Sonnet 19
Robert Stonehouse
Deuouring time blunt thou the Lyons pawes,
And make the earth deuoure her owne sweet brood,
Plucke the keene teeth from the fierce Tygers yawes,
And burne the long liu'd Phćnix in her blood,
Make glad and sorry seasons as thou fleet'st,
And do what ere thou wilt swift-footed time
To the wide world and all her fading sweets:
But I forbid thee one most hainous crime,
O carue not with thy howers my loues faire brow,
Nor draw noe lines there with thine antique pen,
Him in thy course vntainted doe allow,
For beauties patterne to succeding men.
Yet doe thy worst ould Time dispight thy wrong,
My loue shall in my verse euer liue young.
Devouring Time, blunt thou the lion's paws
And make the earth devour her own sweet brood,
Pluck the keen teeth from the fierce tiger's jaws
And burn the long-lived phoenix in her blood; 4
Make glad and sorry seasons as thou fleetest
And do whate'er thou wilt, swift-footed Time
To the wide world and all her fading sweets;
But I forbid thee one most heinous crime: 8
O carve not with thy hours my love's fair brow
Nor draw no lines there with thine antic pen,
Him in thy course untainted do allow
For beauty's pattern to succeeding men. 12
Yet do thy worst, old Time: despite thy wrong
My love shall in my verse ever live young. 14
LynnE
"Robert Stonehouse" <ew...@bcs.org.invalid> wrote in message
news:4lr3k0tdc11s6ehjl...@4ax.com...
I wonder what Paul makes of this sonnet. The addressee is Time. The love of
the poet is clearly a MAN:
O carve not with thy hours my LOVE'S fair brow
Nor draw no lines there with thine antic pen,
HIM in thy course untainted do allow
For beauty's pattern to succeeding MEN.
I can see him saying "howers" is a play on "whores," but I cannot see how
the loved one can be the Queen.
I'm also interested to see that "antique" here has been translated as
"antic." I rather like "antique pen," that is "Pen to make old." Of course,
we've discussed before how both words were pronounced in the same way, so
it's rather a clever pun.
What does "And make the earth devour her own sweet brood" mean? Is it a
reference to something like an earthquake, or to the burial of the dead?
Ideas welcome.
Best wishes,
Lynne
Paul Crowley
2. And make the earth devoure her owne sweet brood,
3. Plucke the keene teeth from the fierce Tygers yawes,
4. And burne the long liv'd Phoenix in her blood,
5. Make glad and sorry seasons as thou fleet'st,
6. And do what ere thou wilt swift-footed time
7. To the wide world and all her fading sweets:
8. But I forbid thee one most hainous crime,
9. O carve not with thy howers my loves faire brow,
10. Nor draw noe lines there with thine antique pen,
11. Him in thy course untainted doe allow,
12. For beauties patterne to succeding men.
13. Yet doe thy worst ould Time dispight thy wrong,
14. My love shall in my verse ever live young.
It is a great mistake to take the words of
our poet too seriously -- especially when
he seems to set out to treat a conventional
topic in a super-serious manner. He was
immensely sophisticated, having little time
for the standard poetic conceits of the day,
often going out of his way to poke fun at
them.
This sonnet is a good illustration of his
method of 'contrived ambiguity'. It seems
to me fairly simple (although, that might
mean only that I have not seen its
complexities). There are two themes: the
superficial one of 'Time', into which (in
this sonnet) he puts a fair amount of effort;
and the 'hidden' one where in the contest
for the affections of his beloved, he
continues his dogged pursuit of his hated
rival, whom he thinks of as a 'mite' or an
'item' -- both anagrams of 'time'.
The images in the first quatrain are
extraordinary. Their power come largely
from their originality; that in turn comes
from the ability of the poet to weave in
references to events in, and aspects of,
current court life.
The poem is written in the same vein as
Sonnet 16, and comes from the second
major period of sonnet-writing around 1581.
I date it provisionally to shortly after the
poet's arrest in April of that year, when
the Queen was very angry with him for
making pregnant Anne Vavasour, one of
her maids of honour.
1. Devouring time blunt thou the Lyons pawes,
Queen Elizabeth had a habit of expressing
anger and disgust by saying 'Poh!' or 'Paw!'.
The poet represents her as 'the lion', as that
was the emblem of England; as she was
proud of the "lion's heart" she claimed to
inherit from her father; and ballad singers
called her the 'great lioness'.
He asks (in joking terms) the 'devouring mite'
to mollify the anger of his mistress.
The poet is using 'devouring' in senses now
obsolete: Devour (OED):
3. Of a person or personal agent: To consume destructively,
recklessly, or wantonly; to make away with, waste, destroy
(substance, property or fig. its owners).
Obsolete except in biblical language.
c. To make a prey of, treat with rapine. Obsolete.
2. And make the earth devoure her owne sweet brood,
This is primarily a reference to the fate
he sees for England if the Queen does
not provide an heir. The poet pretends
to transfer to Raleigh the bulk of the
blame for this probable event. He may
also be referring to Raleigh's West
Country tin-mining activities.
3. Plucke the keene teeth from the fierce Tygers yawes,
The Quarto shows 'yawes' -- which is not
in the OED as a possible spelling for 'jaws'.
The poet is playing on the 'yaws' of a ship,
referring to the 'Tyger', one of the Queen's
major fighting vessels. Presumably,
Raleigh had 'borrowed' some of its cannon
for use on his own ships for their pirating
expeditions. There may have been some
argument that the 'Tyger' was over-
weighted with too much cannon, creating
excessive yaws.
Ships' cannon were commonly referred to
as its 'teeth', even if the first record of this
in the OED is from 1806:
'Tooth' f. pl. fig. A ship's guns. Naut. slang.
1806 J. Davis Post-Captain iv. 19 'She looks, sir, like a
whacking frigate.' 'Can you see her teeth?' 'Yes, sir;
she has a very heavy tire of teeth.'
4. And burne the long liv'd Phoenix in her blood,
The Phoenix is, of course, the Queen.
It was one of her standard emblems.
Burning 'in blood' though was not a
part of the usual imagery. The poet is
emphasising (a) the end of the Tudor
blood-line, and (b) the likelihood of an
early and violent death, given the
uncertainty over the succession
5. Make glad and sorry seasons as thou fleet'st,
As Raleigh's pirating fleets sailed the
oceans they created 'sorry sea-sons'.
The robbers (when they got away with
it) would be 'glad sea-sons'.
6. And do what ere thou wilt swift-footed time
The poet was thinking of a 'swift-footed
thief' again intending 'time' as 'mite' or 'item'.
7. To the wide world and all her fading sweets:
'Wide world' echoes Sonnet 107: "the
prophetic soul /Of the wide world . . ."
and likewise refers to Raleigh's imperial
and colonising ambitions. The poet saw
Raleigh, and similar-minded courtiers,
doing much the same as the Spaniards
had in Mexico and Peru. He also shows
here his pessimism for the future. He
did not like 'modernism', nor the growth
of the narrow-minded , puritanical and
greedy middle-classes.
8. But I forbid thee one most hainous crime,
It almost went without saying that Raleigh,
Drake, Frobisher and others committed
plenty of heinous crimes.
9. O carve not with thy howers my loves faire brow,
As ever, 'howers' puns on 'whores' --
here it is intended in a generally abusive
sense, much like 'cunts' or 'bastards'.
The 'brow' to which the poet is referring
is between his Mistress's legs.
10. Nor draw noe lines there with thine antique pen,
The 'antique pen' is Raleigh's penis, and
'lines' puns on 'loins' and on 'lines of
descent'. Oxford is not (I think) serious
in these sentiments. The romantic aspect
of his jealousy is pretence. The Queen is
supposed to be still immensely sexually
attractive to all her courtiers, and Raleigh's
supposed aim is to bed her.
11. Him in thy course untainted doe allow,
The 'him' is the hoped-for heir -- although
Oxford is known to have been in favour
of the Alencon match, by this stage few
thought it a serious prospect. Were
Raleigh thought to have sexual relations
with the Queen, this hoped-for child (of
Alencon) would be tainted with doubts
of bastardy.
12. For beauties patterne to succeding men.
'Beauty' is, as ever, the Queen. Her son
will pass on her pattern to succeeding
(male) monarchs.
13. Yet doe thy worst ould Time dispight thy wrong,
The closing couplet does not seem to
say much. The poet has virtually given
up all hope of an heir to the throne.
14. My love shall in my verse ever live young.
The metrical weakness of the last line is
often remarked upon. I suggest that the
poet intended a play on:
"My love shall in my versefyer live young".
i.e.
"My love shall in my versifier live young"
He had low opinion of Raleigh's poetry,
and he strongly deprecated the Queen's
infatuation with this handsome, young,
low-born courtier.
Paul.
LynnE
"Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiut...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote in message
news:0gD0d.27046$Z14....@news.indigo.ie...
You haven't got the first clue about how to interpret a poem. You
continually give explanations for certain bits while leaving other bits out
entirely. You say the Queen represents Time (which I can faintly
appreciate), but then say she is the Phoenix, which CANNOT be right because
then the Queen would be destroying the Queen. Besides, a symbol for
something or someone should remain the same throughout the sonnet (or group
of sonnets) or it is too confusing to readers. Time has been mentioned quite
a bit during these last few sonnets. Does it always represent the Queen?
That seems unlikely, as in most of the other sonnets Time appears to be a
threat to the addressee, who you also say is the Queen.
You apparently take no notice of pronouns unless it suits you. In your
exegesis the Queen is both "you" and "her." And "you" changes from the Queen
to Raleigh. Impossible. No one would ever get the shift.
"Him" is CLEARLY the poet's love. The poet spells it out for us. As I wrote
in an earlier post:
"The addressee is Time. The love of
the poet is clearly a MAN:
O carve not with thy (this refers to TIME) hours my LOVE'S fair brow
Nor draw no lines there with thine antic pen,
HIM in thy course untainted do allow
For beauty's pattern to succeeding MEN."
It CANNOT be a woman. What is more, it certainly can't be that woman's
offspring, if she is the beloved, as you constantly say in your exegeses.
That's just a mess.
You give no good reason for dating the sonnet to 1581. You give no
acceptable reason for dragging Raleigh OR his penis OR others such as
Frobisher into it. Saying that "Raleigh, Drake, Frobisher and others
committed plenty of heinous crimes" is ludicrous, as, even if they did,
hundreds of others did too.
The thought that "Tyger" might be both the animal and a ship belonging to
Elizabeth, however, is interesting. I had also noticed the word yawes and
the word certainly could be representing both yaws and jaws, making the
whole line a very clever play on words. The ship The Tyger ran aground in
1585, which is a much more likely explanation of the line than anything I
can find happening to The Tyger in 1581 or before. I'm wondering if there
might be a reference to the ill-fated Roanoke colony here. Both The Tyger
and The Lyon (look at line 1 again) were ships that travelled there. Perhaps
The Phoenix was too, although I can't find a ref to it. There were, however,
"Two pinnaces, 20-30 tuns each, names unknown, 'for speedie seruices.'" This
interpretation makes perfect sense of the earth eating her brood, too, as
the colonists all disappeared.
Regards,
Lynne
>
>
> Paul.
>
>
>
Art Neuendorffer
LADY MACBETH: Here's the smell of the blood still:
all the perfumes of ARABIA
<<James I coronation: "then came a pageant, _Nova Felix ARABIA_,
representing England 'under the shape of ARABIA'.
addressed the King and, as he approached the pageant,
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.bibliomania.com//Reference/PhraseAndFable/index.html
<<PHOENIX said to live a certain number of years, when it makes
"If she be furnished with a mind so rare,
She is alone the ARABIAn bird."
Shakespeare: Cymbeline, 1.7.
PHOENIX Period or Cycle, generally supposed to be 500 years;
Tacitus tells us it was 250 years;
R. Stuart Poole that it was 1,460 Julian years,
like the Sothic Cycle; and Lipsius that it was 1,500 years.
---------------------------------------------------
<<The symbolism of the Lunar and Solar Deities is so inextricably mixed
up, that it is next to impossible to separate such glyphs as the EGG,
the lotus, and the "sacred" animals from each other. The ibis, for
instance, sacred to Isis, who is often represented with the head of that
bird, sacred also to Mercury or Thoth, because that god assumed its
veneration in Egypt. There were two kinds of ibises, Herodotus tells
black and white. The former is credited with fighting and exterminating
the winged SERPENTs which came every spring from ARABIA and infested the
country. The other was sacred to the moon, because the latter planet is
white and brilliant on her external side, dark and black on that side
which she never turns to the earth. Moreover, the ibis kills land
SERPENTs, and makes the most terrible havoc amongst the EGGs of the
crocodile, and thus saves Egypt from having the NILE infested by those
horrible Saurians. The bird is credited with doing so in the moonlight,
and thus being helped by Isis, as the moon, her sidereal symbol. But the
nearer esoteric truth underlying these popula myths is, that Hermes, as
shown by ABENephius (De cultu gypt.), watched under the form of that
bird over the Egyptians, and taught them the occult arts and sciences.
This means simply that the ibis religiosa had and has "magical"
properties in common with many other birds, the albatross
pre-eminently, and the mythical white SWAN,
the SWAN of Eternity or TIME, the KALAHANSA.
And make the earth deuoure her owne sweet brood,
Plucke the keene teeth from the fierce Tygers yawes,
Make glad and sorry seasons as thou fleet'st,
To the wide world and all her fading sweets:
O carue not with thy howers my loues faire brow,
Nor draw noe lines there with thine antique pen,
Him in thy course vntainted doe allow,
For beauties patterne to succeding men.
My loue shall in my verse EUER liue young.
---------------------------------------------------
Be where you list, your charter is so strong
That you yourself may privilege your TIME
To what you will; to you it doth belong
Yourself to pardon of self-doing CRIME.
---------------------------------------------------
For if you were by my unkindness shaken
As I by yours, you've pass'd a hell of TIME,
And I, a tyrant, have no leisure taken
To weigh how once I suffered in your CRIME.
---------------------------------------------------
To this I witness call the fools of TIME,
Which die for goodness, who have lived for CRIME.
Davenant or *d'Avenant, Sir William (1606 - 1668) Poet & playwright,
born in Oxford, Oxfordshire, SC England, UK. His father kept the
Crown at Oxford, at which Shakespeare used to stop between London and
Stratford - hence the rumour that he was Shakespeare's illegitimate son.
In 1628 he took to writing for the stage, his most successful work
being The Wits (1636). In 1638, he became Poet Laureate, and
was later manager of the DRURY Lane (PHOENIX) Theatre.
<<EVERy evening at lighting up o'clock sharp and
until further notice in FEENICHTS PLAYHOUSE.>> -- FW
----------------------------------------------------
The PHOENIX and The Turtle
Here the anthem doth commence:
Love and constancy is dead;
PHOENIX and the turtle fled
In a mutual flame from hence.
Whereupon it made this threne
To the PHOENIX and the dove,
Co-supremes and stars of love,
As chorus to their tragic scene.
--------------------------------------------------------
King Henry VI, Part i Act 4, Scene 7
LUCY I'll bear them hence; but from their ashes shall be rear'd
A PHOENIX that shall make all France afeard.
-------------------------------------------------------------
King Henry VI, Part iii Act 1, Scene 4
YORK My ashes, as the PHOENIX, may bring forth
A bird that will revenge upon you all:
And in that hope I throw mine eyes to heaven,
Scorning whate'er you can afflict me with.
--------------------------------------------------------
King Henry VIII Act 5, Scene 5
CRANMER God shall be truly known; and those about her
From her shall read the perfect ways of honour,
And by those claim their greatness, not by blood.
Nor shall this peace sleep with her: but as when
The bird of wonder dies, the maiden PHOENIX,
Her ashes new create another HEIR,
As great in admiration as herself;
--------------------------------------------------------
The Comedy of Errors Act 1, Scene 2
DROMIO OF EPHESUS My charge was but to fetch you from the mart
Home to your house, the PHOENIX, sir, to dinner:
My mistress and her sister stays for you.
DROMIO OF EPHESUS Your worship's wife, my mistress at the PHOENIX;
Act 2, Scene 2
OF SYRACUSE My house was at the PHOENIX? Wast thou mad,
That thus so madly thou didst answer me?
--------------------------------------------------------
As You Like It Act 4, Scene 3
ROSALIND Were man as rare as PHOENIX. 'Od's my will!
-------------------------------------------------------
Twelfth Night Act 5, Scene 1
First Officer Orsino, this is that Antonio
That took the PHOENIX and her fraught from Candy;
--------------------------------------------------------
All's Well That Ends Well Act 1, Scene 1
HELENA A mother and a mistress and a friend,
A PHOENIX, captain and an enemy,
--------------------------------------------------------
Timon of Athens Act 2, Scene 1
Senator Put on a most importunate aspect,
A visage of demand; for, I do fear,
When every feather sticks in his own wing,
Lord Timon will be left a naked gull,
Which flashes now a PHOENIX.
---------------------------------------------------
A Lover's Complaint Stanza 14
'Small show of man was yet upon his chin;
His PHOENIX down began but to appear
Like unshorn velvet on that termless skin
Whose bare out-bragg'd the web it seem'd to wear:
Yet show'd his visage by that cost more dear;
And nice affections wavering stood in doubt
If best were as it was, or best without.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
PEACHam: << our PHOEN-IX, the noble Sir Philip Sidney>>
Check out Philip/Mary Sydney's "STORGe" PHEON azure crest:
http://www.renaissance.dm.net/heraldry/blazons3.html
<<PHEON, n. A bearing representing the head of a dart or javelin,
with long barbs which are engrailed on the inner edge.>>
T O T H E [O.] N L I E B probabilities:
_ E G E T T [E.] R O F T H
__ E S E I N [S.] V I N G S __ TIBIAL: 1 in 11,600
O N N E T [S.] M r W H A EMEPH: 1 in 300
__ L H A P ___ I N E S ___ GROTS: 1 in 199
___ |L] N D T [P] A T E [S| ___ PHEON: 1 in 127
____ [E|A] T I [H] P R [T|E]
- R___[N|I] Y [E] V [O|M] I
S E__ [D|B] [O] [R|E] V E
-- R L I__ [V|I][N][G|P] O E [T]
W I S H__ [E||T||H] T H [E] _ [W]
E L L W I__ [S] H I--[N] G - [A]
D V E N T_ [U] R- [E]--R I - [N]
S E T T I___ [N] [G] F O R - [T]
<<The PHOENIX was the Egyptian symbol for the rising SUN and
the hieroglyph for the SUN. In Chrsitian symbolism the PHOENIX
represents resurrection & immortality.>> - New Century Handbook
Nostrodamus - Prophecies
8-27 deserted except for the brave one and his GENET.
The writing of the PHOENIX Emperor,
seen by him which is (shown) to no other.
"Let the bird of loudest lay,
On the sole ARABIAn tree,"
The Tempest Act 3, Scene 3
SEBASTIAN A living drollery. Now I will believe
That there are unicorns, that in ARABIA
There is one tree, the PHOENIX' throne, one PHOENIX
At this hour reigning there.
JOAN LA PUCELLE Here is a silly stately style indeed!
Him that thou magnifiest with all these titles
Stinking and fly-blown lies here at our feet.
52+ weeks in a year.
52 lines in _The PHOENIX and the Turtle_ (sans Threnos)
52 names of the [26] Principall Actors
52: age of Mithraic *solar* deity William Shakespeare
52 English words in Stratford Monument EPITAPH
--------------------------------------------------------------
BloomsDay of James Joyce's Ulysses :
THURSday June 16, 1904 exactly 301 (52 week "years")
after Oxford's Solstice death THURSday June 24, 1604
Alexander SELKIRK was found in the desert island of Juan
Fernandez, where he had been stranded by Capt. Stradling.
He remained on the island 52 months,
before being rescued by Captain Rogers.
EGYPTIAN MYTHOLOGY - BENU
In ancient Egyptian mythology she is associated with the SUN god.
She is called "BENU" / "the Ascending One".
<<The BENNU bird was an imaginary bird resembling a heron. It had a two
long feathers on the crest of it's head and was often crowned with the
Atef crown of Osiris (the White Crown with two ostrich plumes on either
side) or with the disk of the SUN. This name apparently was being
associated during the earlier periods of Egyptian history with various
birds: the crane, the heron, the stork or the flamingo. Later it was
more clearly identified with the heron. She was a kind of primordial
god, which built its nest on the WILLOW which is on the top of the
primordial hill.
The BENNU was the sacred bird of Heliopolis. BENNU probably derives from
the word weben, meaning "rise" or "shine." The BENNU was associated with
the SUN and represented the ba or soul of the SUN god, Re. In the Late
Period, the hieroglyph of the bird was used to represent this deity
directly. As a symbol of the rising and setting SUN, the BENNU was also
the lord of the royal jubilee. The BENNU was also associated with the
inundation of the NILE and of the creation. Standing alone on isolated
rocks of islands of high ground during the floods the heron represented
the first life to appear on the primeval mound which rose from the
watery chaos at the first creation. This mound was called the BEN-BEN.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The BENNU was associated with the inundation of the NILE
and of creation.
The BENNU bird is said to arise
'at dawn from the waters of the NILE'.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
<= 19 =>
__ FTHESE__- [I] nS - U<I>N (G) ____ SONNET
__ SMrWha_- [L] LH [a] P <P> I__ [N] __ESSEA
__ NDthat____[E] T _ [E|r] - N <I> T__ [I] E<P>ROM
__ ISEDB Y O u ___ [R|e] V <E> R [L]<I> VING
<P>OEtW I s h _____ [E|t] _ H [T] H _ [E] WELLW
<I>ShIN-(G)a _____ [d V e] N [T] u ______ ReRINS
<E>tTIN (G)fort----_______ H [T] t
July 16, 622 NILE inundation
------------------------------------------------------------------
Eqyptians of the Pyramidic noticed that the beginning of
the NILE inundation occurred annually about July 16th
with the heliacal (i.e., with the SUN) rising of Sirius.
(The Muslim lunar calendar starts with Mohammed's journey
from Mecca to Medina on July 16, 622.
1001 SOLAR years later the First Folio was published.)
Two ARABIAn eclipses occurred on eve of RAMadan,
1001 A.H. & 1002 A.H., respectively:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
At about 1 PM on May 30, 1593 (Gregorian) London experienced a
partial eclipse of the SUN while VENUS was in conjunction with SATURN.
The path of the total eclipse started in South America, passed over
the Sahara and ended in ARABIA. Barely a year later (May 20, 1594
{Gregorian}) another total eclipse rose (PHOENIX like) out
of ARABIA (between Mecca to Medina) and passed over the
(former) empires of Tamerlane and Nebuchadnezzar.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GRIFFIN, Griffon or GRYPHON
<<A hybrid monster with the head and talons of an Eagle and the body of
a Lion. Herodotus says it lives in the mountains of India and builds its
nest out of gold; later, in the Middle Ages, Sir John Mandeville said
it abounded in Bacharia. It resembles the winged Bull of Assyria,
the Sphinx of Egypt, the Simurgh of Persia, the Garuda of India, and
the Roc of ARABIA in that it was so huge it could BLOT out the SUN.>>
----------------------------------------------------------------
INVESTIGATION ON THE ORIGINS OF THE BENBEN STONE:
Was It An Iron Meteorite? By Robert G. Bauval
Published in Discussions in Egyptology, Volume 14, 1989
<<It is also often argued that the PHOENIX,
representative of the SUN-god's self-creating power (Breasted, p.72).
But the PHOENIX's cosmic identification was by no means exclusive to the
SUN. In the Middle Kingdom, for example, the PHOENIX was also said to be
the soul of Osiris, as well as the moon and sometimes the 'morning star'
i.e. Venus (Rundle Clark, p.246-9). The PHOENIX thus was symbolic of the
rebirth at dawn not only of the SUN-god but of cosmic beings in general.
In The Book Of The Dead, Chapter 83 entitled 'Spell For Becoming The
PHOENIX (BENNU) Bird', the PHOENIX claims: "I am the seed corn of every
god..." (Rundle Clark, p.249). His power of self-creation clearly
symbolised the emerging (rebirth) of celestial bodies (gods) at dawn
from the underworld, the tenebrous land of the dead below the horizon.
The prevailing theory on the design of monumental true pyramids is
that their shape was modelled on the BENBEN: a conical-shaped stone
venerated in the 'Mansion Of The PHOENIX' at Heliopolis (pyr. 1652). The
'Mansion Of The PHOENIX' was presumably within the precinct of the Great
SUN Temple of Heliopolis, but there is evidence, however, that the
BENBEN was worshipped there well before the SUN cult of Ra (Baines,
Orientalia 39, 1979, p.391). The stone was probably originally
associated to Atum, a much older deity who was mainly identified with
the act of Creation via his masturbation (Baines, ibid., p.391, fn.2).
Atum was later assimilated to Ra, as Ra-Atum. Though it is often
recognised that the older, step pyramid design is the product of a
predominant star cult (Edwards, p.292; Badawy, p.205), it is
nevertheless widely advocated that the 'true pyramid' design which
succeeded the 'stepped pyramid' design reflects the solar ideas induced
by the powerful SUN cult favoured in the Pyramid Age. The solar ideas
supposedly dominated the stellar and Osirian cults from the 4th Dynasty,
when the true pyramid design was introduced (Breasted, pp.101-2). Many
have therefore claimed that the BENBEN stone was symbolic of the SUN.
James H. Breasted, an instigator of such claims, noted the similarity of
the word 'BENBEN' with the word 'BENBENet' (the pyramid-shaped apex
of an obelisk) and accordingly declared that "an obelisk is simply a
pyramid upon a lofty base which has become a shaft." Breasted also
speculated that because "the obelisk, as is commonly known, is a symbol
sacred to the SUN-god...[it followed that] the king was buried under the
very symbol of the SUN-god which stood in the holy of holies in the
SUN-temple at Heliopolis" (Breasted, pp.70-3).
An example of stone-worship is the much venerated blackstone kept
in the Ka'aba shrine in Mecca, Western Saudi ARABIA, which is
thought by geologists to be a meteorite recovered in antiquity
(A further discussion on sacred meteorites will be found in
"The Fetish Of Ammon and Alexander The Great:
an investigation on the meteoritic connection"). >>
The BENNU was also considered a manifestation of the resurrected
Osiris and the bird was often shown perched in his sacred WILLOW tree.
----------------------------------------------------------------
[Hamlet (Folio) 4.7]
Queen. There is a WILLOW growes aslant a Brooke,
That shewes his hore leaues in the glassie streame:
There with fantasticke Garlands did she come,
Of Crow-flowers, Nettles, Daysies, and long Purples,
That liberall Shepheards giue a grosser name;
But our cold Maids doe Dead Mens Fingers call them:
There on the pendant boughes, her Coronet weeds
CLAMBRING TO HANG, AN ENVIOUS SLIVER BROKE,
____ is *extremely* difficult to find the 28 letters of a
________--------- L
________--------- E
________--------- N
________--------- K
________--------- C
________--------- N
________--------- I
________--------- R
________--------- B
________--------- S
________--------- A
________--------- M
________--------- O
________--------- H
________--------- T
Estimated probability of finding the
"VERONILVERIUS/THOMAS BRINCKNELL" cross
in any given string of:
------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated probability of finding two such strings
IN A SINGLE ACT (i.e., IV) of Shakespeare :
http://www.religioustolerance.org/easter.htm
<<Easter Rabbit and EGGs: The symbols of the Norse Goddess Ostara
were the hare and the EGG. Both represented fertility. From these, we
have inherited the customs & symbols of the Easter EGG & Easter
rabbit. Dyed EGGs also formed part of the rituals of the Babylonian
mystery religions. EGGs "were sacred to many ancient civilizations &
formed an integral part of religious ceremonies in Egypt and the Orient.
Dyed EGGs were hung in Egyptian temples, and
the EGG was regarded as the emblem of regenerative life
proceeding from the mouth of the great Egyptian god.">>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/sd/sd1-2-06.htm
<<Ammon-Ra, the generator, is the secondary aspect of
the concealed deity but it is EMEPHT, the One, Supreme
Planetary principle, who blows the EGG out of his mouth,
and who is, therefore, Brahma. The shadow of the deity
of that which broods over and permeates the EGG with
its vivifying Spirit until the germ contained in it is ripe:
MYSTERY GOD WHOSE NAME WAS UNPRONOUNCEABLE.
It is PTAH, however, "he who opens,"
the opener of life and Death, who proceeds from the EGG
of the world to begin his dual work. (Book of Numbers.)
According to the Greeks, the PHANTOM form of the Chemis
(Chemi, Egypt) which floats on the ethereal waves of the
Empyrean Sphere, was called into being by Horus-Apollo,
the SUN god, who caused it to evolve out of the Mundane EGG.
In the Scandinavian Cosmogony, the Mundane EGG is again discovered in
the PHANTOM-germ of the Universe, which is represented as lying in the
GINNUNGAGAP -- the cup of illusion (Maya) the boundless and void abyss.
In this world's matrix, formerly a region of night & desolation,
NEBELHEIM (the mist-place, the nebular as it is called now, in the
astral light) dropped a RAY of cold light which oVERflowed this
cup and froze in it. Then the Invisible blew a scorching wind
which dissolved the frozen waters and cleared the mist.>>
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Stonehouse
<ew...@bcs.org.invalid> wrote:
> 19
>
>Devouring Time, blunt thou the lion's paws
Time that eats everything, go on, wear down the claws of the
lion
>And make the earth devour her own sweet brood,
and cause the dear children of earth to be buried in the
earth itself,
>Pluck the keen teeth from the fierce tiger's jaws
make the sharp teeth of the tiger fall out of its mouth
>And burn the long-lived phoenix in her blood; 4
and consume the phoenix, long though it lives, with the fire
that is its blood;
>Make glad and sorry seasons as thou fleetest
give rise to periods of alternate joy and sorrow as you run
onwards
>And do whate'er thou wilt, swift-footed Time
and do whatever you want, fast-moving Time,
>To the wide world and all her fading sweets;
to the great earth and all its transient good things;
>But I forbid thee one most heinous crime: 8
but there is one dreadful crime that I warn you off:
>O carve not with thy hours my love's fair brow
Oh, do not cut furrows of age into the beautiful forehead of
my love,
>Nor draw no lines there with thine antic pen,
do not draw grotesquely on it with your pen,
>Him in thy course untainted do allow
as you run on, leave him unspoilt
>For beauty's pattern to succeeding men. 12
as an example of beauty to the people of later ages.
> Yet do thy worst, old Time: despite thy wrong
But still, Time, do all you can, and in spite of your
malice
> My love shall in my verse ever live young. 14
the one I love will always be young in my poetry.
This is the first poem without an address in the second
person, except number 5 which is redeemed by number 6.
Superficially there is an incoherence. We would expect
"Time, do what you like, I have the means to defy you", but
that does not allow for lines 8-12. What we have instead is
"Time, do what you like – oh, but I can't permit you to do
this one thing – but it doesn't matter, do that too – I
still have the means to defy you."
The poem is written in pairs of lines, to be spoken
headlong, and I have punctuated accordingly. Editors
generally do not. Even those who recognise that the Quarto
punctuation is not original, still shrink from making up
their own minds. Down with pusillanimity!
Line 1, 'Devouring'. Ovid's 'tempus edax rerum' was part of
the language of the time.
Line 2. Katherine Duncan-Jones says 'The earth's consumption
of her own children was also a commonplace'. But what does
it mean to say the earth consumes her children? It means
(surely?) that they are buried in the earth – a sharper
point.
Line 4, 'in her blood'. Editors say 'alive' or 'in her
prime'. I leave the phoenix to the end because a lot of the
stuff about it is hardly on topic.
Line 5, 'glad and sorry'. Not necessarily summer and winter,
so far as I can see.
Line 10, 'antic pen'. It would be grotesque for such lines
to appear in such a face. This is the other meaning of
'antique', compared with 17.12.
Line 11, 'in thy course untainted' may be 'uninjured in your
tournament run'.
Line 14, 'My love' for the second time in this poem. I am
not sure of the meaning.
THE PHOENIX.
This bird first appears in Herodotus (2.73). He was shown
its picture in the temple of the Sun at Heliopolis. It seems
his guides went through their usual patter and were taken by
surprise at his acute cross-examination; they elaborated
desperately, 'saying what to me is incredible'. Later
writers, as so often, ignored his acuteness and incredulity
– hence he became known most unjustly as 'father of lies'.
Ovid, Metamorphoses 15.391-407, has a story much like what
Herodotus forced his guides into. The young bird buried its
father in the temple precinct.
Tacitus, Annals 6.28 has done some research of his own and
quotes various estimates of the length of the bird's life.
He has the young bird carrying its father to the altar of
the Sun, to be consumed by the sacrificial fire that burned
there. I have not seen the elder Pliny's Natural History,
but the Tacitus version is later; the younger Pliny's letter
(6.16) to Tacitus, telling how his uncle died in the
eruption of Vesuvius, was written as a contribution when
Tacitus was collecting material for the Annals.
So far, nothing to say the phoenix was female or that it
combusted spontaneously. There is an elegiac poem called
'Phoenix' of 170 lines sometimes ascribed to Lactantius
(Christian apologist of the 3rd-4th century AD). That may be
the beginning of these ideas – I may be able to see it next
week. But certainly they were the prevailing ideas in
Shakespeare's time.
So it would be natural to say that the red blood of the
phoenix was actually red fire, kept in its place over a long
lifetime but finally bursting out and consuming the whole. I
find this has much more point as a meaning for the phrase in
line 4.
Igor Sklar
> Shakespeare wrote...
> > And burn the long-lived phoenix in her blood; 4
>
>
> This bird first appears in Herodotus (2.73). He was shown
> its picture in the temple of the Sun at Heliopolis.
Pheonix was actually the Egyptian symbol of Time. As there were no
bissextiles, each four years they had an unaccounted day and every
1460 years they had a spare year which had to be added to the
chronicles. Then there was a great celebration at the Temple of Sun in
Heliopolis, where an eagle with painted wings was burned in his nest
made of palm branches. For Egyptians the sun rose in Arabia, hence the
idea that the Phoenix lived in that land. /As remembered from Graves'
"White Goddess"/
For early Christians like Lactantius Phoenix was also a symbol, but
that of resurrection and Christ.
regards
Art Neuendorffer
> THE PHOENIX.
>
> This bird first appears in Herodotus (2.73).
> its picture in the temple of the Sun at Heliopolis. It seems
> his guides went through their usual patter and were taken by
> surprise at his acute cross-examination; they elaborated
> desperately, 'saying what to me is incredible'. Later
> writers, as so often, ignored his acuteness and incredulity
> Ovid, Metamorphoses 15.391-407, has a story much like what
> Herodotus forced his guides into. The young bird buried its
> father in the temple precinct.
>
> Tacitus, Annals 6.28 has done some research of his own and
> quotes various estimates of the length of the bird's life.
> He has the young bird carrying its father to the altar of
> the Sun, to be consumed by the sacrificial fire that burned
> there. I have not seen the elder Pliny's Natural History,
> but the Tacitus version is later; the younger Pliny's letter
> (6.16) to Tacitus, telling how his uncle died in the
> eruption of Vesuvius, was written as a contribution when
> Tacitus was collecting material for the Annals.
>
> So far, nothing to say the phoenix was female or that it
> combusted spontaneously. There is an elegiac poem called
> 'Phoenix' of 170 lines sometimes ascribed to Lactantius
> (Christian apologist of the 3rd-4th century AD). That may be
> week. But certainly they were the prevailing ideas in
> Shakespeare's time.
>
> So it would be natural to say that the red blood of the
> phoenix was actually red fire, kept in its place over a long
> lifetime but finally bursting out and consuming the whole. I
> find this has much more point as a meaning for the phrase in
> line 4.
Art Neuendorffer
> > and consume the phoenix, long though it lives,
> > with the fire that is its blood; <snip>
> > This bird first appears in Herodotus (2.73). He was shown
> > its picture in the temple of the Sun at Heliopolis.
> Pheonix was actually the Egyptian symbol of Time. As there were no
> bissextiles, each four years they had an unaccounted day and every
> 1460 years they had a spare year which had to be added to the
> chronicles. Then there was a great celebration at the Temple of Sun in
> Heliopolis, where an eagle with painted wings was burned in his nest
> made of palm branches. For Egyptians the sun rose in Arabia, hence the
> idea that the Phoenix lived in that land. /As remembered from Graves'
> "White Goddess"/
>
> For early Christians like Lactantius Phoenix was also a symbol,
> but that of resurrection and Christ.
14600 - 2 days = 25 Venus synods:
14600 + 10 days = 40 earth years
Sonnet 2
[W]hen 40 winters shall besiege thy brow,
[A]nd dig deep trenches in thy beauty's field,
[T]hy youth's proud livery, so gaz'd on now,
------------------------------------------------------------------
Biblical kings often reigned for 40 years
(or waited 40 years before they took some important step)
Israelites wandered after the Exodus for 40 years
------------------------------------------------------------
(146 - 1) mercury synods ~ (146 - 100) earth years
------------------------------------------------------------
(LUCIFER) Sonnet 146
POore soule the center of my sinfull earth,
My sinfull earth these rebbell powres that thee array,
Why dost thou pine within and suffer dearth
Painting thy outward walls so costlie gay?
------------------------------------------------------------
Five 8 year cycle of a Venus Synodic Pentagram
with the star points separated by 144 degrees ~ 146 days.
The Sonnets dedications contains 144 letters plus
two initials ("T.T.") for a total of 146 Letters
Of these 145 (= 5 x 29) are Capital Letters
O N L I E.
B E G E T
T E R.O F.
T H E S E.
I N S V I
N G.S O N
N E T S Mr
_____ A L L.
______ P P I
A H*A* H {H}A
| _______ *S* _____ S
| _________ *T* _____ T
| ___N E _____ *E* _____ E?
__ [29] _ A N D
| A T.E T
| R N I T I
| E P R O M
v I S E D.B
Y.O V R.E
V E R-L I
V I N G.P
O E T.W I
S H E T H.
T H E.W E
L L-W I S
H I N G.A
D V E N T
V R E R I
N.S E T T
I N G.F O
R T H.T.T.
"{H}aste maketh Waste."
_Sylvie and Bruno_ Lewis Carroll
Chap. 18, QUEER Street, Number Forty
'First accumulate a mass of Facts: and then construct a Theory.'
"How perfectly isochronous!" the Professor exclaimed with enthusiasm.
"Yet even pendulums," the good-natured young soldier observed, as he
carefully released his hand from Bruno's grasp, "are not a joy for EVER!
Come, that's enough for one bout, little man!' Next time we meet,
"We'll find it!" cried Bruno eagerly, as they dragged the Professor away.
"We are much indebted to you!" the Professor said,
"Don't mention it!" replied the officer,
"What number did you say!" the Professor called from the distance.
The officer made a trumpet of his two hands. "Forty!" he shouted in
stentorian tones. "And not piano, by any means!" he added to himself.
"What a lovely evening!" I said, joining him as he passed me.
"Lovely indeed," he said. "Where did you come from?
"I'm strolling your way," I said;
"Have a cigar?"
"Thanks: I'm not a smoker."
"Is there a Lunatic Asylum near here?"
"Not that I know of."
"Thought there might be. Met a lunatic just now.
And so, in friendly chat, we took our homeward ways,
Left to myself, I felt the 'eerie' feeling rush OVER me again, and saw,
standing at the door of Number Forty, the three figures I knew so well.
"Then it's the wrong house?" Bruno was saying.
"No, no! It's the right house," the Professor cheerfully replied:
It was OVER. The street was empty,
-------------------------------------------------------------
Buffalo
> Devouring Time, blunt thou the lion's paws
> And make the earth devour her own sweet brood,
Okay. Time devours her own children.
> Pluck the keen teeth from the fierce tiger's jaws
> And burn the long-lived phoenix in her blood; 4
I don't know what he's doing here. The point about the Phoenix is that it
continually renews itself, being reborn in the fire. So I suppose it's a
metaphor for the passage of time - but where blood comes into it I couldn't
say.
> Make glad and sorry seasons as thou fleetest
Make summer upon winter and winter upon summer, year after year.
> And do whate'er thou wilt, swift-footed Time
> To the wide world and all her fading sweets;
A pair of nothing lines. Addressing Time, when he's already addressed Time
five lines before, gives the impression that he's freewheeling here. Things
not helped by the automatic adjective, "wide", attached to "world". It's
been its automatic adjective for several centuries.
> But I forbid thee one most heinous crime: 8
> O carve not with thy hours my love's fair brow
"Hours" and "carve" don't go too well together. It looks like a bit of
metrical Polyfilla to me, a quick job to make the line scan.
> Nor draw no lines there with thine antic pen,
Nor not never don't draw no lines.
> Him in thy course untainted do allow
> For beauty's pattern to succeeding men. 12
Haven't a clue. I can't make sense of it grammatically, and I can't really
divine its intended meaning. Mr X doesn't need to be untainted to pass his
pattern to succeeding men. And what does "for" connect with? Is it "allow
for" - or "him allow" - or "him allow for"?
> Yet do thy worst, old Time: despite thy wrong
> My love shall in my verse ever live young. 14
Addresses Time again. First he was "devouring Time", then he was
"swift-footed Time", now he's "old Time". Contradicts his injunction to Time
of five lines before. Don't please do this....Oh, all right, go ahead. Last
line doesn't scan, stubbing its toe in a metrical pothole.
I look forward to somebody's analysis that makes something good out of this.
I can't do it. I can only assume Will wrote it after being out on the razzle
with Jonson.
Buffalo
LynnE
----- Original Message -----
From: "Buffalo" <none...@here.com>
Newsgroups: humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare
Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2004 4:29 PM
Subject: Re: Sonnet 19
>
> > Devouring Time, blunt thou the lion's paws
> > And make the earth devour her own sweet brood,
>
> Okay. Time devours her own children.
Nope. Time makes the earth eat her own children. It's a bit different, and
seems to be suggesting burial.
>
> > Pluck the keen teeth from the fierce tiger's jaws
> > And burn the long-lived phoenix in her blood; 4
>
> I don't know what he's doing here. The point about the Phoenix is that it
> continually renews itself, being reborn in the fire. So I suppose it's a
> metaphor for the passage of time - but where blood comes into it I
couldn't
> say.
Blood--red flames? Did Art already say this? Also wonder, as Paul suggested,
if it's a reference to Elizabeth, as her emblem was the Phoenix, and went
with her motto "ever the same," which we'll come across in a later sonnet.
>
> > Make glad and sorry seasons as thou fleetest
>
> Make summer upon winter and winter upon summer, year after year.
Or, make good and bad seasons...some filled with joy, some with pain.
>
> > And do whate'er thou wilt, swift-footed Time
> > To the wide world and all her fading sweets;
>
> A pair of nothing lines. Addressing Time, when he's already addressed Time
> five lines before, gives the impression that he's freewheeling here.
Things
> not helped by the automatic adjective, "wide", attached to "world". It's
> been its automatic adjective for several centuries.
>
> > But I forbid thee one most heinous crime: 8
> > O carve not with thy hours my love's fair brow
>
> "Hours" and "carve" don't go too well together. It looks like a bit of
> metrical Polyfilla to me, a quick job to make the line scan.
Don't agree. Buff. The poet exhorts Time not to carve with his hours
(passage of time) the brow of the lover, meaning not to give him wrinkles or
lines as he ages.
>
> > Nor draw no lines there with thine antic pen,
>
> Nor not never don't draw no lines.
I think this was more acceptable in Elizabethan times, and I like the
nor...no alliteration.
>
> > Him in thy course untainted do allow
> > For beauty's pattern to succeeding men. 12
>
> Haven't a clue. I can't make sense of it grammatically, and I can't really
> divine its intended meaning. Mr X doesn't need to be untainted to pass his
> pattern to succeeding men. And what does "for" connect with? Is it "allow
> for" - or "him allow" - or "him allow for"?
It made sense to me right away, but now I'm wondering if I was reading it
too simplistically: "Time, as you pass, allow my love to remain unchanged,
so that he can be an example of beauty to all men who follow him." I wonder
if there isn't an echo of procreation here too, as in the marriage sonnets.
>
>
> > Yet do thy worst, old Time: despite thy wrong
> > My love shall in my verse ever live young. 14
>
> Addresses Time again. First he was "devouring Time", then he was
> "swift-footed Time", now he's "old Time". Contradicts his injunction to
Time
> of five lines before.
>Don't please do this....Oh, all right, go ahead.
Right, agree. "Let me finish this sonnet, for God's sake, so I can get on
with writing number 20."
>Last
> line doesn't scan, stubbing its toe in a metrical pothole.
That's because it's supposed to be
My love shall in my verse E Ver(e) live young. ;)
>
> I look forward to somebody's analysis that makes something good out of
this.
> I can't do it. I can only assume Will wrote it after being out on the
razzle
> with Jonson.
I thought you were the drinker.
Regards,
Lynne
>
> Buffalo
>
>
>
>
BCD
>
> Deuouring time blunt thou the Lyons pawes,
> And make the earth deuoure her owne sweet brood,
> Plucke the keene teeth from the fierce Tygers yawes,
> And burne the long liu'd Phćnix in her blood,
> Make glad and sorry seasons as thou fleet'st,
> And do what ere thou wilt swift-footed time
> To the wide world and all her fading sweets:
> But I forbid thee one most hainous crime,
> O carue not with thy howers my loues faire brow,
> Nor draw noe lines there with thine antique pen,
> Him in thy course vntainted doe allow,
> For beauties patterne to succeding men.
> Yet doe thy worst ould Time dispight thy wrong,
> My loue shall in my verse euer liue young.
***It never fails to astonish me how rational clear-thinking folk such
as the inmates of hlas can so thoroughly miss the obvious meaning of
the simplest of passages in Shakespeare. Sonnet 19 is quite clearly a
horticultural poem in which the gardener-speaker is telling the
inhabitants of his herb garden how to behave. Before I provide a
line-by-line analysis, however, I should note that it will be objected
by higglers and the self-interested that, in one or two spots, we have
recourse to facts which are otherwise unrecorded. And yett, I aske
you, doth not the truest, most patent fact in human doings have a sole
first incident in its history of recordings? And, further, these
matters hath been sett down for all to see and comment upon for years,
nay centuries, with no objection whatsoe'er having been stated in all
that time; how can any reasonable person deny the acquiescence of some
400 years of human experience? But let us proceed to the text:
> Deuouring time blunt thou the Lyons pawes,
***"Quickly-spreading Thyme, obscure the gap in the row" [notes: the
herb "Thyme" is spelt "time" in the "Table of the English Names" in
Parkinson's *Paradisi in Sole* of 1629; "Lyon's pawes" is of course
"line's pause," referring to said gap in the row of herbs in the
garden; our jocular bard also punningly looks at the pause of the
poetic line which follows the words "Lyons pawes"; any connection with
the jungle feline is, of course, ridiculous--when, I ask you, has a
real lion ever been found in an herb garden?]
> And make the earth deuoure her owne sweet brood,
***"And make the soil subsist on what it itself has produced" [notes:
the obvious meaning of this line requires no further comment]
> Plucke the keene teeth from the fierce Tygers yawes,
***"Neutralize the fierce spread of the Tigridia clump" [notes: again,
the meaning is obvious]
> And burne the long liu'd Phćnix in her blood,
***"And destroy the [evil effects of the] date palm" [notes: the date
palm, Phoenix dactylifera, is a long-lived tree which casts such shade
and draws up such an amount of water from the soil that it is
difficult to get other plants to grow nearby; the gardener proposes to
accomplish destroying the palm by relying on an otherwise unrecorded
medicinal property of Thyme, to cause the blood--or sap, as the case
may be--to "burn"]
> Make glad and sorry seasons as thou fleet'st,
***"Bring happiness or sadness to the [horticultural] seasons as you
go along,"
> And do what ere thou wilt swift-footed time
***"Do just as you will, quickly-spreading Thyme [notes:
paradoxically, the gardener realizes that he and his garden are in the
power of Thyme just as the garden's Thyme is in his power as gardener;
several garden clubs have argued that this passage refers to a
subvariety of Thyme, the supposed var. 'foliis-chaetura', which has
leaves resembling the feet of the Chimney-Swift. Many authorities have
pointed this out as an absurdity, as no such Swift-leafed Thyme
exists; but critics, especially numerous among the anti-Strat
fraternity, answer that such a plant may have existed and have become
extinct, and that indeed the mere possibility gives it sufficient
existence]
> To the wide world and all her fading sweets:
***[notes: the obvious meaning of this line requires no paraphrase;
"fading sweets" would refer to flowers past their prime]
> But I forbid thee one most hainous crime,
***[notes: again, the meaning is obvious--we lament that some sow
complexity where simplicity should reign]
> O carue not with thy howers my loues faire brow,
***"Oh, carve not with thy hoe-ers my lovage's beautifully-growing row
of specimens" [notes: it will be seen here that the traditional line 9
has been spoiled by a bungling performance by the original typesetter:
"faire brow" should be "faired row"; the herb Lovage is, of course,
Levisticum officinale; in such an obviously horticultual poem, it
would be completely madcap to fail to see that "howers" refers to
"things that hoe" (i.e., things that destroy or inhibit growth, as a
too-spreading clump of Thyme might do)]
> Nor draw noe lines there with thine antique pen,
***"Nor, with your antic pen, draw lines there" [notes: that is,
addressing Thyme still, "please observe the plan and straight lines of
the garden, and refrain from drawing wild lines of growth with your
lunatical pen"]
> Him in thy course vntainted doe allow,
***"Please keep deer out of the garden" [notes: "Him," i.e., "it,"
obviously refers to the possible intereference of "drawing wild lines"
which was featured in the previous line; "thy course" is "running,"
that is, the "quick spread" of the Thyme clump; and the "vntainted
doe" would be a virgin she-deer. The line doubtless refers to now-lost
folklore about virgin does being attracted to ("allow"-ed in to) rows
of Thyme; deer are, as all gardeners know, undesirable in the garden
due to their habit of eating or otherwise destroying the plants]
> For beauties patterne to succeding men.
***"Because that will spoil my nice neatly-designed rows of herbs for
the later visitors to the garden." [notes: another line which has
clear meaning]
> Yet doe thy worst ould Time dispight thy wrong,
***"Yet, doe, ill-behaved as the Thyme might be, despite thy crime"
[notes: the Poet now addresses the Untainted Doe, and refers to a
theoretical "wrong" of spoiling the garden]
> My loue shall in my verse euer liue young.
***"My clumps of Lovage shall, in my poems, always be fresh and
tender." [notes: the Poet, obviously quite a fan of Lovage, defies the
antic Thyme and destructive Untainted Doe in declaring that his poetic
specimens of it are beyond their ability to hurt. This is a wonderful
last line, as no gardener, particularly not one who grows Lovage, can
read such a declaration without a rush of deeply-felt emotion]
***Finally, I must challenge the ingenioso Don Paul to provide what he
has not provided before, a line-by-line explication of this, or any,
sonnet at least as lucid as the above.
Best Wishes,
--BCD
Web Site: http://www.csulb.edu/~odinthor
Visit unknown Los Angeles: http://www.csulb.edu/~odinthor/socal1.html
Buffalo
"LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:qQJ0d.45476$Nd6.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Buffalo" <none...@here.com>
> Newsgroups: humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare
> Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2004 4:29 PM
> Subject: Re: Sonnet 19
>
>
> >
> > > Devouring Time, blunt thou the lion's paws
> > > And make the earth devour her own sweet brood,
> >
> > Okay. Time devours her own children.
>
> Nope. Time makes the earth eat her own children. It's a bit different, and
> seems to be suggesting burial.
I take the point, but I don't think you can exclude Time as the
offspring-eater. Devouring his own children was a bad habit Chronos was
famous for. But he failed to gobble up Zeus, who came back in due course
and overthrew him, forcing him to regurgitate all the other children he'd
swallowed.
> > > Pluck the keen teeth from the fierce tiger's jaws
> > > And burn the long-lived phoenix in her blood; 4
> >
> > I don't know what he's doing here. The point about the Phoenix is that
it
> > continually renews itself, being reborn in the fire. So I suppose it's a
> > metaphor for the passage of time - but where blood comes into it I
> couldn't
> > say.
>
> Blood--red flames? Did Art already say this?
On the principle of the million monkeys and the million typewriters, he
probably did.
"Blood-red" is about all you could make of it. I'm not aware of any
classical allusion anyway. But if that's all it is, it's not a good line.
>Also wonder, as Paul suggested,
> if it's a reference to Elizabeth, as her emblem was the Phoenix, and went
> with her motto "ever the same," which we'll come across in a later sonnet.
I wasn't aware it was her emblem. But if so, it could be a glancing
reference. Not sure she'd like it much. Burn her in her own blood? If I was
him, I wouldn't risk it, even if it did have a classical meaning running in
parallel.
> > > Make glad and sorry seasons as thou fleetest
> >
> > Make summer upon winter and winter upon summer, year after year.
>
> Or, make good and bad seasons...some filled with joy, some with pain.
>
> >
> > > And do whate'er thou wilt, swift-footed Time
> > > To the wide world and all her fading sweets;
> >
> > A pair of nothing lines. Addressing Time, when he's already addressed
Time
> > five lines before, gives the impression that he's freewheeling here.
> Things
> > not helped by the automatic adjective, "wide", attached to "world". It's
> > been its automatic adjective for several centuries.
> >
> > > But I forbid thee one most heinous crime: 8
> > > O carve not with thy hours my love's fair brow
> >
> > "Hours" and "carve" don't go too well together. It looks like a bit of
> > metrical Polyfilla to me, a quick job to make the line scan.
>
> Don't agree. Buff. The poet exhorts Time not to carve with his hours
> (passage of time) the brow of the lover, meaning not to give him wrinkles
or
> lines as he ages.
I know that's what it means. But "hours" is too specific a noun to do
service in place of "knife", "chisel" or other specific carving implements.
"Time" as a carver, being more abstract, is one you could just about get
away with, but not "hours".
> > > Nor draw no lines there with thine antic pen,
> >
> > Nor not never don't draw no lines.
>
> I think this was more acceptable in Elizabethan times, and I like the
> nor...no alliteration.
>
> >
> > > Him in thy course untainted do allow
> > > For beauty's pattern to succeeding men. 12
> >
> > Haven't a clue. I can't make sense of it grammatically, and I can't
really
> > divine its intended meaning. Mr X doesn't need to be untainted to pass
his
> > pattern to succeeding men. And what does "for" connect with? Is it
"allow
> > for" - or "him allow" - or "him allow for"?
>
> It made sense to me right away, but now I'm wondering if I was reading it
> too simplistically: "Time, as you pass, allow my love to remain unchanged,
> so that he can be an example of beauty to all men who follow him." I
wonder
> if there isn't an echo of procreation here too, as in the marriage
sonnets.
That's what I was trying for. But I think your reading of "pattern" as
"model" or "example" is more promising. So we have "allow for" meaning
"allow as". Allow him to survive as beauty's pattern for posterity. Yep.
I'll go for that.
> > > Yet do thy worst, old Time: despite thy wrong
> > > My love shall in my verse ever live young. 14
> >
> > Addresses Time again. First he was "devouring Time", then he was
> > "swift-footed Time", now he's "old Time". Contradicts his injunction to
> Time
> > of five lines before.
> >Don't please do this....Oh, all right, go ahead.
>
> Right, agree. "Let me finish this sonnet, for God's sake, so I can get on
> with writing number 20."
>
> >Last
> > line doesn't scan, stubbing its toe in a metrical pothole.
>
> That's because it's supposed to be
>
> My love shall in my verse E Ver(e) live young. ;)
I wondered who'd be the first to say that. But Art's probably got it
somewhere, in blue highlighting.
Buffalo
LynnE
"BCD" <odin...@csulb.edu> wrote in message
news:be4a0014.04091...@posting.google.com...
Wot about the Tyger lyly? And why no leopard's bane?
Regards,
Lynne
Gary Kosinsky
<lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
SNIP
>The thought that "Tyger" might be both the animal and a ship belonging to
>Elizabeth, however, is interesting.
Albeit irrelevent to the poem.
>I had also noticed the word yawes and
>the word certainly could be representing both yaws and jaws, making the
>whole line a very clever play on words.
A clever play on words to what purpose? And what is
the clever play on words concerning "Lyons pawes"? If the
Lyon is also a reference to a ship, shouldn't "pawes" also
be a nautical term?
>The ship The Tyger ran aground in
>1585, which is a much more likely explanation of the line than anything I
>can find happening to The Tyger in 1581 or before.
Or perhaps the ship Tyger has nothing whatsoever to
do with this line.
>I'm wondering if there
>might be a reference to the ill-fated Roanoke colony here. Both The Tyger
>and The Lyon (look at line 1 again) were ships that travelled there.
I'm going to go out on a limb and speculate that
that was simply a coincidence.
>Perhaps
>The Phoenix was too, although I can't find a ref to it.
That is a problem.
>There were, however,
>"Two pinnaces, 20-30 tuns each, names unknown, 'for speedie seruices.'"
And perhaps one of them was named "The Phoenix" and
perhaps the other was named "Sorry Seasons". Say, you may
be onto something here!
>This
>interpretation makes perfect sense of the earth eating her brood, too, as
>the colonists all disappeared.
"Perfect sense"? Lynne, Lynne, Lynne. I realize
you're indulging in some free-wheeling speculation, letting
the creative imagination go, so to speak, but I really think
you're on the wrong track here.
Nice job of pointing out the inconsistencies in
Paul's 'exegesis', though.
- Gary Kosinsky
Gary Kosinsky
<ew...@bcs.org.invalid> wrote:
>On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 19:23:25 +0100, Robert Stonehouse
><ew...@bcs.org.invalid> wrote:
>
SNIP
>> Yet do thy worst, old Time: despite thy wrong
> But still, Time, do all you can, and in spite of your
>malice
>> My love shall in my verse ever live young. 14
> the one I love will always be young in my poetry.
SNIP
>Line 14, 'My love' for the second time in this poem. I am
>not sure of the meaning.
Surely it's a reference to the FYM and not to the
poet's emotional feelings?
- Gary Kosinsky
LynnE
"Gary Kosinsky" <gk...@vcn.bc.ca> wrote in message
news:41438329...@news.individual.net...
> On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 10:45:22 -0400, "LynnE"
> <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> SNIP
>
>
> >The thought that "Tyger" might be both the animal and a ship belonging to
> >Elizabeth, however, is interesting.
>
> Albeit irrelevent to the poem.
Well, not necessarily. Depends how well I can defend my thesis (not very, at
the moment).
>
> >I had also noticed the word yawes and
> >the word certainly could be representing both yaws and jaws, making the
> >whole line a very clever play on words.
>
> A clever play on words to what purpose? And what is
> the clever play on words concerning "Lyons pawes"? If the
> Lyon is also a reference to a ship, shouldn't "pawes" also
> be a nautical term?
Could be the Lyon's "pause." Between bells on the ship. Just joking.
>
> >The ship The Tyger ran aground in
> >1585, which is a much more likely explanation of the line than anything I
> >can find happening to The Tyger in 1581 or before.
>
> Or perhaps the ship Tyger has nothing whatsoever to
> do with this line.
Could be.
>
> >I'm wondering if there
> >might be a reference to the ill-fated Roanoke colony here. Both The Tyger
> >and The Lyon (look at line 1 again) were ships that travelled there.
>
> I'm going to go out on a limb and speculate that
> that was simply a coincidence.
You're likely right.
>
> >Perhaps
> >The Phoenix was too, although I can't find a ref to it.
>
> That is a problem.
Well, one of the other ships was "The Elizabeth," and the phoenix was the
Queen's emblem. That made me wonder something else--whether all three
animals, the lyon, tyger, and phoenix, were heraldic devices for three real
people, just as the boar was Oxford's emblem, etc. That takes us away from
the ship theory. Sorry, Gary, that's the way my mind works. I'm always
speculating. Sometimes it turns out well, sometimes not. To go back to the
Roanoke theory, Roanoke and Jamestown, etc., were big news in the late 1500s
and early 1600s. Many of the dedicatees in Minerva Britanna, for example,
were related to the Charters for the Virginia Company in some way, and the
ship imagery in Britanna is very prominent.
The mystery of the lost colonists would have broken around the early part of
1591, as they were discovered missing in Aug 1590. If we could find a
connection, it would date these "fair youth" sonnets, or at least some of
them, very close to the time V and A was published, and make a reasonable
case for Southampton being the fair youth. I have an idea he was anyway.
Will talk about it more when we get to the next sonnet.
>
> >There were, however,
> >"Two pinnaces, 20-30 tuns each, names unknown, 'for speedie seruices.'"
>
> And perhaps one of them was named "The Phoenix" and
> perhaps the other was named "Sorry Seasons". Say, you may
> be onto something here!
You never know. The thing that you're ignoring is that these three fabulous
creatures might have been code words for something very topical at the
time--just as when someone says 9/11, we unfortunately know exactly what he
means.
>
> >This
> >interpretation makes perfect sense of the earth eating her brood, too, as
> >the colonists all disappeared.
>
> "Perfect sense"? Lynne, Lynne, Lynne. I realize
> you're indulging in some free-wheeling speculation, letting
> the creative imagination go, so to speak, but I really think
> you're on the wrong track here.
Yes, quite possibly. I'm just mentioning what I'm speculating about. There
was a Phoenix in 1608 that took settlers to Virginia. I'm not sure whether
there was an earlier one. I can stop "supposing," if you like.
>
> Nice job of pointing out the inconsistencies in
> Paul's 'exegesis', though.
Thanks, bud. It wasn't hard.
Best wishes,
Lynne
>
>
>
>
>
> - Gary Kosinsky
Paul Crowley
> > 1. Devouring time blunt thou the Lyons paws,
> > 2. And make the earth devoure her owne sweet brood,
> > 3. Plucke the keene teeth from the fierce Tygers yawes,
> > 4. And burne the long liv'd Phoenix in her blood,
> > 5. Make glad and sorry seasons as thou fleet'st,
> > 6. And do what ere thou wilt swift-footed time
> > 7. To the wide world and all her fading sweets:
> > 8. But I forbid thee one most hainous crime,
> > 9. O carve not with thy howers my loves faire brow,
> > 10. Nor draw noe lines there with thine antique pen,
> > 11. Him in thy course untainted doe allow,
> > 12. For beauties patterne to succeding men.
> > 13. Yet doe thy worst ould Time dispight thy wrong,
> > 14. My love shall in my verse ever live young.
> You haven't got the first clue about how to interpret a poem. You
> continually give explanations for certain bits while leaving other bits out
> entirely. You say the Queen represents Time
I say NO SUCH THING. The poet is playing
on 'time' = 'mite' = 'item' (as he does in
other sonnets, such as #16 where he makes
the parallel of 'time' = 'mite' almost explicit.
The 'mite' is his hated rival Walter Raleigh.
So where the subject of certain sentences
is 'Time', it is ALSO -- but under a completely
unrelated meaning for the sentence as a
whole -- ALSO Raleigh. That is RALEIGH
and not the Queen.
Got that?
> (which I can faintly
> appreciate), but then say she is the Phoenix, which CANNOT be right because
> then the Queen would be destroying the Queen.
(a) Time destroys the Phoenix (the standard
superficial meaning;
(b) Raleigh destroys the Queen. This the
poet's exaggeration of the situation in 1581
(deflecting the blame on to Raleigh) since
it was really the Queen destroying herself,
(in his opinion) with her refusal to marry
and produce an heir.
> Besides, a symbol for
> something or someone should remain the same throughout the sonnet (or group
> of sonnets) or it is too confusing to readers. Time has been mentioned quite
> a bit during these last few sonnets. Does it always represent the Queen?
> That seems unlikely, as in most of the other sonnets Time appears to be a
> threat to the addressee, who you also say is the Queen.
Please read more carefully.
<nonsense snipped>
> You give no good reason for dating the sonnet to 1581.
A) The last chance for producing an heir
was in 1581 with the Alencon marriage
negotiations. The poet still hopes for an
heir -- but only just. We can tell that from
his hope for 'succeeding men'.
B) We know as an historical fact that
Oxford was passionately in favour of the
Alencon match -- and strongly disapproved
of the Queen's reluctance to marry.
C) The infatuation with Raleigh possibly
started in1580, but was definitely on by
1581. There are numerous references which
could only be to him, such as the marine
and sailing ones ('keene teeth', 'fierce
Tygers yawes', 'glad and sorry sea-sons',
"fleet'st" and 'wide world').
D) We know as an historical fact that
Oxford and Raleigh hated each other, and
were rivals for the Queen's favour.
E) Even though a quasi-Strat, you should
remember that you are supposed to believe
that Oxford wrote these poems.
> You give no
> acceptable reason for dragging Raleigh OR his penis OR others such as
> Frobisher into it.
They were the predominant sailor-courtiers
in the years immediately before 1582.
> The thought that "Tyger" might be both the animal and a ship belonging to
> Elizabeth, however, is interesting. I had also noticed the word yawes and
> the word certainly could be representing both yaws and jaws, making the
> whole line a very clever play on words. The ship The Tyger ran aground in
> 1585, which is a much more likely explanation of the line than anything I
> can find happening to The Tyger in 1581
There were no marriage negotiations in 1585
and there would be no sense in referring to
'succeeding men' after 1581.
> Both The Tyger
> and The Lyon (look at line 1 again) were ships that travelled there. Perhaps
> The Phoenix was too, although I can't find a ref to it.
There were ships called 'the Lyon' -- such
as 'The Golden Lyon', and there was a ship
(probably more than one) called the
Phoenix. They MAY have some bearing
on the sonnet, but I can find no reference
that is relevant.
Paul.
David L. Webb
odin...@csulb.edu (BCD) wrote:
Bravo! A very persuasive reading. Of course, Brent's keen interest
in gardening is manifest throughout. By the same token, one can readily
perceive from Mr. Crowley's scatological "exegeses" wherein lies his own
keen interest.
LynnE
> "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:9cE0d.45264$Nd6.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> > > 1. Devouring time blunt thou the Lyons paws,
> > > 2. And make the earth devoure her owne sweet brood,
> > > 3. Plucke the keene teeth from the fierce Tygers yawes,
> > > 4. And burne the long liv'd Phoenix in her blood,
> > > 5. Make glad and sorry seasons as thou fleet'st,
> > > 6. And do what ere thou wilt swift-footed time
> > > 7. To the wide world and all her fading sweets:
> > > 8. But I forbid thee one most hainous crime,
> > > 9. O carve not with thy howers my loves faire brow,
> > > 10. Nor draw noe lines there with thine antique pen,
> > > 11. Him in thy course untainted doe allow,
> > > 12. For beauties patterne to succeding men.
> > > 13. Yet doe thy worst ould Time dispight thy wrong,
> > > 14. My love shall in my verse ever live young.
>
> > You haven't got the first clue about how to interpret a poem. You
> > continually give explanations for certain bits while leaving other bits
out
> > entirely. You say the Queen represents Time
>
> I say NO SUCH THING. The poet is playing
> on 'time' = 'mite' = 'item' (as he does in
> other sonnets, such as #16 where he makes
> the parallel of 'time' = 'mite' almost explicit.
Why would "time" be an anagram? If we agree to do that we can make hundreds
of anagrams from the words in the sonnet:
paws--swap
verse-serve
doe-ode
draw-ward
etc, etc. Why is Time a special case?
>
> The 'mite' is his hated rival Walter Raleigh.
> So where the subject of certain sentences
> is 'Time', it is ALSO -- but under a completely
> unrelated meaning for the sentence as a
> whole -- ALSO Raleigh. That is RALEIGH
> and not the Queen.
>
> Got that?
You're right. I misunderstood your exegesis, which was confused and
ambiguous. But now I see you think the Queen is both the Lyon and the
Phoenix. Why, in that case, for the sake of consistency, is she not the
Tyger also?
>
> > (which I can faintly
> > appreciate), but then say she is the Phoenix, which CANNOT be right
because
> > then the Queen would be destroying the Queen.
>
> (a) Time destroys the Phoenix (the standard
> superficial meaning;
> (b) Raleigh destroys the Queen. This the
> poet's exaggeration of the situation in 1581
> (deflecting the blame on to Raleigh) since
> it was really the Queen destroying herself,
> (in his opinion) with her refusal to marry
> and produce an heir.
>
> > Besides, a symbol for
> > something or someone should remain the same throughout the sonnet (or
group
> > of sonnets) or it is too confusing to readers. Time has been mentioned
quite
> > a bit during these last few sonnets. Does it always represent the Queen?
> > That seems unlikely, as in most of the other sonnets Time appears to be
a
> > threat to the addressee, who you also say is the Queen.
>
> Please read more carefully.
Please write more carefully.
>
> <nonsense snipped>
>
> > You give no good reason for dating the sonnet to 1581.
>
> A) The last chance for producing an heir
> was in 1581 with the Alencon marriage
> negotiations. The poet still hopes for an
> heir -- but only just. We can tell that from
> his hope for 'succeeding men'.
That could mean almost anything. Since you haven't proved to anyone's
satisfaction that the addressee of most of the sonnets is the Queen, I
cannot accept that "succeeding men" has anything to do with her having an
heir. I can, however, see that it might be something to do with a MAN having
an heir, as the pronoun used is "him."
> B) We know as an historical fact that
> Oxford was passionately in favour of the
> Alencon match -- and strongly disapproved
> of the Queen's reluctance to marry.
> C) The infatuation with Raleigh possibly
> started in1580, but was definitely on by
> 1581. There are numerous references which
> could only be to him, such as the marine
> and sailing ones ('keene teeth', 'fierce
> Tygers yawes', 'glad and sorry sea-sons',
> "fleet'st" and 'wide world').
Why only to him? *If* we accept that it (Time/mite?) is a seafarer, which
I'm not sure of at all, why is he not to Drake or any number of others
others?
> D) We know as an historical fact that
> Oxford and Raleigh hated each other, and
> were rivals for the Queen's favour.
> E) Even though a quasi-Strat, you should
> remember that you are supposed to believe
> that Oxford wrote these poems.
Oh, sorry. I'll try to remember. I would find the case for Oxford much
stronger if the sonnets were written later. It would make sense, for
example, if he were writing about the fair youth's marriage to his own
daughter. Since you don't understand pronouns that define gender, I realise
you'd have trouble with this quasi-Stratfordian theory that takes no issue
with the fact that the addressee of the marriage sonnets is male.
>
> > You give no
> > acceptable reason for dragging Raleigh OR his penis OR others such as
> > Frobisher into it.
>
> They were the predominant sailor-courtiers
> in the years immediately before 1582.
Yes, but you've still made no reasonable case for
a) the beloved of the sonnets being the Queen
or
b) the period being that of the early eighties
or
c) Time or anything else being a predominant sailor,
so there's no earthly reason why it should be a sailor-courtier of 1581-ish.
>
> > The thought that "Tyger" might be both the animal and a ship belonging
to
> > Elizabeth, however, is interesting. I had also noticed the word yawes
and
> > the word certainly could be representing both yaws and jaws, making the
> > whole line a very clever play on words. The ship The Tyger ran aground
in
> > 1585, which is a much more likely explanation of the line than anything
I
> > can find happening to The Tyger in 1581
>
> There were no marriage negotiations in 1585
I didn't say 1585. I believe the most likely scenario is that these sonnets
were written closer to the early nineties, as they correspond to V and A,
and V and A was dedicated to Southampton so it couldn't have been written
much earlier. Many of the arguments used in the earlier sonnets are put into
Venus' mouth in V and A. That is not to say I wouldn't accept a different
timeline if I were given compelling evidence for it.
> and there would be no sense in referring to
> 'succeeding men' after 1581.
>
> > Both The Tyger
> > and The Lyon (look at line 1 again) were ships that travelled there.
Perhaps
> > The Phoenix was too, although I can't find a ref to it.
>
> There were ships called 'the Lyon' -- such
> as 'The Golden Lyon', and there was a ship
> (probably more than one) called the
> Phoenix. They MAY have some bearing
> on the sonnet, but I can find no reference
> that is relevant.
Paul, you never find any reference that is relevant unless it fits your
theory, which quite honestly has nothing to commend it as you've produced
not one iota of proof for it. The idea, for example, that Oxford or anyone
else wrote some of the marriage sonnets at the age of fourteen is quite
frankly wacky. Anyone who knows anything about literature will tell you even
as great a genius as Shakespeare had to undergo an apprenticeship before
writing mature poetry. My guess is the only reason you've chosen the dates
you have is that WS of Stratford was about nought when you posit the first
sonnets were written.
Best wishes,
Quasi-Strat Numero Uno
(Après Moi, le Déluge)
>
>
> Paul.
>
>
>
LynnE
> Why only to him? *If* we accept that it (Time/mite?) is a seafarer, which
> I'm not sure of at all, why is he not to Drake or any number of others
> others?
Forgive the typos. This should read:
Why only to him? *If* we accept that it (Time/mite?) is a seafarer, which
I'm not sure of at all, why is he not Drake or any number of others?
Too much demerol. <g>
LynnE
David L. Webb
"LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
I admire your gift for trenchant understatment, Lynne.
> You
> continually give explanations for certain bits while leaving other bits out
> entirely. You say the Queen represents Time (which I can faintly
> appreciate), but then say she is the Phoenix,
Art can no doubt explain the Phoenix:
P
H
O X
N
I
E
> which CANNOT be right because
> then the Queen would be destroying the Queen. Besides, a symbol for
> something or someone should remain the same throughout the sonnet (or group
> of sonnets) or it is too confusing to readers. Time has been mentioned quite
> a bit during these last few sonnets. Does it always represent the Queen?
> That seems unlikely, as in most of the other sonnets Time appears to be a
> threat to the addressee, who you also say is the Queen.
>
> You apparently take no notice of pronouns unless it suits you. In your
> exegesis the Queen is both "you" and "her." And "you" changes from the Queen
> to Raleigh. Impossible. No one would ever get the shift.
Your points are VERy well taken. But be careful in your word choice,
Lynne -- Mr. Crowley is apt to attempt an "exegesis" of your remarks in
which he assumes that your final word above mistakenly contains an extra
letter.
> "Him" is CLEARLY the poet's love. The poet spells it out for us. As I wrote
> in an earlier post:
>
> "The addressee is Time. The love of
> the poet is clearly a MAN:
>
> O carve not with thy (this refers to TIME) hours my LOVE'S fair brow
> Nor draw no lines there with thine antic pen,
> HIM in thy course untainted do allow
> For beauty's pattern to succeeding MEN."
>
>
> It CANNOT be a woman. What is more, it certainly can't be that woman's
> offspring, if she is the beloved, as you constantly say in your exegeses.
> That's just a mess.
>
> You give no good reason for dating the sonnet to 1581.
Has he ever given any good reason for *any* of his pronouncements?
> You give no
> acceptable reason for dragging Raleigh OR his penis OR others such as
> Frobisher into it. Saying that "Raleigh, Drake, Frobisher and others
> committed plenty of heinous crimes" is ludicrous, as, even if they did,
> hundreds of others did too.
>
> The thought that "Tyger" might be both the animal and a ship belonging to
> Elizabeth, however, is interesting. I had also noticed the word yawes
But Lynne -- you're still not getting into the spirit of Crowleyan
hermeneutics. "Yawes" is of course an anagram of "Aye, W.S.", an overt
affirmation that the author was William Shakespeare, not the Earl of
Oxford.
BCD
> > > Plucke the keene teeth from the fierce Tygers yawes,
> >
> > ***"Neutralize the fierce spread of the Tigridia clump" [notes: again,
> > the meaning is obvious]
>
> Wot about the Tyger lyly?
***Why, Lynne, you giddy thing--surely you tied on your bonnet too
tightly this morning. Who doesn't know that *Lilium tigrinum* didn't
appear in the Occident until sometime during William Kerr's sojourn in
Canton 1803-1811?
> And why no leopard's bane?
***The very question I ask myself every evening: "[melancholy
sigh]... Why, o why, no leopard's bane? . . . [gazes sadly out the
window at nothing in particular, a tear starting to course slowly down
one cheek] . . . And yet--yet somehow we must carry on . . . " [slow
curtain as Magda pokes at the dying embers.]
Robert Stonehouse
Yes, that's clear enough, I would say. But recently there
have been suggestions about homosexuality, which need to
wait until next week.
Robert Stonehouse
<none...@here.com> wrote:
...
>> Pluck the keen teeth from the fierce tiger's jaws
>> And burn the long-lived phoenix in her blood; 4
>
>I don't know what he's doing here. The point about the Phoenix is that it
>continually renews itself, being reborn in the fire. So I suppose it's a
>metaphor for the passage of time - but where blood comes into it I couldn't
>say.
There's more than one thing about the phoenix. The one he is
using here is 'long-lived', about which all authors agree
until we come to the question: exactly how long?
(This is against Kerrigan's suggestion that time is so
powerful, 'it can kill the phoenix whenever it wants'. I see
no point in that. Long as the phoenix lives, time gets it in
the end.)
Shakespeare skates over the regeneration, I think - with the
support of the commentators (for the thought, not the
skating). It dates from after my sources.
I have had a go at the blood but am rather short of
precedents for it - none at all, in fact, that I know of,
but I haven't many sources for the period that matters.
Robert Stonehouse
wrote:
>"LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<w7L0d.45515$Nd6.1...@news20.bellglobal.com>...
>> "BCD" <odin...@csulb.edu> wrote in message
>> news:be4a0014.04091...@posting.google.com...
>> > [...]
>> > > Plucke the keene teeth from the fierce Tygers yawes,
>> >
>> > ***"Neutralize the fierce spread of the Tigridia clump" [notes: again,
>> > the meaning is obvious]
Can we make it relevant that Yaws is a skin disease
producing raspberry-like eruptions?
Paul Crowley
> > Nice job of pointing out the inconsistencies in
> > Paul's 'exegesis', though.
>
> Thanks, bud. It wasn't hard.
This is pretty solid proof (insofar as any
was needed) that Gary did not even
attempt to read my exegesis. He would
not have made the same ludicrous mistake
as Lynne.
But then Gary does not need to read my
work to know that it is wrong. Every word
and every line of it is necessarily wrong.
After all, I say that this sonnet was written
when the Stratman was 17 and spending
his time around Stratford getting Anne
Hathaway pregnant. So -- obviously -- it
must be wrong, and there is no conceivable
reason why he should waste any time
reading it.
But he shouldn't pretend that he did.
Paul.
Paul Crowley
> > > > 1. Devouring time blunt thou the Lyons paws,
> > > > 2. And make the earth devoure her owne sweet brood,
> > > > 3. Plucke the keene teeth from the fierce Tygers yawes,
> > > > 4. And burne the long liv'd Phoenix in her blood,
> > > > 5. Make glad and sorry seasons as thou fleet'st,
> > > > 6. And do what ere thou wilt swift-footed time
> > > > 7. To the wide world and all her fading sweets:
> > > > 8. But I forbid thee one most hainous crime,
> > > > 9. O carve not with thy howers my loves faire brow,
> > > > 10. Nor draw noe lines there with thine antique pen,
> > > > 11. Him in thy course untainted doe allow,
> > > > 12. For beauties patterne to succeding men.
> > > > 13. Yet doe thy worst ould Time dispight thy wrong,
> > > > 14. My love shall in my verse ever live young.
> >
> > > You haven't got the first clue about how to interpret a poem. You
> > > continually give explanations for certain bits while leaving other bits
> out
> > > entirely. You say the Queen represents Time
> >
> > I say NO SUCH THING. The poet is playing
> > on 'time' = 'mite' = 'item' (as he does in
> > other sonnets, such as #16 where he makes
> > the parallel of 'time' = 'mite' almost explicit.
>
> Why would "time" be an anagram? If we agree to do that
> we can make hundreds of anagrams from the words in the sonnet:
'Time' is a well-known 'poetic concept'
fully exploited by Elizabethans and
especially by Shakespeare. They and
he went on and on and on about it.
But sometimes he liked to take the piss.
And, perhaps, for him Raleigh was the
embodiment of the current 'time'. He
represented a new phenomenon: the
rise of low-born, worthless 'meritocracy';
the introduction of "women's fashion"
into the court, and so much else that
he despised.
> > The 'mite' is his hated rival Walter Raleigh.
> > So where the subject of certain sentences
> > is 'Time', it is ALSO -- but under a completely
> > unrelated meaning for the sentence as a
> > whole -- ALSO Raleigh. That is RALEIGH
> > and not the Queen.
> >
> > Got that?
>
> You're right. I misunderstood your exegesis, which was confused and
> ambiguous.
Except that you don't say where nor how.
> But now I see you think the Queen is both the
> Lyon and the Phoenix. Why, in that case, for the
> sake of consistency, is she not the Tyger also?
The 'Tyger' was her ship; however, the
poet was not obliged to be that consistent,
especially when he wanted to use some
nice puns on 'keene teeth' and "fierce
Tyger's yawes".
> > Please read more carefully.
>
> Please write more carefully.
You point out no ambiguous nor misleading
statement. You just misread -- carelessly.
> > > You give no good reason for dating the sonnet to 1581.
> >
> > A) The last chance for producing an heir
> > was in 1581 with the Alencon marriage
> > negotiations. The poet still hopes for an
> > heir -- but only just. We can tell that from
> > his hope for 'succeeding men'.
>
> That could mean almost anything.
Except that you can't think of any other likely
meaning. And unremarkably, nor can any
one else, including all the commentators.
> Since you haven't proved to anyone's
> satisfaction that the addressee of most of the sonnets
I don't expect Strats to accept the line;
and most Oxfordians are even dozier
than you . . . (yes -- even dozier) having
become Oxfordians because they have
bought into some sick story, usually
based on (or supported by) a perverse
reading of the sonnets.
> is the Queen, I cannot accept that "succeeding men"
> has anything to do with her having
Sure, what else could 'succeeding' mean?
The poet must really have meant to write
'successful' -- it was just a typo.
> > B) We know as an historical fact that
> > Oxford was passionately in favour of the
> > Alencon match -- and strongly disapproved
> > of the Queen's reluctance to marry.
> > C) The infatuation with Raleigh possibly
> > started in1580, but was definitely on by
> > 1581. There are numerous references which
> > could only be to him, such as the marine
> > and sailing ones ('keene teeth', 'fierce
> > Tygers yawes', 'glad and sorry sea-sons',
> > "fleet'st" and 'wide world').
>
> Why only to him? *If* we accept that it (Time/mite?)
> is a seafarer,
NO, we do not FIRST accept that the 'mite'
is a seafarer. (How can you get so much
so wrong?) We understand where the
poet was coming from, and his attitude to
his rival at COURT.
> which I'm not sure of at all, why is he not to Drake or
> any number of others others?
Drake was not a rival for the Queen's favour.
He did not write courtly poems. She was
not infatuated with him. He was not tall, nor
handsome, nor did he bring in the elaborate
clothes, long hair, perfumes, fancy talk, etc.,
of Raleigh, that so pleased the Queen and
so annoyed Oxford.
> > D) We know as an historical fact that
> > Oxford and Raleigh hated each other, and
> > were rivals for the Queen's favour.
> > E) Even though a quasi-Strat, you should
> > remember that you are supposed to believe
> > that Oxford wrote these poems.
>
> Oh, sorry. I'll try to remember. I would find the case for Oxford much
> stronger if the sonnets were written later.
Sure -- being a quasi-Strat, you'd prefer
the late 1590s when no one was writing
sonnets. Of course, like the Stats, you
can fit nothing whatever to those times,
places, events or people -- not after the
efforts of tens of thousands of 'scholars'
for hundreds of years.
But so what? Dogma must come first.
And it must NEVER be questioned.
> It would make sense, for
> example, if he were writing about the fair youth's marriage to his own
> daughter.
Sure, sure. And it's perfectly normal to
address your prospective son-in-law as:
"Unthrifty lovelinesse why dost thou spend,
Upon thy selfe thy beauties legacy?"
"Then beautious nigard why doost thou abuse,
The bountious largesse given thee to give?"
"Those howers that with gentle worke did frame,
The lovely gaze where every eye doth dwell"
No doubt you say (or have said) words to
this effect to all prospective sons-in-law
who have come to your house. It's the
same for me . . . and, of course, for all of us.
Aren't you pleased to have an interpretation
of the sonnets based on such solid ground?
It's as good as Gary's (with his homosexual
reading) on any day of the week.
> > > You give no
> > > acceptable reason for dragging Raleigh OR his penis OR others such as
> > > Frobisher into it.
> >
> > They were the predominant sailor-courtiers
> > in the years immediately before 1582.
>
> Yes, but you've still made no reasonable case for
>
> a) the beloved of the sonnets being the Queen
I make it every week for every sonnet,
line by line, and word by word. You
can only attempt to criticise by completely
misreading what I say.
> b) the period being that of the early eighties
I make it every week for every sonnet,
line by line, and word by word. You
can only attempt to criticise by completely
misreading what I say.
> c) Time or anything else being a predominant sailor,
I have shown the identification of 'mite'
with Raleigh before. If you can't see how
our poet would want to play on variations
on his standard theme, then nothing I can
say will help.
> I didn't say 1585. I believe the most likely scenario is that these sonnets
> were written closer to the early nineties, as they correspond to V and A,
Sure. It's the standard Strat line, and I'd
expect nothing else from you.
> and V and A was dedicated to Southampton so it couldn't have been written
> much earlier. Many of the arguments used in the earlier sonnets are put into
> Venus' mouth in V and A. That is not to say I wouldn't accept a different
> timeline if I were given compelling evidence for it.
If it was not a standard Strat line,
you would not go for it.
> Paul, you never find any reference that is relevant unless it fits your
> theory, which quite honestly has nothing to commend it as you've produced
> not one iota of proof for it.
What for you would constitute 'proof'?
> The idea, for example, that Oxford or anyone
> else wrote some of the marriage sonnets at the age of fourteen is quite
> frankly wacky.
The Queen's marriage was THE hot topic
(for the whole country) from the moment
she ascended the throne in 1588 right up
until 1582. Oxford is known to have taken
a particular stance on it -- and a particularly
strong stance. (Of course, those facts will
have no relevance for Strats or quasi-Strats.)
There is nothing in many of the sonnets
that would rule out an intelligent 14-year-old,
especially one of supreme poetic genius.
> Anyone who knows anything about literature will tell you even
> as great a genius as Shakespeare had to undergo an apprenticeship before
> writing mature poetry.
And he did -- probably from about the
age of six. A 14-line sonnet need not
be an especial test of 'maturity'.
> My guess is the only reason you've chosen the dates
> you have is that WS of Stratford was about nought when you posit the first
> sonnets were written.
I have 'chosen' the date for each sonnet
because it fits the text of that sonnet. As
ever, you are obliged to ignore anything
to do with the text.
Paul.
Buffalo
"Robert Stonehouse" <ew...@bcs.org.invalid> wrote in message
> On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 20:29:00 +0000 (UTC), "Buffalo"
> <none...@here.com> wrote:
> ...
> >> Pluck the keen teeth from the fierce tiger's jaws
> >> And burn the long-lived phoenix in her blood; 4
> >
> >I don't know what he's doing here. The point about the Phoenix is that
it
> >continually renews itself, being reborn in the fire. So I suppose it's a
> >metaphor for the passage of time - but where blood comes into it I
couldn't
> >say.
> ...
> There's more than one thing about the phoenix. The one he is
> using here is 'long-lived', about which all authors agree
> until we come to the question: exactly how long?
Well, I vaguely recall 500 years or something like that. But when I said
"the point about the Phoenix" I really meant the attribute of the Phoenix
that remains in the legend when all other attributes are forgotten, and
which would be the reason you would choose it as a metaphor. And that's its
ability to renew itself from the fire. A quick search of the canon confirms
this:
LUCY
I'll bear them hence; but from their ashes shall be
rear'd
A phoenix that shall make all France afeard.
(KH6-1, IV, VII)
YORK
My ashes, as the phoenix, may bring forth
A bird that will revenge upon you all:
(KH6-3, I, IV)
Nor shall this peace sleep with her: but as when
The bird of wonder dies, the maiden phoenix,
Her ashes new create another heir,
As great in admiration as herself;
(KH8, V, V)
Okay, he has said "long-lived" in the sonnet, so longevity is in there
somewhere. But I would still expect regeneration to be the primary reason
for the presence of the Phoenix in an Elizabethan poem. And given that
regeneration is what he's been going on about for sonnet after sonnet, I
would expect it to be here too. The problem is that, unless Time is capable
of shutting down the universe entirely, it does not destroy the Phoenix. The
Phoenix's regenerative powers are time-resistant. So I suppose it must be
longevity after all - the length of *one* life. But the fact that the
Phoenix lives a long time before renewing itself seems rather a feeble
reason to bring it in. And the reference to "blood" remains unexplained. As
far as I know, blood is not part of any Phoenix legend.
The only other alternative reading that might make sense of this line is as
a topical reference of the kind that Lynne is pursuing in another thread -
Phoenix as the name of a ship. I'm usually very skeptical about topical
references unless I can find three or four of them in a group. But in this
case, the weakness of the Phoenix metaphor in its usual role persuades me
that there might
be something in it. In which case this might help:-
First Officer
Orsino, this is that Antonio
That took the Phoenix and her fraught from Candy;
And this is he that did the Tiger board,
When your young nephew Titus lost his leg:
(TN, V, I)
Those are fictional ships, of course, but still. We've got "Phoenix" and
we've got "Tiger". If we can get "Lyon" we might be in business. But you
still have to explain "blood", and you also have to explain "long-lived".
Buffalo
LynnE
"Buffalo" <none...@here.com> wrote in message
news:ci1e52$sni$1...@hercules.btinternet.com...
>
> "Robert Stonehouse" <ew...@bcs.org.invalid> wrote in message
> news:l1q7k0tg4p2qa70nc...@4ax.com...
> > On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 20:29:00 +0000 (UTC), "Buffalo"
> > <none...@here.com> wrote:
> > ...
>
> Orsino, this is that Antonio
> That took the Phoenix and her fraught from Candy;
> And this is he that did the Tiger board,
> When your young nephew Titus lost his leg:
Thanks for this, Buff. Very interesting. I've seen TN several times, but in
this case didn't make the connection. I will go on a Lyon hunt.
L.
>
> Buffalo
>
>
>
Art Neuendorffer
> Art can no doubt explain the Phoenix:
>
> P
> H
> O X
> N
> I
PHONEY Adjective:
Fraudulent; having a misleading appearance.
A person who professes beliefs and opinions that they do not hold.
--------------------------------------------------------------
_- H
P O X
__ I
WE-EVER, JOHN, 1599
Epigrammes in the Oldest Cut and Newest Fashion.
I swore Apollo got them and none other,
Go, wo thy Muse, more Nymphish brood beget THEm
---------------------------------------------------------------
.
________ /T/ OT __ [H] EONLIEBEGETTEROFTHESEINSVINGS
_______- /O/ NN _ [E T] SMRWHALLHAPPINESSEANDTHATETE
_______ /R/ NI___ [T(I)E] PROMISEDBYOVREVERLIVINGPOET
______ /W/ IS___ [H E T H] THEWELLWISHINGADVENTVRERIN
As You Like It (Folio) 3.3
Clo. When a mans verses cannot be vnderstood, nor
a mans good wit seconded with the forward childe,
vn-derstanding:
it strikes a man more dead then a great rec-
koning in a little roome:
TRULY, I would the Gods hadde made thee POETicall.
Aud. I do not know what POETical is: is it honest
in deed and word: is it a TRUE thing?
Clo. No TRULIE: for the TRUEst POETrie is the most fai-
ning, and Louers are giuen to POETrie: and what they
sweare in POETrie, may be said as Louers, they do feigne.
Aud. Do you wish then that the Gods
had made me POETicall?
Clow. I do TRULY: for thou swear'st to me thou art HO-
NEst: Now if thou wert a POET, I might haue some
hope thou didst feigne.
Aud. Would you not haue me HONEst?
Clo. No TRULY, vnlesse thou wert hard fauour'd:
for HONEstie coupled to beautie, is to haue
HONIE a sawce to Sugar.
Iaq. A materiall FO( )OLe.
(To them) [my OM, by FO(DEVere)OL-]
(To the m)[-eMOry OF my beLOVED]
To the MEMORY of my beloved,
The Author
MR. W I L L I A M S H A K E S P E A R E :
A N D
what he hath left us.
LynnE
Perhaps? Did you actually say "perhaps"? So you acknowledge that Time or
Mite or Item may not be representing Raleigh?
>He
> represented a new phenomenon: the
> rise of low-born, worthless 'meritocracy';
> the introduction of "women's fashion"
> into the court, and so much else that
> he despised.
That doesn't answer the question of why Time should be made into an anagram
while nothing else is.
>
> > > The 'mite' is his hated rival Walter Raleigh.
> > > So where the subject of certain sentences
> > > is 'Time', it is ALSO -- but under a completely
> > > unrelated meaning for the sentence as a
> > > whole -- ALSO Raleigh. That is RALEIGH
> > > and not the Queen.
> > >
> > > Got that?
> >
> > You're right. I misunderstood your exegesis, which was confused and
> > ambiguous.
>
> Except that you don't say where nor how.
I think it was this para that confounded me:
"There are two themes: the
superficial one of 'Time', into which (in
this sonnet) he puts a fair amount of effort;
and the 'hidden' one where in the contest
for the affections of his beloved, he
continues his dogged pursuit of his hated
rival, whom he thinks of as a 'mite' or an
'item' -- both anagrams of 'time'."
I thought you meant that "Time" represented the beloved, who I assumed was
Eliz, and its anagram represented his rival, who you posit, for no reason
that I can see, was Raleigh.
>
> > But now I see you think the Queen is both the
> > Lyon and the Phoenix. Why, in that case, for the
> > sake of consistency, is she not the Tyger also?
>
> The 'Tyger' was her ship; however, the
> poet was not obliged to be that consistent,
> especially when he wanted to use some
> nice puns on 'keene teeth' and "fierce
> Tyger's yawes".
I see. He was brilliant, but not brilliant enough to see that changing from
A to B and then back to A again would be confusing to the reader? Or wanting
to use some nice puns at the expense of totality of meaning? It is not the
poet who is inconsistent, Paul. It is you. And you are inconsistent so that
you can invest the sonnet with the meaning you want it to have.
I can see the three creatures being three mythological beasts, or three
ships, or three heraldic devices representing three different courtiers, or
even three manifestations of the Queen. But I cannot see Shakespeare saying,
Raleigh is destroying the Queen, he is destroying her ship, he is destroying
the Queen. Makes no sense at all.
>
> > > Please read more carefully.
> >
> > Please write more carefully.
>
> You point out no ambiguous nor misleading
> statement. You just misread -- carelessly.
Likely so. Unlike you, I cannot claim to be perfect.
>
> > > > You give no good reason for dating the sonnet to 1581.
> > >
> > > A) The last chance for producing an heir
> > > was in 1581 with the Alencon marriage
> > > negotiations. The poet still hopes for an
> > > heir -- but only just. We can tell that from
> > > his hope for 'succeeding men'.
> >
> > That could mean almost anything.
>
> Except that you can't think of any other likely
> meaning. And unremarkably, nor can any
> one else, including all the commentators.
>
> > Since you haven't proved to anyone's
> > satisfaction that the addressee of most of the sonnets
>
> I don't expect Strats to accept the line;
> and most Oxfordians are even dozier
> than you . . . (yes -- even dozier)
Amazing.
>having
> become Oxfordians because they have
> bought into some sick story, usually
> based on (or supported by) a perverse
> reading of the sonnets.
You mean the Tudor Heir adherents? They're sick because they believe that
Southampton was the son of the Queen and Oxford? What's sick about that? I
don't buy into it, I can't see any proof, but I don't see it as sick. And
talk about perverse reading of the sonnets...
>
> > is the Queen, I cannot accept that "succeeding men"
> > has anything to do with her having
>
> Sure, what else could 'succeeding' mean?
> The poet must really have meant to write
> 'successful' -- it was just a typo.
It's very clear what "succeeding" means. It is a very clever pun which can
mean the beloved's heirs and at the same time "the men who come afterwards."
Don't you know what "him" means? That gives the clue to the fact that the
poet is talking about the successors of a male.
Not at all. I'd just like to be able to tie them into available evidence. I
don't tend to read secondary sources when I'm looking at poetry. When
possible I go to and compare the works themselves, and I have seen a
profound parallel between V and A and the fair youth sonnets, especially the
marriage sonnets.
>Of course, like the Stats, you
> can fit nothing whatever to those times,
> places, events or people -- not after the
> efforts of tens of thousands of 'scholars'
> for hundreds of years.
That's just rubbish. I've said why above.
>
> But so what? Dogma must come first.
> And it must NEVER be questioned.
I have never accepted Dogma. I have always questioned everything. That's
primarily why I'm doing what you're asking everyone to do--question your
exegesis of the sonnets. Making ad hominem remarks in response doesn't in
the least help your case.
>
> > It would make sense, for
> > example, if he were writing about the fair youth's marriage to his own
> > daughter.
>
> Sure, sure. And it's perfectly normal to
> address your prospective son-in-law as:
>
> "Unthrifty lovelinesse why dost thou spend,
> Upon thy selfe thy beauties legacy?"
>
> "Then beautious nigard why doost thou abuse,
> The bountious largesse given thee to give?"
>
> "Those howers that with gentle worke did frame,
> The lovely gaze where every eye doth dwell"
The point is that it's not normal to do anything the poet is doing, and
that's one of the reasons why after all these years the sonnets are still
fascinating to us. You think it's not normal for the poet to be addressing
the youth thus (I agree that's possibly the case), but normal for the 14
year old poet to be speaking to the Queen about her turds?
>
> No doubt you say (or have said) words to
> this effect to all prospective sons-in-law
> who have come to your house. It's the
> same for me . . . and, of course, for all of us.
I don't have any prospective sons-in-law, and I'm not a man, possibly a
homosexual or bisexual man. One must have parallel experiences for one's
theories about the sonnets to be correct? I take it you have defecation
derbies?
>
> Aren't you pleased to have an interpretation
> of the sonnets based on such solid ground?
> It's as good as Gary's (with his homosexual
> reading) on any day of the week.
It's not. It's inconsistent and for the most part ridiculous.
>
> > > > You give no
> > > > acceptable reason for dragging Raleigh OR his penis OR others such
as
> > > > Frobisher into it.
> > >
> > > They were the predominant sailor-courtiers
> > > in the years immediately before 1582.
> >
> > Yes, but you've still made no reasonable case for
> >
> > a) the beloved of the sonnets being the Queen
>
> I make it every week for every sonnet,
> line by line, and word by word. You
> can only attempt to criticise by completely
> misreading what I say.
>
> > b) the period being that of the early eighties
>
> I make it every week for every sonnet,
> line by line, and word by word. You
> can only attempt to criticise by completely
> misreading what I say.
I could say the moon is made of blue cheese every hour of every day. Would
that make it correct? You are missing an essential ingredient: an
understanding of poetry.
>
> > c) Time or anything else being a predominant sailor,
>
> I have shown the identification of 'mite'
> with Raleigh before. If you can't see how
> our poet would want to play on variations
> on his standard theme, then nothing I can
> say will help.
>
> > I didn't say 1585. I believe the most likely scenario is that these
sonnets
> > were written closer to the early nineties, as they correspond to V and
A,
>
> Sure. It's the standard Strat line, and I'd
> expect nothing else from you.
Nothing to do with the traditionalists. I did a lot of work on V and A
because I was discussing it with Roger Stritmatter, who was writing a paper
on it, and as we go through the sonnets, I am struck by the parallels I see
and therefore the real possibility that the addressee is Southampton. That's
the way my mind works.
>
> > and V and A was dedicated to Southampton so it couldn't have been
written
> > much earlier. Many of the arguments used in the earlier sonnets are put
into
> > Venus' mouth in V and A. That is not to say I wouldn't accept a
different
> > timeline if I were given compelling evidence for it.
>
> If it was not a standard Strat line,
> you would not go for it.
That's just rubbish. If I went for "standard Strat lines," I'd be a
Stratfordian. I'm not.
>
> > Paul, you never find any reference that is relevant unless it fits your
> > theory, which quite honestly has nothing to commend it as you've
produced
> > not one iota of proof for it.
>
> What for you would constitute 'proof'?
Consistency, for a start. And a way of tying what one says to the sonnets
themselves so closely that there would be no room for error. There are large
holes (no pun intended) in all your exegeses. You force the sonnets into a
mold. They struggle to get out. You decide certain words represent certain
people for no apparent reason other than that your identifications fit some
historical scenario. You change the "hidden meanings" of words to suit
yourself. For example, why would "heaven" mean the Queen's toilet in one
poem (I think it was 17, haven't time to go back), and yet sexual
intercourse in the next? Doesn't make any sense at all. I don't mind you
theorising. I object to your saying: "This is the meaning and the rest of
you are idiots for not seeing it." That is the mark of someone who cannot
exchange information or listen well enough to test out his theories.
>
> > The idea, for example, that Oxford or anyone
> > else wrote some of the marriage sonnets at the age of fourteen is quite
> > frankly wacky.
>
> The Queen's marriage was THE hot topic
> (for the whole country) from the moment
> she ascended the throne in 1588 right up
> until 1582. Oxford is known to have taken
> a particular stance on it -- and a particularly
> strong stance. (Of course, those facts will
> have no relevance for Strats or quasi-Strats.)
From 1588 to 1582? What?
It is unlikely that Oxford even knew the Queen, except in a glancing way,
when he was fourteen. He may have been her ward, but he certainly didn't
live in her house. And yet you suggest he was on close enough terms with her
to talk of her toilet habits? And presumably send sonnets to her that
discussed these matters? It's no use asking you to think about it, because
you won't or can't. Not sure which or why.
>
> There is nothing in many of the sonnets
> that would rule out an intelligent 14-year-old,
> especially one of supreme poetic genius.
There's plenty. These are the concerns of a much older man. If you don't
believe me, believe the poet. He says over and over that he is getting old,
that he is older than the addressee, etc. Was the addressee four? Besides,
we've seen other poems of Oxford which presumably were written when he was
younger. They are nowhere near as mature, and in fact, if not juvenilia, are
the best reason for discounting him as the author of the canon.
>
> > Anyone who knows anything about literature will tell you even
> > as great a genius as Shakespeare had to undergo an apprenticeship before
> > writing mature poetry.
>
> And he did -- probably from about the
> age of six. A 14-line sonnet need not
> be an especial test of 'maturity'.
Of course not. It is the material in the sonnets, the maturity of voice, the
subject matter, the fact that they are superior to earlier poems, which
advises us that they are not the work of a fourteen year old.
>
> > My guess is the only reason you've chosen the dates
> > you have is that WS of Stratford was about nought when you posit the
first
> > sonnets were written.
>
> I have 'chosen' the date for each sonnet
> because it fits the text of that sonnet. As
> ever, you are obliged to ignore anything
> to do with the text.
Ha.
Best wishes,
Lynne
>
>
> Paul.
>
>
>
BCD
> On 11 Sep 2004 21:04:33 -0700, odin...@csulb.edu (BCD)
> wrote:
>
> >> "BCD" <odin...@csulb.edu> wrote in message
> >> news:be4a0014.04091...@posting.google.com...
> >> > [...]
> >> > > Plucke the keene teeth from the fierce Tygers yawes,
> >> >
> >> > ***"Neutralize the fierce spread of the Tigridia clump" [notes: again,
> >> > the meaning is obvious]
>
> Can we make it relevant that Yaws is a skin disease
> producing raspberry-like eruptions?
***Quite so. Such eruptions would constitute a perfect facsimile of
the inner portion of the Tigridia flower! See
http://www.mgovens.freeserve.co.uk/tigridia.htm
***Perhaps the poet glances here at another hitherto unknown property
of Thyme: to cure the Yaws.
LynnE
"BCD" <odin...@csulb.edu> wrote in message
news:be4a0014.04091...@posting.google.com...
> "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:<w7L0d.45515$Nd6.1...@news20.bellglobal.com>...
> > "BCD" <odin...@csulb.edu> wrote in message
> > news:be4a0014.04091...@posting.google.com...
> > > [...]
> > > > Plucke the keene teeth from the fierce Tygers yawes,
> > >
> > > ***"Neutralize the fierce spread of the Tigridia clump" [notes: again,
> > > the meaning is obvious]
> >
> > Wot about the Tyger lyly?
>
> ***Why, Lynne, you giddy thing--surely you tied on your bonnet too
> tightly this morning. Who doesn't know that *Lilium tigrinum* didn't
> appear in the Occident until sometime during William Kerr's sojourn in
> Canton 1803-1811?
Actually, I was speaking of that Tygrish wit, John Lyly, author of Euphues.
<g> We have had long discussions about Lyly beetles here and on the
Fellowship forum. You must have missed them. I, or at least my plants, had a
lyly beetle infestation, and we agreed that as we were talking of it on
Shakespeare lists, "lyly" was a more appropriate spelling. Shakespeareans
are very versatile. They found a cure. Neem Oyl. ;)
>
> > And why no leopard's bane?
>
> ***The very question I ask myself every evening: "[melancholy
> sigh]... Why, o why, no leopard's bane? . . . [gazes sadly out the
> window at nothing in particular, a tear starting to course slowly down
> one cheek] . . . And yet--yet somehow we must carry on . . . " [slow
> curtain as Magda pokes at the dying embers.]
Please don't cry. Tell me instead why my two leopard's bane plants
disappeared this spring, after several years of beautiful bloom. I think
daisy-like species are my favourites--after roses, natch.
L.
Peter Farey
Lynne Kositsky wrote:
>
> > > > Devouring Time, blunt thou the lion's paws
> > > > And make the earth devour her own sweet brood,
> > > > And burn the long-lived phoenix in her blood;
<snip>
> Well, one of the other ships was "The Elizabeth," and the
> phoenix was the Queen's emblem. That made me wonder some-
> thing else--whether all three animals, the lyon, tyger,
> and phoenix, were heraldic devices for three real people,
> just as the boar was Oxford's emblem, etc. That takes us
> away from the ship theory. Sorry, Gary, that's the way my
> mind works. I'm always speculating. Sometimes it turns
> out well, sometimes not.
Whether heraldic devices, emblems, or creatures with which
they had been associated, you may be on the right track.
In my mind, I associate these lines with the last couplet
of Sonnet 107
And thou in this shalt find thy monument
When tyrants' crests and tombs of brass are spent.
If most of the commentators are right about Sonnet 107
referring to Elizabeth's death and James's accession,
then one of the 'tyrants' the poet may well have had in
mind was Elizabeth herself.
The other creatures may also be symbolic of any cruel ruler,
of course. I'm reminded of *The Rape of Lucrece* too.
(939-959)
"Time's glory is to calm contending kings,
To unmask falsehood and bring truth to light,
To stamp the seal of time in aged things,
To wake the morn and sentinel the night,
To wrong the wronger till he render right,
To ruinate proud buildings with thy hours
And smear with dust their glitt'ring golden towers;
"To fill with worm-holes stately monuments,
To feed oblivion with decay of things,
To blot old books and alter their contents,
To pluck the quills from ancient ravens' wings,
To dry the old oak's sap and blemish springs,
To spoil antiquities of hammered steel,
And turn the giddy round of fortune's wheel;
"To show the beldame daughters of her daughter,
To make the child a man, the man a child,
To slay the tiger that doth live by slaughter,
To tame the unicorn and lion wild,
To mock the subtle in themselves beguiled,
To cheer the ploughman with increaseful crops,
And waste huge stones with little water drops.
("Little water drops"? Where have I seen that recently?
Ah yes, JWK's quotation from *Doctor Faustus*!)
So if in Sonnet 19 she is the phoenix, and the lion and
the tiger other 'tyrants', it was written while she was
still alive, and would have been *very* risky stuff -
"strictly for your eyes only" before 1603!
Peter F.
pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm
Art Neuendorffer
2. And make the earth devoure her owne sweet brood,
>
>>> The Quarto shows 'yawes' -- which is not
>>> in the OED as a possible spelling for 'jaws'.
>>> The poet is playing on the 'yaws' of a ship,
>>> referring to the 'Tyger', one of the Queen's
>>> major fighting vessels. Presumably,
>>> Raleigh had 'borrowed' some of its cannon
>>> for use on his own ships for their pirating
>>> expeditions. There may have been some
>>> argument that the 'Tyger' was over-
>>> weighted with too much cannon,
>>> creating excessive yaws.
>
>>> Ships' cannon were commonly referred to
>>> as its 'teeth', even if the first record of this
>>> in the OED is from 1806:
>>> 'Tooth' f. pl. fig. A ship's guns. Naut. slang.
>>> 1806 J. Davis Post-Captain iv. 19 'She looks, sir,
>>> 'Yes, sir; she has a very heavy tire of teeth.'
>> The thought that "Tyger" might be both the animal and a ship belonging to
>> the word certainly could be representing both yaws and jaws, making the
>> whole line a very clever play on words. The ship The Tyger ran aground
>> I can find happening to The Tyger in 1581
> (look at line 1 again) were ships that travelled there. Perhaps
> The Phoenix was too, although I can't find a ref to it.
> The only other alternative reading that might make sense of this line is as
> a topical reference of the kind that Lynne is pursuing in another thread -
> Phoenix as the name of a ship. I'm usually very skeptical about topical
> references unless I can find three or four of them in a group. But in this
> case, the weakness of the Phoenix metaphor in its usual role persuades
> me that there might be something in it. In which case this might help:-
> First Officer: Orsino, this is that Antonio
> That took the Phoenix and her fraught from Candy;
> And this is he that did the Tiger board,
> When your young nephew Titus lost his leg:
>
> (TN, V, I)
> Those are fictional ships, of course, but still. We've got "Phoenix" and
> we've got "Tiger". If we can get "Lyon" we might be in business.
Buffalo
> 1. Devouring time blunt thou the Lyons paws,
> 2. And make the earth devoure her owne sweet brood,
> 3. Plucke the keene teeth from the fierce Tygers yawes,
> 4. And burne the long liv'd Phoenix in her blood,
> 6. And do what ere thou wilt swift-footed time
> 7. To the wide world and all her fading sweets:
> 8. But I forbid thee one most hainous crime,
> 9. O carve not with thy howers my loves faire brow,
> 10. Nor draw noe lines there with thine antique pen,
> 11. Him in thy course untainted doe allow,
> 12. For beauties patterne to succeding men.
> 13. Yet doe thy worst ould Time dispight thy wrong,
> 14. My love shall in my verse ever live young.
>
> our poet too seriously --
No one would ever accuse you of taking his words seriously.
> The poem is written in the same vein as
> Sonnet 16, and comes from the second
> major period of sonnet-writing around 1581.
> I date it provisionally to shortly after the
> poet's arrest in April of that year, when
> the Queen was very angry with him for
> making pregnant Anne Vavasour, one of
> her maids of honour.
Right. April, 1581 it is. Proceed.
> This sonnet is a good illustration of his
> method of 'contrived ambiguity'. It seems
> to me fairly simple (although, that might
> mean only that I have not seen its
> complexities). There are two themes: the
> superficial one of 'Time', into which (in
> this sonnet) he puts a fair amount of effort;
> and the 'hidden' one where in the contest
> for the affections of his beloved, he
> continues his dogged pursuit of his hated
> rival, whom he thinks of as a 'mite' or an
> 'item' -- both anagrams of 'time'.
Which rival would that be? Not Raleigh, obviously, since you've dated this
sonnet as 1581. Raleigh didn't even arrive at court until that year. And
your "continues his dogged pursuit" suggests this is a rival dating from
some time back. Who could it be?
> 1. Devouring time blunt thou the Lyons pawes,
>
> Queen Elizabeth had a habit of expressing
> anger and disgust by saying 'Poh!' or 'Paw!'.
Please cite as many references as you can to support this assertion. Chapter
and verse, if you will.
> The poet represents her as 'the lion', as that
> was the emblem of England; as she was
> proud of the "lion's heart" she claimed to
> inherit from her father; and ballad singers
> called her the 'great lioness'.
>
> He asks (in joking terms) the 'devouring mite'
> to mollify the anger of his mistress.
>
> The poet is using 'devouring' in senses now
> obsolete: Devour (OED):
> 3. Of a person or personal agent: To consume destructively,
> recklessly, or wantonly; to make away with, waste, destroy
> (substance, property or fig. its owners).
> Obsolete except in biblical language.
> c. To make a prey of, treat with rapine. Obsolete.
So in which of those obsolete senses could this "mite" or "item" (whoever he
is) be described as "devouring"? How does he go about his devouring when the
mood is on him?
> 2. And make the earth devoure her owne sweet brood,
>
> This is primarily a reference to the fate
> he sees for England if the Queen does
> not provide an heir.
What do you mean, "if"? The queen is pushing fifty.
>The poet pretends
> to transfer to Raleigh the bulk of the
> blame for this probable event.
Does this mean Raleigh is the "mite"? Not possible, surely?
By means of a line "And make the earth devoure her owne sweet brood" he
*pretends*, does he, to put the blame on a young man whose name is as yet
unknown to the Queen?
Still, if you think he was in the habit of referring to this young man as an
anagram of "time", please cite as many references as you can to support that
assertion. Chapter and verse, if you will.
>He may
> also be referring to Raleigh's West
> Country tin-mining activities.
Yes the earth devouring her own sweet brood makes you think instantly of
tin.
> 3. Plucke the keene teeth from the fierce Tygers yawes,
>
> The Quarto shows 'yawes' -- which is not
> in the OED as a possible spelling for 'jaws'.
> The poet is playing on the 'yaws' of a ship,
Which part of a ship is called the "yaws"?
> referring to the 'Tyger', one of the Queen's
> major fighting vessels. Presumably,
> Raleigh had 'borrowed' some of its cannon
> for use on his own ships for their pirating
> expeditions.
No, "presumably" he hadn't. Raleigh's only adventure upon the seas by 1581
was the short crossing to Ireland. He had been on no pirating expeditions.
>There may have been some
> argument that the 'Tyger' was over-
> weighted with too much cannon, creating
> excessive yaws.
There might have been, but these would have nothing to do with the young
Raleigh, who had never set foot on the Tyger.
You're also uninformed on the difference between yawing and rolling or
careening.
> Ships' cannon were commonly referred to
> as its 'teeth', even if the first record of this
> in the OED is from 1806:
Commonly referred to as "teeth" from 1806, then. Or commonly enough to
enable the OED to find an example, at least. Before that it could be said to
be something between uncommon and non-existent.
> 4. And burne the long liv'd Phoenix in her blood,
>
> The Phoenix is, of course, the Queen.
> It was one of her standard emblems.
> Burning 'in blood' though was not a
> part of the usual imagery. The poet is
> emphasising (a) the end of the Tudor
> blood-line, and (b) the likelihood of an
> early and violent death, given the
> uncertainty over the succession
And this is all the doing of the "mite", is it? Or is our poet only
*pretending* again?
> 5. Make glad and sorry seasons as thou fleet'st,
>
> As Raleigh's pirating fleets sailed the
> oceans they created 'sorry sea-sons'.
At the moment Raleigh has no pirating fleets and commands no sea sons.
> The robbers (when they got away with
> it) would be 'glad sea-sons'.
The merry band includes Frobisher, Drake, Hawkins - with Raleigh
conspicuously absent.
> 6. And do what ere thou wilt swift-footed time
>
> The poet was thinking of a 'swift-footed
> thief' again intending 'time' as 'mite' or 'item'.
What for? Who is he referring to?
> 7. To the wide world and all her fading sweets:
>
> 'Wide world' echoes Sonnet 107: "the
> prophetic soul /Of the wide world . . ."
> and likewise refers to Raleigh's imperial
> and colonising ambitions.
How does he know about those ambitions? Even Raleigh probably doesn't know
about them yet.
> The poet saw Raleigh, and similar-minded courtiers,
> doing much the same as the Spaniards
> had in Mexico and Peru.
No, he didn't. Raleigh wasn't yet a courtier, and hadn't yet been anywhere
near the new world.
>He also shows
> here his pessimism for the future. He
> did not like 'modernism', nor the growth
> of the narrow-minded , puritanical and
> greedy middle-classes.
This is derived from "to the wide world and all her fading sweets", is it?.
> 8. But I forbid thee one most hainous crime,
>
> It almost went without saying that Raleigh,
> Drake, Frobisher and others committed
> plenty of heinous crimes.
Nope. You have to exclude Raleigh from that list. He wasn't there.
> 9. O carve not with thy howers my loves faire brow,
>
> As ever, 'howers' puns on 'whores' --
> here it is intended in a generally abusive
> sense, much like 'cunts' or 'bastards'.
> The 'brow' to which the poet is referring
> is between his Mistress's legs.
O carve not with thy cunts/bastards my lover's pubic hair. Right.
Just as a matter of interest, who were these cunts/bastards that the "mite"
would unleash on the Queen's pudenda? Would it be "Drake, Frobisher and
others"? Or the "sorry sea sons"?
> 10. Nor draw noe lines there with thine antique pen,
>
> The 'antique pen' is Raleigh's penis, and
His penis seems to be a lot older than the rest of him. The rest of him is
younger than Oxford.
> 'lines' puns on 'loins' and on 'lines of
> descent'.
It also puns on "loans". It could be a reference to the Stratman.
>Oxford is not (I think) serious
> in these sentiments.
You should see in him (I think) the same seriousness as the rest of hlas
sees in you.
>The romantic aspect
> of his jealousy is pretence. The Queen is
> supposed to be still immensely sexually
> attractive to all her courtiers, and Raleigh's
> supposed aim is to bed her.
Supposed by whom? He hasn't even met her yet.
> 11. Him in thy course untainted doe allow,
>
> The 'him' is the hoped-for heir -- although
> Oxford is known to have been in favour
> of the Alencon match, by this stage few
> thought it a serious prospect. Were
> Raleigh thought to have sexual relations
> with the Queen, this hoped-for child (of
> Alencon) would be tainted with doubts
> of bastardy.
I can understand that it would be. But since Raleigh couldn't be suspected
of putting the Queen up the duff at this point in his career, it just
doesn't arise.
> 12. For beauties patterne to succeding men.
>
> 'Beauty' is, as ever, the Queen. Her son
> will pass on her pattern to succeeding
> (male) monarchs.
I see. You think "for" might be a verb meaning "pass on"?
> 13. Yet doe thy worst ould Time dispight thy wrong,
>
> The closing couplet does not seem to
> say much. The poet has virtually given
> up all hope of an heir to the throne.
>
> 14. My love shall in my verse ever live young.
>
> The metrical weakness of the last line is
> often remarked upon. I suggest that the
> poet intended a play on:
> "My love shall in my versefyer live young".
> i.e.
> "My love shall in my versifier live young"
But you aren't going to reveal who you think his versifier might be? Could
it be Lyly? Was Oxford maybe confessing to being a front-man for his
secretary?
> He had low opinion of Raleigh's poetry,
> and he strongly deprecated the Queen's
> infatuation with this handsome, young,
> low-born courtier.
No, even Oxford was never found deprecating something that didn't yet exist.
Recently someone wrote an exhaustive reply to one of your "exegeses" and
signed off as follows:
"Lynne-- who doesn't ever want to hear again that no one will comment on
your exegeses."
You may now consider that wish to be endorsed with a second signature.
Buffalo
Robert Stonehouse
<none...@here.com> wrote:
>"Robert Stonehouse" <ew...@bcs.org.invalid> wrote in message
>news:l1q7k0tg4p2qa70nc...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 20:29:00 +0000 (UTC), "Buffalo"
>> <none...@here.com> wrote:
...
>> using here is 'long-lived', about which all authors agree
>> until we come to the question: exactly how long?
>
>Well, I vaguely recall 500 years or something like that.
Tacitus (loc.cit.) offers 500 and 1461, but notes that the
phoenix of AD 34 was less than 500 years after that of
Ptolemy III.
>But when I said
>"the point about the Phoenix" I really meant the attribute of the Phoenix
>that remains in the legend when all other attributes are forgotten, and
>which would be the reason you would choose it as a metaphor. And that's its
>ability to renew itself from the fire. A quick search of the canon confirms
>this:
Other points about it, from Art's list of references, are
its rarity and its spectacular appearance: he gives
instances of its use as a representative of both. Probably
we have lost some of the knowledge that was commonplace in
Shakespeare's time.
I don't really understand the point of its being the name of
a ship. Or why it needs to be a Queen's ship - we need a
detailed reference to establish that anyway, and I haven't
seen one. 'Tiger' was a common name for a ship, but always
privately owned so far as I know: "Her husband's to Aleppo
gone, master o' th' Tiger" (Macbeth).
Buffalo
new world before 1581, joining an exploratory venture in 1578. My mistake -
but it makes no practical difference. The Crowley exegesis depends on
Raleigh being a court rival to Oxford, which he couldn't have been until he
arrived at the court after his return from Ireland - i.e. not earlier than
1581.
Buffalo
LynnE
"Robert Stonehouse" <ew...@bcs.org.invalid> wrote in message
We know the Lyon and the Tyger were both ships that went out to Roanoke
Island during the Lane expedition, so the sonnet struck a chord, as I've
been doing work on early settlement in Virginia to help decode some material
in Minerva Britanna. The Tyger ran aground a little after sailing on from
Roanoke, and I think, but am not sure, that some of the other ships ran
aground also. I believe I saw it somewhere, but can't find a source. It was
just a thought that if we could find a Phoenix that was there (there was an
Elizabeth, which might do as well), and if something happened to all the
ships, (Art, please do your magic), we might have a starting point for
dating. We now know that Shakespeare used such names with regard to ships,
albeit fictional ones. These kinds of names were commonplaces, after all. So
it's possible that he was, in this instance, referring to ships that had
taken part in some extraordinary excursion.
I am just suggesting this as one of many possibilities for the three
fabulous creatures named in the sonnet. I think it was the line "make the
earth devour her own sweet brood" that hit me more than anything. After all,
Roanoke, although terra firma, was the Marie Celeste of its day, and its day
would have been the early 1590s as far as the English were concerned. That's
when they would have heard that the settlers had vanished. I have a
documentary on Roanoke somewhere. I'll watch it when I have time.
After that I'll try to think about who might have been the Lyon and the
Tyger in Tudor times. Just think, "burne the long liu'd Phćnix in her blood"
could just as easily be describing the Queen's death as "the mortal moon
hath her eclipse endur'd." (107)
Idle thoughts for a Sunday afternoon.
L.
Buffalo
"Robert Stonehouse" <ew...@bcs.org.invalid> wrote in message
No, it doesn't need to be the Queen's ship. But if you can find three ships
named Lyon, Tyger, Phoenix, that were in the public mind - for any reason -
it might help make sense of the line that involves the Phoenix. As an image
drawn from mythology, it's too oddly worded for my liking. The "blood" part,
at any rate, is a mystery to me. But if it were the name of a ship there
might be some topical circumstance that explains it.
I agree, though, that even if we find the ships, it doesn't necessarily make
sense to include them in a sonnet about the passage of time - unless there
is some circumstance that clarifies it. Just finding three ships with those
names doesn't by itself help much since, as you say, Tiger at least was a
common name for a ship; and if there was a Tiger, it's a pound to a penny
that there was a Lion too. And Phoenix is also the kind of name that a ship
would be given. But if you could trace those ships, you might also come
across the special circumstance that made them topical, and which might
explain the special wording of the Phoenix reference. At the moment I cannot
see what that circumstance could be, but I thought it was worth a try. I'm
reluctant to leave this sonnet without trying to find at least one good
thing in it - which at the moment I can't.
Buffalo
bookburn
I see an interesting essay in Notes and Queries by Dwight Peck, at:
http://homepage.iprolink.ch/~dpeck/write_raleigh.htm
(quote)Nothing is otherwise known of Raleigh's activities between his
return from the Azores in May 1579 and his fight with Thomas Perrot in
February 1580, but it now seems very likely that he journeyed briefly
to France in November 1579, attending the English Catholics' good
friend Simier, and was attacked by pirates upon his return. (unquote)
I gather from looking at Internet sites, 1581 was the date when Oxford
and Sydney didn't have a duel and Raleigh was one of Oxford's Seconds
in the affair. Raleigh and others seem to have written records of
Oxford's behaviors then, including his remark about having Sydney
murthered. Raleigh, himself, was possibly targeted for murder by
Oxford after that. It wasn't until 1592 that Elizabeth had Raleigh
briefly in the tower for his secret marriage, so I'm not sure how
Crowley squares all that with an early date for the sonnet.
bookburn
David L. Webb
"Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
(aneuendor...@comicass.nut) wrote:
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > Art can no doubt explain the Phoenix:
> >
> > P
> > H
> > O X
> > N
> > I
> > E
> -----------------------------------------------
> "PHONEY" was first used in popular English literature:
> sometime before 1916.
But Art -- for someone who thinks that Virgil predated Herodotus,
that Aleksandr Nevskii was "tsar," and that "moniment" meant
"laughingstock" in the early 1600s, chronology neVER furnishes any
obstruction whateVER -- epsecially when the activity in question is
crank cryptography.
Incidentally, Art, this is Sonnet *19* -- aren't you going to regale
us with your usual boilerplate about how the number 19 is both the sum
of two consecutive integers and the difference of their squares?
> -----------------------------------------------
> PHONEY Adjective:
> Fraudulent; having a misleading appearance.
>
> Synonyms: bastard (adj), bogus (adj), fake (adj),
> -----------------------------------------------
> PHONEY Noun:
> A person who professes beliefs and opinions that they do not hold.
>
> Synonyms: dissembler (n), hypocrite (n), pretender (n).
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> "I coulda had class, I coulda been a pretender!"
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> - H
> P O X
> - N
> I
> - E
INPNC score 0/7.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> WE-EVER, JOHN, 1599
> Epigrammes in the Oldest Cut and Newest Fashion.
>
> HONIE-tong'd Shakespeare when I saw thine issue,
> I swore Apollo got them and none other,
>
> They burn in love, thy children Shakespear HET THEm
> Go, wo thy Muse, more Nymphish brood beget THEm
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> HET, v. t. & i. To PROMISE. [Obs.] --Chaucer.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
"Hett" (a form of "hight") also means "to bear a name; to be called."
Wouldn't that sense be more appropriate for a pseudonymous author, Art?
> <= 33 =>
> .
> /T/ OT [H] EONLIEBEGETTEROFTHESEINSVINGS
> - /O/ NN [E T] SMRWHALLHAPPINESSEANDTHATETE
> /R/ NI [T(I)E] PROMISEDBYOVREVERLIVINGPOET
> /W/ IS [H E T H] THEWELLWISHINGADVENTVRERIN
TORW? That's nonsense, Art. WROT? What is that supposed to mean?
Oh, I see -- the solution is ROT.
[Lunatic logorrhea snipped]
> Aud. Would you not haue me HONEst?
You could really use a hone, Art. It is a device for sharpening
fools -- I mean tools.
> Clo. No TRULY, vnlesse thou wert hard fauour'd:
> for HONEstie coupled to beautie, is to haue
> HONIE a sawce to Sugar.
>
> Iaq. A materiall FO( )OLe.
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> (To them) [my OM, by FO(DEVere)OL-]
"To them, my OM [sic], by [sic] de Vere (fool)?"
That's nonsense, Art -- at least, all but the last word is.
BCD
> "BCD" <odin...@csulb.edu> wrote in message
> news:be4a0014.04091...@posting.google.com...
> > "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:<w7L0d.45515$Nd6.1...@news20.bellglobal.com>...
> > > And why no leopard's bane?
> >
> > ***The very question I ask myself every evening: "[melancholy
> > sigh]... Why, o why, no leopard's bane? . . . [gazes sadly out the
> > window at nothing in particular, a tear starting to course slowly down
> > one cheek] . . . And yet--yet somehow we must carry on . . . " [slow
> > curtain as Magda pokes at the dying embers.]
>
> Please don't cry.
***It's ok. 'Twas only glycerine. I'm in training for the starring
role in re-makes of the William S. Hart movies.
> Tell me instead why my two leopard's bane plants
> disappeared this spring, after several years of beautiful bloom. I think
> daisy-like species are my favourites--after roses, natch.
***Yes, my Doronicums are fleeting, too (try variety 'Finesse'). The
problem can be (1) snails/slugs; (2) too much sun and dryness; (3) too
much shade. You might also want to check on whether Untainted Does
are accessing your garden.
Gary Kosinsky
<slkwuoiut...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
SNIP
>But then Gary does not need to read my
>work to know that it is wrong. Every word
>and every line of it is necessarily wrong.
SNIP
Good, Paul! We're finally making progress. Now if
we can only get you off this scatological obsession of
yours...
- Gary Kosinsky
Art Neuendorffer
> > > Orsino, this is that Antonio
> > > That took the Phoenix and her fraught from Candy;
> > > And this is he that did the Tiger board,
> > > When your young nephew Titus lost his leg:
> > >
> > >(TN, V, I)
> > >
> > >Those are fictional ships, of course, but still. We've got "Phoenix" and
> > >we've got "Tiger". If we can get "Lyon" we might be in business. But you
> > >still have to explain "blood", and you also have to explain "long-lived".
> > I don't really understand the point of its being the name of
> > a ship. Or why it needs to be a Queen's ship - we need a
> > detailed reference to establish that anyway, and I haven't
> > seen one. 'Tiger' was a common name for a ship, but always
> > privately owned so far as I know: "Her husband's to Aleppo
> > gone, master o' th' Tiger" (Macbeth).
> We know the Lyon and the Tyger were both ships
> that went out to Roanoke Island during the Lane expedition,
> on early settlement in Virginia to help decode some material
> in Minerva Britanna. The Tyger ran aground a little after sailing on from
> Roanoke, and I think, but am not sure, that some of the other ships ran
> aground also. I believe I saw it somewhere, but can't find a source. It was
> just a thought that if we could find a Phoenix that was there (there was an
> Elizabeth, which might do as well), and if something happened to all the
> ships, (Art, please do your magic),
CLASH OF CULTURES: ANGLO-INDIAN (MIS)RELATIONS AT ROANOKE
http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/5727/hist1.html
<<As the months passed, the Roanoke colonists began to starve. Trouble
with Pemisipan's Indians abated for a while due to the benevolence of
ENSENORE, Pemisipan's "father," the "only frend to our nation that we
had amongst them". Under ENSENORE's influence, Pemisipan ordered the
Weopomiok Indians to acknowledge Queen Elizabeth as their sovereign,
and the Indians henceforth aided the English in setting up houses
and growing food. Upon ENSENORE's death in April 1586, however, this
interlude of relative peace ended as Lane uncovered a plot by Pemisipan
and Okisko, king of the Weopomiok Indians, to assassinate him during
a nighttime raid. And although Menatonon and the Choanokes remained
"more faithfull in their promises", their friendship was due in part
to coercion: Lane held Menatonon's son captive, threatening to kill
him when he tried to run away. [On June 1] Lane killed Pemisipan.
Eight days later, Francis Drake arrived with a fleet of 23 ships.
Following a major storm which destroyed a good part of the fleet, Lane
accepted Drake's offer for passage back to England. Fifteen men were
left behind, and they would continue to sour Anglo-Indian relations
in preparation for the next colony, which arrived in 1587. This 2nd
colony was led by John White, the artist, who was considerably less
inclined toward unprovoked violence. The colony had a shaky start,
however: when the settlers arrived in July 1587, they found no
trace of the 15 men, and Lane's fort had been razed by fire.
-------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.nps.gov/fora/raleigh2.htm
<<By 1586, Raleigh was already planning another colony in Virginia. This
one would be more ambitions, with its own coat of arms and the title,
"Cittie of Ralegh." It would be agrarian rather than militaristic, less
an adventure than a commitment. Raleigh's decision to locate it on
the lower end of the Chesapeake Bay was prompted by Lane's report of
friendly Indians and a good natural harbor. The inclusion of 17 women
and 9 children among the 110 colonists would make this a long-term,
self-perpetuating settlement. Instead of wages, each settler was
deeded a 50-acre plot, thereby giving him a stake in the undertaking.
John White, the artist who had accompanied the first voyage,
was appointed Governor, to be aided by 12 assistants.
When the three ships sailed in May of 1587, the plan was to stop briefly
at Roanoke Island to resupply Grenville's party. But when they arrived
in July, the pilot Fernandez insisted that the summer was too far
advanced to go further, and the colonists were left at Roanoke.
In 1590, John White got passage on a privateering voyage.
As the party stepped ashore, there was no sign of the colonists
except the letters "CRO" carved on a tree. The houses had been
taken down and a palisade constructed, on one post of which
was carved "CROATAN," but there was no Maltese cross.>>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PYTHAGORAS: "the philosopher of CROTONA" [CROATAN?]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NostalgiaNostalgia
<<NOSTALGIA currently describes a longing for the past:
Often an idealized and unrealistic past
The term was originally coined in 1678 by Johannes Hoffer
(1669-1752) from Latin roots, to refer to
"the pain a sick person feels because he is not in his native land,
or fears never to see it again". This neologism was so successful
that people forgot its origin. Moreover, its original meaning-
-referring to a serious medical disorder--has been
lost as the word NOSTALGIA entered everyday language.
During the period, from the late seventeenth century to the late
nineteenth century, that doctors diagnosed and treated NOSTALGIA,
it also had other names in various languages
- maladie du pays (country sickness) in French,
Heimweh (home-pain) in German and
el mal de coraz n (heart-pain) in Spanish.
Cases resulting in death were known and soldiers were sometimes
successfully treated by being discharged and sent home. Receiving
a diagnosis was, however, generally regarded as an insult.
In 1787 Robert Hamilton (1749-1830) described
a case of a soldier suffering from NOSTALGIA,
who received sensitive and successful treatment:
In the year 1781, while I lay in barracks at Tinmouth in the north of
England, a recruit who had lately joined the regiment,...was returned in
sick list, with a message from his captain, requesting I would take him
into the hospital. He had only been a few months a soldier; was young,
handsome, and well-made for the service; but a melancholy hung over his
countenance, and wanness preyed on his cheeks. He complained of a
universal weakness, but no fixed pain; a noise in his ears, and
giddiness of his head....As there were little obvious symptoms of fever,
I did not well know what to make of the case...Some weeks passed with
little alteration...excepting that he was evidently become more meagre.
He scarcely took any nourishment...became indolent...He was put on a
course of strengthening medicines; wine was allowed him. All proved
ineffectual... He had now been in the hospital three months, and was
quite emaciated, and like one in the last stage of consumption... On
making my morning visit, and inquiring, as usual, of his rest at the
nurse, she happened to mention the strong notions he had got in his
head, she said, of home, and of his friends. What he was able to speak
was constantly on this topic. this I had never heard of before...He had
talked in the same style, it seems, less or more, ever since he came
into the hospital. I went immediately up to him, and introduced the
subject; and form the alacrity with which he resumed it.. I found it a
theme which much affected him. He asked me, with earnestness, if I would
let him go home. I pointed out to him how unfit he was, form his
weakness to undertake such a journey [he was a Welchman] till once he
was better; but promised him, assuredly, without farther hesitation,
that as soon as he was able he should have six weeks to go home.
He revived at the very thought of it... His apeitite soon mended;
and I saw in less than a week, evident signs of recovery... .
Cases of NOSTALGIA, which sometimes occurred as epidemics,
were less frequent when the armies were victorious
and more frequent when they suffered reverses.
By the 1850s NOSTALGIA was losing its status as a particular disease
and coming to be seen rather as a symptom or stage of a pathological
process. It was considered as a form of melancholia and a predisposing
condition among suicides. NOSTALGIA was, however, still diagnosed
among soldiers as late as the American Civil War.
By the 1870s interest in NOSTALGIA as a medical category had all but
vanished. Most saw the decline of this serious disease was a good thing,
as the result of progress. Nonetheless some lamented what they saw\
as the loss of the feelings for home that gave rise to the illness.>>
----------------------------------------------------------
PATTON: I'm not going to subsidize cowardice.
----------------------------------------------------------
Soldier Who Gets Slapped: It's my nerves, sir.
I just can't stand the shelling anymore.
PATTON: Your *nerves*? Why hell, you're just a goddamn coward.
PATTON: Shut up. I won't have a yellow bastard sitting here crying in
front of these brave men who've been wounded in battle. SHUT UP.
--------------------------------------------------------------
PATTON: [apologizing to his troops after the "slapping" incident] I
assure you I meant neither harm nor malice to the soldier in question.
My sole intention was to restore in him some sense of appreciation for
his duties as a man and a soldier. "If one could shame a coward," I
felt, "one might help him to gain his self-respect." This was on my
mind. Now, I freely admit my method was wrong. But I hope
you can understand my motive, and accept this apology.
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.bulfinch.org/fables/bull34.html
Bulfinch's Mythology
Shakespeare, in the "Merchant of Venice," makes Gratiano allude to
the METEMPSYCHOSIS, where [Act IV, scene I] he says to Shylock:
"[T]hou almost mak'st me waver in my faith,
[T]o hold opinion with PYTHAGORAS,
[T]hat souls of animals infuse themselves
Into the trunks of men; thy currish spirit
Governed a wolf, who, hanged for human slaughter,
Infused his soul in thee; for thy desires
Are WOLFISH, bloody, starved and ravenous."
---------------------------------------------------------------
<<only one of the "WOLFISH earls" so plenteous in the plays
themselves, or some born descendant and knower, might seem to
be the TRUE author of those amazing works >> --WALT WHITMAN
-----------------------------------------------------------
RALPH => WOLF Counselor
--------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Nickleby Chapter 3
[RALPH Nickleby:] 'You didn't mention in your letter
what my brother's complaint was, ma'am.'
'The doctors could attribute it to no particular disease,'
said Mrs Nickleby; shedding tears.
'We have too much reason to fear that he died of a broken heart.'
'POOH!' said RALPH, 'there's no such thing. I can understand a
man's dying of a broken neck, or suffering from a broken arm, or a
broken head, or a broken leg, or a broken nose; but a broken heart!
--nonsense, it's the cant of the day. If a man can't pay his debts,
he dies of a broken heart, and his widow's a martyr.'
'Some people, I believe, have no hearts to break,'
observed Nicholas, quietly.
Nicholas Nickleby Chapter 33
My darling girl,' said Nicholas as he embraced her. 'How pale you are!'
'I have been so unhappy here, dear brother,' sobbed poor Kate;
'so very, very miserable. Do not leave me here, dear Nicholas,
or I shall die of a broken heart.'
Nicholas Nickleby Chapter 55
'In heaven. I humbly pray to God in heaven.'
It sounded like the prayer of a broken heart.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PYTHAGORAS: "the philosopher of CROTONA" [CROATAN?]
<<According to some historians, PYTHAGORAS, in the 6th century B.C.,
used anagrams to discover philosophical meanings. Anagrams were
believed to have mystical or prophetic meaning in Roman times.>>
------------------------------------------------------------------
The saga known as The Lost Colony
http://www.hatterasrealty.com/lost.html
<<In 1587, 20 years prior to the colony at Jamestown,
116 men, women, and children vanished without a trace.
No clue of this thriving community has every been found,
save for the eerie carving upon the bark of an old,
twisted oak: "CROATAN" >>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From the "Leland Manuscript":
http://members.aol.com/setzer693/page11.htm
How comede ytt <Freemasonry> yn Engelonde?
Peter GOWER <PYTHAGORAS>, a Grecian, journeyeded
for kunnynge yn Egypte and in Syria, and yn everyche
londe whereat the Venetians <Phoenicians> hadde
plauntedde Maconrye, and wynnynge entraunce yn al
Lodges of Maconnes, he lerned muche, and retournedde
and worked yn Grecia Magna <Greece> wachsynge and
becommynge a myghtye wysacre and gretelyche renowned,
and here he framed a grate Lodge at GROTON <CROTONA>,
and maked many Maconnes, some whereoffe dyd journeye
yn Fraunce, and maked manye Maconnes wherefromme,
yn process of tyme, the art passed yn Engelonde.
---------------------------------------------------------
http://www.town.groton.ct.us/about groton/history.asp
<<The Town of GROTON lies on Fishers Island Sound between the Thames &
Mystic Rivers. When Dutch explorer Adrian Block charted the coast in
1614, this was the stronghold of the Pequot Indians, the dominant native
tribe, who were displaced in 1637 when Captain John MASON led a punitive
expedition against their Mystic fort. GROTON was settled by Europeans
as part of New London when John Winthrop, Jr., came from Massachusetts
Bay in 1646 to found Pequot Plantation at the mouth of the Thames.
By 1705 the population east of the river had increased sufficiently for
the General Court to allow the inhabitants to incorporate as a separate
town, which they named GROTON in honor of the Winthrop estate in
England. Early settlers were primarily farmers, but they turned early to
shipbuilding and the maritime trade to supplement their livelihood
scratched from the rocky soil. GROTON vessels traded with Boston and
New York and soon found their way to the West Indies and across the
Atlantic. During the American Revolution the town was active against the
tyranny of King George, sending out privateers to prey on British
commerce. Perhaps in reprisal for their success, superior troops led by
the traitor Benedict Arnold attacked Fort Griswold on GROTON Heights
Sept. 6, 1781. The one-sided battle ended with a dreadful massacre of
the brave American defenders. The site is marked with a 134-foot
monument and is now Fort Griswold Battlefield State Park. After the war
shipping and commerce boomed, and mill wheels turned on every stream.
GROTON seamen sailed to the ends of the earth hunting seals and whales.
Major shipyards developed. At West Mystic, Maxson & Fish built clipper
ships and the Civil War ironclad Galena. After the war, in 1868, a Navy
Yard was established on the Thames River, which during World War I was
officially commissioned as a submarine base. GROTON became known as the
Submarine Capital of the World when the Electric Boat Division of
General Dynamics delivered 74 diesel submarines to the Navy in World War
II. This was followed in 1954 with the launch of the USS Nautilus, the
world's first nuclear-powered submarine, now permanently berthed
at Goss Cove near the Submarine Base.>>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
http://phd.evansville.edu/tools/loc/sybaris.htm
<<Sybaris was founded in 720 by settlers from Peloponnese and was very
prosperous for a while. It retained a reputation of luxury and lush life
(hence the word "sybarite" for one living a life of pleasure and luxury;
see HERODOTUS, VI, 127). The city was destroyed in 511 by neighboring
CROTONA (HERODOTUS, V, 44-45 and VI, 21). After two
unsuccessful attempts at reviving the city, in 444 the panhellenic city
of
Thurii was created near the site of Sybaris at the instigation of
Pericles.>>
------------------------------------------------------------------
<<HERODOTUS [/DROESHOUT] is said to have been one of the
colonists of the 2nd Sybaris.>> - New Century Classical Handbook
-------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.bulfinch.org/fables/bull34.html
PYTHAGORAS
THE teachings of Anchises to neas, respecting the nature
of the human soul, were in conformity with the doctrines of
the Pythagoreans. PYTHAGORAS (born five hundred and forty years
B.C.) was a native of the island of Samos, but passed the chief
portion of his life at CROTONA in Italy. He is therefore sometimes
called "the Samian," and sometimes "the philosopher of CROTONA." When
young he travelled extensively, and it is said visited Egypt, where he
was instructed by the priests in all their learning, and afterwards
journeyed to the East, and visited the Persian and Chaldean Magi, and
the Brahmins of India. At CROTONA, where he finally established himself,
his extraordinary qualities collected round him a great number of
disciples. The inhabitants were notorious for luxury and licentiousness,
but the good effects of his influence were soon visible. Sobriety &
temperance succeeded. Six hundred of the inhabitants became his
disciples and enrolled themselves in a society to aid each other in the
pursuit of wisdom, uniting their property in one common stock for the
benefit of the whole. They were required to practise the greatest purity
and simplicity of manners. The first lesson they learned was silence;
for a time they were required to be only hearers.
"He [PYTHAGORAS] said so" (IPSE DIXIT),
was to be held by them as sufficient, without any proof.
It was only the advanced pupils, after years of patient submission,
who were allowed to ask questions and to state objections.
----------------------------------------------------------------
> dating. We now know that Shakespeare used such names with regard to ships,
> albeit fictional ones. These kinds of names were commonplaces, after all. So
> it's possible that he was, in this instance, referring to ships that had
> taken part in some extraordinary excursion.
>
> I am just suggesting this as one of many possibilities for the three
> fabulous creatures named in the sonnet. I think it was the line "make the
> earth devour her own sweet brood" that hit me more than anything. After all,
> Roanoke, although terra firma, was the Marie Celeste of its day, and its day
> would have been the early 1590s as far as the English were concerned. That's
> when they would have heard that the settlers had vanished. I have a
> documentary on Roanoke somewhere. I'll watch it when I have time.
>
> After that I'll try to think about who might have been the Lyon and the
Art Neuendorffer
> > > Orsino, this is that Antonio
> > > That took the Phoenix and her fraught from Candy;
> > > And this is he that did the Tiger board,
> > > When your young nephew Titus lost his leg:
> > >
> > >(TN, V, I)
> > >
> > >Those are fictional ships, of course, but still. We've got "Phoenix" and
> > >we've got "Tiger". If we can get "Lyon" we might be in business. But you
> > >still have to explain "blood", and you also have to explain "long-lived".
> > I don't really understand the point of its being the name of
> > a ship. Or why it needs to be a Queen's ship - we need a
> > detailed reference to establish that anyway, and I haven't
> > seen one. 'Tiger' was a common name for a ship, but always
> > privately owned so far as I know: "Her husband's to Aleppo
> > gone, master o' th' Tiger" (Macbeth).
> We know the Lyon and the Tyger were both ships
> that went out to Roanoke Island during the Lane expedition,
> on early settlement in Virginia to help decode some material
> in Minerva Britanna. The Tyger ran aground a little after sailing on from
> Roanoke, and I think, but am not sure, that some of the other ships ran
> aground also. I believe I saw it somewhere, but can't find a source. It was
> just a thought that if we could find a Phoenix that was there (there was an
> Elizabeth, which might do as well), and if something happened to all the
> ships, (Art, please do your magic),
http://www.bulfinch.org/fables/bull34.html
Bulfinch's Mythology
Shakespeare, in the "Merchant of Venice," makes Gratiano allude to
the METEMPSYCHOSIS, where [Act IV, scene I] he says to Shylock:
"[T]hou almost mak'st me waver in my faith,
[T]o hold opinion with PYTHAGORAS,
[T]hat souls of animals infuse themselves
Into the trunks of men; thy currish spirit
Governed a wolf, who, hanged for human slaughter,
Infused his soul in thee; for thy desires
Are WOLFISH, bloody, starved and ravenous."
---------------------------------------------------------------
<<only one of the "WOLFISH earls" so plenteous in the plays
themselves, or some born descendant and knower, might seem to
be the TRUE author of those amazing works >> --WALT WHITMAN
> We now know that Shakespeare used such names with regard to ships,
> albeit fictional ones. These kinds of names were commonplaces, after all.
> So it's possible that he was, in this instance, referring to ships
> that had taken part in some extraordinary excursion.
>
> I am just suggesting this as one of many possibilities for the three
> fabulous creatures named in the sonnet. I think it was the line "make the
> earth devour her own sweet brood" that hit me more than anything. After all,
> Roanoke, although terra firma, was the Marie Celeste of its day, and its day
> would have been the early 1590s as far as the English were concerned. That's
> when they would have heard that the settlers had vanished. I have a
> documentary on Roanoke somewhere. I'll watch it when I have time.
>
> After that I'll try to think about who might have been the Lyon and the
> could just as easily be describing the Queen's death as "the mortal moon
> hath her eclipse endur'd." (107)
Art Neuendorffer
> > > Art can no doubt explain the Phoenix:
> > >
> > > P
> > > H
> > > O X
> > > N
> > > I
> > > E
> > "PHONEY" was first used in popular English literature:
> > sometime before 1916.
> Incidentally, Art, this is Sonnet *19* -- aren't you going to regale
> us with your usual boilerplate about how the number 19 is both the
> sum of two consecutive integers and the difference of their squares?
_- H
P O X
__ I
> INPNC score 0/7.
WE-EVER, JOHN, 1599
Epigrammes in the Oldest Cut and Newest Fashion.
I swore Apollo got them and none other,
Go, wo thy Muse, more Nymphish brood beget THEm
---------------------------------------------------------------
> "Hett" (a form of "hight") also means "to bear a name; to be called."
> Wouldn't that sense be more appropriate for a pseudonymous author, Art?
---------------------------------------------------------------
.
________ /T/ OT __ [H] EONLIEBEGETTEROFTHESEINSVINGS
_______- /O/ NN _ [E T] SMRWHALLHAPPINESSEANDTHATETE
_______
______ /W/ IS___ [H E T H] THEWELLWISHINGADVENTVRERIN
Florent this thing HATH undertake, The day was set, the time take,
Under his seal he WROT his oth, In such a wise and forth he goth
John Gower, Confessio Amantis, Tale of Florent, Book I
http://www.icg.fas.harvard.edu/~chaucer/special/authors/gower/gow-flor.html
-------------------------------------------------------------
24 May 1844, "What HATH God WROughT?"
<<This paper tape recording of the historic message
assistant, Alfred VAIL, in Baltimore. Morse's early system produced
a paper copy with raised dots and dashes, which were translated
later by an operator. Across the top of this historic achievement
Morse has given credit to Annie Ellsworth, the young daughter
of a good friend, for suggesting to him what message to send.
She obtained it from the Bible,
NUMBERS 23:23.>> http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/atthtml/morse2.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------
NUMBERS 23:23(Geneva) For there is no sorcery in Jacob,
nor soothsaying in Israel: according to this time
it shall be said of Jacob and of Israel,
What HATH God WROughT?
(From the last oracle of the non-Israelite prophet Balaam)
----------------------------------------------------------
ROT a peck of pa's malt had Jhem or Shen brewed by arclight and
rory end to the regginbrow was to be seen ringsome on the aquaface.
As You Like It Act 2, Scene 7
And then, from hour to hour, we ROT and ROT;
And thereby hangs a tale.'
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nickolas Nickleby by Charles Dickens
and let me ROT there, to infect the air!'>>
North by Northwest
As You Like It (Folio) 3.3
Clo. When a mans verses cannot be vnderstood, nor
a mans good wit seconded with the forward childe,
vn-derstanding:
it strikes a man more dead then a great rec-
koning in a little roome:
TRULY, I would the Gods hadde made thee POETicall.
Aud. I do not know what POETical is: is it honest
in deed and word: is it a TRUE thing?
Clo. No TRULIE: for the TRUEst POETrie is the most fai-
ning, and Louers are giuen to POETrie: and what they
sweare in POETrie, may be said as Louers, they do feigne.
Aud. Do you wish then that the Gods
had made me POETicall?
Clow. I do TRULY: for thou swear'st to me thou art HO-
NEst: Now if thou wert a POET, I might haue some
hope thou didst feigne.
> You could really use a HONE, Art.
> It is a device for sharpening fools -- I mean tools.
----------------------------------------------------------
Clo. No TRULY, vnlesse thou wert hard fauour'd:
for HONEstie coupled to beautie, is to haue
HONIE a sawce to Sugar.
Iaq. A materiall FO( )OLe.
(To them) [my OM, by FO(DEVere)OL-]
> That's nonsense, Art -- at least, all but the last word is.
Paul Crowley
> > > > > > 1. Devouring time blunt thou the Lyons paws,
> > > > > > 2. And make the earth devoure her owne sweet brood,
> > > > > > 3. Plucke the keene teeth from the fierce Tygers yawes,
> > > > > > 4. And burne the long liv'd Phoenix in her blood,
> > > > > > 5. Make glad and sorry seasons as thou fleet'st,
> > > > > > 6. And do what ere thou wilt swift-footed time
> > > > > > 7. To the wide world and all her fading sweets:
> > > > > > 8. But I forbid thee one most hainous crime,
> > > > > > 9. O carve not with thy howers my loves faire brow,
> > > > > > 10. Nor draw noe lines there with thine antique pen,
> > > > > > 11. Him in thy course untainted doe allow,
> > > > > > 12. For beauties patterne to succeding men.
> > > > > > 13. Yet doe thy worst ould Time dispight thy wrong,
> > > > > > 14. My love shall in my verse ever live young.
[..]
> > > Why would "time" be an anagram? If we agree to do that
> > > we can make hundreds of anagrams from the words in the sonnet:
> >
> > 'Time' is a well-known 'poetic concept'
> > fully exploited by Elizabethans and
> > especially by Shakespeare. They and
> > he went on and on and on about it.
> > But sometimes he liked to take the piss.
> > And, perhaps, for him Raleigh was the
> > embodiment of the current 'time'.
>
> Perhaps? Did you actually say "perhaps"? So you acknowledge that Time or
> Mite or Item may not be representing Raleigh?
Sorry, it was a mistake for me to put anything
for you in my text which was not a simple
statement of fact, nor an explicit part of my
argument. Given anything other than a
blunt statement of fact or opinion, you'll find
a misreading. Ignore the sentence with the
'perhaps'.
> >He
> > represented a new phenomenon: the
> > rise of low-born, worthless 'meritocracy';
> > the introduction of "women's fashion"
> > into the court, and so much else that
> > he despised.
>
> That doesn't answer the question of why Time should be made into an anagram
> while nothing else is.
Ignore my sentence above (about
Raleigh) as well. Sorry to confuse you.
I'll repeat the answer to your question:
'Time' is a well-known 'poetic concept'
fully exploited by Elizabethans and
especially by Shakespeare. They and
he went on and on and on about it.
But sometimes he liked to take the piss.
[..]
> > > But now I see you think the Queen is both the
> > > Lyon and the Phoenix. Why, in that case, for the
> > > sake of consistency, is she not the Tyger also?
> >
> > The 'Tyger' was her ship; however, the
> > poet was not obliged to be that consistent,
> > especially when he wanted to use some
> > nice puns on 'keene teeth' and "fierce
> > Tyger's yawes".
>
> I see. He was brilliant, but not brilliant enough to see that changing from
> A to B and then back to A again would be confusing to the reader?
His principal reader had plenty of
intelligence. It's hard to say to what
extent he set out to mislead other
contemporaries, who might come across
the sonnets. But he could never have
anticipated the mind-boggling extent of
the stupidity of Strats and quasi-Strats.
> But I cannot see Shakespeare saying,
> Raleigh is destroying the Queen,
He says it again and again, in numerous
sonnets.
> he is destroying her ship
He was only taking 'the keene teeth'
from the "Tyger's yawes". He was not
destroying it.
> You mean the Tudor Heir adherents? They're sick because they believe that
> Southampton was the son of the Queen and Oxford? What's sick about that?
The ones who also believe Oxford was the
son of QE are definitely sick. Those you
mention merely lack all sense of history.
They're of the sort who believe aristocrats
shat and pee'd in the corners of the rooms
in which they lived -- i.e. pig-ignorant
half-wits.
> > > is the Queen, I cannot accept that "succeeding men"
> > > has anything to do with her having
> >
> > Sure, what else could 'succeeding' mean?
> > The poet must really have meant to write
> > 'successful' -- it was just a typo.
>
> It's very clear what "succeeding" means. It is a very clever pun which can
> mean the beloved's heirs and at the same time "the men who come afterwards."
What's the difference? And do you
really believe that the 'Fair Youth' was
wealthy with immense estates?
> Don't you know what "him" means? That gives the clue to the fact that the
> poet is talking about the successors of a male.
Nope. You are missing the bawdy tone,
and that 'him' was the son and heir,
ardently hoped-for (or even awaited)
by the whole nation.
> > > Oh, sorry. I'll try to remember. I would find the case for Oxford much
> > > stronger if the sonnets were written later.
> >
> > Sure -- being a quasi-Strat, you'd prefer
> > the late 1590s when no one was writing
> > sonnets.
>
> Not at all. I'd just like to be able to tie them into available evidence. I
> don't tend to read secondary sources when I'm looking at poetry. When
> possible I go to and compare the works themselves, and I have seen a
> profound parallel between V and A and the fair youth sonnets, especially the
> marriage sonnets.
Yer . . . what! Where do get THAT from?
Even the Strats don't subscribe to such
nonsense. Booth, for example, does not
mention V&A in this context.
> >Of course, like the Stats, you
> > can fit nothing whatever to those times,
> > places, events or people -- not after the
> > efforts of tens of thousands of 'scholars'
> > for hundreds of years.
>
> That's just rubbish. I've said why above.
Are you actually claiming that Strats have
a reasonable understanding of the sonnets?
> > But so what? Dogma must come first.
> > And it must NEVER be questioned.
>
> I have never accepted Dogma.
Except for all those beliefs that you
never question. Such as the 'Fair Youth'
nonsense.
> I have always questioned everything.
Would anyone expect you to say anything
else? You don't know what it is to question
anything. You only know how to recite
politically-correct slogans.
> > Sure, sure. And it's perfectly normal to
> > address your prospective son-in-law as:
> >
> > "Unthrifty lovelinesse why dost thou spend,
> > Upon thy selfe thy beauties legacy?"
> The point is that it's not normal to do anything the poet is doing,
No. The poet was 100% normal -- doing
100% normal things. It's just that you (like
all the Strats and quasi-Strats) haven't a clue
what he was saying (since you date his work
to the 1590s and have so much else wrong)
so your only solution is to come up with
monstrous theories.
You are like a bunch of really stupid police
investigating some matter, which (because
of your stupidity) does not make sense.
So you decide that some perfectly
respectable decent people are engaged in
devil-worship, witchcraft, necrophilia, or
something else as insane -- because it's all
you can think of -- and that kind of theory
is currently enjoying a fashion.
> You think it's not normal for the poet to be addressing
> the youth thus (I agree that's possibly the case), but normal for the 14
> year old poet to be speaking to the Queen about her turds?
Scatological humour is perfectly normal
-- although I accept that Yanks (and quasi-
Yanks) don't like it, often react with horror,
and often regard those who do enjoy it as
mentally ill. But that's their problem, not
mine. Their grand-parents would have
reacted in much the same way to notion
that Shakespeare purveyed bawdy humour.
> Nothing to do with the traditionalists. I did a lot of work on V and A
> because I was discussing it with Roger Stritmatter, who was writing a paper
> on it, and as we go through the sonnets, I am struck by the parallels I see
> and therefore the real possibility that the addressee is Southampton. That's
> the way my mind works.
And addressing a prospective son-in-law as:
"Unthrifty lovelinesse why dost thou spend,
Upon thy selfe thy beauties legacy?"
is not an impediment? That's the way your
mind works?
Still, as you say, you question everything,
so you must have questioned that carefully
and, after much consideration decided that
it was a perfectly workable solution.
> > What for you would constitute 'proof'?
>
> Consistency, for a start. And a way of tying what one says to the sonnets
> themselves so closely that there would be no room for error.
If you read my exegeses at all (a) you would
not make the howling errors that you made
this time, and (b) you would see that they
were consistent, and (c) you would see that
there was little room for error -- although this
is poetry; it's necessarily subtle; it's often
complex, and there is very little we can do
for the truly stupid -- except to advise them
to stay away from poetry.
> There are large
> holes (no pun intended) in all your exegeses. You force the sonnets into a
> mold. They struggle to get out. You decide certain words represent certain
> people for no apparent reason other than that your identifications fit some
> historical scenario.
If there were the least truth in any of this,
you MIGHT, from time to time, point out
where and how I go wrong in my exegeses.
You would not fall down into a huge pit
of misreading on your very first attempt.
> You change the "hidden meanings" of words to suit
> yourself. For example, why would "heaven" mean the Queen's toilet in one
> poem (I think it was 17, haven't time to go back), and yet sexual
> intercourse in the next? Doesn't make any sense at all.
Of course it makes sense. Do a google
search on 'heavenly' and you'll find food
often so described -- as well as colonic
irrigation (by Princess Diana), fox-hunting,
ballroom dancing, and many other activities
that we need not go into at the moment.
> I don't mind you
> theorising. I object to your saying: "This is the meaning and the rest of
> you are idiots for not seeing it."
The rest of you are idiots for not beginning
to take what I say seriously. It is either
(substantially) true or total nonsense.
If it was the latter, then you could demolish
it as easily as you thought you were doing
with your misreading this week.
> That is the mark of someone who cannot
> exchange information or listen well enough to test out his theories.
The mark of an idiot is a refusal to engage
-- because his or her beliefs are so obviously
true that any alternatives need not even be
examined. That's you.
> > The Queen's marriage was THE hot topic
> > (for the whole country) from the moment
> > she ascended the throne in 1588 right up
> > until 1582. Oxford is known to have taken
> > a particular stance on it -- and a particularly
> > strong stance. (Of course, those facts will
> > have no relevance for Strats or quasi-Strats.)
>
> From 1588 to 1582? What?
As you ought to know, it was a typo:
"From 1558 to 1582 . . . "
> It is unlikely that Oxford even knew the Queen, except in a glancing way,
> when he was fourteen.
Err . . the premier earl in the country.
A truly promising poet (at the minimum)
One who was, at that time, thought to
be likely to be one of her most effective
and powerful ministers? (He turned out
to be a far greater collaborator in a huge
enterprise, the scale of which they only
had a slight inkling.)
> He may have been her ward, but he certainly didn't
> live in her house.
He would have attended court regularly.
Burghley was his guardian. His mother
was a maid of honour at court.
> And yet you suggest he was on close enough terms with her
> to talk of her toilet habits? And presumably send sonnets to her that
> discussed these matters?
At whom is the 'riding on the balls of
mine' speech directed? Southampton?
You are still thinking like a Strat, and
failing to understand the relationship
between the poet and his Master-
Mistress.
That speech and his other bawdy and
scatological humour was directed at
someone. Whom do you think it was?
Or do you deny ALL the bawdy and
the scatology? That was the former
Stratfordian position -- and it was, at
least, consistent. Now they (and you)
admit the bawdy (or some of it) . . but
fail to describe its purpose or say to
whom it could have been directed.
> It's no use asking you to think about it, because
> you won't or can't. Not sure which or why.
I have thought about it, and I have
come up with answers. It is you who
has your head in the Stratfordian
bucket. You cannot say what is wrong
with my answers -- other than to express
your quasi-Yank horror at the idea of
scatological humour -- addressed to the
Queen, no less. (God forbid -- as we all
know, the good lady didn't even defecate.
Were Shakespeare ever in her presence
he would, as a true and honest poet,
vouch for that fact.)
Did the Queen know who Shakespeare
was? If so, when did she find out?
I'm sure you will be like Nina Green (and
all quasi-Strats) in preferring to duck
everything here -- it does not fit in with
good Stratfordian thinking.
> > There is nothing in many of the sonnets
> > that would rule out an intelligent 14-year-old,
> > especially one of supreme poetic genius.
>
> There's plenty. These are the concerns of a much older man.
What are the concerns of an older man?
> If you don't
> believe me, believe the poet. He says over and over
> that he is getting old,
So are we all -- all the time.
> that he is older than the addressee, etc.
He adopts various conceits to that effect.
It's known as courtly manners -- or the
piss-taking of them. You should not take
the words of the sonnets too literally.
> Was the addressee four? Besides,
> we've seen other poems of Oxford which presumably were
> written when he was younger.
Perhaps when he was seven or eight?
> They are nowhere near as mature, and in fact, if not juvenilia, are
> the best reason for discounting him as the author of the canon.
I get the impression you are on the verge
of doing so.
> > > Anyone who knows anything about literature will tell you even
> > > as great a genius as Shakespeare had to undergo an apprenticeship before
> > > writing mature poetry.
> >
> > And he did -- probably from about the
> > age of six. A 14-line sonnet need not
> > be an especial test of 'maturity'.
>
> Of course not. It is the material in the sonnets, the maturity of voice, the
> subject matter, the fact that they are superior to earlier poems, which
> advises us that they are not the work of a fourteen year old.
None of which begins to register as
a serious argument. They are crude
prejudices, founded on the Stratfordian
line that the canon was commenced in
the 1590s.
You have to begin to realise that Shake-
speare WAS a great poet. That scale of
that ability would have been apparent
from his earliest days. He was always
streets ahead of his contemporaries of
the same age. Intellectual maturity would
have come to him when he was very young.
He was like a Mozart -- except he worked in
literature and in poetry, which require a
much broader ability.
> > I have 'chosen' the date for each sonnet
> > because it fits the text of that sonnet. As
> > ever, you are obliged to ignore anything
> > to do with the text.
>
> Ha.
When did you last quote any text? Or
try to deal with my analysis of any text?
Paul.
Paul Crowley
> I gather from looking at Internet sites, 1581 was the date when Oxford
> and Sydney didn't have a duel
The 'tennis-court' quarrel, which gave rise
to the challenge from Sidney to Oxford, was
in the summer of 1579, during the 'unofficial'
visit of Alencon to the English court.
> and Raleigh was one of Oxford's Seconds
> in the affair.
Oxford and Raleigh were friends at around
this time, but I doubt if the quarrel with
Sidney ever reached a stage of Raleigh
being a 'second'. The Queen forbade the
duel as soon as she heard of the challenge.
> It wasn't until 1592 that Elizabeth had Raleigh
> briefly in the tower for his secret marriage, so I'm not sure how
> Crowley squares all that with an early date for the sonnet.
I have no idea what the imprisonment of
Raleigh in 1592 has to do with anything.
(Another misreading as bad as Lynne's
I suspect.) I propose, tentatively, that
the sonnet was written at the beginning
of OXFORD'S imprisonment in 1581 --
although it _might_ have been written
later in 1581, during his house-arrest.
This passage is from Robert Lacey's book
on Raleigh (pages 31-3). It has a lot of
speculation and anti-Oxford prejudice (both
to be taken for what they are), but it's not a
bad account of the overall politics of the day.
" . . But another friendship of this period 1579-80 proved less
durable, and, in the long term, positively poisonous. Returning
to London after the abortive expedition of 1578-9 Walter Ralegh
fell in with the set that centred on the libertine Edward de Vere,
Earl of Oxford. He was an unstable young man, and although
related to Lord Burghley, his touchstone was not the prudence
of the great councillor but the erratic temper of companions like
Charles Arundel and Henry Howard, crypto-Catholics who
vented their spleen against the Protestant establishment with
antisocial antics, deliberately calculated to shock. Oxford himself
had never quite recovered from a grand tour he had made to Italy,
and took particular delight in voicing rationalist criticisms of
accepted practices and beliefs. He was no high-powered intellect
- suggestions that the Virgin Mary had cuckolded Joseph
represented the level of his theological debate - but he was not
the sort of young man that the Privy Council, and in particular
Puritan councillors like Walsingham and Leicester, liked to see
allowed influence at court.
It was strange that Walter Ralegh, well aware of the realities of
Elizabethan politics, should ever have associated himself with a
man so obviously cut off from the mainstream of Privy Council
approval. But there is a plausible explanation of his brief friendship
with the Oxford circle that is suggested both by the shortness of
his association and by the nature of court rivalry. Walter, open
though he usually was both in friendship and in enmity, was to
exhibit throughout his life a paradoxical penchant for intrigue.
He could be a shocking liar and, when the opportunity presented
itself, he plunged into conspiracy with all the enthusiasm, if not
quite the ability, of a Borgia. It was another aspect of his
Renaissance tastes to plot, on occasions, the downfall, not to
say the violent death, of men he embraced as friends and to tell
shameless lies for the sake of political advantage.
This was the style in which he approached the Earl of Oxford in
1579- 1580 - though he was but part of a larger framework of
plottings woven around the strange passion that Queen Elizabeth
conceived at the end of the 1570s for Alençon, the Protestant duke
who was a claimant to the throne of France. England was split
over this marriage that the queen appeared to be contemplating,
factions forming for and against the French connection, and it was
in the crossfire between them that Walter and the Earl of Oxford
came together - and parted.
Elizabeth, menopausal and uncharacteristically erratic, had let
Alençon's courtship get out of control. Though feeling at the court
was inflamed against the marriage, the queen acted provocatively.
She flirted indecorously with the Frenchman and allowed his envoy,
Simier, to raid her bedchamber to filch her nightcap as a love token.
This was a cause of general scandal, but when John Stubbs dared
to protest at the royal plans to marry a foreign prince, and when the
printer William Page dared publish Stubbs' protest, the queen had
both men's hands struck off in a gruesome public ceremony.
'I left there a true Englishman's hand' called out Master Page as he
raised the bleeding stump of his severed right wrist - and true
Englishmen applauded him. Sir Christopher Hatton was in tears at
the waywardness that was depressing the queen's popularity to one
of the lowest ebbs of her entire reign. And the Earl of Leicester,
whose secret marriage to Lettice Knollys had been revealed to
Elizabeth by Alençon's creature Simier, had even more reason to
resent the dominance of the French party - as well as the English
nobles who supported it, most notably old Burghley and his son-
in-law the Earl of Oxford.
When opposition expressed in the council chamber proved
ineffective, the opponents of the French match - Leicester and
Walsingham were their leaders - resorted to more devious tactics.
Sir Philip Sidney was put up to writing an ostensibly unprompted
letter to Elizabeth to explain the strength of Protestant feeling on the
subject, and at almost the same time, Walter Ralegh, from his
militantly Protestant West Country background, started making
friends with the popishly inclined Oxford.
In the conspiratorial context of Counter-Reformation politics it
seemed likely that if Catholic plots were afoot, the Earl of Oxford's
friends like Arundel and Henry Howard would be privy to them.
They were both soon to be compromised in conspiracies on
behalf of Mary Queen of Scots, Howard spending some time in
the Tower and Arundel dying there, and they already exhibited
symptoms of being involved in the sort of intrigue which would
prove to Elizabeth that the French marriage was part of a Catholic
scheme to subvert her throne. It was possible that they might
even compromise the great Lord Burghley himself and Walter
Ralegh, whose connections with Leicester (through the poet
Gascoigne) and Walsingham (through Humphrey Gilbert) were
comparatively remote, stood a good chance of winning the
confidence of Oxford and his popish friends and of discovering
what schemes they were plotting.
Walter played his part to perfection. Within a matter of months he
became the closest friend of the Earl of Oxford. The earl's affair
with Anne Vavasour, one of the queen's ladies-in-waiting, made
Oxford even more persona non grata to many courtiers at this time
- a dangerous, unreliable man to get involved with. So Walter had
few rivals for the earl's companionship, associating so intimately
with him that the smear of Oxford's atheism was to be remembered
and held against him by those not privy to the convolutions of those
times. When the Earl of Oxford and Sir Philip Sidney confronted
each other as the publicly acknowledged champions of the
contending factions, Oxford insulting Sidney at tennis as a 'Puppy'
and Sidney disdainfully leaving the court, it was Walter Ralegh who
acted as an intermediary to avoid a duel.
And then suddenly he was Oxford's friend no more, one of his
bitterest enemies, in fact. And more strangely still, instead of being
mistrusted by Oxford's enemies for his association with the wayward
earl, whom the queen was to imprison for getting Anne Vavasour
with child, it was now that he was made Esquire of the Body
Extraordinary, a comparatively minor but not insignificant court
position.
It is difficult to escape the conclusion that this honour was a reward
for some service connected with Ralegh's volte-face of loyalties
and that Francis Walsingham, that master spy-ring operator, had
played his characteristically concealed role beneath the surface of
events. The fact that Ralegh was given almost immediately - despite
his imprisonment for duelling and rowdiness - a command in Ireland
which carried responsibility, power, and profit, strengthens the
hypothesis. Furthermore it got Walter out of the country very rapidly, for
Oxford was a pathological character who was said, after the tennis
court confrontation, to have plotted the murder of Sir Philip Sidney.
Walter Ralegh had survived his first sally across the quicksands of
life at court and had won the chance in Ireland to make a real name
for himself. . . ."
Art Neuendorffer
To slay the Tiger that doth live by slaughter,
To tame the unicorn and Lion wild,
A chafed Lion by the mortal paw,
A fasting Tiger safer by the Tooth,
2. And make the earth devoure her owne sweet brood,
3. Plucke the keene teeth from the fierce Tygers yawes,
4. And burne the long liv'd Phoenix in her blood,
>
>>> in the OED as a possible spelling for 'jaws'.
>>> The poet is playing on the 'yaws' of a ship,
>>> major fighting vessels. Presumably,
>>> Raleigh had 'borrowed' some of its cannon
>>> for use on his own ships for their pirating
>>> argument that the 'Tyger' was over-
>>> weighted with too much cannon,
>>> creating excessive yaws.
>
>>> in the OED is from 1806:
>>> 1806 J. Davis Post-Captain iv. 19 'She looks, sir,
>>> 'Yes, sir; she has a very heavy tire of teeth.'
This ravenous Tiger, this accursed devil;
And munch'd, and munch'd, and munch'd:--
'Give me,' quoth I:
'Aroint thee, witch!' the rump-fed ronyon cries.
Her husband's to Aleppo gone, master o' the Tiger:
But in a sieve I'll thither sail,
And, like a rat without a tail,
I'll do, I'll do, and I'll do.
Approach thou like the rugged Russian Bear,
The arm'd rhinoceros, or the Hyrcan Tiger;
>> The thought that "Tyger" might be both the animal and a ship belonging to
>> Elizabeth, however, is interesting. I had also noticed the word yawes and
>> the word certainly could be representing both yaws and jaws, making the
>> whole line a very clever play on words. The ship The Tyger ran aground
>> in1585, which is a much more likely explanation of the line than anything
>> I can find happening to The Tyger in 1581
> Both The Tyger and The Lyon
> (look at line 1 again) were ships that travelled there. Perhaps
> The Phoenix was too, although I can't find a ref to it.
> a topical reference of the kind that Lynne is pursuing in another thread -
> Phoenix as the name of a ship. I'm usually very skeptical about topical
> references unless I can find three or four of them in a group. But in this
> case, the weakness of the Phoenix metaphor in its usual role persuades
> me that there might be something in it. In which case this might help:-
> First Officer: Orsino, this is that Antonio
> That took the Phoenix and her fraught from Candy;
> And this is he that did the Tiger board,
> When your young nephew Titus lost his leg:
>
> (TN, V, I)
> Those are fictional ships, of course, but still. We've got "Phoenix" and
> we've got "Tiger". If we can get "Lyon" we might be in business.
King Richard III Act 2, Scene 4
The Tiger now hath seized the gentle HIND;
When cowardice pursues and valour flies.
Art Neuendorffer
This ravenous Tiger, this accursed devil;
Where a malignant and a turban'd Turk
Beat a Venetian and traduced the state,
I took by the throat the circumcised dog,
And smote him, thus.
> a topical reference of the kind that Lynne is pursuing in another thread -
> Phoenix as the name of a ship. I'm usually very skeptical about topical
> references unless I can find three or four of them in a group. But in this
> case, the weakness of the Phoenix metaphor in its usual role persuades
> me that there might be something in it. In which case this might help:-
> First Officer: Orsino, this is that Antonio
> That took the Phoenix and her fraught from Candy;
> And this is he that did the Tiger board,
> When your young nephew Titus lost his leg:
>
> (TN, V, I)
> Those are fictional ships, of course, but still. We've got "Phoenix" and
> we've got "Tiger". If we can get "Lyon" we might be in business.
LynnE
So you admit you made a mistake then?
>
> > >He
> > > represented a new phenomenon: the
> > > rise of low-born, worthless 'meritocracy';
> > > the introduction of "women's fashion"
> > > into the court, and so much else that
> > > he despised.
> >
> > That doesn't answer the question of why Time should be made into an
anagram
> > while nothing else is.
>
> Ignore my sentence above (about
> Raleigh) as well. Sorry to confuse you.
> I'll repeat the answer to your question:
>
> 'Time' is a well-known 'poetic concept'
> fully exploited by Elizabethans and
> especially by Shakespeare. They and
> he went on and on and on about it.
> But sometimes he liked to take the piss.
And this was one of those times? How do you know?
>
> [..]
> > > > But now I see you think the Queen is both the
> > > > Lyon and the Phoenix. Why, in that case, for the
> > > > sake of consistency, is she not the Tyger also?
> > >
> > > The 'Tyger' was her ship; however, the
> > > poet was not obliged to be that consistent,
> > > especially when he wanted to use some
> > > nice puns on 'keene teeth' and "fierce
> > > Tyger's yawes".
> >
> > I see. He was brilliant, but not brilliant enough to see that changing
from
> > A to B and then back to A again would be confusing to the reader?
>
> His principal reader had plenty of
> intelligence. It's hard to say to what
> extent he set out to mislead other
> contemporaries, who might come across
> the sonnets. But he could never have
> anticipated the mind-boggling extent of
> the stupidity of Strats and quasi-Strats.
Or some Oxfordians, clearly.
>
> > But I cannot see Shakespeare saying,
> > Raleigh is destroying the Queen,
>
> He says it again and again, in numerous
> sonnets.
>
> > he is destroying her ship
>
> He was only taking 'the keene teeth'
> from the "Tyger's yawes". He was not
> destroying it.
I see, he was saying: Raleigh is destroying the Queen, he is taking the guns
from the Tyger (a ship), he is destroying the Queen.
>
> > You mean the Tudor Heir adherents? They're sick because they believe
that
> > Southampton was the son of the Queen and Oxford? What's sick about that?
>
> The ones who also believe Oxford was the
> son of QE are definitely sick.
I think there may be two of those altogether.
>Those you
> mention merely lack all sense of history.
> They're of the sort who believe aristocrats
> shat and pee'd in the corners of the rooms
> in which they lived -- i.e. pig-ignorant
> half-wits.
I don't think they were pig ignorant half wits because they went to the
toilet behind the arras. They didn't know any better. ;)
>
> > > > is the Queen, I cannot accept that "succeeding men"
> > > > has anything to do with her having
> > >
> > > Sure, what else could 'succeeding' mean?
> > > The poet must really have meant to write
> > > 'successful' -- it was just a typo.
> >
> > It's very clear what "succeeding" means. It is a very clever pun which
can
> > mean the beloved's heirs and at the same time "the men who come
afterwards."
>
> What's the difference? And do you
> really believe that the 'Fair Youth' was
> wealthy with immense estates?
>
> > Don't you know what "him" means? That gives the clue to the fact that
the
> > poet is talking about the successors of a male.
>
> Nope. You are missing the bawdy tone,
> and that 'him' was the son and heir,
> ardently hoped-for (or even awaited)
> by the whole nation.
Not if Shakespeare was trying to be grammatical, it wasn't. "Him" was the
poet's love.
>
> > > > Oh, sorry. I'll try to remember. I would find the case for Oxford
much
> > > > stronger if the sonnets were written later.
> > >
> > > Sure -- being a quasi-Strat, you'd prefer
> > > the late 1590s when no one was writing
> > > sonnets.
> >
> > Not at all. I'd just like to be able to tie them into available
evidence. I
> > don't tend to read secondary sources when I'm looking at poetry. When
> > possible I go to and compare the works themselves, and I have seen a
> > profound parallel between V and A and the fair youth sonnets, especially
the
> > marriage sonnets.
>
> Yer . . . what! Where do get THAT from?
> Even the Strats don't subscribe to such
> nonsense. Booth, for example, does not
> mention V&A in this context.
Ah, so you're saying if Booth doesn't mention it, I can't think it? That's a
total contradiction of what you've said in the past with regard to the
standard commentaries.
>
> > >Of course, like the Stats, you
> > > can fit nothing whatever to those times,
> > > places, events or people -- not after the
> > > efforts of tens of thousands of 'scholars'
> > > for hundreds of years.
> >
> > That's just rubbish. I've said why above.
>
> Are you actually claiming that Strats have
> a reasonable understanding of the sonnets?
I think they understand that the first 126 sonnets are to a man, which is a
step ahead of you.
>
> > > But so what? Dogma must come first.
> > > And it must NEVER be questioned.
> >
> > I have never accepted Dogma.
>
> Except for all those beliefs that you
> never question. Such as the 'Fair Youth'
> nonsense.
I hadn't even heard of the Fair Youth when I first looked at the sonnets and
realised they were addressed to a male.
>
> > I have always questioned everything.
>
> Would anyone expect you to say anything
> else? You don't know what it is to question
> anything. You only know how to recite
> politically-correct slogans.
Thank you.
>
> > > Sure, sure. And it's perfectly normal to
> > > address your prospective son-in-law as:
> > >
> > > "Unthrifty lovelinesse why dost thou spend,
> > > Upon thy selfe thy beauties legacy?"
>
> > The point is that it's not normal to do anything the poet is doing,
>
> No. The poet was 100% normal -- doing
> 100% normal things. It's just that you (like
> all the Strats and quasi-Strats) haven't a clue
> what he was saying (since you date his work
> to the 1590s and have so much else wrong)
> so your only solution is to come up with
> monstrous theories.
It's amazing how much self knowledge you lack. By the way, I don't date his
work to the 1590s. I just think it a good possibility that some of the
sonnets were written in that decade.
>
> You are like a bunch of really stupid police
> investigating some matter, which (because
> of your stupidity) does not make sense.
> So you decide that some perfectly
> respectable decent people are engaged in
> devil-worship, witchcraft, necrophilia, or
> something else as insane -- because it's all
> you can think of -- and that kind of theory
> is currently enjoying a fashion.
What? Necrophilia? Witchcraft? Devil Worship? If you think I believe those
things about perfectly respectable people, it's no wonder you don't
understand the poet.
>
> > You think it's not normal for the poet to be addressing
> > the youth thus (I agree that's possibly the case), but normal for the 14
> > year old poet to be speaking to the Queen about her turds?
>
> Scatological humour is perfectly normal
> -- although I accept that Yanks (and quasi-
> Yanks) don't like it, often react with horror,
> and often regard those who do enjoy it as
> mentally ill. But that's their problem, not
> mine. Their grand-parents would have
> reacted in much the same way to notion
> that Shakespeare purveyed bawdy humour.
Toilet humour in England is normal in the right context. I don't believe,
however, that you've made a case for it in the sonnets.
>
> > Nothing to do with the traditionalists. I did a lot of work on V and A
> > because I was discussing it with Roger Stritmatter, who was writing a
paper
> > on it, and as we go through the sonnets, I am struck by the parallels I
see
> > and therefore the real possibility that the addressee is Southampton.
That's
> > the way my mind works.
>
> And addressing a prospective son-in-law as:
> "Unthrifty lovelinesse why dost thou spend,
> Upon thy selfe thy beauties legacy?"
> is not an impediment? That's the way your
> mind works?
I think it is problematic. I also think it problematic that the poet moves
from the marriage sonnets to what appear, on the surface at least, to be
love sonnets. Your explanation does not elucidate things for me.
>
> Still, as you say, you question everything,
> so you must have questioned that carefully
> and, after much consideration decided that
> it was a perfectly workable solution.
Nope. It is one of several solutions I am considering. If I had the answers,
why would I be bothering to discuss the sonnets with others?
>
> > > What for you would constitute 'proof'?
> >
> > Consistency, for a start. And a way of tying what one says to the
sonnets
> > themselves so closely that there would be no room for error.
>
> If you read my exegeses at all (a) you would
> not make the howling errors that you made
> this time, and (b) you would see that they
> were consistent, and (c) you would see that
> there was little room for error -- although this
> is poetry; it's necessarily subtle; it's often
> complex, and there is very little we can do
> for the truly stupid -- except to advise them
> to stay away from poetry.
You said it.
>
> > There are large
> > holes (no pun intended) in all your exegeses. You force the sonnets into
a
> > mold. They struggle to get out. You decide certain words represent
certain
> > people for no apparent reason other than that your identifications fit
some
> > historical scenario.
>
> If there were the least truth in any of this,
> you MIGHT, from time to time, point out
> where and how I go wrong in my exegeses.
> You would not fall down into a huge pit
> of misreading on your very first attempt.
Good heavens. First, it wasn't my first attempt. You have a very short
memory. And second, everyone makes mistakes, especially when the material is
presented in a confusing and tortu(r)ous manner. I know you don't understand
this, Paul. Apparently you never make a mistake.
>
> > You change the "hidden meanings" of words to suit
> > yourself. For example, why would "heaven" mean the Queen's toilet in one
> > poem (I think it was 17, haven't time to go back), and yet sexual
> > intercourse in the next? Doesn't make any sense at all.
>
> Of course it makes sense. Do a google
> search on 'heavenly' and you'll find food
> often so described -- as well as colonic
> irrigation (by Princess Diana), fox-hunting,
> ballroom dancing, and many other activities
> that we need not go into at the moment.
Yes, of course. But
a) we're not talking about "heavenly," which is an adjective and can be
matched with anything people find pleasurable, but "heaven."
b) In a short sequence within a longer sequence of sonnets, one would expect
the poet to remain consistent in his meanings for the word. If you are going
to present other meanings, it would be helpful if you had some kind of a
precedent.
>
> > I don't mind you
> > theorising. I object to your saying: "This is the meaning and the rest
of
> > you are idiots for not seeing it."
>
> The rest of you are idiots for not beginning
> to take what I say seriously.
There you go.
>It is either
> (substantially) true or total nonsense.
Well, if there's a choice, it's total nonsense.
> If it was the latter, then you could demolish
> it as easily as you thought you were doing
> with your misreading this week.
I misread one word, which was in part due to your confusing prose. Apart
from that, I would say that between us, Buffalo and I and a couple of others
have completely demolished your argument.
>
> > That is the mark of someone who cannot
> > exchange information or listen well enough to test out his theories.
>
> The mark of an idiot is a refusal to engage
> -- because his or her beliefs are so obviously
> true that any alternatives need not even be
> examined. That's you.
No, Paul. I engage all the time and modify my theories accordingly. By your
definition, you must be the idiot.
>
> > > The Queen's marriage was THE hot topic
> > > (for the whole country) from the moment
> > > she ascended the throne in 1588 right up
> > > until 1582. Oxford is known to have taken
> > > a particular stance on it -- and a particularly
> > > strong stance. (Of course, those facts will
> > > have no relevance for Strats or quasi-Strats.)
> >
> > From 1588 to 1582? What?
>
> As you ought to know, it was a typo:
> "From 1558 to 1582 . . . "
Oh, you made a mistake? As I ought to know? Of course I do know. I was just
pointing out your dates were wrong. It's amazing how forgiving you are about
your own errors, and how devastatingly nasty you are about the mistakes of
others.
>
> > It is unlikely that Oxford even knew the Queen, except in a glancing
way,
> > when he was fourteen.
>
> Err . . the premier earl in the country.
> A truly promising poet (at the minimum)
> One who was, at that time, thought to
> be likely to be one of her most effective
> and powerful ministers? (He turned out
> to be a far greater collaborator in a huge
> enterprise, the scale of which they only
> had a slight inkling.)
Yes. If you have ANY sources that say that Oxford knew the Queen personally
at the age of fourteen, please present them.
>
> > He may have been her ward, but he certainly didn't
> > live in her house.
>
> He would have attended court regularly.
Would have? Could have? Should have? Isn't that what we condemn others for
saying?
> Burghley was his guardian. His mother
> was a maid of honour at court.
>
> > And yet you suggest he was on close enough terms with her
> > to talk of her toilet habits? And presumably send sonnets to her that
> > discussed these matters?
Lynne, snipping the rest of this because she has more important things to
do. Don't feel you have to respond.
> Paul.
>
>
bookburn
(snip)
From the Peck essay, op. cit.
(quote)
His desertion of the group [the Oxford Circle], his failure to aid the
Catholic courtiers in their troubled state after he himself had risen
so remarkably into favour, may render more intelligible Lord Henry
Howard's furious animus against him late in the Queen's reign and
early in the next one.12 And finally, this evidence may permit a
confident dating of Raleigh's poem "Many desire, but few or none
deserve", which is addressed to Anne Vavasour in both of its
manuscripts.13 Anne had also been a member of the group, one whose
virtue while at Court had been entrusted to her kinsmen Arundell,
Howard, Lord Paget, and the Knyvets, so that her seduction by Oxford
in summer 1580 was a major grievance of the others against him; her
delivery of the Earl's baby in March 1581 was the occasion of his
commitment to the Tower.14 (unquote)
And here is how Peck imagines received Raleigh's poem.
(quote)
Arundell pursued his advantage by describing Raleigh's new poem, a
witty courtly exercise which had now been read by everyone but Oxford,
the butt of its conceit. The earl, who disliked Raleigh anyway,
insisted upon hearing the verses. Charles called down to Lord Harry,
who was dozing by the window, and Harry withdrew from his bosom a
folded sheet of paper with Raleigh's poem neatly written out upon it.
"Here it is, Ned; let us see, let us see," Arundell said, unfolding
the paper with a needless flourish and peering closely at the lines. "
'Mr. Raleigh's advice to Mistress Nan,' we read; a pleasant title,
Ned, a pleasant beginning."
And he read aloud:
Many desire, but few or none deserve
To win the fort of thy most constant will.
Therefore take heed, let fancy never swerve
But unto him that will defend thee still.
For this be sure, the fort of fame once won,
Farewell the rest, thy happy days are done.
"There is more, Ned, can you bear to hear it?" smiled Charles
unkindly. Oxford glowered at him in a slow rage.
Many desire, but few or none deserve
To pluck the flowers and let the leaves to fall.
Therefore take heed, let fancy never swerve,
But unto him that will take leaves and all.
For this be sure, the flower once plucked away,
Farewell the rest, thy happy days decay.
"God's blood!" cried Oxford, snatching the paper to see for himself
that so much insolence could be written with pen. "I shall kill him!
Not deserve! No man more deserving. And having killed Raleigh, so much
more desert!"
"Who means to kill Raleigh?" asked the somnolent Lord Harry. "If so,
Ned, haste were needful, for Raleigh departs for the Irish wars in
less than a week's time."
"There, you see, Ned," said Arundell. "He'll never meet your challenge
now, for he is on the queen's service."
Oxford's face worked in drunken thought. "Well, then, if I cannot kill
him honorably, I shall have him slaughtered."
(snip)
(unquote)
bookburn
bookburn
David L. Webb
"LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
Mr. Crowley must be waiting impatiently for Sonnet 120, so he can
anagram the word "hits."
> > 'Time' is a well-known 'poetic concept'
> > fully exploited by Elizabethans and
> > especially by Shakespeare. They and
> > he went on and on and on about it.
> > But sometimes he liked to take the piss.
> > And, perhaps, for him Raleigh was the
> > embodiment of the current 'time'.
> Perhaps? Did you actually say "perhaps"?
Set your mind at rest, Lynne; it won't happen again.
> So you acknowledge that Time or
> Mite or Item may not be representing Raleigh?
> >He
> > represented a new phenomenon: the
> > rise of low-born, worthless 'meritocracy';
> > the introduction of "women's fashion"
> > into the court, and so much else that
> > he despised.
> That doesn't answer the question of why Time should be made into an anagram
> while nothing else is.
Be patient, Lynne; we'll arrive at Sonnet 120 in due time.
> > > > The 'mite' is his hated rival Walter Raleigh.
> > > > So where the subject of certain sentences
> > > > is 'Time', it is ALSO -- but under a completely
> > > > unrelated meaning for the sentence as a
> > > > whole -- ALSO Raleigh. That is RALEIGH
> > > > and not the Queen.
> > > >
> > > > Got that?
> > > You're right. I misunderstood your exegesis, which was confused and
> > > ambiguous.
> > Except that you don't say where nor how.
> I think it was this para that confounded me:
>
> "There are two themes: the
> superficial one of 'Time', into which (in
> this sonnet) he puts a fair amount of effort;
> and the 'hidden' one where in the contest
> for the affections of his beloved, he
> continues his dogged pursuit of his hated
> rival, whom he thinks of as a 'mite' or an
> 'item' -- both anagrams of 'time'."
>
> I thought you meant that "Time" represented the beloved, who I assumed was
> Eliz, and its anagram represented his rival, who you posit, for no reason
> that I can see,
Nobody else can see it either -- but no doubt that's our problem, not
Mr. Crowley's.
> was Raleigh.
> > > But now I see you think the Queen is both the
> > > Lyon and the Phoenix. Why, in that case, for the
> > > sake of consistency, is she not the Tyger also?
> > The 'Tyger' was her ship; however, the
> > poet was not obliged to be that consistent,
> > especially when he wanted to use some
> > nice puns on 'keene teeth' and "fierce
> > Tyger's yawes".
> I see. He was brilliant, but not brilliant enough to see that changing from
> A to B and then back to A again would be confusing to the reader?
The poet wasn't expecting to be read by dopey quasi-Strat Yanks
without a shred of intellectual integrity.
> Or wanting
> to use some nice puns at the expense of totality of meaning? It is not the
> poet who is inconsistent, Paul. It is you. And you are inconsistent so that
> you can invest the sonnet with the meaning you want it to have.
>
> I can see the three creatures being three mythological beasts, or three
> ships, or three heraldic devices representing three different courtiers, or
> even three manifestations of the Queen. But I cannot see Shakespeare saying,
> Raleigh is destroying the Queen, he is destroying her ship, he is destroying
> the Queen. Makes no sense at all.
> > > > Please read more carefully.
> > > Please write more carefully.
> > You point out no ambiguous nor misleading
> > statement. You just misread -- carelessly.
> Likely so. Unlike you, I cannot claim to be perfect.
Mr. Crowley's infallibility occasions wonder in all who witness it in
action.
> > > > > You give no good reason for dating the sonnet to 1581.
> > > > A) The last chance for producing an heir
> > > > was in 1581 with the Alencon marriage
> > > > negotiations. The poet still hopes for an
> > > > heir -- but only just. We can tell that from
> > > > his hope for 'succeeding men'.
> > > That could mean almost anything.
You still don't understand the ground rules, Lynne -- it can mean
*only* what Mr. Crowley pontificates that it means, and nothing else.
> > Except that you can't think of any other likely
> > meaning. And unremarkably, nor can any
> > one else, including all the commentators.
> > > Since you haven't proved to anyone's
> > > satisfaction that the addressee of most of the sonnets
> > I don't expect Strats to accept the line;
> > and most Oxfordians are even dozier
> > than you . . . (yes -- even dozier)
> Amazing.
Isn't it?
> >having
> > become Oxfordians because they have
> > bought into some sick story, usually
> > based on (or supported by) a perverse
> > reading of the sonnets.
> You mean the Tudor Heir adherents? They're sick because they believe that
> Southampton was the son of the Queen and Oxford? What's sick about that?
As I have exhorted you before, Lynne, read Mr. Streitz's book and
find out for yourself.
> I
> don't buy into it, I can't see any proof, but I don't see it as sick. And
> talk about perverse reading of the sonnets...
Yes, Mr. Crowley's Defecation Derby readings make the Tudor Heirheads
look positively sane by comparison -- even Mr. Streitz.
With coreligionists like Mr. Crowley, Lynne, who needs "Strats"?
[...]
Buffalo
<consider several messages roundly snipped>
Since I've been on this ng (I mean, at least since then) you've been asking
ad nauseam why nobody attempts to contest your "exegeses". It's a daily
whinge: "You haven't even attempted to demonstrate where I've been going
wrong", etc. This week, with Sonnet 19, you've been robustly interrogated.
You've had every chance to defend your analyses, and you've replied with
your usual hysteria - "The rest of you are idiots for not beginning to take
what I say seriously", "Strats and quasi-Strats", "the mind-boggling extent
of the stupidity of Strats and quasi-Strats", "Nina Green (and all
quasi-Strats)", "you (like all the Strats and quasi-Strats) haven't a clue".
"Yanks (and quasi-Yanks) don't like it", "your quasi-Yank horror at the idea
of scatological humour". And all that from just one post.
I mean, how old are you, really? Ten?
Engaging with you at all is extremely tiresome, like trying to deal politely
with a yapping Pekinese that runs around the room tugging at everyone's
trouser leg. You can expect that the attention you've had with Sonnet 19
will not be repeated, certainly not by me. But since Friday has not yet
arrived with its blessed relief of a new sonnet, I'll set out the problem of
your
Sonnet 19 "exegesis" again, though with no great hope that you will even
attempt to answer it.
Your analysis depends upon two things.
First, it depends on the theory that Raleigh was one of Oxford's rivals for
the Queen's affections in 1581, when you say this sonnet was written. What
evidence do you have for that? What evidence is there that Raleigh had even
met the Queen prior to that year? And what poems dated prior to 1581 can you
find where Raleigh either addresses the Queen or demonstrates his
infatuation with her - which would be some kind of clue?
In a post of yours from 15 March 2001, we have this:-
> He shot to prominence at court in late 1581 and, to the
> discomfiture of all the other courtiers, was the Queen's
> most intimate favourite.
Since your date for this sonnet is April 1581, it seems that milord's poetry
is well in advance of the facts.
Second, your analysis depends upon your theory that Oxford had a habit of
referring to Raleigh as an anagram of "time". What evidence do you have for
that? - and I mean evidence that isn't just some other example where you say
he's doing it, and where the same question has to be asked. It is not an
answer to say " I have shown the identification of 'mite' with Raleigh
before" (to extract yet another quote from this week's output). No, you have
never shown it, you've merely asserted it. Your answers so far have been
circular arguments, along the lines of "he's doing it here because he often
does it", with diversionary support from fatuous statements like 'Time' is
a well-known 'poetic concept' fully exploited by Elizabethans and especially
by Shakespeare." Lynne has already asked you why "time" should be considered
a reference to Raleigh rather than to anybody else, like the Queen, or
Sidney, or Joe Bloggs. You have given no answer to that.
If you could give even half an answer to either of these points, I'd fall
over with astonishment.
Buffalo
Paul Crowley
> > > > > > > > 1. Devouring time blunt thou the Lyons paws,
> > > > > > > > 2. And make the earth devoure her owne sweet brood,
> > > > > > > > 3. Plucke the keene teeth from the fierce Tygers yawes,
> > > > > > > > 4. And burne the long liv'd Phoenix in her blood,
> > > > > > > > 5. Make glad and sorry seasons as thou fleet'st,
> > > > > > > > 6. And do what ere thou wilt swift-footed time
> > > > > > > > 7. To the wide world and all her fading sweets:
> > > > > > > > 8. But I forbid thee one most hainous crime,
> > > > > > > > 9. O carve not with thy howers my loves faire brow,
> > > > > > > > 10. Nor draw noe lines there with thine antique pen,
> > > > > > > > 11. Him in thy course untainted doe allow,
> > > > > > > > 12. For beauties patterne to succeding men.
> > > > > > > > 13. Yet doe thy worst ould Time dispight thy wrong,
> > > > > > > > 14. My love shall in my verse ever live young.
> > 'Time' is a well-known 'poetic concept'
> > fully exploited by Elizabethans and
> > especially by Shakespeare. They and
> > he went on and on and on about it.
> > But sometimes he liked to take the piss.
>
> And this was one of those times? How do you know?
As I mentioned originally, you can tell
from the 'super-serious' tongue-in-cheek
tone. Only a fool would take the first
line as though it was meant seriously.
(Yes, I know that there have been 400
years of fools. We call them 'Strats'.)
> > He was only taking 'the keene teeth'
> > from the "Tyger's yawes". He was not
> > destroying it.
>
> I see, he was saying: Raleigh is destroying the Queen, he is taking the guns
> from the Tyger (a ship), he is destroying the Queen.
As I said, there is much in this sonnet that
I don't follow. But I am making progress.
(See other post.) I've just got some much
better handles on lines 1, 2 and 4.
> > > Don't you know what "him" means? That gives the
> > > clue to the fact that the poet is talking about the
> > > successors of a male.
> >
> > Nope. You are missing the bawdy tone,
> > and that 'him' was the son and heir,
> > ardently hoped-for (or even awaited)
> > by the whole nation.
>
> Not if Shakespeare was trying to be grammatical, it wasn't.
> "Him" was the poet's love.
Nonsense. 'Him' can refer to any male
person in the mind of the poet and his
addressee. It could (speaking purely
theoretically) refer to God -- if our poet
were strongly religious -- which he
certainly wasn't.
11. Him in thy course untainted doe allow,
12. For beauties patterne to succeding men.
Of course, you (with your ridiculous
'Fair Youth' nonsense) will say that 'Him'
is 'Beauty' -- and we're back to the same
crazy problem of: 'Is that how you really
want to address a prospective son-in-law?"
> > > Not at all. I'd just like to be able to tie them into
> > > available evidence. I don't tend to read secondary
> > > sources when I'm looking at poetry. When
> > > possible I go to and compare the works themselves,
> > > and I have seen a profound parallel between
> > > V and A and the fair youth sonnets, especially
> > > the marriage sonnets.
> >
> > Yer . . . what! Where do get THAT from?
> > Even the Strats don't subscribe to such
> > nonsense. Booth, for example, does not
> > mention V&A in this context.
>
> Ah, so you're saying if Booth doesn't mention it, I can't think it?
IF that kind of nonsense had the least
plausibility, it would be in all the standard
commentaries. They are so short of
anything useful or significant to say,
that they'd have hammered such a
theme to death.
Or do you think you are the first people
-- with a Stratfordian mindset -- to read
both V&A and the sonnets?
> > Are you actually claiming that Strats have
> > a reasonable understanding of the sonnets?
>
> I think they understand that the first 126 sonnets
> are to a man, which is a step ahead of you.
A 'step ahead' ? Do you think I didn't
encounter the idea at one time? The
difference between us is that I am a
teeny tiny bit more sceptical than you,
and I can change my ideas when I see
that they don't work.
> > You are like a bunch of really stupid police
> > investigating some matter, which (because
> > of your stupidity) does not make sense.
> > So you decide that some perfectly
> > respectable decent people are engaged in
> > devil-worship, witchcraft, necrophilia, or
> > something else as insane -- because it's all
> > you can think of -- and that kind of theory
> > is currently enjoying a fashion.
>
> What? Necrophilia? Witchcraft? Devil Worship? If you think I believe those
> things about perfectly respectable people, it's no wonder you don't
> understand the poet.
It's but an analogy. You know, a bit like
a metaphor. You come across such 'figures
of speech' in poetry sometimes. I'm saying
that you are like a police team that comes
up with a crazy solution to a crime because
it is so incompetent it cannot work out the
obvious simple ordinary one.
You apply crazy theories to Oxford --
because you imitate the Strats, and they
have to apply crazy theories to explain
the Stratman writing sonnets.
(How thick is it possible to get?)
> > > You change the "hidden meanings" of words to suit
> > > yourself. For example, why would "heaven" mean the Queen's toilet in one
> > > poem (I think it was 17, haven't time to go back), and yet sexual
> > > intercourse in the next? Doesn't make any sense at all.
> >
> > Of course it makes sense. Do a google
> > search on 'heavenly' and you'll find food
> > often so described -- as well as colonic
> > irrigation (by Princess Diana), fox-hunting,
> > ballroom dancing, and many other activities
> > that we need not go into at the moment.
>
> Yes, of course. But
> a) we're not talking about "heavenly," which is an adjective and can be
> matched with anything people find pleasurable, but "heaven."
So, maybe we have an Elizabethan poet
who enjoyed extending the application
of nouns into adjectival contexts?
Ever heard of one who did that?
> b) In a short sequence within a longer sequence of sonnets, one would expect
> the poet to remain consistent in his meanings for the word.
Nonsense. The sonnets are not arranged
in a chronological order.
> I misread one word, which was in part due to your confusing prose. Apart
> from that, I would say that between us, Buffalo
I have no idea where Buffalo has got his
chronology from. It's simply mistaken.
> I and a couple of others
> have completely demolished your argument.
All you did was misread. Gary didn't
even do that. He didn't read my stuff at
all. He took your misreading on trust --
what an idiot! And that's the lot of
you. What a bunch!
> > > That is the mark of someone who cannot
> > > exchange information or listen well enough to test out his theories.
> >
> > The mark of an idiot is a refusal to engage
> > -- because his or her beliefs are so obviously
> > true that any alternatives need not even be
> > examined. That's you.
>
> No, Paul. I engage all the time and modify my theories accordingly. By your
> definition, you must be the idiot.
What theory have you changed recently
as regards THIS forum? What evidence
of any change have you presented here?
(Yet more questions never to be answered.)
> Yes. If you have ANY sources that say that Oxford knew the Queen personally
> at the age of fourteen, please present them.
He would have been a page at her coronation.
He went to Cambridge as part of the progress
of the Court in 1563 -- but you could say that
so did everyone else. However, I find your
doubt astonishing. Are you sure that you
are not a Strat?
> > > He may have been her ward, but he certainly didn't
> > > live in her house.
> >
> > He would have attended court regularly.
>
> Would have? Could have? Should have? Isn't that
> what we condemn others for saying?
We condemn others when the statements
are based on little or no evidence. Here
we have the premier earl, ward of Queen,
in Burghley's house, with his mother a
maid of honour at court, with a loyal
father who died when his son was twelve.
Are you saying that the Queen did not
attend the 16th Earl's funeral, or never
sought to console the young lad -- who
was apparently destined to be one of her
most able and powerful ministers . . ?
Yes, you definitely have a firm grasp of
history, and of political realities. And
you have thought hard about what it
was to be Oxford, and in that court at
that time.
> Lynne, snipping the rest of this because she has more important things to
> do. Don't feel you have to respond.
You omitted to answer questions that all
so-called-Oxfordians need to confront:
> > Did the Queen know who Shakespeare
> > was? If so, when did she find out?
Paul.
Paul Crowley
> 1. Devouring time blunt thou the Lyons paws,
> 2. And make the earth devoure her owne sweet brood,
> 3. Plucke the keene teeth from the fierce Tygers yawes,
> 4. And burne the long liv'd Phoenix in her blood,
> 5. Make glad and sorry seasons as thou fleet'st,
> 6. And do what ere thou wilt swift-footed time
> 7. To the wide world and all her fading sweets:
> 8. But I forbid thee one most hainous crime,
> 9. O carve not with thy howers my loves faire brow,
> 10. Nor draw noe lines there with thine antique pen,
> 11. Him in thy course untainted doe allow,
> 12. For beauties patterne to succeding men.
> 13. Yet doe thy worst ould Time dispight thy wrong,
> 14. My love shall in my verse ever live young.
Some further thoughts:
> 1. Devouring time blunt thou the Lyons pawes,
The poet is 'obviously' punning on 'pawes/
pause'. I looked for this before, but failed
to see the (obvious) pun. The 'pause' that
the royal Lion was imposing on the poet
was one of silence and imprisonment.
He was in disgrace, in the Tower, for an
offence that he seems to have regarded
fairly lightly, and for which he seems to
have assumed would soon be forgiven.
(He had made pregnant one of the
Queen's maids of honour.)
The devouring mite ('time'), Raleigh, is
asked if he 'blunts' that pause. Raleigh
was notorious for the rudeness and the
bluntness of his speech and manner.
I have the strong impression from here
(and from several other references in
the sonnets) that Raleigh was personally
charged with the arrest of Oxford.
Given their antipathy, and Oxford's
detestation of this low-born jack, it's
exactly what the Queen would have
ordered when she wanted him
humiliated.
> 2. And make the earth devoure her owne sweet brood,
>
> This is primarily a reference to the fate
> he sees for England if the Queen does
> not provide an heir. The poet pretends
> to transfer to Raleigh the bulk of the
> blame for this probable event. He may
> also be referring to Raleigh's West
> Country tin-mining activities.
I also missed something obvious enough
here. Whenever we see a bad rhyme, as
here with 'brood' / 'blood', we must
assume that the poet is up to something.
He is likely to be implying words which
WILL rhyme correctly -- but which, for
reasons of discretion, decorum, or fun,
he does not want to write as such.
So here he could mean 'brood' / "blue'd"
OR 'blood' / 'brod' -- OR, knowing the
poet, he may mean both.
'Blod' is an obsolete word defined in the
OED as:
1. A shoot or sprout. rare. [cf. braird.]
2. A goad, prick, pointed instrument.
b. fig. An incentive, stimulus, motive.
3. A prick from a goad; a prod.
4. A prickle or thorn. Obsolete. rare.
'The earth' is a female entity, to which
the Queen herself was occasionally
compared. The image is therefore
bawdy. The Queen (and/or the earth)
was to 'devoure' the goad or the prick
aimed at her. Exactly what form that
took, or how that was to be done, is
left to our own imaginations.
> 3. Plucke the keene teeth from the fierce Tygers yawes,
> 4. And burne the long liv'd Phoenix in her blood,
>
> The Phoenix is, of course, the Queen.
> It was one of her standard emblems.
> Burning 'in blood' though was not a
> part of the usual imagery. The poet is
> emphasising (a) the end of the Tudor
> blood-line, and (b) the likelihood of an
> early and violent death, given the
> uncertainty over the succession
The poet intended the reading:
4. And burne the long liv'd Phoenix in her blue'd,
Blue was the cheapest and commonest
dye, and clothing in that colour was
worn only by servants -- the great
mass of them, outside superior grades.
The poet is forecasting a popular
revolt by the masses.
Paul.
Paul Crowley
> So here he could mean 'brood' / "blue'd"
> OR 'blood' / 'brod' -- OR, knowing the
> poet, he may mean both.
>
> 'Blod' is an obsolete word defined in the
> OED as:
Oops -- typo
'Brod' is an obsolete word defined in the
OED as:
> 1. A shoot or sprout. rare. [cf. braird.]
> 2. A goad, prick, pointed instrument.
> b. fig. An incentive, stimulus, motive.
> 3. A prick from a goad; a prod.
> 4. A prickle or thorn. Obsolete. rare.
Paul.
LynnE
Paul:
O carue not with thy howers my loues faire brow,
Nor draw noe lines there with thine antique pen,
Him in thy course vntainted doe allow,
For beauties patterne to succeding men.
One has to have pronoun antecedent agreement. As I see it, "him" refers not
to "beauties," not to some unborn child, but to "My love" or "my love's fair
brow." The only other possibility is that "him" refers to Time's "antique
pen." If anyone can see any other readings, please let me know. If you
mistakenly think that "him" can refer to any male person in the mind of the
poet or the addressee (in this case, Time), or could even refer to God, who
as far as I can see is non-existent in this sonnet, I would say you have no
idea how to read poetry. The line appears to mean: In thy course allow him
to remain untainted. "Him" has to refer to one of the preceding masculine
or neuter nouns.
Lynne
Peter Farey
Paul Crowley wrote:
>
> Paul Crowley wrote:
> >
<snip>
>
> Some further thoughts:
>
<snip>
>
> > 4. And burne the long liv'd Phoenix in her blood,
> >
> > The Phoenix is, of course, the Queen.
> > It was one of her standard emblems.
> > Burning 'in blood' though was not a
> > part of the usual imagery. The poet is
> > emphasising (a) the end of the Tudor
> > blood-line, and (b) the likelihood of an
> > early and violent death, given the
> > uncertainty over the succession
>
> The poet intended the reading:
>
> 4. And burne the long liv'd Phoenix in her blue'd,
>
> Blue was the cheapest and commonest
> dye, and clothing in that colour was
> worn only by servants -- the great
> mass of them, outside superior grades.
> The poet is forecasting a popular
> revolt by the masses.
Good grief.
As far as I am concerned, the only thing of any
value concerning this sonnet that Paul has said
so far was his linking of the words "in her blood"
to the Queen's blood-line. And now he has even had
second thoughts about that!
Just for fun yesterday, I decided to find out a
little bit about the William Parr who Lyra fondly
imagines was the true father of Christopher Mar-
lowe. In the DNB I read the following:
"Arrested again on suspicion of complicity in
Wyat's insurrection on 26 Jan., he was released
once more on 24 March 1554. He was also restored
in blood on 5 May 1554, but he was not restored
to his rank, and was known during the rest of
Queen Mary's reign as Sir William Parr"
As he had been attainted earlier, and thus deprived
of any right either to inherit or to transmit by
descent, it is clear that being restored "in blood"
refers to the restoration to him of these rights.
If, therefore, the "Phoenix" does represent the
Queen (and I have little doubt that this is so)
then for the "long liv'd Phoenix to burne in her
blood" would be what did in fact happen eventually -
she would die without issue and, although the
monarchy itself would (phoenix-like) live on, it
would of course be via a different blood-line.
He isn't looking for it to happen any time soon, as
far as I can see, however. All of these things seem
to be simply about the effects of age, however long
it takes, and whether it is on lions, tigers or
people. Or, as the Gershwins put it:
In time the Rockies may crumble,
Gibraltar may tumble,
They're only made of clay,
But our love is here to stay.
Peter F.
pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm
LynnE
> "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:uZY0d.1549$0h7....@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
evidence. I
> > don't tend to read secondary sources when I'm looking at poetry. When
> > possible I go to and compare the works themselves, and I have seen a
> > profound parallel between V and A and the fair youth sonnets, especially
the
> > marriage sonnets.
>
> Yer . . . what! Where do get THAT from?
> Even the Strats don't subscribe to such
> nonsense. Booth, for example, does not
> mention V&A in this context.
This is where I get THAT from:
Torches are made to light, jewels to wear,
Dainties to taste, fresh beauty for the use,
Herbs for their smell, and sappy plants to bear:
Things growing to themselves are growth's abuse:
Seeds spring from seeds and beauty breedeth beauty;
Thou wast begot; to get it is thy duty.
Upon the earth's increase why shouldst thou feed,
Unless the earth with thy increase be fed?
By law of nature thou art bound to breed,
That thine may live when thou thyself art dead;
And so, in spite of death, thou dost survive,
In that thy likeness still is left alive.'
Venus, speaking to Adonis, V&A, lines 163-174.
People here may judge for themselves whether they see a parallel to the
marriage sonnets. I have no idea whether there's any commentary on the
similarities, as I haven't checked, but I'm wondering if this might be a
"hidden instruction" to Southampton, who is the dedicatee of V&A. Together
with Sonnet 20, it furnishes, imo, arguable evidence that he is the "fair
youth" of the sonnets.
(Can one have "arguable evidence?)
Lynne
> Paul.
>
>
David L. Webb
"LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
I'm afraid that I'm going to have to call "foul," Lynne -- your
actually having read _Venus and Adonis_ confers upon you an unfair
advantage over Mr. Crowley.
LynnE
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote in message
news:david.l.webb-CF2A...@merrimack.dartmouth.edu...
Damn. Foiled again. ;)
bookburn
Must be that a numbere of theses and dissertations have been done
comparing the sonnets with V & A. bb
|
|
| > Paul.
| >
| >
|
|
Buffalo
"Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ci6c94$di6$1$830f...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> Paul Crowley wrote:
> >
> > Paul Crowley wrote:
> > >
> <snip>
> >
> > Some further thoughts:
> >
> <snip>
> >
> > > 4. And burne the long liv'd Phoenix in her blood,
> > >
> > > The Phoenix is, of course, the Queen.
> > > It was one of her standard emblems.
> > > Burning 'in blood' though was not a
> > > part of the usual imagery. The poet is
> > > emphasising (a) the end of the Tudor
> > > blood-line, and (b) the likelihood of an
> > > early and violent death, given the
> > > uncertainty over the succession
> >
> > The poet intended the reading:
> >
> > 4. And burne the long liv'd Phoenix in her blue'd,
> >
> > Blue was the cheapest and commonest
> > dye, and clothing in that colour was
> > worn only by servants -- the great
> > mass of them, outside superior grades.
> > The poet is forecasting a popular
> > revolt by the masses.
>
> Good grief.
Speak for yourself. There's nothing good about my grief. It's the kind that
has me contorting my features into a Lucky Jim face and thumping the heel of
my hand into the side of my head.
I have doubts about this, but it deserves consideration. I just wish Mr
Crowley could come up with one argument about which you could say the same
thing. That "in blood" was well spotted.
Buffalo
Buffalo
> >
> > "Robert Stonehouse" <ew...@bcs.org.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:l1q7k0tg4p2qa70nc...@4ax.com...
> > > On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 20:29:00 +0000 (UTC), "Buffalo"
> > > <none...@here.com> wrote:
> > > ...
> >
> > First Officer
> > Orsino, this is that Antonio
> > That took the Phoenix and her fraught from Candy;
> > And this is he that did the Tiger board,
> > When your young nephew Titus lost his leg:
>
in
> this case didn't make the connection. I will go on a Lyon hunt.
Any progress on this? I posted to alt.sailing.tall-ships in the hope that
one of those salty types might know something, but that was three days ago -
and no reply. I see my post is still the most recent, so I suppose it must
be one of those soporific newsgroups that get about three posts per week.
The other sailing-ship type newsgroups are not so much soporific as stone
dead. Oh, well.
Buffalo
Buffalo
I read through Venus and Adonis about six months ago, and I was also struck
by the similarity of themes. It persuades me that the first seventeen
sonnets at least date from the same period - 1593 or thereabouts. He
definitely had procreation on his mind at that time, for some reason.
But what reason?
And why go on about it ad nauseam? Baffling.
>
> (Can one have "arguable evidence?)
Can't help on that one. I've never been quite clear whether "arguable" means
you can argue for it, or that you can argue against it. "It's arguable
whether..." Does it mean "A good case can be made for..." or does it mean
"It is doubtful whether..."
Buffalo
LynnE
I've found lots of Lyons in Shakespeare, but I still have to go through and
see whether any of the references are to ships.
With regard to the real Lyon and Tyger, and the search for the Phoenix, I
found a source online that said there are many ships of the time which
appear to have changed names from voyage to voyage, or for which the names
are entirely missing. I expect Shakespeare knew what he meant, even if we
don't. :(
L.
>
> Buffalo
>
>
LynnE
I've gone through my concordance. I can't find anything on Lyon-boats. But I
did find this:
King John,
Act III, Scene I:
Pandulph: France, thou mayst hold...
A chafed lion by the mortal paw,
A fasting tiger safer by the tooth,
Than keep in peace that hand which thou dost hold.
Which reminded me a little of these lines from the sonnet:
Devouring Time, blunt thou the lion's paws...
Pluck the keen teeth from the fierce tiger's jaws..
L.
>
> Buffalo
>
>
Paul Crowley
> "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:s_C1d.3643$lb5.4...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > This is where I get THAT from:
> >
> > Torches are made to light, jewels to wear,
> > Dainties to taste, fresh beauty for the use,
> > Herbs for their smell, and sappy plants to bear:
> > Things growing to themselves are growth's abuse:
> > Seeds spring from seeds and beauty breedeth beauty;
> > Thou wast begot; to get it is thy duty.
> >
> > Upon the earth's increase why shouldst thou feed,
> > Unless the earth with thy increase be fed?
> > By law of nature thou art bound to breed,
> > That thine may live when thou thyself art dead;
> > And so, in spite of death, thou dost survive,
> > In that thy likeness still is left alive.'
> >
> > Venus, speaking to Adonis, V&A, lines 163-174.
> >
> > People here may judge for themselves whether they see a parallel to the
> > marriage sonnets.
IMO there's certainly a parallel.
> > I have no idea whether there's any commentary on the
> > similarities, as I haven't checked,
I see it is mentioned in Rollins who quotes
Boaden from an edition of 1821. But no
one seems to make much of it.
> > but I'm wondering if this might be a
> > "hidden instruction" to Southampton, who is the dedicatee of V&A. Together
> > with Sonnet 20, it furnishes, imo, arguable evidence that he is the "fair
> > youth" of the sonnets.
Nope. You are, as ever, missing every
salient point that there is to miss.
(a) V&A is very early work -- probably
written in (or even before) the poet's
'teens.
(b) While he puts the words into the
mouth of the goddess, they are directed
at the person for whom that goddess
stands -- the Queen herself.
> I read through Venus and Adonis about six months ago, and I was also struck
> by the similarity of themes. It persuades me that the first seventeen
> sonnets at least date from the same period - 1593 or thereabouts. He
> definitely had procreation on his mind at that time, for some reason.
>
> But what reason?
>
> And why go on about it ad nauseam? Baffling.
The whole nation, from 1558 until 1582
wanted the Queen to marry and produce
an heir. It was often THE dominating
issue in the politics of the day. There
is not even the beginnings of a mystery
as to why an Elizabethan poet should
go on and on and on about the topic --
unless, of course, you are a Strat or a
quasi-Strat and as thick as they come.
Paul.
Paul Crowley
news:ci6c94$di6$1$830f...@news.demon.co.uk...
> > > 4. And burne the long liv'd Phoenix in her blood,
> > >
> > > The Phoenix is, of course, the Queen.
> > > It was one of her standard emblems.
> > > Burning 'in blood' though was not a
> > > part of the usual imagery. The poet is
> > > emphasising (a) the end of the Tudor
> > > blood-line, and (b) the likelihood of an
> > > early and violent death, given the
> > > uncertainty over the succession
> >
> > The poet intended the reading:
> >
> > 4. And burne the long liv'd Phoenix in her blue'd,
> >
> > Blue was the cheapest and commonest
> > dye, and clothing in that colour was
> > worn only by servants -- the great
> > mass of them, outside superior grades.
> > The poet is forecasting a popular
> > revolt by the masses.
>
> Good grief.
>
> As far as I am concerned, the only thing of any
> value concerning this sonnet that Paul has said
> so far was his linking of the words "in her blood"
> to the Queen's blood-line. And now he has even had
> second thoughts about that!
I do NOT have second thoughts about that.
This is the 'Redneck Ambiguity is Impossible'
Rule, (RAIM) spreading across the Atlantic.
The fact that the poet says one thing does
NOT exclude the possibility that he is
saying another.
In fact, I fully support your position (and
mine, as stated before) that 'blood' means
'blood' and 'blood-lines' and so on. The
"blue'd" argument that I present above is
IMO secondary. The poet sought to pack
in as many senses as he could. He may,
for example, have expressed this in another
way, with only two puns (or plays on
words) but then substituted this, since it
provided three.
> If, therefore, the "Phoenix" does represent the
> Queen (and I have little doubt that this is so)
> then for the "long liv'd Phoenix to burne in her
> blood" would be what did in fact happen eventually -
> she would die without issue and, although the
> monarchy itself would (phoenix-like) live on, it
> would of course be via a different blood-line.
It only makes sense to raise the issue
if (a) there is something that can be done
about; (that something ceased to be
possible around the end of 1581); and
if (b) the words are directed at a person
in a position to do that something.
Do you really have Marlowe writing
this sonnet to the Queen before 1582?
> He isn't looking for it to happen any time soon, as
> far as I can see, however. All of these things seem
> to be simply about the effects of age, however long
> it takes, and whether it is on lions, tigers or
> people. Or, as the Gershwins put it:
>
> In time the Rockies may crumble,
> Gibraltar may tumble,
> They're only made of clay,
> But our love is here to stay.
There is a desperation, and there are
senses of urgency and of violence in
the sonnet that are far removed from
Gershwin's gentle tones. Time is told
to "burne the long liv'd Phoenix in her
blood . .". It's not being nice to her.
Paul.
Paul Crowley
> Your analysis depends upon two things.
>
> First, it depends on the theory that Raleigh was one of Oxford's rivals for
> the Queen's affections in 1581, when you say this sonnet was written. What
> evidence do you have for that?
There is masses of evidence that both
were high in her favour, with Raleigh
being especially so in the early 1580s.
The exact dates when, for example,
Raleigh first met the Queen, or when
she took a fancy to him, are of course,
quite uncertain.
> What evidence is there that Raleigh had even
> met the Queen prior to that year?
He was active in the politics of the court
in the summer of 1579, apparently having
some role in settling the dispute between
Sidney and Oxford, arising out of the
tennis-court incident in August. The
Queen would, almost certainly, have
met him at that time.
> And what poems dated prior to 1581 can you
> find where Raleigh either addresses the Queen or demonstrates his
> infatuation with her - which would be some kind of clue?
That kind of thing was rarely recorded.
Most of Raleigh's poems are lost and he
rarely stuck a date on those we do have.
> In a post of yours from 15 March 2001, we have this:-
>
> > He shot to prominence at court in late 1581 and, to the
> > discomfiture of all the other courtiers, was the Queen's
> > most intimate favourite.
>
> Since your date for this sonnet is April 1581, it seems that milord's poetry
> is well in advance of the facts.
Sure, I got that from some book. The historians
often date such events much later than they
actually occurred. They can only work on the
basis of the records (most often printed ones)
and there were no newspapers or gossip
columns. Also they frequently happen to miss
the earliest records -- as we see from that article
by Peck that Bookburn so usefully located.
> Second, your analysis depends upon your theory that Oxford had a habit of
> referring to Raleigh as an anagram of "time". What evidence do you have for
> that? - and I mean evidence that isn't just some other example where you say
> he's doing it, and where the same question has to be asked. It is not an
> answer to say " I have shown the identification of 'mite' with Raleigh
> before" (to extract yet another quote from this week's output). No, you have
> never shown it, you've merely asserted it.
Oops, you're right on that. It comes from
Sonnet 16, on which I did not post here.
Thanks for keeping check, btw.
----- Start of excerpt of exegesis on Sonnet 16 -------
1. But wherefore do not you a mightier waie
Wherefore do you not 'weigh a mightier'?
I.e. why you do not pay attention to ME?
'Weigh' also had the sense of 'raise up'
(OED 6a, 6b). Oxford is asking that he be
given promotion rather than this low sailor.
Wherefore do you not 'weigh a mite . .ier'?
This is a reference to the famous 'weighing'
episode, when Raleigh proved to the Queen
that smoke had weight.
2. Make warre uppon this bloudie tirant time?
Time is not thought of as 'bloody', so we
must consider other meanings. I suggest
that the poet is playing on 'time' = 'mite',
and this is reinforced by 'mightier way' of
line 1. He is referring to the 'mite', Raleigh,
whose record was bloody.
'Mite' OED (n1)
" 1. a. In early use, applied vaguely to any minute insect or arachnid;
sometimes spec. a small parasitic insect infesting hawks. Now usually
restricted to certain genera of the order Acarida of arachnids, and
chiefly applied to the cheese-mite . . ."
'Mite' OED (n2)
" 1. a. Originally, a Flemish copper coin of very small value;
b. In proverbial phrases, as 'not worth a mite' . . "
'Tyrant' might also seem strong for Raleigh,
but it had wider senses at the time. See OED
sense 4:
" 4. Any one who exercises power or authority oppressively,
despotically, or cruelly; one who treats those under his control
tyrannically.
b. By extension: Any one who acts in a cruel, violent, or
wicked manner; a ruffian, desperado; a villain. Hence as a term
of reproach. Obsolete.
c. fig. Anything of which the action is likened to that of a
tyrannical ruler. . . ."
> 2. Make warre uppon this bloudie tirant time?
'Warre' meant 'war' but the poet would have
intended a number of other meanings:
OED 'Ware' (n3) Sense 1
" A collective term for: Articles of merchandise or manufacture; the
things which a merchant, tradesman, or pedlar, has to sell; goods,
commodities. "
--- Here the poet is sarcastically asking why his
Queen does not give _even_ more to his hated
rival
OED 'Ware' (n3) Sense 4c
"The privy parts of either sex. Also lady ware. Obsolete"
--- The bawdy suggestion that she is making
love to him.
Two other senses the poet may have intended:
OED 'Ware' (n6) "Pus, matter, Obsolete"
OED 'Ware' (n1) "Seaweed; esp. large drift seaweed
used as manure. Obsolete"
----- End of excerpt of exegesis on Sonnet 16 -------
> Your answers so far have been
> circular arguments, along the lines of "he's doing it here because he often
> does it", with diversionary support from fatuous statements like 'Time' is
> a well-known 'poetic concept' fully exploited by Elizabethans and especially
> by Shakespeare." Lynne has already asked you why "time" should be considered
> a reference to Raleigh rather than to anybody else, like the Queen, or
> Sidney, or Joe Bloggs. You have given no answer to that.
I really don't know what exactly you want.
Either you see the possibility for 'mite' here
(and in Sonnet 16) or you don't. And if you
don't, there's little that I or anyone else can
do about it.
'Time' is an anagram of 'mite' (and of 'item).
And you (and Lynne) are perfectly correct,
in that Oxford could theoretically have
directed it at others who could fit the
description 'mite'. Sidney could have
qualified, but he rarely attended court at
this time, was out of favour, and so was
not a worthwhile target.
This period of sonnet-writing seems to
have resulted from the poet being locked
up in the Tower (and later under house-
arrest) probably not in a mood to
concentrate on longer-term projects,
and so directing his ire towards a low-
born jack who had replaced him in the
Queen's affections.
Sonneteers tend to go on and on about
Time. The subject was extremely relevant
as the Queen was rapidly running out of it,
if she wanted to produce a son. Our poet
would be fully aware of how hackneyed
'time' was as a subject, and while being,
in effect, obliged to write on the topic
would also want to treat it in a very
different manner from all the other poets
of the day.
Paul.
Buffalo
> "Buffalo" <none...@here.com> wrote in message
news:ci5708$91t$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
>
> > Your analysis depends upon two things.
> >
> > First, it depends on the theory that Raleigh was one of Oxford's rivals
for
> > the Queen's affections in 1581, when you say this sonnet was written.
What
> > evidence do you have for that?
>
> There is masses of evidence that both
> were high in her favour, with Raleigh
> being especially so in the early 1580s.
Please read the above paragraph again. It does not say "the early 1580s". It
says "1581", and nothing else. April 1581 was your confident date for this
sonnet. For your ideas to have any validity, the first requirement is that
Raleigh was already the Queen's favourite by April 1581, and I invited you
to provide evidence that he was.
> The exact dates when, for example,
> Raleigh first met the Queen, or when
> she took a fancy to him, are of course,
> quite uncertain.
Quite so. It means your idea that Oxford regarded Raleigh as a rival in
1581 is also, of course, quite uncertain.
> > What evidence is there that Raleigh had even
> > met the Queen prior to that year?
>
> He was active in the politics of the court
> in the summer of 1579, apparently having
> some role in settling the dispute between
> Sidney and Oxford, arising out of the
> tennis-court incident in August. The
> Queen would, almost certainly, have
> met him at that time.
How important Raleigh was in those years can be judged from the fact that he
was sent to Ireland in 1580 as the Captain of a hundred men. And that's
Oxford's "rival"? Oxford probably had a hundred men to taste his food and
warm the toilet seat for his morning bowel-movement. No favourite of the
Queen would get such a nothing-commission as Raleigh got. In 1581, when you
say Sonnet 19 was written, Oxford was the premier earl in the kingdom, and
Raleigh was a nobody, an opportunist haunting the fringes of power.
> > And what poems dated prior to 1581 can you
> > find where Raleigh either addresses the Queen or demonstrates his
> > infatuation with her - which would be some kind of clue?
>
> That kind of thing was rarely recorded.
> Most of Raleigh's poems are lost and he
> rarely stuck a date on those we do have.
In other words, you have nothing.
> > In a post of yours from 15 March 2001, we have this:-
> >
> > > He shot to prominence at court in late 1581 and, to the
> > > discomfiture of all the other courtiers, was the Queen's
> > > most intimate favourite.
> >
> > Since your date for this sonnet is April 1581, it seems that milord's
poetry
> > is well in advance of the facts.
>
> Sure, I got that from some book.
Oh, that's a come-down. After all your boasts about being the world's
greatest living expert on the Sonnets, it turns out you're a graduate of the
Paddy-me-Arse Academy - building theories on dates lifted from sources whose
titles and authors you can't even remember.
>The historians
> often date such events much later than they
> actually occurred.
Watching you making things up as you go along has its limits as a form of
entertainment.
It doesn't matter what sense "weigh" also had, since the word does not exist
in this sonnet. Words of that etymological root do, however, exist in other
sonnets - to wit, sonnets 50, 108 and 120, appearing (in their original
spellings) as, respectively, "waight", "waighes", "waigh". His spelling of
words of that etymological root are quite consistent. And as you can see,
Sonnet 19 does not contain any, thus making complete nonsense of your
reading.
> Oxford is asking that he be
> given promotion rather than this low sailor.
No, he isn't.
> Wherefore do you not 'weigh a mite . .ier'?
You mean, of course, "a might... ier waie". Like to try to make something of
that? (I suppose you thought I wouldn't notice that you've inverted the word
order?)
> This is a reference to the famous 'weighing'
> episode, when Raleigh proved to the Queen
> that smoke had weight.
So we're down to legends now, are we? Like the Stratman's deer-poaching. Yet
more from the Paddy-me-Arse Academy.
Since you've signally failed to meet the challenge of demonstrating that
Oxford ever though Raleigh was an anagram of "time", I see no point in
dealing with the rest of your "exegesis", which merely plumbs further depths
of inanity.
> I really don't know what exactly you want.
I want you to understand what I told you yesterday, which is that the chance
you've had to defend your reading of Sonnet 19 will not be extended to any
more sonnets. You are simply a waste of time.
Buffalo
Peter Farey
"Buffalo" wrote:
How strange. In my mind, the phrase is always associated
with Linus's "Lucy, why is Charlie Brown banging his head
against that tree?"
Sorry. Doubts about what? That the "Phoenix" represents
the Queen, or that it is her blood-line being referred to?
As far as I can see, it is the only way the "in her blood"
phrase can make sense. Neither the mythical bird *qua*
bird, nor any "ship" interpretation does it.
> but it deserves consideration. I just wish Mr Crowley
> could come up with one argument about which you could
> say the same thing. That "in blood" was well spotted.
Mere serendipity.
Peter Farey
Paul Crowley wrote:
>
> Peter Farey wrote:
> >
> > Paul Crowley wrote:
> > >
> > > Paul Crowley wrote:
Second, third, whatever. "Some further thoughts"
was what you said.
> This is the 'Redneck Ambiguity is Impossible'
> Rule, (RAIM) spreading across the Atlantic.
> The fact that the poet says one thing does
> NOT exclude the possibility that he is
> saying another.
>
> In fact, I fully support your position (and
> mine, as stated before) that 'blood' means
> 'blood' and 'blood-lines' and so on. The
> "blue'd" argument that I present above is
> IMO secondary.
And IMO complete nonsense.
> The poet sought to pack
> in as many senses as he could. He may,
> for example, have expressed this in another
> way, with only two puns (or plays on
> words) but then substituted this, since it
> provided three.
>
> > If, therefore, the "Phoenix" does represent the
> > Queen (and I have little doubt that this is so)
> > then for the "long liv'd Phoenix to burne in her
> > blood" would be what did in fact happen eventually -
> > she would die without issue and, although the
> > monarchy itself would (phoenix-like) live on, it
> > would of course be via a different blood-line.
>
> It only makes sense to raise the issue
> if (a) there is something that can be done
> about; (that something ceased to be
> possible around the end of 1581); and
> if (b) the words are directed at a person
> in a position to do that something.
No, Paul. The lion is *not* able to prevent his
'paws' becoming blunt in old age, nor can earth's
'sweet brood' prevent its own decay, nor the
tiger stop his teeth falling out with advancing
years. And no more can she, by now aged around
60, do anything about her eventual death with
no offspring to succeed her.
> Do you really have Marlowe writing
> this sonnet to the Queen before 1582?
Given this possible meaning for the line, we can
be sure that the one person in the world to whom
this sonnet is definitely *not* addressed is the
Queen. And I would have it being written not long
after what I take to have been Marlowe's banishment
by her in 1593.
> > He isn't looking for it to happen any time soon, as
> > far as I can see, however. All of these things seem
> > to be simply about the effects of age, however long
> > it takes, and whether it is on lions, tigers or
> > people. Or, as the Gershwins put it:
> >
> > In time the Rockies may crumble,
> > Gibraltar may tumble,
> > They're only made of clay,
> > But our love is here to stay.
>
> There is a desperation, and there are
> senses of urgency and of violence in
> the sonnet that are far removed from
> Gershwin's gentle tones. Time is told
> to "burne the long liv'd Phoenix in her
> blood . .". It's not being nice to her.
No it isn't. But then, she too is only made of clay.
LynnE
> "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ci6c94$di6$1$830f...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> > > > 4. And burne the long liv'd Phoenix in her blood,
> > > >
> > > > The Phoenix is, of course, the Queen.
> > > > It was one of her standard emblems.
> > > > Burning 'in blood' though was not a
> > > > part of the usual imagery. The poet is
> > > > emphasising (a) the end of the Tudor
> > > > blood-line, and (b) the likelihood of an
> > > > early and violent death, given the
> > > > uncertainty over the succession
> > >
> > > The poet intended the reading:
> > >
> > > 4. And burne the long liv'd Phoenix in her blue'd,
> > >
> > > Blue was the cheapest and commonest
> > > dye, and clothing in that colour was
> > > worn only by servants -- the great
> > > mass of them, outside superior grades.
> > > The poet is forecasting a popular
> > > revolt by the masses.
> >
> > Good grief.
Right. I'm surprised at (but am not contesting) what Paul is suggesting with
regard to dye--although I am contesting his reading blood=blue dye=popular
revolt, which makes no sense grammatically and takes great leaps. Perhaps he
could furnish a source that says blue was the least expensive dye as I find
that interesting. By the mid 18th century red was certainly the cheapest
dye, which is why English soldiers always wore red jackets. I researched
this for a novel of the period.
> >
> > As far as I am concerned, the only thing of any
> > value concerning this sonnet that Paul has said
> > so far was his linking of the words "in her blood"
> > to the Queen's blood-line.
I think this does make sense. The word was certainly used this way. At the
end of V and A, Venus says to the little purple flower:
"Here was thy father's bed, here in my breast,
Thou art the next of blood and 'tis thy right..."
So there's definitely the idea of succession there; however, if the Phoenix
is the Queen in 19, which Paul states, the sonnet must almost certainly be
written late in her reign, as she is, according to the poet, "long liv'd."
It also argues strongly against her being the addressee of the sonnets. She
doesn't fit as she isn't young or fair. The poet has just said so in rather
cruel terms. Apart from anything else, Shakespeare tells Time that it is
fine to "burn" her in her own blood, but asks that same Time to leave his
love "untainted." Paul can't have it both ways. This reading also makes
nonsense of the idea of Raleigh being Time/mite/whatever, as the total
thrust of the sonnet has little to do with the Queen.
That the word "love" here refers to the usual addressee, and not the Queen's
issue (which Paul also suggests), is very clear, as the poet has used the
word love a couple of times, beginning with 13, to address the youth thus,
and will continue to do so. There is no reason for him to make a change
here.
Lynne
Paul Crowley
> > There is masses of evidence that both
> > were high in her favour, with Raleigh
> > being especially so in the early 1580s.
>
> Please read the above paragraph again. It does not say "the early 1580s". It
> says "1581", and nothing else. April 1581 was your confident date for this
> sonnet.
I stated it was my *provisional* date.
Although as this exchange with you
has gone on, I have been getting more
confident about it.
> For your ideas to have any validity, the first requirement is that
> Raleigh was already the Queen's favourite by April 1581, and I invited you
> to provide evidence that he was.
>
> > The exact dates when, for example,
> > Raleigh first met the Queen, or when
> > she took a fancy to him, are of course,
> > quite uncertain.
>
> Quite so. It means your idea that Oxford regarded Raleigh as a rival in
> 1581 is also, of course, quite uncertain.
No -- the evidence from the sonnet itself
(and that from other sonnets) is indisputable.
> > > What evidence is there that Raleigh had even
> > > met the Queen prior to that year?
> >
> > He was active in the politics of the court
> > in the summer of 1579, apparently having
> > some role in settling the dispute between
> > Sidney and Oxford, arising out of the
> > tennis-court incident in August. The
> > Queen would, almost certainly, have
> > met him at that time.
>
> How important Raleigh was in those years can be judged from the fact that he
> was sent to Ireland in 1580 as the Captain of a hundred men.
That was a significant part of the English
army of the day, in one of the few units
likely to see action that winter.
As Peck says:
" . . buried among these Oxford squabbles of 1581 is ample
and probably quite reliable evidence that, surprisingly, in
the late 1570s Raleigh moved in the circles of the Catholic
courtiers, a group which included, besides the three already
mentioned, [Oxford, Arundell, Lord Henry Howard] the Lords
Windsor and Compton, the Lords Charles and Thomas Howard,
George Gifford, Francis Southwell, Henry Noel, Arthur Gorges,
William Tresham, and William Cornwallis, among others, most
of them practising Roman Catholics, as well as others who came
less often to Court, like the Earls of Northumberland and
Southampton, Thomas Lord Paget, and Philip Howard, the Duke
of Norfolk's son and heir."
And Peck continues:
" . . . in the cited instances Raleigh appears among them all as
an equal member".
> And that's
> Oxford's "rival"? Oxford probably had a hundred men to taste his food and
> warm the toilet seat for his morning bowel-movement. No favourite of the
> Queen would get such a nothing-commission as Raleigh got.
Nonsense. Oxford would have been delighted if
such a command could have been arranged for
him (although his rank and lack of military
experience would have been among the problems).
Many other young courtiers would have wanted
a similar honour. It gave Raleigh exactly the
opportunity he needed to demonstrate his
martial valour, and vaunt it over the stay-at-
home courtiers.
> In 1581, when you
> say Sonnet 19 was written, Oxford was the premier earl in the kingdom, and
> Raleigh was a nobody, an opportunist haunting the fringes of power.
At some point the roles reversed -- as regards
the favour of the Queen. I suggest that
Raleigh was back in court ahead of the great
celebrations for the official visit of the French
Commissioners in mid-April of 1581. His
excellent French, and his long-established
contacts in France and with French courtiers,
such as Simier, would have made his
presence desirable. His heroic tales from
Ireland may have been enough to establish
a position as top favourite.
Further, as I have shown here before, this is
the only occasion for which Loves Labours
Lost could have been produced -- with the
(very temporary and highly transient) good
relations between Henry of Navarre and his
wife, and the (very temporary) peace in France,
and the (very temporary) good relations
between the French and English courts.
Even some Stratfordians recognise that
Raleigh is caricatured as Don Adriano de
Armado, and Oxford would not have done
that unless Raleigh was prominent.
> > > And what poems dated prior to 1581 can you
> > > find where Raleigh either addresses the Queen or demonstrates his
> > > infatuation with her - which would be some kind of clue?
> >
> > That kind of thing was rarely recorded.
> > Most of Raleigh's poems are lost and he
> > rarely stuck a date on those we do have.
>
> In other words, you have nothing.
Err . . . did I ever claim that this sort
of thing would be found in the official
records? You raise a straw man --
insisting something along the lines that
each sonnet should be authorised by a
Privy Council warrant. Then you jump
up and down in celebration when
I concede that there is no evidence of
any such warrant.
> Oh, that's a come-down. After all your boasts about being the world's
> greatest living expert on the Sonnets, it turns out you're a graduate of the
> Paddy-me-Arse Academy -
Yes, indeed, Juvenile racialist abuse is
about the best you can achieve.
> > 1. But wherefore do not you a mightier waie
> >
> > Wherefore do you not 'weigh a mightier'?
> > I.e. why you do not pay attention to ME?
> > 'Weigh' also had the sense of 'raise up'
>
> It doesn't matter what sense "weigh" also had, since the word does not exist
> in this sonnet.
Eh . .? Can't you read? Or, I suppose
since you can see one sense, that
means no other sense is possible?
After all, this is poetry and, as in police
reports, no ambiguity is permissible.
> Words of that etymological root do, however, exist in other
> sonnets - to wit, sonnets 50, 108 and 120, appearing (in their original
> spellings) as, respectively, "waight", "waighes", "waigh".
The OED shows the following as spellings
for 'weigh':
4 weghe, 6 weygh(e, waygh, 6-7 weighe, waigh(e, 6- weigh;
2-6 weie, 3-7 weye (5 wheyhe, 5-7 Sc. veye), 4-7 (9 Sc.) wey
(5-7 Sc. vey); 4-7 waie, 5-7 waye (5 whaye), way, 6-7 weay;
The numbers indicate the century; so
"waie" was a COMMON spelling for
'weigh' in the 14th, 15th, 16th and 17th
centuries. And our poet was playing on
'way' / 'weigh'. It's what's called a 'pun'.
He was quite fond of them.
> His spelling of
> words of that etymological root are quite consistent.
You have access to Shakespeare's
manuscripts? Tell us how.
> And as you can see,
> Sonnet 19 does not contain any, thus making complete nonsense of your
> reading.
Yes, of course. Ambiguity is Impossible.
The Redneck rule of poetry-reading.
> > Wherefore do you not 'weigh a mite . .ier'?
>
> You mean, of course, "a might... ier waie". Like to try to make something of
> that? (I suppose you thought I wouldn't notice that you've inverted the word
> order?)
Yes, inversion really changes the sense
here, doesn't it?
> > This is a reference to the famous 'weighing'
> > episode, when Raleigh proved to the Queen
> > that smoke had weight.
>
> So we're down to legends now, are we? Like the Stratman's deer-poaching.
The 'weighing smoke' story is well-attested.
It was done in court; dozens probably saw
it; hundred of literate people heard of it.
No one seriously doubts it. The Stratman's
deer-poaching story was made up by one
person over a hundred years after the
supposed event.
> Yet more from the Paddy-me-Arse Academy.
Your racialist abuse does you full credit
-- of exactly the sort you deserve.
> Since you've signally failed to meet the challenge of demonstrating that
> Oxford ever though Raleigh was an anagram of "time",
What kind of 'demonstration' would
have satisfied you? This is another
instance of your 'straw-man' thinking.
> I want you to understand what I told you yesterday, which is that the chance
> you've had to defend your reading of Sonnet 19 will not be extended to any
> more sonnets. You are simply a waste of time.
As ever, you miss the point. Either my
exegesis is (substantially) true -- or it
is quite ridiculous, has no foundation
whatever in the words, and is hopelessly
at odds both with (i) the broad movements
of the history of those times and
(ii) with the detail of the historical record.
Asking for explicit (and quite unrealistic)
'proof' of some minor aspect of historical
detail, and then "rejecting"the exegesis
on the basis that you feel such 'proof' is
inadequate, does not cut it.
If you cannot show how my exegesis is
wholly absurd and ridiculous, with no
possible match to those events in the
court of Elizabeth -- and how the
traditional Stratfordian 'commentaries'
are superior -- then you have failed.
Since you don't make even a beginning
of a start on that process, you have
failed dismally.
But what else did anyone expect?
Paul.
Paul Crowley
> > > As far as I am concerned, the only thing of any
> > > value concerning this sonnet that Paul has said
> > > so far was his linking of the words "in her blood"
> > > to the Queen's blood-line. And now he has even had
> > > second thoughts about that!
> >
> > I do NOT have second thoughts about that.
>
> Second, third, whatever. "Some further thoughts"
> was what you said.
But not on THAT issue Reading
another sense into a phrase in a
Shakespeare sonnet does not push
out previous ones.
> > In fact, I fully support your position (and
> > mine, as stated before) that 'blood' means
> > 'blood' and 'blood-lines' and so on. The
> > "blue'd" argument that I present above is
> > IMO secondary.
>
> And IMO complete nonsense.
Do you accept that the rhyme of 'brood'
with 'blood' is (a) bad? (b) deliberately bad?
and (c) probably meant to suggest other
words?
The bad rhyme is ignored by all the
traditional commentators, but if you accept
my argument, then (i) the meanings of the
words as we have them ('brood' and 'blood')
are the primary senses; (ii) 'brod' (to rhyme
with 'blood') is a good secondary sense (being
bawdy) although the rhyme here is far from
perfect and (iii) "blue'd" (to rhyme with
'brood') is a possible or probable tertiary one.
> > > If, therefore, the "Phoenix" does represent the
> > > Queen (and I have little doubt that this is so)
> > > then for the "long liv'd Phoenix to burne in her
> > > blood" would be what did in fact happen eventually -
> > > she would die without issue and, although the
> > > monarchy itself would (phoenix-like) live on, it
> > > would of course be via a different blood-line.
> >
> > It only makes sense to raise the issue
> > if (a) there is something that can be done
> > about; (that something ceased to be
> > possible around the end of 1581); and
> > if (b) the words are directed at a person
> > in a position to do that something.
>
> No, Paul. The lion is *not* able to prevent his
> 'paws' becoming blunt in old age, nor can earth's
> 'sweet brood' prevent its own decay,
The sweet brood does not 'decay'; it is
'devoured'. One is a gentle decline; the
other is a sudden and violent extinction.
> nor the
> tiger stop his teeth falling out with advancing
> years.
That's quite opposed to the sense the
poet conveys. The keene teeth are plucked
from the fierce tiger's jaws. This tyger is
not in the least senile.
> And no more can she, by now aged around
> 60, do anything about her eventual death with
> no offspring to succeed her.
Again quite wrong. She is burnt in her
blood. The images are consistently of
extreme violence, not of slow and gentle
decline.
> > Do you really have Marlowe writing
> > this sonnet to the Queen before 1582?
>
> Given this possible meaning for the line, we can
> be sure that the one person in the world to whom
> this sonnet is definitely *not* addressed is the
> Queen.
The poet needed a special relationship.
But then we know he had such a one.
> And I would have it being written not long
> after what I take to have been Marlowe's banishment
> by her in 1593.
There would have been no more purpose
to Marlowe writing such a sonnet in
1593 than there would be for Andrew
Motion (current Poet Laureate -- for the
benefit of our US friends) to express
similar sentiments about the present
Queen in 2004. There is no reason
why such idea would have occurred to
him, and even less why he should write
a sonnet about it.
Paul.
Paul Crowley
> > > > 4. And burne the long liv'd Phoenix in her blue'd,
> > > >
> > > > Blue was the cheapest and commonest
> > > > dye, and clothing in that colour was
> > > > worn only by servants -- the great
> > > > mass of them, outside superior grades.
> > > > The poet is forecasting a popular
> > > > revolt by the masses.
> Right. I'm surprised at (but am not contesting) what Paul is suggesting with
> regard to dye--although I am contesting his reading blood=blue dye=popular
> revolt, which makes no sense grammatically and takes great leaps.
It is grammatical if you read the text as
though the mobs were adumbrated:
And burne the long liv'd Phoenix in her blue'd [servants]
or
And burne the long liv'd Phoenix in her blue'd [masses]
> Perhaps he could furnish a source that says blue was
> the least expensive dye as I find that interesting.
Sorry, can't find confirmation in my books
-- perhaps a google search might. But it is
quite well-known. You will never (or very
rarely) see aristocrats of the day (such as
the Queen) wearing blue in their portraits.
It was a colour disdained by the upper-
classes.
> By the mid 18th century red was certainly the cheapest
> dye, which is why English soldiers always wore red jackets.
Yes, it was Cromwell who did it first with the
New Model Army around 1645. Maybe there
was a technological change. I doubt if servants
wore red much though at any time. It is too
strident a colour.
> > > As far as I am concerned, the only thing of any
> > > value concerning this sonnet that Paul has said
> > > so far was his linking of the words "in her blood"
> > > to the Queen's blood-line.
>
> I think this does make sense. The word was certainly used this way. At the
> end of V and A, Venus says to the little purple flower:
>
> "Here was thy father's bed, here in my breast,
> Thou art the next of blood and 'tis thy right..."
>
> So there's definitely the idea of succession there; however, if the Phoenix
> is the Queen in 19, which Paul states, the sonnet must almost certainly be
> written late in her reign,
Well, 1581 was 23 years after her accession.
It had already been a long reign. As far as
anyone knew at the time (including the poet)
it WAS 'late in her reign', possibly very late.
Do you deny the bawdy of lines 9-10?
Nor can I see what sense you make of lines
11-12 if it does not refer to an heir.
1. Devouring time blunt thou the Lyons paws,
2. And make the earth devoure her owne sweet brood,
3. Plucke the keene teeth from the fierce Tygers yawes,
4. And burne the long liv'd Phoenix in her blood,
5. Make glad and sorry seasons as thou fleet'st,
6. And do what ere thou wilt swift-footed time
7. To the wide world and all her fading sweets:
8. But I forbid thee one most hainous crime,
9. O carve not with thy howers my loves faire brow,
10. Nor draw noe lines there with thine antique pen,
11. Him in thy course untainted doe allow,
12. For beauties patterne to succeding men.
13. Yet doe thy worst ould Time dispight thy wrong,
14. My love shall in my verse ever live young.
> as she is, according to the poet, "long liv'd."
As a matter of historical fact, the opinion of
Oxford in 1581. Whether or not you think he
was the poet, or whether or not you think he
wrote it at this time, he did believe that she
was likely to suffer disaster as a result of her
decision to remain unmarried. On getting
past 50, she would also be long-lived by the
standards of her day -- and no one knew how
long she would continue as a 'pointless
purposeless sterile Queen'. (The poet does
not think it will be for long and he is IMO
getting sarcastic here.) That is the whole
point of the phrase 'long-lived'. The poet
uses it to make it do some work.
A forecast that she would be "burned in her
blood", fits perfectly.
> It also argues strongly against her being the addressee of the sonnets. She
> doesn't fit as she isn't young or fair.
Nonsense. Does an ambitious courtier
tell his 48-year-old queen anything else?
Everyone knows how vain she was, and
how she drank up flattery. The poet often
uses such words -- but he also often makes
it clear that his tongue is in his cheek.
> The poet has just said so in rather
> cruel terms. Apart from anything else, Shakespeare tells Time that it is
> fine to "burn" her in her own blood,
He certainly does NOT say it is fine.
> but asks that same Time to leave his love "untainted."
He asks that the 'Him' be untainted. He does
not want the new young prince to be tainted
with allegations of bastardy -- as he was
himself, or as is James VI of Scotland
currently being so tainted (being called
the 'son of David').
> That the word "love" here refers to the usual addressee, and not the Queen's
> issue (which Paul also suggests), is very clear,
I do not suggest this. It would be
nonsense. (How do you get so much
so wrong?)
He suggests (a) that his affection will live
for ever in his verse;
(b) his lover (the Queen) will live for ever
in his verse;
(c) sarcastically, that his lover (the Queen)
will live young (i.e. pretend to be an 18-year-
old girl) in his versifier (i.e. in Raleigh's eyes,
or in Raleigh's verse).
> as the poet has used the
> word love a couple of times, beginning with 13, to address the youth thus,
> and will continue to do so. There is no reason for him to make a change
> here.
Complete nonsense. This poet often
changes the sense of 'love' within a line,
(as well as within quatrains and sonnets)
and he often writes it as here, so that the
word 'love' carries two or more meanings.
Even Booth sees that.
Paul.
LynnE
> "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:VBW1d.14353$0h7.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> > > > > 4. And burne the long liv'd Phoenix in her blue'd,
> > > > >
> > > > > Blue was the cheapest and commonest
> > > > > dye, and clothing in that colour was
> > > > > worn only by servants -- the great
> > > > > mass of them, outside superior grades.
> > > > > The poet is forecasting a popular
> > > > > revolt by the masses.
>
> > Right. I'm surprised at (but am not contesting) what Paul is suggesting
with
> > regard to dye--although I am contesting his reading blood=blue
dye=popular
> > revolt, which makes no sense grammatically and takes great leaps.
>
> It is grammatical if you read the text as
> though the mobs were adumbrated:
> And burne the long liv'd Phoenix in her blue'd [servants]
> or
> And burne the long liv'd Phoenix in her blue'd [masses]
I'm not sure how you can possibly get from "blue'd" to "servants" or
"masses," adumbrate the mob all you like, as "blue'd," insofar as it can be
said to be a word, looks like an adjective--"the blue'd aprons," or possibly
a verb--"we blue'd the shirts" (rather like "bleached"), whereas "servants"
or "masses" are nouns; however, I accept that "blood" was likely pronounced
"blude," and wonder whether if "blue" is suggested at all, it might be in
the sense of "blue blood." I tend to doubt this, though.
>
> > Perhaps he could furnish a source that says blue was
> > the least expensive dye as I find that interesting.
>
> Sorry, can't find confirmation in my books
> -- perhaps a google search might. But it is
> quite well-known. You will never (or very
> rarely) see aristocrats of the day (such as
> the Queen) wearing blue in their portraits.
> It was a colour disdained by the upper-
> classes.
I've found several sources on the web now, but they suggest that several
colours were equally common and used by the poor: shades of blue, red,
yellow, etc. Particularly yellow. That weakens your interpretation still
further.
She was 48 in 1581. How do you make that "long liv'd," even allowing for the
shorter life expectancies of the time? And how, on the other hand, would the
poet still be hoping she'd produce an heir, if the rest of the sonnet
unravels the way you say it does?
>
> Do you deny the bawdy of lines 9-10?
> Nor can I see what sense you make of lines
> 11-12 if it does not refer to an heir.
>
> 1. Devouring time blunt thou the Lyons paws,
> 2. And make the earth devoure her owne sweet brood,
> 3. Plucke the keene teeth from the fierce Tygers yawes,
> 4. And burne the long liv'd Phoenix in her blood,
> 5. Make glad and sorry seasons as thou fleet'st,
> 6. And do what ere thou wilt swift-footed time
> 7. To the wide world and all her fading sweets:
> 8. But I forbid thee one most hainous crime,
> 9. O carve not with thy howers my loves faire brow,
> 10. Nor draw noe lines there with thine antique pen,
> 11. Him in thy course untainted doe allow,
> 12. For beauties patterne to succeding men.
> 13. Yet doe thy worst ould Time dispight thy wrong,
> 14. My love shall in my verse ever live young.
Very simple:
9) Do not with time passing (or you could read it as "with dissipation")
carve wrinkles on my beloved's beautiful forehead
10) Don't give him lines with your bizarre/old pen (again, play on sex,
dissipation?)
11) (Instead) as you do your damage to others, allow HIM to remain unsullied
12) So that he can be an exemplar of beauty to the men who succeed him (nice
ambiguity on "succeding." Can mean either the men who come after him or his
heirs).
Makes much more sense than almost anything you've suggested.
>
> > as she is, according to the poet, "long liv'd."
>
> As a matter of historical fact, the opinion of
> Oxford in 1581. Whether or not you think he
> was the poet, or whether or not you think he
> wrote it at this time, he did believe that she
> was likely to suffer disaster as a result of her
> decision to remain unmarried. On getting
> past 50, she would also be long-lived by the
> standards of her day -- and no one knew how
> long she would continue as a 'pointless
> purposeless sterile Queen'. (The poet does
> not think it will be for long and he is IMO
> getting sarcastic here.) That is the whole
> point of the phrase 'long-lived'. The poet
> uses it to make it do some work.
>
> A forecast that she would be "burned in her
> blood", fits perfectly.
>
> > It also argues strongly against her being the addressee of the sonnets.
She
> > doesn't fit as she isn't young or fair.
>
> Nonsense. Does an ambitious courtier
> tell his 48-year-old queen anything else?
He's just used the words, "burne the long liv'd Phoenix in her blood." This
is hardly an ambitious courtier speaking, if he's referring to the Queen,
and you state that he is.
> Everyone knows how vain she was, and
> how she drank up flattery. The poet often
> uses such words -- but he also often makes
> it clear that his tongue is in his cheek.
>
> > The poet has just said so in rather
> > cruel terms. Apart from anything else, Shakespeare tells Time that it is
> > fine to "burn" her in her own blood,
>
> He certainly does NOT say it is fine.
He uses the imperative when addressing Time. It's pretty straight forward.
He certainly doesn't speak of the Queen as if she's the "love." It would be
like my husband saying: "Dear God, take my wife out and burn her."
>
> > but asks that same Time to leave his love "untainted."
>
> He asks that the 'Him' be untainted. He does
> not want the new young prince to be tainted
> with allegations of bastardy -- as he was
> himself, or as is James VI of Scotland
> currently being so tainted (being called
> the 'son of David').
>
> > That the word "love" here refers to the usual addressee, and not the
Queen's
> > issue (which Paul also suggests), is very clear,
>
> I do not suggest this. It would be
> nonsense. (How do you get so much
> so wrong?)
You either suggest this or you can't write English:
11. Him in thy course untainted doe allow,
The 'him' is the hoped-for heir -- although
Oxford is known to have been in favour
of the Alencon match, by this stage few
thought it a serious prospect. Were
Raleigh thought to have sexual relations
with the Queen, this hoped-for child (of
Alencon) would be tainted with doubts
of bastardy.
12. For beauties patterne to succeding men.
'Beauty' is, as ever, the Queen. Her son
will pass on her pattern to succeeding
(male) monarchs.
-------
Since we've already seen that "him" grammatically refers to "love," who else
can "love" be? Oh, I see, we're back to Elizabeth. The poet is referring,
for no reason that I can see, to the gap between her legs. That leaves you
having to make up an elaborate scenario for "him," as it can't refer to a
woman.
>
> He suggests (a) that his affection will live
> for ever in his verse;
> (b) his lover (the Queen) will live for ever
> in his verse;
> (c) sarcastically, that his lover (the Queen)
> will live young (i.e. pretend to be an 18-year-
> old girl) in his versifier (i.e. in Raleigh's eyes,
> or in Raleigh's verse).
>
> > as the poet has used the
> > word love a couple of times, beginning with 13, to address the youth
thus,
> > and will continue to do so. There is no reason for him to make a change
> > here.
>
> Complete nonsense. This poet often
> changes the sense of 'love' within a line,
> (as well as within quatrains and sonnets)
> and he often writes it as here, so that the
> word 'love' carries two or more meanings.
> Even Booth sees that.
Of course it often carries more than one meaning, as in "My love shall in my
verse ever live young." We are not sure whether the poet is referring to the
beloved or his own love as it pertains to the usual addressee. But when the
poet refers unambiguously to his "love" meaning the beloved, as in "my loves
faire brow," it is more than likely the same person because Shakespeare is
consistent in his description of him: He is young. He is fair/beautiful. He
is described in feminine terms. He needs to get married/produce an heir. The
poet loves him in a way that is still somewhat unclear but appears to have
both altruistic and sexual qualities.
The reason you have to go all around the houses, Paul, is that you've
invented (or copied from Richard Kennedy, who now doesn't strenuously defend
his theory) an implausible scenario in which the Queen is the addressee.
Since this doesn't mesh with the male pronouns and other material that
describe the beloved, you've painted yourself into a corner, which is the
reason for all these desperate and often ridiculous flights of fancy.
I hope you will recognise that I've taken on your exegesis. Enjoy. It won't
happen again.
Oh, and I hope I can use bits of your posts in my new novel. They are very
interesting.
Regards,
Lynne
>
>
> Paul.
>
>
Gary Kosinsky
didn't already know?
Nothing new, really. But the poet does repeat
several things from previous poems:
- this is another poem that specifies that the person
concerned in these sonnets is a man.
- the poet again concentrates on the physical looks of the
FYM.
- the poet is again repeating that his poetry, by itself,
can preserve the youthful beauty of the FYM.
*****************************************************
The story so far:
So after nineteen sonnets, what do we know? -
In all probability the addressee or referent of
these nineteen sonnets is the same person (although it has
been speculated that perhaps the speaker of the first
seventeen poems is different).
The poet says the addressee is physically
attractive. The description of that beauty is in terms that
would seem more suitable to a woman than a man. (1 - 7, 9,
13, 17-19)
The poet says that the addressee is narcissistic. (1
- 4, 6)
The poet may be chiding the addressee's sexual
habits. (1 - 4, 6, 9)
The addressee is male. (3, 6, 9, 16, 19)
The addressee is of marriageable age, meaning (I
think) that he would be in the 17 - 26 age range. (1 - 4, 6,
8 - 13, 16, 17)
The poet says the addressee has a pleasant speaking
voice and enjoys listening to sad music. (8)
The poet says the addressee has a gracious and kind
presence. (10)
The poet seems to think that the addressee has some
sort of love for the poet. (10)
The poet seems to have some sort of affectionate
feelings for the addressee, calling him "love" and "dear my
love". (13, 19)
The poet is an aesthetic snob. (11)
The poet may believe in astrology. (15)
The poet initially thinks that having children is a
better method than a painting or a poem for the addressee to
preserve himself. (16, 17) However, the poet comes to say
that he can preserve the beauty of the addressee in his
poetry (18, 19).
The poet, having posed a problem for the addressee,
is offering a solution to that problem - namely that the
addressee should have children - specifically, a son. (1-14,
16, 17). (But let's remember that it's only the poet's
assertion that beautiful people have some sort of obligation
to the world to propagate or preserve their beauty.)
In addition, the poet suggests that he, personally,
has a way of maintaining the addressee's beauty. (15, 18,
19)
The poet seems mainly concerned with the
addressee's beauty, and not overly much with the addressee
as a person. (Exceptions: 10, 14, 16)
While seeming to chastise the addressee for his
narcissistic failure to preserve or propagate his beauty,
the poet is, at the same time, acknowledging that beauty,
and so is flattering the addressee.
We still don't know the sex of the poet.
We still don't know which class the poet or the
addressee belong to. Some readers have suggested that
certain words and phrases used in the Sonnets indicate that
the addressee is of noble birth.
We still don't know what the relationship is between
the poet and the addressee. Is he a relative or family
friend - the poems so far have an avuncular quality to them.
Or perhaps he is in a position of some authority over the
addressee - a teacher maybe. The poems can also be read as
being deferential - perhaps the poet is in a subordinate
position to the addressee. Perhaps later sonnets will make
this clear. Or perhaps not.
One word descriptions of the sonnets:
1) Introduction; 2) Siege; 3) Mirror; 4) Usury; 5) Perfume;
6) Money-lending; 7) Sun; 8) Music; 9) Widow; 10) Self-hate;
11) Snob; 12) Breed; 13) Endless; 14) Astrology; 15)
Transience; 16) Lines; 17) Memorial; 18) Summer; 19)
Permanence;
- Gary Kosinsky
Gary Kosinsky
<lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
SNIP
>I've gone through my concordance. I can't find anything on Lyon-boats. But I
>did find this:
>
>King John,
>Act III, Scene I:
>
>Pandulph: France, thou mayst hold...
>A chafed lion by the mortal paw,
>A fasting tiger safer by the tooth,
>Than keep in peace that hand which thou dost hold.
>
>Which reminded me a little of these lines from the sonnet:
>
>Devouring Time, blunt thou the lion's paws...
>Pluck the keen teeth from the fierce tiger's jaws..
But doesn't this suggest that the lions and tigers
mentioned in both are simply lions and tigers? Or is the
mention in King John also a veiled reference to ships?
- Gary Kosinsky
LynnE
"Gary Kosinsky" <gk...@vcn.bc.ca> wrote in message
news:4148d815...@news.individual.net...
> On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 14:49:52 -0400, "LynnE"
> <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> SNIP
>
> >I've gone through my concordance. I can't find anything on Lyon-boats.
But I
> >did find this:
> >
> >King John,
> >Act III, Scene I:
> >
> >Pandulph: France, thou mayst hold...
> >A chafed lion by the mortal paw,
> >A fasting tiger safer by the tooth,
> >Than keep in peace that hand which thou dost hold.
> >
> >Which reminded me a little of these lines from the sonnet:
> >
> >Devouring Time, blunt thou the lion's paws...
> >Pluck the keen teeth from the fierce tiger's jaws..
>
> But doesn't this suggest that the lions and tigers
> mentioned in both are simply lions and tigers?
It may. But notice that the King John quote says "a" tiger and "a" lion. I
wasn't saying the Lyon, Tyger, and Phoenix were ships, Gary--in addition to
whatever else they may be--I was just making a suggestion. If we don't look
at possibilities, we won't get anywhere.
>Or is the
> mention in King John also a veiled reference to ships?
No, don't think so. Perhaps it's a veiled reference to certain people.
Lynne
>
>
>
>
> - Gary Kosinsky
Buffalo
> <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> SNIP
>
> >I've gone through my concordance. I can't find anything on Lyon-boats.
But I
> >did find this:
> >
> >King John,
> >Act III, Scene I:
> >
> >Pandulph: France, thou mayst hold...
> >A chafed lion by the mortal paw,
> >A fasting tiger safer by the tooth,
> >Than keep in peace that hand which thou dost hold.
> >
> >Which reminded me a little of these lines from the sonnet:
> >
> >Devouring Time, blunt thou the lion's paws...
> >Pluck the keen teeth from the fierce tiger's jaws..
This message hasn't appeared on my server yet so I can only reply via Gary's
reply to you.
It's interesting in each case that the lion gets the paw and the tiger gets
the tooth. There's no reason why it shouldn't be the other way round. I
looked through about half the canon to see if that was a pattern that was
repeated elsewhere, but I couldn't find anything similar. The King John
speech carries no implication of ships, the lion and tiger playing their
usual roles as savage beasts. And I'm inclined to think now, like Gary, that
no ships are involved. The Phoenix is still a possibility, but on balance I
think it makes more sense to see "in her blood" as a reference to the Queen.
Her "long-lived" reign is just one more thing that must pass, like lions'
paws and tigers' teeth, even if she will be regenerated "in her blood" and
rise again in the form of her successor.
But I don't like it. "Burn the long-lived phoenix in her blood". That's an
ill phrase, a vile phrase.
Buffalo
Buffalo
Don't forget those bits where he claims acquaintance with something called
"the street". It's an image that could inspire your greatest creation -
T-Bone Crowley, the People's Sage. T-Bone in a pork-pie hat and shades.
T-Bone *chilling*. T-Bone *rapping*. T-Bone giving the *high fives*....
Buffalo
LynnE
> > Oh, and I hope I can use bits of your posts in my new novel. They are
very
> > interesting.
Buffalo:
>
> Don't forget those bits where he claims acquaintance with something called
> "the street". It's an image that could inspire your greatest creation -
> T-Bone Crowley, the People's Sage. T-Bone in a pork-pie hat and shades.
> T-Bone *chilling*. T-Bone *rapping*. T-Bone giving the *high fives*....
Lynne:
That can be in your novel, Buff. ;)
Paul Crowley
> > >King John,
> > >Act III, Scene I:
> > >
> > >Pandulph: France, thou mayst hold...
> > >A chafed lion by the mortal paw,
> > >A fasting tiger safer by the tooth,
> > >Than keep in peace that hand which thou dost hold.
> > >
> > >Which reminded me a little of these lines from the sonnet:
> > >
> > >Devouring Time, blunt thou the lion's paws...
> > >Pluck the keen teeth from the fierce tiger's jaws..
> It's interesting in each case that the lion gets the paw and the tiger gets
> the tooth. There's no reason why it shouldn't be the other way round.
There are good reasons. (a) The dandelion
is known as the "lion's tooth" or teeth
(Fr. 'dent de lion'). (b) Lion's paws had
proverbial (and biblical?) force.
Lion (from OED)
" 2. Proverbial and allusive phrases. a. Proverbs (chiefly referring to
the strength or ferocity of the lion). b. a lion in the way (or path):
after Prov. xxvi. 13, applied to a danger or obstacle, esp. an imaginary
one. c. the lion's mouth: taken as a type of a place of great peril.
(Cf. Ps. xxii. 21, 2 Tim. iv. 17.) Similarly, in the lion's paws. "
> I looked through about half the canon to see if that was a pattern that was
> repeated elsewhere, but I couldn't find anything similar. The King John
> speech carries no implication of ships, the lion and tiger playing their
> usual roles as savage beasts.
One reason why these animals came to the
poet's mind is that he was probably writing
the sonnet in the Tower, in the grounds of
which was the 'royal zoo', or menagerie.
It may or may not have had a tiger, but it
almost always had lions. Their roaring
would have disturbed his sleep in the
bright early mornings of May 1581.
OED Lion:
"4. a. pl. Things of note, celebrity, or curiosity (in a town, etc.);
sights worth seeing: esp. in phr. to see, or show, the lions.
In early use, to have seen the lions often meant to have
had experience of life. Obsolete
This use of the word is derived from the practice of taking
visitors to see the lions which used to be kept in the Tower of
London. "
> And I'm inclined to think now, like Gary, that
> no ships are involved.
Line 3 has the words 'teeth', 'Tyger' and 'yawes',
all of which cohere too closely together for a
reference to one of the Queen's principal
fighting ships not to be likely.
> The Phoenix is still a possibility, but on balance I
> think it makes more sense to see "in her blood" as a reference to the Queen.
They are hardly alternatives -- unless you
apply the rule 'Ambiguity is Impossible'.
Oops -- you do!
> Her "long-lived" reign is just one more thing that must pass, like lions'
> paws and tigers' teeth, even if she will be regenerated "in her blood" and
> rise again in the form of her successor.
What would be the point of bringing
in all of this?
> But I don't like it. "Burn the long-lived phoenix in her blood". That's an
> ill phrase, a vile phrase.
It's not meant to be nice. But the line and the
whole quatrain has been much admired.
"DONNELLY (Sonnets of Sh., 1859, p. 14): Those four lines alone
should redeem Shakspeare's Sonnets from the neglect that has fallen
upon them. I know of no quatrain in Englis[h] poetry more heroic,
more swelling, more original or more climactically finished. "
Paul.
Paul Crowley
> > > > > > 4. And burne the long liv'd Phoenix in her blue'd,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Blue was the cheapest and commonest
> > > > > > dye, and clothing in that colour was
> > > > > > worn only by servants -- the great
> > > > > > mass of them, outside superior grades.
> > > > > > The poet is forecasting a popular
> > > > > > revolt by the masses.
> > It is grammatical if you read the text as
> > though the mobs were adumbrated:
> > And burne the long liv'd Phoenix in her blue'd [servants]
> > or
> > And burne the long liv'd Phoenix in her blue'd [masses]
>
> I'm not sure how you can possibly get from "blue'd" to "servants" or
> "masses," adumbrate the mob all you like, as "blue'd," insofar as it can be
> said to be a word, looks like an adjective--"the blue'd aprons," or possibly
> a verb--"we blue'd the shirts" (rather like "bleached"), whereas "servants"
> or "masses" are nouns;
The servants are "blue'd" because they
wear blue uniforms. I can see no problem
whatsoever in that. The courtiers in the
privy chambers would wear little or no blue.
As they looked out on the waiting servants
in the corridors and the yards, they'd see
masses of blue.
> however, I accept that "blood" was likely pronounced
> "blude,"
The pronunciation of 'blood' seems to have
changed. It is rhymed with good (twice) in
the sonnets, with wood, stood (twice) and
good in V&A, with mud, good, stood, in LC;
and with flood, good and stood in Lucrece.
The pronunciation of 'brood' though is even
more problematical. I can find no rhyme in
the canon.
Does anyone know of a Shakespearean
(or Elizabethan) rhyming dictionary?
> > Sorry, can't find confirmation in my books
> > -- perhaps a google search might. But it is
> > quite well-known. You will never (or very
> > rarely) see aristocrats of the day (such as
> > the Queen) wearing blue in their portraits.
> > It was a colour disdained by the upper-
> > classes.
>
> I've found several sources on the web now, but they suggest that several
> colours were equally common and used by the poor: shades of blue, red,
> yellow, etc. Particularly yellow. That weakens your interpretation still
> further.
Nothing much hangs on this point, and
I'd be quite happy to lose it. But I've
seen no good arguments against it yet.
Your google results (and non-results)
are not useful.
The OED definitions of 'blue coat' 'red coat',
'buff coat', 'white coat', 'black coat', etc., are
interesting. 'Blue coat' is defined as:
1. a. Formerly the dress of servants and the lower orders;
hence of almoners and charity children.
'Redcoats' were (mostly) British soldiers.
In recent decades they were the staff at
Butlins.
> > Well, 1581 was 23 years after her accession.
> > It had already been a long reign. As far as
> > anyone knew at the time (including the poet)
> > it WAS 'late in her reign', possibly very late.
>
> She was 48 in 1581. How do you make that "long liv'd,"
This is poetry (remember?) and the poet is
nominally talking about the Phoenix which
lived for 500 years at a time. So you can't
get too literal -- although I appreciate how
you really want to. As regards Elizabeth,
he was saying that as she lived longer --
in a childless state -- her situation would
get very dangerous. The prime function of
a queen had always been to produce an heir
(i.e. a son). No European country had ever
been ruled, except briefly, by a sterile queen
(I'm fairly sure) so England was heading into
unknown territory.
> even allowing for the
> shorter life expectancies of the time? And how, on the other hand, would the
> poet still be hoping she'd produce an heir, if the rest of the sonnet
> unravels the way you say it does?
I have no idea what your question means
(unless you have scarcely read a word
I've written on the sonnets -- which, on
reflection, does not seem unlikely.)
> > Do you deny the bawdy of lines 9-10?
> > Nor can I see what sense you make of lines
> > 11-12 if it does not refer to an heir.
> >
> > 1. Devouring time blunt thou the Lyons paws,
> > 2. And make the earth devoure her owne sweet brood,
> > 3. Plucke the keene teeth from the fierce Tygers yawes,
> > 4. And burne the long liv'd Phoenix in her blood,
> > 5. Make glad and sorry seasons as thou fleet'st,
> > 6. And do what ere thou wilt swift-footed time
> > 7. To the wide world and all her fading sweets:
> > 8. But I forbid thee one most hainous crime,
> > 9. O carve not with thy howers my loves faire brow,
> > 10. Nor draw noe lines there with thine antique pen,
> > 11. Him in thy course untainted doe allow,
> > 12. For beauties patterne to succeding men.
> > 13. Yet doe thy worst ould Time dispight thy wrong,
> > 14. My love shall in my verse ever live young.
>
> Very simple:
>
> 9) Do not with time passing (or you could read it as "with dissipation")
> carve wrinkles on my beloved's beautiful forehead
That's perfectly acceptable -- so long
as you think Shakespeare lived on
another planet, or was not part of the
human race, or was unlike anyone you
have ever met, or ever heard of in any
history or any literature.
> 10) Don't give him lines with your bizarre/old pen (again, play on sex,
> dissipation?)
You mean like lines you're given to write
at school? I think even you know that
you have not a clue here -- although
you can't admit it.
> 11) (Instead) as you do your damage to others, allow HIM to remain unsullied
Do you think our poet could be as
subtle here as you say he is?
> 12) So that he can be an exemplar of beauty to the men who succeed him (nice
> ambiguity on "succeding." Can mean either the men who come after him or his
> heirs).
Another profound statement. How do you
manage to discover these complexities?
> Makes much more sense than almost anything you've suggested.
Maybe it does if you're a Klingon -- but
AFAIR they're fairly normal by human
standards. Also, you failed to explain
almost every word of significance. (But
you probably don't even think you should.
The Strats don't, so why should you?)
> > He certainly does NOT say it is fine.
>
> He uses the imperative when addressing Time. It's pretty straight forward.
> He certainly doesn't speak of the Queen as if she's the "love." It would be
> like my husband saying: "Dear God, take my wife out and burn her."
It's poetry. He's talking about the Phoenix.
And he's saying to the Queen that IF you
carry on like this, you'll suffer such a fate.
> The reason you have to go all around the houses, Paul,
In what respect have I 'gone around the houses'.
Which are the meanings I extract which don't
match up with the words?
> is that you've
> invented (or copied from Richard Kennedy, who now doesn't strenuously defend
> his theory) an implausible scenario in which the Queen is the addressee.
So the words have not the remotest
connection to this 'made-up' scenario?
a) In what respects did I make it up?
Was Oxford really against the Alencon
match in 1581? Did he really like Walter
Raleigh in the early 1580s? Did he really
approve of Raleigh's relationship with
the Queen?
b) In what respects to the meanings
I extract from the words of the sonnet
not match the scenario?
> Since this doesn't mesh with the male pronouns and other material that
> describe the beloved, you've painted yourself into a corner,
In what respects I am in any corner?
Where, in my exegesis, are the
contradictions or the inconsistencies, or
any failure to accord with the historical
record ?
> which is the
> reason for all these desperate and often ridiculous flights of fancy.
Which are the 'flights of fancy' that are
either desperate or ridiculous?
How many more questions should I ask
to which I will never get the beginnings
of an answer?
> I hope you will recognise that I've taken on your exegesis.
Nope. You have not. If you had, you
might have found something wrong
with it, and saved me from typing out
those questions -- which you will never
even attempt to answer.
Apart from my "blue'd" -- to which I am
not strongly attached -- you make no
serious point at all -- and you don't
make much of one there.
> Oh, and I hope I can use bits of your posts in my new novel. They are very
> interesting.
What bits? You can use whatever you like.
Paul.
LynnE
Not really. The "oo" in "brood" was likely pronounced the same way as in
"good," "stood," etc., as these words also rhymed with "blood."
>
> Does anyone know of a Shakespearean
> (or Elizabethan) rhyming dictionary?
>
> > > Sorry, can't find confirmation in my books
> > > -- perhaps a google search might. But it is
> > > quite well-known. You will never (or very
> > > rarely) see aristocrats of the day (such as
> > > the Queen) wearing blue in their portraits.
> > > It was a colour disdained by the upper-
> > > classes.
> >
> > I've found several sources on the web now, but they suggest that several
> > colours were equally common and used by the poor: shades of blue, red,
> > yellow, etc. Particularly yellow. That weakens your interpretation still
> > further.
>
> Nothing much hangs on this point, and
> I'd be quite happy to lose it. But I've
> seen no good arguments against it yet.
> Your google results (and non-results)
> are not useful.
You suggested that I? you? do a Google search to confirm your statement. I
did and it didn't.
>
> The OED definitions of 'blue coat' 'red coat',
> 'buff coat', 'white coat', 'black coat', etc., are
> interesting. 'Blue coat' is defined as:
>
> 1. a. Formerly the dress of servants and the lower orders;
> hence of almoners and charity children.
>
> 'Redcoats' were (mostly) British soldiers.
> In recent decades they were the staff at
> Butlins.
I remember, unfortunately. But Butlins had "bluecoats" too.
The question means the following: How often have you known a woman get
pregnant at forty eight and deliver at forty nine? Even today it's
incredibly unusual. The poet, who was not an idiot by any means, must have
been aware of this. He would not be looking for the Queen to produce an heir
in 1581.
Good heavens, it couldn't be more straightforward.
>
> > 10) Don't give him lines with your bizarre/old pen (again, play on sex,
> > dissipation?)
>
> You mean like lines you're given to write
> at school? I think even you know that
> you have not a clue here -- although
> you can't admit it.
Lines on his FOREHEAD. His BROW.
>
> > 11) (Instead) as you do your damage to others, allow HIM to remain
unsullied
>
> Do you think our poet could be as
> subtle here as you say he is?
Don't understand. I assume you're being sarcastic.
>
> > 12) So that he can be an exemplar of beauty to the men who succeed him
(nice
> > ambiguity on "succeding." Can mean either the men who come after him or
his
> > heirs).
>
> Another profound statement. How do you
> manage to discover these complexities?
How do you manage to ignore what the poet is writing about so completely
that you come up with fairy stories? I am not saying there are no deeper
levels. I am saying this is the most accessible reading.
>
> > Makes much more sense than almost anything you've suggested.
>
> Maybe it does if you're a Klingon -- but
> AFAIR they're fairly normal by human
> standards. Also, you failed to explain
> almost every word of significance. (But
> you probably don't even think you should.
> The Strats don't, so why should you?)
I have explained every single word and phrase in those lines. Which words
are you talking about? "Brow" meaning pudenda? Where is your source for
this?
>
> > > He certainly does NOT say it is fine.
> >
> > He uses the imperative when addressing Time. It's pretty straight
forward.
> > He certainly doesn't speak of the Queen as if she's the "love." It would
be
> > like my husband saying: "Dear God, take my wife out and burn her."
>
> It's poetry. He's talking about the Phoenix.
> And he's saying to the Queen that IF you
> carry on like this, you'll suffer such a fate.
No, he's talking to TIME in the second person. The Queen, if in the poem,
can only be the PHOENIX, third person. You seem to have terrible problems
with who is talking to whom.
>
> > The reason you have to go all around the houses, Paul,
>
> In what respect have I 'gone around the houses'.
> Which are the meanings I extract which don't
> match up with the words?
We've told you at least ten times now.
>
> > is that you've
> > invented (or copied from Richard Kennedy, who now doesn't strenuously
defend
> > his theory) an implausible scenario in which the Queen is the addressee.
>
> So the words have not the remotest
> connection to this 'made-up' scenario?
I think that Phoenix may well be the Queen, and on another level, a ship.
Apart from that, I believe you're at sea.
>
> a) In what respects did I make it up?
> Was Oxford really against the Alencon
> match in 1581? Did he really like Walter
> Raleigh in the early 1580s? Did he really
> approve of Raleigh's relationship with
> the Queen?
I don't see what any of that has to do with the sonnet. You take a group of
words, force some kind of historical scenario on them that may either be
true or a matter of conjecture, and run with it. I could fit at least ten
scenarios to any of these sonnets in the same way, which means that yours is
unlikely to be correct. Only if you can PROVE that the sonnet fits your
scenario and NO OTHER do you have a whisper of a case. At the moment you
have not shown that. Often your exegeses, in fact, run counter to the
direction of the sonnet itself.
> b) In what respects to the meanings
> I extract from the words of the sonnet
> not match the scenario?
>
> > Since this doesn't mesh with the male pronouns and other material that
> > describe the beloved, you've painted yourself into a corner,
>
> In what respects I am in any corner?
> Where, in my exegesis, are the
> contradictions or the inconsistencies, or
> any failure to accord with the historical
> record ?
You just don't get it. Even if your scenario could be proved to be 100%
correct in historical terms, it still doesn't mean that it is the subject of
the sonnet. In order to prove that, you have to show that the sonnet CAN
ONLY be linked to your scenario. You have never done that. You pick up some
historical hammer and bash the living daylights out of the sonnet with it.
Usually no one else in the entire world would say that your reading conforms
in any major way to what the sonnet appears to be saying or who the
dedicatee might be.
>
> > which is the
> > reason for all these desperate and often ridiculous flights of fancy.
>
> Which are the 'flights of fancy' that are
> either desperate or ridiculous?
Sigh. When anyone tells you, you don't listen. So at this point it's
pointless trying to show you.
>
> How many more questions should I ask
> to which I will never get the beginnings
> of an answer?
You've had a hundred answers. You don't accept them.
>
> > I hope you will recognise that I've taken on your exegesis.
>
> Nope. You have not. If you had, you
> might have found something wrong
> with it, and saved me from typing out
> those questions -- which you will never
> even attempt to answer.
I've found a thousand things wrong with your exegeses, Paul. Your
interpretations have nothing to do with what the poet is telling us and are
way off base from the beginning because you cannot do a consistent or
complete reading, and you ignore gender and grammar. But do carry on
believing no one has ever responded to you if it makes you feel better.
>
> Apart from my "blue'd" -- to which I am
> not strongly attached -- you make no
> serious point at all -- and you don't
> make much of one there.
Huh? As Dr. Webb would say.
>
> > Oh, and I hope I can use bits of your posts in my new novel. They are
very
> > interesting.
>
> What bits? You can use whatever you like.
Thanks much. I'm sure they will be, in one way or another, the high spot of
the novel.
L.
>
>
> Paul.
>
>
>
Gary Kosinsky
<lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
SNIP
>I
>wasn't saying the Lyon, Tyger, and Phoenix were ships, Gary--in addition to
>whatever else they may be--I was just making a suggestion. If we don't look
>at possibilities, we won't get anywhere.
You were suggesting that the Lyon, Tyger and Phoenix
were ships, but you weren't saying that? I think you've
been arguing with Paul for too long, Lynne.
(And just for the record, not only do I not believe
that the Lyon and Tyger are references to ships, I seriously
doubt whether the Phoenix is a reference to Elizabeth. Then
again, I'm a superficial Strat.)
- Gary Kosinsky
bookburn
|
I've had the benefit of reading others' comments about cruxes in this
sonnet, so add mine here as an aside.
Devouring Time, blunt thou the lion's paws
And make the earth devour her own sweet brood,
Pluck the keen teeth from the fierce tiger's jaws
And burn the long-lived phoenix in her blood;
In Shakespeare class, I remember discussion about what "burn the
long-lived phoenix in her blood" aludes to, beside the literal
reference to the Phoenix myth as it relates to Time and immortality.
Mentioned as possibilities were "blood" as in blood line; blood as
compared to ashes; blood as in the myth of salamander that lives in
fire; some connection to transubstantiation/transfiguration; and
possible link to alchemy (Alchemy was based on the belief that lead
could be changed to gold through an infusion of "spirit," with fire as
the essential element) .
This would be understood in the context of "Devouring Time" as the
classical problem in philosophy about harmony and strife in the world,
where everything is on "fire" in the sense of rust, decay, loss of
memory, etc..
4
Make glad and sorry seasons as thou fleetest
And do whate'er thou wilt, swift-footed Time
To the wide world and all her fading sweets;
"Sweet brood" and "fading sweets" are in the "pattern" (l. 12) as
Nature's flowering, or ripeness: evidently in Shakespeare's cosmology
as the basis of an aesthetics with the Emperor Worm as the antithesis;
as opposed to the Aristotle-based Great Chain of Being world order,
where everything is connected and explained.
But I forbid thee one most heinous crime: 8
O carve not with thy hours my love's fair brow
Nor draw no lines there with thine antic pen,
Him in thy course untainted do allow
For beauty's pattern to succeeding men. 12
Yet do thy worst, old Time: despite thy wrong
My love shall in my verse ever live young. 14
So in accounting for love in the context of philosophy, there might be
justification for using "antic pen" to allude to the "heinous crime"
of using Time's "penis" to "taint" "beaut'ys pattern"; although "antic
pen" is mainly about drawing lines of old age, IMO. bookburn
LynnE
> On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 22:01:49 -0400, "LynnE"
> <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> SNIP
>
> >I
> >wasn't saying the Lyon, Tyger, and Phoenix were ships, Gary--in addition
to
> >whatever else they may be--I was just making a suggestion. If we don't
look
> >at possibilities, we won't get anywhere.
>
> You were suggesting that the Lyon, Tyger and Phoenix
> were ships, but you weren't saying that? I think you've
> been arguing with Paul for too long, Lynne.
I meant I wasn't stating it as a fact, as Paul does, just as one of many
possibilities. I get confused, or at least confusing, when I'm exhausted.
>
> (And just for the record, not only do I not believe
> that the Lyon and Tyger are references to ships, I seriously
> doubt whether the Phoenix is a reference to Elizabeth. Then
> again, I'm a superficial Strat.)
I'm interested to know why you discount it as a reference to her, as it was
her emblem, or at least one of them. There is even a portrait of her called
"The Phoenix Portrait."
http://costume.dm.net/gallery/qe-phoenix.html
You will notice that the gown is BLUE, even though the writer agrees with
Paul that "Blue was, by the elizabethan period, considered a color worn
mostly by servants, due to the cheap cost of indigo dye." Perhaps this is
where Paul found the reference. In any case, the line in the sonnet may
refer directly to the Phoenix portrait, or at least to the Queen. There are
at least two other references in the sonnets which are very probably linked
to her, imo:
The mortal moon hath her eclipse endured (107)
Ever the same (76, I think without checking)
We may come across more as we go.
Lynne
>
>
> - Gary Kosinsky
LynnE
"bookburn" <book...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:10kk6jr...@corp.supernews.com...
Igor Sklar
"In Egypt is the city of Heliopolis, that is to say, the city of the
Sun. In that city there is a temple, made round after the shape of
the Temple of Jerusalem. The priests of that temple have all their
writings, under the date of the fowl that is clept phoenix; and there
is none but one in all the world. And he cometh to burn himself upon
the altar of that temple at the end of five hundred year; for so long
he liveth. And at the five hundred years' end, the priests array
their altar honestly, and put thereupon spices and sulphur vif and
other things that will burn lightly; and then the bird phoenix cometh
and burneth himself to ashes. And the first day next after, men find
in the ashes a worm; and the second day next after, men find a bird
quick and perfect; and the third day next after, he flieth his way.
And so there is no more birds of that kind in all the world, but it
alone, and truly that is a great miracle of God. And men may well
liken that bird unto God, because that there ne is no God but one; and
also, that our Lord arose from death to life the third day. This bird
men see often-time fly in those countries; and he is not mickle more
than an eagle. And he hath a crest of feathers upon his head more
great than the peacock hath; and is neck his yellow after colour of an
oriel that is a stone well shining, and his beak is coloured blue as
ind; and his wings be of purple colour, and his tail is barred
overthwart with green and yellow and red. And he is a full fair bird
to look upon, against the sun, for he shineth full gloriously and
nobly."
Note that Shakespeare's phoenix is female.
regards
yaro...@gmail.com (Igor Sklar) wrote in message news:<870e846a.04091...@posting.google.com>...
> Robert Stonehouse <ew...@bcs.org.invalid> wrote....
> > Shakespeare wrote...
> > > And burn the long-lived phoenix in her blood; 4
> >
> > and consume the phoenix, long though it lives,
> > with the fire that is its blood; <snip>
> >
> > This bird first appears in Herodotus (2.73). He was shown
> > its picture in the temple of the Sun at Heliopolis.
>
> Pheonix was actually the Egyptian symbol of Time. As there were no
> bissextiles, each four years they had an unaccounted day and every
> 1460 years they had a spare year which had to be added to the
> chronicles. Then there was a great celebration at the Temple of Sun in
> Heliopolis, where an eagle with painted wings was burned in his nest
> made of palm branches. For Egyptians the sun rose in Arabia, hence the
> idea that the Phoenix lived in that land. /As remembered from Graves'
> "White Goddess"/
>
> For early Christians like Lactantius Phoenix was also a symbol, but
> that of resurrection and Christ.
>
> regards
Peter Farey
Gary Kosinsky wrote:
>
> (And just for the record, not only do I not believe
> that the Lyon and Tyger are references to ships, I seriously
> doubt whether the Phoenix is a reference to Elizabeth. Then
> again, I'm a superficial Strat.)
And without a reasonable explanation of "in her blood" either.
Paul Crowley
>
> "Gary Kosinsky" <gk...@vcn.bc.ca> wrote in message
> news:414a117b...@news.individual.net...
> > On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 22:01:49 -0400, "LynnE"
> > <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >
> > SNIP
> >
> > >I
> > >wasn't saying the Lyon, Tyger, and Phoenix were ships, Gary--in addition
> to
> > >whatever else they may be--I was just making a suggestion. If we don't
> look
> > >at possibilities, we won't get anywhere.
> >
> > You were suggesting that the Lyon, Tyger and Phoenix
> > were ships, but you weren't saying that? I think you've
> > been arguing with Paul for too long, Lynne.
>
> I meant I wasn't stating it as a fact, as Paul does,
The only ship I identify in these lines is the
Tyger -- and that's because (a) the poet
refers to its 'teeth' (i.e. guns) (b) he refers
to its 'yawes'; and (c) it was one of the
Queen's major fighting ships.
> > (And just for the record, not only do I not believe
> > that the Lyon and Tyger are references to ships, I seriously
> > doubt whether the Phoenix is a reference to Elizabeth. Then
> > again, I'm a superficial Strat.)
>
> I'm interested to know why you discount it as a reference to her, as it was
> her emblem, or at least one of them. There is even a portrait of her called
> "The Phoenix Portrait."
>
> http://costume.dm.net/gallery/qe-phoenix.html
>
> You will notice that the gown is BLUE, even though the writer agrees with
> Paul that "Blue was, by the elizabethan period, considered a color worn
> mostly by servants, due to the cheap cost of indigo dye." Perhaps this is
> where Paul found the reference.
No. It is not. The wearing of blue
by servants is common knowledge,
as I recently confirmed by quoting
the OED definition of 'blue coat'.
> In any case, the line in the sonnet may
> refer directly to the Phoenix portrait, or at least to the Queen. There are
> at least two other references in the sonnets which are very probably linked
> to her, imo:
>
> The mortal moon hath her eclipse endured (107)
> Ever the same (76, I think without checking)
>
> We may come across more as we go.
Every reference to a rich, 'beautiful',
noble person having a duty to get an
heir is, of course, to her. There was no
one else in the country to whom such
words could possibly have applied.
And everyone in the country between
1558 and 1582 was fully aware of that.
If the sonnets had been published
earlier, the link would have been seen.
That's why, when they did come out
in 1609, they were (it seems) rapidly
withdrawn. That's why the cover-
story of the Stratman was created.
It's astonishingly easy to fool people.
And some, even when they are told
the simple and obvious truth, will still
prefer to continue in their fantastical
beliefs.
Paul.
Buffalo
"Igor Sklar" <yaro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:870e846a.04091...@posting.google.com...
She is. But the sonnet is not addressed to the Phoenix, who is spoken about
in the third person singular - i.e. "her".
Buffalo
Robert Stonehouse
<ew...@bcs.org.invalid> wrote:
>On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 19:23:25 +0100, Robert Stonehouse
><ew...@bcs.org.invalid> wrote:
...
>So far, nothing to say the phoenix was female or that it
>combusted spontaneously. There is an elegiac poem called
>'Phoenix' of 170 lines sometimes ascribed to Lactantius
>(Christian apologist of the 3rd-4th century AD). That may be
>the beginning of these ideas – I may be able to see it next
>week.
Having now read this through, I offer the following.
The poem may be by Lactantius; there is nothing to disprove
it, except that it is certainly not Christian apologetics.
It is full of pagan mythology. The touches claimed as
Christian by the Loeb editors are comparatively
insignificant and (I would say) all deniable. Other editors
may mention more.
The Phoenix here is feminine, probably because the author
has used the feminine word 'avis' (bird) for it. In fact,
its sex is explicitly discussed, still using the feminine
gender:
163 femina vel mas haec, seu neutrum, seu sit utrumque,
164 felix quae Veneris foedera nulla colit;
Whether she is female, or male, or neither, or both,
happy in that she pursues no ties of Venus.
The poem begins (lines 1-30) with an eloquent description of
the magical land where the Phoenix lives. Evidently Sidonius
Apollinaris had read this before he wrote his poem 2, a
panegyric on the emperor Anthemius, lines 407-419, with a
reference to the Phoenix but leading to a passage on Aurora,
mentioned in 'Lactantius' line 35.
Then its daily life in this paradise is described; getting
up with the dawn:
39 tollitur ac summo considit in arboris altae
40 vertice, quae totum despicit una nemus
'She rises up and settles in a tall tree, at the very
top, which alone overlooks the whole wood'
(can this be 'the sole Arabian tree'?)
45 incipit illa sacri modulamina fundere cantus
46 et mira lucem voce ciere novam
She begins to pour out the modulation of sacred song
and call forth the new light with wondrous voice.
(I think 'wondrous' can imply loudness, hence 'the bird of
loudest lay', because loudness was thought very important
for ancient voices.)
After a thousand years she flies to Syria (Phoenicia) and
builds a nest of spices at the top of a very tall palm-tree
(phoenix) for her tomb and the cradle of the new Phoenix.
There she suffers spontaneous combustion, assisted by the
sun (I think):
95 interea corpus genitali morte peremptum
96 aestuat et flammam parturit ipse calor
97 aetherioque procul de lumine concipit ignem
98 flagrat et ambustum solvitur in cineres.
'Meanwhile her body, destroyed by a birth-giving death,
grows hot and the heat itself gives birth to flame;
it conceives fire from the far-off heavenly light,
burns and being burnt dissolves into ash.'
(This seems confused. It certainly does not deny spontaneous
combustion, but it does not claim it very explicitly
either.)
The new Phoenix appears as a larva and goes through the
metamorphosis of a butterfly, more or less. On reaching
maturity it rolls up the remains of its parent in a ball of
spices and carries it from Syria to Heliopolis, where it
lays it on the altar of the Sun. I assume Syria is brought
into the story for etymological reasons.
It is as big as an ostrich, but in no way ungainly, and of
spectacular appearance. The birds of Egypt gather to welcome
it, without any fear or desire to attack it.
So far as I can find, the first Christianised version of the
story is in English, attributed to Cynewulf and so about AD
800. I have not seen this and could not read it if I did.
From Emile Legouis, A Short History of English Literature:
'In its frequent competition with Latin, English verse is
seen at its best in the Phoenix, founded on the Carmen de
Phoenice of Lactantius. This time the paraphrase gives
warmth and richness to a dry original. The Phoenix which
burns itself, to rise from its own ashes, symbolizes Christ
and the Christian soul. Very joyous is the Holy Land where
the Phoenix dwells; nowhere else, perhaps, in Anglo-Saxon
poetry, occurs a description of so fair a scene – sunlit,
radiant, flower-strewn.'
bookburn
(quote)
Oriental dragons mate with
Phoenix because all oriental dragons are male. Phoenix
are the preferred mate of dragons, because in Chinese
culture dragons represent Yin, the male side of the
Yin-yang, and Phoenix represent Yang, the female side.
They represent power and excellence, valor, boldness,
heroism, perseverance, nobility and divinity. Dragons
also represent sin in the Christian religion, and evil and
destruction in old legends.
(unquote)