Sonnet No 24: Mine eye hath played the painter and hath stelled
Julia
Mine eye hath played 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, /
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 glaz'ed 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. /
Happy New Year ! I wish you Health and Happiness
in the year to come. And may we all continue to be friends :-).
--
Julia
volker multhopp
Julia wrote:
> Mine eye hath played the painter and hath stelled /...
> Yet eyes this cunning want to grace their art, /
> They draw but what they see, know not the heart. /
Robert Stonehouse and Bob Grumman both claim that the "painted beauty"
of S21 is another poet's woman in cosmetics. Here in S24 WS returns to
painting with a tour de force handling of his [the narator's] beloved's
image in his own heart. No talk of cosmetics here. Note also the
continued lack of gender clues.
--Volker
Robert Stonehouse
Yes, four poems in a row without one - in fact, without any
indication of who is addressed. That is unprecedented. Are we still
talking about the same person as in 1-20? Are we talking about any
real person at all? Or is it an ideal or imaginary person, a subject
for poetic imagination, as Drayton's Idea might be? (Or she might be
a respectful, idealised version of Lady Rainsford.)
My sight, like a portrait-painter, has delineated /
your image on a canvas in my innermost consciousness. /
As a frame does a picture, so my body contains it /
and by penetrating observation
it can be seen to be a very good work of art. /
To see how good the work is, you must see through the workman /
to find where the true picture of you is situated. /
It is in my breast, as a portrait hangs in the artist's studio, /
and the eyes of the portrait form the studio's windows. /
So consider how one person's eyes can do good to another's. /
Mine have formed an image of you, and yours /
lay my breast open to the sunlight, which /
enjoys looking in and seeing your image there. /
But eyes, clever as they are, lack this accomplishment: /
They can only form images of appearances, not of the affections. /
Oof, that was difficult! Is it just me, or are these poems really
getting more obscure?
In line 1, I take 'stell' in sense 3 of the Shorter Oxford,
'portray, delineate' (1598), without understanding how that arises
from the other meanings the S.O.D. gives - set (an example),
establish (a law). Sense 2 is 'fix, post, place (1470)' but marked
as specifically Scottish.
Line 4 is a tartar. From the scansion, 'perspective' must be
stressed on the first syllable, Latin-style. From the placing of
words in the sentence, it needs to be an adverb, or possibly an
adjective applied to the subject of the sentence. I find 'close
inspection, insight' in the S.O.D. as meaning III for the noun,
dated 1649 (too late). After reading the following lines, I take it
in a Latin sense, 'seeing through', as something like X-ray eyes,
which might be the origin of the 'insight' meaning too.
The painter recalls 21 and the anatomical metaphor is like 22. Is it
like enough to be a link? We need more of them, I suspect, to
convince us they were put there for that purpose by the poet. So
far, it could be the work of an editor or anthologist.
ew...@bcs.org.uk
KQKnave
My paraphrase of 24 would go like this:
"1.My eye has played the painter and has engraved
2. your form on my heart;
3. My body is the frame wherein it is held,
4. and viewed: a great example of the painters art.
5. Because now you have to look at the inside of the painter himself
6. to see your own image
[you have to understand me in order to understand yourself]
7. which is still hanging in my bosom,
8. the same bosom that is covered by your eyes[that are looking in]
9. Now see what our eyes have done for each other:
10. My eyes have drawn your shape,
11. and your eyes are windows into me, through which the sun also
[I think here author is saying that that the act of the beloved
looking into him helps him (the author) understand himself]
12. delights to look on your image.
13. But even though I am cunning, I lack the skill
14. to draw [or understand] what is inside you.
I think Shakespeare is saying that he has forced his lover
to look inside him (Shakespeare) so that the lover can
understand Shakespeare, and that the act of the lover
doing this helps Shakespeare to understand himself,
but Shakespeare has no trick to help him understand his
lover.
I also think there is incorrect or missing punctuation
in line 4 (should be a semicolon after "perspective" and
a possibly a period after the word "art").
The following is one sentence from Helen Vendler's
long comment on this sonnet:
"This is all so foreign to a modern reader that the charm
of rococo fantasy may be overlooked in a revulsion against
seeing a grown man (as cliche would say) writing such
'drivel'".
Jim
volker multhopp
Robert Stonehouse wrote:
> volker multhopp <vol...@erols.com> wrote:
> Yes, four poems in a row without one - in fact, without any
> indication of who is addressed. That is unprecedented. Are we still
> talking about the same person as in 1-20? Are we talking about any
> real person at all? Or is it an ideal or imaginary person, a subject
> for poetic imagination, as Drayton's Idea might be? (Or she might be
> a respectful, idealised version of Lady Rainsford.)
That S1-S20 form a unit rests only on your feeling that they do. I'm
looking for something more concrete to signal that the beloved is a new
person. My assumption is it's still the Fair Youth.
I think it really the rule than the exxception that WS does not signal
the gender of the beloved, where he does signal it is the exception.
Imo, the cloaking of the gender is deliberate, and only occasionally
does he drop his caution.
3] My body is the frame wherein 'tis held,
4] And perspective it is best painter's art.
> Line 4 is a tartar. From the scansion, 'perspective' must be
> stressed on the first syllable, Latin-style. From the placing of
> words in the sentence, it needs to be an adverb, or possibly an
> adjective applied to the subject of the sentence. I find 'close
> inspection, insight' in the S.O.D. as meaning III for the noun,
> dated 1649 (too late). After reading the following lines, I take it
> in a Latin sense, 'seeing through', as something like X-ray eyes,
> which might be the origin of the 'insight' meaning too.
The "perspective" is the vantage point, or the author's mental image of
the beloved, imo. WS is also playing another wordgame-- with
"perspective it is best painter's art" he is showing that he knows that
the *technique* of perspective was painters' powerful invention of the
Renaissance. This exploits multiple uses for "frame" in L3-- not just a
painting's frame, *and* a framework to hold the beloved's image, *but
also* a frame of reference, ie perspective and a frame (of lines) is
needed to show painters' perspective. Er, well, like a joke, the
original works much better than the explanation.
--Volker
volker multhopp
KQKnave wrote:
> I think Shakespeare is saying that he has forced his lover
> to look inside him (Shakespeare) so that the lover can
> understand Shakespeare, and that the act of the lover
> doing this helps Shakespeare to understand himself,
> but Shakespeare has no trick to help him understand his
> lover.
The "you" of L5 is an imperative subject, but there is no indication
that the beloved is doing anything at the writer's behest. Indeed,
looking at all the sonnets to date, I don't see any indication that that
the beloved is reacting to the writer/narator in any fashion. It could
well be that the communication is strictly one-way; the author's
attentions are unrequited.
> I also think there is incorrect or missing punctuation
> in line 4 (should be a semicolon after "perspective" and
> a possibly a period after the word "art").
I have 2 independent sources giving the line as
"And perspective it is best painter's art."
--Volker
long...@ix.netcom.com
On Thu, 01 Jan 1998 07:36:25 -0500, volker multhopp <vol...@erols.com>
wrote:
> I have 2 independent sources giving the line as
> "And perspective it is best painter's art."
>
> --Volker
>
>
Using the word "perspective", at artistic technique which had only
been around about a hundred years or so, seems to indicate that
Shakespeare was associated closely with artists, and knew their
"language" fairly well. This whole sonnet suggests that we was
speaking to someone who loved, and probably dabbled in, painting.
I have read that the "dark lady" may likely have been the daughter of
a court musician who was also an amateur artist. If I recall, her
name was Lanier. Any comments?
Bill Longyard
William H. Longyard
2913 Bradenton Dr.
Winston-Salem, NC 27103-5706 USA
Tel/Fax 336-768-5996
http://pw1.netcom.com/~longyard/longyard/Kayaktour.html
KQKnave
In article <34AB8D...@erols.com>, volker multhopp <vol...@erols.com>
writes:
>I have 2 independent sources giving the line as
> "And perspective it is best painter's art.
The 1609 quarto has no punctuation. A footnote in the Everyman's library
edition says "Some editors put a colon after perspective". Vendler's comment
on punctuation is: "All editors repunctuate according to their own
understanding of the connection among the lines and quatrains of a given
sonnet". The line makes no sense to me without punctuation, and there
is more than one choice possible.
The 1609 quarto has another probable error: "steeld" instead of "stelled".
"Stelled", according to my dictionary, is british dialect and means to place
in a permanent manner, which makes more sense than "steeld" or "steeled",
which I'm not sure is even a word.
Jim
Robert L Smith
long...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
: On Thu, 01 Jan 1998 07:36:25 -0500, volker multhopp <vol...@erols.com>
: wrote:
: > I have 2 independent sources giving the line as
: > "And perspective it is best painter's art."
: >
: > --Volker
: >
: >
: Using the word "perspective", at artistic technique which had only
: been around about a hundred years or so, seems to indicate that
: Shakespeare was associated closely with artists, and knew their
: "language" fairly well. This whole sonnet suggests that we was
: speaking to someone who loved, and probably dabbled in, painting.
: I have read that the "dark lady" may likely have been the daughter of
: a court musician who was also an amateur artist. If I recall, her
: name was Lanier. Any comments?
Richard Burbage was also a painter.
volker multhopp
KQKnave wrote:
> The 1609 quarto has another probable error: "steeld" instead of "stelled".
> "Stelled", according to my dictionary, is british dialect and means to place
> in a permanent manner, which makes more sense than "steeld" or "steeled",
> which I'm not sure is even a word.
"Steeled" (made from or into steel) certained is a word, in fact,
"steeled his heart" is a fairly common cliche for *deliberately acted
unemotionally*. WS himself used "steeled" 10 times in the works
(including a dificult usage in Sonnet 112). However, I agree it doesn't
fit here.
He did use "stelled" another time, in *Rape of Lucrece* in a related
usage:
To this well-painted piece is Lucrece come,
To find a face where all distress is stelled.
I agree "stelled" here is *placed*-- in German "stellen" (to place) is
a very common verb-- it's possible the old germanic word remained more
alive with some English speakers than we're now aware of.
--Volker
Robert Stonehouse
kqk...@aol.com (KQKnave) wrote:
>My paraphrase of 24 would go like this:
>
>"1.My eye has played the painter and has engraved
Reading 'steeled', is that right? That is, engraved with a steel
burin? I am not convinced by this, because I think we need a colour
picture, a painting, not an engraving, to justify its being mounted
in the viewing instrument described later, which I think you have
got absolutely right.
>2. your form on my heart;
>3. My body is the frame wherein it is held,
>4. and viewed: a great example of the painters art.
Yes, with punctuation after 'perspective', it could apply to 'body';
that is, 'my body is its frame and optical viewing-instrument'. That
fits very well with the later verses, where you look in through the
eyes and see the picture.
I have a small residual worry that the rest of the line on its own
looks rather weak, if it just means 'it is a very good picture'.
Could the 'painter's art' include the rest of the apparatus, the
viewing instrument? A picture set in such an instrument would have
been put there by the artist as a rule, I assume, whether it was
Leonardo or Hilliard or Richard Burbadge. Then it would mean 'the
whole spectacle is a contrivance of genius'. And 'Because ...' would
follow absolutely; it explains the workings of the apparatus.
Only problem - the S.O.D. dates 'perspective' meaning I.2, 'an
optical instrument for viewing objects with', to 1789. I would be
prepared to argue this was an earlier example. But I'm nobody.
>5. Because now you have to look at the inside of the painter himself
>6. to see your own image
>
>[you have to understand me in order to understand yourself]
(I don't understand this)
>
>7. which is still hanging in my bosom,
>8. the same bosom that is covered by your eyes[that are looking in]
Yes, her actual eyes, not the picture's. Much better! I suggest
'made transparent' rather than 'covered'.
>9. Now see what our eyes have done for each other:
>10. My eyes have drawn your shape,
>11. and your eyes are windows into me, through which the sun also
>
>[I think here author is saying that that the act of the beloved
>looking into him helps him (the author) understand himself]
Umm. Is he the sun? Surely not. I could understand it if the beloved
was, and looked in to see the picture. Has this love opened up
(generally, to the world) a previously closed, shuttered
personality? No - too psychologistic.
>
>12. delights to look on your image.
>13. But even though I am cunning, I lack the skill
>14. to draw [or understand] what is inside you.
>
>I think Shakespeare is saying that he has forced his lover
>to look inside him (Shakespeare) so that the lover can
>understand Shakespeare, and that the act of the lover
>doing this helps Shakespeare to understand himself,
>but Shakespeare has no trick to help him understand his
>lover.
I admit to thinking this is still just a play on the
exchange-of-hearts idea, or a development of it. Nothing
psychological at all.
> I also think there is incorrect or missing punctuation
>in line 4 (should be a semicolon after "perspective" and
>a possibly a period after the word "art").
Yes, that follows from the interpretation. (My text has the period.)
>The following is one sentence from Helen Vendler's
>long comment on this sonnet:
>
>"This is all so foreign to a modern reader that the charm
>of rococo fantasy may be overlooked in a revulsion against
>seeing a grown man (as cliche would say) writing such
>'drivel'".
I haven't got that far - my problems are still with the obscurity.
But 'rococo fantasy' rather than psychology is how I would see it.
ew...@bcs.org.uk
volker multhopp
Robert Stonehouse wrote:
> kqk...@aol.com (KQKnave) wrote:
> >My paraphrase of 24 would go like this:
[ Which in my bosom's shop is hanging still,
That hath his windows glazed with thine eyes:]
> >7. which is still hanging in my bosom,
> >8. the same bosom that is covered by your eyes[that are looking in]
> Yes, her actual eyes, not the picture's. Much better! I suggest
> 'made transparent' rather than 'covered'.
No, you and Kqknave are both recklessly taking the sonnet onto
unsubstantiated ground. I have no fundamental opposition to having the
relationship being two-sided, but I want some support for that theory in
the text. The "windows" are the eyes, they are "glazed" with them,
hence those eyes need to be the (mental) portrait's eyes which are fixed
and can thus serve as windows. "Glaze" is simply the craftman's term
for *[fit with] glass*; it is not and never was *glance upon* or *gaze
at* or *graze* [touch on]. That those eyes are the windows of the shop
(the author's breast) is repeated almost immediately:
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, where-through the sun
Delights to peep, to gaze therein on thee;
Note the author is not suggesting simple reciprocity. His eyes are
drawing the beloved's shape, whereas the beloved's eyes are *for the
writer* windows into his own heart.
Now, if you have textual support (particularly in the sonnets to date)
for the beloved's actually *looking* at the writer, I'd like to see it.
--Volker
KQKnave
In article <34abc18...@news.cityscape.co.uk>, ew...@bcs.org.uk (Robert
Stonehouse) writes:
This sonnet is a tough one in its particulars!
>>(KQKnave) wrote:
>>My paraphrase of 24 would go like this:
>>"1.My eye has played the painter and has engraved
>Reading 'steeled', is that right? That is, engraved with a steel
>burin? I am not convinced by this, because I think
>we need a colour picture, a painting, not an engraving,
>to justify its being mounted in the viewing instrument described
> later, which I think you have got absolutely right.
I came up with alternate readings even as I was writing that one.
I think "stelled" meaning "to place" is better, but then you have
the phrase "in table of my heart" in the the next sentence. "In"
rather than "on" creates some ambiguity, because you would
engrave into a table, or onto a table, but I don't think you would
place into a table. In any case, I don't think the word has
major implications for the meaning of the poem.
>Could the 'painter's art' include the rest of the apparatus, the
>viewing instrument? A picture set in such an instrument would have
>been put there by the artist as a rule, I assume, whether it was
>Leonardo or Hilliard or Richard Burbadge. Then it would mean 'the
>whole spectacle is a contrivance of genius'. And 'Because
>...' would follow absolutely; it explains the workings of the
>apparatus.
Then the lines and punctuation could be rearranged to mean:
"My body is the frame, and perspective, wherein 'tis held;
it is best painters art", but I prefer to think that perspective
refers to the quality of having perspective, and that the lines
should read "My body is the frame wherein 'tis held, and the
creation of this perspective[or point of view] is due to my great
skill as a painter[of poetic images], which forces you to look
through me to see yourself".
>Only problem - the S.O.D. dates 'perspective' meaning I.2,
>'an optical instrument for viewing objects with', to 1789. I would
>be prepared to argue this was an earlier example. But I'm nobody.
Well, if you're nobody then so am I, but your comments are always
interesting. Most importantly, you're *not* Freud!
>>5. Because now you have to look at the inside of the painter himself
>>6. to see your own image
>>[you have to understand me in order to understand yourself]
>(I don't understand this)
I assume that there must be some allegorical meaning to
the images created in the poem, otherwise what is the point?
The poet himself creates the psychological angle in the couplet,
where he says his eyes can draw only what they see but not
what is in his beloved's heart. I assume "heart" stands for
"your inner psychological being".
>>9. Now see what our eyes have done for each other:
>>10. My eyes have drawn your shape,
>>11. and your eyes are windows into me, through which
>>the sun also
>
>>[I think here author is saying that that the act of the
>beloved looking into him helps him (the author) understand himself]
>Umm. Is he the sun? Surely not. I could understand it if the beloved
>was, and looked in to see the picture. Has this love opened up
>(generally, to the world) a previously closed, shuttered
>personality? No - too psychologistic.
I think the image of the sun is put in to fill the lines, and it is not
crucial to the meaning of the poem. The crux of the poem, to me,
is the following:
"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..."
Here breast can stand in for "heart", the same kind of heart
found in the last line, and the breast is not opened generally
to the world, because the poet says "Your eyes *for me* are
windows to my breast". I think the poem is about a one-sided
relationship, where the beloved is self-centered and adores
his own image, while the poet is trying to understand himself
and his beloved.
It would be a shame if the ambiguity in this sonnet is caused
mostly by typographical errors, and not by the poet himself!
But I think it is due to Shakespeare, and this is one of his most
interesting sonnets.
Jim
Robert Stonehouse
kqk...@aol.com (KQKnave) wrote:
>>>My paraphrase of 24 would go like this:
>>>"1.My eye has played the painter and has engraved
>
>>Reading 'steeled', is that right? That is, engraved with a steel
>>burin? I am not convinced by this, because I think
>>we need a colour picture, a painting, not an engraving,
>>to justify its being mounted in the viewing instrument described
>> later, which I think you have got absolutely right.
>
>I came up with alternate readings even as I was writing that one.
>I think "stelled" meaning "to place" is better, but then you have
>the phrase "in table of my heart" in the the next sentence. "In"
>rather than "on" creates some ambiguity, because you would
>engrave into a table, or onto a table, but I don't think you would
>place into a table.
That was why I picked the meaning 'delineate' from the S.O.D.
>In any case, I don't think the word has
>major implications for the meaning of the poem.
No, in either case we are talking about the light-ray entering the
eye and forming a picture, either the image on the retina or a
Humean 'impression' (both anachronistic, and it doesn't matter
which). But I do think the picture needs to be a painting like
Hilliard's work rather than a black-and-white print like the
Droeshout engraving.
>>Could the 'painter's art' include the rest of the apparatus, the
>>viewing instrument? A picture set in such an instrument would have
>>been put there by the artist as a rule, I assume, whether it was
>>Leonardo or Hilliard or Richard Burbadge. Then it would mean 'the
>>whole spectacle is a contrivance of genius'. And 'Because
>>...' would follow absolutely; it explains the workings of the
>>apparatus.
>
>Then the lines and punctuation could be rearranged to mean:
>"My body is the frame, and perspective, wherein 'tis held;
>it is best painters art", but I prefer to think that perspective
>refers to the quality of having perspective, and that the lines
>should read "My body is the frame wherein 'tis held, and the
>creation of this perspective[or point of view] is due to my great
>skill as a painter[of poetic images], which forces you to look
>through me to see yourself".
What would the grammatical function of the word 'perspective' be? I
don't see how to fit it in.
>>>5. Because now you have to look at the inside of the painter himself
>>>6. to see your own image
>>>[you have to understand me in order to understand yourself]
>
>>(I don't understand this)
>
>I assume that there must be some allegorical meaning to
>the images created in the poem, otherwise what is the point?
It is a development and further play on the idea of an exchange of
hearts - isn't that enough? One commentator seems to think it is
childish, redeemed by rococo charm, but I don't feel that. I am
chary of allegorical meanings in Shakespeare - a great many get
suggested and they seem to go down in swathes before Occam's razor.
>The poet himself creates the psychological angle in the couplet,
>where he says his eyes can draw only what they see but not
>what is in his beloved's heart. I assume "heart" stands for
>"your inner psychological being".
Here, certainly, and also at the beginning where I paraphrased
'innermost consciousness'. But we can't rely on any of these
metaphors to mean the same from one line to another!
>
>>>9. Now see what our eyes have done for each other:
>>>10. My eyes have drawn your shape,
>>>11. and your eyes are windows into me, through which
>>>the sun also
>>
>>>[I think here author is saying that that the act of the
>>beloved looking into him helps him (the author) understand himself]
>
>>Umm. Is he the sun? Surely not. I could understand it if the beloved
>>was, and looked in to see the picture.
>
>I think the image of the sun is put in to fill the lines, and it is not
>crucial to the meaning of the poem. The crux of the poem, to me,
>is the following:
>"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..."
>
>Here breast can stand in for "heart", the same kind of heart
>found in the last line, and the breast is not opened generally
>to the world, because the poet says "Your eyes *for me* are
>windows to my breast". I think the poem is about a one-sided
>relationship, where the beloved is self-centered and adores
>his own image, while the poet is trying to understand himself
>and his beloved.
The self-centredness applies to sonnets 1-17 for sure, but does it
fit 21-24?
>
>It would be a shame if the ambiguity in this sonnet is caused
>mostly by typographical errors, and not by the poet himself!
>But I think it is due to Shakespeare, and this is one of his most
>interesting sonnets.
We seem to have decided there is one punctuation problem, but
whichever way that goes, it still leaves plenty for the author! I'd
say his playing with ideas is elaborate on purpose and practically
bound to be obscure.
ew...@bcs.org.uk
Robert Stonehouse
volker multhopp <vol...@erols.com> wrote:
>Robert Stonehouse wrote:
>> kqk...@aol.com (KQKnave) wrote:
>> >My paraphrase of 24 would go like this:
> That hath his windows glazed with thine eyes:]
>> >7. which is still hanging in my bosom,
>> >8. the same bosom that is covered by your eyes[that are looking in]
>
>> Yes, her actual eyes, not the picture's. Much better! I suggest
>> 'made transparent' rather than 'covered'.
>
> No, you and Kqknave are both recklessly taking the sonnet onto
>unsubstantiated ground.
the page, without preconceptions. I don't see this description fits.
>I have no fundamental opposition to having the
>relationship being two-sided, but I want some support for that theory in
>the text.
Nobody is suggesting a theory at all - just reading the poem. You
seem to have a theory that there is a non-two-sided relationship
going on. I simply don't know - I just read the words.
>The "windows" are the eyes, they are "glazed" with them,
>hence those eyes need to be the (mental) portrait's eyes which are fixed
>and can thus serve as windows. "Glaze" is simply the craftman's term
>for *[fit with] glass*; it is not and never was *glance upon* or *gaze
>at* or *graze* [touch on].
Nobody has suggested any of those three meanings. 'Glaze' means 'fit
with glass'. But what is the point of doing it? The suggestions are
(a) to cover it (keep the rain out) and (b) to make it transparent.
>That those eyes are the windows of the shop
>(the author's breast) is repeated almost immediately:
>
> 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, where-through the sun
> Delights to peep, to gaze therein on thee;
>
> Note the author is not suggesting simple reciprocity. His eyes are
>drawing the beloved's shape, whereas the beloved's eyes are *for the
>writer* windows into his own heart.
He does not repeat identical words, but what he is saying is 'What I
do for you is this, what you do for me is that.' I would take the
words 'for me' in that sense, rather than as meaning that the writer
looks into his own breast, 'you have made a hole in me through which
I can look inside'.
>
> Now, if you have textual support (particularly in the sonnets to date)
>for the beloved's actually *looking* at the writer, I'd like to see it.
Maybe 9-11 of this poem are the nearest. But it is natural for a
poet to write 'I look at you' much more than 'you look at me'; the
first is self-expression, the second mere narrative, and the sonnets
are short on narrative. I do not see this point as significant,
unless there is some underlying theory behind it.
ew...@bcs.org.uk
KQKnave
In article <34ae0dd2...@news.cityscape.co.uk>, ew...@bcs.org.uk (Robert
Stonehouse) writes:
>>KQKnave wrote:
>>Then the lines and punctuation could be rearranged to mean:
>>"My body is the frame, and perspective, wherein 'tis held;
>>it is best painters art", but I prefer to think that perspective
>>refers to the quality of having perspective, and that the lines
>>should read "My body is the frame wherein 'tis held, and
>>the creation of this perspective[or point of view] is due to my great
>>skill as a painter[of poetic images], which forces you to look
>>through me to see yourself".
>What would the grammatical function of the word 'perspective' be?
>I don't see how to fit it in.
It is unclear no matter what meaning you choose. Either
the sense of the use of the word in this way is lost due to
the passage of time, or there is some typographical
error or misunderstanding.
>It is a development and further play on the idea of an exchange of
>hearts - isn't that enough?
It is not an exchange, it is a one sided transation. The beloved
does not place the image of the author in his bosom, does he?
> One commentator seems to think it is childish, redeemed by
>rococo charm, but I don't feel that.
Vendler likes it. She said that "Some modern readers..." may
feel that it is drivel.
> I am chary of allegorical meanings in Shakespeare - a great
>many get suggested and they seem to go down in swathes
>before Occam's razor.
So am I, but in this case the literal poem doesn't make much
sense without some underlying allegory.
>The self-centredness applies to sonnets
>1-17 for sure, but does it fit 21-24?
Why not? If the author uses the theme of the self-centered
beloved in earlier poems, why can't he use the same
theme occasionally in other poems?
Jim
KQKnave
In article <34AE23...@erols.com>, volker multhopp <vol...@erols.com>
writes:
>Now, if you have textual support (particularly in the sonnets to date)
>for the beloved's actually *looking* at the writer, I'd like to see it.
In the line "For through the painter you must see his skill" implies that
the beloved is looking through the author.
Jim
volker multhopp
Robert Stonehouse wrote:
> volker multhopp <vol...@erols.com> wrote:
> >Robert Stonehouse wrote:
> >> kqk...@aol.com (KQKnave) wrote:
> >> >8. the same bosom that is covered by your eyes[that are looking in]
> >> Yes, her actual eyes, not the picture's. Much better! I suggest
> >> 'made transparent' rather than 'covered'.
> > No, you and Kqknave are both recklessly taking the sonnet onto
> >unsubstantiated ground.
> All we are doing is trying to understand the words as they stand on
> the page, without preconceptions. I don't see this description fits.
It's unsubstantiated because it hasn't said that the beloved has looked
on the writer. You're trying to create that.
> >I have no fundamental opposition to having the
> >relationship being two-sided, but I want some support for that theory in
> >the text.
> Nobody is suggesting a theory at all - just reading the poem. You
> seem to have a theory that there is a non-two-sided relationship
> going on. I simply don't know - I just read the words.
I do have that theory-- but I'm not forcing an interpretation to fit.
> >The "windows" are the eyes, they are "glazed" with them,
> >hence those eyes need to be the (mental) portrait's eyes which are fixed
> >and can thus serve as windows. "Glaze" is simply the craftman's term
> >for *[fit with] glass*; it is not and never was *glance upon* or *gaze
> >at* or *graze* [touch on].
> Nobody has suggested any of those three meanings. 'Glaze' means 'fit
> with glass'. But what is the point of doing it? The suggestions are
> (a) to cover it (keep the rain out) and (b) to make it transparent.
Of course you're suggesting one of the 3 false meanings. The line was,
"That hath his windows glazed with thine eyes", which you're trying to
turn into "Thine eyes have looked at me (on my breast)"-- that goes too
far afield.
The point of the "glazing" comes from the idea that eyes are the window
into the soul, and also that they are often considered a person's most
important visible feature. If the beloved's image is a picture in the
writer's breast, the breast becomes a shop to hold the picture. The
shop windows are eyes through which one see the painting- one can look
inside, and the image can look out. Furthermore, the windows present
the shop, just as the eyes present the face.
> >That those eyes are the windows of the shop
> >(the author's breast) is repeated almost immediately:
> > 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, where-through the sun
> > Delights to peep, to gaze therein on thee;
> > Note the author is not suggesting simple reciprocity. His eyes are
> >drawing the beloved's shape, whereas the beloved's eyes are *for the
> >writer* windows into his own heart.
> He does not repeat identical words, but what he is saying is 'What I
> do for you is this, what you do for me is that.' I would take the
> words 'for me' in that sense, rather than as meaning that the writer
> looks into his own breast, 'you have made a hole in me through which
> I can look inside'.
I think this is fairly clear-- the beloved's eye's are windows into the
writer, whereinto even the sun can shine. The writer has been opened by
the beloved, and not just for introspection.
> > Now, if you have textual support (particularly in the sonnets to date)
> >for the beloved's actually *looking* at the writer, I'd like to see it.
> Maybe 9-11 of this poem are the nearest. But it is natural for a
> poet to write 'I look at you' much more than 'you look at me'; the
> first is self-expression, the second mere narrative, and the sonnets
> are short on narrative. I do not see this point as significant,
> unless there is some underlying theory behind it.
But you have advanced a theory on the point, without declaring it. It
is your theory that the beloved does look at the writer.
--Volker
volker multhopp
KQKnave wrote:
> In article <34AE23...@erols.com>, volker multhopp <vol...@erols.com>
> writes:
> >Now, if you have textual support (particularly in the sonnets to date)
> >for the beloved's actually *looking* at the writer, I'd like to see it.
> In the line "For through the painter you must see his skill" implies that
> the beloved is looking through the author.
The imperative "must" indicates that the connected "you" is not the
addressed beloved, but a general *you*-- *anyone can/must see through
the artist his skill*. That he is forcing an aphorism by use of a
general *you* is signaled by his switching from the intimate *thou* to
the multipurpose *you*. WS has vacillated between *thou* and *you*
already in the sonnets, but, iirc, this is the first time he switches--
back and forth, no less-- within a sonnet.
Of course, WS's cleverness is that he is creating an pretty aphorism,
and simultaneously replaying with this constant metaphor of the
beloved's image inside the writer. In the repeat of the sonnet below, I
have starred all the lines which recreate that metaphor.
Sonnet 24
Mine eye hath played 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.
* 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, where-through 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.
* = beloved's image in writer's breast
--Volker
KQKnave
More food for thought:
Robert Stonehouse may be right in suggesting that "perspective" is a looking
glass. Through the magic of computational Shakespeare, I was able to search
the text for "perspective" and found 2 instances. The first, in Twelfth
Night,act
V, scene 1 line 217(Riverside) is: "A natural perspective, that is and is not!"
where in this case "perspective" means illusion, and a natural perspective is
an optical illusion. The second case is in All's Well...Act V scene 3 line 48
"Contempt his scornful perspective did lend me", where "perspective" means
an optical glass that distorts whatever is seen through it.
So, with these 2 definitions in mind, we can multipy entities even more!
I have no problem with that, as these poems are works of art and should be
ambiguous (ambiguity is almost a definition of great art). I think Occam's
razor
comes in when you are debating facts, scientific or historical. For example,
we can first use Occam's razor to eliminate the possibility of Oxford as the
author of the sonnets, and then we don't have to bring him into the discussion.
Jim
Robert Stonehouse
Julia <J...@mistylaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Mine eye hath played 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, /
> 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 glaz'ed with thine eyes. /
> 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. /
My first effort was so far out that I feel bound to come back. This
version takes all the words in a reasonable sense and makes
consecutive sense of each line and of the poem as a whole. Most
grateful thanks for the help of all my critics, especially KQKnave
who seems to be ace at this. I hope they will not reject my thanks
simply because they (still) disagree with my conclusions!
My eyes (receiving and transmitting light) have acted the part of a
painter and laid up /
your beautiful image in the memorandum-book of my consciousness. /
My body holds the image (as a painting on canvas is held in a
frame) /
and acts as a viewing-box. It is a supreme piece of artistic
ingenuity, /
because to appreciate the craftsmanship, you have to look into the
painter himself /
to find the exact reproduction of your image. /
It stays within my breast, like a painting hanging in the artist’s
workshop, /
and your own eyes are the windows through which to see it. /
Look what our eyes have done for one another! /
Mine have made a picture of you, and yours /
form windows into me through which you, my sun, /
love to look in and see your own image. /
But eyes, clever as they are, lack one power: /
they copy only the visible appearance and know nothing about the
affections. /
This implies punctuating line 4 after ‘perspective’. We should also
probably lighten the punctuation at the end of the line. My
(imaginative and tentative) suggestion for what could have gone
wrong would be as follows.
In the sonnets the argument is most often organised in quatrains.
Exceptions are not rare, but that is the rule. So there is a
temptation to assume heavy punctuation at the end of line 4. Having
yielded to that and put a period there, the punctuator lost the
sense of the rest of the line and printed it without any internal
punctuation. That is how most other lines in the sonnets are
printed.
This breaks line 4 and carries the sense of the second part over to
line 5. It is very unusual: a weakness in my argument, perhaps, but
also a possible explanation for an error. The nearest I see is in
sonnet 3:
‘Thou dost beguile the world, unbless some mother,
For where is she ...?’
(Microsoft Word gives this a Flesch reading ease of nearly 70, but
the paraphrase gets only 63 with a grade level of 10, whatever that
implies. I am trying to be explicit.)