frazer's The Golden Bough, the context of the title and connections of these three words come to life. Starting with From Ritual to Romance, a heavy emphasis is placed on the connections between religion, ritual, life, and death. Weston uses land meaning country, where its nature of "waste" is directly correlated with the health of a king and the death of a knight. Thus, Eliot's title alludes to some type of political tension that caused a civilized land to become wasted. Additionally, introducing Le Morte D’Arthur, "waste lands" are created from the conflict between two kings (and therefore two nations) (4). So, the waste land is created from either an inner political or multinational conflict.

Both these texts also contain a chalice which symbolizes a return to life. A chalice is a container for some kind of liquid, a connection to the concept of water (and life). By adding this chalice to the earth, the land is revived and no longer waste. Two states of "land" exist in these texts: the dry, barren land and the cultivated country. However, the definition of wasteland suggests that too much water can also create a "waste land."

This concept is true in The Golden Bough. Osiris's revival consists of three states of land: the overgrown land, the civilized land, and the barren land. Osiris is considered the king of earth (earth being synonymous with land). Osiris' success correlates to a healthy land. However, from a civil conflict, Osiris' demise resulted in waste with the flooding of the Nile. However, this flooding results in growth in nature, returning to the overgrown uncultivated land. With Osiris' revival, this land returned to civilization. From these texts, we have two potential cycles. A land could go from civilized to waste (and vice versa) or repeat in a cyclic nature of overgrown life to civilization to desolate death.

From these texts, it can be inferred that Eliot's "The Waste Land," that the text starts with an in medias res with a return to life from death. Eliot starts with a ritual that essentially resurrects or heals some higher power (whether that is a god or a king is unclear). Eliot also references water throughout the poem, in combination with the theme of WWI. Eliot uses the title as a direct representation of the cycles of countries as they wax and wane with life.

The idea of life also corresponds with humanity. As life increases, so does the existence of humanity. Thus, as life increases, so does the human population. However, too much humanity can become waste (the same is true with too little humanity). Meaning, these cycles of revival and return also occur with humankind.