Weekly Sonnet, No. 103
bookburn
Sonnet CIII.
ALACK! what poverty my Muse brings forth
That having such a scope to show her pride,
The argument, all bare, is of more worth
Than when it hath my added praise beside!
O! blame me not, if I no more can write! 5
Look in your glass, and there appears a face
That over-goes my blunt invention quite,
Dulling my lines and doing me disgrace.
Were it not sinful then, striving to mend,
To mar the subject that before was well? 10
For to no other pass my verses tend
Than of your graces and your gifts to tell;
And more, much more, than in my verse can sit,
Your own glass shows you when you look in it.
1609 Quarto, old-fashioned spelling.
I03
ALack what pouerty my Muse brings forth,
That hauing such a skope to show her pride,
The argument all bare is of more worth
Then when it hath my added praise beside.
Oh blame me not if I no more can write!
Looke in your glasse and there appeares a face,
That ouer-goes my blunt inuention quite,
Dulling my lines,and doing me disgrace.
Were it not sinfull then striuing to mend,
To marre the subiect that before was well,
For to no other passe my verses tend,
Then of your graces and your gifts to tell.
And more,much more then in my verse can sit,
Your owne glasse showes you,when you looke in it.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.368 / Virus Database: 204 - Release Date: 5/29/02
Robert Stonehouse
>The Oxford Shakespeare: Poems. 1914.
>
>Sonnet CIII.
>
>ALACK! what poverty my Muse brings forth
ability produces /
>That having such a scope to show her pride,
show how well she can do, /
>The argument, all bare, is of more worth
>Than when it hath my added praise beside!
>O! blame me not, if I no more can write! 5
Don't blame me, if I can't write poetry
any more! /
>Look in your glass, and there appears a face
Look in the mirror and you will see
your own face /
>That over-goes my blunt invention quite,
which completely outdoes my clumsy
creations /
>Dulling my lines and doing me disgrace.
taking the edge off my poems and
putting me to shame. /
>Were it not sinful then, striving to mend,
So it would be a sin, wouldn't it, if in trying
to improve it /
>To mar the subject that before was well? 10
I made the subject worse, when it was
perfectly good already? /
>For to no other pass my verses tend
The only ultimate aim of my poetry /
>Than of your graces and your gifts to tell;
is to describe your beauty and your talents, /
> And more, much more, than in my verse can sit,
and there is something better than there is a
place for in my poetry /
> Your own glass shows you when you look in it.
that you see in the mirror when you look into it. /
The end of this poem does not fit into quatrains:
(1) My poetry is not worthy of you. (2) Do not blame me if I cease
to produce it. (Lines 9-10) It would be wrong to disfigure you by my
inadequate efforts. (Lines 11-14) All I want is to glorify you, and
you are more glorious already than I can make you.
This is a poem, excusing and justifying the non-writing of poems,
glorifying the addressee by saying that such glorification is
impossible. By now, we tend to take such a pile of paradoxes in our
stride! It is some time since we had such a constant emphasis on the
addressee's personal appearance; only one word on 'gifts' which I
take to be the other talents.
Line 1: 'A Lack' is how the opening looks in the Quarto. This is
simply the result of the way openings are printed: a double-size
drop capital followed by a normal-size capital, then reverting to
normal type. It does not really make a full pun with 'poverty' - a
tease, rather. But evidently the poet knew how to expect the
printing to come out.
'my Muse': Putting the blame on the Muse sets it a little apart from
the poet himself. In that, it returns to the theme of 100-101 over
the gap of 102.
Lines 7-8: 'blunt' and 'dulling' make up a single metaphor from
taking the edge off a knife. The commentators seem not to point this
out, and consequently have trouble with the meanings of the words.
Lines 9-10 really have the conclusion of the argument, which might
more usually come in the couplet. Lines 11-14 then go back to the
argument of the second quatrain.
ew...@bcs.org.uk
Paul Crowley
2. That having such a scope to show her pride,
3. The argument all bare is of more worth
4. Than when it hath my added praise beside.
5. Oh blame me not if I no more can write!
6. Look in your glass and there appears a face
7. That over-goes my blunt invention quite,
8. Dulling my lines, and doing me disgrace.
9. Were it not sinful then striving to mend,
10. To mar the subject that before was well,
11. For to no other pass my verses tend,
12. Than of your graces and your gifts to tell;
13. And more, much more than in my verse can sit,
14. Your own glass shows you, when you look in it.
This sonnet has a superb bawdy reading
(which is somewhat tedious and self-
defeating to have to spell out). But since
it is in the tone of a male poet addressing,
in a flirtatious manner, a broad-minded
female friend, Stratfordian commentators
necessarily miss all, or nearly all, of it.
(Booth's exegesis is most peculiar; he gives
the appearance of realising the highly bawdy
nature of the sonnet, seeming to hint at it,
but then being afraid to state it openly.
Presumably, as a Stratfordian, he has to
rigorously censor himself.)
IMO the sonnet is fairly early. The tone is
relaxed and confident, and almost entirely
playful. The sonnet reflects none of the
uncertainty and ambiguity which entered the
relationship in the 1580s, when she began
to dote on Ralegh, during and after Oxford's
exclusion from court. It could have been
written during a happy interlude at any time
but is probably from the 1570s.
The first quatrain is superficially about his
Muse and I believe that the tone is primarily
scatological. There may be some elision of
his Muse into the person of his addressee,
allowing a more bawdy sense to emerge.
The poet is talking of certain body parts, at
the nether end, but which exactly becomes
a little uncertain at times.
1. Alack what poverty my Muse brings forth,
Some commentators propose 'brings forth'
indicates 'gives birth to'. However the poet
means to suggest a much more frequent
bodily function: i.e. 'po-(ver-ty)'. Vendler
acutely remarks how "the _p_overty of the
Muse seems to generate a string of p-words
to accompany itself: pride, praise, pass."
Robert Stonehouse also makes a good
point about the play on 'A Lack' here.
2. That having such a scope to show her pride,
'Scope' and 'pride' have bawdy senses.
Pride usually indicates sexual organs, and
scope the vagina. However here, I think,
'scope' refers to the anus.
3. The argument all bare is of more worth
Again 'argument' and 'worth' often refer to
'vagina' -- which here is 'all bare'. But I feel
that 'worth' refers to the turd produced by the
Muse; by 'argument' the poet is referring to
what is left behind (no pun intended) after
the act of defecation.
Booth (page 196) refers to two canonical
uses of 'argument' thus: T&C IV.v.26-29 and
R&J II.iv.94-96.
MENELAUS I had good argument for kissing once.
PATROCLUS But that's no argument for kissing now;
For this popp'd Paris in his hardiment,
And parted thus you and your argument.
MERCUTIO (R&J II.iv.94-96)
O, thou art deceived; I would have made it short:
for I was come to the whole depth of my tale; and
meant, indeed, to occupy the argument no longer.
'Worth' has come up in many sonnets in bawdy
and scatological senses.
Will be a tatter'd weed, of small worth held: 2:4
Neither in inward worth nor outward fair, 16:11
Take all my comfort of thy worth and truth. 37:4
. . . . . . if aught in me 38 :6
Worthy perusal stand against thy sight; 38 :6
O, how thy worth with manners may I sing, 39:1
Most worthy of comfort, now my greatest grief, 48:6
Like stones of worth they thinly placed are, 52:7
Blessed are you, whose worthiness gives scope, 52:13
And yet to times in hope my verse shall stand, 60:13
Praising thy worth, despite his cruel hand. 60:14
As I all other in all worths surmount. 62:8
Thy worth the greater, being woo'd of time; 70:6
For you in me can nothing worthy prove; 72:4
The worth of that is that which it contains, 74:13
But since your worth, wide as the ocean is, 80:5
Finding thy worth a limit past my praise, 82:6
Speaking of worth, what worth in you doth grow. 78:8
The Charter of thy worth gives thee releasing; 87:3
Thyself thou gavest, thy own worth then not knowing, 87:9
3. The argument all bare is of more worth
Booth compares 'bare' with H8, I.i.23-5
" . . . . The madams too,
Not us'd to toil, did almost sweat to bear
The pride upon them . . "
But, amazingly, Booth seems to fail to notice
the bawdy puns in both passages.
4. Than when it hath my added praise beside.
The poet pictures himself sitting beside
his Muse in the 'House of Office' leaving
his 'added praise' on the ground outside,
alongside that deposited by his Muse.
The second quatrain leaves the scatological
discussion of his Muse, and focuses on
the addressee, switching to a bawdy account
of thoughts on an imagined act of sex with her.
5. Oh blame me not if I no more can write!
The poet pretends to be so excited by these
thoughts of sex, that he cannot write.
6. Look in your glass and there appears a face
Here, his beloved uses her mirror to inspect
parts not easily seen otherwise. But he is
almost certainly punning on his own name
'glass' = verre = Vere. He regarded himself,
in many respects, as her other self, or her
double, or reflection. He was, supremely,
the voice of the age she had created.
7. That over-goes my blunt invention quite,
His 'blunt invention' indicates his penis.
Her vagina would 'over-go it quite'.
Booth remarks that 'invention' suggests:
'in' and 'venire' = 'to come'.
8. Dulling my lines, and doing me disgrace.
'Lines' puns on 'loins'. They will be 'dulled'
by sexual gratification, about which he may
then feel 'disgraced' (possibly also because
he is now depleted, exhausted and can do no
more).
The third quatrain reflects on the nature of
the act of sex generally.
9. Were it not sinful then striving to mend,
'Striving' in the sexual act is intended.
The 'mend/mar' antithesis has nothing to
do with any proverb (the standard idiotic
interpretation). It is about the paradoxical
nature of the sex act.
10. To mar the subject that before was well,
'Subject' is a triple pun: (a) superficially on
'topic'; (b) in the sexual sense -- probably
on 'penis'; and (c) in the monarch/subject
sense, with the poet as subject.
11. For to no other pass my verses tend,
By 'pass' he means passage, and also
sexual gratification.
12. Than of your graces and your gifts to tell;
He hints (or pretends to hint) that he knows
more about her physical attributes than he
is able to tell.
13. And more, much more than in my verse can sit,
The 'more, much more' is, of course, sexually
suggestive; so is 'sit' (as in a sexual position).
We may want to invoke "Stonehouse's Rule" as
regards the repetition of 'more'. But, as in 102,
the application is obvious: no one could be
more 'more' (or less 'less') than the Queen.
14. Your own glass shows you, when you look in it.
'Glass' comes up again as in line 6, and
in much the same manner, reinforcing
the likelihood of a pun on 'Verre'.
The bawdy and scatological aspects of this
sonnet are undeniable. The hopelessness
of trying to place either within a 'Fair Youth'
context is also undeniable.
Once again, the Stratfordian scenario fails
hopelessly; and the Oxford/Queen one is
triumphant.
Paul.
--
See Southampton/Lady Norton Overlay
http://www.crosswinds.net/~crowleyp/
MHJDAWG
post to the "Most Egregious" thread, dated 6/14/02), and then writes an entire
post explaining that Sonnet 103 is really about Oxford's desire to sit beside
Elizabeth on a shared perch squeezing out turds.
("poverty" = "pooh"??????)
Not only that, but Oxford becomes so excited by contemplating this bodily
function that it turns him on and he finishes the Sonnet with a description of
how he'd like to play hump the hostess.
Does anyone else - Oxfordian, Baconian, Marlovian, Barrel of Monkeyans -
believe this exegesis is in any respect accurate? Does anyone believe that the
Queen would be pleased with such a poem?
It seems that someone has an obsession with coprology. I don't think it is
Shakespeare. What went on between Oxford and Orazio is another matter.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar - and a rose is a rose is a rose.
Mark Johnson
KQKnave
<sdkh...@slkjsldfsjf.com> writes:
>This sonnet has a superb bawdy reading
>(which is somewhat tedious and self-
>defeating to have to spell out). But since
>it is in the tone of a male poet addressing,
>in a flirtatious manner, a broad-minded
>female friend, Stratfordian commentators
>necessarily miss all, or nearly all, of it.
>
It would be fascinating to have a spy-camera focused on
you while you flirt with your female friends, especially the
broadminded ones.
See my demolition of Monsarrat's RES paper!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/monsarr1.html
The Droeshout portrait is not unusual at all!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/shakenbake.html
Agent Jim
bookburn
"Paul Crowley" <sdkh...@slkjsldfsjf.com> wrote in message
news:EdFO8.1447$vB....@news.indigo.ie...
(snip poem)
What, anal retentive is he? This is suspiciously Stratfordian,
as you imply about Booth, above.
>
> 1. Alack what poverty my Muse brings forth,
>
> Some commentators propose 'brings forth'
> indicates 'gives birth to'. However the poet
> means to suggest a much more frequent
> bodily function: i.e. 'po-(ver-ty)'. Vendler
> acutely remarks how "the _p_overty of the
> Muse seems to generate a string of p-words
> to accompany itself: pride, praise, pass."
> Robert Stonehouse also makes a good
> point about the play on 'A Lack' here.
Do you mean the bawdy poet was consciously playing with his "p"
or that it "verts" as he versifies?
> 2. That having such a scope to show her pride,
>
> 'Scope' and 'pride' have bawdy senses.
> Pride usually indicates sexual organs, and
> scope the vagina. However here, I think,
> 'scope' refers to the anus.
Your bawdy scope seems to ignore "scop," the OE term for poet.
Also, doesn't the poem's glass (gl-ass) in the scope and mirror
imply that the poet refers to his own bawdy parts?
Notice that proudly erect "I" at this point!
But the bawdy view doesn't seem to flatter Oxford as a "subject,"
below the Queen on her throne (stool?), with "more, much more
than in my verse can sit."
bookburn
>
>
> Paul.
> --
> See Southampton/Lady Norton Overlay
> http://www.crosswinds.net/~crowleyp/
>
>
>
>
>
bookburn
"MHJDAWG" <mhj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020615081047...@mb-fe.aol.com...
> Paul Crowley accuses Bob Grumman of churning out crap by the
minute (See his
> post to the "Most Egregious" thread, dated 6/14/02), and then
writes an entire
> post explaining that Sonnet 103 is really about Oxford's desire
to sit beside
> Elizabeth on a shared perch squeezing out turds.
> ("poverty" = "pooh"??????)
>
> Not only that, but Oxford becomes so excited by contemplating
this bodily
> function that it turns him on and he finishes the Sonnet with a
description of
> how he'd like to play hump the hostess.
>
> Does anyone else - Oxfordian, Baconian, Marlovian, Barrel of
Monkeyans -
> believe this exegesis is in any respect accurate? Does anyone
believe that the
> Queen would be pleased with such a poem?
I think we all know the question your are raising about a Crowley
bawdy exegesis, that it emphasizes that aspect and distorts
others to suit. He doesn't say it's a psychoanalytical approach
in literary criticism, but I notice he is pretty consistent in
his methods. He does label it accurately, as scatology, etc..
As such, I find it similar to the Henry Miller-Chaucer approach
to literature, and we have the insights it offers, I think. So,
outrageous as it is and for presumming to associate an authorship
attribution to it, we are not really much abused and rather
amused, IMO.
But in the final analysis, one picks up the parts analysed and
reassembles it again with added experience/appreciation, but
restored equalibrium, I trust.
If I was going to criticise constructivelyl, it might be that, in
comparison with Henry Miller, who's unabashed sexuality allowed
him moments of profound objectivity and humanity, Crowley
aparently does not go literary with his approach, or at least
doesn't seem to find the stairway to other levels in the poet's
psyche?
bookburn
bookburn
"Robert Stonehouse" <ew...@bcs.org.uk> wrote in message
news:3d097d2...@news.demon.co.uk...
(snip)
Other associations with sword, perhaps as in dueling/fencing:
l. 1: "poverty", pu, to cut, as in Scottish, "puing the heather";
i.e., cutting heather (with a broadsword?) The muse would be
thus bringing forth a sharp edge as part of poverty?
l.3: "all bare" might describe an unsheathed sword"
l.7: "blunt invention" might describe a sword with its point
concealed/buttoned?
l.10: "not mar the subject" might refer to not injuring in a
duel?
l.11: "pass" might refer to a fencing move?
I see these associated perhaps as a restrained threat behind the
glass of muse and grace.
bookburn
>
> Lines 9-10 really have the conclusion of the argument, which
might
> more usually come in the couplet. Lines 11-14 then go back to
the
> argument of the second quatrain.
> ew...@bcs.org.uk
Peter Groves
his
| post to the "Most Egregious" thread, dated 6/14/02), and then writes an
entire
| post explaining that Sonnet 103 is really about Oxford's desire to sit
beside
| Elizabeth on a shared perch squeezing out turds.
| ("poverty" = "pooh"??????)
|
| Not only that, but Oxford becomes so excited by contemplating this bodily
| function that it turns him on and he finishes the Sonnet with a
description of
| how he'd like to play hump the hostess.
|
It's just so silly that the whole thing has to be an elaborate joke --
Crowley is clearly a non-too-subtle parodist of Anti-Stratfordian exegetical
absurdity.
Peter G.
Bob Grumman
> bawdy exegesis, that it emphasizes that aspect and distorts
> others to suit.
In the case of this sonnet, I don't see how you can say it
emphasizes an aspect that is not there--except in the sense
that anything can be read into a poem if one is dedicatedly
apoetical enough.
--Bob G.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Tom Reedy
believes his inventions make him appear erudite. Toby Petzold is also a
shit-slinger when it comes to language, but he's not as obsessed as Crowley.
TR
"MHJDAWG" <mhj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020615081047...@mb-fe.aol.com...
Tom Reedy
news:9bPO8.12991$Hj3....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
>
> It's just so silly that the whole thing has to be an elaborate joke --
> Crowley is clearly a non-too-subtle parodist of Anti-Stratfordian
exegetical
> absurdity.
>
> Peter G.
That he's got shit for brains is more probable.
TR
Paul Crowley
> Paul Crowley accuses Bob Grumman of churning out crap by the minute (See his
> post to the "Most Egregious" thread, dated 6/14/02), and then writes an entire
> post explaining that Sonnet 103 is really about Oxford's desire to sit beside
> Elizabeth on a shared perch squeezing out turds.
> ("poverty" = "pooh"??????)
>
> Not only that, but Oxford becomes so excited by contemplating this bodily
> function that it turns him on and he finishes the Sonnet with a description of
> how he'd like to play hump the hostess.
Why not point out particular phrases where you find
my interpretation far-fetched, or where you think that
it is not based on the text. I could then readily quote
appropriate chunks from the rest of the canon. And
we could have a serious discussion. Oops . . . . but
I get the impression that that is the last thing you
want -- which is really a freshly Bowdlerised version
of the canon -- eliminating as well, of course, all
those nasty non-PC expressions and sentiments.
But you could probably get by without it, so long as
everyone averts their gaze from 'rude' passages.
It's quite easy really. Just pretend that they do not
say what the words clearly mean, and hardly
anyone will notice. And isn't that what
Stratfordianism is for anyway?
> Does anyone else - Oxfordian, Baconian, Marlovian, Barrel of Monkeyans -
That is not a valid way of approaching the issue
. . . . "Does this interpretation agree with your
ideological or political stance?". It is one largely
of fact -- "Is the interpretation based on the words
as we have them, and as we know the author
uses them elsewhere in his works?"
You will notice that not a single Strat can cope
with such an approach. They are obliged to treat
the question of a purely ideological basis.
> believe this exegesis is in any respect accurate? Does anyone believe that the
> Queen would be pleased with such a poem?
The Queen's love for bawdy humour is well-known.
> It seems that someone has an obsession with coprology. I don't think it is
> Shakespeare.
You need to read some Shakespeare. You are
clearly not aware of his 'obsessions'. Or to put it
more accurately -- taking Shakespeare as normal
(as we should) you are very close to the Victorian
ladies who covered up the legs of pianos finding
them excessively rude.
Paul Crowley
>
> "Paul Crowley" <sdkh...@slkjsldfsjf.com> wrote in message
> news:EdFO8.1447$vB....@news.indigo.ie...
1. Alack what poverty my Muse brings forth,
2. That having such a scope to show her pride,
3. The argument all bare is of more worth
4. Than when it hath my added praise beside.
5. Oh blame me not if I no more can write!
6. Look in your glass and there appears a face
7. That over-goes my blunt invention quite,
8. Dulling my lines, and doing me disgrace.
9. Were it not sinful then striving to mend,
10. To mar the subject that before was well,
11. For to no other pass my verses tend,
12. Than of your graces and your gifts to tell;
13. And more, much more than in my verse can sit,
14. Your own glass shows you, when you look in
> > The first quatrain is superficially about his
> > Muse and I believe that the tone is primarily
> > scatological. There may be some elision of
> > his Muse into the person of his addressee,
> > allowing a more bawdy sense to emerge.
> > The poet is talking of certain body parts, at
> > the nether end, but which exactly becomes
> > a little uncertain at times.
>
> What, anal retentive is he? This is suspiciously Stratfordian,
> as you imply about Booth, above.
It's probably just me, not reading it with
sufficient care and attention.
> > 1. Alack what poverty my Muse brings forth,
> >
> > Some commentators propose 'brings forth'
> > indicates 'gives birth to'. However the poet
> > means to suggest a much more frequent
> > bodily function: i.e. 'po-(ver-ty)'. Vendler
> > acutely remarks how "the _p_overty of the
> > Muse seems to generate a string of p-words
> > to accompany itself: pride, praise, pass."
> > Robert Stonehouse also makes a good
> > point about the play on 'A Lack' here.
>
> Do you mean the bawdy poet was consciously playing with his "p"
> or that it "verts" as he versifies?
It's very hard to state the extent to which these
things are conscious. Vendler identifies
numerous patterns, few of which, I think, she
(or anyone) would suggest were consciously
devised by the poet. This one seems to me
much more likely to be conscious than most.
After all, what does usually accompany your
turds?
> > 2. That having such a scope to show her pride,
> >
> > 'Scope' and 'pride' have bawdy senses.
> > Pride usually indicates sexual organs, and
> > scope the vagina. However here, I think,
> > 'scope' refers to the anus.
>
> Your bawdy scope seems to ignore "scop," the OE term for poet.
That's a new one to me. Is there any
evidence that Shakespeare, or any other
Elizabethan poet, used or referred to that
word? In the context of this line it seems
quite pedestrian to me. After all, the
addressee does not need to be told that
he is a poet. Nor does it work for other
uses of 'scope' in the sonnets:
Desiring this man's art and that man's scope, 29:7
Blessed are you, whose worthiness gives scope, 52:13
The scope and tenor of thy jealousy? 61:8
Three themes in one, which wondrous scope affords. 105:12
It is interesting to see how quickly and
easily bad ideas can be shown to be
wrong. 'Scop' = 'poet' is a non-runner.
Whereas, in the Sonnets, rude -- and
heterosexual -- ideas fit most of the time.
No Strat attempts to undermine them with
arguments from the text (as I have just
done with your 'scop') -- simply because
they can't.
> Also, doesn't the poem's glass (gl-ass) in the scope and mirror
> imply that the poet refers to his own bawdy parts?
Nor does this work. It's not the "poem's
glass"; it's 'your glass', i.e. the addressee's
glass. Perhaps you can see this sonnet as
addressed to a 'Fair Youth' and the glass
working in that context. But you will have to
enlighten me on the subject -- laying out the
scenario.
> > 5. Oh blame me not if I no more can write!
> >
> > The poet pretends to be so excited by these
> > thoughts of sex, that he cannot write.
>
> Notice that proudly erect "I" at this point!
If you doubt some of my interpretations, and
find them unreasonable, say so; and indicate
which. I could, no doubt, find parallels from
the plays to support my case. We could then
consider them to see whether or not each
interpretation was reasonable -- that is,
if you are interested in a serious discussion.
> But the bawdy view doesn't seem to flatter Oxford as a "subject,"
> below the Queen on her throne (stool?), with "more, much more
> than in my verse can sit."
No, IMO this is in the imagined act of sex.
I don't think Oxford saw himself as being
flattered at that point -- flattened, maybe.
Paul Crowley
We welcome these unfamiliar names to the sonnet
threads. However, perhaps it might be helpful to
point out to MHDAWG, Bob Grumman, Peter Groves
and Tom Reedy, that in these threads we try to focus
on the words of the sonnet in question, and examine
proposed interpretations to see if they match those
words, paying great attention to the poet's grammar.
We also consider carefully whether or not the poet
used similar language elsewhere in the canon.
Clearly, none of you are familiar with this sort of
approach. Perhaps you'd care to first look at
some discussions on previous sonnets, before
making your most illuminating contributions.
Bob Grumman
> threads. However, perhaps it might be helpful to
> point out to MHDAWG, Bob Grumman, Peter Groves
> and Tom Reedy, that in these threads we try to focus
> on the words of the sonnet in question, and examine
> proposed interpretations to see if they match those
> words, paying great attention to the poet's grammar.
> We also consider carefully whether or not the poet
> used similar language elsewhere in the canon.
No, Paul. What we do is read the poem as a poem, and see
if it does what poems generally do. We ignore as insane the
possibility that "poverty," for instance, is a pun for
excrement, or whatever you claim, since its normal definition
works fine in the poem, and there is no signal to look for a
pun or allegory or the like such as all competent poets put
in their texts when using such devices, and excrement in this
particular "pretty" poem would wreak havoc with its tone.
Tom Reedy
TR
"Paul Crowley" <sdkh...@slkjsldfsjf.com> wrote in message
news:ZeZO8.1614$vB....@news.indigo.ie...
KQKnave
<sdkh...@slkjsldfsjf.com> writes:
>
>We welcome these unfamiliar names to the sonnet
>threads. However, perhaps it might be helpful to
>point out to MHDAWG, Bob Grumman, Peter Groves
>and Tom Reedy, that in these threads we try to focus
>on the words of the sonnet in question, and examine
>proposed interpretations to see if they match those
>words, paying great attention to the poet's grammar.
>We also consider carefully whether or not the poet
>used similar language elsewhere in the canon.
>
>Clearly, none of you are familiar with this sort of
>approach. Perhaps you'd care to first look at
>some discussions on previous sonnets, before
>making your most illuminating contributions.
The irony is delicious, is it not?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
MHJDAWG
>news:20020615081047...@mb-fe.aol.com...
>
>> Paul Crowley accuses Bob Grumman of churning out crap by the minute (See
>his
>> post to the "Most Egregious" thread, dated 6/14/02), and then writes an
>entire
>> post explaining that Sonnet 103 is really about Oxford's desire to sit
>beside
>> Elizabeth on a shared perch squeezing out turds.
>> ("poverty" = "pooh"??????)
>>
>> Not only that, but Oxford becomes so excited by contemplating this bodily
>> function that it turns him on and he finishes the Sonnet with a description
>of
>> how he'd like to play hump the hostess.
>
>Why not point out particular phrases where you find
>my interpretation far-fetched, or where you think that
>it is not based on the text. I could then readily quote
>appropriate chunks from the rest of the canon. And
>we could have a serious discussion. Oops . . . . but
>I get the impression that that is the last thing you
>want -- which is really a freshly Bowdlerised version
>of the canon -- eliminating as well, of course, all
>those nasty non-PC expressions and sentiments.
Contrary to your "impressions", I have no problem with bawdy literature. It is
sometimes juvenile and not all that humorous, but it does serve a purpose.
What I do have a problem with is someone who takes as a premise that a poem
must be bawdy and addressed to the Queen, and then sets out to justify that
interpretation with farfetched and perverse analysis.
Farfetched interpretations:
1. Where else in the canon does poverty = pooh? You see a string of "p" words
- in your perverse reality, shouldn't that lead to pee-pee?
2. Where else does Muse refer to the asshole?
3. In a "bawdy" sense, "pride" usually denotes the male private parts. Give
one example where it means anus as you say it does. Please give examples
showing where scope refers to the vagina, or, as you interpret, the anus? How
would this line make any sense in your analysis - "That having such an anus to
show her anus"???????
4. How does "The vagina all bare is of more vagina" make any sense? Why is
the vagina "bare"? Did Elizabethan women make a habit of shaving their pubic
hair? Can you cite any examples?
5. Crowley opines that, after indicating his desire to sit with the Queen and
pinch a loaf, he then writes that he'd like to have sex with her. This is
exceeding "bawdy" and becoming pornography. There are certain individuals who
can only achieve arousal after watching their partner defecate. Is this
another biographical depiction of the love life shared by Oxford and His Queen?
Can you provide any documents which support this theory?
6. Crrowley ANALyzes the line "Look in your glass and there appears a face" as
meaning that the Queen is using a mirror to observe her private parts. Not
only that, but Vere is the mirror, so she is using his face to look at her
vagina. Where else in the canon does face stand for vagina?
7. Lines puns on loins. I'd say that is quite a stretch on your part.
8. That's enough for now, as I am being called to supper.
Ready for your serious discussion, I remain
Mark Johnson
Peter Groves
You're wasting your time, I'm afraid: arguments bounce off Crowley like
peas off a steel helmet. He doesn't even notice them (witness his
absurd claim that no-one has ever contested his ludicrous "readings" of
the Sonnets).
Peter G.
Peter G.
Paul Crowley
> You're wasting your time, I'm afraid: arguments bounce off Crowley like
> peas off a steel helmet. He doesn't even notice them (witness his
> absurd claim that no-one has ever contested his ludicrous "readings" of
> the Sonnets).
No one has contested them -- at the level
the grammar, and the meaning of particular
words and phrases. All I have got is dumbo
'Bob Grumman' type of stuff: 'Err . . the
Stratman wrote dem dere sonnets to a
fair youf, derefore they can't be addressed
to woman . . . . "
And you, Peter, have been conspicuous in
carefully avoiding any such discussion.
Anyone could contest my assertion (the one
to which you object) by quoting from any post
made here over the past year or so. Don't
you know how to use Google to find archived
posts?
Btw, Mark Johnson has just started the
FIRST such discussion.
Paul Crowley
> Contrary to your "impressions", I have no problem with bawdy literature. It is
> sometimes juvenile and not all that humorous, but it does serve a purpose.
What 'purpose'? You clearly DO have a problem.
Why should a great author contaminate his
supreme works of art with juvenile, un-humorous
material?
Shakespeare's bawdy (and scatology) is part of
the fabric -- the warp and weft -- of his whole way
of thinking. It is not a separable element, which
has some 'purpose' (unstateable by you).
> What I do have a problem with is someone who takes as a premise that a poem
> must be bawdy and addressed to the Queen,
Sonnets 1-126 were addressed to the Queen.
Only some of them are bawdy.
> Farfetched interpretations:
>
> 1. Where else in the canon does poverty = pooh?
That question is hardly fair. Most metaphors in the
sonnets will not be found elsewhere in the canon.
But, how about this passage from LLL?
BIRON This jest is dry to me. Fair gentle sweet,
. . . . . your capacity
Is of that nature that to your huge store
Wise things seem foolish and rich things but poor.
ROSALINE This proves you wise and rich, for in my eye,--
BIRON I am a fool, and full of poverty.
['Full of . . . " should suggest something else to you]
ROSALINE But that you take what doth to you belong,
It were a fault to snatch words from my tongue.
BIRON O, I am yours, and all that I possess!
ROSALINE All the fool mine?
BIRON I cannot give you less.
Here is another passage from LLL, at the
conclusion of one packed with double-entendres:
PRINCESS Twenty adieus, my frozen Muscovits.
[Exeunt FERDINAND, Lords, and Blackamoors]
Are these the breed of wits so wonder'd at?
BOYET Tapers they are, with your sweet breaths puff'd out.
ROSALINE Well-liking wits they have; gross, gross; fat, fat.
PRINCESS O poverty in wit, kingly-poor flout!
Will they not, think you, hang themselves tonight?
Or ever, but in vizards, show their faces?
This pert Biron was out of countenance quite.
While 'poverty' here not unquestionably 'po-verty',
the rhyme with 'wit' and the presence of so many
other code bawdy words and dubious phrases
makes it highly probable IMHO (poor, flout, hang
themselves, faces, countenance).
Then there is this:
OTHELLO Had it pleased heaven
To try me with affliction; had they rain'd
All kinds of sores and shames on my bare head.
Steep'd me in poverty to the very lips,
And from 1 Henry 4:
PRINCE HENRY I did never see such pitiful rascals.
FALSTAFF Tut, tut; good enough to toss; food for powder, food
for powder; they'll fill a pit as well as better:
tush, man, mortal men, mortal men.
WESTMORELAND Ay, but, Sir John, methinks they are exceeding poor
and bare, too beggarly.
FALSTAFF 'Faith, for their poverty, I know not where they had
that; and for their bareness, I am sure they never
learned that of me.
The problem with all these passages is that
you can shut your eyes and say there is nothing
definite. And of course that is the case. The
poet does provide us with a list of definitions.
We have to look at the WHOLE context. Is it
conceivable that NONE of the terms in this
sonnet were contrived for their bawdy or
scatological sense? That is, necessarily, the
Stratfordian position.
> You see a string of "p" words
> - in your perverse reality, shouldn't that lead to pee-pee?
It was not I who first noticed nor remarked on
the string of "p-words" -- but Helen Vendler,
who inevitably failed to see their meaning.
Nevertheless, credit must be paid to her
fine ear.
I can't see your point, otherwise. The sonnet
is not on the subject of defecation; it merely
has that as an undercurrent in the first quatrain.
The poet has packed a vast amount of
meaning into these four lines -- while keeping
the superficial 'polite' theme running on top.
1. Alack what poverty my Muse brings forth,
2. That having such a scope to show her pride,
3. The argument all bare is of more worth
4. Than when it hath my added praise beside.
> 2. Where else does Muse refer to the asshole?
Sonnets 17, 38, 79, 85.
> 3. In a "bawdy" sense, "pride" usually denotes the male private parts.
PRIDE, 123. Luc 438, LLL 11.1.236, 0th III.iii.401, Son 144 and 151.
Sexual desire; phallic turgidity. Cf Marston, Malcontent II.v.114,
‘They say there’s one dead here, pricked for the pride of the flesh.’
(E.A.M. Coleman, 'Dramatic uses of Shakespeare's Bawdy')
> Give one example where it means anus as you say it does.
I do not say 'pride' means 'anus' -- 'scope' suggests
it in this line. When the Muse shows her 'scope,
she must (being female) also show her 'pride'.
> Please give examples
> showing where scope refers to the vagina,
Blessed are you, whose worthiness gives scope, 52:13
Being had, to triumph, being lack'd, to hope. 52:14
> or, as you interpret, the anus?
As I stated, my interpretation here was
tentative and uncertain. However, most
commentators would acknowledge
Shakespeare's love of the bawdy and the
scatological. Take a look at OED definitions
of 'scope': Then try to link 'scatological' and
'scope'. I doubt if anyone would see a
problem -- in principle at least.
> How would this line make any sense in your analysis -
> "That having such an anus to show her anus"???????
> 4. How does "The vagina all bare is of more vagina" make any sense? Why is
> the vagina "bare"?
You are, I think, partially right here. The
meaning is not clear; as I said. It seems to
elide somewhat into bawdy rather than
remain in a purely scatological tone. I
think it can be read in _at_least_ two ways:
1. Alack what poverty my Muse brings forth,
2. That having such a scope to show her pride,
3. The argument all bare is of more worth
4. Than when it hath my added praise beside.
The Muse brings forth a turd. The poet is
appalled at its 'po-verty'. He remarks that his
muse had scope to show her pride -- placing
her bottom over the hole in the 'house of office'
where she performed her function. However
(a) 'the argument' can be taken as the turd; it is
'all bare' and can be said to be 'of more worth'
on its own, than when the poet adds his own
turd alongside; (b) looking up from outside the
building, an observer would see the bare bottom
of the Muse; her 'argument' is now all bare
(also it no longer bears the turd) and it is of
more worth (and interest) than it would be with
the poet's bare bottom showing through an
adjacent hole in the 'house of office'.
> 5. Crowley opines that, after indicating his desire to sit with the Queen and
> pinch a loaf, he then writes that he'd like to have sex with her. This is
> exceeding "bawdy" and becoming pornography.
No, you have gone quite wrong here. The
first quatrain is mostly about the coprological
activities of his Muse. Then the poet goes
into a fantasy about having sex with the
Queen. Such fantasies were commonplace
in Elizabethan England. That a courtier poet
should covertly encode one into a sonnet is
unremarkable.
> 6. Crrowley ANALyzes the line "Look in your glass and there appears a face" as
> meaning that the Queen is using a mirror to observe her private parts. Not
> only that, but Vere is the mirror, so she is using his face to look at her
> vagina.
That is nonsense. The poet has several
parallel themes. There is (a) the superficial
one -- as seen by Stratfordians. There is
(b) the bawdy/scatological one; and there
are (c) occasional references to the poet's
true role vis-a-vis the Queen in literature
and history.
It is the same as in the plays. If you try to
intermix the covert bawdy themes with the
superficial topics of the passage, you will
get nonsense. I should not have to explain
such basic matters to you. You must be
some kind of academic.
> 7. Lines puns on loins. I'd say that is quite a stretch on your part.
It's routine. See Booth page 579, or Vendler
page 378 (and elsewhere). Or see Bookburn's
commentator on Sonnet 86 on
http://www.shakespeares-sonnets.com/sonn03.htm
> 8. That's enough for now, as I am being called to supper.
Nice trick. You have had to skip the most
obviously bawdy lines of this sonnet. So you
cop out at this point.
Many commentators (such as Booth, Vendler
or Bookburn's above) find numerous bawdy,
and sexually suggestive, terms in sonnets
1-126 (including in this one). But they have
to leave them floating in mid-air, as they can
provide no context.
There is no problem at all about bawdy when
it is addressed to a 'Dark Lady' -- and no one
questions the lubricity of sonnets >127.
If there were an honest Stratfordian position
it would be that there are virtually NO bawdy
or scatological terms in Sonnets 1-126.
What would be their function -- in sonnets
addressed by a hack poet to a noble 'Fair
Youth' ?
We have to look at the WHOLE context. Is it
conceivable that NONE of the terms in this
sonnet were contrived for their bawdy or their
scatological sense? That is, necessarily, the
Stratfordian position. If you concede that some
probably were, then you have lost your case.
The rest will inevitably follow. That is why you
have to so carefully avoid lines 5, 7 and most
of lines 9-14.
That is also why Peter Groves steers so clear
of any discussion on this matter. He has some
awareness of the extent of Shakespeare's
bawdy. He cannot risk an admission of what
can be seen in sonnets 1-126. Rather like the
professional astronomers of Galileo's day, he
prefers not to look through the telescope.
And it is not only THIS sonnet where you have
to say NO,NO, NO, NO . . . to every suggestion
of bawdiness. You have to say it to EVERY
such suggestion in every line of 1-126. It's
difficult to maintain it for a few lines. It's
impossible for even the whole of this sonnet,
let alone all the other ones.
Pick up today's newspaper. Read the editorial.
How many potential bawdy or scatological puns
can you find? Hmm . . . . You know as well as
me that they rarely occur. Editors watch
themselves and if they notice a possibile one
in their text, they alter it. Shakespeare took at
a lot more care about his sonnets than any
editor. So what is the LIKELIHOOD that a
possible unintended bawdy pun got by him?
OK that's just one pun. How about him
accidentally putting 20 into a sonnet?
1. Alack what poverty my Muse brings forth,
2. That having such a scope to show her pride,
3. The argument all bare is of more worth
4. Than when it hath my added praise beside.
5. Oh blame me not if I no more can write!
6. Look in your glass and there appears a face
7. That over-goes my blunt invention quite,
8. Dulling my lines, and doing me disgrace.
9. Were it not sinful then striving to mend,
10. To mar the subject that before was well,
11. For to no other pass my verses tend,
12. Than of your graces and your gifts to tell;
13. And more, much more than in my verse can sit,
14. Your own glass shows you, when you look in it.
Paul Crowley
> > We welcome these unfamiliar names to the sonnet
> > threads. However, perhaps it might be helpful to
> > point out to MHDAWG, Bob Grumman, Peter Groves
> > and Tom Reedy, that in these threads we try to focus
> > on the words of the sonnet in question, and examine
> > proposed interpretations to see if they match those
> > words, paying great attention to the poet's grammar.
> > We also consider carefully whether or not the poet
> > used similar language elsewhere in the canon.
>
> No, Paul. What we do is read the poem as a poem, and see
> if it does what poems generally do.
You do not know what Shakespeare's poems
'generally do'.
> We ignore as insane the
> possibility that "poverty," for instance, is a pun for
> excrement, or whatever you claim, since its normal definition
> works fine in the poem,
Even excluding your mis-use of 'definition',
there is nothing logical in what you say.
Shakespeare put many surprising puns
into his poems, and they STILL 'work fine'
for those who miss them.
Much the same applies to nursery rhymes.
I'm sure you enjoyed many as a child, even
though you had little of the understanding
that came with maturity (assuming that it
ever did).
> and there is no signal to look for a
> pun or allegory or the like such as all competent poets put
> in their texts when using such devices,
That fact that you (and all Stratfordians)
must necessarily miss all the signals,
is your problem -- not the poet's.
> and excrement in this
> particular "pretty" poem would wreak havoc with its tone.
Not so. The fact that many nursery rhymes
have a political basis does not mean that
you have to explain them all to your child.
Likewise many popular songs have
double entendres. There are numerous
such passages in the canonical plays. It
would usually (or often) be thought poor
direction if the actors went out their way to
indicate such extra meanings.
Look at Bassanio's casket speech in the
Merchant of Venice. How often does (or
how could) the actor indicate its bawdy
content?
Pick up today's newspaper. Read the
editorial. How many potential bawdy or
scatological puns can you find? Hmm . . . .
You know as well as me that they rarely
occur. Editors watch themselves and if
they notice a possibile one in their text,
they alter it. Shakespeare took at a lot
more care about his sonnets than any
editor. So what is the LIKELIHOOD that
a possible unintended bawdy pun got
by him?
OK that's just one pun. How about him
accidentally putting 20 into a sonnet?
MHJDAWG
>
>Nice trick. You have had to skip the most
>obviously bawdy lines of this sonnet. So you
>cop out at this point.
>
Sorry, but once again your assumptions and conjectures are incorrect. I don't
care if you don't believe it, but I really was called to dinner. My wife had
cooked a pot roast , spinach, and rice - delectable. I will return to this
post, but right now I have to take the dog (Seamus) for a walk. Then I have a
host of other chores and a delayed Father's Day celebration.
I do have doubts about whether it is worthwhile to continue this discussion.
But I will be back - maybe I'm just a glutton for punishment (I know I'm a
glutton for pot roast.) To be continued....
Mark Johnson
KQKnave
<sdkh...@slkjsldfsjf.com> writes:
>
>Sonnets 1-126 were addressed to the Queen.
>Only some of them are bawdy.
>
Sonnets 1-126 *were not* addressed to the Queen, as been
repeatedly pointed out to you.
The sonnets up through 126 were not written to the Queen or
even a woman, but to a man. This has been pointed out
repeatedly to Crowley, but his fantasies continue to overwhelm
him. That the sonnets were written to a young man is
obvious from the sonnets themselves, which makes Crowley's
thesis so obviously insane:
Sonnet 1: "His tender heir might bear his memory."
Sonnet 3: "For where is she so fair whose uneared womb/
Disdains the tillage of thy husbandry?"; Sonnet
9: "Is it for fear to wet a widow's eye/ That thou consum'st
thyself in single life?"; Sonnet 16: "And many maiden
gardens yet unset,/ With virtuous wish would bear your
living flowers.";
Sonnet 20:
A woman's face with nature's own hand painted,
Hast thou the master mistress of my passion,
A woman's gentle heart but not acquainted
With shifting change as is false women's fashion,
An eye more bright than theirs, less false in rolling:
Gilding the object whereupon it gazeth,
A man in hue all hues in his controlling,
Which steals men's eyes and women's souls amazeth.
And for a woman wert thou first created,
Till nature as she wrought thee fell a-doting,
And by addition me of thee defeated,
By adding one thing to my purpose nothing.
But since she pricked thee out for women's pleasure,
Mine be thy love and thy love's use their treasure.
Sonnet 32:
"O then vouchsafe me but this loving thought,
'Had my friend's Muse grown with this growing age,
A dearer birth than this his love had brought
To march in ranks of better equipage:
But since he died and poets better prove,
Theirs for their style I'll read, his for his love'.";
Sonnet 33: "Even so my sun one early morn did shine,
With all triumphant splendour on my brow,
But out alack, he was but one hour mine,
The region cloud hath masked him from me now.
Yet him for this, my love no whit disdaineth,";
Sonnet 41: "Beauteous thou art, therefore to be assailed.
And when a woman woos, what woman's son,
Will sourly leave her till he have prevailed?
Ay me, but yet thou mightst my seat forbear,
And chide thy beauty, and thy straying youth,
Who lead thee in their riot even there
Where thou art forced to break a twofold truth:
Hers by thy beauty tempting her to thee,";
Sonnet 42: "That thou hast her it is not all my grief,
And yet it may be said I loved her dearly,
That she hath thee is of my wailing chief,
A loss in love that touches me more nearly.
Loving offenders thus I will excuse ye,
Thou dost love her, because thou know'st I love her,";
Sonnet 54: "And so of you, beauteous and lovely youth,";
Sonnet 126: "O thou, my lovely boy, who in thy pow'r/
Dost hold time's fickle glass."
Paul Crowley
> In article <pTpP8.1818$vB.1...@news.indigo.ie>, "Paul Crowley"
> <sdkh...@slkjsldfsjf.com> writes:
>
> >Sonnets 1-126 were addressed to the Queen.
> >Only some of them are bawdy.
>
> Sonnets 1-126 *were not* addressed to the Queen, as been
> repeatedly pointed out to you.
I don't usually bother to reply to KQKnave's 'spam'.
And nor does anyone else, as far as I can see.
He ignores replies and churns the same spam
out again and again; so it's fairly pointless.
> The sonnets up through 126 were not written to the Queen or
> even a woman, but to a man.
If they had been written to a man, we should have
some ordinary and natural indication of gender
in the 1,763 lines of sonnets 1-126, as Elizabethan
males lead very different lives from Elizabethan
females. Apart from matters about the house,
females were debarred from almost all the activities
open to males could -- professions, owning property,
travel, school and university, games, military training,
being a soldier or sailor, etc., etc. Yet there is
nothing indicating a male (or a female, for that matter)
at any point in Sonnets 1-126. There is clearly a
deliberate concealment of the addressee's gender.
The poet is demonstrably deceptive. But nearly
always he is ambiguous, or playfully misleading.
Only rarely (if ever) does he set out to deceive.
> This has been pointed out
> repeatedly to Crowley, but his fantasies continue to overwhelm
> him. That the sonnets were written to a young man is
> obvious from the sonnets themselves, which makes Crowley's
> thesis so obviously insane:
>
> Sonnet 1: "His tender heir might bear his memory."
That thereby beauty's <it>Rose</it> might never die, 1:2
But as the riper should by time decease, 1:3
The subject here is "Beauty's Rose". Even
Strats must acknowledge that is an abstract
one and therefore suitable for a modern 'its'
for the possessive; in Elizabethan English
that could readily be 'his' instead. In fact,
though "Beauty's Rose" indicated the House
of Tudor; again an abstract concept, suitable
for an 'its' or a 'his'.
> Sonnet 3: "For where is she so fair whose uneared womb/
> Disdains the tillage of thy husbandry?";
The 'she' is the addressee. The Queen was
attending to her womb -- as the whole nation
was wont to point out. 'Husbandry' is an
amusing metaphor -- when addressed to a
female. It is pointless otherwise.
> Sonnet 9: "Is it for fear to wet a widow's eye/
> That thou consum'st thyself in single life?";
The widow was Mary QS, -- the presumptive
heir to the throne, who was hovering like a
vulture. She would have cried her eyes out
if Elizabeth had married and had a heir.
> Sonnet 16: "And many maiden
> gardens yet unset,/ With virtuous wish would bear your
> living flowers.";
A metaphor -- referring, I think, to the hoped-for
many generations of Tudors and their wives.
> Sonnet 20:
>
> A woman's face with nature's own hand painted,
> Hast thou the master mistress of my passion,
> A woman's gentle heart but not acquainted
> With shifting change as is false women's fashion,
> An eye more bright than theirs, less false in rolling:
> Gilding the object whereupon it gazeth,
> A man in hue all hues in his controlling,
> Which steals men's eyes and women's souls amazeth.
> And for a woman wert thou first created,
> Till nature as she wrought thee fell a-doting,
> And by addition me of thee defeated,
> By adding one thing to my purpose nothing.
> But since she pricked thee out for women's pleasure,
> Mine be thy love and thy love's use their treasure.
I've explained Sonnet 20 numerous times.
But nothing ever sinks in to KQKnave's brain.
> Sonnet 32:
> "O then vouchsafe me but this loving thought,
> 'Had my friend's Muse grown with this growing age,
> A dearer birth than this his love had brought
> To march in ranks of better equipage:
> But since he died and poets better prove,
> Theirs for their style I'll read, his for his love'.";
Idiot. Read the last line. The poet was talking
about his OWN poetry. The last five lines are
in quotes, and it is what the poet hopes will
be said about HIMSELF after his death.
> Sonnet 33: "Even so my sun one early morn did shine,
> With all triumphant splendour on my brow,
> But out alack, he was but one hour mine,
> The region cloud hath masked him from me now.
> Yet him for this, my love no whit disdaineth,";
This is an extended metaphor about the SUN.
That was (and is) a male figure.
> Sonnet 41:
Gentle thou art and therefore to be won, 41:5
> "Beauteous thou art, therefore to be assailed.
What male (let alone an Elizabethan male) has
ever been addressed in such terms?
> And when a woman woos, what woman's son,
> Will sourly leave her till he have prevailed?
Paul Streitz could quote these lines to show
that a son was wooing his mother!
> Ay me, but yet thou mightst my seat forbear,
> And chide thy beauty, and thy straying youth,
> Who lead thee in their riot even there
> Where thou art forced to break a twofold truth:
> Hers by thy beauty tempting her to thee,";
There is nothing here suggesting that the
addressee is male. No one can make out
what the last two lines are about.
> Sonnet 42: "That thou hast her it is not all my grief,
> And yet it may be said I loved her dearly,
> That she hath thee is of my wailing chief,
> A loss in love that touches me more nearly.
> Loving offenders thus I will excuse ye,
> Thou dost love her, because thou know'st I love her,";
Where does this suggest that the addressee
is male?
> Sonnet 54: "And so of you, beauteous and lovely youth,";
Where does this suggest that the addressee
is male?
> Sonnet 126: "O thou, my lovely boy, who in thy pow'r/
> Dost hold time's fickle glass."
This is addressed to the 'Cupid-like' figure
of Time.
KQKnave's score = Zero.
But, so what? KQKnave won't reply. He'll just
churn out the spam again and again.
Peter Groves
Addressing a man in some respects *as though* he were a Petrarchan mistress
is a typically Shakespearean playing with genre (whether you personally find
such behaviour credible is not, I'm afraid, evidence of any kind); fairly
obviously, it would be out of place to introduce references to exclusively
male pursuits. But it is simply false to say "there is nothing indicating a
male ... [addressee] at any point in Sonnets 1-126". There are a number of
unambiguous indications:
O carue not with thy howers my loues faire brow, Son. 19.9
Nor draw noe lines there with thine antique pen, Son. 19.10
Him in thy course vntainted doe allow, Son. 19.11
For beauties patterne to succeding men. Son. 19.12
The antecedent of "Him" is "my loue". One of the clearest indicators is
Sonnet 20; since you seem unable to grasp this I will add a pedestrian
paraphrase of the crucial bits.
A Womans face with natures owne hand painted, Son. 20.1
you have a woman's beauty (though without the use of cosmetics)
Haste thou the Master Mistris of my passion, Son. 20.2
you gender-ambiguous object of desire
A womans gentle hart but not acquainted Son. 20.3
and a woman's gentleness, though no cunt ("quaint")
With shifting change as is false womens fashion, Son. 20.4
and none of their fickleness
An eye more bright then theirs,lesse false in rowling: Son. 20.5
Gilding the obiect where-vpon it gazeth, Son. 20.6
A man in hew all Hews in his controwling, Son. 20.7
Which steales mens eyes and womens soules amaseth. Son. 20.8
And for a woman wert thou first created, Son. 20.9
And you were meant to be a woman
Till nature as she wrought thee fell a dotinge, Son. 20.10
but Nature dozed on the job
And by addition me of thee defeated, Son. 20.11
By adding one thing to my purpose nothing. Son. 20.12
and prevented my claiming you as a sexual partner by adding a penis
("thing"), of no use to me
But since she prickt thee out for womens pleasure, Son. 20.13
but since she gave you a prick to pleasure women with
Mine be thy loue and thy loues vse their treasure. Son. 20.14
I'll take your love and they can have your love-making.
| The poet is demonstrably deceptive. But nearly
| always he is ambiguous, or playfully misleading.
| Only rarely (if ever) does he set out to deceive.
|
| > This has been pointed out
| > repeatedly to Crowley, but his fantasies continue to overwhelm
| > him. That the sonnets were written to a young man is
| > obvious from the sonnets themselves, which makes Crowley's
| > thesis so obviously insane:
| >
| > Sonnet 1: "His tender heir might bear his memory."
|
| That thereby beauty's <it>Rose</it> might never die, 1:2
| But as the riper should by time decease, 1:3
|
| The subject here is "Beauty's Rose". Even
| Strats must acknowledge that is an abstract
| one and therefore suitable for a modern 'its'
| for the possessive; in Elizabethan English
| that could readily be 'his' instead. In fact,
| though "Beauty's Rose" indicated the House
| of Tudor; again an abstract concept, suitable
| for an 'its' or a 'his'.
|
True.
| > Sonnet 3: "For where is she so fair whose uneared womb/
| > Disdains the tillage of thy husbandry?";
|
| The 'she' is the addressee. The Queen was
| attending to her womb -- as the whole nation
| was wont to point out. 'Husbandry' is an
| amusing metaphor -- when addressed to a
| female. It is pointless otherwise.
|
It's absurd to say that it's pointless: it's a typical (and neat)
Shakespearean pun. "thy husbandry" = (1) thy (the addressee's) activity as
a future husband in (2) "The business or occupation of a husbandman or
farmer; tillage or cultivation of the soil" (OED 2) of the "unear'd" or yet
unploughed womb of the virgin bride.
Morover, your interpretation makes no sense: the same referent cannot be
both second and third person in the same sentence. And what would it mean,
in any case?
| > Sonnet 9: "Is it for fear to wet a widow's eye/
| > That thou consum'st thyself in single life?";
|
| The widow was Mary QS, -- the presumptive
| heir to the throne, who was hovering like a
| vulture. She would have cried her eyes out
| if Elizabeth had married and had a heir.
|
This is an ingenious attempt to obviate the obvious, but it depends on a
prior acceptance of your premises; since it is perfectly understandable
without those premises, it cannot function as any kind of evidence for them
| > Sonnet 16: "And many maiden
| > gardens yet unset,/ With virtuous wish would bear your
| > living flowers.";
|
| A metaphor -- referring, I think, to the hoped-for
| many generations of Tudors and their wives.
|
As before.
True.
| > Sonnet 33: "Even so my sun one early morn did shine,
| > With all triumphant splendour on my brow,
| > But out alack, he was but one hour mine,
| > The region cloud hath masked him from me now.
| > Yet him for this, my love no whit disdaineth,";
|
| This is an extended metaphor about the SUN.
| That was (and is) a male figure.
|
True.
| > Sonnet 41:
| Gentle thou art and therefore to be won, 41:5
| > "Beauteous thou art, therefore to be assailed.
|
| What male (let alone an Elizabethan male) has
| ever been addressed in such terms?
|
Well, this one. You seem to have a very narrow view of these matters.
| > And when a woman woos, what woman's son,
| > Will sourly leave her till he have prevailed?
|
| Paul Streitz could quote these lines to show
| that a son was wooing his mother!
|
Gentle thou art,and therefore to be wonne, Son. 41.5
Beautious thou art,therefore to be assailed. Son. 41.6
And when a woman woes,what womans sonne, Son. 41.7
Will sourely leaue her till he haue preuailed. Son. 41.8
i.e. "You are likely to be wooed (by women), and when women woo men prevail
(by yielding)" -- it's a joke about role-reversal. "And when a woman woes"
doesn't make sense if the addressee is female.
| > Ay me, but yet thou mightst my seat forbear,
| > And chide thy beauty, and thy straying youth,
| > Who lead thee in their riot even there
| > Where thou art forced to break a twofold truth:
| > Hers by thy beauty tempting her to thee,";
|
| There is nothing here suggesting that the
| addressee is male. No one can make out
| what the last two lines are about.
|
Really? It seems fairly straightforward to me (but that, of course, is your
problem): "your youth and your beauty lead you through excess (riot) to
break two truths/troths (a typical pun):
Hers by thy beauty tempting her to thee, Son. 41.13
you violate her truth (chastity) in tempting her with your beauty
Thine by thy beautie beeing false to me. Son. 41.14
and you break your troth (loyalty) to me by letting your beauty make her
woo (and win) you
|
| > Sonnet 42: "That thou hast her it is not all my grief,
| > And yet it may be said I loved her dearly,
| > That she hath thee is of my wailing chief,
| > A loss in love that touches me more nearly.
| > Loving offenders thus I will excuse ye,
| > Thou dost love her, because thou know'st I love her,";
|
| Where does this suggest that the addressee
| is male?
|
Right -- he must be talking about one of Elizabeth's lesbian relationships.
| > Sonnet 54: "And so of you, beauteous and lovely youth,";
|
| Where does this suggest that the addressee
| is male?
|
It certainly "suggests" it, to anyone who can read English, but it's not
conclusive, since youth *could* be used of a female.
| > Sonnet 126: "O thou, my lovely boy, who in thy pow'r/
| > Dost hold time's fickle glass."
|
| This is addressed to the 'Cupid-like' figure
| of Time.
|
And what, pray, is "the 'Cupid-like' figure of Time."? Why (in any case)
should either Cupid or Time fear Nature's audit? Clearly the addressee is
human here, subject to time and death though as yet because of his
triumphant youth and beauty he doesn't take the idea seriously -- he seems
to hold time in his poower.
O Thou my louely Boy who in thy power, Son. 126.1
Doest hould times fickle glasse,his fickle,hower: Son. 126.2
Who hast by wayning growne,and therein shou'st, Son. 126.3
Thy louers withering,as thy sweet selfe grow'st. Son. 126.4
If Nature(soueraine misteres ouer wrack) Son. 126.5
As thou goest onwards still will plucke thee backe, Son. 126.6
She keepes thee to this purpose,that her skill. Son. 126.7
May time disgrace,and wretched mynuit kill. Son. 126.8
Yet feare her O thou minnion of her pleasure, Son. 126.9
She may detaine,but not still keepe her tresure! Son. 126.10
Her Audite(though delayd)answer'd must be, Son. 126.11
And her Quietus is to render thee. Son. 126.12
| KQKnave's score = Zero.
|
I make it Knave 6, Crowley 4 (with a couple of indeterminate points). But
the score is irrelevant: just one piece of evidence brings your whole house
of cards tumbling down.
Peter G.
KQKnave
<Monti...@bigpond.com> writes:
>
>I make it Knave 6, Crowley 4 (with a couple of indeterminate points). But
>the score is irrelevant: just one piece of evidence brings your whole house
>of cards tumbling down.
>
I make it Me 1,000,000, Crowley Zero.
Paul Crowley
> Paul Crowley <sdkh...@slkjsldfsjf.com> wrote in message
> | If they had been written to a man, we should have
> | some ordinary and natural indication of gender
> | in the 1,763 lines of sonnets 1-126, as Elizabethan
> | males lead very different lives from Elizabethan
> | females. Apart from matters about the house,
> | females were debarred from almost all the activities
> | open to males could -- professions, owning property,
> | travel, school and university, games, military training,
> | being a soldier or sailor, etc., etc. Yet there is
> | nothing indicating a male (or a female, for that matter)
> | at any point in Sonnets 1-126. There is clearly a
> | deliberate concealment of the addressee's gender.
>
> Addressing a man in some respects *as though* he were a Petrarchan mistress
> is a typically Shakespearean playing with genre
Shakespeare certainly played with genre -- and
in the sonnets above all. The relevant question
is 'Why'? You can provide no reason, other than
he thought it a good idea at the time. And since
the sonnets were clearly written over many years,
he continued to think it was a good idea, again
and again and again. But at no point can you
suggest any reason for such strange behaviour.
> fairly obviously, it would be out of place to introduce
> references to exclusively male pursuits.
Start with an absurd premise, and you get an
absurd conclusion. If you pretend to walk around
on your hands, with your feet in the air, then
_obviously_ you should swap your genitals and
your head.
There are numerous references to the 'external
world' and to personal circumstances in these
sonnets. We can surmise that the 'Fair Youth'
had charge of a noble house and estates; that
'he' enjoyed hunting; that 'he' loved complex
poetry and sophisticated music; that 'he' loved
to be told that he was beautiful (and fair and
gentle, and that 'he' had white hands); that 'he'
was very concerned about getting old; that the
poet was extremely anxious 'he' should have
an heir as quickly as possible; that 'he' knew
and liked painting and portraiture; that 'he' was
familiar with the court and courtly behaviour;
that the poet travelled distances to and from
him using the royal posting horses; that 'he'
was of high birth; that 'he' had a highly bawdy
frame of mind.
I'm sure you could add more.
The point is that almost ALL pursuits in
Elizabethan England were exclusively male
pursuits. It was virtually impossible to talk
to a male about the same things as to a
female, for more than a few minutes. The
whole tone of the conversation had to be
different. Women did not hold office, have
careers, own property, fight legal cases,
engage in politics, etc., etc. The account
we have in the sonnets could not hide the
addressee's gender, unless it was entirely
deliberate.
> But it is simply false to say "there is nothing indicating a
> male ... [addressee] at any point in Sonnets 1-126". There are a number of
> unambiguous indications:
>
> O carue not with thy howers my loues faire brow, Son. 19.9
> Nor draw noe lines there with thine antique pen, Son. 19.10
> Him in thy course vntainted doe allow, Son. 19.11
> For beauties patterne to succeding men. Son. 19.12
>
> The antecedent of "Him" is "my loue".
Since we are talking of the Tudor monarch
and (hopefully) of succeeding men to that
position, 'him' is allowable. The monarchy
was, pre-eminently, a male role -- as the
Queen acknowledged. Many at the time
held that its occupation by a female was a
monstrosity -- and the Queen herself shared
that opinion to some extent.
> One of the clearest indicators is
> Sonnet 20; since you seem unable to grasp this I will add a pedestrian
> paraphrase of the crucial bits.
I am quite familiar with the mindless
nature of the Stratfordian exegesis of
Sonnet 20. Many of the sonnets have a
reasonably credible superficial reading
-- if usually a pretty banal one. But the
Stratfordian attempt to make sense of
Sonnet 20 is either hilarious or tragic,
(depending on your mood).
> A Womans face with natures owne hand painted, Son. 20.1
> you have a woman's beauty (though without the use of cosmetics)
Do you really think our poet (or any poet -- or
any Elizabethan) could or would make a point
that was such a mixture of an insult and (if true)
a banality?
(1) Why mention cosmetics?
Did the Fair Youth use them on occasion?
> Haste thou the Master Mistris of my passion, Son. 20.2
> you gender-ambiguous object of desire
Do you really believe what you are writing?
Where else in literature (or in letters) has
ANYONE, at ANY time in ANY place in ANY
culture, expressed such sentiments?
How could a low-class hack poet address
a noble youth in such a fashion?
(2) Who was the 'Master-Mistress' of the day?
> A womans gentle hart but not acquainted Son. 20.3
> and a woman's gentleness, though no cunt ("quaint")
So we have a low-class hack poet addressing
a noble youth (with martial ambitions, like all
Elizabethan noble youths) -- and he did not
expect to get run through for saying this?
(3) Why mention "a womans gentle hart?
(4) What is the point of referring to 'cunt'?
Can you think of a greater insult to a young
Elizabethan man?
> With shifting change as is false womens fashion, Son. 20.4
> and none of their fickleness
At every level, this is utter nonsense.
(5) Why did the poet pun on 'shifting change'.
Does your conception of the 'Fair Youth' allow
for a fair amount of 'cross-dressing' ?
(6) Why does the poet bring in the word 'false'?
(7) What is the relevance of 'fashion'?
> An eye more bright then theirs,lesse false in rowling: Son. 20.5
(8) Why 'lesse false'? (emphasis on 'less'
-- and with the puns on it.)
(9) What puns are involved in the phrase: 'in rowling".
(10) What puns are in 'an eye more bright'?
> Gilding the obiect where-vpon it gazeth, Son. 20.6
(11) Why should the 'object' become 'gilded'?
(12) To what 'object' is the poet referring?
> A man in hew all Hews in his controwling, Son. 20.7
(13) Who is the 'man in hew'?
(14) Who are 'all Hews'?
(15) What is the sense (and pun) in 'controwling'?
> Which steales mens eyes and womens soules amaseth. Son. 20.8
(16) Who steals 'mens eyes'?
(17) What is the sense of "men's eyes"?
(18) How are "womens soules amazeth"?
(19) What is the pun on "soules"?
(20) And on "women's souls" in particular
> And for a woman wert thou first created, Son. 20.9
> And you were meant to be a woman
How could anyone say such a thing to an
Elizabethan man? Do you know of a modern
youth to whom you could say such a thing?
Can you refer to any public figure to whom
such a thing might conceivably be said? Can
you refer to ANY male ever addressed in such
a manner at ANY time in ANY language in
ANY culture? In either literature or in letters?
Stratfordians feel themselves free to imagine
a world which is a combination of the
Elizabethan, with a Roswell-like one of alien
abductions, with some Buffy Vampire Slayer,
some time-travel, and God knows what other
kinds of fantasy, all mixed in.
(21) Why SHOULD the poet have put in
such an extraordinary line?
> Till nature as she wrought thee fell a dotinge, Son. 20.10
> but Nature dozed on the job
The word is 'fell'. There is nothing about
'falling asleep'.
(22) Why SHOULD the poet have put in such
an extraordinary line?
> And by addition me of thee defeated, Son. 20.11
(23) What is the significance of 'addition'?
Was it an Elizabethan idea that all humans
were the same, and then a penis was
'added' to make a male?
> By adding one thing to my purpose nothing. Son. 20.12
> and prevented my claiming you as a sexual partner by adding a penis
> ("thing"), of no use to me
The banality of the Strat imagination should
cause any spectator to struggle for breath.
Do you really think this 'exegesis' makes sense?
(24) What is the significance of 'nothing'?
> But since she prickt thee out for womens pleasure, Son. 20.13
> but since she gave you a prick to pleasure women with
(25) Why SHOULD the poet have put in such
an extraordinary line?
(26) On what other senses of 'prickt' did the
poet pun?
> Mine be thy loue and thy loues vse their treasure. Son. 20.14
> I'll take your love and they can have your love-making.
(27) Is the normal bawdy Elizabethan sense
of 'treasure' referred to here?
(28) Does the poet pun on 'treasure' in any
other sense?
(29) Did the poet mean anything else by
'thy loues use'?
I have good, powerful answers to all the 29
questions I've numbered above (and to many
more as regards this sonnet). Stratfordians
don't conceive of the questions, and their
'answers' are either non-existent or hopeless.
> | > Sonnet 3: "For where is she so fair whose uneared womb/
> | > Disdains the tillage of thy husbandry?";
> |
> | The 'she' is the addressee. The Queen was
> | attending to her womb -- as the whole nation
> | was wont to point out. 'Husbandry' is an
> | amusing metaphor -- when addressed to a
> | female. It is pointless otherwise.
>
> It's absurd to say that it's pointless: it's a typical (and neat)
> Shakespearean pun. "thy husbandry" = (1) thy (the addressee's) activity as
> a future husband in (2) "The business or occupation of a husbandman or
> farmer; tillage or cultivation of the soil" (OED 2) of the "unear'd" or yet
> unploughed womb of the virgin bride.
There is nothing 'neat' nor 'typical' about a
'pun' which has no humour and is not in the
least amusing. Such a 'pun' would indeed
be pointless. If Adam has a garden, there
is no point at all in mentioning his 'husbandy';
whereas if Eve has one, there is some
amusement to making a pun on hers. The
first would be boring, boring -- perhaps an
'American' idea of a pun. The second
makes a joke. (Can you remember that
concept from your time in England?).
> | > Sonnet 3: "For where is she so fair whose uneared womb/
> | > Disdains the tillage of thy husbandry?";
> Morover, your interpretation makes no sense: the same referent cannot be
> both second and third person in the same sentence.
The Queen's primary job was the safe
management of the State (one role). That
required a predictable succession, which in
turn meant that she ought to impose a
personal duty on herself to produce a live
heir from her body (second role). So it was
very much the case that a second and a third
person was involved -- entirely suitable for a
certain amount of apparent grammatical
'confusion'.
> | > Sonnet 9: "Is it for fear to wet a widow's eye/
> | > That thou consum'st thyself in single life?";
> |
> | The widow was Mary QS, -- the presumptive
> | heir to the throne, who was hovering like a
> | vulture. She would have cried her eyes out
> | if Elizabeth had married and had a heir.
> |
>
> This is an ingenious attempt to obviate the obvious,
How is it that my 'ingenious attempts' always
seem to work? Neil Brennen had a go at
parodying them -- but got nowhere. Could
it be that I might actually understand what
the poet intended? Is there any other
possible explanation?
And what you conceive of as 'obvious' is flat
and boring. Only the most unimaginative
of poets would write it into a sonnet (maybe
an early John Ford) -- and then only if he
was in a hurry and paid by the word.
> but it depends on a
> prior acceptance of your premises; since it is perfectly understandable
> without those premises
It is not 'understandable' as poetry, and
certainly not as the poetry of Shakespeare.
> it cannot function as any kind of evidence for them
We have two scenarios. Neither is justifiable
in terms of the other. The only questions are
(a) Which fits the words of the sonnets better?
and (b) Which accords with the facts of history
and of human biology, of social behaviour, etc.?
Stratfordians put forward a theory under which
a low-class hack poet addresses a noble youth
over 126 poems, written over many years, for no
apparent purpose, in terms which have never
been seen before or since; which make not the
slightest sense; and which are wholly at odds
with all the known facts of the Elizabethan world
and, indeed, with all human life.
Whereas I am putting forward the theory that a
courtier poet addressed the sonnets to the
Queen, as part of normal courtly life, primarily
with a view to gaining favour.
Your theory is fantastic. Mine is unremarkable.
> | > Sonnet 20:
> | >
> | > A woman's face with nature's own hand painted,
> | > Hast thou the master mistress of my passion,
> | > A woman's gentle heart but not acquainted
> | > With shifting change as is false women's fashion,
> | > An eye more bright than theirs, less false in rolling:
> | > Gilding the object whereupon it gazeth,
> | > A man in hue all hues in his controlling,
> | > Which steals men's eyes and women's souls amazeth.
> | > And for a woman wert thou first created,
> | > Till nature as she wrought thee fell a-doting,
> | > And by addition me of thee defeated,
> | > By adding one thing to my purpose nothing.
> | > But since she pricked thee out for women's pleasure,
> | > Mine be thy love and thy love's use their treasure.
> | > Sonnet 41:
> | Gentle thou art and therefore to be won, 41:5
> | > "Beauteous thou art, therefore to be assailed.
> |
> | What male (let alone an Elizabethan male) has
> | ever been addressed in such terms?
>
> Well, this one. You seem to have a very narrow view of these matters.
I don't like fantasies -- nor explanations to
the effect that nothing like those events ever
occurred within humanity before, nor should
we expect them to occur at any other time or
place -- but we should accept them as true
simply because other people believe them.
> Gentle thou art,and therefore to be wonne, Son. 41.5
> Beautious thou art,therefore to be assailed. Son. 41.6
> And when a woman woes,what womans sonne, Son. 41.7
> Will sourely leaue her till he haue preuailed. Son. 41.8
>
> i.e. "You are likely to be wooed (by women), and when women woo men prevail
> (by yielding)" -- it's a joke about role-reversal. "And when a woman woes"
> doesn't make sense if the addressee is female.
Why not? It fits a relationship where the woman
is 17 years older and had wooed the poet when
he was young -- in some way or other, possibly
just flirting. There is a clear echo of the Venus &
Adonis theme here. Who do you think they were
meant to represent? The poet and the 'Fair Youth'?
> | > Ay me, but yet thou mightst my seat forbear,
> | > And chide thy beauty, and thy straying youth,
> | > Who lead thee in their riot even there
> | > Where thou art forced to break a twofold truth:
> | > Hers by thy beauty tempting her to thee,";
> |
> | There is nothing here suggesting that the
> | addressee is male. No one can make out
> | what the last two lines are about.
>
> Really? It seems fairly straightforward to me (but that, of course, is your
> problem): "your youth and your beauty lead you through excess (riot) to
> break two truths/troths (a typical pun):
> Hers by thy beauty tempting her to thee, Son. 41.13
> you violate her truth (chastity) in tempting her with your beauty
> Thine by thy beautie beeing false to me. Son. 41.14
> and you break your troth (loyalty) to me by letting your beauty make her
> woo (and win) you
Sonnets 40, 41 and 42 are a sequence.
The sentiments in all of them are turned
around by the final couplet of 42
> | > Sonnet 42: "That thou hast her it is not all my grief,
> | > And yet it may be said I loved her dearly,
> | > That she hath thee is of my wailing chief,
> | > A loss in love that touches me more nearly.
> | > Loving offenders thus I will excuse ye,
> | > Thou dost love her, because thou know'st I love her,";
> |
> | Where does this suggest that the addressee
> | is male?
>
> Right -- he must be talking about one of Elizabeth's lesbian relationships.
You missed the final couplet : the poet and
'his friend' are one.
But here's the ioy,my friend and I are one, 42:13
Sweete flattery, then she loues but me alone. 42.14
Got it? "She loves but me ALONE."
> | > Sonnet 126: "O thou, my lovely boy, who in thy pow'r/
> | > Dost hold time's fickle glass."
> |
> | This is addressed to the 'Cupid-like' figure
> | of Time.
>
> And what, pray, is "the 'Cupid-like' figure of Time."?
There is a name for it (which I've forgotten) -- the
New Year figure of 'Time' showing a 'new-born'
boy holding an hour-glass. There is one on
top of the Stratman's memorial.
> Why (in any case)
> should either Cupid or Time fear Nature's audit?
Some poetic fancy. Time and Nature are posed
in a some kind of conflict.
> Clearly the addressee is human here, subject to time
> and death though as yet because of his
> triumphant youth and beauty he doesn't take the idea
> seriously -- he seems to hold time in his poower.
I agree that a human addressee is covertly
implied -- namely the Queen. However, it
is clear that, once again, the poet was playing
games. There is no unambiguous male
mortal so addressed -- as you claim.
> O Thou my louely Boy who in thy power, Son. 126.1
> Doest hould times fickle glasse,his fickle,hower: Son. 126.2
> Who hast by wayning growne,and therein shou'st, Son. 126.3
> Thy louers withering,as thy sweet selfe grow'st. Son. 126.4
> If Nature(soueraine misteres ouer wrack) Son. 126.5
> As thou goest onwards still will plucke thee backe, Son. 126.6
> She keepes thee to this purpose,that her skill. Son. 126.7
> May time disgrace,and wretched mynuit kill. Son. 126.8
> Yet feare her O thou minnion of her pleasure, Son. 126.9
> She may detaine,but not still keepe her tresure! Son. 126.10
> Her Audite(though delayd)answer'd must be, Son. 126.11
> And her Quietus is to render thee. Son. 126.12
> But the score is irrelevant: just one piece of
> evidence brings your whole house
> of cards tumbling down.
And what 'one piece of evidence' does that?
You have obviously not got the point (not
any of them). Your scenario is that the
poet wrote androgenous sonnets to an
androgenous youth -- well . . because he
lived in an androgenous kind of society.
And he did not tell us the name of this youth
-- because . . . well . . . he forgot. Nor did
money matter, in any way, in this strange
world. He just wrote all these immensely
complex sonnets in his spare time . . . for fun.
You cannot quote not one scrap of external
evidence to support such a theory.
I say he was courtier, earning his crust,
along with many others (although head
and shoulders above them in poetic ability).
He wrote these sonnets to flatter, entertain
and amuse the Queen. However, they are
so bawdy, and so indiscreet in other ways,
that they could not be published (nor
probably even left around in manuscript)
in a form that would allow the parties to be
identified. IF that involved altering a few
pronouns, then perhaps that was done.
I support this theory with external evidence,
week by week, sonnet by sonnet.
Strangely, I've yet to see a serious attempt
at a refutation of any of my interpretations.
Robert Stonehouse
>"MHJDAWG" <mhj...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20020615081047...@mb-fe.aol.com...
>> Paul Crowley accuses Bob Grumman of churning out crap by the
>minute (See his
>> post to the "Most Egregious" thread, dated 6/14/02), and then
>writes an entire
>> post explaining that Sonnet 103 is really about Oxford's desire
>to sit beside
>> Elizabeth on a shared perch squeezing out turds.
>> ("poverty" = "pooh"??????)
>I think we all know the question your are raising about a Crowley
>bawdy exegesis, that it emphasizes that aspect and distorts
>others to suit. He doesn't say it's a psychoanalytical approach
>in literary criticism, but I notice he is pretty consistent in
>his methods. He does label it accurately, as scatology, etc..
A contribution to the scatology, by way of a note on 'pass'. In
Shakespeare, 'pass' means 'conclusion', as in the Biblical usage
'And it came to pass ...' meaning 'And what happened in the end
was...'. This is an example of the closest modern usage, meaning
'state of affairs' or 'predicament', and it comes from Gardeners'
Question Time (a radio program).
Someone explaining the cultivation of a plant remarked "Some of the
manure you get these days isn't very reliable." Clay Jones in the
chair commented in his rich Welsh tones : "Things have come to a
pretty pass, if you can't rely on manure!"
ew...@bcs.org.uk
BCD
> [ . . . ] by way of a note on 'pass'. In
> Shakespeare, 'pass' means 'conclusion', as in the Biblical usage
> 'And it came to pass ...' meaning 'And what happened in the end
***Not to higgle . . . but isn't the meaning more on the order of simply
"what happened next" without reference to conclusion, rather than "what
happened in the end"? For instance, King James version Gen. 6:1--following
Noah's begettings: "And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the
face of the earth [ . . .]", thus launching the preliminaries to the episode
of the Flood. One could argue perhaps that this "it came to pass" answers
the immediately-previous data (in the preceding chapter) on Noah's children,
intending something on the order of "And what happened in the end to these
kids goes like this..."; but, collating all the instances in the Bible (I
*knew* that buying that Bible concordance would come in handy some day!),
the usage of this formula seems to me to be intended to convey a simple "And
then...".
Best Wishes,
--BCD
Web Site: http://www.csulb.edu/~odinthor
Visit unknown Los Angeles (newly optimized):
http://www.csulb.edu/~odinthor/socal1.html