Sonnet 24
Robert Stonehouse
24
Mine eye hath play'd the painter and hath steeld,
Thy beauties forme in table of my heart,
My body is the frame wherein ti's held,
And perspectiue it is best Painters art.
For through the Painter must you see his skill,
To finde where your true Image pictur'd lies,
Which in my bosomes shop is hanging stil,
That hath his windowes glazed with thine eyes:
Now see what good-turnes eyes for eies haue done,
Mine eyes haue drawne thy shape,and thine for me
Are windowes to my brest, where-through the Sun
Delights to peepe,to gaze therein on thee
Yet eyes this cunning want to grace their art
They draw but what they see,know not the hart.
Mine eye hath played the painter, and hath stelled
Thy beauty's form in tables of my heart.
My body is the frame wherein 'tis held
And perspective; it is best painter's art.
For through the painter must you see his skill
To find where your true image pictured lies,
Which in my bosom's shop is hanging still,
That hath his windows glazed with thine eyes.
Now see what good turns eyes for eyes have done:
Mine eyes have drawn thy shape, and thine for me
Are windows to my breast, wherethrough the sun
Delights to peep, to gaze therein on thee.
Yet eyes this cunning want to grace their art:
They draw but what they see, know not the heart.
(A bit early, to make up for which, next week's will be a
bit late.)
Art Neuendorffer
<<PETRARCH's poems, because of their sculpted quality and
because of PETRARCH's use of EKPHRASIS --for instance
-which introduces the gaze into writing,
"PETRARCH's poetry, however expressive & sonorous, also employs
techniques learned from the recondite virtuosity of the Middle Ages,
including ANAGRAMMATIC DISTORTIONS of LAURA's name.>>
"EKPHRASIS"
April 6, 1327, PETRARCH 1st sets eyes on LAURA
April 6, 1348, PETRARCH's LAURA, dies of plague
April 6, 1584 BRIDGET VERE born.
April 6, 1588, CARAVAGGIO ends apprenticeship to SIMONe PETER-zano
------------------------------------------------------------
MEASURE FOR MEASURE - ACT III SCENE II
LUCIO: Does BRIDGET PAINT still, Pompey, ha?
---------------------------------------------------------------
April 6, 1520, RAPHAEL dies (according to BEMO)
---------------------------------------------------------------
SONNET 24
Thy beauties forme in table of my heart,
My body is the frame wherein ti's held,
For through the PAINTER must you see his skill,
To finde where your TRUE IMAGE pictur'd lies,
Which in my bosomes shop is hanging stil,
That hath his windowes glazed with thine eyes:
Now see what good-turnes eyes for eies haue done,
Mine eyes haue drawne thy shape,and thine for me
Are windowes to my brest, where-through the Sun
Yet eyes this cunning WANT to grace their art
They draw but what they see, know not the hart.
Oh yeah. He's dying, I think. He hates all this, he hates it! But ... the
man's ... uh ... he reads poetry out loud, alright? ... And a voice! A
voice. ... He likes you because you're still alive. He's got plans for you.
Nah, nah, I'm not going to help you, you're going to help him, man. You're
going to help him. I mean, what are they going to say, man, when he's gone,
huh? Because he dies, when it dies, man, when it dies, he dies. What are
they going to say about him? What, are they going to say, he was a kind man,
he was a wise man, he had plans, he had wisdom? Bullshit, man! Am I going to
be the one, that's going to set them straight? Look at me: wrong! ... You!"
--------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Thy beauties forme in table of my heart,
My body is the frame wherein ti's held,
To finde where your TRUE IMAGE pictur'd lies,
Which in my bosomes shop is hanging stil,
That hath his windowes glazed with thine eyes:
Now see what good-turnes eyes for eies haue done,
Mine eyes haue drawne thy shape,and thine for me
Are windowes to my brest, where-through the Sun
Yet eyes this cunning WANT to grace their art
They draw but what they see, know not the hart.
LynnE
"Robert Stonehouse" <ew...@bcs.org.invalid> wrote in message
news:jfrum09eqovmd1jto...@4ax.com...
Thank you so much, Robert. I must try to catch up on sonnets 22 and 23
before tackling this one.
Lynne
Gary Kosinsky
<ew...@bcs.org.invalid> wrote:
> 24
>Mine eye hath played the painter, and hath stelled
>Thy beauty's form in tables of my heart.
>My body is the frame wherein 'tis held
>And perspective; it is best painter's art.
>For through the painter must you see his skill
>To find where your true image pictured lies,
>Which in my bosom's shop is hanging still,
>That hath his windows glazed with thine eyes.
>Now see what good turns eyes for eyes have done:
>Mine eyes have drawn thy shape, and thine for me
>Are windows to my breast, wherethrough the sun
>Delights to peep, to gaze therein on thee.
> Yet eyes this cunning want to grace their art:
> They draw but what they see, know not the heart.
Say what?
- Gary Kosinsky
BCD
>
> Mine eye hath play'd the painter and hath steeld,
> Thy beauties forme in table of my heart,
> My body is the frame wherein ti's held,
> And perspectiue it is best Painters art.
> For through the Painter must you see his skill,
> To finde where your true Image pictur'd lies,
> Which in my bosomes shop is hanging stil,
> That hath his windowes glazed with thine eyes:
> Now see what good-turnes eyes for eies haue done,
> Mine eyes haue drawne thy shape,and thine for me
> Are windowes to my brest, where-through the Sun
> Delights to peepe,to gaze therein on thee
> Yet eyes this cunning want to grace their art
> They draw but what they see,know not the hart.
>
____________________________________________
>
> Mine eye hath played the painter, and hath stelled
***My eye has turned Artist!--and has set down
***Notes: The verb "stell" is etymologically related to "stall" as
both verb and noun, in the sense of the verb "detain" and in the sense
of the "stall" where you "detain" a horse. The eye has turned artist,
and has "detained" and "in-stalled" the addressee's appearance.
(Peeking at Sonnet 25's first line, I wonder if the poet, seeing
"stelled" in 24, was reminded of "stellar," and thus 25's "stars.") I
don't know why the poet has only one eye up here at the beginning, but
has plural such towards the end of the poem; perhaps the other eye's
apprenticeship came to maturity during the course of the sonnet!
> Thy beauty's form in tables of my heart.
***[Its portrait of] your beauty's appearance on my heart's easel,
> My body is the frame wherein 'tis held
***My body providing the frame;
> And perspective; it is best painter's art.
***And, well scrutinized, it will be found to be the finest example of
a painter's artistry.
***Notes: Taking "perspective" in an etymological sense of
"through-seeing-ish," as seems to be borne out by the next line, and
replacing the semicolon with a comma.
> For through the painter must you see his skill
***For, in order to see this painter's masterpiece, you have to focus
through the painter himself
> To find where your true image pictured lies,
***To find where he has placed your likeness,
> Which in my bosom's shop is hanging still,
***Which hangs continuously/motionlessly in the store [shop/storage
place] of my chest [i.e., in his heart, where, as we will recall, the
easel with the sketch of the addressee's appearance is]
> That hath his windows glazed with thine eyes.
***The windows of which store are glassed in by your eyes.
***Notes: The sense of "glaze" as to "make glassy" or "render
brilliant" also registers with me; the presumably bright eyes of the
addressee's image within make the "windows" glow outwardly.
> Now see what good turns eyes for eyes have done:
***So, observe some ocular quid pro quo:
> Mine eyes have drawn thy shape, and thine for me
***_My_ eyes have sketched you, while _yours_ serve me
> Are windows to my breast, wherethrough the sun
***By providing access to my heart, through which access the sun
> Delights to peep, to gaze therein on thee.
***Takes pleasure in looking at your portrait.
***Notes: Taking "thee" as the picture-"thee" in the image on the
easel.
> Yet eyes this cunning want to grace their art:
***These so-skilful [artist-]eyes still however fall short of
dignifying their [artistic] skill
***Notes: Taking "want" in the "lack" sense, and "grace" in the
"confer honor or dignity upon, or do honor or credit to" sense.
> They draw but what they see, know not the heart.
***Because they can only see and draw your appearance, and can't know
your affection.
***Notes: Taking "heart" as representing the individual's set of
emotions, in particular the emotion of interest to friends and lovers.
***As the first line reminded me of the first line of Sonnet 25, so do
the last lines remind me of the last lines of Sonnet 23: eyes
"hearing" via love's fine wit and (conversely) cunning eyes only
seeing not penetrating.
Best Wishes,
--BCD
Web Site: http://www.csulb.edu/~odinthor
Visit unknown Los Angeles: http://www.csulb.edu/~odinthor/socal1.html
bookburn
"Gary Kosinsky" <gk...@vcn.bc.ca> wrote in message
news:4170739e...@news.individual.net...
| When I first read this sonnet, I hadn't a clue what
| it was about. After a couple of commentaries and Robert's
| paraphrase, some light has been shed, but still a couple of
| questions remain:
|
|
| On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 17:50:25 +0100, Robert Stonehouse
| <ew...@bcs.org.invalid> wrote:
| >> 24
| >
| >>Mine eye hath played the painter, and hath stelled
| >>Thy beauty's form in tables of my heart.
| >which is my heart.
| >>My body is the frame wherein 'tis held
| >>And perspective; it is best painter's art.
| >art is capable of.
|
| Okay, so the speaker is saying "My body is the frame
| AND perspective wherein 'tis held". I was wondering about
| that "perspective". Although it still seems to be used in
| an unusual sense here.
|
| >
| >>For through the painter must you see his skill
| >product
| >>To find where your true image pictured lies,
| >located;
| >>Which in my bosom's shop is hanging still,
| >>That hath his windows glazed with thine eyes.
| >windows.
|
| Isn't he supposed to be talking here about the
| addressee's actual eyes, rather than the eyes in the
| metaphorical picture? That is, the speaker and addressee
| are gazing into each other's eyes, and the reflection of the
| addressee's eyes are in the speaker's eyes? Or have I read
| one commentary too many on this poem?
|
| >>Now see what good turns eyes for eyes have done:
| >other:
| >>Mine eyes have drawn thy shape, and thine for me
| >do for me
| >>Are windows to my breast, wherethrough the sun
| >>Delights to peep, to gaze therein on thee.
|
| How does the sun get into all of this?
My guess is that the sun is an important symbol in this sonnet and
others drawing upon neo-Platonisms in an aesthetic of beauty, truth,
and love. "Sweetness" and "light" seem to correlate with beauty and
truth, and the "windows", "glass," and "mirrors" allow insight and the
confusion of identities in a relationship. The "sun" symbol possibly
works in a religious/spiritual sense as the source of love, possibly
could refer to "son" as in the Son of God, might even refer to himself
or Hamnet as a son? But it seems to me he is more spiritual and
abstract than realistic or even emotional in this kind of love.
bookburn
|
| >> Yet eyes this cunning want to grace their art:
| > But eyes are not clever enough to take representation a
| >stage further:
| >> They draw but what they see, know not the heart.
| > they only picture the visible, they cannot know the
| >mind.
|
| SNIP
|
|
|
| - Gary Kosinsky
Buffalo
"Robert Stonehouse" <ew...@bcs.org.invalid> wrote in message
news:jfrum09eqovmd1jto...@4ax.com...
>
Does anyone know the name of that linguistic trick that "eyes for eyes" is
an example of? It seems to be quite common in Shakespeare. We had it in the
last sonnet: "...that more hath more expressed". There must be a name for
it. What's it called?
Buffalo
Gary Kosinsky
wrote:
It seems to me that the "it" in line 4 can refer
back to several different things. It can refer back to
"perspective", or "my body" or "thy beauty's form".
>
>> For through the painter must you see his skill
>
>***For, in order to see this painter's masterpiece, you have to focus
>through the painter himself
>
>> To find where your true image pictured lies,
>
>***To find where he has placed your likeness,
>
>> Which in my bosom's shop is hanging still,
>
>***Which hangs continuously/motionlessly in the store [shop/storage
>place] of my chest [i.e., in his heart, where, as we will recall, the
>easel with the sketch of the addressee's appearance is]
>
>> That hath his windows glazed with thine eyes.
>
>***The windows of which store are glassed in by your eyes.
By "his windows", does the poet mean his own actual
eyes?
>***Notes: The sense of "glaze" as to "make glassy" or "render
>brilliant" also registers with me; the presumably bright eyes of the
>addressee's image within make the "windows" glow outwardly.
>
>> Now see what good turns eyes for eyes have done:
>
>***So, observe some ocular quid pro quo:
I loved this particular paraphrased line.
>
>> Mine eyes have drawn thy shape, and thine for me
>
>***_My_ eyes have sketched you, while _yours_ serve me
>
>> Are windows to my breast, wherethrough the sun
>
>***By providing access to my heart, through which access the sun
I'm getting confused. Which eyes are windows to the
speaker's breast? The addressee's actual eyes, or the eyes
that have been painted in the speaker's heart?
>
>> Delights to peep, to gaze therein on thee.
And despite bookburn's attempt, I'm still not clear
on why the sun suddenly pops into this poem.
>***Takes pleasure in looking at your portrait.
>
>***Notes: Taking "thee" as the picture-"thee" in the image on the
>easel.
>
>> Yet eyes this cunning want to grace their art:
>
>***These so-skilful [artist-]eyes still however fall short of
>dignifying their [artistic] skill
>
>***Notes: Taking "want" in the "lack" sense, and "grace" in the
>"confer honor or dignity upon, or do honor or credit to" sense.
>
>> They draw but what they see, know not the heart.
>
>***Because they can only see and draw your appearance, and can't know
>your affection.
>
>***Notes: Taking "heart" as representing the individual's set of
>emotions, in particular the emotion of interest to friends and lovers.
>
>***As the first line reminded me of the first line of Sonnet 25, so do
>the last lines remind me of the last lines of Sonnet 23: eyes
>"hearing" via love's fine wit and (conversely) cunning eyes only
>seeing not penetrating.
In her notes on this sonnet, KDJ writes:
"By looking closely into the speaker's eye, the young man
can see a perfect image of himself, his own eyes being like
a glass window; but he cannot see how much the poet loves
him." p 158
What do you think of her scenario for this poem?
Also, I notice that while you say it is the speaker who
can't know the affection of the addressee, KDJ seems to
think it's the other way around. More confusion.
- Gary Kosinsky
Buffalo
"BCD" <odin...@csulb.edu> wrote in message
news:be4a0014.04101...@posting.google.com...
<snip>
>> My body is the frame wherein 'tis held
>
> ***My body providing the frame;
>
>> And perspective; it is best painter's art.
>
> ***And, well scrutinized, it will be found to be the finest example of
> a painter's artistry.
>
> ***Notes: Taking "perspective" in an etymological sense of
> "through-seeing-ish," as seems to be borne out by the next line, and
> replacing the semicolon with a comma.
The problem is that turning "perspective" into an adjective leaves the
following "it" as a pronoun without a preceding noun. Taking "perspective"
as a noun allows us to interpret "it" as "perspective, a form of emphatic
repetition. Otherwise - what noun does "it" connect to? *What* is best
painter's art
Buffalo
Buffalo
I think KDJ has gone astray here. The poet in the first line has clearly
identified his own eyes as the painter. In the last line it can only be his
own eyes that "draw", and also that "know not" the model's "heart".
Buffalo
LynnE
"Buffalo" <none...@here.com> wrote in message
news:cktpr3$227$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
This was a bad sonnet for me to return on. I have to admit I don't really
understand it at all except as some kind of artificial and rather ugly
conceit.
But no doubt Paul will soon set me right.
Lynne
>
>
> Buffalo
>
>
BCD
[...snippage abounding...]
> >
> >> And perspective; it is best painter's art.
> >
> >***And, well scrutinized, it will be found to be the finest example of
> >a painter's artistry.
> >
> >***Notes: Taking "perspective" in an etymological sense of
> >"through-seeing-ish," as seems to be borne out by the next line, and
> >replacing the semicolon with a comma.
>
> It seems to me that the "it" in line 4 can refer
> back to several different things. It can refer back to
> "perspective", or "my body" or "thy beauty's form".
***The line is odd and has always struck me as somehow scrambled or
otherwise corrupt. I'd agree that the "it" could refer to any of a
number of things; but, bumpy as the ride is, I think taking "it" as
referring to the artwork which the artist-eye installed gives the
smoothest trail of meaning through the passage. "It" could also be a
sort of vague "it," referring to the general situation.
[...]
> >> That hath his windows glazed with thine eyes.
> >
> >***The windows of which store are glassed in by your eyes.
>
> By "his windows", does the poet mean his own actual
> eyes?
***I don't see that. I take the windows as just being the
metaphorical passageways to and from his heart. This line always
creeps me out.
[...]
> >
> >> Mine eyes have drawn thy shape, and thine for me
> >
> >***_My_ eyes have sketched you, while _yours_ serve me
> >
> >> Are windows to my breast, wherethrough the sun
> >
> >***By providing access to my heart, through which access the sun
>
> I'm getting confused. Which eyes are windows to the
> speaker's breast? The addressee's actual eyes, or the eyes
> that have been painted in the speaker's heart?
***The poet says that said windows are glazed with "thine eyes,"
instead of specifying the eyes of the image (which admittedly works
against my notion of taking "glaze" at least partially in its sense of
"render brilliant"). The passage really does not work for me to begin
with, as what it brings to my mind to the exclusion of all else is a
picture of street urchins with their eyes (and noses) pressed up
against a shop window looking at something interesting inside, which
needless to say is not what Shakespeare had in mind.
> >> Delights to peep, to gaze therein on thee.
>
> And despite bookburn's attempt, I'm still not clear
> on why the sun suddenly pops into this poem.
***You must admit that the sun is nicer than street urchins! I think
that the poet is reaching a bit just to pay a compliment. Think of it
developmentally: The poet has just written the previous part of the
poem, and has been going on about windows. "OK," he says to himself,
his eyes rolling and his tongue searching a hollow in a tooth, "now
what? Windows . . . windows . . . people look in windows . . . to
admire what's inside . . . hm, wouldn't it sound cool if it was
good-looking people admiring the appearance of My Bud? . . . Hey, no,
wait a minute, not good-looking people--that's not strong enough--how
about THE SUN?!?!?!?! Yeah, that's it, muy bueno [starts writing]!"
The sun, invested subconsciously in the poet's mind perhaps with some
tincture of handsome Apollo, finds further handsomeness to admire in
the appearance of the addressee. It's a stretch; but I get the
impression that Shakespeare wrote this one at 3:30 a.m. after downing
a bottle or two of good sack.
> >***Takes pleasure in looking at your portrait.
> >
> >***Notes: Taking "thee" as the picture-"thee" in the image on the
> >easel.
> >
> >> Yet eyes this cunning want to grace their art:
> >
> >***These so-skilful [artist-]eyes still however fall short of
> >dignifying their [artistic] skill
> >
> >***Notes: Taking "want" in the "lack" sense, and "grace" in the
> >"confer honor or dignity upon, or do honor or credit to" sense.
> >
> >> They draw but what they see, know not the heart.
> >
> >***Because they can only see and draw your appearance, and can't know
> >your affection.
> >
> >***Notes: Taking "heart" as representing the individual's set of
> >emotions, in particular the emotion of interest to friends and lovers.
> >
> >***As the first line reminded me of the first line of Sonnet 25, so do
> >the last lines remind me of the last lines of Sonnet 23: eyes
> >"hearing" via love's fine wit and (conversely) cunning eyes only
> >seeing not penetrating.
>
> In her notes on this sonnet, KDJ writes:
>
> "By looking closely into the speaker's eye, the young man
> can see a perfect image of himself, his own eyes being like
> a glass window; but he cannot see how much the poet loves
> him." p 158
>
> What do you think of her scenario for this poem?
***Admirably ingenious; but, to me, unconvincing.
> Also, I notice that while you say it is the speaker who
> can't know the affection of the addressee, KDJ seems to
> think it's the other way around. More confusion.
***Actually, *I* say it's the *artist-eyes* (concerned with the
visual; to be distinguished from the speaker in toto) that can't know
the affection of the addressee; implicatively, the poet is aware of
the addressee's affection because he is noting that the artist-eyes
can't see the affection he himself knows about evidently through other
means. As the cunning eyes in the couplet are engaged in drawing
(rather than in being panes of glass), this connects with the
painterly "Mine eye" of the poet in line 1; it is this eye/these eyes
which the poem states doesn't/don't know the heart
***A couple of bottles of sack would, I think, assist us in construing
what was in the poet's mind when he wrote this.
Buffalo
"LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:z5xcd.440$JG5....@news20.bellglobal.com...
I have to differ with you there. I find it dense and difficult, but on the
first read-through something about it made the hairs stand up. It struck me
more powerfully than any other sonnet so far. Intuition tells me it's one of
those sonnets that might hold the key to what S was really up to, shedding
some light on whom he is addressing, and why. But I'm struggling with it.
>
> But no doubt Paul will soon set me right.
"Yet eyes this cunning..." Yep. I'm afraid you're right. Stand by for
another biology lesson.
Buffalo
BCD
***Earlier today I took a crack at answering Gary more or less about
this among other things (messages posted through Google are painfully
slow to appear in the Google Groups modality; and my posting thus
hasn't yet appeared, at least for me); but, egad, I think I forgot to
mention what seems obvious to me (at least, at the moment!). We can
take the it in question as being the same "it" as is contained in the
" 'tis" of the previous line--to wit, the it which is being held in
the body's frame, which framed thing is the artistic production
featuring "thy beauty's form," which production hath been stelled in
table of my heart. This production, well scrutinized, will be found
to be the finest example of a painter's artistry, because . . .
[etc.].
***It's the 'tis's it which it is, isn't it?
Best Wishes,
--BCD
Web Site: http://www.csulb.edu/~odinthor/socal1.html
Gary Kosinsky
<none...@here.com> wrote:
>"Gary Kosinsky" <gk...@vcn.bc.ca> wrote in message
SNIP
>> In her notes on this sonnet, KDJ writes:
>>
>> "By looking closely into the speaker's eye, the young man
>> can see a perfect image of himself, his own eyes being like
>> a glass window; but he cannot see how much the poet loves
>> him." p 158
>>
>> What do you think of her scenario for this poem?
>> Also, I notice that while you say it is the speaker who
>> can't know the affection of the addressee, KDJ seems to
>> think it's the other way around. More confusion.
>
>I think KDJ has gone astray here. The poet in the first line has clearly
>identified his own eyes as the painter. In the last line it can only be his
>own eyes that "draw", and also that "know not" the model's "heart".
I think you're right.
- Gary Kosinsky
Gary Kosinsky
wrote:
>gk...@vcn.bc.ca (Gary Kosinsky) wrote in message news:<4171a433...@news.individual.net>...
>> On 15 Oct 2004 18:51:56 -0700, odin...@csulb.edu (BCD)
>> wrote:
>
>[...snippage abounding...]
>
>> >
>> >> And perspective; it is best painter's art.
>> >
>> >***And, well scrutinized, it will be found to be the finest example of
>> >a painter's artistry.
>> >
>> >***Notes: Taking "perspective" in an etymological sense of
>> >"through-seeing-ish," as seems to be borne out by the next line, and
>> >replacing the semicolon with a comma.
>>
>> It seems to me that the "it" in line 4 can refer
>> back to several different things. It can refer back to
>> "perspective", or "my body" or "thy beauty's form".
>
>***The line is odd and has always struck me as somehow scrambled or
>otherwise corrupt. I'd agree that the "it" could refer to any of a
>number of things; but, bumpy as the ride is, I think taking "it" as
>referring to the artwork which the artist-eye installed gives the
>smoothest trail of meaning through the passage. "It" could also be a
>sort of vague "it," referring to the general situation.
I suppose a lot depends on the punctuation of the
line. I notice that in KDJ & Kerrigan's versions the line
goes:
And perspective it is best painter's art.
ie no punctuation.
Also, Booth points out that a definition of
"perspective" is "...a picture drawn so as to appear
distorted except from one particular point of view...the
allusion is particularly apt because one's reflection in
another person's eye is, like any reflection on a convex
surface, distorted." p. 173
SNIP
>***A couple of bottles of sack would, I think, assist us in construing
>what was in the poet's mind when he wrote this.
More from Booth: "The sonnet is carefully designed
to boggle its reader's mind (make his eyes glaze) but some
sanity may be retained if one holds onto the idea of two
people looking into one another's eyes.
- Gary Kosinsky
Gary Kosinsky
>Mine eyes have drawn thy shape, and thine for me
>Are windows to my breast, wherethrough the sun
>Delights to peep, to gaze therein on thee.
A further thought from left field about the sun in
the eyes: is it at all possible that the reason the sun is
in the eyes of the addressee is because he is lying on his
back?
The thinking being here that the reason the poet
mentions the sun in the first place is because the sun is
reflected in the addressee's eyes.
- Gary Kosinsky
Gary Kosinsky
<none...@here.com> wrote:
SNIP
>Intuition tells me it's one of
>those sonnets that might hold the key to what S was really up to, shedding
>some light on whom he is addressing, and why. But I'm struggling with it.
What do you think about him bringing the sun into
the poem? BCD and bookburn don't seem to think it's as
important as I sense it may be.
- Gary Kosinsky
Buffalo
I think you're bending the grammar here. You seem to have invented an extra
entity ( "artistic production") in the first two lines. But "thy beauty's
form" is the only product mentioned. What is held in the body's frame is the
compound noun from the previous line - "thy beauty's form" (not an "artistic
production" featuring it). That is what the "it" (of "'tis") refers to.
Mine eye hath play'd the painter and hath stelled
Thy beauty's form in table of my heart;
My body is the frame wherein 'tis held,
And perspective it is best painter's art.
If the "it" on the next line refers to the same thing, then we end up with
an equation: Thy beauty's form=best painter's art. Which cannot be right.
That second "it" must refer to some other noun or compound noun, and the
only one in sight is "perspective".
I agree that it would make for a more intelligible line if "perspective"
could be persuaded to act as an adjective or adverb, but I can't make it
work.
Buffalo
Peter Farey
"Buffalo" wrote:
>
> Mine eye hath play'd the painter and hath stelled
> Thy beauty's form in table of my heart;
> My body is the frame wherein 'tis held,
> And perspective it is best painter's art.
>
> If the "it" on the next line refers to the same thing,
> then we end up with > an equation: Thy beauty's
> form=best painter's art. Which cannot be right.
> That second "it" must refer to some other noun or
> compound noun, and the > only one in sight is
> "perspective".
>
> I agree that it would make for a more intelligible
> line if "perspective" could be persuaded to act as
> an adjective or adverb, but I can't make it
> work.
>
> Buffalo
I take "perspective" to be an adjective meaning
"seen through (something)", the something here
being the "frame" of the poet's body.
"It" - in other words "thy beauty's form" - is "best
painter's art" when seen through such a frame.
This meaning is then cleverly juxtaposed with
the double meaning of "through the painter" in
the following line.
Peter F.
pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm
BCD
***This is, methinks, where you go astray. See below.
> That second "it" must refer to some other noun or compound noun, and the
> only one in sight is "perspective".
>
> I agree that it would make for a more intelligible line if "perspective"
> could be persuaded to act as an adjective or adverb, but I can't make it
> work.
***I think I see what you're saying; but, if I understand you as you
mean, I believe you've overlooked a conventionalism. Let's restate
two lines, simplifying and substituting "an apple" for "thy beauty's
form." "My eye has taken up painting, and has sketched an apple on my
heart's drawing-board." You're saying, if I understand correctly,
that it cannot be right that "an apple"="best painter's art." And
that's true enough on the face of it; the painter is not responsible
for an apple. But when we put things that way about a picture, that's
not what we mean. What has been sketched is not an apple but rather
the picture of an apple. It could be that I misunderstand you; but it
seems to me that you're construing "beauty's form" as a physical
bodily manifestation of the addressee or a part of the addressee,
which indeed *is not* an artistic production of the best painter;
while I'm taking it as the painter's *sketch* of the addressee's form,
which indeed *is* (in the opinion of the poet) an artistic production
of the best painter.
***Even aside from all this, "form" at least in our current times can
mean (taking definitions from the 1977 Webster's New Collegiate
Dictionary which I have at hand at the moment; I don't know if these
usages were or were not current in Shakespeare's time) not only "a
body (as of a person) esp. in its external appearance..." but also
"the structural element, plan, or design of a work of art." When the
eye/painter is stelling thy beauty's form, he's making like an artist
and drawing/painting/sketching the appearance/design of thy beauty;
he's not making like a loony and affixing the actual addressee, or
some portion of the addressee, to a board. Consequently, what hath
been stelled on heart's table is the eye-painter's artistic
production; the last lines of the poem would indeed seem to validate,
by referring to cunning eyes drawing, the idea that an artistic
production has taken place. Otherwise, what's the point of bringing a
"painter" into this in the first place?
***Now, application: My eye has taken up painting, and has sketched
[stelled, fixed, set down] your beauty's form on my heart's drawing
board. My body is the frame which holds it ["it" being the artistic
production resulting from the action just specified in lines 1-2; the
frame holds the production of the painter, as is characteristic of
frames]; and, well scrutinized, that sketch of your beauty's form
[alias "it"] is art of the best painter. (Additionally, with
"perspective" ["through-seeing-ish"] we look forward to the next line
"For through the painter..."; the poet is punning.)
***If I've misconstrued you--always possible, it's early--please
clarify.
Best Wishes,
--BCD
Web Site: http://www.csulb.edu/~odinthor
Buffalo
"Jim KQKnave" <kqk...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:716b251.04101...@posting.google.com...> news:<ckueer$c5s$1...@titan.btinternet.com>...
> familiar sonnet themes from other sonnet sequences. As such, it's likely
> to tell you exactly nothing about "who" Shakespeare is addressing,
> and it's far more likely that he is addressing no one in particular
> anyway.
That's a real possibility, and if this sonnet were to lend some support to
that interpretation, I would call that shedding light. This addressee does
not have to have a name, and might even be a "what" rather than a "who".
>> But I'm struggling with it.
>
> That's not too surprising.
I lack your certainty.
Buffalo
Buffalo
Okay, I see the argument. But if we go back to the first two lines, we have
"stelled thy beauty's form". We're all a little unsure exactly how to read
"stelled" but I think we all agree that it's something along the lines of
"captured". If that's right, then the skill or craft part of the operation
is in "stelled", not in "thy beauty's form", which is the raw material. And
that's why I would have difficulty making the equation Thy beauty's
form=best painter's art. It equates the art with the raw material, and not
the skill that "captured" it.
I can see the point about "form" possibly being a reference to the action or
skill of the painter, rather than the "shape" of the painter's model, but
if you follow that line, you end up with a tautology. Now "stelled thy
beauty's form" implies that the artist has "captured" his own skill.
In my reply to Peter, I suggest a possible misprint. If we had
"perspectived" instead of "perspective", it would solve the problem for me.
I could accept the equation Thy beauty's form perspectived=best painter's
art.
Buffalo
Buffalo
"Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ckvn74$7ft$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> "Buffalo" wrote:
>>
>> Mine eye hath play'd the painter and hath stelled
>> Thy beauty's form in table of my heart;
>> My body is the frame wherein 'tis held,
>> And perspective it is best painter's art.
>>
>> If the "it" on the next line refers to the same thing,
>> then we end up with > an equation: Thy beauty's
>> form=best painter's art. Which cannot be right.
>> That second "it" must refer to some other noun or
>> compound noun, and the > only one in sight is
>> "perspective".
>>
>> I agree that it would make for a more intelligible
>> line if "perspective" could be persuaded to act as
>> an adjective or adverb, but I can't make it
>> work.
>>
>> Buffalo
>
> I take "perspective" to be an adjective meaning
> "seen through (something)", the something here
> being the "frame" of the poet's body.
>
> "It" - in other words "thy beauty's form" - is "best
> painter's art" when seen through such a frame.
>
As I said to BCD, I'd be a lot happier with an adjective, but I can't make
"perspective" into one without assuming a misprint. Now if it was
"perspectived" I'd be very happy. Beauty's form *perspectived* is best
painter's art. I'd go with that.
> This meaning is then cleverly juxtaposed with
> the double meaning of "through the painter" in
> the following line.
Yes, it would hook onto the next line quite nicely. So what do we do - say
there's a misprint?
Buffalo
Peter Groves
We all envy Jim's certainty. As Bertarnd Russell said, "what men desire is
not knowledge but certainty".
Peter G.
John W. Kennedy
> As I said to BCD, I'd be a lot happier with an adjective, but I can't make
> "perspective" into one without assuming a misprint. Now if it was
> "perspectived" I'd be very happy. Beauty's form *perspectived* is best
> painter's art. I'd go with that.
Now you're calling for it to be a verb!
--
John W. Kennedy
"...when you're trying to build a house of cards, the last thing you
should do is blow hard and wave your hands like a madman."
-- Rupert Goodwins
Peter Groves
news:<2HXcd.30940$5O5....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
>
> > We all envy Jim's certainty. As Bertarnd Russell said, "what men desire
is
> > not knowledge but certainty".
>
I'd like to say how much I enjoyed your last book. I can't though, because
you've never published one. You need ideas for that. Still, throwing your
weight around on Usenet is easier than actual scholarship, isn't it,
Carroll?
Peter G.
Peter Farey
"Buffalo" wrote:
I think I would rather say that he didn't always
follow our rules of grammar, and that this is an
example of his not doing so. The roots of the
word are clear enough.
Buffalo
"John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:gfZcd.8466$YM4.2...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> Buffalo wrote:
>> As I said to BCD, I'd be a lot happier with an adjective, but I can't
>> make "perspective" into one without assuming a misprint. Now if it was
>> "perspectived" I'd be very happy. Beauty's form *perspectived* is best
>> painter's art. I'd go with that.
>
> Now you're calling for it to be a verb!
>
It's a participle. Strictly speaking, "blue remembered hills" has a noun
preceded by an adjective and a past participle. But as a matter of practical
grammar they can be seen as two adjectives.
Buffalo
Buffalo
The roots of the word are not in dispute. But the difference between
"perspective" and "perspectived" can bend the meaning of a line. It might be
a misprint, or it might be that he didn't follow our rules of grammar - but
I think it has to be one or the other if we are to read "perspective" as an
adjective.
Buffalo
BCD
>
> Okay, I see the argument. But if we go back to the first two lines, we have
> "stelled thy beauty's form". We're all a little unsure exactly how to read
> "stelled"
***Not me. Don't stampede us all in the same herd, Buffalo. I'm over
there, with the antelopes.
> but I think we all agree that it's something along the lines of
> "captured". If that's right, then the skill or craft part of the operation
> is in "stelled", not in "thy beauty's form", which is the raw material. And
> that's why I would have difficulty making the equation Thy beauty's
> form=best painter's art. It equates the art with the raw material, and not
> the skill that "captured" it. [...]
***Hm. I think that, in my feeble and blundering way, I still haven't
managed to put my point across. At the risk of boring to tears those
who already understand, and driving to distraction those who don't and
never will, I'll give it one last crack. [Clears throat.] Think back
to my example in which an artist was drawing an apple. But he isn't
drawing an *apple* (raw material), as a tree might be producing an
apple (raw material); rather, the artist is drawing a *picture of an
apple* (artistic creation arising from observation of raw material).
Along the same lines, "Thy beauty's form" is, I contend, really
elliptical, and conventionally so, for "[My picture of] thy beauty's
form"--not the *raw material*, but rather the *artist's rendition of
the raw material*. The eye-painter hath stelled [the picture of] thy
beauty's form. Thus, the "it" of "it is best painter's art" is the
"it" partially concealed in "frame wherein 'tis held," the antecedent
of which is the thing which hath been stelled in table of my heart,
which is "[My picture of] thy beauty's form." That is, "it" is not
the *raw material* (physical manifestation of the addressee) but is
rather the *artist's creation arising from observation of the raw
material*. Again, why is the poem concerned with cunning eyes drawing
and playing the painter if all they are doing is sticking raw material
into a frame? Their art, drawing but what they see, is to create a
picture based on the raw materials to which you refer; it is this
picture which hath been stelled--the *image* of the raw material, not
the raw material itself, has been "captured"--and it is this picture
which has been put into a frame.
***We know that Mr. Painter-Eye has not just been mucking around with
raw materials but has rather been up to artist-craft because, as a
result of this craft/skill, "your true image pictur'd lies" hanging in
my bosom's shop--not *your raw material*, but rather *your true image
pictur'd*. The pictur'd image is the image that the painter captured
(stelled) onto table (which "table" I interpret here as sketchpad,
canvas, drawing board) of his heart (heart, in bosom; image is hanging
in bosom's shop), the one that the poet refers to again when he states
that "Mine eyes have drawn thy shape" (shape, form; they [the one
painter-eye has turned into two painter-eyes] have drawn a picture of
thy shape/form). The sun himself knows that said artistic production
(picture of addressee's form) is right there in the poet's bosom
(breast, where the heart is), because he (sun) delights to gaze and
peep "therein on thee"--but once again, the sun is not peeping on *raw
material* "thee," but rather--because the poet continues to use the
conventional ellipsis--on the *picture* of "thee" which "true image
pictur'd lies," as the poem has already told us, there in the shop
through the windows of which shop the sun is peeping. Further
testimony that the eyes are not just nailing raw material to a plank
but rather engaging in artist-craft is provided by references in the
last two lines to the eyes' "art" and that they "draw but what they
see."
***In other words, the poem in question means, on a primary level, in
a conversational mode, "As you can tell by examining it thoroughly, my
picture of thy beauty's form is art of the most skilful painter, the
picture originating because my eye has taken up painting and drawn a
picture of your beautiful appearance on the drawing board of my heart.
By the way, my body is the frame in which said picture is held; and
thus it is that you must look through my *corpus* to see this skilful
work. The picture hangs in my bosom--you'll recall that it originated
there, specifically on my heart's sketchpad--my bosom being, as it
were, a shop with windows glassed in by your eyes. Now, listen:
While my eyes have been drawing your appearance, yours have returned
the favor by serving as windows to my breast, allowing an admiring sun
to gaze on your image within. Right, these artist-eyes are skilful,
but their skill stops short of perfection, because eyes can only
see--they can't know your affection."
***OK, now it's time for my best Ethel Barrymore impression: "That's
all there is. There isn't any more."
Gary Kosinsky
Most of the commentaries I've read on this poem
suggest that the underlying scenario is one where the
speaker and addressee are gazing deeply into each other's
eyes, and each sees his own reflection in the other's eyes.
Are people here in agreement with this scenario?
- Gary Kosinsky
Buffalo
> news:<cl15t1$qd3$3...@titan.btinternet.com>...
>>
>> Okay, I see the argument. But if we go back to the first two lines, we
>> have
>> "stelled thy beauty's form". We're all a little unsure exactly how to
>> read
>> "stelled"
>
> ***Not me. Don't stampede us all in the same herd, Buffalo. I'm over
> there, with the antelopes.
>
As Robert wrote in his paraphrase:
"Line 1, 'stelled'. The Quarto uses a double 'e' and some
editors read 'steeled', meaning 'engraved with a steel
burin'. I do not find an engraving adequate for the
metaphors in the rest of the poem: we need colour."
This shows that there is at least some doubt about it. But we all agree that
the essential meaning is "captured", don't we?
>> but I think we all agree that it's something along the lines of
>> "captured". If that's right, then the skill or craft part of the
>> operation
>> is in "stelled", not in "thy beauty's form", which is the raw material.
>> And
>> that's why I would have difficulty making the equation Thy beauty's
>> form=best painter's art. It equates the art with the raw material, and
>> not
>> the skill that "captured" it. [...]
>
> ***Hm. I think that, in my feeble and blundering way, I still haven't
> managed to put my point across.
No, I assure that you have. I got it at least two posts back. You are saying
that "thy beauty's form" contains the idea of craftwork, and that that
justifies equating it with "best painter's art". I am disputing that. I am
saying that the craftwork is in "stelled" and that "thy beauty's form" is
raw material. Only the two things together make what you call an "artistic
production".
You have tried to support your contention by suggesting that "form" is a
reference to an artistic process, a craft word. I am saying that it is a
reference only to "shape", in which there is nothing intrinsically artistic,
as there isn't in the following example from King John:-
From henceforth bear his name whose form thou bear'st:
Trying to read "form" as a craft word leads to a tautology. He has stelled
his stelling.
You have also suggested that this distinction between an object and its
graphic depiction is bridged by ellipsis. And so it can be, under certain
circumstances. Looking over the cartoonist's shoulder, I might say, "his
face isn't quite right", and I am not referring to the living face, but to
the sketch on the paper (his living face might be fine). True. But if
instead I say "you have captured his face perfectly", this time the
reference *is* to the living face, because the word "captured" now excludes
ellipsis. The phrase "stelled thy beauty's form" is an exact parallel. "Thy
beauty's form" is a not reference to the artistic product but to the living
reality.
Buffalo
Gary Kosinsky
wrote:
>"Buffalo" <none...@here.com> wrote in message news:<cl15t1$qd3$3...@titan.btinternet.com>...
>>
>> Okay, I see the argument. But if we go back to the first two lines, we have
>> "stelled thy beauty's form". We're all a little unsure exactly how to read
>> "stelled"
>
>***Not me. Don't stampede us all in the same herd, Buffalo. I'm over
>there, with the antelopes.
>
>> but I think we all agree that it's something along the lines of
>> "captured". If that's right, then the skill or craft part of the operation
>> is in "stelled", not in "thy beauty's form", which is the raw material. And
>> that's why I would have difficulty making the equation Thy beauty's
>> form=best painter's art. It equates the art with the raw material, and not
>> the skill that "captured" it. [...]
>
>***Hm. I think that, in my feeble and blundering way, I still haven't
>managed to put my point across. At the risk of boring to tears those
>who already understand, and driving to distraction those who don't and
>never will, I'll give it one last crack. [Clears throat.] Think back
>to my example in which an artist was drawing an apple. But he isn't
>drawing an *apple* (raw material), as a tree might be producing an
>apple (raw material); rather, the artist is drawing a *picture of an
>apple* (artistic creation arising from observation of raw material).
>Along the same lines, "Thy beauty's form" is, I contend, really
>elliptical, and conventionally so, for "[My picture of] thy beauty's
>form"--not the *raw material*, but rather the *artist's rendition of
>the raw material*.
I, for one, agree.
>The eye-painter hath stelled [the picture of] thy
>beauty's form. Thus, the "it" of "it is best painter's art" is the
>"it" partially concealed in "frame wherein 'tis held," the antecedent
>of which is the thing which hath been stelled in table of my heart,
>which is "[My picture of] thy beauty's form." That is, "it" is not
>the *raw material* (physical manifestation of the addressee) but is
>rather the *artist's creation arising from observation of the raw
>material*.
I think you're probably right.
If I can raise a point here, though, about
"perspective":
Taking "perspective" in the sense of 'seeing',
mightn't the speaker be saying here that *seeing* the
picture is the best painter's art, rather than the creation
of the picture in the first place? That, somehow, the act
of seeing the 'picture' created by the painter-eyes is the
best painter's art, more so than the creation of the
picture?
Or, a shade differently, perhaps the idea is that
the artist's real art is getting someone (the addressee) to
see the picture rather than creating the picture in the
first place.
Or am I just confusing things?
>Again, why is the poem concerned with cunning eyes drawing
>and playing the painter if all they are doing is sticking raw material
>into a frame? Their art, drawing but what they see, is to create a
>picture based on the raw materials to which you refer; it is this
>picture which hath been stelled--the *image* of the raw material, not
>the raw material itself, has been "captured"--and it is this picture
>which has been put into a frame.
Right.
>***We know that Mr. Painter-Eye has not just been mucking around with
>raw materials but has rather been up to artist-craft because, as a
>result of this craft/skill, "your true image pictur'd lies" hanging in
>my bosom's shop--not *your raw material*, but rather *your true image
>pictur'd*. The pictur'd image is the image that the painter captured
>(stelled) onto table (which "table" I interpret here as sketchpad,
>canvas, drawing board) of his heart (heart, in bosom; image is hanging
>in bosom's shop), the one that the poet refers to again when he states
>that "Mine eyes have drawn thy shape" (shape, form; they [the one
>painter-eye has turned into two painter-eyes] have drawn a picture of
>thy shape/form).
Right again.
>The sun himself knows that said artistic production
>(picture of addressee's form) is right there in the poet's bosom
>(breast, where the heart is), because he (sun) delights to gaze and
>peep "therein on thee"--but once again, the sun is not peeping on *raw
>material* "thee," but rather--because the poet continues to use the
>conventional ellipsis--on the *picture* of "thee" which "true image
>pictur'd lies," as the poem has already told us, there in the shop
>through the windows of which shop the sun is peeping.
I still have a problem with the interjection of the
sun into this poem, even if it doesn't seem to bother anyone
else. Also, I think the "windows of which shop" are, in
fact, the actual eyes of the speaker/poet.
>Further
>testimony that the eyes are not just nailing raw material to a plank
>but rather engaging in artist-craft is provided by references in the
>last two lines to the eyes' "art" and that they "draw but what they
>see."
>
>***In other words, the poem in question means, on a primary level, in
>a conversational mode, "As you can tell by examining it thoroughly, my
>picture of thy beauty's form is art of the most skilful painter, the
>picture originating because my eye has taken up painting and drawn a
>picture of your beautiful appearance on the drawing board of my heart.
>By the way, my body is the frame in which said picture is held; and
>thus it is that you must look through my *corpus* to see this skilful
>work.
I would suggest: "...and the fact that you must look
through my *corpus* is the most skilful part of my work."
(By "corpus", I'm assuming you mean 'body' or 'eyes'.)
> The picture hangs in my bosom--you'll recall that it originated
>there, specifically on my heart's sketchpad--my bosom being, as it
>were, a shop with windows glassed in by your eyes.
Again, I think the windows are the speaker's real
eyes, reflecting the image of the addressee's eyes as they
gaze into one another's eyes.
>Now, listen:
>While my eyes have been drawing your appearance, yours have returned
>the favor by serving as windows to my breast, allowing an admiring sun
>to gaze on your image within.
I suspect the speaker is noting that his own eyes
are reflected in the addressee's eyes as they gaze at one
another. Thus, the speaker can, in effect, gaze at his own
breast through the image of his own eyes in the addressee's
eyes. Sort of like looking at yourself in a mirror.
> Right, these artist-eyes are skilful,
>but their skill stops short of perfection, because eyes can only
>see--they can't know your affection."
>
>***OK, now it's time for my best Ethel Barrymore impression: "That's
>all there is. There isn't any more."
You really didn't think you were going to get away
that easily, do you?
- Gary Kosinsky
BCD
***Not me. I don't necessarily reject it; but I don't see any reason
to accept it. I'd welcome seeing someone make a good case for (or
against) it. As I read it, the sonnet only recognizes that the poet
has seen the addressee; and the addressee's eyes meanwhile are,
according to the poem, located on the poet's bosom. While the various
eyes are engaged in doing good turns for each other, I don't see
anything confirming eye to eye contact.
Bob Grumman
I don't get that, but can't say I yet quite know what's going
on--except that most of the poem is simply about the poet's seeing the
other. This is a sonnet I don't recall ever studying. It seems too
clever, as do a lot of Shakespeare's sonnets. A matter of taste--I
don't like Donne's poems much, for instance. Same problem.
--Bob
--Bob G.
BCD
**Whew, thanks! I was beginning to wonder if I had to schedule
another fitting with my tailor about my strait-jacket.
> >The eye-painter hath stelled [the picture of] thy
> >beauty's form. Thus, the "it" of "it is best painter's art" is the
> >"it" partially concealed in "frame wherein 'tis held," the antecedent
> >of which is the thing which hath been stelled in table of my heart,
> >which is "[My picture of] thy beauty's form." That is, "it" is not
> >the *raw material* (physical manifestation of the addressee) but is
> >rather the *artist's creation arising from observation of the raw
> >material*.
>
> I think you're probably right.
>
> If I can raise a point here, though, about
> "perspective":
>
> Taking "perspective" in the sense of 'seeing',
> mightn't the speaker be saying here that *seeing* the
> picture is the best painter's art, rather than the creation
> of the picture in the first place? That, somehow, the act
> of seeing the 'picture' created by the painter-eyes is the
> best painter's art, more so than the creation of the
> picture?
>
> Or, a shade differently, perhaps the idea is that
> the artist's real art is getting someone (the addressee) to
> see the picture rather than creating the picture in the
> first place.
>
> Or am I just confusing things?
***No, I think those are valid possibilities; Shakespeare being
Shakespeare (um, unless he is someone else), it's probable that he
intends some tincture of all of the above.
***My thought was "body [of work]" (alias oeuvre), playing on the
poem's frame-body.
> > The picture hangs in my bosom--you'll recall that it originated
> >there, specifically on my heart's sketchpad--my bosom being, as it
> >were, a shop with windows glassed in by your eyes.
>
> Again, I think the windows are the speaker's real
> eyes, reflecting the image of the addressee's eyes as they
> gaze into one another's eyes.
***I have to step aside on interpreting the line about shop windows
being glazed, as, aside from the surface meaning of the words, the
line registers a complete blank with me.
> >Now, listen:
> >While my eyes have been drawing your appearance, yours have returned
> >the favor by serving as windows to my breast, allowing an admiring sun
> >to gaze on your image within.
>
> I suspect the speaker is noting that his own eyes
> are reflected in the addressee's eyes as they gaze at one
> another. Thus, the speaker can, in effect, gaze at his own
> breast through the image of his own eyes in the addressee's
> eyes. Sort of like looking at yourself in a mirror.
>
> > Right, these artist-eyes are skilful,
> >but their skill stops short of perfection, because eyes can only
> >see--they can't know your affection."
> >
> >***OK, now it's time for my best Ethel Barrymore impression: "That's
> >all there is. There isn't any more."
>
> You really didn't think you were going to get away
> that easily, do you?
***Sigh, thought I'd try!
BCD
> "BCD" <odin...@csulb.edu> wrote in message
> news:be4a0014.04101...@posting.google.com...
> > "Buffalo" <none...@here.com> wrote in message
> > news:<cl15t1$qd3$3...@titan.btinternet.com>...
> >>
> >> Okay, I see the argument. But if we go back to the first two lines, we
> >> have
> >> "stelled thy beauty's form". We're all a little unsure exactly how to
> >> read
> >> "stelled"
> >
> > ***Not me. Don't stampede us all in the same herd, Buffalo. I'm over
> > there, with the antelopes.
>
> As Robert wrote in his paraphrase:
>
> "Line 1, 'stelled'. The Quarto uses a double 'e' and some
> editors read 'steeled', meaning 'engraved with a steel
> burin'. I do not find an engraving adequate for the
> metaphors in the rest of the poem: we need colour."
>
> This shows that there is at least some doubt about it. But we all agree that
> the essential meaning is "captured", don't we?
***I won't speak for "all."
***I can accept "captured," but only in the artistic sense of
"achieved a good image of," which implies two separate entities: the
original and the image.
> >> but I think we all agree that it's something along the lines of
> >> "captured". If that's right, then the skill or craft part of the
> >> operation
> >> is in "stelled", not in "thy beauty's form", which is the raw material.
> >> And
> >> that's why I would have difficulty making the equation Thy beauty's
> >> form=best painter's art. It equates the art with the raw material, and
> >> not
> >> the skill that "captured" it. [...]
> >
> > ***Hm. I think that, in my feeble and blundering way, I still haven't
> > managed to put my point across.
>
> No, I assure that you have. I got it at least two posts back. You are saying
> that "thy beauty's form" contains the idea of craftwork,
***Well, the result of craftwork. I'm saying that "thy beauty's form"
means "[a picture of] thy beauty's form." The work--that is, the
labor--and the result are two different things.
> and that that
> justifies equating it with "best painter's art". I am disputing that.
***To make it clear what it appears to me you're disputing: I'm
saying that "[a picture of] thy beauty's form" is reasonably equatable
with "best painter's art." In other words, a picture can be art. It
appears to me that you're saying (see your comment below) that you
dispute what I am *not* saying, that the act of stelling they beauty's
form is equatable with "best painter's art." My impression, then, is
that our concepts are not meeting head to head (or, better, "eye to
eye"), and so I soldier on trying to show you that it appears to me
that you're disputing what I'm not contending.
> I am
> saying that the craftwork is in "stelled" and that "thy beauty's form" is
> raw material. Only the two things together make what you call an "artistic
> production".
***On the contrary, when for instance everyday people refer to a
Hollywood production, they just mean a movie ("Paramount's latest
production, *Vampire Squirrels from Planet Cashew,* is a stunning
indictment of human frailties"); they don't mean the whole process of
acting, filming, editing, etc. Usage of "production" in that wider
sense, while possible, is rare in everyday usage, unless you're in the
business ("It's in production through August"). It's true that the
movie wouldn't finally exist without the whole process; but that
doesn't mean that that's what people are referring to.
> You have tried to support your contention by suggesting that "form" is a
> reference to an artistic process, a craft word.
***No, I'm saying that "form" is "[picture of] form." Not process,
but end result. Not "formation," but "[picture of] form."
> I am saying that it is a
> reference only to "shape", in which there is nothing intrinsically artistic,
> as there isn't in the following example from King John:-
>
> From henceforth bear his name whose form thou bear'st:
>
> Trying to read "form" as a craft word leads to a tautology. He has stelled
> his stelling.
***Which is why I don't read it as a craft word. He has stelled his
picture of thy form on table of my heart. He has tacked the image to
his heart's drawing board. Now, don't make me say it again, or big
fat tears of frustration will start rolling down my cheeks, and my
face will get all red and puffy.
> You have also suggested that this distinction between an object and its
> graphic depiction is bridged by ellipsis. And so it can be, under certain
> circumstances. Looking over the cartoonist's shoulder, I might say, "his
> face isn't quite right",
***You'd probably say, "*The* face isn't quite right," or "You've
haven't got his face quite right."
> and I am not referring to the living face, but to
> the sketch on the paper (his living face might be fine). True. But if
> instead I say "you have captured his face perfectly", this time the
> reference *is* to the living face, because the word "captured" now excludes
> ellipsis. The phrase "stelled thy beauty's form" is an exact parallel. "Thy
> beauty's form" is a not reference to the artistic product but to the living
> reality.
***Ah, now I see the insistence on "captured"! OK, it's clear, you're
stating that the artist has attached the addressee's living face to
"table of my heart"; I, finding it more likely that the artist has
affixed a picture to said table, believe otherwise.
Buffalo
"Robert Stonehouse" <ew...@bcs.org.invalid> wrote in message
news:jfrum09eqovmd1jto...@4ax.com...
>
> 24
>
> Mine eye hath play'd the painter and hath steeld,
> Thy beauties forme in table of my heart,
> My body is the frame wherein ti's held,
> And perspectiue it is best Painters art.
> For through the Painter must you see his skill,
> To finde where your true Image pictur'd lies,
> Which in my bosomes shop is hanging stil,
> That hath his windowes glazed with thine eyes:
> Now see what good-turnes eyes for eies haue done,
> Mine eyes haue drawne thy shape,and thine for me
> Are windowes to my brest, where-through the Sun
> Delights to peepe,to gaze therein on thee
> Yet eyes this cunning want to grace their art
> They draw but what they see,know not the hart.
>
>
> Mine eye hath played the painter, and hath stelled
> Thy beauty's form in tables of my heart.
> My body is the frame wherein 'tis held
> For through the painter must you see his skill
> To find where your true image pictured lies,
> Which in my bosom's shop is hanging still,
> That hath his windows glazed with thine eyes.
> Now see what good turns eyes for eyes have done:
> Mine eyes have drawn thy shape, and thine for m#e
> Are windows to my breast, wherethrough the sun
> Delights to peep, to gaze therein on thee.
> Yet eyes this cunning want to grace their art:
> They draw but what they see, know not the heart.
>
Okay, I'm retiring on the question whether "thy beauty's form" can be
equated to "best painter's art". Maybe the "it" of
line 4 does refer to it, or represent it. But the reasons that I'm unhappy
with it are not just those reasons I was arguing out with BCD, but also for
reasons to do with the meaning of the rest of the line.
First, even if I accept that the "it" of line 4 is a reference to "thy
beauty's form", I'm still not satisfied with "perspective" being an
adjective describing that entity, especially being separated from it the way
it is - connecting backwards, so to speak.
My second problem is with "best painter's art". If we look at the original
spelling -
> Mine eye hath play'd the painter and hath steeld,
> Thy beauties forme in table of my heart,
> My body is the frame wherein ti's held,
> And perspectiue it is best Painters art.
- we see that the apostrophe that we've been using - "painter's" - is a
modern editorial insertion. Is it "painter's" or "painters'". And what is
"best"? Is the painter(s) or the art? The best art of the painter or the art
of the best painters? I'm inclined to think it's the latter, because I can't
make a lot of sense of the former.
But then we have to ask, what exactly is the art of the best painters? Can
it really be "thy beauty's form"? Are all the best painters painting the
FYM, while the rest of them are only painting trees? Let's remember that
the word "art" had a more workmanlike meaning in those days . "Thy art, my
gentle Shakespeare, must enjoy a part," says Jonson, and goes on to talk
about striking "the second heat upon the Muses anvil", something that these
days we would call "technique" or "method" rather than "art". And in this
sonnet the word most qualified to fill that role would be - surely? -
"perspective". Perspective is the art of the best painters.
If we make that interpretation, it still connects very nicely with the
following line, and doesn't confound us anywhere else that I can see.
For through the painter must you see his skill
To find where your true image pictured lies,
Sorry to throw this up so late in the week, but the fact is I'm finding this
sonnet hard going, though I actually think it's a powerful one, and frankly
I think I need another week to wrestle with it.
Buffalo
Gary Kosinsky
wrote:
>gk...@vcn.bc.ca (Gary Kosinsky) wrote in message news:<417557b0...@news.individual.net>...
>> Just so that I'm clear on this:
>>
>> Most of the commentaries I've read on this poem
>> suggest that the underlying scenario is one where the
>> speaker and addressee are gazing deeply into each other's
>> eyes, and each sees his own reflection in the other's eyes.
>>
>> Are people here in agreement with this scenario?
>
>***Not me. I don't necessarily reject it; but I don't see any reason
>to accept it. I'd welcome seeing someone make a good case for (or
>against) it. As I read it, the sonnet only recognizes that the poet
>has seen the addressee; and the addressee's eyes meanwhile are,
>according to the poem, located on the poet's bosom. While the various
>eyes are engaged in doing good turns for each other, I don't see
>anything confirming eye to eye contact.
A lot depends on what one thinks the *bosom's shop's
windows* are. I think the speaker is referring to his own
actual eyes. If so, the idea that these windows are glazed
with the addressee's eyes can be understood as the
reflection of the addressee's eyes as he gazes deeply (and
closely) into the speaker's eyes.
If one doesn't think that the *bosom's shop's
windows* are the speaker's actual eyes, but are only some
sort of metaphorical eyes located in the speaker's bosom,
well, first, that's a pretty weird poetic image. But, in
keeping with the poem, how would the sun shine through such
windows that are located inside him, in the speaker's bosom?
Or is the speaker really getting weird, and suggesting that
the eyes are located externally on his chest/bosom? If so,
this poem is turning into a freak show!
- Gary Kosinsky
Gary Kosinsky
The way I'm understanding "perspective", with no
authority whatsoever, is as a synonym for 'seeing'.
>My second problem is with "best painter's art". If we look at the original
>spelling -
>
>> Mine eye hath play'd the painter and hath steeld,
>> Thy beauties forme in table of my heart,
>> My body is the frame wherein ti's held,
>> And perspectiue it is best Painters art.
>
>- we see that the apostrophe that we've been using - "painter's" - is a
>modern editorial insertion. Is it "painter's" or "painters'". And what is
>"best"? Is the painter(s) or the art? The best art of the painter or the art
>of the best painters? I'm inclined to think it's the latter, because I can't
>make a lot of sense of the former.
I think the speaker is claiming that the best art of
the painter is in getting someone (specifically, the
addressee) to see the image in his heart. More
specifically, the best thing about the speaker's creation of
this image in his heart is not the creation itself, but
getting the addressee to see it.
>But then we have to ask, what exactly is the art of the best painters? Can
>it really be "thy beauty's form"? Are all the best painters painting the
>FYM, while the rest of them are only painting trees? Let's remember that
>the word "art" had a more workmanlike meaning in those days . "Thy art, my
>gentle Shakespeare, must enjoy a part," says Jonson, and goes on to talk
>about striking "the second heat upon the Muses anvil", something that these
>days we would call "technique" or "method" rather than "art". And in this
>sonnet the word most qualified to fill that role would be - surely? -
>"perspective". Perspective is the art of the best painters.
>
>If we make that interpretation, it still connects very nicely with the
>following line, and doesn't confound us anywhere else that I can see.
>
> For through the painter must you see his skill
> To find where your true image pictured lies,
I don't see how these two lines connect with your
definition.
However, I do think they connect with the idea
expressed above. Getting the addressee to see the image
created by the speaker's eye is the real best art of the
painter. Why? Because (For) it is only through the painter
(ie through the painter's eyes) that the addressee can see
the image. And getting the addresse to gaze deeply and
closely into the speaker's eyes is, in the opinion of the
speaker, a very desirable thing - the best thing about his
art, in fact.
>Sorry to throw this up so late in the week, but the fact is I'm finding this
>sonnet hard going, though I actually think it's a powerful one, and frankly
>I think I need another week to wrestle with it.
It's a tricky one.
- Gary Kosinsky
bookburn
Mine eye hath played the painter, and hath stelled
Thy beauty's form in tables of my heart.
My body is the frame wherein 'tis held
And perspective; it is best painter's art.
To find where your true image pictured lies,
Which in my bosom's shop is hanging still,
That hath his windows glazed with thine eyes.
Now see what good turns eyes for eyes have done:
Are windows to my breast, wherethrough the sun
Delights to peep, to gaze therein on thee.
They draw but what they see, know not the heart.
Gary Kosinsky
So what have we learned from Sonnet 24 that we
didn't already know?
The author could write some very confusing poems.
*****************************************************
The story so far:
So after twenty-four sonnets, what do we know? -
In all probability the addressee or referent of
these twenty-four sonnets is the same person (although it
has been speculated that perhaps the speaker of the first
seventeen poems is different).
The speaker 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, especially 20)
The speaker says that the addressee is narcissistic.
(1 - 4, 6)
The speaker may be chiding the addressee's sexual
habits. (1 - 4, 6, 9)
The addressee is male. (3, 6, 9, 16, 19-20)
The speaker is male. (20)
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 speaker claims he has no interest in sexual
relations with the addressee. (20)
The speaker says the addressee has a pleasant
speaking voice and enjoys listening to sad music. (8)
The speaker says the addressee has a gracious and
kind presence. (10)
The speaker seems to think that the addressee has
some sort of love for the speaker. (10)
The speaker seems to have some sort of affectionate
feelings for the addressee, calling him "love" and "dear my
love". (13, 19, 20-23)
These feelings are so strong that they leave the
speaker tongue-tied about those feelings in the presence of
the addressee. (23)
The speaker is an aesthetic snob. (11)
The speaker may believe in astrology. (15)
The speaker 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 speaker comes to
say that he can preserve the beauty of the addressee in his
poetry (18, 19).
The speaker, 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
speaker's assertion that beautiful people have some sort of
obligation to the world to propagate or preserve their
beauty.)
The speaker seems mainly concerned with the
addressee's beauty, and not overly much with the addressee
as a person. (Exceptions: 10, 14, 16, 22)
While seeming to chastise the addressee for his
narcissistic failure to preserve or propagate his beauty,
the speaker is, at the same time, acknowledging that beauty,
and so is flattering the addressee.
We still don't know which class the speaker 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 speaker and the addressee.
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; 20) Pricked; 21) True; 22) Hearts; 23)
Tongue-tied; 24) Eyes;
- Gary Kosinsky
Chris Mountford
wrote:
I think Buffalo's point was that "best" connects to "painter". So
"best painters art" is the art of the best painters. If you interpret
it that way, you can see that "perspective" shows itself to be a
painter's techniqe. Perspective is the art of the best painters. That
makes more sense to me than any other interpretation.
Chris
Chris Mountford
<none...@here.com> wrote:
Okay, I think that's right. But the lines that I can't fathom are
Mine eyes haue drawne thy shape,and thine for me
Are windowes to my brest, where-through the Sun
Delights to peepe,to gaze therein on thee
if his eyes are windows to the poet's breast, and the poet does say
"for me", why is it the sun that is peeping through them. If they're
"for me" then I, not the sun, should be peeping though them. Does the
sun have some special meaning here?
Chris
bookburn
"Chris Mountford" <bale...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:lmukn01u1kafm6hrp...@4ax.com...
In neo-Platonism there is the concept of emanance-imminence, which, if
I have the spelling and idea right, refers to sunlight emanating down
to all below, and being reflected among all below and back again. It
parallels the concept of love originating in the Primum Mobile of the
old Great Chain of Being scheme, where you have the planets and all on
earth in a hierarcly.
In the sonnet, one does get the sun peeping in and the eyes perceiving
each others' shapes, but maybe the couplet suggests the possibility
that love can originate in the human heart? As epistemology, that
would be a significant concept IMO. bb
Chris
|
|
Gary Kosinsky
Right. And I disagree with Buffalo. My point is
that "best" connects to "art". So "best painters art" is
the best art of the painter. In this case, the best art of
the painter is getting the addressee to look at the painting
by gazing into the painter's (speaker's) eyes.
>If you interpret
>it that way, you can see that "perspective" shows itself to be a
>painter's techniqe. Perspective is the art of the best painters. That
>makes more sense to me than any other interpretation.
Harrumph!
Seriously, though, why would the speaker suddenly
interject a lesson on art into the poem? It makes as little
sense to me as if he had said:
"And chiaroscuro it is best painters' art."
It may be true that perspective or chiaroscuro is
the art to the best painters. But why would the speaker
bother to mention it?
I'm sticking with my idea that he is using
"perspective" as a synonym for 'seeing'.
BTW: nice to hear a new voice in these discussions.
- Gary Kosinsky
Gary Kosinsky
<bale...@netscape.net> wrote:
SNIP
>But the lines that I can't fathom are
>
> Mine eyes haue drawne thy shape,and thine for me
> Are windowes to my brest, where-through the Sun
> Delights to peepe,to gaze therein on thee
>
>if his eyes are windows to the poet's breast, and the poet does say
>"for me", why is it the sun that is peeping through them. If they're
>"for me" then I, not the sun, should be peeping though them. Does the
>sun have some special meaning here?
I'm glad to see someone else having a problem with
the sun suddenly popping into this sonnet.
The only scenario that makes any sort of sense to me
is that, while gazing into each other's eyes outdoors, the
sun is reflected in their eyes, and the speaker is noting it
at the same time as he is noting his own reflection in the
addressee's eyes.
- Gary Kosinsky
Lorenzo4344
>From: gk...@vcn.bc.ca (Gary Kosinsky)
>Date: 10/23/2004
This bit from King John ought to crystal-clear up everything.
KING PHILIP What say'st thou, boy? look in the lady's face.
LEWIS I do, my lord; and in her eye I find
A wonder, or a wondrous miracle,
The shadow of myself form'd in her eye:
Which being but the shadow of your son,
Becomes a sun and makes your son a shadow:
I do protest I never loved myself
Till now infixed I beheld myself
Drawn in the flattering table of her eye.
Lorenzo
"Mark the music."
Paul Crowley
But how boring! Surely no one can
seriously claim that this is all that the
poet was trying to say?
Is this really the level of the mental
processes that Strats see going on in
the brain of a great poet?
Paul.
Chris Mountford
wrote:
I think you're jumping ahead. The eyes-for-eyes trick hasn't been
mentioned yet.
The key word is "it" on line 4,
Mine eye hath play'd the painter and hath steeld,
Thy beauties forme in table of my heart,
My body is the frame wherein ti's held,
And perspectiue it is best Painters art.
The "it" has to represent something, like a noun or a noun-substitute.
BCD thinks it's "thy beauty's form", and Buffalo thinks it's
"perspective". Which do you think it is? Because, whatever it is, it
is then equated to "best painters art".
I can't equate "thy beauty's form" to "best painters art". Even if you
think "best" connects to "art" and not to "painters", I would say
"perspective" still fits better.
>
>>If you interpret
>>it that way, you can see that "perspective" shows itself to be a
>>painter's techniqe. Perspective is the art of the best painters. That
>>makes more sense to me than any other interpretation.
>
> Harrumph!
>
> Seriously, though, why would the speaker suddenly
>interject a lesson on art into the poem? It makes as little
>sense to me as if he had said:
>
>"And chiaroscuro it is best painters' art."
>
> It may be true that perspective or chiaroscuro is
>the art to the best painters. But why would the speaker
>bother to mention it?
>
Because the next line begins with "for", which suggests an explanation
is about to follow. It explains why he thinks perspective is best
painters art.
For through the painter must you see his skill
To find where your true image pictured lies,
If the poet's body is the frame, the picture lies beyond it. You look
into the picture perspectively.
> I'm sticking with my idea that he is using
>"perspective" as a synonym for 'seeing'.
>
Then you think "perspective" is an infinitive verb. That's a new one.
So far we've had noun, adjective, adverb...
>BTW: nice to hear a new voice in these discussions.
I'll probably be vanishing again soon. It's somebody else's computer.
Chris
Chris Mountford
<slkwuoiut...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
>"Chris Mountford" <bale...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>news:4uskn0pno465uakvk...@4ax.com...
>
>> On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 21:53:52 GMT, gk...@vcn.bc.ca (Gary Kosinsky)
>> wrote:
>> > I think the speaker is claiming that the best art of
>> >the painter is in getting someone (specifically, the
>> >addressee) to see the image in his heart. More
>> >specifically, the best thing about the speaker's creation of
>> >this image in his heart is not the creation itself, but
>> >getting the addressee to see it.
>>
>> I think Buffalo's point was that "best" connects to "painter". So
>> "best painters art" is the art of the best painters. If you interpret
>> it that way, you can see that "perspective" shows itself to be a
>> painter's techniqe. Perspective is the art of the best painters. That
>> makes more sense to me than any other interpretation.
>
>But how boring!
Right. A comic-strip yarn involving Raleigh and the Queen is much more
entertaining, isn't it?
Chris
Buffalo
I wish I knew. But we should notice that the original spelling has a capital
"S", so it looks like it isn't just another thing like "sky" or "tree" or
"mountain". I just don't know what its significance is.
On another question, it doesn't make any difference to the interpretation,
but I believe the original "steeld" should be left as it is. Shakespeare has
used either "steel'd" or "steeled" nine times in the canon, where it has the
meaning of "supported" or "buttressed" or "fixed in place"-
With lies well steel'd with weighty arguments
And, if I fall not in my deep intent,
(Richard III)
That had not God, for some strong purpose, steel'd
The hearts of men, they must perforce have melted
(Richard III)
Presumably modern editors have replaced it with "stelled" to make it rhyme
with "held", but we don't actually know how either word was pronounced in
those days. And the meaning of "steeled", as Shakespeare commonly used it,
fits the context well enough to justify our keeping it.
Buffalo
Gary Kosinsky
(Lorenzo4344) wrote:
>Kosinsky wrote:
>> I'm glad to see someone else having a problem with
>>the sun suddenly popping into this sonnet.
>>
>> The only scenario that makes any sort of sense to me
>>is that, while gazing into each other's eyes outdoors, the
>>sun is reflected in their eyes, and the speaker is noting it
>>at the same time as he is noting his own reflection in the
>>addressee's eyes.
>
>This bit from King John ought to crystal-clear up everything.
>
>KING PHILIP What say'st thou, boy? look in the lady's face.
>LEWIS I do, my lord; and in her eye I find
>A wonder, or a wondrous miracle,
>The shadow of myself form'd in her eye:
>Which being but the shadow of your son,
>Becomes a sun and makes your son a shadow:
>I do protest I never loved myself
>Till now infixed I beheld myself
>Drawn in the flattering table of her eye.
Thank-you for that, Lorenzo.
I think this passage supports the view that the
underlying scenario of Sonnet 24 is two people gazing into
each other's eyes, and seeing their own reflections therein.
As far as the "sun" business goes: Lewis can see an
image of himself in the lady's eye. Okay. Because it's an
image, it can be described as a shadow. Okay. So because
the lady's eye is creating a shadow, the lady's eye can be
described as a sun. So it's the eye itself that is a sun in
this passage, correct?
How does that apply to Sonnet 24?
Mine eyes haue drawne thy shape,and thine for me
Are windowes to my brest, where-through the Sun
Delights to peepe,to gaze therein on thee
I'm not sure that it works that well. Whose eye
would be the sun in this case - the speaker's or the
addressee's?
I think you're onto something here, Lorenzo, only I
don't think it is yet crystal-clear.
- Gary Kosinsky
Gary Kosinsky
<bale...@netscape.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 22:47:43 GMT, gk...@vcn.bc.ca (Gary Kosinsky)
>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>"Robert Stonehouse" <ew...@bcs.org.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>news:jfrum09eqovmd1jto...@4ax.com...
>>>>>> Mine eye hath played the painter, and hath stelled
>>>>>> Thy beauty's form in tables of my heart.
>>>>>> My body is the frame wherein 'tis held
>>>>>> And perspective; it is best painter's art.
>>>>>> For through the painter must you see his skill
>>>>>> To find where your true image pictured lies,
>>>>>> Which in my bosom's shop is hanging still,
>>>>>> That hath his windows glazed with thine eyes.
>>>>>> Now see what good turns eyes for eyes have done:
>>>>>> Mine eyes have drawn thy shape, and thine for m#e
>>>>>> Are windows to my breast, wherethrough the sun
>>>>>> Delights to peep, to gaze therein on thee.
>>>>>> Yet eyes this cunning want to grace their art:
>>>>>> They draw but what they see, know not the heart.
SNIP
>>My point is
>>that "best" connects to "art". So "best painters art" is
>>the best art of the painter. In this case, the best art of
>>the painter is getting the addressee to look at the painting
>>by gazing into the painter's (speaker's) eyes.
>
>I think you're jumping ahead. The eyes-for-eyes trick hasn't been
>mentioned yet.
>
>The key word is "it" on line 4,
>
> Mine eye hath play'd the painter and hath steeld,
> Thy beauties forme in table of my heart,
> My body is the frame wherein ti's held,
> And perspectiue it is best Painters art.
>
>
>The "it" has to represent something, like a noun or a noun-substitute.
>BCD thinks it's "thy beauty's form", and Buffalo thinks it's
>"perspective". Which do you think it is?
I think "it" is the "form" or the image (picture,
drawing) of the addressee's beauty that the eye has created
in the heart of the speaker. "It" and "tis" both refer to
the same thing.
>Because, whatever it is, it
>is then equated to "best painters art".
Not if you replace "perspective" with 'seeing'.
Then the speaker is saying that the "best painters art" is
in the seeing of it by the addressee. The best thing about
the painter's art, in the opinion of the speaker, is being
able to get the addressee to see it, because to do so he
must gaze deeply into the speaker's eyes. And getting the
addressee to gaze deeply into his eyes is the best thing
about the speaker's art, in the opinion of the speaker.
>I can't equate "thy beauty's form" to "best painters art". Even if you
>think "best" connects to "art" and not to "painters", I would say
>"perspective" still fits better.
We disagree.
>>
>>>If you interpret
>>>it that way, you can see that "perspective" shows itself to be a
>>>painter's techniqe. Perspective is the art of the best painters. That
>>>makes more sense to me than any other interpretation.
>>
>> Harrumph!
>>
>> Seriously, though, why would the speaker suddenly
>>interject a lesson on art into the poem? It makes as little
>>sense to me as if he had said:
>>
>>"And chiaroscuro it is best painters' art."
>>
>> It may be true that perspective or chiaroscuro is
>>the art to the best painters. But why would the speaker
>>bother to mention it?
>>
>
>Because the next line begins with "for", which suggests an explanation
>is about to follow. It explains why he thinks perspective is best
>painters art.
>
> For through the painter must you see his skill
> To find where your true image pictured lies,
>
>If the poet's body is the frame, the picture lies beyond it. You look
>into the picture perspectively.
"You look into the picture perspectively." What
does that mean?
You're right when you say that the line beginning
with "For" (or 'because') means an explanation is to follow.
And that explanation is that the only way to see the image
is to see through the painter ie: gaze deeply into his eyes.
And that explains why SEEING the picture is, in the opinion
of the speaker, the best thing about his art. The addressee
must gaze deeply into his eyes in order to see it. And the
speaker clearly enjoys having the addressee gazing into his
eyes.
>> I'm sticking with my idea that he is using
>>"perspective" as a synonym for 'seeing'.
>>
>
>Then you think "perspective" is an infinitive verb. That's a new one.
>So far we've had noun, adjective, adverb...
We cover all the bases here at hlas.
- Gary Kosinsky
Lorenzo4344
It doesn't. Just the same poet rummaging around in the same bag of metaphors,
juggling.
>Mine eyes haue drawne thy shape,and thine for me
>Are windowes to my brest, where-through the Sun
>Delights to peepe,to gaze therein on thee
>
> I'm not sure that it works that well. Whose eye
>would be the sun in this case - the speaker's or the
>addressee's?
>
> I think you're onto something here, Lorenzo, only I
>don't think it is yet crystal-clear.
Indeed not. But if we are to be nonplussed we might as well wallow in it.
Lorenzo
"Mark the music."
BCD
***Hm. Wallowing--mining one's feelings--somehow seems very
appropriate in discussing the Sonnets and their composition. I know
that nothing new ever happens to me--good or bad as it may be--but
that part of me is pleased to have something novel to process into my
writing. But anyway, back to our subject here:
***Yes, many thanks to Lorenzo. The quote from *King John* gives us,
I think, a better idea of what was in that region of Shakespeare's
mental topography when he wrote 24. Note that something is *drawn* on
the "table of her eye," which is what I see happening to 24's table as
well.
***But I'm still too dense to understand how 24 tells us that they are
looking into each other's eyes, unless it's saying that the image
which appears "in table of my heart" is the reflected image of the
addressee in the poet's eye. In that case, we are--are we
not?--evidently to equate eye with heart (??? or, better, !!!), which
at least would make slightly more understandable how one sees
"through" the painter (by looking into his/through his eyes), as well
as the passage about the addressee's eyes glazing windows to the
poet's breast (that is, since the poet, looking out of his
breast/shop/artist's atelier, can see reflected [on the
window-glass-glazing which is constituted of the addressee's eyes] his
own image, he can it seems see as well his own heart there, thus
giving access to said breast/heart; or is he saying that, looking out
of his "shop" into the glazing, he can see his own heart, via the
addressee's eyes, in the *addressee's [unmentioned] shop*, just as the
addressee's heart was hanging in the poet's bosom's shop?--in other
words, harkening back to 22, they've exchanged heart for heart).
However, if eyes = heart, this appears to contradict the final lines,
in which eyes can only see and not know [and thus presumably not *be*]
the heart. Um, or something. It looks to me as if our pal Will was
so wafted away in the gale of his feeling that he didn't realize his
words wouldn't make a lot of sense to us folks back in Kansas.
***As for the sun, if we set aside my thought--that the poet is just
making a studied compliment--all I can calc'late is that he's saying,
in effect, "You light up my life"--always a nice thing to happen, but
a little banal in poetry (and thus probably not what the poet meant).
Gary Kosinsky
wrote:
Right. And I think Sonnet 24 would be more
understandable if beauty's form had been stelled in the
speaker's eyes rather than his heart.
>***But I'm still too dense to understand how 24 tells us that they are
>looking into each other's eyes,
I think the two most important lines that support
this scenario are:
Which in my bosom's shop is hanging still,
That hath his windows glazed with thine eyes.
Are we agreed that "his" in "his windows" refers
back to "bosom's shop"? If so, what are those windows? I
can only think they are the speaker's eyes. And how can the
speaker's eyes be glazed with the addressee's eyes? Only by
reflecting the addressee's eyes as the addressee gazes into
the speaker's eyes.
I have yet to hear any other explanation for these
lines that makes more sense.
>unless it's saying that the image
>which appears "in table of my heart" is the reflected image of the
>addressee in the poet's eye. In that case, we are--are we
>not?--evidently to equate eye with heart (??? or, better, !!!), which
>at least would make slightly more understandable how one sees
>"through" the painter (by looking into his/through his eyes), as well
>as the passage about the addressee's eyes glazing windows to the
>poet's breast (that is, since the poet, looking out of his
>breast/shop/artist's atelier, can see reflected [on the
>window-glass-glazing which is constituted of the addressee's eyes] his
>own image, he can it seems see as well his own heart there, thus
>giving access to said breast/heart; or is he saying that, looking out
>of his "shop" into the glazing, he can see his own heart, via the
>addressee's eyes, in the *addressee's [unmentioned] shop*, just as the
>addressee's heart was hanging in the poet's bosom's shop?--in other
>words, harkening back to 22, they've exchanged heart for heart).
>However, if eyes = heart, this appears to contradict the final lines,
>in which eyes can only see and not know [and thus presumably not *be*]
>the heart. Um, or something.
Although I think the 'gazing into each other's eyes'
scenario is the underlying basis for this poem, you've done
a good job of pointing out the confusion that still remains.
I'm going to have to think about this a bit more.
Just to add to the confusion, though: I notice my
dictionary gives, as a definition of 'glaze', a 1601 archaic
meaning of 'stare'. Again, I think the key to understanding
this poem lies in the 'gazing into each other's eyes'
scenario.
>It looks to me as if our pal Will was
>so wafted away in the gale of his feeling that he didn't realize his
>words wouldn't make a lot of sense to us folks back in Kansas.
Possibly. Or the words back then had different
meanings that would have made the poem's wordplay more
comprehensible to readers of the time.
>***As for the sun, if we set aside my thought--that the poet is just
>making a studied compliment--all I can calc'late is that he's saying,
>in effect, "You light up my life"--always a nice thing to happen, but
>a little banal in poetry (and thus probably not what the poet meant).
Probably not.
- Gary Kosinsky
Paul Crowley
> >> > I think the speaker is claiming that the best art of
> >> >the painter is in getting someone (specifically, the
> >> >addressee) to see the image in his heart. More
> >> >specifically, the best thing about the speaker's creation of
> >> >this image in his heart is not the creation itself, but
> >> >getting the addressee to see it.
> >>
> >> I think Buffalo's point was that "best" connects to "painter". So
> >> "best painters art" is the art of the best painters. If you interpret
> >> it that way, you can see that "perspective" shows itself to be a
> >> painter's techniqe. Perspective is the art of the best painters. That
> >> makes more sense to me than any other interpretation.
> >
> >But how boring!
>
> Right. A comic-strip yarn involving Raleigh and the Queen is much more
> entertaining, isn't it?
Somehow, in each 'comic strip' I can find far
more, and better, senses. Just take the word
'perspective' as an example. I tie each 'comic
strip' to particular events and particular
attitudes involving particular people at a
particular time. Whereas Strats have enormous
freedom by comparison. They can propose
that the poet picked themes from any time
(prior to ~1600) and decide that he was writing
about anything in the whole wide world.
So how come I do so much better?
Paul.
Bob Grumman
> > entertaining, isn't it?
>
> Somehow, in each 'comic strip' I can find far
> more, and better, senses. Just take the word
> 'perspective' as an example. I tie each 'comic
> strip' to particular events and particular
> attitudes involving particular people at a
> particular time. Whereas Strats have enormous
> freedom by comparison. They can propose
> that the poet picked themes from any time
> (prior to ~1600) and decide that he was writing
> about anything in the whole wide world.
>
> So how come I do so much better?
>
>
>
> Paul.
Who thinks you do besides yourself, Paul?
--Bob
Chris Mountford
wrote:
That's what I want to know. Has he got a support group? Are there
disciples?
Chris
bookburn
The concept of visualizing each sonnet as a comic strip is ingenious,
IMO; because it's at least an illuminating mnemonic device, and allows
for humourous interpretation, possibly a sign of intelligence. Up on
that platform Paul can be witty and manage a campaign of satire, and
at the same time pretend to martial forces along a few salient lines
aimed at imposing Oxfordism. Possibly he has propaganda points to
insinuate concerning the establishment, or just his Irish sense of
fun.
Because his manner is consistent, if disconcertingly colorful, and
mainly solicitous about discussing HIS points, Paul has been hard to
psych out of his tree house. I suggest someone steal into his camp in
a Trojan Horse of pretending to agree with his thesis about Oxford and
Elizabeth. Then use Crowleyisms to bring him down. bookburn
Buffalo
"bookburn" <book...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:10nt8g8...@corp.supernews.com...
The comic strip was Chris's idea. I think he was being satirical.
>Up on
> that platform Paul can be witty and manage a campaign of satire, and
> at the same time pretend to martial forces along a few salient lines
> aimed at imposing Oxfordism. Possibly he has propaganda points to
> insinuate concerning the establishment, or just his Irish sense of
> fun.
He's about as Irish as I am, and my mother is from Tipperary. No, I'm sorry
to tell you he means it.
> Because his manner is consistent, if disconcertingly colorful, and
> mainly solicitous about discussing HIS points, Paul has been hard to
> psych out of his tree house.
Swinging from branch to branch, he presents an elusive target.
>I suggest someone steal into his camp in
> a Trojan Horse of pretending to agree with his thesis about Oxford and
> Elizabeth. Then use Crowleyisms to bring him down. bookburn
You should have done it yourself without announcing it. But you might start
with the current sonnet. There is space in there for Phillip of Spain as the
"sun", and Marigold Queen of Scots being crapped on by the "sun's eye". A
sort of Catholic counterpoint to the Protestant crapping contest between
Oxford and Elizabeth.
Buffalo
Gary Kosinsky
<book...@yahoo.com> wrote:
SNIP
>I suggest someone steal into his camp in
>a Trojan Horse of pretending to agree with his thesis about Oxford and
>Elizabeth.
How 'bout if we just put Crowley in this Trojan
Horse. And lock it.
- Gary Kosinsky
Paul Crowley
news:5f7d2eb3.04102...@posting.google.com...
EVERYBODY !
Note how no one denies it -- including
yourself. If you did, you'd be morally
obliged to show how and why the Strat
'exegeses' are better than mine OR how
mine just don't work, nor make sense.
In the example I gave, you'd have to
count up the senses that Strats give to
'perspective' and compare them with
mine, assessing each for relevance,
humour, accuracy, overall sense, depth
of meaning, etc, etc.
Of course, I don't expect Strats to know
what 'moral obligations' are, but you
should be capable of noticing that NO
ONE (and especially no academic) ever
tries anything of the sort.
Do you think that's just because I am
always so gentle (to everyone) in my
posts to this NG, and no one wants to
risk upsetting my delicate sensibilities?
Paul.
BCD
coming to any conclusion. Just throwing ideas around. Reader, thou
hast been warned . . .
gk...@vcn.bc.ca (Gary Kosinsky) wrote in message news:<417d4c29...@news.individual.net>...
> On 25 Oct 2004 10:20:38 -0700, odin...@csulb.edu (BCD)
> wrote:
***[much snippage, which, perspective, is the best poster's art]
> >***But I'm still too dense to understand how 24 tells us that they are
> >looking into each other's eyes,
>
> I think the two most important lines that support
> this scenario are:
>
> Which in my bosom's shop is hanging still,
> That hath his windows glazed with thine eyes.
>
> Are we agreed that "his" in "his windows" refers
> back to "bosom's shop"?
***Yes, that seems to be a justified assumption, with only some
question as to why "his" instead of "its."
> If so, what are those windows?
***What indeed... Hm. The windows are in the bosom . . . or,
actually, come to think of it, the windows are in the bosom's *shop*.
What is the bosom's shop, as it seems it is not the bosom as a whole?
Said shop is, as the poem tells us, where the addressee's true image
is; and, as we have seen, the image hath been stell'd on (or, at
least, "in") table of my heart. It would seem, then, that the heart
(which presumably is not disjunct from its table) is thus either also
in the bosom's shop, or is itself the bosom's shop.
***Now perhaps it's time to ask "why 'shop'"? Is the poet simply
elaborating the image of the artist being in his studio where he both
labors away at his craft and then sells things (thus, "shop") to boot?
Or is there some sense of the hearts of this world being shopped
about? Perhaps the windows are, as 'twere, display windows, showing to
prospective (never mind "perspective") buyers the goods the heart has
to offer. The addressee's eyes perhaps are "glazing" the windows of
the poet's heart like those of the street urchins I mentioned a while
back--they see something desirable in the display window, in the shop,
and can't stop looking at the "merchandise" through the shop windows.
And so perhaps the windows don't have an actual physical bodily
equivalent; they are perhaps just a modality giving access to the
artist's stock in trade.
***Well, but wait a minute. The addressee's eyes don't just *glaze*
the shop's windows (line 8)--they actually *are* the windows (lines
10-11). Now the question is, in what manner could the shop windows
actually be the addressee's eyes? Do we really know where the shop
is? It's the bosom's shop, but could the bosom's shop somehow not be
in the bosom? If the addressee's eyes are still in the addressee's
eye-sockets, and thus in the addressee's own body, is there any way in
which the poet's "shop" could be in the body of the addressee? --Or
indeed his body as a whole? Could the addressee's body be the poet's
bosom's shop? Or are we perhaps once again back to exchange of
hearts, where the poet's heart is residing in the addressee's body;
and thus looking through the addressee's eyes gives access to the
poet's heart within?
***But, dang, the poet stipulates that his own "body is the frame
wherein 'tis held," the "it" of "'tis" being the image which is on or
in the heart; consequently, the heart and the image on/in it are in
the poet's body. So, sigh, we're back where we started. Or do you
see a way out here?
***I wonder if we get a hint from another meaning of "draw," in the
last line. I wonder if, construing "draw" as "attract" (rather than
"sketch"), and then understanding the eyes as attracting what is
visible without comprehending what lies hidden (knowing not the
heart), um, . . . [trails off] . . . Are the cunning eyes indeed
those of the poet, or are they those of the addressee perhaps?
***I wonder if we can ever piece together precisely what the poet had
in mind here!
bookburn
"Buffalo" <none...@here.com> wrote in message
news:clmfcb$ofl$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
Coincidentally, I just read in Krutch'es essay on Samuel Johnson that
sonnet 25 is thought to allude to Raleigh. bb
Paul Crowley
> > IMO; because it's at least an illuminating mnemonic device, and allows
> > for humourous interpretation, possibly a sign of intelligence.
>
> The comic strip was Chris's idea. I think he was being satirical.
Acutally, it's quite appropriate. In fact,
I mentioned it as an idea just three years
ago (post of 21 Oct 2001) about one of the
first sonnets I deciphered (116)
"One possible title is "Let me not to the marriage
of true minds admit impediments . ." shown with
a strip cartoon ! . . "
Nearly all sonnets reflect particular
incidents, situations or events in the life
of the poet (strange as that may seem).
Of course, he complicates and disguises
that with allusions to all manner of other
personal, political, religious and artistic
issues.
[..]
> Swinging from branch to branch, he presents an elusive target.
Apart from the racialist insult, what do you
mean by this? There is nothing in the least
obscure or uncertain about the general
thesis I present, nor is there much in what
I write about individual sonnets. Any
errors of fact or logic would be manifest.
It is only those you find 'elusive'.
Paul.
John W. Kennedy
Would that his father had!
--
John W. Kennedy
"I want everybody to be smart. As smart as they can be. A world of
ignorant people is too dangerous to live in."
-- Garson Kanin. "Born Yesterday"
Gary Kosinsky
wrote:
SNIP of several lines of thinking that have led to dead ends
which I've also travelled.
>***I wonder if we can ever piece together precisely what the poet had
>in mind here!
Probably not. But here are some last, confused,
rambling thoughts of mine:
Mine eye hath played the painter and hath stelled
Thy beauty's form in table of my heart.
It occurs to me that one other possible
interpretation of this line is that the drawing which the
eye is making is of the addressee's beauty's form which
already exists in the speaker's heart. That is, there are
two different things here: the beauty's form which is in the
table of the speaker's heart, and the drawing of that form
made by the eye. Unfortunately, this interpretation doesn't
really seem to lead anywhere.
Also, Shakespeare uses "stelled" in RoL:
To this well-painted piece is Lucrece come,
To find a face where all distress is stelled. (line 1444)
My Bantam Classic edition defines "stelled" as
"portrayed, engraved". So I think we're on the right track
with "stelled" meaning drawing, or engraving or portrait
here.
Shakespeare also uses "perspective" in his other
works. The one that caught my eye was from "Twelfth Night":
"I am sorry, madam, I have hurt your kinsman;
But, had it been the brother of my blood,
I must have done no less with wit and safety.
You throw a strange regard upon me, and by that
I do perceive it hath offended you.
Pardon me, sweet one, even for the vows
We made each other but so late ago.
DUKE. One face, one voice, one habit, and two persons!
A natural perspective, that is and is not."
{ACT_5|SC_1
My Signet Classic edition glosses "natural
perspective" as: a natural optical illusion (like that
produced by a stereoscope, which converts two images into
one).
Does that help any? I don't know.
Also, I notice in the quarto version, line 9 reads:
Now fee what good-turnes eyes for eies haue done
Does it matter that 'eyes' is spelt "eyes" and
"eies" in the same line? I don't know.
And I am STILL bothered by the sun suddenly popping
into the poem.
I think this is one that will remain uncracked this
time around.
- Gary Kosinsky
Gary Kosinsky
<book...@yahoo.com> wrote:
SNIP
>Coincidentally, I just read in Krutch'es essay on Samuel Johnson that
>sonnet 25 is thought to allude to Raleigh.
Seems to me it could also be a reference to Essex.
Or to some other specific Elizabethan military man with whom
we are unfamiliar. Or it may not refer to any specific
person at all.
- Gary Kosinsky
Bob Grumman
> >>a Trojan Horse of pretending to agree with his thesis about Oxford and
> >>Elizabeth.
> >
> >
> > How 'bout if we just put Crowley in this Trojan
> > Horse. And lock it.
>
> Would that his father had!
No, no! He perfectly exemplifies the rigidnik. I can't let you take him from me!
--Bob
Bob Grumman
> > I don't get that, but can't say I yet quite know what's going
> > on--except that most of the poem is simply about the poet's seeing the
> > other. This is a sonnet I don't recall ever studying. It seems too
> > clever, as do a lot of Shakespeare's sonnets. A matter of taste--I
> > don't like Donne's poems much, for instance. Same problem.
> >
> > --Bob
>
> Interesting that you should say that. I've always thought that Donne
> wrote some great lines but not great poems; sort of an undisciplined
> Keats.
Or maybe too disciplined.
> This sonnet by Shakespeare seems to be overly clever because he's
> responding to a literary conceit, not a personal one.
That makes sense to me. In fact, now that I think on it, because of
your remark, it seems to me that Shakespeare hardly ever sensualizes
the fair youth the way he does the bare ruined choirs, for instance.
He deals with his idea of the addressee, but with his feelings for
nature.
I may be way off. It's just that right now, I can't think of anything
that brings the addressee to life for me. The "darling buds of May"
is a minor image but that's what I remember from the sonnet it's in,
not the addressee.
--Bob
Bob Grumman
That's because you've never presented any kind of argument whatever
against the diagnosis. Don't bother trying to. Nothing you say
counts as an argument.
--Bob
Paul Crowley
news:5f7d2eb3.04102...@posting.google.com...
> kqk...@yahoo.co.uk (Jim KQKnave) wrote in message
news:<716b251.04101...@posting.google.com>...
> > This sonnet by Shakespeare seems to be overly clever because he's
> > responding to a literary conceit, not a personal one.
>
> That makes sense to me. In fact, now that I think on it, because of
> your remark, it seems to me that Shakespeare hardly ever sensualizes
> the fair youth the way he does the bare ruined choirs, for instance.
> He deals with his idea of the addressee, but with his feelings for
> nature.
>
> I may be way off.
You are. The poems might as well be in
Mandarin for all the sense you make of
them. What makes you think you have
the slightest right to pontificate. as you
do above, when you could no more say
what the poem is about than you could
make sense of Linear-A?
> It's just that right now, I can't think of anything
> that brings the addressee to life for me. The "darling buds of May"
> is a minor image but that's what I remember from the sonnet it's in,
I've told you what the 'darling buds of
Maie' represent. The only way that has
any connection with anything that's in
your brain is through the poet's humour
-- every hint of which you miss.
Paul.
Bob Grumman
> > In fact, now that I think on it, because of
> > your remark, it seems to me that Shakespeare hardly ever sensualizes
> > the fair youth the way he does the bare ruined choirs, for instance.
> > He deals with his idea of the addressee, but with his feelings for
> > nature.
> >
> > I may be way off.
>
> You are. The poems might as well be in
> Mandarin for all the sense you make of
> them. What makes you think you have
> the slightest right to pontificate, as you
> do above, when you could no more say
> what the poem is about than you could
> make sense of Linear-A?
That you can think a person saying, "it seems to me," and "I may be
way off," is "pontificating" nicely demonstrates your understanding of
the language, Paul. I do have the "slightest right to pontificate" in
the Western world because of our freedom to express opinions on
subjects like Shakespeare's poems. Get a new cliche. How about,
"What makes you think anyone should listen to you?" I don't know that
anyone should listen to me, but I would suggest that one would be
better off listening to me rather than you because I have devoted much
of my adult life to (a) writing poetry and (b) analyzing and
commenting on the poetry of a wide assortment of poets whereas you are
not a poet nor have you so much as read much less analyzed and
commented on any poetry but Shakespeare's, and even that you haven't
read as poetry but as a combination of gossip, politics and incredibly
stupid puns.
> > It's just that right now, I can't think of anything
> > that brings the addressee to life for me. The "darling buds of May"
> > is a minor image but that's what I remember from the sonnet it's in,
>
> I've told you what the 'darling buds of
> Maie' represent. The only way that has
> any connection with anything that's in
> your brain is through the poet's humour
> -- every hint of which you miss.
>
>
> Paul.
Yes, but the problem is that you are insanely wrong, Paul.
--Bob