"Yet what need we to say?"

(114.21-116.35)  We pick up today with more discussion of ALP's letter (obviously -- it's what this chapter's about).  There are three themes or points of interest present in today's passage, which consists of a single paragraph.

First, the narrator calls our attention to the tea stain found on letter.  The narrator says that this stain "is a cosy little brown study all to oneself," and that it is important in "establishing the identities in the writer complexus," regardless of whether it's a "thumbprint, mademark or just a poor trait of the artless."  The narrator reminds us that not all letters bear a signature.  Here, the tea stain serves in the place of a signature.  And really, the narrator explains, signatures are often unnecessary, for "[a] true friend is known much more easily, and better into the bargain, by his personal touch, habits of full or undress, movements, response to appeals for charity than by his footwear, say."

From the discussion of the tea stain signature, the narrator performs a psychoanalysis of the letter's contents.  Taking a cue from Freud (referenced with "freudened") and Jung (referenced with "yung"), the narrator dedicates a bit of discussion to unraveling the sexual themes latent in the letter.  But, after going into the psychoanalysis, the narrator discounts its value, saying that it's "as human a little story as paper could well carry."  This story gets repeated every generation, so we shouldn't be surprised to hear it's happened again.

This leads to the third part of the paragraph, in which the narrator gives a Marxist interpretation to the letter.  "Father Michael" is "the old regime," "Margaret is the social revolution," "dear thank you signifies national gratitude," and so on.  Ultimately, though, this is Joyce parodying both psychoanalysis (which, on a biographical level, did next to nothing to help treat Joyce's daughter, who suffered from mental illness throughout her adult life) and Marxist analysis.  After all, the narrator says, language is language, and certain language is appropriate for the clergy and metaphysicians, while certain language is appropriate for the "kicksheets" engaging in amorous affairs in whatever secluded spots they can find -- whether it's "down blind lanes" or "under some sacking left on a coarse cart" -- and the clergy shouldn't use the kicksheet's language, and vice versa.  Once again, this is the narrator reminding us that sometimes it's ok -- and even proper -- to take things literally, and that we shouldn't get "lost in the bush," like a wilderness explorer or Freud himself might.  (Admittedly, with the Wake, this is often easier said than done.)