Shall I Compare Thee To A Summer's Day?
tomo
Is that true?
Ms. Mouse
tomo wrote:
> I heard this famous sonnet was dedicated to a young man.
> Is that true?
It is one of a suite of 126 sonnets (there are 154 altogether) thought
to be written to a young man, who is known to Shakespeare fans as "the
fair youth." This sonnet, though, has no individual dedication. Nor do
the others. It is just that for the most part the language used by
Shakespeare identifies the addressee as a man rather than a woman. The
seventeen sonnets that precede Sonnet 18 are known as the "marriage
sonnets." They are exhorting the young man to marry, and it is thought
by most scholars--although there might be one or two dissenters
here--that the eighteenth and following sonnets, all the way to 126,
are also to the same young man.
Hope this helps.
Best wishes,
Ms. Mouse
book...@yahoo.com
>I heard this famous sonnet was dedicated to a young man.
>Is that true?
The sonnet volume was published with a dedication, but no one can
figure out what it means or even says.
Who Shakespeare was addressing in the sonnets, generally, is not any
one particular person or type of addressee. There are no titles;
almost no names can be figured out; and numerous speakers, occasions,
and addressees must be involved.
In this sonnet, the speaker seems to be the poet, and the "thee"
someone comparable to a summer's day. What complicates the question
is that such sonnets and other poems comparing aspects of nature with
a man or woman loved one were so common during Shakespeare's day that
the whole subject must have been something of a joke.
Some readers like the idea that Shakespeare was doing an exercise on a
conventional genre to show off his talent as a poet, and there may be
no real addressee at all. Or maybe you, as an astute reader, can have
a favorite opinion that all the addressees, men, women, and
personifications are really written to a disguised "young man"?
bookburn
Paul Crowley
news:1167571409....@k21g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> tomo wrote:
>> I heard this famous sonnet was dedicated to a young man.
>> Is that true?
>
> It is one of a suite of 126 sonnets (there are 154 altogether) thought
> to be written to a young man, who is known to Shakespeare fans as "the
> fair youth." This sonnet, though, has no individual dedication.
All this is ancient, traditional, Stratfordian
garbage -- tamely accepted by Mouse, who
from time to time claims to be an Oxfordian.
> Nor do
> the others. It is just that for the most part the language used by
> Shakespeare identifies the addressee as a man rather than a woman.
Utter and complete nonsense. Elizabethan
men and women lead completely different
lives. Men had careers, followed trades and
professions, could independently own property,
carried weapons, fought in wars, travelled
overseas . . . and much much else that women
could not do, (or very rarely did). So it should
be easy to distinguish between a very large
body of sonnets written to a person of one
gender as against the other. But -- in the case
of most of the 154 sonnets -- it is not. That is
for a reason. And it's not because the poet
wrote the sonnets with his head in a bucket
as Ms Mouse (et al) would want seem to want
to believe.
He set out to make the identity of his
addressee(s) (as well as that of his own)
highly obscure. But the lack of any
indication of distinctively male activities
(i.e. nearly all of them) is highly informative.
It tells us that the principal addressee could
NOT have been male.
> The
> seventeen sonnets that precede Sonnet 18 are known as the "marriage
> sonnets."
True.
> They are exhorting the young man to marry,
False. There is scarcely any mention of marriage.
The addressee is urged to have an heir -- not
merely in these 17 sonnets (some of which are
quite misread in any event, not even urging
that). The topic (of an heir) comes up again and
again throughout the 154 sonnets. It is also
quite clear that the identity of the (potential)
spouse was virtually irrelevant. Indeed while
having an heir is the BIG issue, who the spouse
is to be was a topic to be avoided. One was
clearly necessary -- but an embarrassing
necessity.
> and it is thought by most scholars
The term 'scholars' in the context of any study
of the Sonnets is joke -- indeed it is beyond a
joke (although its use is fully in keeping with
Ms Mouse's dozy conception of reality).
> --although there might be one or two dissenters
> here--that the eighteenth and following sonnets, all the way to 126,
> are also to the same young man.
Fatuous nonsense.
Sonnet 18 was in fact written around April
1566, and is about the recent extraordinary
events in Scotland. Maybe I'll post my
exegesis here again. Like everyone else
around here, Ms Mouse will be unable to
find anything wrong with it. But (again like
everyone else around here) since she has
not been told what to think about it, she will
be quite unable to say anything at all.
Paul.
Art Neuendorffer
> >
> > I heard this famous sonnet was dedicated to a young man.
> > Is that true?
>
>
> It is one of a suite of 126 sonnets (there are 154 altogether) thought
> to be written to a young man, who is known to Shakespeare fans as "the
> fair youth." This sonnet, though, has no individual dedication. Nor do
> the others. It is just that for the most part the language used by
> Shakespeare identifies the addressee as a man rather than a woman. The
> seventeen sonnets that precede Sonnet 18 are known as the "marriage
> sonnets." They are exhorting the young man to marry, and it is thought
> by most scholars--although there might be one or two dissenters
> here--that the eighteenth and following sonnets, all the way to 126,
> are also to the same young man.
>
(It's an ode to Oxford's dead 'sonne')
The other 153 sonnets form a pyramid
with the 28 "Dark Lady sonnets" at the top
and the 17 "marriage sonnets" at the base:
----------------------------------------------------
http://www.masoncode.com/Great%20Seal%20Sonnets.htm
-----------------------------------------------
A nice pattern emerges if
the sonnets are written out in
boustrophedon "ox path" style:
..................................................
*Under a STAR-Y-pointing PYRAMID* -- Milton (1630)
.
---------- *SONET EYES*
(Sonnets with the word eye or eyes in them.)
...
---------------- * 154
--------------- 0 0 153
-------------- 0 * * 151
------------- 0 * * * 148
------------ 0 0 Y * * 144
----------- 0 * 0 * * * 139
---------- 0 * * 0 * 0 0 133
-------------------------------------------
--------- * * * * 0 * 0 * 125
-------- * * * * 0 0 * * * 117
------- * * 0 * 0 * * * * * 108
------ 0 * * * * 0 * 0 * * * 98
----- * * * * 0 * 0 * * 0 * * 87
---- * * * * * * 0 * * * * * * 75
--- 0 0 * * * * 0 0 * * * * * 0 62
-- * * * * * * * * * 0 * * 0 0 * 48
- 0 * 0 0 0 * * * 0 0 0 * * 0 * 0 33
. 0 0 * * 0 * 0 * 0 * * * * 0 * 0 0 17
----------------------------------------------------
What needs my Shakespeare for his honour'd bones,
The labour of an age in piled *STONES* ,
.....................................
_____*STONES*
_____{anagram}
_____*SONETS*
.....................................
Or that his hallow'd relics should be hid
*Under a STAR-Y-pointing PYRAMID* ?
Dear son of memory, great heir of fame,
What need'st thou such weak witness of thy name?
. -- Milton (1630)
------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Willedever
> I heard this famous sonnet was dedicated to a young man.
> Is that true?
No.
Ms. Mouse
Paul Crowley wrote:
> "Ms. Mouse" <lynnek...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1167571409....@k21g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > tomo wrote:
> >> I heard this famous sonnet was dedicated to a young man.
> >> Is that true?
> >
> > It is one of a suite of 126 sonnets (there are 154 altogether) thought
> > to be written to a young man, who is known to Shakespeare fans as "the
> > fair youth." This sonnet, though, has no individual dedication.
>
> All this is ancient, traditional, Stratfordian
> garbage -- tamely accepted by Mouse, who
> from time to time claims to be an Oxfordian.
And also accepted by almost everyone else in the world, although you'll
notice I just gave the traditional opinion. I didn't commit to it. I've
often wondered about Sonnet 18, for example, though the imagery agrees
with that of most of the other fair youth sonnets.
>
> > Nor do
> > the others. It is just that for the most part the language used by
> > Shakespeare identifies the addressee as a man rather than a woman.
>
> Utter and complete nonsense. Elizabethan
> men and women lead completely different
> lives. Men had careers, followed trades and
> professions, could independently own property,
> carried weapons, fought in wars, travelled
> overseas . . . and much much else that women
> could not do, (or very rarely did). So it should
> be easy to distinguish between a very large
> body of sonnets written to a person of one
> gender as against the other. But -- in the case
> of most of the 154 sonnets -- it is not.
Let us be precise. It is not...to you. Most people can distinguish most
of them at least as being to a male or female.
> That is
> for a reason. And it's not because the poet
> wrote the sonnets with his head in a bucket
> as Ms Mouse (et al) would want seem to want
> to believe.
I don't believe for a moment that Shakespeare had his head in a bucket.
I sometimes wonder if you do, though.
>
> He set out to make the identity of his
> addressee(s) (as well as that of his own)
> highly obscure. But the lack of any
> indication of distinctively male activities
> (i.e. nearly all of them) is highly informative.
> It tells us that the principal addressee could
> NOT have been male.
"He set out to make the identity of his addressee(s) highly obscure,"
so obscure that they appeared to be male when they were female and
female when they were male, but Paul Crowley, so much more intelligent
than anyone else in the past four hundred years, divined those
identities immediately.
>
> > The
> > seventeen sonnets that precede Sonnet 18 are known as the "marriage
> > sonnets."
>
> True.
>
> > They are exhorting the young man to marry,
>
> False. There is scarcely any mention of marriage.
> The addressee is urged to have an heir -- not
> merely in these 17 sonnets (some of which are
> quite misread in any event, not even urging
> that). The topic (of an heir) comes up again and
> again throughout the 154 sonnets. It is also
> quite clear that the identity of the (potential)
> spouse was virtually irrelevant. Indeed while
> having an heir is the BIG issue, who the spouse
> is to be was a topic to be avoided. One was
> clearly necessary -- but an embarrassing
> necessity.
I didn't say that the poet was suggesting a particular marriage, I said
he was exhorting the addressee to marry. How was he (or in your
scenario, she) expected to produce an heir with honour if not married?
>
> > and it is thought by most scholars
>
> The term 'scholars' in the context of any study
> of the Sonnets is joke -- indeed it is beyond a
> joke (although its use is fully in keeping with
> Ms Mouse's dozy conception of reality).
Unlike you, I respect, though do not necessarily agree, with scholars
who have studied the subject.
>
> > --although there might be one or two dissenters
> > here--that the eighteenth and following sonnets, all the way to 126,
> > are also to the same young man.
>
> Fatuous nonsense.
Of course. He was having uh...cruel and unusual contests with the
Queen.
>
> Sonnet 18 was in fact written around April
> 1566, and is about the recent extraordinary
> events in Scotland. Maybe I'll post my
> exegesis here again.
Please do, and entertain everyone.
> Like everyone else
> around here, Ms Mouse will be unable to
> find anything wrong with it.
I find almost everything wrong with it. But I'm certainly not going
through it again, as you are both deaf and blind to criticism.
>But (again like
> everyone else around here) since she has
> not been told what to think about it, she will
> be quite unable to say anything at all.
On the contrary. No one dictates what I should or should not think, or
Roger and I wouldn't have several articles about to be published which
may overturn the "Bermuda narrative" school of scholarship of the past
200 odd years. I believe from my own reading that the addressee of at
least most of the first 126 sonnets is male. Your arguments, such as
they are, have not swayed me.
I also think that Tomo was asking a simple straightforward question,
and so it was best to answer him simply and straightforwardly, without
reference to authorship or any other sidebar.
Happy New Year, Paul.
Ms. Mouse
>
>
> Paul.
seeker
> I heard this famous sonnet was dedicated to a young man.
> Is that true?
Why should this matter?
lackpurity
tomo wrote:
> I heard this famous sonnet was dedicated to a young man.
> Is that true?
MM:
It appears to be dedicated to Christopher Marlowe, the Sat Guru of
Shakespeare. Some of the lines refer to God, but Marlowe and God were
the same, so it applies to both of them, in those instances.
Michael Martin
Peter Groves
suggests.
Peter G.
"lackpurity" <lackp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1167629037.8...@a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
lackpurity
Peter Groves wrote:
> I think the "insane" pigeonhole fits him quite snugly, as the following
> suggests.
>
> Peter G.
MM:
Children think lots of things. Sometimes, they think they are
superman. LOL
Michael Martin
Peter Groves
>
> Peter Groves wrote:
> > I think the "insane" pigeonhole fits him quite snugly, as the following
> > suggests.
> >
> > Peter G.
>
> MM:
> Children think lots of things. Sometimes, they think they are
> superman. LOL
>
> Michael Martin
Is this a confession? It would certainly explain a lot.
Peter G.
Paul Crowley
>> > tomo wrote:
>> >> I heard this famous sonnet was dedicated to a young man.
>> >> Is that true?
>> >
>> > It is one of a suite of 126 sonnets (there are 154 altogether) thought
>> > to be written to a young man, who is known to Shakespeare fans as "the
>> > fair youth." This sonnet, though, has no individual dedication.
>>
>> All this is ancient, traditional, Stratfordian
>> garbage -- tamely accepted by Mouse, who
>> from time to time claims to be an Oxfordian.
>
> And also accepted by almost everyone else in the world
Almost everyone else in the world is either
a Strat or a quasi-Strat (i.e. so dumb that
they take Strat ideas unquestioned).
> although you'll
> notice I just gave the traditional opinion. I didn't commit to it.
So if Tomo had asked you about early
humans, you'd have paraphrased the
Book of Genesis -- while not committing
yourself, of course ?
> I've
> often wondered about Sonnet 18, for example, though the imagery agrees
> with that of most of the other fair youth sonnets.
Drivel.
>> > Nor do
>> > the others. It is just that for the most part the language used by
>> > Shakespeare identifies the addressee as a man rather than a woman.
>>
>> Utter and complete nonsense. Elizabethan
>> men and women lead completely different
>> lives. Men had careers, followed trades and
>> professions, could independently own property,
>> carried weapons, fought in wars, travelled
>> overseas . . . and much much else that women
>> could not do, (or very rarely did). So it should
>> be easy to distinguish between a very large
>> body of sonnets written to a person of one
>> gender as against the other. But -- in the case
>> of most of the 154 sonnets -- it is not.
>
> Let us be precise. It is not...to you. Most people can distinguish most
> of them at least as being to a male or female.
State (say) THREE characteristically
male behaviours or traits indicated in
the Sonnets.
> Let us be precise. It is not...to you. Most people can distinguish most
> of them at least as being to a male or female.
Read that last sentence again. Do you really
think that 'most people' can make head or tail
of ANY sonnet?
Can YOU make head or tail of ANY sonnet?
>> He set out to make the identity of his
>> addressee(s) (as well as that of his own)
>> highly obscure. But the lack of any
>> indication of distinctively male activities
>> (i.e. nearly all of them) is highly informative.
>> It tells us that the principal addressee could
>> NOT have been male.
>
> "He set out to make the identity of his addressee(s) highly obscure,"
> so obscure that they appeared to be male when they were female and
> female when they were male, but Paul Crowley, so much more intelligent
> than anyone else in the past four hundred years, divined those
> identities immediately.
I did not divine the identity of the poet.
But being a true Oxfordian (unlike some)
it was not too hard to work out to whom
an Elizabethan courtier-poet (of the very
highest rank) would address the bulk of
his verse.
Nor was it hard to see whom he would urge
to 'have an heir' -- since his real-life attitude
towards this dominating issue of the reign
is very well known. We would not expect
simple-minded Strats to be able to put those
simple facts together -- although a few could
well have done so, knowing the basics of the
Oxfordian case. But when it comes to simple-
minded Oxfordians there's no hope at all,
especially when (like yourself) they are
utterly lost in daft, weird or sick conspiracy
theories, adapted from the worst aspects
of Stratfordian nonsense, such as the
'Southampton story'. They are thus
rendered quite incapable of thought.
> I didn't say that the poet was suggesting a particular marriage,
Since, being a quasi-Strat you can have
none in mind, that must follow.
> I said he was exhorting the addressee to marry.
You are quite wrong. Read the sonnets
sometime.
> How was he (or in your
> scenario, she) expected to produce an heir with honour if not married?
She had, of course, to marry, but it would
have been impolitic for the poet to have urged
'Marry X'. He did NOT do so -- contrary to
your naive misreading. An 'X' was (as I said)
merely an embarrassing necessity. Read
the sonnets sometime.
>> > and it is thought by most scholars
>>
>> The term 'scholars' in the context of any study
>> of the Sonnets is joke -- indeed it is beyond a
>> joke (although its use is fully in keeping with
>> Ms Mouse's dozy conception of reality).
>
> Unlike you, I respect, though do not necessarily agree, with scholars
> who have studied the subject.
How ignorant. How can you RESPECT the
words of 'experts' who don't know the identity
of the poet? If some 'scholar' told you he was
an expert on (say) Dostoyevsky -- but confused
his works with those of Mark Twain, would you
listen to his wise words?
Give ONE single example of good (or any)
'scholarship' ever produced on the Sonnets.
No doubt you would respect Archbishop Usher
-- and his calculation of the date of the Creation
in 4004 BC.
>> Sonnet 18 was in fact written around April
>> 1566, and is about the recent extraordinary
>> events in Scotland. Maybe I'll post my
>> exegesis here again.
>
> Please do, and entertain everyone.
>
>> Like everyone else
>> around here, Ms Mouse will be unable to
>> find anything wrong with it.
>
> I find almost everything wrong with it. But I'm certainly not going
> through it again, as you are both deaf and blind to criticism.
Like every other Strat and quasi-Strat you
have never attempted to say one intelligent
word on any of my exegeses.
>>But (again like
>> everyone else around here) since she has
>> not been told what to think about it, she will
>> be quite unable to say anything at all.
>
> On the contrary. No one dictates what I should or should not think
One day you'll notice that everyone else
has changed their minds on the sonnets.
Then -- remarkably -- you'll do the same.
That's how your 'mind' works. You will
always be hindmost when it comes to
deviating from the true path set by the
'scholars'.
> or
> Roger and I wouldn't have several articles about to be published which
> may overturn the "Bermuda narrative" school of scholarship of the past
> 200 odd years. I believe from my own reading that the addressee of at
> least most of the first 126 sonnets is male. Your arguments, such as
> they are, have not swayed me.
>
> I also think that Tomo was asking a simple straightforward question,
> and so it was best to answer him simply and straightforwardly, without
> reference to authorship or any other sidebar.
And if he asked you about the stars, you'd
give a nice straightforward answer explaining
the crystal spheres in the heavens -- as fully
supported by all the 'scholars' for millennia.
Likewise, you might well advise bloodletting
for a wide variety of conditions -- as endorsed
by every medical expert for hundreds (or
thousands?) of years.
Paul.
Mark Houlsby
lackpurity wrote:
> Peter Groves wrote:
> > I think the "insane" pigeonhole fits him quite snugly, as the following
> > suggests.
> >
> > Peter G.
>
> MM:
> Children think lots of things. Sometimes, they think they are
> superman. LOL
>
Uh huh. Evidenly some adults think that some other adults (and some
other children) are superhuman, in some sense (although they're a
little hazy on the sense...more cryptic than Kryptonite, one might
suggest..).
If Marlowe was God, does that mean that He was, ipso facto, the second
coming, and we missed it?
Mark Houlsby
hj
> I heard this famous sonnet was dedicated to a young man. Is that true?
==>Short answer, Tomo, as you've found by scrolling through the long
answers in this thread: 'yes,' as long as by 'dedicated to' one means
'pretty obviously written to, and almost universally accepted as'.
==> Long answer: you came to the wrong place for straightforward
information. There be crazy people here. I won't bother to name names.
You can figure that out.
hj
lackpurity
Mark Houlsby wrote:
> lackpurity wrote:
>
> > Peter Groves wrote:
> > > I think the "insane" pigeonhole fits him quite snugly, as the following
> > > suggests.
> > >
> > > Peter G.
> >
> > MM:
> > Children think lots of things. Sometimes, they think they are
> > superman. LOL
> >
>
> Uh huh. Evidenly some adults think that some other adults (and some
> other children) are superhuman, in some sense (although they're a
> little hazy on the sense...more cryptic than Kryptonite, one might
> suggest..).
MM:
Yes, I wrote it in Shakespeare's style, cryptically. If the shoe fits,
anyone can wear it. :-)
> If Marlowe was God, does that mean that He was, ipso facto, the second
> coming, and we missed it?
>
> Mark Houlsby
MM:
God has manifested in scores of individuals, since Christ. That
particular personality, Shakespeare or Jesus, however, didn't appear
until Kabir Sahib (1398-1518). Marlowe was John the Baptist, and I
can't say if he made other appearances. He could have.
Michael Martin
lackpurity
Peter Groves wrote:
> "lackpurity" <lackp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1167633095....@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Peter Groves wrote:
> > > I think the "insane" pigeonhole fits him quite snugly, as the following
> > > suggests.
> > >
> > > Peter G.
> >
> > MM:
> > Children think lots of things. Sometimes, they think they are
> > superman. LOL
> >
> > Michael Martin
>
> Is this a confession? It would certainly explain a lot.
>
> Peter G.
MM:
Try to decipher my cryptic writings. LOL Christ said, "Come to me as
little children." When we come before a Master, we are like little
children. Little children shouldn't be arguing with the Master.
Michael Martin
lackpurity
MM:
Who knows the truth? Who has access to light? This hypothesis that
it's a 50-50 division, is not true. Everyone who has been born on
earth, with the exception of Saints is in ignorance. Ignorant of
truth. It's the same as saying that everyone is a sinner. You might
remember that Christ said that. All Saints have said that.
If we don't know from where we have come, or to where we are going,
then, aren't we crazy? Who is not crazy? That might give us pause for
thought, as Shakespeare might say.
Michael Martin
Mark Houlsby
seeker wrote:
What's it to you, troll?
Mark Houlsby
Paul Crowley wrote:
Demonstrate that it is.
> Sonnet 18 was in fact written around April
> 1566, and is about the recent extraordinary
> events in Scotland. Maybe I'll post my
> exegesis here again.
I see that you have.
> Like everyone else
> around here, Ms Mouse will be unable to
> find anything wrong with it.
Guess again.
> But (again like
> everyone else around here) since she has
> not been told what to think about it, she will
> be quite unable to say anything at all.
>
Guess again.
You're not often right, but you're wrong in this case, too.
>
> Paul.
Mark.
Mark Houlsby
Paul Crowley wrote:
> "Ms. Mouse" <lynnek...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1167597709.3...@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > tomo wrote:
> >> >> I heard this famous sonnet was dedicated to a young man.
> >> >> Is that true?
> >> >
> >> > It is one of a suite of 126 sonnets (there are 154 altogether) thought
> >> > to be written to a young man, who is known to Shakespeare fans as "the
> >> > fair youth." This sonnet, though, has no individual dedication.
> >>
> >> All this is ancient, traditional, Stratfordian
> >> garbage -- tamely accepted by Mouse, who
> >> from time to time claims to be an Oxfordian.
> >
> > And also accepted by almost everyone else in the world
>
> Almost everyone else in the world is either
> a Strat or a quasi-Strat (i.e. so dumb that
> they take Strat ideas unquestioned).
>
If they take Strat ideas unquestioned, how may they be distinguished
from a Strat?
Is that a Fender Strat, or a copy?
> > although you'll
> > notice I just gave the traditional opinion. I didn't commit to it.
>
> So if Tomo had asked you about early
> humans, you'd have paraphrased the
> Book of Genesis -- while not committing
> yourself, of course ?
>
That is quite a non sequitur. To emphasise how *monumentally stupid* it
is, here is an example: there has been some *serious geological
research* into the Biblical story (located in Genesis) of Noah's Flood.
In fact, before the story appeared in Genesis, it was to be found in
"The Epic of Gilgamesh".
Nevertheless, its appearing in Genesis suits our purposes. Walter
Pitman and William Ryan are marine geologists. They used Genesis as a
primary source for their geological research:
http://geology.about.com/library/bl/books/blbookryanpitman.htm
> > I've
> > often wondered about Sonnet 18, for example, though the imagery agrees
> > with that of most of the other fair youth sonnets.
>
> Drivel.
>
Demonstrate this. Or look monumentally stupid. Again.
> >> > Nor do
> >> > the others. It is just that for the most part the language used by
> >> > Shakespeare identifies the addressee as a man rather than a woman.
> >>
> >> Utter and complete nonsense. Elizabethan
> >> men and women lead completely different
> >> lives.
I take it from your having written: "Elizabethan men and women lead..."
that you refer to men and women alive today, in the time of Elizabeth
II?
If so, then your assertion is arguable, but it's equally plausible to
argue AGAINST it.
> >> Men had careers, followed trades and
> >> professions, could independently own property,
> >> carried weapons, fought in wars, travelled
> >> overseas . . . and much much else that women
> >> could not do, (or very rarely did).
Oh, wait... looks like you made another mistake. D'Oh!
...ok well, disregarding that mistake for now... pray continue...
> So it should
> >> be easy to distinguish between a very large
> >> body of sonnets written to a person of one
> >> gender as against the other. But -- in the case
> >> of most of the 154 sonnets -- it is not.
> >
> > Let us be precise. It is not...to you. Most people can distinguish most
> > of them at least as being to a male or female.
>
> State (say) THREE characteristically
> male behaviours or traits indicated in
> the Sonnets.
>
Now, you see, in making the above demand, you betray yourself to be
becoming *even more stupid* as you work your way through Sweetie's
post. YOU HAVE MISINTERPRETED WHAT SHE WROTE. In order for her
assertion to hold water, it is unnecessary to meet your ignorant demand
(although that task, in itself, should hardly prove Herculean). You
see, my boy, what Sweetie *actually wrote* was (follow the bouncing
ball):
"Most people can distinguish most of them at least as being *to a male
or a female*."
The added emphasis is, of course, mine. Leaving aside the howler "Most
people..." (since most people simply cannot read well enough for this
to be true) in order for Sweetie's assertion to hold water it need be
the case that a sonnet *could* be reasonably interpreted as being
applicable to *either* a male *or* a female.
You really should learn to read before going around hurling insults at
people, you nearly illiterate moron.
> > Let us be precise. It is not...to you. Most people can distinguish most
> > of them at least as being to a male or female.
>
> Read that last sentence again. Do you really
> think that 'most people' can make head or tail
> of ANY sonnet?
>
> Can YOU make head or tail of ANY sonnet?
>
Evidently she can. Can YOU really not tell that she can, you nearly
illiterate moron?
> >> He set out to make the identity of his
> >> addressee(s) (as well as that of his own)
> >> highly obscure. But the lack of any
> >> indication of distinctively male activities
> >> (i.e. nearly all of them) is highly informative.
> >> It tells us that the principal addressee could
> >> NOT have been male.
> >
> > "He set out to make the identity of his addressee(s) highly obscure,"
> > so obscure that they appeared to be male when they were female and
> > female when they were male, but Paul Crowley, so much more intelligent
> > than anyone else in the past four hundred years, divined those
> > identities immediately.
>
> I did not divine the identity of the poet.
> But being a true Oxfordian (unlike some)
> it was not too hard to work out to whom
> an Elizabethan courtier-poet (of the very
> highest rank) would address the bulk of
> his verse.
>
If, indeed, all the verse is the work of one man and if, indeed, that
one man was not even a teensy-weensy bit bisexual.
Note that I'm attaching conditionals. I *am not* asserting that it is
necessarily not the work of one man. I *am not* asserting anything
about sexual orientation. You admit that you did not divine the
identity of the poet. How can you be sure that it was just one poet?
> Nor was it hard to see whom he would urge
> to 'have an heir' -- since his real-life attitude
> towards this dominating issue of the reign
> is very well known. We would not expect
> simple-minded Strats to be able to put those
> simple facts together
Nor, indeed, there even more simple-minded detractors. Wonders never
cease.
> -- although a few could
> well have done so, knowing the basics of the
> Oxfordian case.
What? In spite of their being simple-minded? Never!
> But when it comes to simple-
> minded Oxfordians there's no hope at all,
> especially when (like yourself) they are
> utterly lost in daft, weird or sick conspiracy
> theories, adapted from the worst aspects
> of Stratfordian nonsense, such as the
> 'Southampton story'. They are thus
> rendered quite incapable of thought.
>
Whereas you are "just" an illiterate moron. No, wait, you're also
deluded, I almost forgot.
> > I didn't say that the poet was suggesting a particular marriage,
>
> Since, being a quasi-Strat you can have
> none in mind, that must follow.
>
You're full of groundless, idiotic non sequiturs aren't you?
> > I said he was exhorting the addressee to marry.
>
> You are quite wrong. Read the sonnets
> sometime.
>
That cannot be stated with certainty. Learn to read, and you might
discover *why* it cannot.
> > How was he (or in your
> > scenario, she) expected to produce an heir with honour if not married?
>
> She had, of course, to marry, but it would
> have been impolitic for the poet to have urged
> 'Marry X'. He did NOT do so -- contrary to
> your naive misreading. An 'X' was (as I said)
> merely an embarrassing necessity. Read
> the sonnets sometime.
>
She has, evidently.
You, on the other hand, have run your eyes over them, and perhaps
recognised some groups of letters, but you have been unable, evidently,
to discern that the *meanings* which those groups of letters (which are
sometimes called "words") are able to convey to us, are often
*ambiguous*. Perhaps their author--gasp--even *intended* such
ambiguity.
> >> > and it is thought by most scholars
> >>
> >> The term 'scholars' in the context of any study
> >> of the Sonnets is joke -- indeed it is beyond a
> >> joke (although its use is fully in keeping with
> >> Ms Mouse's dozy conception of reality).
> >
Well, that's a point-of-view, but the *evidence* might--just might,
mind you--suggest the
contrary.
> > Unlike you, I respect, though do not necessarily agree, with scholars
> > who have studied the subject.
>
> How ignorant. How can you RESPECT the
> words of 'experts' who don't know the identity
> of the poet?
Maybe it's because she's not an ignorant moron who goes around
groundlessly insulting people, will-he, nill-he.
Newsflash: It is POSSIBLE to RESPECT a person EVEN if they are as
moronic as YOU ARE. Sweetie, evidently, does this. You, in stark
contrast, do not.
> If some 'scholar' told you he was
> an expert on (say) Dostoyevsky -- but confused
> his works with those of Mark Twain, would you
> listen to his wise words?
His words, in that case, would not be wise, so again you are betraying
your difficulty with the language you're trying to use. Once again,
illiterate moron, it is POSSIBLE to RESPECT someone, even if that
someone talks nonsense *all the time*.
>
> Give ONE single example of good (or any)
> 'scholarship' ever produced on the Sonnets.
>
OK.
"X-No-archive: yes
1. Shall I compare thee to a Summers day?
2. Thou art more louely and more temperate:
3. Rough windes do shake the darling buds of Maie,
4. And Sommers lease hath all too short a date:
5. Sometime too hot the eye of heauen shines,
6. And often is his gold complexion dimm'd,
7. And euery faire from faire some-time declines,
8. By chance, or natures changing course vntrim'd:
9. But thy eternall Sommer shall not fade,
10. Nor loose possession of that faire thou ow'st,
11. Nor shall death brag thou wandr'st in his shade,
12. When in eternall lines to time thou grow'st,
13. So long as men can breath or eyes can see,
14. So long liues this, and this giues life to thee,
This poem is recognised as one of the most
beautiful of the sonnets and nothing I say
below should be taken as detracting from its
qualities as a poem -- in the abstract manner
in which is it conventionally read. The poet
intended that reading. But he could not have
achieved it -- and the rest of its beauty --
without building it upon a structure of multi-
layered meanings (nearly all which he made
obscure to the naive reader).
I do not know why this this poetic technique
works so well -- in the hands of a great poet.
I'm sure that no one else knows, nor has ever
known -- not even the poet himself. All we
can say is that it works. The formula appears
to be: encode density of meaning to the
maximum possible extent, while respecting
grammar, metre and verse, and leave the rest
to the magic of the language.
We do not have to understand those multi-
layered meanings in order to appreciate that
the poem is beautiful, but that appreciation
will be only of its top-most layer. It is
analogous to the love children have for
nursery rhymes.
Our poet also seemed to apply the rule that
he would only encode public meanings, or
those which would be available to posterity
as, nearly always, his images seem to have
such an origin; he has left us plenty of
clues as to their source.
1. Shall I compare thee to a Summers day?
The comparison of a person to a summer's
day is extraordinary -- almost magical. It is
commonly regarded as a supreme example of
Shakespeare's poetic imagination -- as, indeed,
it is. Helen Vendler writes: "What is the most
beautiful thing, the 'summum bonum', in an
(English) world? -- A summer's day."
The poet was teasing us. He knew that was
how we would read it (and the whole sonnet)
but in his mind he had other aspects of "a
summer's day". One is the transient nature of
its existence. Think of it in the context of his
adored's beauty. Would she have wished that
last but a day?
The comparison is far from 'pure imagination'.
Shakespeare's genius lay in knowing how to
recruit into his poetry images he encountered
in other circumstances. The poet and his
addressee knew of another beauty, that did
gloriously, but briefly, flower; and it is to this
he asks: 'Shall I compare thee . . ?'.
It is not too difficult to guess to whom the
phrase 'Summers day' refers -- once we know
that the addressee of the sonnet was Queen
Elizabeth, and to whom she was constantly
compared , during the early years of her
reign: Mary, Queen of Scots.
The poet wrote of her often, of the
extraordinary people surrounding her and
of the dreadful events in which they became
entangled. He established a distinct code.
Darnley was indicated by 'somer', the name
of the tall thin pole that formed the main
support in medieval houses. (Both Mary
and Darnley were unusually tall and thin.)
'Day' was pronounced much the same as
'die', as it still is in Cockney London; and
a 'die' or a 'death' was an orgasm. So, the
phrase: "summer's day" meant a "Darnley's
fuck": "Shall I compare thee to a Darnley's
fuck?"
I strongly suspect that there was a particular
and immediate source for 'a Summers day',
and I describe a possibility in a final note.
2. Thou art more louely and more temperate:
Of course, Elizabeth comes off much more
favourably in this comparison. The poet
meant 'lovely' to be taken by his addressee
in the usual sense, but he had others also in
mind. 'Lovely' had a wider range of meanings
at the time, with its oldest senses being:
'loving, kind, affectionate'; 'amorous'; and
'friendly, amicable' (see OED). Taken in this
sense, the comparison was barbed.
Recent events had shown that the quality
Mary, Queen of Scots, most conspicuously
lacked was temperance. The poet may have
been referring back to elaborate plans for a
meeting between the two queens about four
years previously (in 1562):
"In London the prospect of the encounter was considered
sufficiently certain for the actual masques to be devised which
were to entertain the two queens, the chosen allegorical theme
being the punishment of False Report and Discord by Jupiter
at the request of Prudence and Temperance. The detailed and
long-winded plans for the masques -- three nights of them -- were
vetted personally by Cecil and much courtly care was exercised
in the delicate task of balancing the allegorical compliments to
both royal ladies . . " (Antonia Fraser *Mary QS* page 168)
3. Rough windes do shake the darling buds of Maie,
This sonnet was written around April 1566
after the first 'rough patch' endured by Mary
-- the murder of David Riccio (on 9 March)
by her husband, King Henry (Darnley), Lord
Ruthven and several more of the Protestant
nobility:
" . . a few minutes later there was a far more astonishing apparition
up the staircase -- Patrick Lord Ruthven, with a steel cap on, and
with his armour showing through his gown, burning-eyed and pale
from the illness of which he was generally thought to be dying on
his sick-bed in a house close to Holyrood. So amazing was his
emergence at the queen's supper party, that the first reaction of
those present was that he was actually delirious, and had somehow
felt himself pursued, in his fever, by the spectre of one of his
victims.
[ as in Macbeth -- PC ] Ruthven -- who did in fact die three months
after these events took place -- was a highly unsavoury character,
popularly supposed to be a warlock or male witch, or at any rate in
Knox's phrase to 'use enchantment'. However, his first words left the
queen in no doubt as to what had brought this death's head to her
feast. 'Let it please your Majesty,' said Ruthven, 'that yonder man
David come forth of your privy-chamber where he hath been overlong.'
Mary replied with astonishment that Riccio was there at her own royal
wish, and asked Ruthven whether he had taken leave of his senses. . ."
(op. cit. page 252.)
> 3. Rough windes do shake the darling buds of Maie,
'May' is (or was until recently) a common
abbreviation for 'Mary'. 'Rough winds' is
based on 'Ruth-ven'. 'Ruth' was a contemporary
Scottish form of 'rough' (see OED under 'ruth',
'routh' and 'rough'); the poet takes 'ven' as
based on 'vent' = 'wind' in French (pronounced
without the 't').
Another sense is that some windy (or
wordy) persons had turned rough.
" . . Damiot talked of his unpopularity. Riccio said grandly:
'Parole, parole, nothing but words. The Scots will boast but
rarely perform their brags.' Mary took the same line. Melville
tried to warn her also of what was going on . . . Mary replied
that something of the sort had also come to her own ears, but
she had paid no attention since 'our countrymen were well-
wordy' . ." (op. cit. page 249.)
There is a minor pun on 'darling/Darnley'
'Darling Darnley' had highly effeminate looks
and had been young and pretty enough, at
least until recently. Also Mary was a keen
'darner', famous for her embroidery.
> 3. Rough windes do shake the darling buds of Maie,
The line expresses a gloriously bawdy theme.
Mary is portrayed in the act of sex with Darnley
being roughly shaken, their limbs wound around
each other (in the 'rough windes'). 'Rough' may
also allude to Darnley's known behaviour when
copulating (or perhaps it's a guess based on his
general conduct). 'Buds' probably has a variety
of references: her breasts would be vigorously
shaken in the act of sex, and also later when she
had to ride fast overnight to Dunbar, in her
escape from the conspirators who had killed
Riccio.
The line is an astonishing combination of the
meteorological /horticultural and the political,
both set against a gloriously bawdy image of
the entwined royal couple writhing in passion.
4. And Sommers lease hath all too short a date:
'All too short a date' refers to the sudden end
of David Riccio in both the obvious sense and
in other ways. His shortness of stature and his
ugliness were well-known. Mary was remarkably
tall to those times, and Darnley was even taller.)
Also the poet commonly bawdily puns on 'all' =
'awl' = 'penis'. He may be implying (in 'all too
short') that Riccio's penis was too short for the
Queen.
'Date' was a Scottish word: 'to pet, fondle, caress,
make much of'. See OED under 'daut'. (This sense
is almost certainly related to the modern 'date' as
a romantic appointment.)
'Sommer' here is also Darnley, and lease was
another spelling of 'leash'. The poet envisages
Darnley whipping Riccio. 'Lease' is also meant
in a more regular sense: Darnley had simply
run out of patience with Riccio, and with his
wife.
A broader sense of line 4 may also be
addressed to Elizabeth. If she was to have an
heir of her body, she needed to get on with it.
5. Sometime too hot the eye of heauen shines,
The 'eye of heaven' is the sun -- a symbol of
royalty. Here the poet beautifully exploits the
bawdy potential of a 'hot' and a royal 'eye'
opening into a royal 'heaven' -- alluding, of
course, to the intensity of Mary's sexual
passion in her brief marriage with Darnley, and
the allegations of an affair with Riccio. 'Shines'
may reflect the sense of 'taking a shine' -- even
if the OED does not record this until 1848.
6. And often is his gold complexion dimm'd,
Line 5 refers to the Queen (in a sexual passion);
line 6 to the King. "Dimm'd" alludes mostly to
(a) his successive apparent changes in religion
(see below) (b) his bouts of furious anger,
(c) his 'eclipse' by Riccio, (d) his regular
shortages of cash, and (e) his frequent illnesses
probably from syphilis, pock-marking his face;
see a dramatic image of a 'gold complexion'
being dimmed at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3301479.stm
'Complexion' often meant religious affiliation at
the time, and 'gold' is the Papal colour. Darnley
had been brought up a Catholic but he started
off in Scotland as Protestant (absenting himself
from the nuptial mass for his wedding); he then
apparently reverted to Catholicism, attending
midnight Mass at Christmas 1565 (while Mary
played cards). At the feast of the Purification
of the Virgin Mary on 2 Feb 1566, with Mary, he
carried lighted tapers through the streets of
Edinburgh -- a notably Catholic gesture -- which
would have lit up his complexion. That light
was then dimmed by his plot with the Protestant
nobles to murder Riccio and seize power from
Mary. She then persuaded him to join with her
in the suppression of those same nobles.
Darnley was addressed as 'King Henry' but he
was essentially only a consort. Even though
he had little interest in administration, he
constantly demanded the 'crown matrimonial'
which would grant him power equal to Mary
while she lived and would have continued
after her death if he survived her. Mary and
the Scottish parliament would not grant this,
leading to rows about the manner in which
they should sign documents and, in particular,
on the way their images should be presented
on coins.
"Certainly her violent infatuation for Darnley had not survived
the onsets of pregnancy, and she could after all no longer share
the pleasures of hunting and hawking which both had once
enjoyed so keenly. On 20 December, Bedford from Berwick
reported that, 'The Lord Darnley followeth his pastimes more
than the Queen is content withal; what it will breed hereafter
I cannot say, but in the meantime there is some misliking
between them.' On 25 December Randolph noted that 'a while
ago there was nothing but King and Queen, now the Queen's
husband is the common word. He was wont in all writings to be
first named: now he is placed second.' The relative placing of
the two names Henry and Mary was at the heart of the
mysterious matter of the silver 'ryal', a new denomination of
coin introduced shortly after their marriage at a nominal value
of thirty shillings. This 'ryal' showed the heads of Mary and
Darnley facing each other on one side, and on the other in
Latin a reference to their marriage - 'Whom God has joined
together, let no man put asunder'. In December Randolph also
reported that this coin had been withdrawn from circulation in
Scotland, because the names of the royal pair were engraved on
it in an unusual order as HENRICUS & MARIA D. GRA. R & R.
SCOTORUM. Randolph represented Mary as now regretting
the prominence given to Darnley's name, which for once
preceded that of the queen. " (Antonia Fraser *Mary QS*
page 240)
The 'dimming of the gold complexion' is
probably also a reference to the dispute
about these images, with the poet thinking
of gold coins.
7. And euery faire from faire some-time declines,
The decline of 'faire from faire' refers mainly to
the deterioration of the royal marriage. Both
Mary and Darnley were known for their striking
beauty. ("In these portraits Darnley appears at
first sight like a young god, with his golden hair,
his perfectly shaped face with its short straight
nose, the neat oval chin . ." -- op. cit. page 220.)
It would also refer to the erosion of beauty with
age and illness, with particular reference to that
of Darnley, Mary and Elizabeth.
8. By chance, or natures changing course vntrim'd:
Both Mary and Darnley were known for their
addiction to card-playing and gambling -- as
was not uncommon among courtiers of the
day. 'Chance' or 'hazard' was a card game often
played by courtiers. The poet is suggesting
that a major reason for the decline in the
marriage was Darnley's generally dissolute
behaviour, particularly during Mary's pregnancy.
Another reason for the decline was 'natures
changing course' -- where 'nature' is Mary (or
Elizabeth, or women generally). 'Untrimmed'
alludes viciously to the knife used to 'trim'
Riccio. (He had ~60 stab wounds, the fatal
ones probably from Darnley's dagger, wielded
by a Douglas relation.)
'Untrimmed' is also IMO used in a political
sense (even if the OED's first report in this
sense is 1682). OED 5 'trimmer' = 'one who
inclines to each of two opposite sides as
interest dictates'. Darnley seemed to exist by
'trimming' (even if a hopelessly ill-directed
version), and Mary had shown plenty of
devious 'trimming' in order to escape from her
captors.
'Untrimmed' also had a bawdy sense. 'To
trim' was to deflower or possess a woman.
AARON (TA V.1.89) . . .
'Twas her two sons that murder'd Bassianus;
They cut thy sister's tongue and ravish'd her
And cut her hands and trimm'd her as thou saw'st.
LUCIUS O detestable villain! call'st thou that trimming?
AARON Why, she was wash'd and cut and trimm'd, and 'twas
Trim sport for them that had the doing of it.
> 7. And euery faire from faire some-time declines,
> 8. By chance, or natures changing course vntrim'd:
The poet is also alluding to Elizabeth's
behaviour since coming to the throne -- of
turning down numerous proposals of marriage
He is, as ever, warning of the danger of this
conduct -- faire England will decline its
'untrimmed' faire queen.
9. But thy eternall Sommer shall not fade,
The sestet focuses more on the English
Queen, but with allusions to Scotland, as
in 'fade' which was a Scottish form of 'feud'
at the time (see OED). States and monarchies
did not fade away; but they were destroyed
by feuds.
'Eternal' had another sense: a derogatory one
(which it still retains) for a period of time that
has lasted much longer than it should. Here
Oxford is being sarcastic. He shared the
common feeling that the duration of Elizabeth's
'summer' had become unconscionable. Mary's
pregnancy had emphasised the lack of
seriousness in Elizabeth's conduct in the
1560s, in particular the slow, reluctant manner
in which she 'sought' a husband.
10. Nor loose possession of that faire thou ow'st,
'Owe' also meant 'own' -- and our poet must
necessarily pun on it. The 'faire' that Elizabeth
both owned and owed was her virginity -- and
through that -- her realm. The poet is implying
that her continued possession of the former
will destroy that of the latter. She owed England
duties -- which she was not performing.
11. Nor shall death brag thou wandr'st in his shade,
There is a reflection back to the dreadful
events in Scotland. The poet hopes that his
own queen will never see violent death
visited on her favourites in her presence.
The line hints at the bawdy sense of 'small
death' (orgasm); i.e. the Queen will not
enjoy this, if she is relying on poetry for her
immortality.
12. When in eternall lines to time thou grow'st,
These lines have a scolding tone. Like the
rest of the nation, he desperately wanted her
to marry and have an heir, and grow in 'loins'
and in family lines of descent, rather than
just in lines of poetry. 'Eternal' is again
used ambiguously.
13. So long as men can breath or eyes can see,
The two 'long's of the couplet pun on the
'long couple' (Darnley and Mary both being
remarkable for their height and slenderness).
" . . her height, when described, is always commented on with
admiration. This may be in part due to the fact that, although tall,
Mary had extremely delicate bones . . . combined to give an
appearance of graceful elongation: it also made her an excellent
dancer . . in a manner calculated to dazzle the public eye at a
time when the personal image of a sovereign was of marked
consequence. . ." (op. cit. page 77.)
" . . It was Darnley's height which was considered at the time to
be his main physical characteristic -- had not Elizabeth called him
'yon long lad' when she pointed him out to Melville? -- and he
was fortunate in being slender with it, or as Melville put it, 'long
and small, even and straight'. His elegant physique could hardly
fail to commend itself to Mary for two reasons. Firstly, beautiful
as she was, Mary was nevertheless tall enough to tower over most
of her previous companions, including her first husband Francis.
The psychological implications of this height can only be guessed
at, but as Darnley was certainly well over six feet one inch . . "
(op. cit. page 221.)
> 13. So long as men can breath or eyes can see,
The double 'longs' of the couplet represent
the 'long couple'. The first line is about the
King, and his victim, Riccio, 'breathing' his
last through 'eyes' made by those 60 knife
wounds. Those 'eyes' saw terror and murder
-- the result of disastrous management of
the state. That fate threatened England
almost as much.
The poet believes that more deaths are
likely to follow (including that of Darnley?)
in the desperate confusion of Scottish
politics, created largely by Mary's intemperate
decision to marry him. The future is uncertain:
'so long . . as eyes can see'. There is a pun
on 'eyes/Ays', with (Och) 'Ays' = Scotsmen.
14. So long liues this, and this giues life to thee,
The 'this' of line 14 refers to the Queen of
Scots. She will live as long as she escapes
murder. Also, so long as she lives, Elizabeth's
throne is safe. (The English would never
remove Elizabeth while Mary was next in line.)
In another sense, Mary was carrying a child.
That 'life' would, in due course, succeed
Elizabeth.
NOTE on "The Queen of Hearts"
I believe that it is quite probable that the
nursery rhyme:
"The Queen of Hearts baked some tarts
All on a Summer's day . . "
came from the events of the second half
of 1565, and that it is the poet's source of
"a Summer's day".
The rhyme first appears in print in 1805, but
no queen, before or since Mary QS, had a
better claim to the title 'Queen of Hearts'.
She was immensely popular with her people
in the early 1560s, being young, beautiful,
full of life, charm and good humour, and in
1565 she was in the process of giving them
an heir to the throne. English noses were
somewhat out of joint as a result, especially
because of the intense concern over the
absence of an heir to Elizabeth -- other than
Mary herself, who was feared and detested
on account of being Catholic, French and
a Guise.
However, with the disastrous marriage to
Darnley, followed by its entirely predictable
decline, the English were, for the first time,
in a position to make fun of her, of her
vicious, if foppish, husband, and of her
Italian 'lover'.
"Regardless of the fact that Lennox and Darnley had gone
north with her express permission, Elizabeth exploded with
anger and demanded their instant return. When neither paid
any attention to her angry bulletins, Throckmorton was sent
north to dissuade Mary from the disastrous, nay, menacing
course of marrying Darnley. Mary in Scotland was in no state
to listen to the advice of even the sagest counsellor. Love
was rampant in her heart for the first time, and she could hear
no other voice except the dictates of her own passionate
feelings. In the words of a poem of the period, it was a case
of 'O lusty May, with Flora Queen' at the court of Scotland.
Randolph wrote back to Leicester in anguish of his 'poor
Queen whom ever before I esteemed so worthy, so wise, so
honourable in all her doings', now so altered by love that he
could hardly recognize her." (op. cit. page 227.)
The phrase 'baked some tarts' would have
been meant bawdily. The Knave of Hearts
(who stole the tarts) was David Riccio, and
the King of Hearts was Darnley. Again, no
king before or after Darnley better suits that
title -- being young, beautiful, and violent.
And it is doubtful if a knave (fit for beating)
better than Riccio can be found.
The rhyme would have been become popular
before the murder of Riccio. That crime is
unlikely to have been the subject of such light-
hearted verse or, if it had been, we'd expect a
stronger reference. The 'beating' in the rhyme
may have been based on another known one
by Darnley or it may simply have reflected his
notorious character.
"Randolph reported [in May 1565] that Darnley was now
grown so proud that he was intolerable to all honest men,
and already almost forgetful of his duty to Mary -- she who
had adventured so much for his sake. Darnley's health had
taken an unconscionable long time to recover, and even
while on his sick-bed he had struck the ageing duke of
Châtelherault on his pate to avenge some fancied slight."
(op. cit. page 227.)
Darnley's pride waxed with the queen's affection: to show
his virility, he launched out characteristically with blows
towards those who he knew would not dare to retaliate.
On the day in May [1565] on which he was created earl of
Ross, he drew his dagger on the wretched justice clerk who
brought him the message, because he was not also made
duke of Albany as he had expected. It was the typical
gesture of the spoilt and vindictive child. By the beginning
of July, Darnley was held in such general contempt that
even those who had been his chief friends could no longer
find words to defend him. Randolph made the gloomy, but
as it proved singularly accurate, prophecy: 'I know not,
but it is greatly to be feared that he can have no long life
among these people' . .". (op. cit. page 228.)
The Queen of Hearts,
She made some tarts,
All on a summer's day;
The Knave of hearts,
He stole those tarts,
And took them clean away.
The King of Hearts
Called for the tarts,
And beat the knave full sore;
The Knave of hearts
Brought back the tarts,
And vowed he'd steal no more."
> No doubt you would respect Archbishop Usher
> -- and his calculation of the date of the Creation
> in 4004 BC.
>
Well, the guy's dead, but why not? Respecting a person *in no sense
implies agreement with their opinions*.
> >> Sonnet 18 was in fact written around April
> >> 1566, and is about the recent extraordinary
> >> events in Scotland. Maybe I'll post my
> >> exegesis here again.
> >
> > Please do, and entertain everyone.
> >
> >> Like everyone else
> >> around here, Ms Mouse will be unable to
> >> find anything wrong with it.
> >
> > I find almost everything wrong with it. But I'm certainly not going
> > through it again, as you are both deaf and blind to criticism.
>
> Like every other Strat and quasi-Strat you
> have never attempted to say one intelligent
> word on any of my exegeses.
>
I'm a copy of a Strat, not quite worthy to bear the name "Fender", but
I have attempted to say some intelligent words about one of your
exegeses... the one I just reproduced in this post, in fact.
> >>But (again like
> >> everyone else around here) since she has
> >> not been told what to think about it, she will
> >> be quite unable to say anything at all.
> >
> > On the contrary. No one dictates what I should or should not think
>
> One day you'll notice that everyone else
> has changed their minds on the sonnets.
> Then -- remarkably -- you'll do the same.
> That's how your 'mind' works. You will
> always be hindmost when it comes to
> deviating from the true path set by the
> 'scholars'.
>
More projection. You need to buy a good basic dictionary and learn some
of the definitions of groups of letters which it helpfully provides.
> > or
> > Roger and I wouldn't have several articles about to be published which
> > may overturn the "Bermuda narrative" school of scholarship of the past
> > 200 odd years. I believe from my own reading that the addressee of at
> > least most of the first 126 sonnets is male. Your arguments, such as
> > they are, have not swayed me.
> >
> > I also think that Tomo was asking a simple straightforward question,
> > and so it was best to answer him simply and straightforwardly, without
> > reference to authorship or any other sidebar.
>
> And if he asked you about the stars, you'd
> give a nice straightforward answer explaining
> the crystal spheres in the heavens -- as fully
> supported by all the 'scholars' for millennia.
> Likewise, you might well advise bloodletting
> for a wide variety of conditions -- as endorsed
> by every medical expert for hundreds (or
> thousands?) of years.
>
More projection. Is there any beginning to your talent?
Mark.
>
> Paul.
Mark Houlsby
lackpurity wrote:
Ok. Thanks for clearing that up.
Mark Houlsby
Mark Houlsby
Mark Houlsby wrote:
...ahem... that should, of course, read "...their...".
Mea culpa.
Mark Houlsby
lackpurity wrote:
> Peter Groves wrote:
> > "lackpurity" <lackp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1167633095....@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > Peter Groves wrote:
> > > > I think the "insane" pigeonhole fits him quite snugly, as the following
> > > > suggests.
> > > >
> > > > Peter G.
> > >
> > > MM:
> > > Children think lots of things. Sometimes, they think they are
> > > superman. LOL
> > >
> > > Michael Martin
> >
> > Is this a confession? It would certainly explain a lot.
> >
> > Peter G.
>
> MM:
> Try to decipher my cryptic writings. LOL Christ said, "Come to me as
> little children." When we come before a Master, we are like little
> children. Little children shouldn't be arguing with the Master.
>
Surely that depends both upon the disposition of the little child, or
children, and upon the disposition of the master. As a child, Jesus
argued with Elders who might be said to fit the description which you
provide...
Mark Houlsby
> Michael Martin
>
Ms. Mouse
Nevertheless:
For where is she so fair whose unear'd womb
Disdains the tillage of thy husbandry?
Make sweet some vial; treasure thou some place
With beauty's treasure ere it be self-killed.
Is it for fear to wet a widow's eye,
That thou consum'st thy self in single life?
Ah! if thou issueless shalt hap to die,
The world will wail thee like a makeless wife;
The world will be thy widow and still weep
O! carve not with thy hours my love's fair brow,
Nor draw no lines there with thine antique pen;
Him in thy course untainted do allow
For beauty's pattern to succeeding men.
And for a woman wert thou first created;
Till Nature, as she wrought thee, fell a-doting,
And by addition me of thee defeated,
By adding one thing to my purpose nothing.
But since she prick'd thee out for women's pleasure
Oops, I've gone over. How many more would you like, o thou, my lovely
boy?
Ms. Mouse
Mark Houlsby
Ms. Mouse wrote:
Just to clarify: your "lovely boy" is Crowley, not me, right, Sweetie?
Mark
> Ms. Mouse
>
Ms. Mouse
Of course. I couldn't resist.
Ms. Mouse
>
> Mark
>
> > Ms. Mouse
> >
Mark Houlsby
Ms. Mouse wrote:
I suspected as much. He's *so* irresistible, huh...? He positively
*drips* charm... ;-)
Mark
> >
> > > Ms. Mouse
> > >
Peter Groves
>
> Peter Groves wrote:
> > "lackpurity" <lackp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1167633095....@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > Peter Groves wrote:
> > > > I think the "insane" pigeonhole fits him quite snugly, as the
following
> > > > suggests.
> > > >
> > > > Peter G.
> > >
> > > MM:
> > > Children think lots of things. Sometimes, they think they are
> > > superman. LOL
> > >
> > > Michael Martin
> >
> > Is this a confession? It would certainly explain a lot.
> >
> > Peter G.
>
> MM:
> Try to decipher my cryptic writings. LOL Christ said, "Come to me as
> little children." When we come before a Master, we are like little
> children. Little children shouldn't be arguing with the Master.
>
> Michael Martin
So, not a confession (that requires a little self-awareness) but certainly a
revelation of the idiot's egomania. "Master", indeed! It's rather
pathetic.
Peter G.
Mark Houlsby
I know many self-respecting Buddhists who might resent that tone.
My sister, for one.
May one suggest that you try to avoid merely blasting randomly, as if
at the proverbial barn door?
Rather...should anyone ever present what appears to you to be an
excellent target...compose yourself, take your aim, and only *then*
give fire.
Say to yourself that you're a marksman with a precision weapon, rather
than some yokel with a blunderbuss, blasting indiscriminately.
Happy New Year.
Mark H.
p.s. I am the same Mark Houlsby who posts from eudora.
Peter Groves
soon discovers that both reasoned argument and insult simply bounce off his
mind like peas off a steel helmet. As Bertrand Russell once remarked,
certainty is much more comfortable than contingent knowledge, and certainty
is what Crowley has, in bucketsful.
Next week, incidentally, he'll deny that you ever argued with him.
Peter G.
"Mark Houlsby" <mark.h...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
news:1167683627....@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
Paul Crowley wrote:
http://geology.about.com/library/bl/books/blbookryanpitman.htm
She has, evidently.
OK.
Chātelherault on his pate to avenge some fancied slight."
Mark Houlsby
Peter Groves wrote:
> Mark, everyone new to hlas begins by trying to reason with Crowley; everyone
> soon discovers that both reasoned argument and insult simply bounce off his
> mind like peas off a steel helmet. As Bertrand Russell once remarked,
> certainty is much more comfortable than contingent knowledge, and certainty
> is what Crowley has, in bucketsful.
>
> Next week, incidentally, he'll deny that you ever argued with him.
>
> Peter G.
>
Peter,
I appreciate the trouble you have taken. I know that he's an
irredeemable moron impervious to reality. I also know Phil Innes. I've
been posting to NGs for some years.
I engage with people like these *for a reason*.
Once again... all the best to you.
Mark H.
> Châtelherault on his pate to avenge some fancied slight."
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
Where'd Mr. C go? Well, since some emergency must have called him
away, let me answer for him, Ms. M. These things you quote are JOKES!
Gad, you are thick!
Mr. G.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
Peter Groves wrote:
> I think the "insane" pigeonhole fits him quite snugly, as the following
> suggests.
>
> Peter G.
I was reading this energetic thread, thinking it pretty amusing, when I
came on our humble Satdumsatva Supremus's contribution and burst into
laughter. There's only one problem with people like him: their
obsession with celebrities. It would have been even funnier if he'd
said the sonnet appeared to be dedicated to Elmer C. Trosterbink of
Elmira, Kansas.
--Bob G.
Mark Houlsby
bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
Strong words, Bob! What the deuce do you mean? Can you *demonstrate*
that Sweetie is, in fact, "thick" (as you so casually assert)? Failing
that, can you demonstrate that *she* has demonstrated as much?
Furthermore, can you demonstrate that Cowley is *not* thick, since
you're so keen to answer for him. Start by addressing *my*
deconstruction of his exegesis of the subject heading, here:
Should you prove incapable of completing *both* of these tasks
successfully (and the very brusqueness of your tone suggests that for a
man of your sagacity it should be a breeze) then, I fear, you shall
appear *at least as thick" as Crowley, placing you under an obligation
to apologise not just to Sweetie, but to me as well.
Off you go!
Mr. H.
> Mr. G.
Mark Houlsby
bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
Careful, Bob. It so happens that Mr. Trosterbink draws a lot of water
in that town...
Sometimes he paints, too, I hear...
--Mark H.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> Try to decipher my cryptic writings. LOL Christ said, "Come to me as
> little children." When we come before a Master, we are like little
> children. Little children shouldn't be arguing with the Master.
>
> Michael Martin
This one is pretty funny, too.
--Bob G.
Mark Houlsby
Yeah, yeah. You have placed yourself under *two* obligations.
Prioritise!
--Mark H.
Ms. Mouse
:)
> >
>
> Strong words, Bob! What the deuce do you mean? Can you *demonstrate*
> that Sweetie is, in fact, "thick" (as you so casually assert)? Failing
> that, can you demonstrate that *she* has demonstrated as much?
Bob doesn't for a moment think I'm thick. He does however, believe I'm
some kind of magician who has turned him into a bunny rabbit.
Ms. Mouse
Mark Houlsby
Don't tell me... you have rather, in fact, turned him into an
*elephant*, right?
Mark
Ms. Mouse
?
Mouse
>
> Mark
Peter Groves
>
> Mark Houlsby wrote:
> > > Bob doesn't for a moment think I'm thick. He does however, believe I'm
> > > some kind of magician who has turned him into a bunny rabbit.
> > >
> > > Ms. Mouse
> > >
> >
> > Don't tell me... you have rather, in fact, turned him into an
> > *elephant*, right?
>
> ?
> Mouse
Is the point perhaps that elephants are supposed to be frightened of mice?
Peter G.
> >
> > Mark
>
Daryl Krupa
Sadly, some of the argument you used below is inaccurate,
and some is out-dated. Details follow ...
<snip>
> Paul Crowley wrote:
> > So if Tomo had asked you about early humans,
> > you'd have paraphrased the Book of Genesis --
> > while not committing yourself, of course ?
Mark Houlsby wrote:
> That is quite a non sequitur. To emphasise how
> *monumentally stupid* it is, here is an example:
> there has been some *serious geological research*
> into the Biblical story (located in Genesis) of Noah's Flood.
<snip>
> Walter Pitman and William Ryan are marine geologists.
> They used Genesis as a primary source for their geological research:
>
> http://geology.about.com/library/bl/books/blbookryanpitman.htm
<snip>
First, there was been more-serious-than-Ryan's-and-Pitman's
geological research into the history of the Black Sea
(the site of Ryan's and Pitman's supposed flood )
which they sought to overturn, and yet more
more-serious-than-Ryan's-and-Pitman's geological research
at the same time and after they were promoting their bogus
hypothesis, which effectively disproved the whole thing.
Ryan has since scome up with an earlier, new-&-improved
Black Sea Floode Hypotheis Mk. II, which has
nothing special happening in the Black Sea basin
at the time of the supposed flood in his and Pitman's
Black Sea Floode Hypothesis Mk. I that was rather poorly-argued
in the book that was reviewed at the website to which you pointed.
Second, Ryan and Pitman did
not
use Genesis as a primary source for their research;
they pointed out possible correlations between
their fantastic exaggeration of the significance of some seashells
and the stories in Genesis and the Epic of Gilgamesh.
However, as the fable presented in their book has
little connection to real history, then it doesn't really matter
how Genesis figured in their research, unless you want to
investigate the intellectual process that led them to produce
such a lengthy treatment of a simple speculation that had
no real evidential support.
An analogous situation:
A writer of technical manuals on hairdressing notices that
portraits of Shakespeare have different representations of facial hair,
and that the majority of 'his' face is hairless, and concludes that
'he' was a woman who attached fake moustachios and goatees to
her face in order to pass as an actor, taking primarily female roles,
and expands that speculation into a lengthy socio-economic
examination of the geopolitical significance Elizabeth Regina's
status as a Lesbian, on the assumption that she and Shakespeare
were lovers.
Ryan's and Pitman's book is a modern myth;
you'd best find some other analogy for your argument.
Only trying to help,
Daryl Krupa
tomo
Because most people tend to admire beauty of a woman rather than that
of a man.
And particularly so when an admirer is a man.
Don't get me wrong.
I'm not objecting to an opinion that "thee" in the poem was a man.
I just think it's strange.
Anyway, thanks for all your answers.
Mark Houlsby
Peter Groves wrote:
Good call, Peter. Ten points to you.
Mark H.
Mark Houlsby
Daryl Krupa wrote:
> Mark Houlsby:
> Sadly, some of the argument you used below is inaccurate,
> and some is out-dated. Details follow ...
>
Hi Daryl,
Isn't Usenet annoying? The way it has formatted your post has made your
words, above, look like they were mine. Of course, we both know this.
I am not saddened. I happen to *know* that some of the argument I used
below is both inaccurate and outdated.
This is Usenet.
Crowley is a deranged troll.
My decision to cite what I know to be outdated research was motivated
principally by a simple desire to illustrate *to a deranged troll* that
*in fact* it is possible to use *any* source in the course of serious
research, providing one knows *how* to use it properly.
It wasn't really the issue. The real issue was, and is, Crowley's being
entirely impervious to *reality*, as a result of which a lot of
otherwise unnecessary vituperativeness is generated.
Dealing with trolls it is often expedient to dispense with the reality,
since reality is unknown to them anyway.
If you can't recognise a flame war for what it is, there is no reason
why should should not post messages such as that to which this is a
reply.
If you *can* recognise a flame war, I wonder if I might request that
you steer clear of it?
I do appreciate your having taken the trouble to correct me.
I hope that you might realise that *under these peculiar circumstances*
your efforts, however laudable and well-meant, are almost certain to
prove to be counterproductive. I may be wrong about that, indeed I
*hope* that I am, but I suspect not.
All the best to you.
Mark
<snip>
Ms. Mouse
Oh, sorry. It's just that one of my books has two young people in it,
nicknamed Mouse and Elephant, and Elephant is based on someone else so
I was confused. Bob is definitely not afraid of me. We're friends. But
only he would be able to tell you why he thinks I changed him into a
bunny rabbit. Possibly because I stood my ground when I came on for
months and months against one insult after another but was never
impolite back.
I'm not sure how calling me an "ignorant cow" makes hlas a better place
for people to feel comfortable and post. I am probably the least
trolling person here. If you have really researched our group, as you
claim to have done, you would know three things:
1. That is the absolute truth
2. seeker has done many outrageous things, at least one of them
illegal, to Oxfordians. My exhortations are simply to ask him to drop
the insults and post on matters on which he is expert, which is stage
craft, as he is a director. I cannot post without him insulting me,
although I never did him any harm. Every now and then I choose not to
ignore it, or not to ignore when he goes after a weaker member of the
group.
3. By defending willedever against seeker, you have defended the most
"trolling" person in the group, who thinks that the best way to
ridicule people is to take a swipe at their infirmities, brain cancer
for one. I imagine that's why John Kennedy was so outraged last night.
I don't pretend to understand what your point is in coming to hlas and
flooding the newsgroup with contradictory posts, but I shall certainly
retire for a while. Perhaps someone will let me know when the storm is
over.
Ms. Mouse
Tom Reedy
He's a troll. Use the plonker.
TR
>
> Ms. Mouse
>
Mark Houlsby
Ms. Mouse wrote:
> Mark Houlsby wrote:
> > Peter Groves wrote:
> >
> > > "Ms. Mouse" <lynnek...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1167711281.6...@a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> > > >
> > > > Mark Houlsby wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > Bob doesn't for a moment think I'm thick. He does however, believe I'm
> > > > > > some kind of magician who has turned him into a bunny rabbit.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ms. Mouse
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Don't tell me... you have rather, in fact, turned him into an
> > > > > *elephant*, right?
> > > >
> > > > ?
> > > > Mouse
> > >
> > > Is the point perhaps that elephants are supposed to be frightened of mice?
> > >
> > > Peter G.
> > >
> >
> > Good call, Peter. Ten points to you.
> >
> > Mark H.
>
> Oh, sorry. It's just that one of my books has two young people in it,
> nicknamed Mouse and Elephant, and Elephant is based on someone else so
> I was confused. Bob is definitely not afraid of me. We're friends.
I know that.
> But
> only he would be able to tell you why he thinks I changed him into a
> bunny rabbit. Possibly because I stood my ground when I came on for
> months and months against one insult after another but was never
> impolite back.
>
> I'm not sure how calling me an "ignorant cow" makes hlas a better place
> for people to feel comfortable and post.
Ok then, I'll explain it:
seeker's trolling drove away tomo. Fact. Your rising to his troll bait
encourages him to troll more, which may well drive away more people. If
the two of you can refrain from behaving like adolescents *toward one
another* then perhaps, just perhaps, nobody else will be scared away
from the group, since the awful stench of trolls will have diminished
somewhat.
That you can't smell it (trust me, you can't) doesn't mean that it's
not there.
> I am probably the least
> trolling person here.
Guess again. Your engaging with seeker's trolling *refutes* that
assertion at a stroke.
> If you have really researched our group, as you
> claim to have done, you would know three things:
>
> 1. That is the absolute truth
I'm sorry... what is the absolute truth?
> 2. seeker has done many outrageous things, at least one of them
> illegal, to Oxfordians. My exhortations are simply to ask him to drop
> the insults and post on matters on which he is expert, which is stage
> craft, as he is a director. I cannot post without him insulting me,
Bingo! The fact that you *cannot* post *without his insulting you* is a
tacit admission that, however innocently, YOU ENCOURAGE HIS TROLLING.
Wake up and smell the coffee!
> although I never did him any harm.
Irrelevant. He feels slighted by your being so attached to your version
of the Shakespeare story. That is enough.
> Every now and then I choose not to
> ignore it, or not to ignore when he goes after a weaker member of the
> group.
>From now on, I shall do that, so you don't need to do it any longer.
OK?
> 3. By defending willedever against seeker, you have defended the most
> "trolling" person in the group,
Wrong.
Crowley and Innes are the worst.
See, for example:
The point of this being that because willedever is *less egregious* in
his trolling than Crowley, the former may be used as a lever *against
the latter*. This is Usenet, not some rarefied Oxbridge college.
In point of fact, I *have* admonished the idiot willedever on three
occasions, here:
here:
and here:
willedever is no more, and no less, than a determinedly disingenuous
and mischievous motherfucker who is nowhere near as clever as he thinks
he is.
Crowley and Innes, in stark contrast, are *seriously deranged*.
> who thinks that the best way to
> ridicule people is to take a swipe at their infirmities, brain cancer
> for one. I imagine that's why John Kennedy was so outraged last night.
>
I imagine so. Perhaps he needs to learn to delve a little more deeply.
I take it that you do accept that--in spite of your best efforts--tomo
was, in fact, driven away by seeker. tomo has made a total of two posts
to Usenet, one to this group.
What I am endeavouring to do is to ensure that it doesn't happen again.
> I don't pretend to understand what your point is in coming to hlas and
> flooding the newsgroup with contradictory posts,
This admission of yours is yet another indication of why things have
become as bad as they have.
Your every post (like my every post, and everyone else's every post)
exerts influences at which it is impossible for anyone to guess.
The reason I came here is that (because, at the moment, Phil Innes is
being especially egregious over there) the Historian posted, for
tactical reasons, some old HLAS threads to the chess newsgroups. I was
intrigued by these, so I came over here.
Upon my arrival, I discovered the necessity to act as I have been. I
had no intention of allowing seeker or anyone else to drive me away in
the manner in which tomo was driven away. I should like to prevent
anyone else's being driven away, too, unless that someone else happens
to be Crowley, or one of his ilk.
> but I shall certainly
> retire for a while. Perhaps someone will let me know when the storm is
> over.
It may *be* a while. Usenet *is* inherently contradictory. Trolls have
had their way here for too long.
This will change. In the meantime, you shall be missed, and not least
by me.
Take care.
Mark
>
> Ms. Mouse
Mark Houlsby
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> successfully (and the very brusqueness of your tone suggests that for a
> man of your sagacity it should be a breeze) then, I fear, you shall
> appear *at least as thick" as Crowley, placing you under an obligation
> to apologise not just to Sweetie, but to me as well.
>
> Off you go!
>
> Mr. H.
What does my thickness have to do with Ms. Mouse's? And why do I have
to do anything more with the sonnets now that I'[ve pointed out that
all the apparent references to the "fair youth" as male are obvious
jokes?
--Mr. G.
Mark Houlsby
bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
Fair points, both. Middle-aged high spirits on my part. That, or
insanity.
Or both.
I had mistaken your intention somewhat. It appeared to me that you were
defending Crowley, which was why I was entreating you so to do. Mea
culpa.
Mr. H.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
anti-Stratfordians', so I'm glad you inspired him into making it,
Mark--even though, this time at least, I caught on to what you were
doing in your post
--Bob G.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
Yikes, you didn't commit suicide after reading Seeker's rude answer to
your post?! Well, glad to hear you survived.
--Bob G.
Paul Crowley
> > > State (say) THREE characteristically
> > > male behaviours or traits indicated in
> > > the Sonnets.
> Nevertheless:
>
> For where is she so fair whose unear'd womb
> Disdains the tillage of thy husbandry?
I asked for three male behaviours -- such as
wearing weapons, or male clothes, or going
on a ship, or having a career, or doing
business, or acquiring an honour or title.
There is -- of course -- nothing like that in
the sonnets.
We have discussed the hackneyed examples
you list dozens (and maybe hundreds) of times
ere. Perhaps you have forgotten? The one
above is a joke -- and one which only works
when the addressee is female.
But, being a quasi-Strat, you will have ruled
out any possibility of the poet having a sense
of humour, or of exhibiting it in a sonnet.
> Make sweet some vial; treasure thou some place
> With beauty's treasure ere it be self-killed.
There is nothing male here. It was addressed
to Elizabeth (ambiguously playing on 'some
vile' (person) -- with reference to you know
who).
> Is it for fear to wet a widow's eye,
> That thou consum'st thy self in single life?
> Ah! if thou issueless shalt hap to die,
> The world will wail thee like a makeless wife;
> The world will be thy widow and still weep
Addressed to Elizabeth, with these lines about
the reaction of a well-known widow (Mary QS)
to the possibility that Elizabeth should bear a
living child. (As I have explained here on
numerous occasions.)
> O! carve not with thy hours my love's fair brow,
> Nor draw no lines there with thine antique pen;
> Him in thy course untainted do allow
> For beauty's pattern to succeeding men.
The 'him' whom the poet hopes will be
untainted is the (prayed-for) son and
heir of Elizabeth. If she carries on with
Raleigh, as she is currently doing, then
marries Alencon, and has a son, there
will be rumours about his parentage
(as there were about the parentage of
the infant James in Scotland -- the 'son
of David').
> And for a woman wert thou first created;
> Till Nature, as she wrought thee, fell a-doting,
> And by addition me of thee defeated,
> By adding one thing to my purpose nothing.
> But since she prick'd thee out for women's pleasure
The 'false women' of this sonnet are the
over-dressed, bewigged, perfumed, rouged
and powdered courtiers of Elizabeth's court,
all of whom our poet detested.
> Oops, I've gone over. How many more would you like, o thou, my lovely
> boy?
The 'lovely boy' is, of course, Raleigh;
as I have explained dozens of times.
Do you remember any of this?
Paul.
lackpurity
MM:
Sat Guru Bhakti is behind Shakespeare's Sonnet #18. Devotees often
write about their Masters in such a way. Shakespeare wasn't the first,
nor the last. It really has nothing to do with gender or sexuality.
It is the spiritual beauty, which emanates from a Master. Some Masters
have been female, such as Joan of Arc, Margaret Fuller, Hildegard,
Marjorie Kempe, Elizabeth Barrett Browning, Emily Dickinson, Sahjo Bai,
Mirabai, and Rabia of Basra.
Michael Martin
Nessus
tomo wrote:
> If "thee" in the poem was a man, I think it's strange.
> Because most people tend to admire beauty of a woman rather than that
> of a man.
> And particularly so when an admirer is a man.
tomo,
Yes, it is somewhat strange, at least to our cultural sensibilities.
However it becomes a little less strange when one considers that:
a) The marriage Sonnets, at least, are assumed by most to be addressed
to Henry Wriothesley, the Earl of Southampton, to whom both of
Shakespeare's long epic poems are dedicated, and who was under great
pressure to marry Oxford's daughter, a marriage he ultimately refused.
By all accounts, Wriothesley was a man of great physical beauty, and
his beauty was openly remarked upon by many who knew him.
b) Elizabethan cultural mores were somewhat different than today.
Because homosexuality was never, ever discussed in public, men felt
quite free to express their fraternal love for other men without such
expressions being considered sexual or otherwise "gay." It's kind of
counterintuitive, but one man speaking of the beauty of another was not
generally considered a really big deal.
Hope this helps... :)
-Nessus
Gary
>If "thee" in the poem was a man, I think it's strange.
>Because most people tend to admire beauty of a woman rather than that
>of a man.
>And particularly so when an admirer is a man.
>
>Don't get me wrong.
>I'm not objecting to an opinion that "thee" in the poem was a man.
>I just think it's strange.
I agree. Much of the language in the first 126 sonnets would
seem more appropriately addressed to a woman. But IF they are all
addressed to the same addressee, it seems clear that that addressee
was male.
There have been different explanations put forward for this.
Some have argued that this type of language was not unusual in the
Elizabethan age between men. Others have argued that the sonnets
describe a homosexual relationship. Others have claimed that
Shakespeare was simply spoofing other sonnet sequences. And there are
probably other explanations which I can't recollect just now.
Which one is right? You tell me.
- Gary
Gary
<slkwuoiut...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
>"Ms. Mouse" <lynnek...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1167690345.6...@i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>> > > State (say) THREE characteristically
>> > > male behaviours or traits indicated in
>> > > the Sonnets.
>
>> Nevertheless:
>>
>> For where is she so fair whose unear'd womb
>> Disdains the tillage of thy husbandry?
>
>I asked for three male behaviours -- such as
>wearing weapons, or male clothes, or going
>on a ship, or having a career, or doing
>business, or acquiring an honour or title.
>There is -- of course -- nothing like that in
>the sonnets.
Having sex with a woman isn't an example of male behaviour?
You know, Paul, Mark Houlsby might think you are a troll, but I think
you're priceless.
>
>We have discussed the hackneyed examples
>you list dozens (and maybe hundreds) of times
>ere.
Right. And it's been explained to you dozens (and mayber
hundreds) of times that masculine pronouns such as 'him' and 'he',
referencing a person, generally refer to a male. Others may despair,
but I keep hoping that one day you'll understand.
>Perhaps you have forgotten? The one
>above is a joke -- and one which only works
>when the addressee is female.
And one which only you seem to get. Why is that, do you
suppose?
I'm snipping the rest of your counter-arguments to Lynne's
*arguments* because they are beside the point.
January 1, 2007. Remember that date, Paul. I suspect it will
be popping up quite often. Perhaps as often as you claim that no-one
has posted any arguments against any of your explanations.
- Gary
Mark Houlsby
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
> Daryl's post was interesting
I agree, it was an excellent post. I'm very glad (and not at all
surprised) that people here are intelligent, well-read and
well-informed.
--and on thinking parallel to
> anti-Stratfordians', so I'm glad you inspired him into making it,
> Mark--even though, this time at least, I caught on to what you were
> doing in your post
>
> --Bob G.
Good. This sort of thing is why I have come here. As well as learning
as much as possible about the Bard, of course.
Thanks, Bob.
--Mark H.
Mark Houlsby
Gary wrote:
Oh, he'll conveniently forget.
- Mark
lackpurity
MM:
It's not counterintuitive, but Pro-Intuitive. Marlowe supposedly said
that John the Baptist and Jesus were bedfellows, but he was speaking
cryptically, I'm sure. Their bed and bedding was in the highest
spiritual stage, where we can't even form a concept of that ONENESS.
Shakespeare, himself, used much the same analogy, leaving his
second-best bed to his wife. His best bed was in the True Home.
Michael Martin
christia...@gmail.com
> MM:
> Marlowe supposedly said
> that John the Baptist and Jesus were bedfellows,
Marlowe never said that.
C.
Mark Houlsby
lackpurity wrote:
Listen up, troll: when you post nonsense like this, people will find
you out.
You're not a mystic. You're deranged.
> but he was speaking
> cryptically, I'm sure.
So cryptically, in fact, that he never said it.
> Their bed and bedding was in the highest
> spiritual stage, where we can't even form a concept of that ONENESS.
That's the royal "we", I take it....
> Shakespeare, himself, used much the same analogy, leaving his
> second-best bed to his wife. His best bed was in the True Home.
>
> Michael Martin
Time for you to leave, deranged toll.
Mark Houlsby
Mark Houlsby
lackpurity wrote:
More deranged rantings from the group's resident spiritual lunatic.
Time for you to leave, O Master Of The Universe.
Mark Houlsby
Paul Crowley
news:1167770293.6...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
> tomo wrote:
>> If "thee" in the poem was a man, I think it's strange.
>> Because most people tend to admire beauty of a woman rather than that
>> of a man.
>> And particularly so when an admirer is a man.
> Yes, it is somewhat strange, at least to our cultural sensibilities.
> However it becomes a little less strange when one considers that:
>
> a) The marriage Sonnets, at least, are assumed by most to be addressed
> to Henry Wriothesley, the Earl of Southampton,
Err . . . Tomo was puzzling why this should
be so, making his point above. It is not an
answer to refer him back to the problem --
or not unless you enjoy circular reasoning.
> to whom both of
> Shakespeare's long epic poems are dedicated, and who was under great
> pressure to marry Oxford's daughter, a marriage he ultimately refused.
There is not a word in any Sonnet indicating
a pressure to marry any particular person.
The notion that these sonnets were written
by a father urging a prospective son-in-law
to marry his daughter is one that simply does
not fly. It does not make two feet along the
runway. In fact, the absence of fit is so great,
that it can be regarded as close to categorical
proof of the falsity of the general hypothesis.
If the poet was the father, the addressee was
NOT the prospective son-in-law.
> By all accounts, Wriothesley was a man of great physical beauty, and
> his beauty was openly remarked upon by many who knew him.
Unfortunately for this theory, we have his
portraits. All the ones I have seen of him
would put him well down in the 'looks' stakes
-- well below average. He would not even
qualify for 'plain' -- perhaps being closer to
'peculiar', 'gaunt', 'strange' or even 'ugly'. His
nose is quite weird -- long, bent and twisted,
and it's not an easy feature to ignore.
It is a tribute to the credulousness of humanity
that almost anything can be believed in the
face of manifest evidence to the contrary.
> b) Elizabethan cultural mores were somewhat different than today.
This is the 'Dey woz differen den' fall-back
position of hopeless historical theorists,
who want to put forward some wholly
insupportable and anachronistic theory --
invariably based on some currently
fashionable ideas.
> Because homosexuality was never, ever discussed in public, men felt
> quite free to express their fraternal love for other men without such
> expressions being considered sexual or otherwise "gay."
There are plenty of cultures today with near-
identical attitudes. In fact, virtually all of them
outside the industrialised west: all of Arabia,
the Muslim world, Africa, China, India. There is
no particular mystery here -- even if Strats and
quasi-Strats would like to imagine so.
> It's kind of counterintuitive, but one man speaking of the
> beauty of another was not generally considered a really
> big deal.
Simply untrue. The ways in which women and
men were addressed and described were almost
wholly different. It is very easy to go through
the plays and identify the words and phrases the
poet uses to describe males: strong, brave, manly,
courageous, hardy, valiant, daring, foremost, bold,
doughty . . . All of them are conspicuous by their
absence from the sonnets.
Likewise we can easily list those he uses to describe
females; we see them used over and over again in
the sonnets: beauty, beauteous, rose, lovely,
fairest, 'sweet argument', 'play wantonly', 'gentle
thief', 'sweet love', 'lascivious grace', 'sweet ornament' . . .
Stratfordian arguments about the rustic poet and
his noble 'Fair Youth' are plainly daft. Yet many
Oxfordians took them up, and turned them into
some of the most profoundly idiotic set of notions
that could ever be imagined.
Paul.
Mark Houlsby
Paul Crowley wrote:
> "Nessus" <ness...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1167770293.6...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > tomo wrote:
> >> If "thee" in the poem was a man, I think it's strange.
> >> Because most people tend to admire beauty of a woman rather than that
> >> of a man.
> >> And particularly so when an admirer is a man.
>
> > Yes, it is somewhat strange, at least to our cultural sensibilities.
> > However it becomes a little less strange when one considers that:
> >
> > a) The marriage Sonnets, at least, are assumed by most to be addressed
> > to Henry Wriothesley, the Earl of Southampton,
>
> Err . . . Tomo was puzzling why this should
> be so, making his point above. It is not an
> answer to refer him back to the problem --
> or not unless you enjoy circular reasoning.
>
You're seriously deranged, Paul. IN NO SENSE was Nessus "...refer[ring]
him (tomo) back to the problem -", rather he was PROVIDING HISTORICAL
CONTEXT with the evident intention of enlightening tomo vis-a-vis the
question of contemporary social and sexual mores. It's not rocket
science. Join the dots.
> > to whom both of
> > Shakespeare's long epic poems are dedicated, and who was under great
> > pressure to marry Oxford's daughter, a marriage he ultimately refused.
>
> There is not a word in any Sonnet indicating
> a pressure to marry any particular person.
Even if that is true (and it may be arguable that it is not) why is it
relevant? The DEDICATION is what is relevant, you irredeemable moron.
> The notion that these sonnets were written
> by a father urging a prospective son-in-law
> to marry his daughter is one that simply does
> not fly. It does not make two feet along the
> runway. In fact, the absence of fit is so great,
> that it can be regarded as close to categorical
> proof of the falsity of the general hypothesis.
> If the poet was the father, the addressee was
> NOT the prospective son-in-law.
>
Blah blah blah. As usual you completely fail to grasp the nettle.
> > By all accounts, Wriothesley was a man of great physical beauty, and
> > his beauty was openly remarked upon by many who knew him.
>
> Unfortunately for this theory, we have his
> portraits. All the ones I have seen of him
> would put him well down in the 'looks' stakes
That is YOUR opinion. Nessus was commenting upon the opinion of some of
the guy's CONTEMPORARIES. Ideas about "ideal beauty" (as applied both
to male and to female) have CHANGED *repeatedly* over time.
Don't tell me that you're so ASTONISHINGLY IGNORANT that you didn't
know this?
> -- well below average. He would not even
> qualify for 'plain' -- perhaps being closer to
> 'peculiar', 'gaunt', 'strange' or even 'ugly'. His
> nose is quite weird -- long, bent and twisted,
> and it's not an easy feature to ignore.
>
Bullshit bullshit bullshit.
> It is a tribute to the credulousness of humanity
> that almost anything can be believed in the
> face of manifest evidence to the contrary.
>
Horse manure.
> > b) Elizabethan cultural mores were somewhat different than today.
>
> This is the 'Dey woz differen den' fall-back
> position of hopeless historical theorists,
hopeless eh? How so?
> who want to put forward some wholly
> insupportable and anachronistic theory --
On the contrary it is YOUR IDIOTIC ASSERTIONS which are, in this
context, anachronistic.
> invariably based on some currently
> fashionable ideas.
>
Jeez you're a moron.
> > Because homosexuality was never, ever discussed in public, men felt
> > quite free to express their fraternal love for other men without such
> > expressions being considered sexual or otherwise "gay."
>
> There are plenty of cultures today with near-
> identical attitudes.
...and this is relevant... how?
> In fact, virtually all of them
> outside the industrialised west: all of Arabia,
> the Muslim world, Africa, China, India. There is
> no particular mystery here -- even if Strats and
> quasi-Strats would like to imagine so.
>
You're raving now.
> > It's kind of counterintuitive, but one man speaking of the
> > beauty of another was not generally considered a really
> > big deal.
>
> Simply untrue. The ways in which women and
> men were addressed and described were almost
> wholly different.
Support this preposterous nonsense. Demonstrate that these aspects of
the relations between the sexes were "almost wholly different". To
accomplish this feat, you had better be exhaustive.
> It is very easy to go through
> the plays and identify the words and phrases the
> poet uses to describe males: strong, brave, manly,
> courageous, hardy, valiant, daring, foremost, bold,
> doughty . . . All of them are conspicuous by their
> absence from the sonnets.
>
Even if that were remotely relevant, which it is not, you have now
placed upon yourself an obligation to prove that this is "unmanly":
"Th' expense of spirit in a waste of shame
Is lust in action; and till action, lust
Is perjur'd, murd'rous, bloody, full of blame,
Savage, extreme, rude, cruel, not to trust;
Enjoy'd no sooner but despised straight."
--Sonnet 129
Make it convincing.
> Likewise we can easily list those he uses to describe
> females; we see them used over and over again in
> the sonnets: beauty, beauteous, rose, lovely,
> fairest, 'sweet argument', 'play wantonly', 'gentle
> thief', 'sweet love', 'lascivious grace', 'sweet ornament' . . .
>
Sorry, you struck out in choosing the wrong premise.
> Stratfordian arguments about the rustic poet and
> his noble 'Fair Youth' are plainly daft.
Not daft. Idiosyncratic, possibly. Debatable, certainly. Not daft.
Daft is your domain.
> Yet many
> Oxfordians took them up, and turned them into
> some of the most profoundly idiotic set of notions
> that could ever be imagined.
>
Idiotic is your other domain.
Mark.
>
> Paul.
Art Neuendorffer
>> Marlowe supposedly said
>>that John the Baptist and Jesus were bedfellows,
>
>
> Marlowe never said that.
Bathfellows?
Breakfastfellows?
Art N.
Mark Houlsby
Art Neuendorffer wrote:
Marlowe never said that either.
lackpurity
MM:
Would you mind telling us how you know what he said?
Michael Martin
Mark Houlsby
lackpurity wrote:
Are you in a postion to disprove his assertion? If so, how?
Mark Houlsby
lackpurity
MM:
How about John the Apostle? Wikipedia mentions it, under Marlowe's
atheism.
Michael Martin
lackpurity
MM:
I don't know if he said it, or not. Apparently, it was regarding John
the Apostle and Jesus. I'm just contending that if he did say that, it
was spoken cryptically, that's all.
Aren't you missing those chess groups?
Michael Martin
Mark Houlsby
lackpurity wrote:
So, you're using wikipedia as an authority and you're citing Baines.
You're suggesting that Baines' claim that:
""St John the Evangelist was bedfellow to Christ and leaned always in
his bosom" (cf. John 13:23-25) and "that he used him as the sinners of
Sodom"."
--Wikipedia
...is irrefutable proof that these things *actually happened*, is that
right?
Mark Houlsby
lackpurity
Both of you are out tiptoeing through the tulips. I already posted
that Sonnet #18 was based on Sat Guru Bhakti. Those who have reached
the True Home, know how they reached it, by their Master's grace. No
man is greater than his Master. William Blake wrote that if we think
we are greater than our Master, then we are just walking with a candle
in the sunshine. Shakespeare was proud to dedicate the Sonnet to his
Master, Christopher Marlowe, who was the same as God.
Matthew 10:33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also
deny before my Father which is in heaven.
The Sonnet has nothing to do with sexual attitudes. It has to do with
Sat Guru Bhakti. I already told Crowley, that it has absolutely
nothing to do with Queen Elizabeth..
Saints are always interested in pleasing the Master and God.
Shakespeare did both in Sonnet 18.
Michael Martin
Paul Crowley
news:1167832169.1...@n51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Even if that were remotely relevant, which it is not, you have now
> placed upon yourself an obligation to prove that this is "unmanly":
>
> "Th' expense of spirit in a waste of shame
> Is lust in action; and till action, lust
> Is perjur'd, murd'rous, bloody, full of blame,
> Savage, extreme, rude, cruel, not to trust;
> Enjoy'd no sooner but despised straight."
> --Sonnet 129
>
> Make it convincing.
Is this a request for an exegesis of Sonnet 129?
In any case, when you quote a sonnet,
please avoid edited versions. Editors
(Strat or otherwise) like to pack them full
of errors -- following ancient traditions.
There was one person around at the time
whom everyone in the English court would
have agreed perfectly fitted each and every
word in lines 3 and 4:
3. Is periurd, murdrous, blouddy full of blame,
4. Sauage, extreame, rude, cruell, not to trust,
Each of these terms is exact and, in fact, the
whole sonnet is about this person's actions,
and how others, knowing his character and
tendencies, tricked him into a certain course
which could only be disastrous for him --
and for those they knew he would drag
along.
Do you want to try to guess who that person
was? Is your knowledge of Elizabethan
history up to it? (Sorry, silly question.)
1. Th'expence of Spirit in a waste of shame
2. Is lust in action, and till action, lust
3. Is periurd, murdrous, blouddy full of blame,
4. Sauage, extreame, rude, cruell, not to trust,
5. Inioyd no sooner but dispised straight,
6. Past reason hunted, and no sooner had
7. Past reason hated as a swollowed bayt,
8. On purpose layd to make the taker mad.
9. Made in pursut and in possession so,
10. Had, hauing, and in quest, to haue extreame,
11. A blisse in proofe and proud and very wo,
12. Before a ioy proposd behind a dreame,
13. All this the world well knowes yet none knowes well,
14. To shun the heauen that leads men to this hell.
Paul.
lackpurity
MM:
I'm not saying that it's proof, at all. Marlowe was not an atheist, as
I've pointed out here many times. He had to teach cryptically, so he
might have been using a metaphor, but I don't know if he actually said
that, or not.
My point was that some of these so-called references to being gay, were
not actually. That's all. I wasn't looking for a flame war.
Michael Martin
Michael Martin
Mark Houlsby
lackpurity wrote:
> MM:
> Both of you are out tiptoeing through the tulips. I already posted
> that Sonnet #18 was based on Sat Guru Bhakti. Those who have reached
> the True Home, know how they reached it, by their Master's grace. No
> man is greater than his Master. William Blake wrote that if we think
> we are greater than our Master, then we are just walking with a candle
> in the sunshine. Shakespeare was proud to dedicate the Sonnet to his
> Master, Christopher Marlowe, who was the same as God.
>
> Matthew 10:33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also
> deny before my Father which is in heaven.
>
> The Sonnet has nothing to do with sexual attitudes. It has to do with
> Sat Guru Bhakti. I already told Crowley, that it has absolutely
> nothing to do with Queen Elizabeth..
>
I read the post. You're imagining things. You don't need to restate
those imaginings in such close proximity to where they were first
posted by you is called TROLLING.
> Saints are always interested in pleasing the Master and God.
> Shakespeare did both in Sonnet 18.
>
Repeating the same deranged nonsense over and over qualifies, too.
> Michael Martin
>
You're seriously deranged. Worse, you're often vicious with it. Not
here, but often.
All of these conjectures are inventions of your wild imagination.
They're not real. There were never humans on Mars. Spacecraft *built*
by humans have been sent to Mars, but that's about it. The rest is pure
fantasy.
Mark Houlsby
lackpurity
MM:
If you start flame wars, then you can expect a retaliation, maybe mild,
maybe more aggressive. You don't really think you're going to flame
people and not get any retaliations, do you? If you do, then your
intellect must be out to lunch.
You are out slinging mud, but you are not able to prove anything. Your
allegations don't have a leg to stand on. That is why your credibility
is taking a nosedive, IMO.
Michael Martin
Mark Houlsby
Paul Crowley wrote:
> "Mark Houlsby" <mark.h...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
> news:1167832169.1...@n51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Even if that were remotely relevant, which it is not, you have now
> > placed upon yourself an obligation to prove that this is "unmanly":
> >
> > "Th' expense of spirit in a waste of shame
> > Is lust in action; and till action, lust
> > Is perjur'd, murd'rous, bloody, full of blame,
> > Savage, extreme, rude, cruel, not to trust;
> > Enjoy'd no sooner but despised straight."
> > --Sonnet 129
> >
> > Make it convincing.
>
> Is this a request for an exegesis of Sonnet 129?
>
No. It's a request to prove that the language in the quotation is
unmanly. Are you really as bad at reading as you just made yourself
seem?
> In any case, when you quote a sonnet,
> please avoid edited versions. Editors
> (Strat or otherwise) like to pack them full
> of errors -- following ancient traditions.
>
Make me.
> There was one person around at the time
> whom everyone in the English court would
> have agreed perfectly fitted each and every
> word in lines 3 and 4:
>
Get to the point.
> 3. Is periurd, murdrous, blouddy full of blame,
> 4. Sauage, extreame, rude, cruell, not to trust,
>
> Each of these terms is exact and, in fact, the
> whole sonnet is about this person's actions,
> and how others, knowing his character and
> tendencies, tricked him into a certain course
> which could only be disastrous for him --
Aha! So you admit that it is NOT unmanly, then?
YOU LOSE!
Mark
<snips typical Crowley ravings>
Mark Houlsby
lackpurity wrote:
Oh ok, great. Is this a new you I detect? I approve :-)
Mark Houlsby
> Michael Martin
Paul Crowley
>> > Even if that were remotely relevant, which it is not, you have now
>> > placed upon yourself an obligation to prove that this is "unmanly":
>> >
>> > "Th' expense of spirit in a waste of shame
>> > Is lust in action; and till action, lust
>> > Is perjur'd, murd'rous, bloody, full of blame,
>> > Savage, extreme, rude, cruel, not to trust;
>> > Enjoy'd no sooner but despised straight."
>> > --Sonnet 129
>> Is this a request for an exegesis of Sonnet 129?
>
> No. It's a request to prove that the language in the quotation is
> unmanly. Are you really as bad at reading as you just made yourself
> seem?
Your 'thought' processes are not as
transparent as you think. That is largely
because you make such huge errors of fact
and logic, that no one can make any sense
of your words
Sonnet 129 has no bearing (on way or the
other) on the argument that the 'Fair Youf' is
a beautiful young male. Nor on whether
or not male or female words are applied to
him or her.
The near-universal 'thinking' is that the 'Fair
Youf' sequence stops at Sonnet 126. (Don't
assume that I go along with any of it -- but,
unlike you, I know what is.)
However, I apologise. I had nor realised
quite how ignorant you are.
Paul.
Mark Houlsby
Paul Crowley wrote:
> "Mark Houlsby" <mark.h...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
> news:1167848849.9...@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > Even if that were remotely relevant, which it is not, you have now
> >> > placed upon yourself an obligation to prove that this is "unmanly":
> >> >
> >> > "Th' expense of spirit in a waste of shame
> >> > Is lust in action; and till action, lust
> >> > Is perjur'd, murd'rous, bloody, full of blame,
> >> > Savage, extreme, rude, cruel, not to trust;
> >> > Enjoy'd no sooner but despised straight."
> >> > --Sonnet 129
>
> >> Is this a request for an exegesis of Sonnet 129?
> >
> > No. It's a request to prove that the language in the quotation is
> > unmanly. Are you really as bad at reading as you just made yourself
> > seem?
>
> Your 'thought' processes are not as
> transparent as you think. That is largely
> because you make such huge errors of fact
> and logic, that no one can make any sense
> of your words
>
You're projecting again. People who can *actually read* exhibit *no
difficulty* with my prose. My poetry, which aspires to Vogon quality,
is another matter altogether.
> Sonnet 129 has no bearing (on way or the
> other) on the argument that the 'Fair Youf' is
> a beautiful young male. Nor on whether
> or not male or female words are applied to
> him or her.
>
You're STILL missing the point. Let me explain it in terms that even a
*complete imbecile* might understand, that way, YOU might stand at
least SOME chance.
Follow the bouncing ball:
In this post:
Nessus wrote (to tomo):
"The marriage Sonnets, at least, are assumed by most to be addressed
to Henry Wriothesley, the Earl of Southampton"
In this post:
...you interjected with:
"Err . . . Tomo was puzzling why this should
be so, making his point above. It is not an
answer to refer him back to the problem --
or not unless you enjoy circular reasoning."
In this post:
I pointed out to you something which any self-respecting imbecile would
realise:
"IN NO SENSE was Nessus "...refer[ring]
him (tomo) back to the problem -", rather he was PROVIDING HISTORICAL
CONTEXT with the evident intention of enlightening tomo vis-a-vis the
question of contemporary social and sexual mores. It's not rocket
science. Join the dots."
In your typically rambling, tangential reply, in this post:
...you wrote the following ASTONISHINGLY STUPID assertion:
"It is very easy to go through
the plays and identify the words and phrases the
poet uses to describe males: strong, brave, manly,
courageous, hardy, valiant, daring, foremost, bold,
doughty . . . All of them are conspicuous by their
absence from the sonnets."
Now, in writing that UNMITIGATED CLAPTRAP, you had asserted that
NOWHERE in ANY of the sonnets is to be found *a single phrase* which
the poet uses to describe males.
Not one. Anywhere, In ANY sonnet. Pretty dumb of you, don't you think?
In my reply, in this post:
I wrote:
"Even if that were remotely relevant, which it is not, you have now
placed upon yourself an obligation to prove that this is "unmanly":
"Th' expense of spirit in a waste of shame
Is lust in action; and till action, lust
Is perjur'd, murd'rous, bloody, full of blame,
Savage, extreme, rude, cruel, not to trust;
Enjoy'd no sooner but despised straight."
--Sonnet 129
Make it convincing."
Now, because you are an illiterate moron, as well as a deranged
egomaniac, in this reply:
...you were so INCREDIBLY DUMB that you mistook this simple request to
SUPPORT your PREPOSTEROUS assertion as a request for you to write an
exegesis of 129.
Jeez, what a MORON you are.
So, you duly proceeded to WRITE an exegesis (which I had not asked you
to do, all I had asked you to do was to support your manifestly
preposterous assertion that there are no "manly" adjectives anywhere in
the sonnets, by DEMONSTRATING that the adjectives in 129, which I
quoted, were somehow *not* manly):
"Each of these terms is exact and, in fact, the
whole sonnet is about this person's actions,
and how others, knowing his character and
tendencies, tricked him into a certain course
which could only be disastrous for him -- "
THEREBY DISPROVING YOUR OWN ASSERTION.
DO WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS A THIRD TIME, IMBECILE?
> The near-universal 'thinking' is that the 'Fair
> Youf' sequence stops at Sonnet 126. (Don't
> assume that I go along with any of it -- but,
> unlike you, I know what is.)
>
Oh, you're *absolutely sure* that I don't know what it is, are you?
Just like you were *absolutely sure* there were NO "manly" adjectives
in ANY sonnet?
> However, I apologise. I had nor realised
> quite how ignorant you are.
>
That makes two of us. The extent of my ignorance continues to astonish
me. Unlike you, however, when I make a HORRENDOUS BLUNDER, I don't
proceed to ATTACK the person who pointed it out, rather, I acknowledge
the fact, and, if necessary, I APOLOGISE for the mistake.
Are you going to do that?
Alternatively, are you just going to attack me again, and repost the
same stupid, groundless exegesis?
Mark.
>
> Paul.
Laila Roth
Mark Houlsby skrev:
He is not deranged. He is just a sentimental vomit. Concerning
Marlowe's alleged gayness, it was common talk those days that Jesus and
his apostle John were a couple, the gospels even state clearly that
Jesus "loved" him, which of course is no proof of homosexuality, and
there is no proof that Marlowe said such things either. Whatever Baines
said, it was said by Baines.
another of those mud-slingers, but beware, a female one
Laila Roth
Peter Farey
"Laila Roth" wrote:
>
> Concerning Marlowe's alleged gayness, it was common
> talk those days that Jesus and his apostle John were
> a couple, the gospels even state clearly that Jesus
> uality, and there is no proof that Marlowe said such
> things either. Whatever Baines said, it was said by
> Baines.
Although there does seem to be some corroboration of
this by Thomas Kyd, who wrote of Marlowe:
He would report St John to be our savior Christes
*Alexis* I cover it with reverence and trembling
that is that Christ did love him with an extraord-
inary love.
Peter F.
pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm
Laila Roth
Peter Farey skrev:
Didn't know about that one. In fact, St John appears one of the most
suspicious characters in the Bible, repetitively commending himself as
"the apostle that Jesus loved" and presenting some weird slander
against Judas Iskarioth which seems biassed by jealousy... St John is
also the most dogmatic evangelist, the only one downright claiming
Jesus to be more divine than human, if his gospel was not tampered
with... Dan Brown's "Da Vinci Code" corroborates this possibility
almost beyond any doubt, I mean some more personal relationship between
Jesus and his "beloved" apostle...
LR
John W. Kennedy
> Dan Brown's "Da Vinci Code" corroborates this possibility
> almost beyond any doubt, I mean some more personal relationship between
> Jesus and his "beloved" apostle...
Dan Brown is an illiterate, incapable of "corroborating" anything.
--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"
Tom Reedy
news:PVhnh.83$cK...@newsfe11.lga...
> Laila Roth wrote:
>> Dan Brown's "Da Vinci Code" corroborates this possibility
>> almost beyond any doubt, I mean some more personal relationship between
>> Jesus and his "beloved" apostle...
Hahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!
>
> Dan Brown is an illiterate, incapable of "corroborating" anything.
I'm surprised you haven't killfiled her before now, John.
TR
The Historian
Tom Reedy wrote:
> "John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:PVhnh.83$cK...@newsfe11.lga...
> > Laila Roth wrote:
> >> Dan Brown's "Da Vinci Code" corroborates this possibility
> >> almost beyond any doubt, I mean some more personal relationship between
> >> Jesus and his "beloved" apostle...
>
> Hahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!
>
> >
> > Dan Brown is an illiterate, incapable of "corroborating" anything.
>
> I'm surprised you haven't killfiled her before now, John.
And miss such a wonderful example of LaLa's 'thinking?'
John W. Kennedy
> "John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:PVhnh.83$cK...@newsfe11.lga...
>> Laila Roth wrote:
>>> Dan Brown's "Da Vinci Code" corroborates this possibility
>>> almost beyond any doubt, I mean some more personal relationship between
>>> Jesus and his "beloved" apostle...
>
> Hahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!
>
>> Dan Brown is an illiterate, incapable of "corroborating" anything.
>
> I'm surprised you haven't killfiled her before now, John.
My killfiles were wiped a few weeks ago (the joys of using beta
software...), and I've been recreating 'em one entry at a time.
nordicskiv2
Peter Groves wrote:
> "lackpurity" <lackp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1167674602....@i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Peter Groves wrote:
> > > "lackpurity" <lackp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1167633095....@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
> > > >
> > > > Peter Groves wrote:
> > > > > I think the "insane" pigeonhole fits him quite snugly, as the
> following
> > > > > suggests.
> > > > >
> > > > > Peter G.
> > > > MM:
> > > > Children think lots of things. Sometimes, they think they are
> > > > superman. LOL
> > > >
> > > > Michael Martin
> > > Is this a confession? It would certainly explain a lot.
> > >
> > > Peter G.
> > MM:
> > Try to decipher my cryptic writings. LOL Christ said, "Come to me as
> > little children." When we come before a Master, we are like little
> > children. Little children shouldn't be arguing with the Master.
> >
> > Michael Martin
> So, not a confession (that requires a little self-awareness) but certainly a
> revelation of the idiot's egomania. "Master", indeed! It's rather
> pathetic.
>
> Peter G.
There seems to be an emerging consensus that he is an inveterate
Master-debater.
Chess One
"The Historian" <Spam...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1167969384....@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com...
>
> Tom Reedy wrote:
>> "John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:PVhnh.83$cK...@newsfe11.lga...
>> > Laila Roth wrote:
>> >> Dan Brown's "Da Vinci Code" corroborates this possibility
>> >> almost beyond any doubt, I mean some more personal relationship
>> >> between
>> >> Jesus and his "beloved" apostle...
I am not sure who wrote the comment above, but it is quite consistent with
other records, including 'her own' gospel, and that of Thomas and Philip,
which is not to say that Brown's rendition is the best perspective.
Surely reading Pagels, a decent biblical scholar, sets the scene very well.
Phil Innes
Laila Roth
The Historian skrev:
Thank you, Neal. Not all pearl-gatherers are swine.
LR
Laila Roth
The Historian skrev:
Thank you, Neal. Not all pearl-gatherers are swine.
LR