Weekly Sonnet, No. 68
bookburn
Sonnet LXVIII.
THUS is his cheek the map of days outworn
When beauty liv'd and died as flowers do now,
Before these bastard signs of fair were born,
Or durst inhabit on a living brow;
Before the golden tresses of the dead, 5
The right of sepulchres, were shorn away,
To live a second life on second head;
Ere beauty's dead fleece made another gay:
In him those holy antique hours are seen,
Without all ornament, itself and true, 10
Making no summer of another's green,
Robbing no old to dress his beauty new;
And him as for a map doth Nature store,
To show false Art what beauty was of yore.
1609 Quarto, old-fashioned spelling.
68
THus is his cheeke the map of daies out-worne,
When beauty liu'd and dy'ed as flowers do now,
Before these bastard signes of faire were borne,
Or durst inhabit on a liuing brow:
Before the goulden tresses of the dead,
The right of sepulchers,were shorne away,
To liue a scond life on second head,
Ere beauties dead fleece made another gay:
In him those holy antique howers are seene,
Without all ornament,it selfe and true,
Making no summer of an others greene,
Robbing no ould to dresse his beauty new,
And him as for a map doth Nature store,
To shew faulse Art what beauty was of yore.
Wincharley
>The Oxford Shakespeare: Poems. 1914.
>
>Sonnet LXVIII.
>
>THUS is his cheek the map of days outworn
>When beauty liv'd and died as flowers do now,
>Before these bastard signs of fair were born,
>Or durst inhabit on a living brow;
>Before the golden tresses of the dead, 5
>The right of sepulchres, were shorn away,
>To live a second life on second head;
>Ere beauty's dead fleece made another gay:
>In him those holy antique hours are seen,
>Without all ornament, itself and true, 10
>Making no summer of another's green,
>Robbing no old to dress his beauty new;
> And him as for a map doth Nature store,
> To show false Art what beauty was of yore.
>
>
>1609 Quarto, old-fashioned spelling.
And all consonants were pronounced.
Robert Stonehouse
>The Oxford Shakespeare: Poems. 1914.
>
>Sonnet LXVIII.
>
>THUS is his cheek the map of days outworn
were like in the old days /
>When beauty liv'd and died as flowers do now,
do, without artifice, /
>Before these bastard signs of fair were born,
>Or durst inhabit on a living brow;
>Before the golden tresses of the dead, 5
at a time before the fine golden hair of any dead
person who had it, /
>The right of sepulchres, were shorn away,
which should have gone to the grave, was cut off /
>To live a second life on second head;
to be used again by another, living head - /
>Ere beauty's dead fleece made another gay:
before the hair of beautiful people who have died
was used to beautify another. /
>In him those holy antique hours are seen,
Looking at him, we can see that sacred ancient time /
>Without all ornament, itself and true, 10
which had no cosmetics, but was unalloyed and genuine /
>Making no summer of another's green,
not re-creating youth out of someone else's beauty /
>Robbing no old to dress his beauty new;
not stealing from what was to make his appearance
freshly beautiful. /
> And him as for a map doth Nature store,
Nature keeps him as a picture and example /
> To show false Art what beauty was of yore.
to show those who use artificial means what
beauty used to be like. /
By quatrains:
(1) So he shows us what beauty was like before artificial aids,
(2) before the hair of dead people was taken for wigs for the
living. (3) His beauty is his own, not stolen from anyone.
(c) He is Nature's pattern of natural beauty.
This is the first time we have had three sonnets in a row that
needed to be taken together. This sonnet is an expansion on the
couplet of sonnet 67 and it begins with the word 'Thus', which makes
the connection explicit. Helen Vendler points out how closely the
couplet of this sonnet is modelled after the couplet of 67, but in
67 it is the answer to all the questions of lines 1-12, while here
it summarises and repeats the argument of the rest of the poem.
('Map' in line 13 brings us back to line 1.) So when I tried to
re-use part of last week's paraphrase, it didn't work.
Line 4, 'living brow'. It is not obvious why 'living' is to the
point, until we have read on a few lines. Typical of the poet.
The second quatrain, about taking the hair of dead people to make
wigs, gives us the shudders probably more than it should. To us, it
overshadows the whole poem, making it an attack on this use of the
dead when it should be (primarily) a praise of natural beauty in the
form of an attack on artificiality. I suppose often the wig-maker's
money must have been a godsend, the only thing that enabled parents
to pay for a decent burial for their child.
(This sonnet neatly explains the passage in The Merchant of Venice
3.2.92-6, Bassanio rejecting the golden casket. That passage does
not help explain this one, because it is more obscure. The 'second
head' there means 'the other head from which the hair originally
came', the opposite of what it means here.)
Line 9, 'those holy antique hours'. This solemn expression puts us
back in the Golden Age. We are not to expect this present age to be
able to abandon artifice. In this sonnet we are not necessarily
approaching the end of the world, but we are definitely in the Age
of Iron. (Indeed, I wonder if the Age of Iron would do for 'these
last <times> so bad' in 67.14.) So, in a sense, the protests are
unreal: the poet rejects his universe, knowing there is no changing
it.
ew...@bcs.org.uk
Paul Crowley
> >THUS is his cheek the map of days outworn
> From this, we see that his face shows what things
> were like in the old days /
All the commentators seem to get this line wrong.
(They have the image of the 'fair youth' so firmly fixed
in their minds that they cannot read the words.)
'Days outworn' == 'worn out days';
so a 'map of worn out days' is a representation of
the face of an AGED (or at least care-worn) man.
> >When beauty liv'd and died as flowers do now,
> when beautiful people lived their lives as flowers
> do, without artifice, /
As the poet implies this 'when' was a long time ago
(perhaps a lifetime ago).
> >Before these bastard signs of fair were born,
> before unnatural additions to beauty were invented /
> >Or durst inhabit on a living brow;
> or dared show themselves on the face of a living person; /
>
> >Before the golden tresses of the dead, 5
> at a time before the fine golden hair of any dead
> person who had it, /
> >The right of sepulchres, were shorn away,
> which should have gone to the grave, was cut off /
> >To live a second life on second head;
> to be used again by another, living head - /
> >Ere beauty's dead fleece made another gay:
> before the hair of beautiful people who have died
> was used to beautify another. /
>
> >In him those holy antique hours are seen,
> Looking at him, we can see that sacred ancient time /
I am sure that 'holy antique hours' means something
more than this. It is a very strange phrase. Perhaps
he's referring to the celebration of the Catholic mass?
But that is only a guess, although 'ornament' in the
next line could also hint at it.
> >Without all ornament, itself and true, 10
> which had no cosmetics, but was unalloyed and genuine /
> >Making no summer of another's green,
> not re-creating youth out of someone else's beauty /
> >Robbing no old to dress his beauty new;
> not stealing from what was to make his appearance
> freshly beautiful. /
Does robbing from the old enable you to dress
your beauty new? There is something else going
on here.
> > And him as for a map doth Nature store,
> Nature keeps him as a picture and example /
> > To show false Art what beauty was of yore.
> to show those who use artificial means what
> beauty used to be like. /
> This is the first time we have had three sonnets in a row that
> needed to be taken together. This sonnet is an expansion on the
> couplet of sonnet 67 and it begins with the word 'Thus', which makes
> the connection explicit.
It might -- if the subject matter was even close. Of course,
when you're a Strat, and you read these sonnets as the
embodiment of shallowness, you can see continuity in
almost anything. It's like reducing brilliantly coloured Old
Masters to obscure patterns in dull tones of grey. One
grey blur looks much like the next.
I find this sonnet so obscure and difficult, that I have
little constructive to say on it.
Paul.
--
Email: pebj...@ubgznvy.pbz (apply ROT13)
Bob Grumman
THUS is his cheek the map of days outworn
When beauty liv'd and died as flowers do now,
Before these bastard signs of fair were born,
Or durst inhabit on a living brow;
Before the golden tresses of the dead, 5
The right of sepulchres, were shorn away,
To live a second life on second head;
Ere beauty's dead fleece made another gay:
In him those holy antique hours are seen,
Without all ornament, itself and true, 10
Making no summer of another's green,
Robbing no old to dress his beauty new;
And him as for a map doth Nature store,
To show false Art what beauty was of yore.
Paul finds "this sonnet so obscure and difficult, that (he has)
little constructive to say on it."
It IS remarkably straight-forward and resistant toward the
silly topicality you are addicted to reading into the sonnets,
isn't it, Paul. The only tough word is "outworn," but my Folger
sonnet collection defines that as "past," which one could
guess without the help since the final line says directly
that Nature uses the "he" of the poem to show those who
depend on cosmetics and wigs to look good what real
beauty, the beauty that existed in the past, looks like.
It is thus not the need of us Stratfordians to believe in
the fair youth that is so often in the poems (on the surface,
at any rate) that leads us to take the man in the first line
as young, not old, but the sense of the sonnet, even by itself.
The poet even repeats the word "map." In line one "his cheek"
is a map of the past; in line 13 his whole physical person is
a map of beauty. The poem simply contrasts natural beauty with
ersatz beauty.
It certainly is a terrific sonnet to praise a queen well-known to
wear a wig and use cosmetics with, though. He was making soft
fun of her "daze," right?
--Bob G.
--
Posted from dunk44.nut-n-but.net [205.161.239.73]
via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Robert Stonehouse
>Robert Stonehouse <ew...@bcs.org.uk> wrote in message news:3bc7d33b...@news.cityscape.co.uk...
>> >THUS is his cheek the map of days outworn
>> From this, we see that his face shows what things
>> were like in the old days /
>
>All the commentators seem to get this line wrong.
>(They have the image of the 'fair youth' so firmly fixed
>in their minds that they cannot read the words.)
>'Days outworn' == 'worn out days';
>so a 'map of worn out days' is a representation of
>the face of an AGED (or at least care-worn) man.
man in worn-out times. There is no problem in that.
>
>> >When beauty liv'd and died as flowers do now,
>> when beautiful people lived their lives as flowers
>> do, without artifice, /
>As the poet implies this 'when' was a long time ago
>(perhaps a lifetime ago).
...
>> >In him those holy antique hours are seen,
>> Looking at him, we can see that sacred ancient time /
>I am sure that 'holy antique hours' means something
>more than this. It is a very strange phrase. Perhaps
>he's referring to the celebration of the Catholic mass?
>But that is only a guess, although 'ornament' in the
>next line could also hint at it.
...
>> >Robbing no old to dress his beauty new;
>> not stealing from what was to make his appearance
>> freshly beautiful. /
>Does robbing from the old enable you to dress
>your beauty new? There is something else going
>on here.
on, or part of it.
...
>> This is the first time we have had three sonnets in a row that
>> needed to be taken together. This sonnet is an expansion on the
>> couplet of sonnet 67 and it begins with the word 'Thus', which makes
>> the connection explicit.
>It might -- if the subject matter was even close. Of course,
>when you're a Strat, and you read these sonnets as the
>embodiment of shallowness, you can see continuity in
>almost anything. It's like reducing brilliantly coloured Old
>Masters to obscure patterns in dull tones of grey. One
>grey blur looks much like the next.
>
>I find this sonnet so obscure and difficult, that I have
>little constructive to say on it.
connection between the three, 66-67-68, which is plain from the
words of the poems themselves. The subject-matter is not the same in
all three because it is consecutive - one follows from another. If
you feel bound to divine the subject-matter from contemporary
events, and cannot make the three fit, then the fact that they do
not fit is evidence that your construction is wrong.
To read these poems as commentary on the human condition, instead of
treating them as chit-chat on contemporary events, is surely not
what most people would mean by 'shallow'. But I at least do not feel
able to deal with the human condition. I will handle the words,
after which the poet may speak for himself.
ew...@bcs.org.uk
KQKnave
<pebj...@ubgznvy.pbz (apply ROT13)> writes:
>
>> >THUS is his cheek the map of days outworn
>> From this, we see that his face shows what things
>> were like in the old days /
>
>All the commentators seem to get this line wrong.
>(They have the image of the 'fair youth' so firmly fixed
>in their minds that they cannot read the words.)
>'Days outworn' == 'worn out days';
>so a 'map of worn out days' is a representation of
>the face of an AGED (or at least care-worn) man.
The Kinbotian madness of Crowley's commentary is
so dazzling, it's almost beautiful. Yes, it's quite insane,
to say that this poem is about an aged man. The young man's
cheek is a "MAP of days outworn, a time when beauty lived
and died as flowers do now", before makeup and wigs were used.
"In him those holy antique hours are seen...making no
summer of another's green" Implying that he is in his own
summer.
>> >When beauty liv'd and died as flowers do now,
>> when beautiful people lived their lives as flowers
>> do, without artifice, /
>
>As the poet implies this 'when' was a long time ago
>(perhaps a lifetime ago).
>
>> >Before these bastard signs of fair were born,
>> before unnatural additions to beauty were invented /
>> >Or durst inhabit on a living brow;
>> or dared show themselves on the face of a living person; /
>>
>> >Before the golden tresses of the dead, 5
>> at a time before the fine golden hair of any dead
>> person who had it, /
>> >The right of sepulchres, were shorn away,
>> which should have gone to the grave, was cut off /
>> >To live a second life on second head;
>> to be used again by another, living head - /
>> >Ere beauty's dead fleece made another gay:
>> before the hair of beautiful people who have died
>> was used to beautify another. /
>>
>> >In him those holy antique hours are seen,
>> Looking at him, we can see that sacred ancient time /
>
>I am sure that 'holy antique hours' means something
>more than this. It is a very strange phrase.
It's called poetry. Try it sometime.
>Perhaps
>he's referring to the celebration of the Catholic mass?
Why? Is there anything else Catholic in the poem?
>But that is only a guess, although 'ornament' in the
>next line could also hint at it.
Why? What is Catholic about "ornament"?
>
>> >Without all ornament, itself and true, 10
>> which had no cosmetics, but was unalloyed and genuine /
>> >Making no summer of another's green,
>> not re-creating youth out of someone else's beauty /
>> >Robbing no old to dress his beauty new;
>> not stealing from what was to make his appearance
>> freshly beautiful. /
>Does robbing from the old enable you to dress
>your beauty new? There is something else going
>on here.
Yes, apart from your misreading. Robbing the hair,
for example, from an old dead person to make a wig
in an ATTEMPT to be beautiful. Which is what the
POET is complaining about.
>> > And him as for a map doth Nature store,
>> Nature keeps him as a picture and example /
>> > To show false Art what beauty was of yore.
>> to show those who use artificial means what
>> beauty used to be like. /
>
>> This is the first time we have had three sonnets in a row that
>> needed to be taken together. This sonnet is an expansion on the
>> couplet of sonnet 67 and it begins with the word 'Thus', which makes
>> the connection explicit.
>
>It might -- if the subject matter was even close.
A simple question: CAN YOU READ??
Here are two lines from 67:
"Why should false painting imitate his cheek,
And steal dead seeing of his living hue?"
and here are three lines from 68:
"Before the golden tresses of the dead,
The right of sepulchers, were shorn away,
To live a second life on second head-"
Do you understand the relationship between those sets
of lines? Are you a native speaker of English? Do you
need a dictionary? Eyeglasses? Lithium? Shock therapy?
>Of course,
>when you're a Strat, and you read these sonnets as the
>embodiment of shallowness, you can see continuity in
>almost anything. It's like reducing brilliantly coloured Old
>Masters to obscure patterns in dull tones of grey. One
>grey blur looks much like the next.
Perhaps if we place the
two sonnets right after the other you can see the relationship:
Ah wherefore with infection should he live,
And with his presence grace impiety,
That sin by him advantage should achieve,
And lace it self with his society?
Why should false painting imitate his cheek,
And steal dead seeming of his living hue?
Why should poor beauty indirectly seek,
Roses of shadow, since his rose is true?
Why should he live, now nature bankrupt is,
Beggared of blood to blush through lively veins
For she hath no exchequer now but his,
And proud of many, lives upon his gains?
O him she stores, to show what wealth she had,
In days long since, before these last so bad.
Thus is his cheek the map of days outworn,
When beauty lived and died as flowers do now,
Before these bastard signs of fair were born,
Or durst inhabit on a living brow:
Before the golden tresses of the dead,
The right of sepulchres, were shorn away,
To live a second life on second head,
Ere beauty's dead fleece made another gay:
In him those holy antique hours are seen,
Without all ornament, it self and true,
Making no summer of another's green,
Robbing no old to dress his beauty new,
And him as for a map doth Nature store,
To show false Art what beauty was of yore.
>I find this sonnet so obscure and difficult, that I have
>little constructive to say on it.
As I said, we can get you a dictionary.
Jim
Paul Crowley
> THUS is his cheek the map of days outworn
> When beauty liv'd and died as flowers do now,
> Before these bastard signs of fair were born,
> Or durst inhabit on a living brow;
> Before the golden tresses of the dead, 5
> The right of sepulchres, were shorn away,
> To live a second life on second head;
> Ere beauty's dead fleece made another gay:
> In him those holy antique hours are seen,
> Without all ornament, itself and true, 10
> Making no summer of another's green,
> Robbing no old to dress his beauty new;
> And him as for a map doth Nature store,
> To show false Art what beauty was of yore.
>
> Paul finds "this sonnet so obscure and difficult, that (he has)
> little constructive to say on it."
>
> It IS remarkably straight-forward and resistant toward the
> silly topicality you are addicted to reading into the sonnets,
I don't find it "remarkably straight-forward" at all. But
then I'm looking for some meaning -- some way in
which I can relate it to the Elizabethan world. If you
are willing to take it in the traditional Stratfordian
manner -- a collocation of pleasant sounding words,
with little or no meaning -- then you may well find if
"remarkably straight-forward".
> The only tough word is "outworn," but my Folger
> sonnet collection defines that as "past," which one could
> guess without the help since the final line says directly
> that Nature uses the "he" of the poem to show those who
> depend on cosmetics and wigs to look good what real
> beauty, the beauty that existed in the past, looks like.
And you really think that's all that THIS poet would
write a sonnet about?
> It certainly is a terrific sonnet to praise a queen well-known to
> wear a wig and use cosmetics with, though.
Who said anything about 'praise'. He was her
'allowed fool' and he very often said highly critical
things of her. She was no fool, and she needed
people around her who were not always going
to be slavishly adulatory -- tough, as it must have
been, to take a lot of the things he did say.
KQKnave
(Janice Miller) writes:
>> Sonnet LXVIII.
>>
>> THUS is his cheek the map of days outworn
>> When beauty liv'd and died as flowers do now,
>> Before these bastard signs of fair were born,
>> Or durst inhabit on a living brow;
>> Before the golden tresses of the dead, 5
>> The right of sepulchres, were shorn away,
>> To live a second life on second head;
>> Ere beauty's dead fleece made another gay:
>> In him those holy antique hours are seen,
>> Without all ornament, itself and true, 10
>> Making no summer of another's green,
>> Robbing no old to dress his beauty new;
>
>I just noticed that "no old," spoken, would sound like "no wold," or even
>"noel." Decking the halls at Yuletide to cover over the "death" of Nature
>would be consistent with the paradoxes in the poem (beauty was once but a
>flower but isn't now, beauty is now eternal but that change is not, as
>Plato holds, for the good). Gold isn't especially wintry, though, unless
>there's some aspect of English plant life I'm not aware of.
>
>May we take "robbing" as an indication that Leicester wrote the sonnets?
>Why not?
>
>> And him as for a map doth Nature store,
>> To show false Art what beauty was of yore.
>
>I find this poem has shamanistic undertones.
>
>The Elizabethan Review web site (elizreview.com) had an interesting
>article describing the signs that Shakespeare had an in-depth knowledge of
>the pagan religions of the region, though as I remember the article
>refrained from speculation as to where he could have obtained that
>abstruse knowledge.
Is this supposed to be some kind of parody?
Jim
Paul Crowley
> In article <xF_x7.6656$w5.4...@news.indigo.ie>, "Paul Crowley"
> >All the commentators seem to get this line wrong.
> >(They have the image of the 'fair youth' so firmly fixed
> >in their minds that they cannot read the words.)
> >'Days outworn' == 'worn out days';
> >so a 'map of worn out days' is a representation of
> >the face of an AGED (or at least care-worn) man.
>
> The Kinbotian madness of Crowley's commentary is
> so dazzling, it's almost beautiful. Yes, it's quite insane,
> to say that this poem is about an aged man. The young man's
You do not KNOW that 'he' is a 'young man'. Of
course, you won't let that interfere with your quasi-
religious belief.
> cheek is a "MAP of days outworn, a time when beauty lived
> and died as flowers do now", before makeup and wigs were used.
This poet was careful in his choice of words. He
knew what 'outworn' meant -- think of it like old
clothes. What would be a 'map of worn out clothes'?
-- Something showing ragged edges, tears, dirt,
holes, moths? Or think of worn out boots.
So what would be 'a map of worn out days'?
> cheek is a "MAP of days outworn, a time when beauty lived
> and died as flowers do now", before makeup and wigs were used.
So? A map of worn out days could take us back to
the 2nd World War -- faded pictures of army service?
> "In him those holy antique hours are seen.
And what do these words say? Can you see
yourself going to a Christening ceremony and
saying to the parents about their infant "In him
those holy antique hours are seen . . . " ?
What is the obvious meaning of those words?
That he's about 7 months old? Or 7 years old?
Or about 70 years old?
> ..making no
> summer of another's green" Implying that he is in his own
> summer.
NO, it doesn't. The poet says 'making NO summer . . '.
Like others (e.g. Bookburn's commentator) I see this
as a criticism of Queen Elizabeth who WAS making
a "summer of another's green". This guy (whoever
he was) was not emulating her. Presumably he was
growing old gracefully. Maybe the poet is pointing to
Leicester or to Burghley, both of whom had white in
their hair.
1. Thus is his cheek the map of days outworn,
2. When beauty lived and died as flowers do now,
3. Before these bastard signs of fair were born,
4. Or durst inhabit on a living brow;
5. Before the golden tresses of the dead,
6. The right of sepulchres, were shorn away,
7. To live a second life on second head;
8. Ere beauty's dead fleece made another gay:
9. In him those holy antique hours are seen,
10. Without all ornament, itself and true,
11. Making no summer of another's green,
12. Robbing no old to dress his beauty new;
13. And him as for a map doth Nature store,
14. To show false Art what beauty was of yore
> >But that is only a guess, although 'ornament' in the
> >next line could also hint at it.
>
> Why? What is Catholic about "ornament"?
Err . . . have you heard about the Reformation? And
Luther . . . and all that?
[..]
> >> >Robbing no old to dress his beauty new;
> >> not stealing from what was to make his appearance
> >> freshly beautiful. /
>
> >Does robbing from the old enable you to dress
> >your beauty new? There is something else going
> >on here.
>
> Yes, apart from your misreading. Robbing the hair,
> for example, from an old dead person to make a wig
> in an ATTEMPT to be beautiful. Which is what the
> POET is complaining about.
Yeah. Have you heard of all the stories about old
people getting mugged -- so that their hair can be
cut off and sold to wigmakers . . . because every
young person now wants old hair. It's the latest
fashion statement -- and all the super-models
in the glossy magazines have wigs of hair that
look just like your grandmother's.
> A simple question: CAN YOU READ??
> Here are two lines from 67:
>
> "Why should false painting imitate his cheek,
> And steal dead seeing of his living hue?"
That is IMHO about portrait painting. How can it
make sense if you take it to be about face paint?
> and here are three lines from 68:
>
> "Before the golden tresses of the dead,
> The right of sepulchers, were shorn away,
> To live a second life on second head-"
That's about wigs. (Although I'm sure Shakespeare
had all kinds of other meanings.)
> Do you understand the relationship between those sets
> of lines?
One is about portrait painting. The other is about wigs.
> Are you a native speaker of English? Do you
> need a dictionary? Eyeglasses? Lithium? Shock therapy?
Wigs can appear in a portrait. Perhaps you can
use a wig (especially of an old person's hair) to
paint a portrait. . . . . Am I on the right lines?
[..]
Paul Crowley
> "Paul Crowley" <pebj...@ubgznvy.pbz (apply ROT13)> wrote:
> >Robert Stonehouse <ew...@bcs.org.uk> wrote in message news:3bc7d33b...@news.cityscape.co.uk...
> >> >THUS is his cheek the map of days outworn
> >> From this, we see that his face shows what things
> >> were like in the old days /
> >
> >All the commentators seem to get this line wrong.
> >(They have the image of the 'fair youth' so firmly fixed
> >in their minds that they cannot read the words.)
> >'Days outworn' == 'worn out days';
> >so a 'map of worn out days' is a representation of
> >the face of an AGED (or at least care-worn) man.
> Worn-out days do not mean a worn-out man. We have a young, vigorous
> man in worn-out times. There is no problem in that.
You've invented (a) this "young, vigorous man".
There is no mention of anyone like that around
here. And (b) you've invented '[these] worn-out
times'. So there ARE major problems here.
> >> >When beauty liv'd and died as flowers do now,
> >> when beautiful people lived their lives as flowers
> >> do, without artifice, /
> >As the poet implies this 'when' was a long time ago
> >(perhaps a lifetime ago).
> A lot longer than that, I think. The Golden Age is legendary.
Where do you get "The Golden Age" from?
No, it is not. You can imagine connections, but you'll
find it damned hard to point them out. You can, of
course, set out to interpret lines to read in
'connections' but they are not there in the text.
> The subject-matter is not the same in
> all three because it is consecutive - one follows from another. If
> you feel bound to divine the subject-matter from contemporary
> events, and cannot make the three fit, then the fact that they do
> not fit is evidence that your construction is wrong.
This sonnet is a good example. You are determined
to bring in your 'young man'. (Although, you don't see
it as determination -- you just know he's there ALL the
time, and you see 'him' even when the words says the
very opposite of what you need. You take them to
mean the exact opposite of what they do say -- so
'outworn' is read as 'fresh'; 'old' becomes 'young';
'antique' is 'new' etc.)
> To read these poems as commentary on the human condition, instead of
> treating them as chit-chat on contemporary events, is surely not
> what most people would mean by 'shallow'.
They are 'commentary on the human condition' but
it's almost impossible to get to that without dealing
with the particular. In today's context, a poet would
probably write about the Twin Towers -- AND the
human condition. Shakespeare worked in much
the same way. Neither is 'chit-chat'. Of course, WS
had to hide his local and particular references -- for
very good reasons. It is our job to try to identify them.
John W. Kennedy
> The Elizabethan Review web site (elizreview.com) had an interesting
> article describing the signs that Shakespeare had an in-depth knowledge of
> the pagan religions of the region, though as I remember the article
> refrained from speculation as to where he could have obtained that
> abstruse knowledge.
It is only fitting that one ignorant cult should fall victim to another.
--
John W. Kennedy
(Working from my laptop)
Robert Stonehouse
>Robert Stonehouse <ew...@bcs.org.uk> wrote in message news:3bc8bd43...@news.cityscape.co.uk...
>> "Paul Crowley" <pebj...@ubgznvy.pbz (apply ROT13)> wrote:
>> >Robert Stonehouse <ew...@bcs.org.uk> wrote in message news:3bc7d33b...@news.cityscape.co.uk...
>> Worn-out days do not mean a worn-out man. We have a young, vigorous
>> man in worn-out times. There is no problem in that.
>You've invented (a) this "young, vigorous man".
>There is no mention of anyone like that around
>here. And (b) you've invented '[these] worn-out
>times'. So there ARE major problems here.
would be better to say 'young and handsome'. But the point survives
- 'days outworn' means 'worn-out times'. The adjective goes with
'days', not with 'he'. There is no problem.
...
>> >As the poet implies this 'when' was a long time ago
>> >(perhaps a lifetime ago).
>> A lot longer than that, I think. The Golden Age is legendary.
>Where do you get "The Golden Age" from?
have a special meaning.
...
>> You have made this sonnet difficult for yourself by rejecting the
>> connection between the three, 66-67-68, which is plain from the
>> words of the poems themselves.
>No, it is not. You can imagine connections, but you'll
>find it damned hard to point them out. You can, of
>course, set out to interpret lines to read in
>'connections' but they are not there in the text.
a new beginning, changing the subject of the previous few sonnets,
and ends with 'my love' alone among the evils of the world. Sonnet
67 begins with 'he', needing a reference back to the previous poem
to give the word an antecedent, living with 'infection', which
describes the same situation that ended sonnet 66. Sonnet 67 ends by
saying the point of all this is that 'he' is Nature's showpiece and
example of the beauties she once had in abundance. Sonnet 68 then
begins with 'Thus' and elaborates that point that ended sonnet 67,
coming back to a couplet closely parallel to that of sonnet 67..
>
>> The subject-matter is not the same in
>> all three because it is consecutive - one follows from another. If
>> you feel bound to divine the subject-matter from contemporary
>> events, and cannot make the three fit, then the fact that they do
>> not fit is evidence that your construction is wrong.
>
>This sonnet is a good example. You are determined
>to bring in your 'young man'. (Although, you don't see
>it as determination -- you just know he's there ALL the
>time, and you see 'him' even when the words says the
>very opposite of what you need. You take them to
>mean the exact opposite of what they do say -- so
>'outworn' is read as 'fresh'; 'old' becomes 'young';
>'antique' is 'new' etc.)
(so far as I can) and without importing extraneous matters. 'He'
figures in line 1.
>
>> To read these poems as commentary on the human condition, instead of
>> treating them as chit-chat on contemporary events, is surely not
>> what most people would mean by 'shallow'.
>They are 'commentary on the human condition' but
>it's almost impossible to get to that without dealing
>with the particular. In today's context, a poet would
>probably write about the Twin Towers -- AND the
>human condition. Shakespeare worked in much
>the same way. Neither is 'chit-chat'. Of course, WS
>had to hide his local and particular references -- for
>very good reasons. It is our job to try to identify them.
specialises in doing. He is a virtuoso, he rejoices in a challenge.
He tells us what we need to know for understanding his poem (as a
poem, not as a conundrum) and nothing else. The result is a
remarkably abstract kind of poetry, but alas, it leaves space for
all kinds of imaginative speculation if our attention strays from
the poetical point.
ew...@bcs.org.uk