Sonnet 36
Tom Reedy
Although our vndiuided loues are one:
So shall those blots that do with me remaine,
Without thy helpe, by me be borne alone.
In our two loues there is but oue respect,
Though in our liues a separable spight,
Which though it alter not loues sole effect,
Yet doth it steale sweet houres from loues delight,
I may not euer-more acknowledge thee,
Least my bewailed guilt should do thee shame,
Nor thou with publike kindnesse honour me,
Vnlesse thou take that honour from thy name:
But do not so, I loue thee in such sort,
As thou being mine, mine is thy good report.
Let me confess that we two must be twain,
Although our undivided loves are one;
So shall those blots that do with me remain,
Without thy help, by me be borne alone.
In our two loves there is but one respect,
Though in our lives a separable spite,
Which though it alter not love’s sole effect,
Yet doth it steal sweet hours from love’s delight.
I may not evermore acknowledge thee,
Lest my bewailed guilt should do thee shame,
Nor thou with public kindness honour me,
Unless thou take that honour from thy name.
But do not so; I love thee in such sort,
As thou being mine, mine is thy good report.
rita
their affection for each other is unchanged, but they can't be seen to
be friends anymore. Whatever divides them is a cause of public shame
to the speaker.
If the speaker and the loved one are Shakespeare and his Friend, this
doesn't seem to follow the previous sonnets. Those were about the
Friend lowering himself in some way, apparently by committing a
'sensual fault'. Now we have the poet saying it's him who's at fault,
and if Friend wants to hold his head up in good society he'd better
pretend he never knew him.
Rita
Tom Reedy
TR
Gary
rita wrote:
> Something has happened to separate the speaker and someone he loves:
> their affection for each other is unchanged, but they can't be seen to
> be friends anymore. Whatever divides them is a cause of public shame
> to the speaker.
>
> If the speaker and the loved one are Shakespeare and his Friend, this
> doesn't seem to follow the previous sonnets. Those were about the
> Friend lowering himself in some way, apparently by committing a
> 'sensual fault'. Now we have the poet saying it's him who's at fault,
> and if Friend wants to hold his head up in good society he'd better
> pretend he never knew him.
>
> Rita
>
>
One thing: in Sonnet 34, the poet says:
For no man well of such a salve can speak
That heals the wound and cures not the disgrace;
Whatever the addressee did, it seems to have caused "disgrace" to
the speaker. Could it be this disgrace which causes the speaker to
force himself to disassociate himself from the addressee, even though
the addressee is the actual cause of the disgrace? As well, this might
fit in with the speaker's attempt to protect the addressee from any
blame which was noted in sonnets 33 - 35.
- Gary
rita
paraphrase poetry - and I get this:
33. I have seen beautiful mornings but the sun was later overcast.
In the same way the 'sun' of my world briefly appeared to be mine,
then withdrew into cloud. But I do not love him less: everyone can
make mistakes.
34. Why did you seem so promising at first, so that I let myself
become vulnerable? And then you allowed misfortunes to overcome me.
It's not enough that you get back in touch and comfort me - it's a
poor comfort that doesn't alter the loss and disgrace I suffered.
Nevermind: your repentance is enough to make up for any wrong you did.
35. Don't feel any more regrets - everyone makes mistakes. Even I,
dredging up excuses for you, am doing wrong in a way. You made a
sensual fault, mine is intellectual - I'm arguing in favour of the
wrong you did me. My divided feelings about you are so strong I have
to take your side even against myself.
36. Let me admit we have to part, so that you will not be tainted
with my disgrace. Our feelings aren't changed but our circumstances
are - we must no longer be seen in public together. I can't
acknowledge you nor you me, or you will be dishonoured by
association. Please don't - I love you so entirely that your good
name is in effect my own.
You know what the explanation is? Shakespeare was really a woman and
the Friend got her pregnant. Or, these sonnets are not the poet
speaking as himself but a fictional sequence written around the
'Lover's Complaint' theme - terrible seducer, love him anyway. Or,
something else.
Rita
> Checked by AVG -www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.49/2149 - Release Date: 06/01/09 17:55:00- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Peter Farey
Rita wrote:
>
> Gary wrote:
> >
> > Rita wrote:
> > >
> > > Something has happened to separate the speaker and someone
> > > he loves: their affection for each other is unchanged, but
> > > they can't be seen to be friends anymore. Whatever divides
> > > them is a cause of public shame to the speaker.
And vice-versa?
> > > If the speaker and the loved one are Shakespeare and his
> > > Friend, this doesn't seem to follow the previous sonnets.
> > > Those were about the Friend lowering himself in some way,
> > > apparently by committing a 'sensual fault'. Now we have the
> > > poet saying it's him who's at fault, and if Friend wants to
> > > hold his head up in good society he'd better pretend he
> > > never knew him.
> > >
> > > Rita
> >
> > One thing: in Sonnet 34, the poet says:
> >
> > For no man well of such a salve can speak
> > That heals the wound and cures not the disgrace;
> >
> > Whatever the addressee did, it seems to have caused "disgrace"
> > to the speaker. Could it be this disgrace which causes the
> > speaker to force himself to disassociate himself from the
> > addressee, even though the addressee is the actual cause of
> > the disgrace? As well, this might fit in with the speaker's
> > attempt to protect the addressee from any blame which was
> > noted in sonnets 33 - 35.
> >
> > - Gary
>
> I tried to paraphrase the sense of the sonnets - hopeless I
> know to paraphrase poetry - and I get this:
>
> 33. I have seen beautiful mornings
Just to note in passing that the mention of mountain-tops and
pale mountain(?) streams, and thinking back to his sending a
"written ambassage" (25), to stars guiding his moving (25),
to his being "far where I abide" (27) and "still farther off"
(28) sound to me like he may well be writing from overseas.
(I do know that "mountain" also had a rather less snow-capped
image in those days, however).
> but the sun was later overcast.
> In the same way the 'sun' of my world briefly appeared to be
> mine, then withdrew into cloud. But I do not love him less:
> everyone can make mistakes.
That the clouds overtook him on the way suggest to me that he
set off on whatever journey he was taking (because of his "dis-
grace" and "outcast state") not too unhappily, but that he was
overtaken by news from his Friend that was very distressing.
> 34. Why did you seem so promising at first, so that I let
> myself become vulnerable? And then you allowed misfortunes to
> overcome me. It's not enough that you get back in touch and
> comfort me - it's a poor comfort that doesn't alter the loss
> and disgrace I suffered. Nevermind: your repentance is enough
> to make up for any wrong you did.
For me, the most interesting aspect of this is what loss and
disgrace he suffered. Whatever it was happened unexpectedly
("unlooked for") and made him into an "outcast", "in disgrace
with fortune and men's eyes". It was this that meant he could
no longer boast "of public honour and proud titles", so what
on earth was it? To suggest that this is just a poetical
exercise with no relevant autobiographical content might be
*just* acceptable if it weren't for the fact that there is a
perfectly reasonable autobiographical explanation. It's just
unfortunate that it isn't Shakespeare who would have provided
it.
Even this doesn't solve every problem, however, since there is
no reason that I know of to think that the Sonnets' addressee
would have played any part in what happened to the poet, and
at the moment I reject (mainly on grounds of their relative
ages) the theory that any of the Sonnets were written by
Marlowe to Thomas Walsingham.
> 35. Don't feel any more regrets - everyone makes mistakes.
> Even I, dredging up excuses for you, am doing wrong in a way.
> You made a sensual fault, mine is intellectual - I'm arguing
> in favour of the wrong you did me. My divided feelings about
> you are so strong I have to take your side even against myself.
>
> 36. Let me admit we have to part, so that you will not be
> tainted with my disgrace. Our feelings aren't changed but
> our circumstances are - we must no longer be seen in public
> together.
And I mustn't publicly dedicate anything to you?
> I can't acknowledge you nor you me, or you will be dishonoured
> by association. Please don't - I love you so entirely that
> your good name is in effect my own.
>
> You know what the explanation is? Shakespeare was really a
> woman and the Friend got her pregnant.
Nice one!
> Or, these sonnets are not the poet speaking as himself but a
> fictional sequence written around the 'Lover's Complaint'
> theme - terrible seducer, love him anyway.
I certainly think that the 'Lover's Complaint' is far more
relevant to an interpretation of the Sonnets than most comm-
entators except Kerrigan seem to consider. He seems to think
that they must therefore be fictional too, however. Strange.
> Or, something else.
That's the one I'm rooting for.
Peter F.
<pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk>
<http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm>
Lynne
Could you please let me know what "public honour and proud titles"
Marlowe had, and WS of Stratford, for that matter?
Mouse, just trying to shake things up a bit as it's so quiet here.
>
> Peter F.
> <pete...@rey.prestel.co.uk>
> <http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm>- Hide quoted text -
rita
titles but now doesn't. All it says is that some lucky men can boast
of honour and title, but the poet's fortune is otherwise. It fits a
low-born person as well as a fallen favourite.
Rita
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Lynne
On Jun 6, 5:39 pm, rita <rita.l...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I don't see that 25 means the speaker formerly boasted of honour and
> titles but now doesn't. All it says is that some lucky men can boast
> of honour and title, but the poet's fortune is otherwise. It fits a
> low-born person as well as a fallen favourite.
>
> Rita
as they go on, I've always had the feeling that the poet has lost the
ability to boast of honour and title. But today I was just following
up on Peter's point.
L.
Peter Farey
Lynne wrote:
>
> Peter Farey wrote:
> >
> > For me, the most interesting aspect of this is what loss and
> > disgrace he suffered. Whatever it was happened unexpectedly
> > ("unlooked for") and made him into an "outcast", "in disgrace
> > with fortune and men's eyes". It was this that meant he could
> > no longer boast "of public honour and proud titles", so what
> > on earth was it?
>
> Hi Peter,
>
> Could you please let me know what "public honour and proud
> titles" Marlowe had, and WS of Stratford, for that matter?
Not that I think it is particularly relevant but I would have
thought that 'public honour' might include being considered the
foremost poet-dramatist of his day, and he might have deemed
his M.A. (Cantab) a 'proud title'. Whether they are or not, how-
ever, I believe he is saying that because of what has happened
he will no longer be in a position to receive such things and
therefore to boast of them.
May I ask what would have prevented the Earl of Oxford from
ever boasting of his 'proud titles'?
Peter Farey
Rita wrote:
>
> I don't see that 25 means the speaker formerly boasted of
> honour and titles but now doesn't. All it says is that some
> tune is otherwise. It fits a low-born person as well as a
> fallen favourite.
But, as I have argued here before, the grammar of the first
four lines make it clear that the barring of such triumph by
fortune was unexpected. This is how I believe they should be
read:
Let those who are in favour with their stars
Of public honour and proud titles boast,
Whilst I (whom fortune of such triumph bars
Unlooked-for) joy in that I honour most.
Tom and I argued at some length about this here last March.
He thinks you can use 'unlooked-for' as an adverb qualify-
ing the word 'joy' as a verb - 'unexpectedly' because most
people think that it is honour and titles which one should
go for. I disagree with him, because Shakespeare always
uses 'unlooked-for' in relation to some unexpected *event*
with a clear before and after, and this just doesn't apply
with Tom's interpretation.
Lynne
Peter Farey
Lynne wrote:
>
> Peter Farey wrote:
> >
> > May I ask what would have prevented the Earl of Oxford from
> > ever boasting of his 'proud titles'?
>
> There's a whole list,
Excellent, let's hear them. As you said, it's so quiet here.
> but how about prison?
Seems to me that if there is one time when we could pretty much
guarantee that the Earl of Oxford would boast of who he was it
would be when he was in prison. Or was he so reluctant to men-
tion it that he got himself bunged in with the conny-catchers,
foists, nips, priggars and lifts?
sashe...@tiscali.co.uk
On 8 June, 06:56, "Peter Farey" <pete...@rey.prestel.co.uk> wrote:
> Lynne wrote:
>
> > Peter Farey wrote:
>
> > > May I ask what would have prevented the Earl of Oxford from
> > > ever boasting of his 'proud titles'?
>
> > There's a whole list,
>
> Excellent, let's hear them. As you said, it's so quiet here.
>
> > but how about prison?
>
> Seems to me that if there is one time when we could pretty much
> guarantee that the Earl of Oxford would boast of who he was it
> would be when he was in prison. Or was he so reluctant to men-
> tion it that he got himself bunged in with the conny-catchers,
> foists, nips, priggars and lifts?
>
> Peter F.
> <http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm>
Well, being imprisoned was hardly unique to Oxford, and he got off
pretty lightly compared to some. Many nobles and courtiers of the
period were clapped in the Tower or some other prison or got house
detention - Leicester, Raleigh, Essex, Southampton, 3rd Earl of
Pembroke, 5th Earl of Rutland as well as the ladies - Margaret,
Countess of Lennox, Bess of Hardwick and Lady Catherine Grey.
The 9th Earl of Northumberland spent two decades in the Tower and
Philip, Earl of Arundel died there, after some years of imprisonment.
Getting incarcerated was an occupational hazard if you moved in the
circles of the monarch.
I can't remember off-hand - is Oxford documented anywhere as hanging
out with the low-lifes of London? He certainly knew some of the non-
noble literary men of the day - Lyly, Munday, and Churchyard, but the
drinking partner of Greene and Nashe? No, I don't think so!
SB.
Peter Farey
"SB" <sashe...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Peter Farey wrote:
> >
> > Lynne wrote:
> > >
> > > Peter Farey wrote:
> > > >
> > > > May I ask what would have prevented the Earl of Oxford from
> > > > ever boasting of his 'proud titles'?
>>
> > > There's a whole list,
> >
> > Excellent, let's hear them. As you said, it's so quiet here.
> >
> > > but how about prison?
> >
> > Seems to me that if there is one time when we could pretty much
> > guarantee that the Earl of Oxford would boast of who he was it
> > would be when he was in prison. Or was he so reluctant to men-
> > tion it that he got himself bunged in with the conny-catchers,
> > foists, nips, priggars and lifts?
>
> pretty lightly compared to some. Many nobles and courtiers of the
> period were clapped in the Tower or some other prison or got house
> detention - Leicester, Raleigh, Essex, Southampton, 3rd Earl of
> Pembroke, 5th Earl of Rutland as well as the ladies - Margaret,
> Countess of Lennox, Bess of Hardwick and Lady Catherine Grey.
>
> The 9th Earl of Northumberland spent two decades in the Tower and
> Philip, Earl of Arundel died there, after some years of imprisonment.
> Getting incarcerated was an occupational hazard if you moved in the
> circles of the monarch.
Yes, I think we can cross 'prison' off the list, don't you Lynne?
What's next?
Lynne
On Jun 8, 6:15 am, "Peter Farey" <pete...@rey.prestel.co.uk> wrote:
> What's next?
Oh Peter, I'm not going through the litany of Oxford's misdeeds again.
We've been through them tons of times. Often they're thrown in my face
from those of other faiths. Enough for me that he was accused of
buggering little boys, that he deserted his first wife during her
pregnancy, that he farted in front of the Queen, if he did :). that he
killed the cook, that he was in jail for fathering the child of a lady
in waiting while married, besides of all sorts of other stuff that we
might not know about, possibly with Southampton or someone else, such
as illegal sexual activities.
Let us turn the tables for a bit. What would Marlowe have encountered
that made him unable to flaunt the honours/titles that you think he
had? Death, perhaps? And what about WS, everybody? What honours or
titles did he have that he no longer cared to boast about? And what
had he done wrong?
Mouse
>
> Peter F.
> <pete...@rey.prestel.co.uk>
Lynne
Even if getting incarcerated was an occupational hazard, that says
very little or nothing about whether the prisoners or ex-prisoners or
indeed Oxford felt shame about his imprisonment or about what he had
done to deserve it. That's not to say why, if he was Shakespeare, he
felt shame in that sonnet. There are all sorts of possibilities.
>
> I can't remember off-hand - is Oxford documented anywhere as hanging
> out with the low-lifes of London? He certainly knew some of the non-
> noble literary men of the day - Lyly, Munday, and Churchyard, but the
> drinking partner of Greene and Nashe? No, I don't think so!
are stories that he once reneged on paying the rent to Mrs Penn for
both of them, but I have a memory of reading the material and finding
only Churchyard's name on the documents. It was a long time ago,
however, and I might be remembering wrong.
Best wishes,
Mouse
>
> SB.- Hide quoted text -
Peter Farey
Lynne wrote:
>
> Peter Farey wrote:
> >
> > "SB" wrote:
> > >
> > > Peter Farey wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Lynne wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Peter Farey wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > May I ask what would have prevented the Earl of Oxford from
> > > > > > ever boasting of his 'proud titles'?
> > > > >
> > > > > There's a whole list,
> > > >
> > > > Excellent, let's hear them. As you said, it's so quiet here.
> > > >
> > > > > but how about prison?
> > > >
> > > > Seems to me that if there is one time when we could pretty much
> > > > guarantee that the Earl of Oxford would boast of who he was it
> > > > would be when he was in prison. Or was he so reluctant to men-
> > > > tion it that he got himself bunged in with the conny-catchers,
> > > > foists, nips, priggars and lifts?
You didn't answer this. How did fortune *bar* him from boasting of
his proud titles while he was (for no justifiable reason) banged up in
prison?
> > > Well, being imprisoned was hardly unique to Oxford, and he got off
> > > pretty lightly compared to some. Many nobles and courtiers of the
> > > period were clapped in the Tower or some other prison or got house
> > > detention - Leicester, Raleigh, Essex, Southampton, 3rd Earl of
> > > Pembroke, 5th Earl of Rutland as well as the ladies - Margaret,
> > > Countess of Lennox, Bess of Hardwick and Lady Catherine Grey.
> > >
> > > The 9th Earl of Northumberland spent two decades in the Tower and
> > > Philip, Earl of Arundel died there, after some years of imprisonment.
> > > Getting incarcerated was an occupational hazard if you moved in the
> > > circles of the monarch.
> >
> > Yes, I think we can cross 'prison' off the list, don't you Lynne?
>
> Nope
Why not? I thought you were trying to get a discussion going.
> > What's next?
>
> Oh Peter, I'm not going through the litany of Oxford's misdeeds again.
Nobody asked you to, Lynne. We are concerned with what the world has
done *to* him that will prevent him boasting of his proud titles.
> We've been through them tons of times. Often they're thrown in my
> face from those of other faiths. Enough for me that he was accused
> of buggering little boys, that he deserted his first wife during
> her pregnancy, that he farted in front of the Queen, if he did :),
> that he killed the cook, that he was in jail for fathering the
> child of a lady in waiting while married, besides of all sorts of
> other stuff that we might not know about, possibly with Southampton
> or someone else, such as illegal sexual activities.
Yes, the fellow was an absolute bounder all right, a rotter of
the first water. But can we get back to what had happened *to*
him that meant he was unable, if he had wanted to, to boast of
his proud titles. He was still the Earl of Oxford and Lord Great
Chamberlain after all, and there is nothing that I have read
about him that would suggest he'd EVER let anyone forget it!
> Let us turn the tables for a bit.
I thought we already had! :o)
> What would Marlowe have encountered that made him unable to
> flaunt the honours/titles that you think he had? Death, perhaps?
Yes of course 'death'. If you are supposed to be dead, your scope
for either obtaining or bragging about such things is severely
limited. It's 'honour' not 'honours' by the way.
> And what about WS, everybody? What honours or titles did he have
> that he no longer cared to boast about?
It says that fortune had *barred* him from doing so, not that it
is something he no longer wanted to do.
> And what had he done wrong?
No, Lynne, he hasn't necessarily done anything wrong. It is what
fortune has done *to* him that he is complaining about. You need
to understand this to see where your argument for Oxford (so far)
goes wrong.
As for its possible relevance to William Shakespeare, I confess
that I can see none at all based upon the little we do know about
his life.
Tom Reedy
So is "joy" a verb or no?
And the *event* that is unexpected is the speaker joying in that he honours most. No contradiction with Shakespeare's usage there.
And fortune can certainly be interpreted as fate, that condition into which one is born.
TR
Lynne
On Jun 9, 2:20 am, "Peter Farey" <pete...@rey.prestel.co.uk> wrote:
> Lynne wrote:
>
> > Peter Farey wrote:
>
> > > "SB" wrote:
>
> > > > Peter Farey wrote:
>
> > > > > Lynne wrote:
>
> > > > > > Peter Farey wrote:
>
> > > > > > > May I ask what would have prevented the Earl of Oxford from
> > > > > > > ever boasting of his 'proud titles'?
>
> > > > > > There's a whole list,
>
> > > > > Excellent, let's hear them. As you said, it's so quiet here.
>
> > > > > > but how about prison?
>
> > > > > Seems to me that if there is one time when we could pretty much
> > > > > guarantee that the Earl of Oxford would boast of who he was it
> > > > > would be when he was in prison. Or was he so reluctant to men-
> > > > > tion it that he got himself bunged in with the conny-catchers,
> > > > > foists, nips, priggars and lifts?
>
> You didn't answer this. How did fortune *bar* him from boasting of
> his proud titles while he was (for no justifiable reason) banged up in
> prison?
away from public scrutiny. And perhaps he felt a great deal of shame
over it, if not for what he had done, then because of where he had
been placed.
> > > > Well, being imprisoned was hardly unique to Oxford, and he got off
> > > > pretty lightly compared to some. Many nobles and courtiers of the
> > > > period were clapped in the Tower or some other prison or got house
> > > > detention - Leicester, Raleigh, Essex, Southampton, 3rd Earl of
> > > > Pembroke, 5th Earl of Rutland as well as the ladies - Margaret,
> > > > Countess of Lennox, Bess of Hardwick and Lady Catherine Grey.
>
> > > > The 9th Earl of Northumberland spent two decades in the Tower and
> > > > Philip, Earl of Arundel died there, after some years of imprisonment.
> > > > Getting incarcerated was an occupational hazard if you moved in the
> > > > circles of the monarch.
>
> > > Yes, I think we can cross 'prison' off the list, don't you Lynne?
>
> > Nope
>
> Why not? I thought you were trying to get a discussion going.
response to SB.
>
> > > What's next?
>
> > Oh Peter, I'm not going through the litany of Oxford's misdeeds again.
>
> Nobody asked you to, Lynne. We are concerned with what the world has
> done *to* him that will prevent him boasting of his proud titles.
>
> > We've been through them tons of times. Often they're thrown in my
> > face from those of other faiths. Enough for me that he was accused
> > of buggering little boys, that he deserted his first wife during
> > her pregnancy, that he farted in front of the Queen, if he did :),
> > that he killed the cook, that he was in jail for fathering the
> > child of a lady in waiting while married, besides of all sorts of
> > other stuff that we might not know about, possibly with Southampton
> > or someone else, such as illegal sexual activities.
>
> Yes, the fellow was an absolute bounder all right, a rotter of
> the first water.
>But can we get back to what had happened *to*
> him that meant he was unable, if he had wanted to, to boast of
> his proud titles. He was still the Earl of Oxford and Lord Great
> Chamberlain after all, and there is nothing that I have read
> about him that would suggest he'd EVER let anyone forget it!
at least two by registered psychologists--suggesting that Oxford was
bipolar. If this is true, possibly in his more manic periods he felt
no shame, but in his mixed or depressive periods--a characteristic we
see in spades in the sonnets--he felt worthless and full of regret at
what he had done.
> > Let us turn the tables for a bit.
>
> I thought we already had! :o)
>
> > What would Marlowe have encountered that made him unable to
> > flaunt the honours/titles that you think he had? Death, perhaps?
>
> Yes of course 'death'. If you are supposed to be dead, your scope
> for either obtaining or bragging about such things is severely
> limited. It's 'honour' not 'honours' by the way.
Marlovian viewpoint, because anyone who has done any reading on the
subject knows that autopsies in the sixteenth century had much more to
do with magic and superstition than science, but your whole theory
rests uncomfortably on Marlowe's still being alive, and I've seen
little evidence that I agree with for it.
> > And what about WS, everybody? What honours or titles did he have
> > that he no longer cared to boast about?
>
> It says that fortune had *barred* him from doing so, not that it
> is something he no longer wanted to do.
reasons for Fortune barring him: he had been "made lame by Fortune's
dearest spite." Later in the sonnet he adds both poor and despised to
the list. When on HLAS in the past, I remember long discussions about
lameness, and whether it was real or metaphorical. Since it is brought
up more than once in the sonnets, I vote for real, but we needn't go
through all that again.
> > And what had he done wrong?
>
> No, Lynne, he hasn't necessarily done anything wrong. It is what
> fortune has done *to* him that he is complaining about. You need
> to understand this to see where your argument for Oxford (so far)
> goes wrong.
are you reading it that others are doing so on his account, which I
admit I find a remote possibility?
> As for its possible relevance to William Shakespeare, I confess
> that I can see none at all based upon the little we do know about
> his life.
quite a bit about Shakespeare's life. It's just not a good fit with
these sonnets.
Tom will love this. He wanted Oxfordians and Marlovians debating each
other. Do we have any Baconians? Step up to the microphone, please,
don't be shy!
Mouse, who really must get down to work right away.
rita
ambitious, and by 1592 already fretting that he was turned 30 and
getting nowhere; and he was thwarted in his political ambitions by
Uncle Burghley, who kept promising to do things for him and didn't
(Uncle B had his own little boy to think of); and not even Essex could
swing his appointment as attorney-general(1594). Bacon was so upset
about that he said he would '‘retire myself with a couple of men to
Cambridge, and there spend my life in my studies and contemplations,
without looking back’. Aw, poor chap. But he didn't, he went for the
solicitor-generalship(1596). Zilch again. Bacon thought Elizabeth
hated him so much ‘she will seek all England for a Solicitor rather
than take me’. Sob.
And his plan to get rich by marrying Lady Hatton was thwarted when his
old rival Coke pipped him there (1597), and then in 1598 he was
arrested in the open street for debt. What a disgrace! The 90s was a
rotten decade for Frankie. Public honour and proud titles? I don't
think so.
As for WS, I still say that the sonnet need not imply that the speaker
is someone who has either been seeking, or formerly enjoyed, public
honour and proud titles. It could as easily be a man who knows he is
born to a humble fortune but is nevertheless happy in his love.
And I really can't see the Earl of Oxford - heir to the great De Vere
name - ever complaining he was short of a proud title, Lynne, however
tough things got.
Rita
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Peter Farey
Tom Reedy wrote:
>
> Peter Farey wrote:
> >
> > Rita wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't see that 25 means the speaker formerly boasted of
> > > honour and titles but now doesn't. All it says is that some
> > > lucky men can boast of honour and title, but the poet's for-
> > > tune is otherwise. It fits a low-born person as well as a
> > > fallen favourite.
> >
> > But, as I have argued here before, the grammar of the first
> > four lines make it clear that the barring of such triumph by
> > fortune was unexpected. This is how I believe they should be
> > read:
> >
> > Let those who are in favour with their stars
> > Of public honour and proud titles boast,
> > Whilst I (whom fortune of such triumph bars
> > Unlooked-for) joy in that I honour most.
> >
> > Tom and I argued at some length about this here last March.
> > He thinks you can use 'unlooked-for' as an adverb qualify-
> > ing the word 'joy' as a verb - 'unexpectedly' because most
> > people think that it is honour and titles which one should
> > go for. I disagree with him, because Shakespeare always
> > uses 'unlooked-for' in relation to some unexpected *event*
> > with a clear before and after, and this just doesn't apply
> > with Tom's interpretation.
>
> So is "joy" a verb or no?
unexpected, unanticipated. (In predicative use sometimes
quasi-adv.)"
part of the predicate to something which is its subject. To
remind us, the predicate is the part of a sentence or clause
containing what is said about a subject.
Fortune (subject) ...bars unlooked for (predicate)
predicative "unlooked for" is grammatically saying some-
thing about. In other words it is the "I" who is unexpec-
ted or unanticipated, which makes no sense at all.
predicative "unlooked for" is grammatically saying some-
thing about. In other words it is the "fortune" which is
unexpected or unanticipated, and that makes perfect sense.
> in that he honours most.
is not an event, it is a state of mind. The *moment* when he
suddenly realised how joyous he was could be, but no such
occasion is mentioned or even implied.
including this one. Seven of them are used as straight
adjectives:
(KJ)
To this unlooked-for, unprepared pomp.
(KJ)
And talked of virtue - O unlooked-for evil,
When virtue is profaned in such a devil!
(RoL)
And all unlooked-for from your highness' mouth.
(R2)
And all the unlooked-for issue of their bodies,
(3H6)
(3H6)
(R&J)
happening, as is the only quasi-adverbial usage, which
is in just the same form as the one in sonnet 25.
honour comes unlooked for, and there's an end.
(1H4)
it is the honour which is unexpected (and therefore comes
'unexpectedly').
> condition into which one is born.
make that condition quite irrelevant.
hj
Since he was a commoner and didn't do anything at court but perform,
not much us known about his private life. Even so, it's known a peace
warrant was taken out against him (one that also named suspicious
women accomplices). It's know that being a "player" was disreputable,
a point that is found in the historical record concerning the approval
of the Shakespeare coat-of-arms. A man who was becoming a popular
poet, he apparently turned his back on poetry--at least published
poetry--and spent the rest of his active life working with those whore
mongers and buggerers on the stage. What happened?
Since this is all in the realm of speculation and supposition, let's
suppose he contracted syphilis in the stews. Basing their conclusions
largely on internal evidence from his writings, a number of people
have suggested that (most recently Germaine Greer, whose book
"Shakespeare's Wife" deserves a better reception). If so, the word
"blots" is very interesting, as it could easily refer to the chancre
sores that are trademarks of the disease (OED: "a disfiguring mark or
spot," or "a blemish or disfigurement"). They might both keep two
lovers apart and sully one's reputation.
Of course "blot" can also mean "to cover paper with (worthless)
writing." Could this refer to playwriting? Could it refer to something
embarrassing in his poems, perhaps (to stretch the speculation)
something overly erotic or homoerotic, maybe just an indication that
he was too familiar with a young man far above him in the status
hierarchy?
Just some stuff for people who claim there's nothing known about Will
Shakespeare that could be the sort of "blot" of which the poet writes.
hj
Peter Farey
>
> Peter Farey wrote:
> >
> > How did fortune *bar* him from boasting of
> > his proud titles while he was (for no justifiable reason)
> > banged up in prison?
>
> Well, physically it did. One can hardly boast of anything
> while shut away from public scrutiny.
He wasn't in solitary confinement. He would undoubtedly have
been able to receive guests and, as I suggested, there was
nothing to prevent him boasting about his proud titles when-
ever he felt that he was being treated with anything less
than the respect he believed his rank demanded.
You appear to be proposing that he wrote this sonnet while
he was in prison, by the way. Another opportunity for him
to do a bit of boasting if he wanted?
> And perhaps he felt a great deal of shame over it, if not
> for what he had done, then because of where he had been
> placed.
Not feeling like doing something is *not* the same as being
barred by fortune from doing it. We can blame fortune for
the fact that HLAS has become such a magnet for the mentally
challenged, but not for our own individual decisions as to
whether we post there or not.
<snip>
> > But can we get back to what had happened *to* him that
> > meant he was unable, if he had wanted to, to boast of
> > his proud titles. He was still the Earl of Oxford and Lord
> > Great Chamberlain after all, and there is nothing that I
> > have read about him that would suggest he'd EVER let anyone
> > forget it!
>
> That is simply your opinion, Peter.
No, it is a fact that there is nothing that I have read about
him that would suggest it. If he ever behaved as a shrinking
violet I must have missed it. Did he?
> I've heard several presentations--at least two by registered
> psychologists--suggesting that Oxford was bipolar. If this
> is true, possibly in his more manic periods he felt no shame,
> but in his mixed or depressive periods--a characteristic we
> see in spades in the sonnets--he felt worthless and full of
> regret at what he had done.
Interesting. Is this diagnosis based only upon Oxford's known
writings, or does it assume that he is the author of the sonnets
too?
<snip>
> > > What would Marlowe have encountered that made him unable
> > > to flaunt the honours/titles that you think he had? Death,
> > > perhaps?
> >
> > Yes of course 'death'. If you are supposed to be dead, your
> > scope for either obtaining or bragging about such things is
> > severely limited. It's 'honour' not 'honours' by the way.
>
> But what if you ARE dead, Peter? I do have some sympathy for
> the Marlovian viewpoint, because anyone who has done any
> reading on the subject knows that autopsies in the sixteenth
> century had much more to do with magic and superstition than
> science,
What autopsy?
> but your whole theory rests uncomfortably on Marlowe's still
> being alive, and I've seen little evidence that I agree with
> for it.
Look at everything I have written above, Lynne. It is based
upon an assumption *for the sake of argument* that Oxford did
actually write Sonnet 25. This is something which I am as sure
as I can be is not true, but such a suspension of disbelief is
essential if we are ever going to be able to discuss the more
detailed aspects of our different theories. I would therefore
ask that you accord me the same courtesy?
If you would like to discuss my reasons for claiming that
Marlowe did not die in 1593 after all, I will be only too
happy to do so (the next copy of *The Oxfordian* should have
a potted version), but this is not the thread for doing it.
> > > And what about WS, everybody? What honours or titles did
> > > he have that he no longer cared to boast about?
> >
> > It says that fortune had *barred* him from doing so, not
> > that it is something he no longer wanted to do.
>
> If you look carefully at the next sonnet, you'll see the most
> recent reasons for Fortune barring him: he had been "made lame
> by Fortune's dearest spite." Later in the sonnet he adds both
> poor and despised to the list. When on HLAS in the past, I
> remember long discussions about lameness, and whether it was
> real or metaphorical. Since it is brought up more than once in
> the sonnets, I vote for real, but we needn't go through all
> that again.
So what are you saying? He couldn't boast of his proud titles
because of his limp?
> > > And what had he done wrong?
> >
> > No, Lynne, he hasn't necessarily done anything wrong. It is
> > what fortune has done *to* him that he is complaining about.
> > You need to understand this to see where your argument for
> > Oxford (so far) goes wrong.
>
> If he hadn't done anything wrong, why is he bewailing his
> guilt? Or are you reading it that others are doing so on
> his account, which I admit I find a remote possibility?
It's ambiguous. Could be either. Doesn't matter. You snipped
the rather important word 'necessarily'. As I said, it is what
fortune has done *to* him that he is complaining about, just
as he does in sonnet 111:
O, for my sake do you with fortune chide,
The guilty goddess of my harmful deeds,
> > As for its possible relevance to William Shakespeare, I
> > confess that I can see none at all based upon the little
> > we do know about his life.
>
> I'd agree that I can see none at all, but I actually think we
> know quite a bit about Shakespeare's life. It's just not a
> good fit with these sonnets.
What we know about Shakespeare's life tends not to be the
stuff that sonnets are made on.
> Tom will love this. He wanted Oxfordians and Marlovians
> debating each other.
So did I, and the room emptied faster than it does at the
local pub when I start talking about renaissance drama.
Lynne
> ambitious, and by 1592 already fretting that he was turned 30 and
> getting nowhere; and he was thwarted in his political ambitions by
> Uncle Burghley, who kept promising to do things for him and didn't
> (Uncle B had his own little boy to think of);
adulthood. Thomas was the son of his first wife, and founded the
Exeter line. Robert was the son of his second wife, and was the first
member of the Salisbury line.
Most Oxfordians who go to conferences have met Michael Cecil, the
Marquess of Salisbury, who was born in British Columbia and seems like
a very nice guy. (All Canadians are super people, of course.) He
likes to be called Michael, but having grown up in Britain I have some
trouble with that, so when I've had occasion to speak to him I've
called him "Michael, sir." ;)
>and not even Essex could
> swing his appointment as attorney-general(1594). Bacon was so upset
> about that he said he would '‘retire myself with a couple of men to
> Cambridge, and there spend my life in my studies and contemplations,
> without looking back’. Aw, poor chap. But he didn't, he went for the
> solicitor-generalship(1596). Zilch again. Bacon thought Elizabeth
> hated him so much ‘she will seek all England for a Solicitor rather
> than take me’. Sob.
>
> And his plan to get rich by marrying Lady Hatton was thwarted when his
> old rival Coke pipped him there (1597), and then in 1598 he was
> arrested in the open street for debt. What a disgrace! The 90s was a
> rotten decade for Frankie. Public honour and proud titles? I don't
> think so.
>
> As for WS, I still say that the sonnet need not imply that the speaker
> is someone who has either been seeking, or formerly enjoyed, public
> honour and proud titles. It could as easily be a man who knows he is
> born to a humble fortune but is nevertheless happy in his love.
>
> And I really can't see the Earl of Oxford - heir to the great De Vere
> name - ever complaining he was short of a proud title, Lynne, however
> tough things got.
But there might have been a period of time when he felt he couldn't
boast about them.
Mouse
[snip]
rita
best possible case for him as an effective soldier, nascent grandee
and "interesting and influential personality": but even that admits
it's significant he hasn't yet found a biographer, and though we don't
have to accept the Essexite view that he was a 'clown', it's fairly
clear that though he was technically his father's main heir Burghley
soon ruled him out as a likely successor to his political power.
Hence he devoted much effort to bringing on young Robert, who as
events ultimately proved was a natural-born killer, sorry I mean
politician. (I've always grudgingly admired the way he saw off Essex,
because if I'd been there at the time and had to bet money on who
would win that particular power struggle I know I would have listened
to common sense and put my shirt on the Earl.)
I think it must have been a nasty moment for Burghley when he realised
lightning had struck twice in very nearly the same place, and his
wife's sister had spawned an ambitious intellectual more than capable
of giving even Robert a run for his money. Keeping Francis on the
sidelines while moving Robert up fast on the inside track - dear me,
who'd be a dad?
Rita
Gary
Peter Farey wrote:
SNIP
> It is a verb, and 'unlooked' is an adjectival past participle.
>
> According to the OED, 'unlooked for' is "Not looked for;
> unexpected, unanticipated. (In predicative use sometimes
> quasi-/adv/.)"
>
> For 'unlooked for' to be used quasi-adverbially, it must be
> part of the predicate to something which is its subject. To
> remind us, the predicate is the part of a sentence or clause
> containing what is said about a subject.
>
> The two options, in the more usual order, appear to be:
>
> I (subject) joy unlooked for (predicate) and
> Fortune (subject) ...bars unlooked for (predicate)
>
> In the first of these, it is the subject "I" which the
> predicative "unlooked for" is grammatically saying some-
> thing about. In other words it is the "I" who is unexpec-
> ted or unanticipated, which makes no sense at all.
I have to admit that I wouldn't know a quasi-adv from an
adjectival past participle even if they introduced themselves. Which
perhaps explains why I have less trouble understanding (or thinking I
understand) a poem like this than others.
I read "Unlooked for" as referring to "I". In effect:
Whilst unlooked for I, whom fortune of such triumph bars,
Joy in that I honor most.
He's contrasting himself, someone not looked for, with those who
enjoy public honor or fame. He's a nobody - they're famous.
No problem.
- Gary
Tom Reedy
Peter Farey wrote:
SNIP
> It is a verb, and 'unlooked' is an adjectival past participle.I have to admit that I wouldn't know a quasi-adv from an
>
> According to the OED, 'unlooked for' is "Not looked for;
> unexpected, unanticipated. (In predicative use sometimes
> quasi-/adv/.)"
>
> For 'unlooked for' to be used quasi-adverbially, it must be
> part of the predicate to something which is its subject. To
> remind us, the predicate is the part of a sentence or clause
> containing what is said about a subject.
>
> The two options, in the more usual order, appear to be:
>
> I (subject) joy unlooked for (predicate) and
> Fortune (subject) ...bars unlooked for (predicate)
>
> In the first of these, it is the subject "I" which the
> predicative "unlooked for" is grammatically saying some-
> thing about. In other words it is the "I" who is unexpec-
> ted or unanticipated, which makes no sense at all.
adjectival past participle even if they introduced themselves.
And I wonder if Shakespeare did. We all know he was never ungrammatical, right? He was a strict prescriptivist who would never think of bending words or meanings or grammar to suit his purpose.
TR
Which
perhaps explains why I have less trouble understanding (or thinking I
understand) a poem like this than others.
I read "Unlooked for" as referring to "I". In effect:
Whilst unlooked for I, whom fortune of such triumph bars,
Joy in that I honor most.
He's contrasting himself, someone not looked for, with those who
enjoy public honor or fame. He's a nobody - they're famous.
No problem.
- Gary
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.62/2168 - Release Date: 06/10/09 18:30:00
Peter Farey
Gary wrote:
>
> I have to admit that I wouldn't know a quasi-adv from an
> adjectival past participle even if they introduced themselves.
> Which perhaps explains why I have less trouble understanding
> (or thinking I understand) a poem like this than others.
>
> I read "Unlooked for" as referring to "I". In effect:
>
> Whilst unlooked for I, whom fortune of such triumph bars,
> Joy in that I honor most.
>
> He's contrasting himself, someone not looked for, with
> those who enjoy public honor or fame. He's a nobody - they're
> famous.
>
> No problem.
Gary, just as long as you are considering only what the poems
mean to you, then this approach is perfectly OK, and whatever
you take it to mean is just what it *does* mean. Go for it.
If, however, we are trying to determine what Shakespeare him-
self might have meant by what he said, then we really have to
understand how those words were used at the time both by
writers in general and by Shakespeare in particular. This
includes both the meanings usually given to them, and the
way in which they tended to be used grammatically.
And, for starters, I can find no example anywhere of anyone
at the time using the phrase 'unlooked for' to mean anything
like 'being a nobody', as you want it to!
For me, the best sources of such information are the OED and
the works of Shakespeare themselves. Unfortunately, however,
using the former does mean that one is faced with abbreviat-
ions like 'ppl.a.' and 'quasi-adv.' which it is necessary for
us to understand to able to apply what the OED is saying to
the passage in question. Luckily, the OED itself provides the
necessary explanations if we can be bothered to look them
up. By doing this I am able to claim with confidence that the
meaning Shakespeare most probably intended for 'unlooked
for' in this context was 'unexpected' or 'unanticipated', and
that it is 'unexpected fortune' which has caused his problems.
If we take fortune to be the (often personified) factor which
works upon our lives for good or ill, then it is difficult to
see how it can be 'unexpected'. It's just there, like gravity.
But Shakespeare often uses it not in this sense, but as a
word simply meaning something like 'what happens to
people', whether good or bad, such as in:
What I have done my safety urged me to,
And I embrace this fortune patiently,
Since not to be avoided it falls on me.
(1H4)
Whether 'twas pride,
Which out of daily fortune ever taints
The happy man;
(Cor)
constantly thou hast stuck to the bare fortune of that
beggar Posthumus,
(Cym)
and, of course:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Whilst most of what happens to us is relatively predictable,
I'm sure we can agree that some of the things that happen
to us can be very unexpected indeed!
Peter Farey
Tom Reedy wrote:
>
> Gary wrote:
> >
> > I have to admit that I wouldn't know a quasi-adv from an
> > adjectival past participle even if they introduced themselves.
>
> And I wonder if Shakespeare did. We all know he was never
> ungrammatical, right? He was a strict prescriptivist who would
> never think of bending words or meanings or grammar to suit his
> purpose.
OED etc. is not rules of grammar, but how words tended to be
understood and used at the time. If we are to understand just
what Shakespeare intended to mean by his words, there really
is no alternative to examining such things. Of course he may
have had other meanings in mind too, other verbal connections,
other mental images, but for you to reject how most of his con-
temporaries would have probably understood what he said just
because you don't understand it that way and can't see how it
Peter F.
<pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk>
<http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm>
rita
always means 'unanticipated, unexpected'. But OED also quotes the
contemporary usage 'unlooked at/on/into/unto' which means
'unregarded, unheeded', as in the phrase 'unlookt on
povertie' (1615). Can we be absolutely sure that in a poem, where
linguistic usage can be freer than prose and carry double meanings,
the poet isn't playing on both senses and contrasting himself, the
unregarded nobody, with those who enjoy social prominence? But he's
also a nobody who unexpectedly finds joy in someone he respects as
above him?
And considering the sonnets contain printers' errors, you could even
argue some tired printer may have let his attention wander at that
point and put 'for' where he should have put 'on'. (Much virtue in
'if'; much mileage in printer's errors.)
Rita
> <http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm>
Peter Groves
> From: ardenm...@googlegroups.com
> [mailto:ardenm...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of rita
> Sent: Friday, 12 June 2009 6:08 PM
> To: Forest of Arden
> Subject: [Forest of Arden] Re: Sonnet 36
>
>
> I had a quick look at OED Peter and you're right that 'unlooked for'
> always means 'unanticipated, unexpected'. But OED also quotes the
> contemporary usage 'unlooked at/on/into/unto' which means
> 'unregarded, unheeded', as in the phrase 'unlookt on
> povertie' (1615). Can we be absolutely sure that in a poem, where
> linguistic usage can be freer than prose and carry double meanings,
> the poet isn't playing on both senses and contrasting himself, the
> unregarded nobody, with those who enjoy social prominence? But he's
> also a nobody who unexpectedly finds joy in someone he respects as
> above him?
doesn't *modify* the meaning of the lexical verb, it *transforms* it:
indeed, in this case "unlooked" has no meaning at all in isolation, and so
we do not analyse the meaning of "unlooked for" but treat it as a single
semantic unit. I'm all for polysemy, but it has to be justified by
reference to the cognitive processes of interpreting language. The match
doesn't have to be perfect -- "Therefore I lie with her and she with me"
works because "lie", not being a phrasal verb, already suggests the two
possibilities (and at a pinch "lie with her" could also mean "utter untruths
along with her").
>
> And considering the sonnets contain printers' errors, you could even
> argue some tired printer may have let his attention wander at that
> point and put 'for' where he should have put 'on'. (Much virtue in
> 'if'; much mileage in printer's errors.)
and metrically sound, just because you don't like it: that way lies
Crowleyland.
Peter G.
Peter Farey
Peter Groves wrote:
> atically and metrically sound, just because you don't like it: that
> way lies Crowleyland.
Wot 'e said.
rita
But hang on - if as you say the preposition does not modify but
'transforms' the meaning of phrasal verbs, why in the OED's five
examples of 'unlooked+prep = unregarded' can the preposition
apparently be 'unto/to/on/into/at', indifferently and at the free
choice of the writer, without changing the meaning? Doesn't that
suggest there was a certain latitude in practice with this particular
phrasal verb? Hah. Good point to me I think! Unfortunately though I
admit that 'unlooked +for' always seems to be locked into the meaning
'unexpected'....and even when S uses 'unlooked' without any
preposition at all he still means 'unexpected' ('But by some unlook'd
accident cut off', Rich III, thanks again OED). Still, if
contemporary practice apparently was to use 'unlooked+any-preposition-
of-one's-own-choice(excluding 'for')' to mean 'unnoticed', then I
think that gives this phrasal verb a bit of looseness, a bit of play,
for a poet to glance at a meaning beside that apparently stated. The
cognitive process of interpreting language isn't computer-smooth after
all, or Max Miller would never have raised a laugh.
Rita
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Gary Kosinsky
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Farey" <pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk>
To: "Forest of Arden" <ardenm...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 6:46 AM
Subject: [Forest of Arden] Re: Sonnet 36
>
>
But in your post you wrote:
"According to the OED, 'unlooked for' is "Not looked for;
unexpected, unanticipated. (In predicative use sometimes
quasi-adv.)""
Seems to me that the meaning I need is 'not looked for'.
The poet, unlike those that enjoy public honour (or fame), is not looked
for.
(BTW: how do you access the OED? Do you go to the library, or do you
have an online subscription?)
- Gary
Peter Farey
Gary wrote:
>
> > But in your post you wrote:
> >
> > "According to the OED, 'unlooked for' is "Not looked for;
> > unexpected, unanticipated. (In predicative use sometimes
> > quasi-adv.)""
I did indeed, but what I failed to do was to put the 'for' in
'Not looked for' in italics as it is in the original.
This contrasts with the definition preceding it, which (as Rita
has pointed out, is "Not looked at, on, to, etc.; unregarded,
unheeded, unexamined." in which the 'at, on, to' are also ital-
icized.
In other words, in this case the definition after the semi-
colon is determined by the preposition (in italics) which is
used with 'unlooked'.
> Seems to me that the meaning I need is 'not looked for'.
>
> The poet, unlike those that enjoy public honour (or fame),
> is not looked for.
By which I take it you mean 'unregarded' or 'unheeded'. And
you'd be right if it had 'at', 'on' or 'to' with it, but not 'for'.
> (BTW: how do you access the OED? Do you go to the library,
> or do you have an online subscription?)
I used to have to go down to the local reference library, but
now I have a copy on CD installed on my desktop. Unfortunately,
that computer has recently conked out, and for some reason
I've been unable to install the program on the laptop I also
have. However, my local Buckinghamshire group of libraries
subscribes to a whole lot of Oxford publications, including the
OED, and I can log in from home using my library card number.
Sadly, they don't subscribe to any of the Eng. Lit. databases such
as EEBO or LION.
Peter Farey
Rita wrote:
>
> Polysemy? POLYSEMY??? Stop showing off.
Don't worry. He only does it wind Gary up.
> But hang on - if as you say the preposition does not modify but
> 'transforms' the meaning of phrasal verbs, why in the OED's five
> examples of 'unlooked+prep = unregarded' can the preposition
> apparently be 'unto/to/on/into/at', indifferently and at the free
> choice of the writer, without changing the meaning? Doesn't that
> suggest there was a certain latitude in practice with this part-
> icular phrasal verb? Hah. Good point to me I think!
The way I took it was that in phrasal verbs *like this* (i.e. where
there are very different meanings according to which preposition is
used) the preposition 'transforms' it from one meaning to the other.
In this case it is the use of 'for' rather than any other preposition
that does the transforming.
> Unfortunately though I admit that 'unlooked +for' always seems to
> be locked into the meaning 'unexpected'....and even when S uses
> 'unlooked' without any preposition at all he still means 'unexp-
> ected' ('But by some unlook'd accident cut off', Rich III, thanks
> again OED). Still, if contemporary practice apparently was to use
> 'unlooked+any-preposition-of-one's-own-choice(excluding 'for')'
> to mean 'unnoticed', then I think that gives this phrasal verb a
> bit of looseness, a bit of play, for a poet to glance at a meaning
> beside that apparently stated. The cognitive process of inter-
> preting language isn't computer-smooth after all, or Max Miller
> would never have raised a laugh.
Isn't the point that whatever *extra* meanings may or may not have
been intended by our poet - and I acknowledged the possibility of
others in my post responding to Tom - this does not in any way
change the fact that the words and grammar he used apparently tell
us that the poet's fortune has unexpectledly barred him from all
of that other stuff. That he *also* may have felt unregarded,
unheeded, and unexamined (he should be so lucky) makes no differ-
ence at all to that basic piece of information.
Tom Reedy
<b>unlooked for</b> applies partly to "joy"--'I experienced unexpected
joy'--partly to "I"--'I am overlooked, not in the public eye'
I don't have my Booth to hand and I don't have Kerrigan.
> <http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm>
Peter Farey
Tom Reedy wrote:
>
> Peter Farey wrote:
> >
> > Gary wrote:
> > >
> > > But in your post you wrote:
> > >
> > > "According to the OED, 'unlooked for' is "Not looked for;
> > > unexpected, unanticipated. (In predicative use sometimes
> > > quasi-adv.)""
> >
> > I did indeed, but what I failed to do was to put the 'for' in
> > 'Not looked for' in italics as it is in the original.
> >
> > This contrasts with the definition preceding it, which (as Rita
> > has pointed out, is "Not looked at, on, to, etc.; unregarded,
> > unheeded, unexamined." in which the 'at, on, to' are also ital-
> > icized.
> >
> > In other words, in this case the definition after the semi-
> > colon is determined by the preposition (in italics) which is
> > used with 'unlooked'.
> >
> > > Seems to me that the meaning I need is 'not looked for'.
> > >
> > > The poet, unlike those that enjoy public honour (or fame),
> > > is not looked for.
> >
> > By which I take it you mean 'unregarded' or 'unheeded'. And
> > you'd be right if it had 'at', 'on' or 'to' with it, but not
> > 'for'.
>
>
> <b>unlooked for</b> applies partly to "joy"--'I experienced
> unexpected joy'--partly to "I"--'I am overlooked, not in the
> public eye'
>
> I don't have my Booth to hand and I don't have Kerrigan.
I do. Stephen Booth says:
<i>Unlooked for</i> (1) unregarded, ignored; (2) unexpectedly,
beyond expectation (taking the expression adverbially).
John Kerrigan:
<i>Unlooked for</i> (1) unregarded, out of the public eye;
(2) unexpectedly. 'Beyond all expectation' may be relevant.
and, while we're at it, G. Blakemore Evans:
<b>Unlooked for</b> (1) Unregarded, unnoticed (in the public
eye); (2) (adverbially) Unexpectedly, surprisingly (consid-
ering my status or merit).
and Gerard Ledger (online):
<i>Unlook'd for</i> = unseen, unnoticed; In contrast to those
in the public eye; perhaps also unexpectedly;
They have all made much the same mistake, so if I were their
teacher, I think I'd suspect there had been a bit of peeping
over each other's shoulders here!
Yes, Tom, I did know already what the 'experts' have said on
the subject. On this occasion, however - and for the reasons
stated - I believe them all to be wrong. How many of them do
you think spent the amount of time examining this single
phrase that I have done? They would have never got their
books finished if they had.
Look. You have the access to EEBO etc. which I lack. Can you
find <b>any</b> contemporary example of the phrase clearly
being used to mean 'unregarded' etc. and not 'unexpected'?
Or with it being used adverbially and not describing the
<b>subject</b> of that verb? Prove me wrong!
Tom Reedy
> > Here's what Katherine Duncan Jones says about it:
>
> > <b>unlooked for</b> applies partly to "joy"--'I experienced
> > unexpected joy'--partly to "I"--'I am overlooked, not in the
> > public eye'
>
> > I don't have my Booth to hand and I don't have Kerrigan.
>
> I do. Stephen Booth says:
>
> <i>Unlooked for</i> (1) unregarded, ignored; (2) unexpectedly,
> beyond expectation (taking the expression adverbially).
>
> John Kerrigan:
>
> <i>Unlooked for</i> (1) unregarded, out of the public eye;
> (2) unexpectedly. 'Beyond all expectation' may be relevant.
>
> and, while we're at it, G. Blakemore Evans:
>
> <b>Unlooked for</b> (1) Unregarded, unnoticed (in the public
> eye); (2) (adverbially) Unexpectedly, surprisingly (consid-
> ering my status or merit).
>
> and Gerard Ledger (online):
>
> <i>Unlook'd for</i> = unseen, unnoticed; In contrast to those
> in the public eye; perhaps also unexpectedly;
>
> They have all made much the same mistake, so if I were their
> teacher, I think I'd suspect there had been a bit of peeping
> over each other's shoulders here!
>
> Yes, Tom, I did know already what the 'experts' have said on
> the subject. On this occasion, however - and for the reasons
> stated - I believe them all to be wrong.
> How many of them do
> you think spent the amount of time examining this single
> phrase that I have done? They would have never got their
> books finished if they had.
>
> Look. You have the access to EEBO etc. which I lack. Can you
> find <b>any</b> contemporary example of the phrase clearly
> being used to mean 'unregarded' etc. and not 'unexpected'?
ca. 1500-ca. 1543 (orig.): [from The Zodiake of Life (1565)]
550 I say therefore that in the things
551 that vnder fortune be,
552 No kinde of thing can here be founde,
553 exempt from destenie:
554 As riches, pleasures, ioyful minde,
555 wyth rule and honours hye,
556 Come from aboue: not wyl of ours
557 is that we get them by.
558 For who would not such things enioy?
559 but wyll auayles not thoe,
560 It rather hurts if destenies
561 agaynst a man do go.
562 How many striue to ryse aloft
563 agaynst their destenie,
564 But faster more and more they fal
565 and downe they deeper lye.
566 On thother syde they vnto whome
567 the stars more gracious be,
568 Unlooked for doe often liue
569 in chiefe prosperity:
Sharrock, John (trans.) / Ocland, Christopher, d. 1590? (orig.) :
The notable Battailes and high exployts of the English nation. [from
The valiant actes And victorious Battailes of the English nation
[1585]]
1288 And forth through wandring salt sea floudes, with friendly
gales he slides
1289 For Ioue almight, the Southwindes coucht in caues did close
containe,
1290 That both the King, and captaines stout, with all their warlike
traine,
1291 Unlooked for, on th'ennimies shore their ankers fastned faine,
And this one could mean both unregarded and unexpectedly:
Harington, John, Sir, 1560-1612 (trans.) / Ariosto, Ludovico
(orig.) :
ORLANDO FVRIOSO [from Orlando Furioso (1607)]
THE XLIIII. BOOKE.
633 With little lesse then twentie thousand men,
634 Along the banks he secretly doth ride,
635 And gaue to them a fresh alarum then,
636 Vnlooked for, vnwares, and vnespide:
> Or with it being used adverbially and not describing the
> <b>subject</b> of that verb?
yours or that of Peter G., but my mind is fuzzed up on flu medicine at
the moment) , but could this be one?
Whetstone, George, 1544?-1587? : : An Heptameron of Ciuill
Discourses (1582)
After this gratious King, had by heedfull intelligence vnderstoode the
factions of the people, vnlooked for of the Magistrates, he caused a
proclamation to be published: in which was a clause, that if anie
person coulde charge anie Magistrate or Officer, with anie notable or
haynous offence, Treason, Murder, Rape, Sedition, [ A Ryal grace ] or
with any such notorious Crime: where they were the Iudges of the
multitude, hee woulde himselfe bee the Iudge of them, and doe iustice
vnto the meanest.
> Prove me wrong!
Peter, I'm not trying to prove you wrong that the main definition of
"unlooked for" is "unexpectedly." I'm saying the the way Shakespeare
uses it comes under that definition; that it is unexpected--even by
himself--that he would have more joy in that he honors most than in
worldly honors and titles. It's kind of a sour-grapes sonnet, the way
I see it. "I'm better than all that; I'd rather have my beloved than
all the honors and titles in the world, even if I had the opportunity
to have them." That he does not follow the textbook usage of a phrase
in this particular case is certainly not unique; it is, after all,
poetry, and it is, after all, by Shakespeare.
I consider his usage to be close to this one:
Wroth, Mary, Lady, ca. 1586-ca. 1640 : : The Countesse of
Mountgomeries Urania [1621]
Then beheld he the Sea, which calme and smooth gaue them quiet
passage: so, said he, appeard my Mistris, gently letting my good come
vnto me, to passe me vnto an vnlooked for content.
TR
Peter Farey
Tom Reedy wrote:
>
> Peter Farey wrote:
> >
I'm not sure that this is a good example of what I ask for
above - where it's "clearly" being used to mean 'unregarded'
etc. and *not* 'unexpected'. In fact I'm not really sure
that I fully understand just what he *is* saying. Agreed,
it is hardly unexpected for those upon whom the stars shine
to be prosperous, but what has being unregarded to do with
living in 'chief prosperity' either?
> Sharrock, John (trans.) / Ocland, Christopher, d. 1590?
> (orig.) : The notable Battailes and high exployts of the
> English nation. [from The valiant actes And victorious
> Battailes of the English nation [1585]]
>
> 1288 And forth through wandring salt sea floudes,
> with friendly gales he slides
> 1289 For Ioue almight, the Southwindes coucht
> in caues did close containe,
> 1290 That both the King, and captaines stout,
> with all their warlike traine,
> 1291 Unlooked for, on th'ennimies shore
> their ankers fastned faine,
I don't see any reason why this shouldn't be unexpected.
In fact there would presumably be every reason to hope
that it would be.
> And this one could mean both unregarded and unexpectedly:
>
> Harington, John, Sir, 1560-1612 (trans.) / Ariosto,
> Ludovico (orig.) :
> ORLANDO FVRIOSO [from Orlando Furioso (1607)]
> THE XLIIII. BOOKE.
>
> 633 With little lesse then twentie thousand men,
> 634 Along the banks he secretly doth ride,
> 635 And gaue to them a fresh alarum then,
> 636 Vnlooked for, vnwares, and vnespide:
The *context* would allow, but certainly not require, the
phrase to mean unregarded. In fact three distinct meanings
are presented if it is 'unexpected', but really only two
if 'unregarded' (which is pretty much the same as 'vnespide')
were intended.
> > Or with it being used adverbially and not describing the
> > <b>subject</b> of that verb?
>
> I may be wrong (not only is my knowledge of grammar not as
> deep as yours or that of Peter G., but my mind is fuzzed up
> on flu medicine at the moment) ,
I'm sorry to hear that. Hope you recover quickly.
> but could this be one?
>
> Whetstone, George, 1544?-1587? : : An Heptameron of Ciuill
> Discourses (1582)
>
> After this gratious King, had by heedfull intelligence vnder-
> stoode the factions of the people, vnlooked for of the Magis-
> trates, he caused a proclamation to be published: in which was
> a clause, that if anie person coulde charge anie Magistrate or
> Officer, with anie notable or haynous offence, Treason,
> Murder, Rape, Sedition, [ A Ryal grace ] or with any such
> notorious Crime: where they were the Iudges of the multitude,
> hee woulde himselfe bee the Iudge of them, and doe iustice
> vnto the meanest.
This is an interesting one. It is tempting to interpret it as
being the 'factions of the people' which had been 'unconsid-
ered' by the magistrates. What I think it is saying, however,
is that it was the 'proclamation' which was unexpected by
them, and that it is therefore being used only adjectivally,
and with the usual meaning.
> > Prove me wrong!
By this I should explain that I meant for you to show me by
example where you think I might be mistaken (as you now have)
rather than citing how the experts have glossed it. Thanks!
> Peter, I'm not trying to prove you wrong that the main defin-
> ition of "unlooked for" is "unexpectedly." I'm saying the the
> way Shakespeare uses it comes under that definition; that it
> is unexpected--even by himself--that he would have more joy in
> that he honors most than in worldly honors and titles. It's
> kind of a sour-grapes sonnet, the way I see it. "I'm better than
> all that; I'd rather have my beloved than all the honors and
> titles in the world, even if I had the opportunity to have them."
> That he does not follow the textbook usage of a phrase in this
> particular case is certainly not unique; it is, after all,
> poetry, and it is, after all, by Shakespeare.
No, it may well have been this meaning he had in mind. It was
the very first time the phrase had been used to mean 'unexp-
ectedly' without it being the subject (in this case 'I') which
was 'unexpected'. This particular innovation just didn't catch
on like some of the others. In my opinion, however, if there
is a perfectly good meaning using the words and grammar as we
know them to have been used at the time, then we should think
of such other possible meanings only as *additional* ideas,
and not as replacements.
> I consider his usage to be close to this one:
>
> Wroth, Mary, Lady, ca. 1586-ca. 1640 : : The Countesse of
> Mountgomeries Urania [1621]
>
> Then beheld he the Sea, which calme and smooth gaue them quiet
> passage: so, said he, appeard my Mistris, gently letting my
> good come vnto me, to passe me vnto an vnlooked for content.
I see the parallel, but the usage is rather different, unless
you are suggesting (which is not impossible I suppose) that
Shakespeare was using the word 'joy' as both a verb *and* a
noun. My own closest would be Falstaff's:
Giue mee life, which if I can saue, so: if not,
honour comes vnlook'd for, and ther's an end.
Thanks very much for doing this, Tom. Much appreciated.
Tom Reedy
who don't live notable lives. In America we call that the "millionaire
next door" phenomenon. As you say, it would hardly be unexpected for
those with good fortune to live in prosperity.
> > Sharrock, John (trans.) / Ocland, Christopher, d. 1590?
> > (orig.) : The notable Battailes and high exployts of the
> > English nation. [from The valiant actes And victorious
> > Battailes of the English nation [1585]]
>
> > 1288 And forth through wandring salt sea floudes,
> > with friendly gales he slides
> > 1289 For Ioue almight, the Southwindes coucht
> > in caues did close containe,
> > 1290 That both the King, and captaines stout,
> > with all their warlike traine,
> > 1291 Unlooked for, on th'ennimies shore
> > their ankers fastned faine,
>
> I don't see any reason why this shouldn't be unexpected.
> In fact there would presumably be every reason to hope
> that it would be.
think the king and his army didn't expect to anchor on their enemies'
shore.
> > And this one could mean both unregarded and unexpectedly:
>
> > Harington, John, Sir, 1560-1612 (trans.) / Ariosto,
> > Ludovico (orig.) :
> > ORLANDO FVRIOSO [from Orlando Furioso (1607)]
> > THE XLIIII. BOOKE.
>
> > 633 With little lesse then twentie thousand men,
> > 634 Along the banks he secretly doth ride,
> > 635 And gaue to them a fresh alarum then,
> > 636 Vnlooked for, vnwares, and vnespide:
>
> The *context* would allow, but certainly not require, the
> phrase to mean unregarded. In fact three distinct meanings
> are presented if it is 'unexpected', but really only two
> if 'unregarded' (which is pretty much the same as 'vnespide')
> were intended.
all three mean the same if "vnlooked for" means unregarded. It's a
rhetorical device called scesis onomaton: "Unwept, unhonour'd, and
unsung."
> > > Or with it being used adverbially and not describing the
> > > <b>subject</b> of that verb?
>
> > I may be wrong (not only is my knowledge of grammar not as
> > deep as yours or that of Peter G., but my mind is fuzzed up
> > on flu medicine at the moment) ,
>
> I'm sorry to hear that. Hope you recover quickly.
> > but could this be one?
>
> > Whetstone, George, 1544?-1587? : : An Heptameron of Ciuill
> > Discourses (1582)
>
> > After this gratious King, had by heedfull intelligence vnder-
> > stoode the factions of the people, vnlooked for of the Magis-
> > trates, he caused a proclamation to be published: in which was
> > a clause, that if anie person coulde charge anie Magistrate or
> > Officer, with anie notable or haynous offence, Treason,
> > Murder, Rape, Sedition, [ A Ryal grace ] or with any such
> > notorious Crime: where they were the Iudges of the multitude,
> > hee woulde himselfe bee the Iudge of them, and doe iustice
> > vnto the meanest.
>
> This is an interesting one. It is tempting to interpret it as
> being the 'factions of the people' which had been 'unconsid-
> ered' by the magistrates. What I think it is saying, however,
> is that it was the 'proclamation' which was unexpected by
> them, and that it is therefore being used only adjectivally,
> and with the usual meaning.
hardly have issued a proclamation that he didn't expect.
> > > Prove me wrong!
>
> By this I should explain that I meant for you to show me by
> example where you think I might be mistaken (as you now have)
> rather than citing how the experts have glossed it. Thanks!
>
> > Peter, I'm not trying to prove you wrong that the main defin-
> > ition of "unlooked for" is "unexpectedly." I'm saying the the
> > way Shakespeare uses it comes under that definition; that it
> > is unexpected--even by himself--that he would have more joy in
> > that he honors most than in worldly honors and titles. It's
> > kind of a sour-grapes sonnet, the way I see it. "I'm better than
> > all that; I'd rather have my beloved than all the honors and
> > titles in the world, even if I had the opportunity to have them."
> > That he does not follow the textbook usage of a phrase in this
> > particular case is certainly not unique; it is, after all,
> > poetry, and it is, after all, by Shakespeare.
>
> No, it may well have been this meaning he had in mind. It was
> the very first time the phrase had been used to mean 'unexp-
> ectedly' without it being the subject (in this case 'I') which
> was 'unexpected'.
> This particular innovation just didn't catch
> on like some of the others. In my opinion, however, if there
> is a perfectly good meaning using the words and grammar as we
> know them to have been used at the time, then we should think
> of such other possible meanings only as *additional* ideas,
> and not as replacements.
against your interpretation, which in this case I think it does.
> > I consider his usage to be close to this one:
>
> > Wroth, Mary, Lady, ca. 1586-ca. 1640 : : The Countesse of
> > Mountgomeries Urania [1621]
>
> > Then beheld he the Sea, which calme and smooth gaue them quiet
> > passage: so, said he, appeard my Mistris, gently letting my
> > good come vnto me, to passe me vnto an vnlooked for content.
>
> I see the parallel, but the usage is rather different, unless
> you are suggesting (which is not impossible I suppose) that
> Shakespeare was using the word 'joy' as both a verb *and* a
> noun. My own closest would be Falstaff's:
>
> Giue mee life, which if I can saue, so: if not,
> honour comes vnlook'd for, and ther's an end.
>
> Thanks very much for doing this, Tom. Much appreciated.
TR
Peter Farey
But it would be unexpected for some those who don't "strive to
rise aloft" to have the luck to live prosperous lives.
> > > Sharrock, John (trans.) / Ocland, Christopher, d. 1590?
> > > (orig.) : The notable Battailes and high exployts of the
> > > English nation. [from The valiant actes And victorious
> > > Battailes of the English nation [1585]]
>
> > > 1288 And forth through wandring salt sea floudes,
> > > with friendly gales he slides
> > > 1289 For Ioue almight, the Southwindes coucht
> > > in caues did close containe,
> > > 1290 That both the King, and captaines stout,
> > > with all their warlike traine,
> > > 1291 Unlooked for, on th'ennimies shore
> > > their ankers fastned faine,
>
> > I don't see any reason why this shouldn't be unexpected.
> > In fact there would presumably be every reason to hope
> > that it would be.
> But it hardly describes the subject of the verb, does it?
I'm sorry. You didn't appear to be offering it as an example
of that, which you address later on.
> Unless you think the king and his army didn't expect to
> anchor on their enemies' shore.
No, I think that the king and his army would have been un-
expected by his enemies. Seems OK to me.
> > > And this one could mean both unregarded and unexpectedly:
>
> > > Harington, John, Sir, 1560-1612 (trans.) / Ariosto,
> > > Ludovico (orig.) :
> > > ORLANDO FVRIOSO [from Orlando Furioso (1607)]
> > > THE XLIIII. BOOKE.
>
> > > 633 With little lesse then twentie thousand men,
> > > 634 Along the banks he secretly doth ride,
> > > 635 And gaue to them a fresh alarum then,
> > > 636 Vnlooked for, vnwares, and vnespide:
>
> > The *context* would allow, but certainly not require, the
> > phrase to mean unregarded. In fact three distinct meanings
> > are presented if it is 'unexpected', but really only two
> > if 'unregarded' (which is pretty much the same as 'vnespide')
> > were intended.
>
> Not only the same as "vnespide," but the same as "vnwares"
> also; they all three mean the same if "vnlooked for" means
> unregarded. It's a rhetorical device called scesis onomaton:
> "Unwept, unhonour'd, and unsung."
As I understand this device there is no particular requirement
for the the phrases to be be synonymous.
"A man faithful in friendship, prudent in counsels, virtuous
in conversation, gentle in communication, learned in all
learned sciences, eloquent in utterance, comely in gesture,
pitiful to the poor, an enemy to naughtiness, a lover of all
virtue and godliness."
(Henry Peacham, *The Garden of Eloquence*, 1593)
although they can be:
"...I'm continuing to spread our agenda globally, and around
the world, as well as internationally."
(George W. Bush)
My point was that in the absence of any clear reason for reject-
ing the normal ('unexpected') meaning it makes sense to accept
it.
> > > > Or with it being used adverbially and not describing the
> > > > <b>subject</b> of that verb?
That's where you apparently changed what you were looking for.
> > > I may be wrong (not only is my knowledge of grammar not as
> > > deep as yours or that of Peter G., but my mind is fuzzed up
> > > on flu medicine at the moment) ,
>
> > I'm sorry to hear that. Hope you recover quickly.
>
> It's too late for that.
Blimey. How long have you got?
> > > but could this be one?
>
> > > Whetstone, George, 1544?-1587? : : An Heptameron of Ciuill
> > > Discourses (1582)
>
> > > After this gratious King, had by heedfull intelligence vnder-
> > > stoode the factions of the people, vnlooked for of the Magis-
> > > trates, he caused a proclamation to be published: in which was
> > > a clause, that if anie person coulde charge anie Magistrate or
> > > Officer, with anie notable or haynous offence, Treason,
> > > Murder, Rape, Sedition, [ A Ryal grace ] or with any such
> > > notorious Crime: where they were the Iudges of the multitude,
> > > hee woulde himselfe bee the Iudge of them, and doe iustice
> > > vnto the meanest.
>
> > This is an interesting one. It is tempting to interpret it as
> > being the 'factions of the people' which had been 'unconsid-
> > ered' by the magistrates. What I think it is saying, however,
> > is that it was the 'proclamation' which was unexpected by
> > them, and that it is therefore being used only adjectivally,
> > and with the usual meaning.
>
> Yes, but again, not describing the subject of the verb. The King
> could hardly have issued a proclamation that he didn't expect.
He caused a proclamation, unexpected by the magistrates, to be
published. As I said, it's being used adjectivally, so adverbial
'rules' don't apply.
> > > > Prove me wrong!
>
> > By this I should explain that I meant for you to show me by
> > example where you think I might be mistaken (as you now have)
> > rather than citing how the experts have glossed it. Thanks!
>
> > > Peter, I'm not trying to prove you wrong that the main defin-
> > > ition of "unlooked for" is "unexpectedly." I'm saying the the
> > > way Shakespeare uses it comes under that definition; that it
> > > is unexpected--even by himself--that he would have more joy in
> > > that he honors most than in worldly honors and titles. It's
> > > kind of a sour-grapes sonnet, the way I see it. "I'm better than
> > > all that; I'd rather have my beloved than all the honors and
> > > titles in the world, even if I had the opportunity to have them."
> > > That he does not follow the textbook usage of a phrase in this
> > > particular case is certainly not unique; it is, after all,
> > > poetry, and it is, after all, by Shakespeare.
>
> > No, it may well have been this meaning he had in mind. It was
> > the very first time the phrase had been used to mean 'unexp-
> > ectedly' without it being the subject (in this case 'I') which
> > was 'unexpected'.
>
> I think I gave you two examples above of just such a usage.
And I think I showed that neither of them were.
> > This particular innovation just didn't catch
> > on like some of the others. In my opinion, however, if there
> > is a perfectly good meaning using the words and grammar as we
> > know them to have been used at the time, then we should think
> > of such other possible meanings only as *additional* ideas,
> > and not as replacements.
> Very well and good if the context of the rest of the poem doesn't
> go against your interpretation, which in this case I think it does.
How does it go against it? Seems to me the poem itself would
permit several interpretations, including mine. The main reason
for preferring mine as far as the poem itself is concerned is
that, as we have seen, it seems to be the only one to accord
with contemporary usage of the term "unlooked for".
If you think it does because you know of nothing in Shakespeare's
life which *unexpectedly* prevented him from being able to boast
of public honour and proud titles, then Duncan-Jones, Booth,
Kerrigan, Blakemore Evans and Ledger all had the same problem.
<snip>