> 1 Then let not winter's ragged hand deface > 2 In thee thy summer, ere thou be distill'd: > 3 Make sweet some vial; treasure thou some place > 4 With beauty's treasure, ere it be self-KILL'd. > 5 That use is not forbidden usury, > 6 Which happies those that pay the WILLing loan; > 7 That's for thyself to breed another thee, > 8 Or ten times happier, be it ten for one; > 9 Ten times thyself were happier than thou art, > 10 If ten of thine ten times refigured thee: > 11 Then what could death do, if thou shouldst depart, > 12 Leaving thee living in posterity? > 13 Be not self-WILL'd, for thou art much too fair > 14 To be death's conquest and make worms thine heir.
----------------------------------------------------------- Be not self-WILL'd ---------------------------------------------------------------- WIZARD O(XF)ORD VIVERE VERO DRAZIW L(CU)LIW EREVIV EVIL ---------------------------------------------------------------- QUICK, a. [As. cwic, CUCU, cwiCU, cwuCU, LIVING; L. vivus LIVING, VIVERE to LIVE]
1. Alive; living; animate;
"Not fully QUYCK, ne fully dead they were." --Chaucer.
Shakspeare with whome QUICK nature DYED,
<<Shake-speare, with the English Man of War, lesser in bulk, but lighter in sailing, could turn with all tides, tack about, and take advantage of all winds, by the QUICKness of his Wit and Invention.>> - THOMAS FULLER
"who shall judge the QUICK and the dead" --2 Tim. iv. 1. ------------------------------------------------ MIT TOT ------------------------------------------------ [T]hen let not winters wragged hand deface, [I]n thee thy summer ere thou be distil'd: [M]ake sweet some viall;treasure thou some place, With beautits treasure ere it be selfe kil'd: That vse is not forbidden vsery, Which happies those that pay the willing lone; [T]hat's for thy selfe to breed an other thee, [O]r TEN times happier be it TEN for one, [T]en times thy selfe were happier then thou art, If TEN of thine TEN times refigur'd thee, Then what could death doe if thou should'st depart, Leauing thee liuing in posterity? Be not selfe-wild for thou art much too faire, To be deaths conquest and make wormes thine HEIRE. ------------------------------------------------------ From fairest creatures we desire increase That thereby beauty's rose might nEVER die, But, as the riper should by time decease, His TENder HEIRE might bear his MEMORY. ------------------------------------------------------ The peece of TENder AYRE, thy vertuous Daughters, ------------------------------------------------------ It would be rather silly to ask a noble to have 10 sons or even 10 Daughters (; look at the trouble King Lear had with just 3 Daughters).
But to immortalize a poet/dramatist by having him DRAMATIZE distilled copies of HIMSELF. . .that's a quite different matter. . , even though he must PROMISE all of "his children" to Shakspear: --------------------------------------------------------------- HET/HETe, v. t. & i. To PROMISE. [Obs.] --Chaucer. ------------------------------------------------------------ They burn in love, thy children Shakespear HET them Go, wo thy Muse, more Nymphish brood beget them. --------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.quns.cam.ac.uk/Queens/Record/1997/History/Shakes.html <<The earliest poem EVER addressed to Shakespeare>> _Epigrammes in the Oldest Cut and Newest Fashion._ JOHN WE-EVER (1599)
Ad Gulielum Shakespear
.[H]onie-tong'd Shakespeare when I saw thaie issue [(I)] swore Apollo got them and none other, .[T]heir ROSie-tainted features cloth'd in tissue, .Some heaven born goddesse said to be their mother: .ROSE checkt Adonis with his amber tresses, .Faire fire-hot Venus charming him to love her, .Chaste Lucretia virgine-like her dresses, .Prowd lust-stung Tarquine seeking still to prove her:
.Romea [sic] Richard, more whose names I know not, .Their sugred tongues, and power attractive beuty .Say they are Saints althogh that Sts they shew not .For thousands vowes [sic] to them subiective dutie:
.They burn in love, thy children Shakespear HET them .Go, wo thy Muse, more Nymphish brood beget them. ------------------------------------------------------------- Not with a "YES" but a "THE": --------------------------------------------------------------- HET/HETe, v. t. & i. To PROMISE. [Obs.] --Chaucer. ------------------------------------------------------------ _________________ <= 33 => . [T] OT__ [H] EONLIEBEGETTEROFTHESEINSVINGS [O] NN- [E T] SMRWHALLHAPPINESSEANDTHATETE [R] NI_- [T(I)E] PROMISEDBYOVREVERLIVINGPOET [W] IS [H E T H] THEWELLWISHINGADVENTVRERIN
SONNET 33 Full many a glorious morning have I seen Flatter the mountain tops with sovereign eye, ---------------------------------------------------------
Gen 23:17: And the field of Ephron, which was in Machpelah, which was before Mamre, the field, and the CAVE which was therein, and all the trees that were in the field, that were in all the borders round about, were made sure 18: Unto Abraham for a possession in the presence of the children of HETH, before all that went in at the gate of his city. 19: And after this, Abraham buried Sarah his wife in the CAVE
Later Abraham is buried there himself:
8: Then Abraham gave up the ghost, and died in a good old age, an old man, and full of years; and was gathered to his people. 9: And his sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the CAVE of Machpelah, in the field of Ephron . . . 10: The field which Abraham purchased of the sons of HETH: -------------------------------------------------------------- BARNFIELD, RICHARD, 1605, Remembrance of some English Poets. http://www.geocities.com/litpageplus/shakemoul_rape.html
<<And Shakespeare, thou, whose hony flowing vaine, (Pleasing the World) thy Praises cloth containe; Whose Venus, and whose Lucrece (sweet, and chast) Thy name in Fame's immortall Booke have plac't.
Live EVER you, at least in Fame live EVER: Well may the Body die, but Fame die nEVER. ------------------------------------------------------------------ King Henry VI, Part ii Act 4, Scene 1
WHITMORE: Come, Suffolk, I must WAFT thee to thy death. -------------------------------------------------------- A gentle WAFTing to immortal life. --Milton. [in WALLS of GLASS] ---------------------------------------------------------------- WIZARD O(XF)ORD VIVERE VERO DRAZIW L(CU)LIW EREVIV EVIL -------------------------------------------------------- [T]hose howers that with gentle worke did frame, [T]he louely gaze where euery eye doth dwell
[W]ill play the tirants to the very same, [A]nd that vnfaire which fairely doth excell: [F]or neuer resting time leads Summer on, [T]o hidious winter and confounds him there, [S]ap checkt with frost and lustie leau's quite gon.
Beauty ore-snow'd and barenes euery where, Then were not summers distillation left A liquid prisoner pent in WALLS of GLASS, Beauty's effect with beauty were bereft, Nor it, nor no remembrance what it was: But flowers distill'd, though they with winter meet, Leese but their show; their substance still lives sweet. -------------------------------------------------------- -Edgar Allan Poe - LENORE
Let no bell toll, then,- lest her soul, amid its hallowed mirth, Should catch the note as it doth float up from the damned Earth! And I!- to-night my heart is light!- no dirge will I upraise, But WAFT the angel on her flight with a Paean of old days!" ---------------------------------------------------- " `What is that, mother?' `The swan, my love. He is floating down to his native grove ... Death darkens his eyes and unplumes his wings, Yet the sweetest song is the last he sings. Live so, my son, that when death shall come, Swan-like and sweet, it may WAFT thee home.' " -- Dr. G. Doane. ------------------------------------------- Art Neuendorffer
--------------------------------------------------------- 1 Then let not winter's ragged hand deface 2 In thee thy summer, ere thou be distill'd: 3 Make sweet some vial; treasure thou some place 4 With beauty's treasure, ere it be self-KILL'd. 5 That use is not forbidden usury, 6 Which happies those that pay the WILLing loan; 7 That's for thyself to breed another thee, 8 Or ten times happier, be it ten for one; 9 Ten times thyself were happier than thou art, 10 If ten of thine ten times refigured thee: 11 Then what could death do, if thou shouldst depart, 12 Leaving thee living in posterity? 13 Be not self-WILL'd, for thou art much too fair 14 To be death's conquest and make worms thine heir. ----------------------------------------------------------- Be not self-WILL'd ---------------------------------------------------------------- WIZARD O(XF)ORD VIVERE VERO DRAZIW L(CU)LIW EREVIV EVIL ---------------------------------------------------------------- QUICK, a. [As. cwic, CUCU, cwiCU, cwuCU, LIVING; L. vivus LIVING, VIVERE to LIVE]
1. Alive; living; animate;
"Not fully QUYCK, ne fully dead they were." --Chaucer.
Shakspeare with whome QUICK nature DYED,
<<Shake-speare, with the English Man of War, lesser in bulk, but lighter in sailing, could turn with all tides, tack about, and take advantage of all winds, by the QUICKness of his Wit and Invention.>> - THOMAS FULLER
"who shall judge the QUICK and the dead" --2 Tim. iv. 1. ------------------------------------------------ MIT TOT ------------------------------------------------ [T]hen let not winters wragged hand deface, [I]n thee thy summer ere thou be distil'd: [M]ake sweet some viall;treasure thou some place, With beautits treasure ere it be selfe kil'd: That vse is not forbidden vsery, Which happies those that pay the willing lone; [T]hat's for thy selfe to breed an other thee, [O]r TEN times happier be it TEN for one, [T]en times thy selfe were happier then thou art, If TEN of thine TEN times refigur'd thee, Then what could death doe if thou should'st depart, Leauing thee liuing in posterity? Be not selfe-wild for thou art much too faire, To be deaths conquest and make wormes thine HEIRE. ------------------------------------------------------ From fairest creatures we desire increase That thereby beauty's rose might nEVER die, But, as the riper should by time decease, His TENder HEIRE might bear his MEMORY. ------------------------------------------------------ The peece of TENder AYRE, thy vertuous Daughters, ------------------------------------------------------ It would be rather silly to ask a noble to have 10 sons or even 10 Daughters (; look at the trouble King Lear had with just 3 Daughters).
But to immortalize a poet/dramatist by having him DRAMATIZE distilled copies of HIMSELF. . .that's a quite different matter. . , even though he must PROMISE all of "his children" to Shakspear: --------------------------------------------------------------- HET/HETe, v. t. & i. To PROMISE. [Obs.] --Chaucer. ------------------------------------------------------------ They burn in love, thy children Shakespear HET them Go, wo thy Muse, more Nymphish brood beget them. --------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.quns.cam.ac.uk/Queens/Record/1997/History/Shakes.html <<The earliest poem EVER addressed to Shakespeare>> _Epigrammes in the Oldest Cut and Newest Fashion._ JOHN WE-EVER (1599) Ad Gulielum Shakespear.[H]onie-tong'd Shakespeare when I saw thaie issue[(I)] swore Apollo got them and none other,.[T]heir ROSie-tainted features cloth'd in tissue,.Some heaven born goddesse said to be their mother:.ROSE checkt Adonis with his amber tresses,.Faire fire-hot Venus charming him to love her,.Chaste Lucretia virgine-like her dresses,.Prowd lust-stung Tarquine seeking still to prove her: .Romea [sic] Richard, more whose names I know not, .Their sugred tongues, and power attractive beuty .Say they are Saints althogh that Sts they shew not .For thousands vowes [sic] to them subiective dutie:
.They burn in love, thy children Shakespear HET them .Go, wo thy Muse, more Nymphish brood beget them. ------------------------------------------------------------- Not with a "YES" but a "THE": --------------------------------------------------------------- HET/HETe, v. t. & i. To PROMISE. [Obs.] --Chaucer. ------------------------------------------------------------ _________________ <= 33 => . [T] OT__ [H] EONLIEBEGETTEROFTHESEINSVINGS [O] NN- [E T] SMRWHALLHAPPINESSEANDTHATETE [R] NI_- [T(I)E] PROMISEDBYOVREVERLIVINGPOET [W] IS [H E T H] THEWELLWISHINGADVENTVRERIN
SONNET 33 Full many a glorious morning have I seen Flatter the mountain tops with sovereign eye, ---------------------------------------------------------
Gen 23:17: And the field of Ephron, which was in Machpelah, which was before Mamre, the field, and the CAVE which was therein, and all the trees that were in the field, that were in all the borders round about, were made sure 18: Unto Abraham for a possession in the presence of the children of HETH, before all that went in at the gate of his city. 19: And after this, Abraham buried Sarah his wife in the CAVE
Later Abraham is buried there himself:
8: Then Abraham gave up the ghost, and died in a good old age, an old man, and full of years; and was gathered to his people. 9: And his sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the CAVE of Machpelah, in the field of Ephron . . . 10: The field which Abraham purchased of the sons of HETH: -------------------------------------------------------------- BARNFIELD, RICHARD, 1605, Remembrance of some English Poets. http://www.geocities.com/litpageplus/shakemoul_rape.html
<<And Shakespeare, thou, whose hony flowing vaine, (Pleasing the World) thy Praises cloth containe; Whose Venus, and whose Lucrece (sweet, and chast) Thy name in Fame's immortall Booke have plac't.
Live EVER you, at least in Fame live EVER: Well may the Body die, but Fame die nEVER. ------------------------------------------------------------------ King Henry VI, Part ii Act 4, Scene 1
WHITMORE: Come, Suffolk, I must WAFT thee to thy death. -------------------------------------------------------- A gentle WAFTing to immortal life. --Milton. [in WALLS of GLASS] ----------------------------------------------------- WIZARD O(XF)ORD VIVERE VERO DRAZIW L(CU)LIW EREVIV EVIL ----------------------------------------------------- [T]hose howers that with gentle worke did frame, [T]he louely gaze where euery eye doth dwell
[W]ill play the tirants to the very same, [A]nd that vnfaire which fairely doth excell: [F]or neuer resting time leads Summer on, [T]o hidious winter and confounds him there, [S]ap checkt with frost and lustie leau's quite gon.
Beauty ore-snow'd and barenes euery where, Then were not summers distillation left A liquid prisoner pent in WALLS of GLASS, Beauty's effect with beauty were bereft, Nor it, nor no remembrance what it was: But flowers distill'd, though they with winter meet, Leese but their show; their substance still lives sweet. -------------------------------------------------------- -Edgar Allan Poe - LENORE
Let no bell toll, then,- lest her soul, amid its hallowed mirth, Should catch the note as it doth float up from the damned Earth! And I!- to-night my heart is light!- no dirge will I upraise, But WAFT the angel on her flight with a Paean of old days!" ---------------------------------------------------- " `What is that, mother?' `The swan, my love. He is floating down to his native grove ... Death darkens his eyes and unplumes his wings, Yet the sweetest song is the last he sings. Live so, my son, that when death shall come, Swan-like and sweet, it may WAFT thee home.' " -- Dr. G. Doane. ------------------------------------------- Art Neuendorffer
<nones...@here.com> wrote: >"Robert Stonehouse" <e...@bcs.org.invalid> wrote in message >news:40d1473b.7376736@news.cityscape.co.uk... >> On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 05:00:40 GMT, g...@vcn.bc.ca (Gary Kosinsky) >> wrote: >> >On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 17:19:22 +0000 (UTC), "Buffalo" >> ><nones...@here.com> wrote: ... >Here are lines 5-7:
> That use is not forbidden usury, > Which happies those that pay the willing loan; > That's for thyself to breed another thee,
>The first "that" certainly refers forward, but not to "which". It skips a >line and connects with the "that's" the starts line 7. The grammatical sense >is "That use that's for thyself to breed another thee". It solves the >problem of the second "that" you referred to above.
Then what does 'which' refer to? 'Forbidden usury'? (I think this has been discussed.) Is there a reason why 'forbidden usury' make anyone happy, except perhaps Mr Scrooge? -- Robert Stonehouse To mail me, replace invalid with uk. Inconvenience regretted.
> On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 21:22:02 +0000 (UTC), "Buffalo" > <nones...@here.com> wrote: > >"Robert Stonehouse" <e...@bcs.org.invalid> wrote in message > >news:40d1473b.7376736@news.cityscape.co.uk... > >> On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 05:00:40 GMT, g...@vcn.bc.ca (Gary Kosinsky) > >> wrote: > >> >On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 17:19:22 +0000 (UTC), "Buffalo" > >> ><nones...@here.com> wrote: > ... > >Here are lines 5-7:
> > That use is not forbidden usury, > > Which happies those that pay the willing loan; > > That's for thyself to breed another thee,
> >The first "that" certainly refers forward, but not to "which". It skips a > >line and connects with the "that's" the starts line 7. The grammatical sense > >is "That use that's for thyself to breed another thee". It solves the > >problem of the second "that" you referred to above.
> Then what does 'which' refer to? 'Forbidden usury'? (I think this has > been discussed.) Is there a reason why 'forbidden usury' make anyone > happy, except perhaps Mr Scrooge? > --
Very good point - which I spent some time making when I wrote the post that started the thread.
I said:
"Now, whether "those that pay" means those who make the loan or those who pay it off, neither connects well with "forbidden usury". I cannot see forbidden usury as a happying agent for anyone. "
I suggested that the line was actually being misread. In reply to Lynne's post querying this, I produced a parallel case from Henry VI Part I:
First Serving-man: Nay, if we be forbidden stones, We'll fall to it with our teeth.
Let me just reproduce the summary that I provided for Lynne:
Nay, if we be [FORBIDDEN STONES] - wrong interpretation Nay, if we be forbidden [STONES] - right interpretation
That use is not [FORBIDDEN USURY WHICH HAPPIES] - wrong interpretation That use is not forbidden [USURY WHICH HAPPIES] - right interpretation
Inverting the grammar in both "right-interpretation" cases:
If stones be forbidden... Usury which happies those that pay the willing loan is not forbidden.
> > > That use is not forbidden usury, > > > Which happies those that pay the willing loan; > > > That's for thyself to breed another thee,
> > > The first "that" certainly refers forward, but not > > > to "which". It skips a line and connects with the > > > "that's" the starts line 7. The grammatical sense > > > is "That use that's for thyself to breed another > > > thee". It solves the problem of the second "that" > > > you referred to above.
> > Then what does 'which' refer to? 'Forbidden usury'? > > (I think this has been discussed.) Is there a reason > > why 'forbidden usury' make anyone happy, except > > perhaps Mr Scrooge? > > --
> Very good point - which I spent some time making when > I wrote the post that started the thread.
> I said:
> "Now, whether "those that pay" means those who make > the loan or those who pay it off, neither connects well > with "forbidden usury". I cannot see forbidden usury as > a happying agent for anyone. "
> I suggested that the line was actually being misread. > In reply to Lynne's post querying this, I produced a > parallel case from Henry VI Part I:
> First Serving-man: > Nay, if we be forbidden stones, > We'll fall to it with our teeth.
> Let me just reproduce the summary that I provided for > Lynne:
> Nay, if we be [FORBIDDEN STONES] - wrong interpretation > Nay, if we be forbidden [STONES] - right interpretation
> That use is not [FORBIDDEN USURY WHICH HAPPIES] - wrong > interpretation > That use is not forbidden [USURY WHICH HAPPIES] - right > interpretation
> Inverting the grammar in both "right-interpretation" > cases:
> If stones be forbidden... > Usury which happies those that pay the willing loan is > not forbidden.
> Buffalo
I have just taken a short break from HLAS, so forgive me if I am saying something which has already been said about this. This is how I see it.
Usury is forbidden because it causes misery to those who are forced to repay the loan at high rates of interest. Where doing so would make people happy, however, is OK. That use of it - in other words - is permitted, and is therefore *not* forbidden usury.
"That's for thyself..." then goes on to explain how this could be achieved.
> > > > That use is not forbidden usury, > > > > Which happies those that pay the willing loan; > > > > That's for thyself to breed another thee,
> > > > The first "that" certainly refers forward, but not > > > > to "which". It skips a line and connects with the > > > > "that's" the starts line 7. The grammatical sense > > > > is "That use that's for thyself to breed another > > > > thee". It solves the problem of the second "that" > > > > you referred to above.
> > > Then what does 'which' refer to? 'Forbidden usury'? > > > (I think this has been discussed.) Is there a reason > > > why 'forbidden usury' make anyone happy, except > > > perhaps Mr Scrooge? > > > --
> > Very good point - which I spent some time making when > > I wrote the post that started the thread.
> > I said:
> > "Now, whether "those that pay" means those who make > > the loan or those who pay it off, neither connects well > > with "forbidden usury". I cannot see forbidden usury as > > a happying agent for anyone. "
> > I suggested that the line was actually being misread. > > In reply to Lynne's post querying this, I produced a > > parallel case from Henry VI Part I:
> > First Serving-man: > > Nay, if we be forbidden stones, > > We'll fall to it with our teeth.
> > Let me just reproduce the summary that I provided for > > Lynne:
> > Nay, if we be [FORBIDDEN STONES] - wrong interpretation > > Nay, if we be forbidden [STONES] - right interpretation
> > That use is not [FORBIDDEN USURY WHICH HAPPIES] - wrong > > interpretation > > That use is not forbidden [USURY WHICH HAPPIES] - right > > interpretation
> > Inverting the grammar in both "right-interpretation" > > cases:
> > If stones be forbidden... > > Usury which happies those that pay the willing loan is > > not forbidden.
> > Buffalo
> I have just taken a short break from HLAS, so forgive > me if I am saying something which has already been said > about this. This is how I see it.
> Usury is forbidden because it causes misery to those who > are forced to repay the loan at high rates of interest. > Where doing so would make people happy, however, is OK. > That use of it - in other words - is permitted, and is > therefore *not* forbidden usury.
That's right. It just requires connecting up "forbidden" with "not", rather than with "usury", giving it a different grammatical function in the line.
<nones...@here.com> wrote: >"Robert Stonehouse" <e...@bcs.org.invalid> wrote in message >news:40d28d6d.4296944@news.cityscape.co.uk... >> On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 21:22:02 +0000 (UTC), "Buffalo" >> <nones...@here.com> wrote: >> >"Robert Stonehouse" <e...@bcs.org.invalid> wrote in message >> >news:40d1473b.7376736@news.cityscape.co.uk... >> >> On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 05:00:40 GMT, g...@vcn.bc.ca (Gary Kosinsky) >> >> wrote: >> >> >On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 17:19:22 +0000 (UTC), "Buffalo" >> >> ><nones...@here.com> wrote: >> ... >> >Here are lines 5-7:
>> > That use is not forbidden usury, >> > Which happies those that pay the willing loan; >> > That's for thyself to breed another thee, ... >First Serving-man: > Nay, if we be forbidden stones, > We'll fall to it with our teeth.
>Let me just reproduce the summary that I provided for Lynne:
>Nay, if we be [FORBIDDEN STONES] - wrong interpretation >Nay, if we be forbidden [STONES] - right interpretation
>That use is not [FORBIDDEN USURY WHICH HAPPIES] - wrong interpretation >That use is not forbidden [USURY WHICH HAPPIES] - right interpretation
>Inverting the grammar in both "right-interpretation" cases:
>If stones be forbidden... >Usury which happies those that pay the willing loan is not forbidden.
Have I understood this? "That use (i.e. usury which happies...) is not forbidden; instead it is (allowed, the purpose being) for thee to make another thee".
It looks good: 'That use' is what we start from, 'which' then refers back to it descriptively to explain what use 'that use' is, then 'that is for thee ...' refers back a second time, differently, to 'That use' and says what follows as a consequence of its not being forbidden. -- Robert Stonehouse To mail me, replace invalid with uk. Inconvenience regretted.
> > > > > That use is not forbidden usury, > > > > > Which happies those that pay the willing loan; > > > > > That's for thyself to breed another thee,
> > > > > The first "that" certainly refers forward, but not > > > > > to "which". It skips a line and connects with the > > > > > "that's" the starts line 7. The grammatical sense > > > > > is "That use that's for thyself to breed another > > > > > thee". It solves the problem of the second "that" > > > > > you referred to above.
> > > > Then what does 'which' refer to? 'Forbidden usury'? > > > > (I think this has been discussed.) Is there a reason > > > > why 'forbidden usury' make anyone happy, except > > > > perhaps Mr Scrooge? > > > > --
> > > Very good point - which I spent some time making when > > > I wrote the post that started the thread.
> > > I said:
> > > "Now, whether "those that pay" means those who make > > > the loan or those who pay it off, neither connects well > > > with "forbidden usury". I cannot see forbidden usury as > > > a happying agent for anyone. "
> > > I suggested that the line was actually being misread. > > > In reply to Lynne's post querying this, I produced a > > > parallel case from Henry VI Part I:
> > > First Serving-man: > > > Nay, if we be forbidden stones, > > > We'll fall to it with our teeth.
> > > Let me just reproduce the summary that I provided for > > > Lynne:
> > > Nay, if we be [FORBIDDEN STONES] - wrong interpretation > > > Nay, if we be forbidden [STONES] - right interpretation
> > > That use is not [FORBIDDEN USURY WHICH HAPPIES] - wrong > > > interpretation > > > That use is not forbidden [USURY WHICH HAPPIES] - right > > > interpretation
> > > Inverting the grammar in both "right-interpretation" > > > cases:
> > > If stones be forbidden... > > > Usury which happies those that pay the willing loan is > > > not forbidden.
> > > Buffalo
> > I have just taken a short break from HLAS, so forgive > > me if I am saying something which has already been said > > about this. This is how I see it.
> > Usury is forbidden because it causes misery to those who > > are forced to repay the loan at high rates of interest. > > Where doing so would make people happy, however, is OK. > > That use of it - in other words - is permitted, and is > > therefore *not* forbidden usury.
> That's right. It just requires connecting up "forbidden" with "not", rather > than with "usury", giving it a different grammatical function in the line.
So, you prefer a reading that has, "We are permitted that use because we are not forbidden UWH," rather than a reading that has, "We are not permitted that use because we are forbidden UWH"; is this correct?
Or, is your distinction between, "Some UWH may be forbidden, but that use is not UWH that is forbidden," and, "Some us[ag]es are forbidden to use UWH, but that us[ag]e is not forbidden to use UWH"?
It seems to make more sense that you would mean the former distinction, but if that's the case then your analogy breaks down.
---- Say goodnight, Bianca-- --"Goodnight, Bianca"
> On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 21:44:08 +0000 (UTC), "Buffalo" > <nones...@here.com> wrote: > >"Robert Stonehouse" <e...@bcs.org.invalid> wrote in message > >news:40d28d6d.4296944@news.cityscape.co.uk... > >> On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 21:22:02 +0000 (UTC), "Buffalo" > >> <nones...@here.com> wrote: > >> >"Robert Stonehouse" <e...@bcs.org.invalid> wrote in message > >> >news:40d1473b.7376736@news.cityscape.co.uk... > >> >> On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 05:00:40 GMT, g...@vcn.bc.ca (Gary Kosinsky) > >> >> wrote: > >> >> >On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 17:19:22 +0000 (UTC), "Buffalo" > >> >> ><nones...@here.com> wrote: > >> ... > >> >Here are lines 5-7:
> >> > That use is not forbidden usury, > >> > Which happies those that pay the willing loan; > >> > That's for thyself to breed another thee, > ... > >First Serving-man: > > Nay, if we be forbidden stones, > > We'll fall to it with our teeth.
> >Let me just reproduce the summary that I provided for Lynne:
> >Nay, if we be [FORBIDDEN STONES] - wrong interpretation > >Nay, if we be forbidden [STONES] - right interpretation
> >That use is not [FORBIDDEN USURY WHICH HAPPIES] - wrong interpretation > >That use is not forbidden [USURY WHICH HAPPIES] - right interpretation
> >Inverting the grammar in both "right-interpretation" cases:
> >If stones be forbidden... > >Usury which happies those that pay the willing loan is not forbidden.
> Have I understood this? "That use (i.e. usury which happies...) is not > forbidden; instead it is (allowed, the purpose being) for thee to make > another thee".
> It looks good: 'That use' is what we start from, 'which' then refers > back to it descriptively to explain what use 'that use' is, then 'that > is for thee ...' refers back a second time, differently, to 'That use' > and says what follows as a consequence of its not being forbidden.
Not quite - "which" actually connects directly with "usury". Perhaps it would be better to replace the word "forbidden" with "denied", which does not generate the same ambiguity. First, the Henry VI line:-
Nay, if we be denied stones, We'll fall to it with our teeth.
Then the sonnet:- "That use is not denied usury which happies those that pay the willing loan"
We have "which happies those that pay the willing loan" being a description of the kind of usury that is permitted. "That use" is allowed to employ usury of that special kind, the kind the happies the payer. (Because of course, that kind isn't really usury at all).
> > > > > > That use is not forbidden usury, > > > > > > Which happies those that pay the willing loan; > > > > > > That's for thyself to breed another thee,
> > > > > > The first "that" certainly refers forward, but not > > > > > > to "which". It skips a line and connects with the > > > > > > "that's" the starts line 7. The grammatical sense > > > > > > is "That use that's for thyself to breed another > > > > > > thee". It solves the problem of the second "that" > > > > > > you referred to above.
> > > > > Then what does 'which' refer to? 'Forbidden usury'? > > > > > (I think this has been discussed.) Is there a reason > > > > > why 'forbidden usury' make anyone happy, except > > > > > perhaps Mr Scrooge? > > > > > --
> > > > Very good point - which I spent some time making when > > > > I wrote the post that started the thread.
> > > > I said:
> > > > "Now, whether "those that pay" means those who make > > > > the loan or those who pay it off, neither connects well > > > > with "forbidden usury". I cannot see forbidden usury as > > > > a happying agent for anyone. "
> > > > I suggested that the line was actually being misread. > > > > In reply to Lynne's post querying this, I produced a > > > > parallel case from Henry VI Part I:
> > > > First Serving-man: > > > > Nay, if we be forbidden stones, > > > > We'll fall to it with our teeth.
> > > > Let me just reproduce the summary that I provided for > > > > Lynne:
> > > > Nay, if we be [FORBIDDEN STONES] - wrong interpretation > > > > Nay, if we be forbidden [STONES] - right interpretation
> > > > That use is not [FORBIDDEN USURY WHICH HAPPIES] - wrong > > > > interpretation > > > > That use is not forbidden [USURY WHICH HAPPIES] - right > > > > interpretation
> > > > Inverting the grammar in both "right-interpretation" > > > > cases:
> > > > If stones be forbidden... > > > > Usury which happies those that pay the willing loan is > > > > not forbidden.
> > > > Buffalo
> > > I have just taken a short break from HLAS, so forgive > > > me if I am saying something which has already been said > > > about this. This is how I see it.
> > > Usury is forbidden because it causes misery to those who > > > are forced to repay the loan at high rates of interest. > > > Where doing so would make people happy, however, is OK. > > > That use of it - in other words - is permitted, and is > > > therefore *not* forbidden usury.
> > That's right. It just requires connecting up "forbidden" with "not", rather > > than with "usury", giving it a different grammatical function in the line.
> So, you prefer a reading that has, > "We are permitted that use because we are not forbidden UWH," > rather than a reading that has, > "We are not permitted that use because we are forbidden UWH"; > is this correct?
> Or, is your distinction between, > "Some UWH may be forbidden, but that use is not UWH that is > forbidden," > and, > "Some us[ag]es are forbidden to use UWH, but that us[ag]e is not > forbidden to use UWH"?
Actually, none of the above, though the first of them is the closest. "That use" is not forbidden to employ "usury which happies". Because "usury which happies" does not exploit or impoverish anyone.
> "Peter Farey" <Peter.Fa...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote in message > news:cb0udr$t8i$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk... > > I have just taken a short break from HLAS, so forgive > > me if I am saying something which has already been said > > about this. This is how I see it.
> > Usury is forbidden because it causes misery to those who > > are forced to repay the loan at high rates of interest. > > Where doing so would make people happy, however, is OK. > > That use of it - in other words - is permitted, and is > > therefore *not* forbidden usury.
> That's right. It just requires connecting up "forbidden" with "not", rather > than with "usury", giving it a different grammatical function in the line.
The first requirement is to (largely) forget the financial sense of the term. Look at the OED. The word has _other_ senses:
(obs.)3. pl. Instances or kinds of usury. Obs. 1603 Holland Plutarch's Mor. 284 Their rootes of debts . . . bring foorth infinite troubles and intolerable usuries. 1603 Shakes. Meas. for M. iii. ii. 7 Since of two vsuries the merriest was put downe, and the worser allow'd by order of Law. 1611 I Cymb. iii. iii. 45 Did you but know the Citties Vsuries, And felt them knowingly.
(obs.)4. transf. Increase, augmentation; advantage. 1576 Fleming Panopl. Epist. 352 Howe bountifull a seruitour is the earthe, to the husbandeman? what vsurie doeth it pay for that which it borroweth? 1599 T. M[oufet] Silkwormes 71 Diuine we hence, or rather reckon right, What vsury and proffit doth arise, By keeping well these . . . creatures white. 1613 Heywood Silver Age iii. G3, With full sickles You shall receiue the vsury of their seeds. 1624 I Gunaik. 31 The profitable usurie arising from agriculture.
(obs.)5. The use or employment of anything. rare. 1607 Tourneur Rev. Trag. iv. ii, To prostitute my brest to the Dukes sonne: And put my selfe to common vsury. 1625 Gill Sacr. Philos. ii. 127 That thou mightest inioy the usury of this aire but for the time.
Hence(obs.)"usury v. trans., to give out (favours), with a view to advantageous return. Obs.
1654 Whitlock Zootomia 368 We usury out, not bestow our Favours, each Curtesie being a Designe not so much of doing, as receiving good, with unconscionable Advantage.
> > > I have just taken a short break from HLAS, so forgive > > > me if I am saying something which has already been said > > > about this. This is how I see it.
> > > Usury is forbidden because it causes misery to those who > > > are forced to repay the loan at high rates of interest. > > > Where doing so would make people happy, however, is OK. > > > That use of it - in other words - is permitted, and is > > > therefore *not* forbidden usury.
> > That's right. It just requires connecting up "forbidden" with "not", rather > > than with "usury", giving it a different grammatical function in the line.
> The first requirement is to (largely) forget
..... forget what I told you only yesterday? By no means should you do that. Here it is again:-
"Your pronouncements on this sonnet, as on all others, bear about the same relation to literary analysis as the Mickey Mouse watch does to chronometry. Don't bother me with any more of this. Go and play in some other thread."
No, your first requirement is to remember it. I long ago noticed that your most hysterical insults - like "yellow lily-livered cowardly shit" - are reserved for the only person on hlas who is still polite enough to give you the time of day. In attempting to engage with me, you might be mistaking me for another such. I am far from that. The only way I would engage with you is to kick you all the way to the next town. Shove off.
> the financial sense of the term. Look at the > OED. The word has _other_ senses:
> (obs.)3. pl. Instances or kinds of usury. Obs. > 1603 Holland Plutarch's Mor. 284 Their rootes of debts . . . bring > foorth infinite troubles and intolerable usuries. 1603 Shakes. Meas. > for M. iii. ii. 7 Since of two vsuries the merriest was put downe, and > the worser allow'd by order of Law. 1611 I Cymb. iii. iii. 45 Did you > but know the Citties Vsuries, And felt them knowingly.
> (obs.)4. transf. Increase, augmentation; advantage. > 1576 Fleming Panopl. Epist. 352 Howe bountifull a seruitour is the > earthe, to the husbandeman? what vsurie doeth it pay for that which > it borroweth? 1599 T. M[oufet] Silkwormes 71 Diuine we hence, or > rather reckon right, What vsury and proffit doth arise, By keeping > well these . . . creatures white. 1613 Heywood Silver Age iii. G3, With > full sickles You shall receiue the vsury of their seeds. 1624 I Gunaik. 31 > The profitable usurie arising from agriculture.
> (obs.)5. The use or employment of anything. rare. > 1607 Tourneur Rev. Trag. iv. ii, To prostitute my brest to the Dukes > sonne: And put my selfe to common vsury. 1625 Gill Sacr. Philos. ii. 127 > That thou mightest inioy the usury of this aire but for the time.
> Hence(obs.)"usury v. trans., to give out (favours), with a view to > advantageous return. Obs.
> 1654 Whitlock Zootomia 368 We usury out, not bestow our Favours, > each Curtesie being a Designe not so much of doing, as receiving > good, with unconscionable Advantage.
>>>> "Buffalo" wrote: >>>>> I suggested that the line was actually being misread. >>>>> In reply to Lynne's post querying this, I produced a >>>>> parallel case from Henry VI Part I:
>>>>> First Serving-man: >>>>> Nay, if we be forbidden stones, >>>>> We'll fall to it with our teeth.
>>>>> Let me just reproduce the summary that I provided for >>>>> Lynne:
>>>>> Nay, if we be [FORBIDDEN STONES] - wrong interpretation >>>>> Nay, if we be forbidden [STONES] - right interpretation
>>>>> That use is not [FORBIDDEN USURY WHICH HAPPIES] - wrong >>>>> interpretation >>>>> That use is not forbidden [USURY WHICH HAPPIES] - right >>>>> interpretation
>>>>> Inverting the grammar in both "right-interpretation" >>>>> cases:
>>>>> If stones be forbidden... >>>>> Usury which happies those that pay the willing loan is >>>>> not forbidden.
>>>>> Buffalo
>>>> I have just taken a short break from HLAS, so forgive >>>> me if I am saying something which has already been said >>>> about this. This is how I see it.
>>>> Usury is forbidden because it causes misery to those who >>>> are forced to repay the loan at high rates of interest. >>>> Where doing so would make people happy, however, is OK. >>>> That use of it - in other words - is permitted, and is >>>> therefore *not* forbidden usury.
>>> That's right. It just requires connecting up "forbidden" with "not", > rather >>> than with "usury", giving it a different grammatical function in the > line.
>> So, you prefer a reading that has, >> "We are permitted that use because we are not forbidden UWH," >> rather than a reading that has, >> "We are not permitted that use because we are forbidden UWH"; >> is this correct?
>> Or, is your distinction between, >> "Some UWH may be forbidden, but that use is not UWH that is >> forbidden," >> and, >> "Some us[ag]es are forbidden to use UWH, but that us[ag]e is not >> forbidden to use UWH"?
> Actually, none of the above, though the first of them is the closest. "That > use" is not forbidden to employ "usury which happies". Because "usury which > happies" does not exploit or impoverish anyone.
Are you under the impression that we can tell what you're doing here, or do you really not care? Or am I the only one who's confused? Because I fail to get the impression that you yourself can tell what you're doing here.
It seems you are saying that if "usury which happies" were exploiting or impoverishing anyone, then "that use" would not be permitted to employ "usury which happies." Though it seems you are making a different point to Lynne Kositsky, and yet another point to Robert Stonehouse -- all on the same question. And you have yet to show how your understanding of the important bits of this question relates to some overall reading of the sonnet under examination, or why this fact is interesting or important, in some other way.
I would like to try to be nice, but you seem to be deliberately trying to come across as a total snot.
--------------------------------------------------------------- HET/HETe, v. t. & i. To PROMISE. [Obs.] --Chaucer. ------------------------------------------------------------ They burn in love, thy children Shakespear HET them Go, wo thy Muse, more Nymphish brood beget them.
Five other meaning of HET w. cits:
1) Heated [North] Gifford's dialog on Witches, 1603 2) It. Also, to hit or strike [West 3) Promised. Towneley Mysteries, p. 39 4) Hight, or named. [Lanc 5) Have it [North
HETE: to promise, also a subst. [A. Sax] The scheperde seid, I wille with the goo I dar the hete a foule or twoo. /MS Cantab. Ff. v. 48, f. 51
HETELICH: this word occurs in the title /Romance of Guy of Warwicke/ and means hotly; eagerly;-
And Guy hent his sword in hand, And hetelich smot to Colbrand.
HETLIK: Fiercely; vehemently [A. Sax]
Hetlikhe lette of ilk fere; To Godd self wald he be pere. /MS Cot. Vespas. A. iii. f. 4.
.[H]onie-tong'd Shakespeare when I saw thaie issue [(I)] swore Apollo got them and none other, .[T]heir ROSie-tainted features cloth'd in tissue, .Some heaven born goddesse said to be their mother: .ROSE checkt Adonis with his amber tresses, .Faire fire-hot Venus charming him to love her, .Chaste Lucretia virgine-like her dresses, .Prowd lust-stung Tarquine seeking still to prove her:
.Romea [sic] Richard, more whose names I know not, .Their sugred tongues, and power attractive beuty .Say they are Saints althogh that Sts they shew not .For thousands vowes [sic] to them subiective dutie:
.They burn in love, thy children Shakespear HET them .Go, wo thy Muse, more Nymphish brood beget them. ------------------------------------------------------------- Not with a "YES" but a "THE": --------------------------------------------------------------- HET/HETe, v. t. & i. To PROMISE. [Obs.] --Chaucer. ------------------------------------------------------------ _________________ <= 33 => . [T] OT__ [H] EONLIEBEGETTEROFTHESEINSVINGS [O] NN- [E T] SMRWHALLHAPPINESSEANDTHATETE [R] NI_- [T(I)E] PROMISEDBYOVREVERLIVINGPOET [W] IS [H E T H] THEWELLWISHINGADVENTVRERIN
SONNET 33 Full many a glorious morning have I seen Flatter the mountain tops with sovereign eye, ---------------------------------------------------------
Gen 23:17: And the field of Ephron, which was in Machpelah, which was before Mamre, the field, and the CAVE which was therein, and all the trees that were in the field, that were in all the borders round about, were made sure 18: Unto Abraham for a possession in the presence of the children of HETH, before all that went in at the gate of his city. 19: And after this, Abraham buried Sarah his wife in the CAVE
Later Abraham is buried there himself:
8: Then Abraham gave up the ghost, and died in a good old age, an old man, and full of years; and was gathered to his people. 9: And his sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the CAVE of Machpelah, in the field of Ephron . . . 10: The field which Abraham purchased of the sons of HETH: -------------------------------------------------------------- BARNFIELD, RICHARD, 1605, Remembrance of some English Poets. http://www.geocities.com/litpageplus/shakemoul_rape.html
<<And Shakespeare, thou, whose hony flowing vaine, (Pleasing the World) thy Praises cloth containe; Whose Venus, and whose Lucrece (sweet, and chast) Thy name in Fame's immortall Booke have plac't.
Live EVER you, at least in Fame live EVER: Well may the Body die, but Fame die nEVER. ------------------------------------------------------------------ King Henry VI, Part ii Act 4, Scene 1
WHITMORE: Come, Suffolk, I must WAFT thee to thy death. -------------------------------------------------------- A gentle WAFTing to immortal life. --Milton. [in WALLS of GLASS] ---------------------------------------------------------------- WIZARD O(XF)ORD VIVERE VERO DRAZIW L(CU)LIW EREVIV EVIL -------------------------------------------------------- [T]hose howers that with gentle worke did frame, [T]he louely gaze where euery eye doth dwell
[W]ill play the tirants to the very same, [A]nd that vnfaire which fairely doth excell: [F]or neuer resting time leads Summer on, [T]o hidious winter and confounds him there, [S]ap checkt with frost and lustie leau's quite gon.
Beauty ore-snow'd and barenes euery where, Then were not summers distillation left A liquid prisoner pent in WALLS of GLASS, Beauty's effect with beauty were bereft, Nor it, nor no remembrance what it was: But flowers distill'd, though they with winter meet, Leese but their show; their substance still lives sweet. -------------------------------------------------------- -Edgar Allan Poe - LENORE
Let no bell toll, then,- lest her soul, amid its hallowed mirth, Should catch the note as it doth float up from the damned Earth! And I!- to-night my heart is light!- no dirge will I upraise, But WAFT the angel on her flight with a Paean of old days!" ---------------------------------------------------- " `What is that, mother?' `The swan, my love. He is floating down to his native grove ... Death darkens his eyes and unplumes his wings, Yet the sweetest song is the last he sings. Live so, my son, that when death shall come, Swan-like and sweet, it may WAFT thee home.' " -- Dr. G. Doane. ------------------------------------------- Art Neuendorffer
They burn in love, thy children Shakespear HET them Go, wo thy Muse, more Nymphish brood BEGET them ------------------------------------------------------------ _________________ <= 33 => . ___ /T/ OT __ [H] EONLIEBEGETTEROFTHESEINSVINGS __- /O/ NN _ [E T] SMRWHALLHAPPINESSEANDTHATETE __ /R/ NI___ [T(I)E] PROMISEDBYOVREVERLIVINGPOET _ /W/ IS___ [H E T H] THEWELLWISHINGADVENTVRERIN ___________________________ SETTINGFORTH-TT ------------------------------------------------------------ HET, v. t. & i. To PROMISE. [Obs.] --Chaucer. ---------------------------------------------------------
> 1) Heated [North] Gifford's dialog on Witches, 1603 > 2) It. Also, to hit or strike [West > 3) Promised. Towneley Mysteries, p. 39 > 4) Hight, or named. [Lanc > 5) Have it [North
> HETE: to PROMISE, also a subst. [A. Sax] > The scheperde seid, I wille with the goo > I dar the HETE a foule or twoo. > /MS Cantab. Ff. v. 48, f. 51
Clearly PROMISE was intended for the "Masonic eye" benben. _____________
**Dear Art, a clue may lie in BEN~ of which I can find 10 meanings, significant are:-
(2) oil of Ben, hence Benzoin - and I have found other spellings, BENZAMINE, and also BENZWINE in Topsell's Four-footed Beasts, p. 240. (3) Bees [A. Sax] So dafte hii gonne aboute him scheve, Ase don ben aboute the heve. /Beves of Hamtoun, p. 56. (8) The 'true ben' the utmost stretch or bend [Exmoor]. (9) The truth [Devon]
However, a BENATURE is: A vessel containing the holy water. William Bruges, Garter King of Arms, 1449, bequeaths "a gret holy-water scoppe of silver, with a staff weyng xx. nobles in plate and more." Test Vetust. p. 266.
BEND is [a. Sax] and BENDE [A. Norman], BENE is A. Sax 'to be' and another quite distinct A. Sax. meaning is 'a prayer, or a request' whcih may relate to your 'PROMISE' above, North country nurses say to children "clap bene" meaning to join hands together to ask for a blessing, to pray, hope for, wish?
BENEDAY: prayer day, from the earlier A. Sax. BENTIID, rogation days.
BENEME: is also A. Sax and means to take away or deprive, but:- BENET: is one of the orders in the Roman Catholic church, the /exorcista/, who cast out evil spirits by imposition of hands and aspersion of holy water.
There are some dozen other words from both A. Sax and A. Norman with similar references to the granting or taking away, very often specifically 'with the hands' and often involving water or holy water. BENISON current in Yorkshire in 1703, and also used in Piers Plowman and Chaucer, Coventry Mysteries, Sevyn Sages, Sir Tristrem, langstoft.
BENNET: is a Somerset word for bent grass, and another Somerset word is BENNICK, a minnow.
BENT: A plain; a common; a field; a moor; so called from those places being frequently covered with the bent grass. Willan says bents are "high pastures or shelving commons." The term is very common in early English poetry. Appone a bent withowt the borghe, With scharpe arowes 3e schote hym thurghe. /MS. Lincoln A. i. 17, f. 128
To your comment below: not readily, can you summarise it or provide me a vector, or some elements for comparison? Cordially, Phil
Can you explain how one of these other meanings might also be pertinent here (or in the WE-EVER poem)?
-------------------------------------------------------- <<a BENATURE is: A vessel containing the holy water. William Bruges, Garter King of Arms, 1449, bequeaths "a gret holy-water scoppe of silver, with a staff weyng xx. nobles in plate and more." Test Vetust. p. 266.
BENEME: is also A. Sax and means to take away or deprive,
There are some dozen other words from both A. Sax and A. Norman with similar references to the granting or taking away, very often specifically 'with the hands' & often involving water.>> - Phil Innes -------------------------------------------------------- CASCA: SPEAKE HANDS FOR ME !
[CASCA first, then the other Conspirators ________ and BRUTUS stab CAESAR] --------------------------------------------------- _______ SPEAKE HANDS (f)OR ME! _______ SHAKESPEARE D(e)MON --------------------------------------------------------- http://www3.telus.net/oxford/oxfordspoems.html#toppoems . "That I do WASTE with OTHERS' LOVE, that HATH myself in HATE," - E.O. . But beauties WASTE HATH in the world an end, And kept vnvsde the vser so destroyes it: No LOUE toward OTHERS in that bosome sits That on himselfe such murdrous shame commits. - Sonnet 9 --------------------------------------------------------- <<If OTHERS have their WILL Ann HATH a way.>> - James Joyce . 'I HATE' from HATE away SHE threw, And sav'd my life, saying 'not you' . _____ Sonnet 145 --------------------------------------------------------- Capital Letters: 145 (= 5 x 29) . __ T O.T H E. __ O N L I E. __ B E G E T __ T E R.O F. __ T H E S E. __ I N S V I __ N G.S O N __ N E T S Mr _ [W]H A L L. W{H} A H[A]P P I ___ {H}A _ | _ N E[S]S E. ______ S _ | _ A N D[T]H _____ T [2 9] A T.E T[E] ______ E? _ | _ R N I T I _ | _ E P R O M _ v I S E D.B __ Y.O V R.E __ V E R-L I __ V I N G.P __ O E T.W I __ S H E T H. __ T H E.W E __ L L-W I S __ H I N G.A __ D V E N T __ V R E R I __ N.S E T T __ I N G.F O __ R T H.T.T. . Shakspere Blazon and Coat of Arms: "Gold on a BEND sable, a spear of the first," . BEND: a diagonal bar, 1/5th the width of the shield, from upper left to lower right as one faces the shield. ----------------------------------------------------------- "SUPER" : Latin for "OVER"
------------------------------------------------------------- He has hidden his own name, a fair name, William, in the plays, a SUPER here, a clown there, as a painter of old Italy set his face in a DARK CORNER of his canvas. He has REVEalED it in the sonnets where there is Will in O-VER(pl)US. Like John o'Gaunt his name is dear to him, as dear as the coat and crest he toadied for, on a BEND sable a spear or steeled argent, hoNorificabIlitudiNITatibus, dearer than his glory of greatest shakescene in the country. What's in a name? That is what we ask ourselves in childhood when we write the name that we are told is ours. -------------------------------------------------------- h_ o N orific a_ b_ I litudi N I_ T atibus ------------------------------------------------------ Sylvie and Bruno Concluded:
The year--what an eventful year it had been for me,-- was drawing to a close, and the brief wintry day hardly gave light enough to recognize the old familiar objects bound up with so many happy memories, as the train glided round the LAST BEND into the station, and the hoarse cry of "Elveston! Elveston!" resounded along the platform. ------------------------------------------------------ <<BEND is [a. Sax] and BENDE [A. Norman], BENE is A. Sax 'to be' and another quite distinct A. Sax. meaning is 'a prayer, or a request' whcih may relate to your 'PROMISE' above, North country nurses say to children "clap bene" meaning to join hands together to ask for a blessing, to pray, hope for, wish?
A CHILD'S GRACE Here a little child I stand Heaving up my either hand. Cold as paddocks though they be Yet I lift them up to Thee, For a BENISON to fall On our meat and on us all. Amen.
BENISON current in Yorkshire in 1703, and also used in Piers Plowman and Chaucer, Coventry Mysteries, Sevyn Sages, Sir Tristrem, langstoft.>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
lyra wrote: > BEN IONSon (anagram) > BENISON on...!
> and note the picture of him making the sign of BENEdiction > or blessing, in The Chess Picture
------------------------------------------------------------ Is Gabriel Harvey = BEN IONSon/"God's BENISON light"? ------------------------------------------------------------ King Lear Act 4, Scene 6
GLOUCESTER Hearty (Harvey?) thanks: The bounty and the BENISON of heaven
Macbeth Act 2, Scene 4
OLD MAN God's BENISON go with you; and with those That would make good of bad, and friends of foes! -------------------------------------------------------- Gabriel Harvey (1550-1631) & Thomas Nashe(1561-1601) got into great pamphlet battles:
Harvey for the Puritan side Nashe for the Anglican side;
Tom and Gabe "would make good of bad, and friends of foes!"
Even Robert Greene joined in the fun
<<The ropemaker replied that, honestly journeying by the way, he acquainted himself with the collier, and for no other cause pretended. And whether are you going, qd. I? Marry sir, qd. he, am going to Cambridge to three sons that I keep there at school, such apt children, sir, as few women have groaned for, and yet they have ill luck. The one, sir, [Richard Harvey] is a divine to comfort my soul, and he indeed, though he be a vainglorious ass, as divers youths of his age be, is well given to the shew of the world, and writ a-late the LAMB OF GOD, and yet his parishioners say he is the limb of the devil, and kisseth their wives with holy kisses, but they had rather he should keep his lips for Madge, his mare. The second, sir, [John Harvey] is a physician or a fool, but indeed a physician, and had proved a proper man if he had not spoiled himself with his Astrological Discourse of the terrible conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter. For the eldest, [Gabriel], he is a civilian, a wondrous witted fellow, sir reverence sir, he is a doctor, and as Tubalcain was the first inventor of music,
so he, God's BENISON light upon him, was the first that invented English hexameter;>>
Quip For An Upstart Courtier -- "Robert Greene" --------------------------------------------------------------- Art Neuendorffer
Dear Art - what interesting images [especially the final one, the x-ray] however...
**In the strange commentary [AA]:- "The Chess Portrait has van Mander's signature at the top right corner and its 1604 date is just about right for the time van Mander seems to have been in London. The paint dates to the period and the painting is authentic. One may find a discussion of it in Frederick J Pohl's *Like to the Lark, The Early Years of Shakespeare.* For my money this is the most authentic of all the possible paintings. Jonson is clearly the man on the left, at 286 pounds and towering over other Elizabethans, his features are unmistakable. He is conceding the game three moves before mate. The man on the our right (Shakespeare?) is holding the board or stage with his left hand and moving a knight with his right. Behind them are the initials SS, two ink horns, one of which has a pen in it and a crumpled paper beside it. A third man, likely a player, because of the course red outfit, watches. Jonson has taken four of the winner's pawns...a type of game generally called a "pawn sacrifice."
**The final comment is a nonsense, and would not make sense to a chessplayer. Where a player sacrifices material, [pawns or pieces], the player is said to /gambit/ the material.
**It is also not at all clear that 'Jonson' is conceding the game, and from what I can determine from the board, there is no mate-in-three that I can discern and why that claim should be made is not clear to me, in fact White has considerably more material at hand, and, other things being equal, apparently could defend against current threats to the extent of continuing to win the game.
**Another photograph carries the caption:- " It [sic] title is "Unknown Melancholy Man." Like the Cambridge portrait of Marlowe, the sitter's hands are concealed, suggesting he is a keeper of secrets. The sword guards form an SS. The tree behind him is a Greenwood tree or Poplar. The house is vaguely like the Old Palace at Hatfield. He is certainly not happy about who is walking that woman in the garden."
**However, I have several objections to this commentary:- (a) the first has to do with the title itself, since /in the period/ and certainly later, 'melancholy' has another, an esoteric, and indeed a primary meaning: the same sense as used by Durer. (b) frank observation of the subject's features may or may not suggest 'melancholy' in our modern sense, but would certainly do so in Durer's sense. (c) melancholy is not synonymous with 'sad', and in fact meant nothing of the kind, and instead refers to a contemplative quietness of mind which traditionally is often associated with Saturn. The Durer image explicitly allows us to see what the meditator is contemplating, and if we allow for the original meaning of the word, then this 'author?' portrait shows us the subject of his contemplation :)
Cordially, Phil
NB: The conjunction below provides a date. --------------------------
The second, sir, [John Harvey] is a physician or a fool, but indeed a physician, and had proved a proper man if he had not spoiled himself with his Astrological Discourse of the terrible conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter.
so he, God's BENISON light upon him, was the first that invented English hexameter;>>
Quip For An Upstart Courtier -- "Robert Greene" --------------------------------------------------------------- Art Neuendorffer
> Dear Art - what interesting images [especially the final one, the x-ray] > however...
> **In the strange commentary [AA]:- > "The Chess Portrait has van Mander's signature at the top right corner and > its 1604 date is just about right for the time van Mander seems to have been > in London. The paint dates to the period and the painting is authentic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------- John Baker wrote (March 1999):
Modern scholars are far from interpreting Brueghel's art as simple drolleries and folk subjects painted by an artist from mere peasant stock, as Karel van Mander (1548-1606) described him in 1604. Recent writers see him as a knowledgeable man with such intellectual friends as geographer Abraham Ortelius. Brueghel's art has been variously interpreted as referring to the conflicts between Roman Catholicism & Protestantism, to the political domination of the Lowlands by the Spanish, and as parallels to dramatic allegories performed publicly by Flemish societies of rhetoric.>> -------------------------------------------------------------- 1603, 31 August, Karel van Mander writes about Caravaggio in _Het Schilderboek_ (1604):
<<There is also a certain Michelangelo da Caravaggio who paints wonderful things in Rome. He has laboriously emerged from poverty by means of hard work, tackling and accepting everything with foresight and daring, as is done by some who do not wish to remain inferior through timidity and cowardice. He is one who cares little for the works of others without at the same time overtly praising his own. He holds that all works are nothing but childish trifles, whatever their subject and by whomever they are painted unless they are made and painted from life and that there can be no good or better way of painting than to follow nature. He is a mixture of grain and chaff: indeed he does not continuously devote himself to this study but when he has worked for a couple of weeks he swaggers about for a month or two, his sword at his side and a servant behind him and goes from one ball game to another ever ready for a duel or a scuffle so that it is almost impossible to get to know him.>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/Newsletter/NewsletterMain.htm http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/Ashbourne.htm
<<The Dutch painter Cornelius Ketel, whose initials Barrell found in the painting through X-rays, was in England from 1573 to 1581. Hatton introduced Ketel as a painter to Elizabeth's Court in 1578. Van Mander notes Ketel painted a portrait of Oxford. In 1580 Harvey mocked Oxford's wearing of large French Camerick ruffs. Barrell's X-ray examination revealed a large circular ruff under the visible ruff. Lord Russell's 1580 French ruff fits perfectly over the outlines of this hidden ruff.>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> One may find a discussion of it in Frederick J Pohl's *Like to the Lark, The > Early Years of Shakespeare.* For my money this is the most authentic of all > the possible paintings. Jonson is clearly the man on the left, at 286 pounds > and towering over other Elizabethans, his features are unmistakable. He is > conceding the game three moves before mate. The man on the our right > (Shakespeare?) is holding the board or stage with his left hand and moving a > knight with his right. Behind them are the initials SS, two ink horns, one > of which has a pen in it and a crumpled paper beside it. A third man, > likely a player, because of the course red outfit, watches. Jonson has > taken four of the winner's pawns...a type of game generally called a "pawn > sacrifice."
> **The final comment is a nonsense, and would not make sense to a > chessplayer. Where a player sacrifices material, [pawns or pieces], the > player is said to /gambit/ the material.
> **It is also not at all clear that 'Jonson' is conceding the game, and from > what I can determine from the board, there is no mate-in-three that I can > discern and why that claim should be made is not clear to me, in fact White > has considerably more material at hand, and, other things being equal, > apparently could defend against current threats to the extent of continuing > to win the game.
Dear Phil - There was a lot of discussion 5 years ago about the "Chess Portrait" but you are the first (that I recall) to analysis the actual chess play.
> **Another photograph carries the caption:- > " It [sic] title is "Unknown Melancholy Man." Like the Cambridge portrait > of Marlowe, the sitter's hands are concealed, suggesting he is a keeper of > secrets. The sword guards form an SS. The tree behind him is a Greenwood > tree or Poplar. The house is vaguely like the Old Palace at Hatfield. He is > certainly not happy about who is walking that woman in the garden."
> **However, I have several objections to this commentary:- > (a) the first has to do with the title itself, since /in the period/ and > certainly later, 'melancholy' has another, an esoteric, and indeed a primary > meaning: the same sense as used by Durer. > (b) frank observation of the subject's features may or may not suggest > 'melancholy' in our modern sense, but would certainly do so in Durer's > sense. > (c) melancholy is not synonymous with 'sad', and in fact meant nothing of > the kind, and instead refers to a contemplative quietness of mind which > traditionally is often associated with Saturn. The Durer image explicitly > allows us to see what the meditator is contemplating, and if we allow for > the original meaning of the word, then this 'author?' portrait shows us the > subject of his contemplation :)
> Cordially, Phil > -------------------------------------------------------
> all > > the possible paintings. Jonson is clearly the man on the left, at 286 > pounds > > and towering over other Elizabethans, his features are unmistakable. He > is > > conceding the game three moves before mate. The man on the our right > > (Shakespeare?) is holding the board or stage with his left hand and moving > a > > knight with his right. Behind them are the initials SS, two ink horns, one > > of which has a pen in it and a crumpled paper beside it. A third man, > > likely a player, because of the course red outfit, watches. Jonson has > > taken four of the winner's pawns...a type of game generally called a "pawn > > sacrifice."
> > **The final comment is a nonsense, and would not make sense to a > > chessplayer. Where a player sacrifices material, [pawns or pieces], the > > player is said to /gambit/ the material.
> > **It is also not at all clear that 'Jonson' is conceding the game, and > from > > what I can determine from the board, there is no mate-in-three that I can > > discern and why that claim should be made is not clear to me, in fact > White > > has considerably more material at hand, and, other things being equal, > > apparently could defend against current threats to the extent of > continuing > > to win the game.
> Dear Phil - > There was a lot of discussion 5 years ago about the "Chess Portrait" > but you are the first (that I recall) to analysis the actual chess
play.
I must qualify what I have said therefore: from the resolution of the painitng on my monitor I can't tell Kings from Queens for white or black, but given the worst placements from white's perspective, I would still hold these views, [even though black is holding a piece in the air].
My qualifications for saying so is that I was nearly an international master, with a rating of 2450, which is a tolerably qualified level to offer an opinion - for example, Nil, who used to post here before splitting, so to speak, was a player of about 1400 rating, and this "ELO" scale is not linear. This is not to say that Nil could not also resolve the situation over the board - but given the best imagined placements for black and the worst for white, it is hard or even impossible to assert "mate-in-three" if a board position cannot be resolved.
> > > taken four of the winner's pawns...a type of game generally called a > "pawn > > > sacrifice."
> > > **The final comment is a nonsense, and would not make sense to a > > > chessplayer. Where a player sacrifices material, [pawns or pieces], the > > > player is said to /gambit/ the material.
In the "British Language", perhaps, but hardly in most chess circles. Baker's calling the "game" a pawn sacrifice is tortured at best, but he's used the right term.
> > > **It is also not at all clear that 'Jonson' is conceding the game, and > from > > > what I can determine from the board, there is no mate-in-three that I > can > > > discern and why that claim should be made is not clear to me, in fact > White > > > has considerably more material at hand, and, other things being equal, > > > apparently could defend against current threats to the extent of > continuing > > > to win the game.
> > Dear Phil - > > There was a lot of discussion 5 years ago about the "Chess Portrait" > > but you are the first (that I recall) to analysis the actual chess > play.
> I must qualify what I have said therefore: from the resolution of the > painitng on my monitor I can't tell Kings from Queens for white or black, > but given the worst placements from white's perspective, I would still hold > these views, [even though black is holding a piece in the air].
I can't determine which pieces are what from the scanned image either.
> My qualifications for saying so is that I was nearly an international > master, with a rating of 2450,
LOL! Philsy, keep taking the tablets. One day you will be restored to sanity.
Folks, Philsy's claims of 'almost' becoming an Internation Master (a FIDE title) are as laughable as all his other claims.
which is a tolerably qualified level to offer
> an opinion - for example, Nil, who used to post here before splitting, so to > speak, was a player of about 1400 rating,
Philsy not only manages to get my rating wrong, but also opines some twaddle that an 'almost' International Master can better analyze a chess position than a 1400 player WHEN HE CAN'T TELL WHAT THE PIECES ARE! "I can't tell Kings from Queens for white or black..." - Phil Innes