Weekly Sonnet No. 37
bookburn
Sonnet XXXVII.
AS a decrepit father takes delight
To see his active child do deeds of youth,
So I, made lame by Fortune's dearest spite,
Take all my comfort of thy worth and truth;
For whether beauty, birth, or wealth, or wit, 5
Or any of these all, or all, or more,
Entitled in thy parts do crowned sit,
I make my love engrafted to this store:
So then I am not lame, poor, nor despis'd,
Whilst that this shadow doth such substance give 10
That I in thy abundance am suffic'd,
And by a part of all thy glory live.
Look what is best, that best I wish in thee:
This wish I have; then ten times happy me!
37 (1609 Quarto, old-fashioned spelling)
AS a decrepit father takes delight,
To see his actiue childe do deeds of youth,
So I , made lame by Fortunes dearest spight
Take all my comfort of thy worth and truth.
For whether beauty,birth,or wealth,or wit,
Or any of these all,or all,or more
Intitled in their parts,do crowned sit,
I make my loue ingrafted to this store:
So then I am not lame,poore,nor dispis'd,
Whilst that this shadow doth such substance giue,
That I in thy abundance am suffic'd,
And by a part of all thy glory liue:
Looke what is best,that best I wish in thee,
This wish I haue,then ten times happy me.
bookburn
http://www.shakespeares-sonnets.com/xxvcomm.htm
1. As a decrepit father takes delight [a decrepit father = a father
worn down with age. In
Elizabethan times a man might consider himself old when he reached his
thirties. Diet
and the multitude of untreatable diseases all contributed to a rapid
decline. Shakespeare is
not likely to have been much more than 35 when he wrote this, probably
younger.]
2. To see his active child do deeds of youth, [ I.e. as a compensation
for his own inability
to be active.]
3. So I, made lame by Fortune's dearest spite, [made lame - some
commentators have
suggested that this be taken literally, and that Shakespeare must have
been lame. It is
more likely that the lameness caused by Fortune is metaphoric. Cf.
Speak of my lameness,
and I straight will halt, 89, which suggests that normally he did not
limp. dearest spite =
most severe malignancy]
4. Take all my comfort of thy worth and truth; [Take all my comfort
of = derive all my
comfort from]
5. For whether beauty, birth, or wealth, or wit, [All these might be
taken as the
traditional inheritance of the aristocrat, whether real or imagined.
In Shakespeare's day, as
in almost any age before the 20th century, there was a widespread
belief that upper class
people were naturally better in every respect and that genetic
excellence was theirs by
inheritance. Aristos is the Greek word for 'best', from which the word
'aristocracy' is
formed, meaning 'rule by the best'. These best (people) were of course
by definition the
upper classes. This belief is still alive today, but more open to
question by the realities of
modern science.]
6. Or any of these all, or all, or more, [The superabundance of all
these qualities, and the
way they seem to burst out of the boundaries of expressing them, as
out of a magician's
hat, each one causing new wonderment, enhances the expectation of
where it might lead.
Are we to see a new monarch crowned, or a new era proclaimed? Surely
they are enough
to make the youth, or the beloved poet who sings his praises,
immortal? Yet there is a
slight suggestion that it is all empty nothingness, because the
natural expectation of words
at the end of this line leads one to anticipate Or any of these all,
or all, or none, by
analogy with the phrase 'all or nothing'. So that the inherent hint
remains that perhaps the
youth is, after all, an empty shell.]
7. Entitled in thy parts, do crowned sit, [Entitled in thy parts - the
imagery is perhaps
from heraldry, with the various qualities, beauty, birth, wealth, wit,
personified and sitting
crowned in the quarters of the shield. The general meaning is
'whichever of these qualities
is held by you, as of right (entitlement), in whichever part of you
they reign, I latch on to
them etc'. Entitled = having the right to a title, having the right to
bear a coat of arms.]
8. I make my love engrafted to this store: [I make my love engrafted
to = I graft myself
lovingly on to them. The Q spelling is ingrafted, possibly underlining
the intimacy of the
relationship. To this store = to the store and abundance of your good
qualities.
9. So then I am not lame, poor, nor despis'd, [Referring back to l.3,
but also to other
sonnets, e.g. 29 When in disgrace with Fortune and men's eyes...]
10. Whilst that this shadow doth such substance give [The imagery
shifts from being
engrafted, and bearing a title, to that of deriving sustenance from
the beneficent shade
offered by the youth. The meaning is approximately 'While your shadow
and your
influence pours on to me such abundance of well-being, such absolute
reality of
existence'. I cannot explain why Shakespeare wrote this shadow, since
the this has no
obvious antecedent, as shadows have so far not been mentioned. I
suspect this might be a
misprint for thy or your. Shakespeare often used the substance/shadow
dichotomy, which
he seems to have been rather fond of. These are the instances of its
use in the plays. (snip
of instances)]
11. That I in thy abundance am suffic'd, [So that I have sufficient
for myself from your
abundant supply of excellence.
12. And by a part of all thy glory live. [A mere part of your glory is
enough to give life
and being to me. 13. Look what is best, that best I wish in thee:
13. Look what is best =[whatever (in the world) is best. As in Sonn.9.
Look what an
unthrift in the world doth spend
14. This wish I have; then ten times happy me! [This wish I have = My
wish is granted.
ten times happy me. The ten times is probably used to suggest a large
number of times. It
occurs here, in Sonn.6 and in Sonn.38 following this one.]
Charles Gillen
FWIW a Vietnamese aphorism boils the sonnet down to 6 words:
Con hon cha, nha co phuc
[If] child surpass father, [whole] house has [good] luck
--
NoSpam address: gillenc at home dot com
Charles Gillen -- Reston, Virginia, USA
Robert Stonehouse
>The Oxford Shakespeare: Poems. 1914.
>
>Sonnet XXXVII.
>
>AS a decrepit father takes delight
finds his pleasure /
>To see his active child do deeds of youth,
the things young people do, /
>So I, made lame by Fortune's dearest spite,
that Fortune delights in doing /
>Take all my comfort of thy worth and truth;
>For whether beauty, birth, or wealth, or wit, 5
No matter if it is handsome appearance, high
descent, riches or intelligence, /
>Or any of these all, or all, or more,
any of them, all of them, or more than these, /
>Entitled in thy parts do crowned sit,
that form, with titles and coronets, the
court of your character, /
>I make my love engrafted to this store:
my love joins me intimately to the collection. /
>So then I am not lame, poor, nor despis'd,
So I am not crippled any more, not devoid of
resources, not looked down on /
>Whilst that this shadow doth such substance give 10
so long as your spirit gives me such wealth /
>That I in thy abundance am suffic'd,
that I have enough, out of your wealth /
>And by a part of all thy glory live.
and live on a share of each of your good qualities. /
> Look what is best, that best I wish in thee:
Whatever is the best you can think of, that is
what I most wish for you; /
> This wish I have; then ten times happy me!
and my wish has come true - so I am lucky
ten times over. /
By quatrains:
(1) Being disabled by fortune, I get my satisfaction from your
flourishing. (2) By love, I join myself to your success. (3) So your
resources make good my deficiencies. (c) I want the best for you,
and it is lucky for me that you have it.
Helen Vendler draws attention to the great number of 'th' sounds in
this poem. Only line 3 has not got one, and that has an 'ht' - which
is significant because the first four lines in the Quarto spelling
rhyme ht-th-ht-th.
> 37 (1609 Quarto, old-fashioned spelling)
> AS a decrepit father takes delight,
> To see his actiue childe do deeds of youth,
> So I , made lame by Fortunes dearest spight
> Take all my comfort of thy worth and truth.
In line 3, 'lame' looks like a metaphor. The commentators quote King
Lear 4.6.221 (Quarto text) "A most poor man, made lame by Fortune's
blows".
In line 4, I take 'dearest' as meaning 'dearest to Fortune'.
In the Quarto, the second quatrain reads:
> For whether beauty,birth,or wealth,or wit,
> Or any of these all,or all,or more
> Intitled in their parts,do crowned sit,
> I make my loue ingrafted to this store:
In line 7, we need to read 'thy' for 'their' - another example of
this common error in the Quarto (Capell's conjecture again.). 'Thy'
tells us whose the beauty etc. are. Nothing else in this quatrain
tells us that, and we need it.The commentators seem to think the
question depends on whether we can make sense of 'their' or not,
which may not be impossible. If you read the Quarto without
commentary, the question becomes "Where are they sitting?"
Given that, then line 7 has the addressee's virtues sitting in
solemn conclave in his character ('parts') like peers of the realm
in full dress. So I take 'entitled' as meaning 'endowed with
titles', introducing the idea of nobility.
Going a step further, I suggest the Quarto's punctuation is meant to
make 'their' meaningful, or to disguise its problems. Taking 'or
more entitled in their parts' together makes it sound like a phrase:
complicated, but we think at least we _ought_ to understand it. If
right, that implies that one person made the 'thy - their' error and
another one later did the punctuation: that is, 'thy - their' is not
a printer's error, but a scribe's. If punctuation was a scribe's
business and not a printer's (I am not clear what 17th century
practice was) then that would imply there were two scribes, two
successive fair copies.
In line 9,
> So then I am not lame,poore,nor dispis'd,
'lame' looks less metaphorical than in line 3. 'Poor' and 'despised'
certainly look as if they were meant literally. Does that mean
'lame' must be literal too? I think not necessarily. Opening with a
word that has already been used metaphorically, the poet can deny
his previous statement and then drop out of metaphor for the rest of
the sentence. But this is a more difficult case than the other.
In line 10, commentators point to the contrast of shadow and
substance, and how shadow is made to create substance instead of the
other way round. But there is another twist. The contrast applies
only to the words, not to the meaning. In the senses in which the
two words are being used, shadow and substance are not opposites at
all. They have nothing to do with one another.
I keep pointing out how, when Shakespeare uses a word twice in one
line, he always means two different things - he is not repeating.
This time, he uses words that are (normally) opposite, but not in
their opposing senses, so that he is not contradicting. He is an
amazing setter of traps for the audience. Our business is to fall
into them all.
Having said which, of course I have to paraphrase 'best' in two
different ways in line 13. It is not difficult, but this is not one
of my strongest cases. It would be possible to paraphrase "Think of
the best thing: that same best thing is what I want for you". But I
prefer to take 'that best I wish' as 'what I most want'.
ew...@bcs.org.uk
Greg Reynolds
They feel a little of the glory rubs off on them, too. I am
nothing, but by loving you, I am a part of something special.
This is called living vicariously, supping glory from another's
grandeur.
What it shows is an adherence to the lesson learned in the
Parable of the Talents--that we must not covet another's
goods. The way Corin says it in As You Like It, III,ii is
"I earn that I eat, get that I wear, owe no man hate, envy
no man's happiness, glad of other men's good, content
with my harm, and the greatest of my pride is to see my
ewes graze and my lambs suck." That's enough, Corin.
So what would be the bigger character flaw--to envy
another's good graces or to gain satisfaction from them
as if they were your own?
XXXVII A Star is Suborned
> AS a decrepit father takes delight
> To see his active child do deeds of youth,
> So I, made lame by Fortune's dearest spite,
> Take all my comfort of thy worth and truth;
I become satisfied involving myself in your life. My own
life never gave me that satisfaction, and I feel like an old
man who derives pride and enjoyment from the
accomplishments of his child.
> For whether beauty, birth, or wealth, or wit, 5
> Or any of these all, or all, or more,
> Entitled in thy parts do crowned sit,
> I make my love engrafted to this store:
You have so much going for you, your looks, your
lineage, your money, and your intellect--yet on top
of all that, you also have my friendship and admiration.
> So then I am not lame, poor, nor despis'd,
> Whilst that this shadow doth such substance give 10
This remarkably changes my own station in life. By
involving myself in your stellar life, my own faults
and shortcomings diminish.
> That I in thy abundance am suffic'd,
> And by a part of all thy glory live.
And I thrive just as an adjunct to your greatness.
> Look what is best, that best I wish in thee:
> This wish I have; then ten times happy me!
And I hope you only improve and continue to
blossom in your goodness, because it will elevate
my own self-esteem tenfold.
Greg Reynolds
bookburn doth such substance give :
Paul Crowley
> This is how groupies feel when they hang around the stars.
> They feel a little of the glory rubs off on them, too. I am
> nothing, but by loving you, I am a part of something special.
> This is called living vicariously, supping glory from another's
> grandeur.
And do you think such would be the case when the highly
intelligent Shakespeare hung around some pimply youth?
Do you know (or know OF) any youths of that age to whom
you could ever address words of this nature?
Can you name any person in the modern world OR in
history OR in literature who ever addressed a youth
in this manner?
Can you suggest any person in the modern world OR in
history OR in literature who could reasonably have been
thought to have used such language towards a youth?
> What it shows is an adherence to the lesson learned in the
> Parable of the Talents--that we must not covet another's
> goods. The way Corin says it in As You Like It, III,ii is
> "I earn that I eat, get that I wear, owe no man hate, envy
> no man's happiness, glad of other men's good, content
> with my harm, and the greatest of my pride is to see my
> ewes graze and my lambs suck." That's enough, Corin.
>
> So what would be the bigger character flaw--to envy
> another's good graces or to gain satisfaction from them
> as if they were your own?
If this sonnet (and all the others) WERE addressed
to a 'fair youth' then it would show faults of character
in the poet far too gross to be believable.
> > AS a decrepit father takes delight
> > To see his active child do deeds of youth,
> > So I, made lame by Fortune's dearest spite,
> > Take all my comfort of thy worth and truth;
>
> I become satisfied involving myself in your life. My own
> life never gave me that satisfaction, and I feel like an old
> man who derives pride and enjoyment from the
> accomplishments of his child.
>
> > For whether beauty, birth, or wealth, or wit, 5
> > Or any of these all, or all, or more,
> > Entitled in thy parts do crowned sit,
> > I make my love engrafted to this store:
>
> You have so much going for you, your looks, your
> lineage, your money, and your intellect--yet on top
> of all that, you also have my friendship and admiration.
What crap! -- As addressed to a some youth. Who at
that time had such qualities? Birth? Wealth? Wit?
And, above all, beauty? Southampton? His wealth
was pathetic -- by the standards of the aristocracy,
and his lineage was insignificant. William Herbert?
He falls down badly in the beauty stakes. Neither
were known for their 'wit'.
There was only one person in Elizabethan England
to whom such lines could reasonably be addressed
-- Elizabeth herself -- they certainly weren't all true of
her either -- but at least there were well-established
social and poetic conventions of addressing such
lines to her.
And line 7:
> > Entitled in thy parts do crowned sit,
. . . . rather gives the game away. Why should
the fair youth 'sit crowned' in his parts?
> > So then I am not lame, poor, nor despis'd,
> > Whilst that this shadow doth such substance give 10
>
> This remarkably changes my own station in life. By
> involving myself in your stellar life, my own faults
> and shortcomings diminish.
>
> > That I in thy abundance am suffic'd,
> > And by a part of all thy glory live.
>
> And I thrive just as an adjunct to your greatness.
Greatness? For this 17(?) year-old youth?
> > Look what is best, that best I wish in thee:
> > This wish I have; then ten times happy me!
>
> And I hope you only improve and continue to
> blossom in your goodness, because it will elevate
> my own self-esteem tenfold.
Scarcely a word (let alone a line) fits an address to
a 'fair youth'. Every syllable fits the form of an
address to the Queen -- and does so beautifully.
> > AS a decrepit father takes delight
> > To see his active child do deeds of youth,
> > So I, made lame by Fortune's dearest spite,
> > Take all my comfort of thy worth and truth;
> > For whether beauty, birth, or wealth, or wit, 5
> > Or any of these all, or all, or more,
> > Entitled in thy parts do crowned sit,
> > I make my love engrafted to this store:
> > So then I am not lame, poor, nor despis'd,
> > Whilst that this shadow doth such substance give 10
> > That I in thy abundance am suffic'd,
> > And by a part of all thy glory live.
> > Look what is best, that best I wish in thee:
> > This wish I have; then ten times happy me!
Paul.
--
Email: pebj...@ubgznvy.pbz (apply ROT13)
Paul Crowley
news:taj69bf...@corp.supernews.com...
> The following Notes are from Shakespeare's Sonnets, at:
> http://www.shakespeares-sonnets.com/xxvcomm.htm
What has white space ever done to you that
you dislike it so?
I had to edit this in order to make it fractionally more
readable. Which I did -- almost entirely for myself.
Thanks for copying the commentary anyway.
> 1. As a decrepit father takes delight
[a decrepit father = a father
> worn down with age. In
> Elizabethan times a man might consider himself old when he reached his
> thirties. Diet
> and the multitude of untreatable diseases all contributed to a rapid
> decline. Shakespeare is
> not likely to have been much more than 35 when he wrote this, probably
> younger.]
What total rubbish! How can otherwise intelligent people come
out with such garbage? I suppose they were told it at school
and have never questioned it -- rather like their Stratfordianism.
But if they had read even just the canon, they would know
better.
Charles Gillen
>Can you name any person in the modern world OR in
>history OR in literature who ever addressed a youth
>in this manner?
>Can you suggest any person in the modern world OR in
>history OR in literature who could reasonably have been
>thought to have used such language towards a youth?
Oscar Wilde? Any number of Greeks? I recall old Koreans complained they
never heard buggering boys was a sin, until missionaries arrived.
Shakespeare may at times have been a shameless sycophant (for patronage or
money) or even a bi-sexual (Jerry Seinfeld: "Not that there's anything
wrong with that.")
At the risk of seeming facetious, I'd rather learn Shakespeare was a
homophile rather than that he actually was Marlowe or DeVere :^)
Paul Crowley
> "Paul Crowley" <pebj...@ubgznvy.pbz (apply ROT13)> wrote:
>
> >Can you name any person in the modern world OR in
> >history OR in literature who ever addressed a youth
> >in this manner?
> >Can you suggest any person in the modern world OR in
> >history OR in literature who could reasonably have been
> >thought to have used such language towards a youth?
>
> Oscar Wilde? Any number of Greeks? I recall old Koreans complained they
> never heard buggering boys was a sin, until missionaries arrived.
There is nothing in that sonnet about boys, nor about
buggering. And even if you somehow manage to read
it in, you're not thinking about all the other words. Most
of Oscar's victims / lovers were lower-class 'rough trade'.
But, assuming that Bosey was indeed a true lover, how
much of Sonnet 37 could Oscar really have addressed
to him? He was intelligent and well-educated, and the
son of he Marquis of Queensbury, but could Oscar have
reasonably written the following to him?
> > Take all my comfort of thy worth and truth;
> > For whether beauty, birth, or wealth, or wit, 5
> > Or any of these all, or all, or more,
> > Entitled in thy parts do crowned sit,
. . . .
> > Whilst that this shadow doth such substance give 10
> > That I in thy abundance am suffic'd,
> > And by a part of all thy glory live.
> > Look what is best, that best I wish in thee:
> > This wish I have; then ten times happy me!
> Shakespeare may at times have been a shameless sycophant (for patronage or
> money) or even a bi-sexual (Jerry Seinfeld: "Not that there's anything
> wrong with that.")
>
> At the risk of seeming facetious, I'd rather learn Shakespeare was a
> homophile rather than that he actually was Marlowe or DeVere :^)
So you prefer the litigious, money-grubbing hoarder
who could be bothered teaching his children to
read. Well, each to his own.
Charles Gillen
>So you prefer the litigious, money-grubbing hoarder
>who could [not] be bothered teaching his children to
>read. Well, each to his own.
Most of the world's geniuses have been absolute monsters to many of the
people around them, including their families, though I have read that
Shakespeare's colleagues paint him as a sweet, fun guy to hang out with.
Robert Stonehouse
>The following Notes are from Shakespeare's Sonnets,
>at: http://www.shakespeares
>-sonnets.com/xxvcomm.htm
>1. As a decrepit father takes delight [a decrepit father =
>a father worn down with age. In Elizabethan times a
>man might consider himself old when he reached his
>thirties. Diet and the multitude of untreatable diseases
>all contributed to a rapid decline. Shakespeare is not
>likely to have been much more than 35 when he wrote
>this, probably younger.]
Shakespeare's age is not the point. He compares himself to a
decrepit father, not in respect of his age, but in respect of his
relation to the addressee as an interested spectator. We can't
deduce anything about Shakespeare's age from this.
>2. To see his active child do deeds of youth, [ I.e. as a
>compensation for his own inability to be active.]
In the case of the father, yes.
>...
>6. Or any of these all, or all, or more, [The
>superabundance of all these qualities, and the way they
>seem to burst out of the boundaries of expressing
>them, as out of a magician's hat, each one causing new
>wonderment, enhances the expectation of where it
>might lead. Are we to see a new monarch crowned, or a
>new era proclaimed? Surely they are enough to make
>the youth, or the beloved poet who sings his praises,
>immortal? Yet there is a slight suggestion that it is all
>empty nothingness, because the natural expectation of
>words at the end of this line leads one to anticipate Or
>any of these all, or all, or none, by analogy with the
>phrase 'all or nothing'. So that the inherent hint
>remains that perhaps the youth is, after all, an empty
>shell.]
I don't see any such hint. We must not take the sonnets with
exaggerated seriousness, but hidden satire is not the thing.
>7. Entitled in thy parts, do crowned sit, [Entitled in thy
>parts - the imagery is perhaps from heraldry, with the
>various qualities, beauty, birth, wealth, wit, personified
>and sitting crowned in the quarters of the shield. The
>general meaning is 'whichever of these qualities is held
>by you, as of right (entitlement), in whichever part of
>you they reign, I latch on to them etc'. Entitled =
>having the right to a title, having the right to bear a
>coat of arms.]
Good idea! Perhaps a panel, painted with pictures of a noble family,
in full regalia, with their names and titles under each?
>...
ew...@bcs.org.uk
Paul Crowley
> Most of the world's geniuses have been absolute monsters to many of the
> people around them, including their families
You're on the right track there, but not seeing that his
children were taught to read and write is a class thing
-- entirely a mark of social status -- not an aspect of
character.
> though I have read that
> Shakespeare's colleagues paint him as a sweet, fun guy to hang out with.
There are only a tiny number of such indications. A
couple are from Ben Jonson's introduction to the First
Folio. The others are highly dubious, third- or fourth-
hand, recorded many decades after his death. But,
as you suggest, all of them say the wrong thing.
John W. Kennedy
>
> Charles Gillen <see-m...@below.com> wrote in message news:Xns906B7ADAAF...@24.2.2.74...
>
> > Most of the world's geniuses have been absolute monsters to many of the
> > people around them, including their families
>
> You're on the right track there, but not seeing that his
> children were taught to read and write is a class thing
> -- entirely a mark of social status -- not an aspect of
> character.
You're lying again. We do _not_ know that "his children were [not]
taught to read and write".
--
John W. Kennedy
(Working from my laptop)
Paul Crowley
> Paul Crowley wrote:
> > . . . . . not seeing that his
> > children were taught to read and write is a class thing
> > -- entirely a mark of social status -- not an aspect of
> > character.
>
> You're lying again. We do _not_ know that "his children were [not]
> taught to read and write".
That they were not taught to read and write is as well-
established as almost any fact in history. Have you seen
Judith's mark? Do you really claim that she could have
been literate?
Have you seen Susanna's signature? Do you really
claim it was one of a person used to writing? Each
of her three 'A's is different; as is each of her two 'N's
as is each of her two 'L's (in Hall). The signature is
not 'on a line' with the characters being all over the
place. The contrast between her script and that of
her husband (as you can see on the website below)
is quite striking.
http://www.shakespeare-authorship.com/literacy.htm
And given that the fact of their illiteracy is (as-near-as-
damn-it) established -- that's the end of any claim on
behalf of her father to be the famous author -- not that
there was ever much going for that claim in the first
place.
Greg Reynolds
Paul Crowley wrote:
> Greg Reynolds <eve...@core.com> wrote in message news:3ab52bdb$0$62141$272e...@news.execpc.com...
>
> > This is how groupies feel when they hang around the stars.
> > They feel a little of the glory rubs off on them, too. I am
> > nothing, but by loving you, I am a part of something special.
> > This is called living vicariously, supping glory from another's
> > grandeur.
>
> And do you think such would be the case when the highly
> intelligent Shakespeare hung around some pimply youth?
Where do I imply I know to whom it may be the addressed? Where
did I state it was written to a youth? (The first line of the sonnet
portrays a possible age difference, but who knows?)
> Do you know (or know OF) any youths of that age to whom
> you could ever address words of this nature?
What age is that? You're far astray of my context.
> Can you name any person in the modern world OR in
> history OR in literature who ever addressed a youth
> in this manner?
The modern world? This is the world of poetry, Paul,
and the rules are made by the poets.
> Can you suggest any person in the modern world OR in
> history OR in literature who could reasonably have been
> thought to have used such language towards a youth?
It's poetry.
If I wrote you a letter and started it "Dear Paul"
does that mean I consider you dear?
Sentiments in literature or statements in correspondence need not be factual.
> > What it shows is an adherence to the lesson learned in the
> > Parable of the Talents--that we must not covet another's
> > goods. The way Corin says it in As You Like It, III,ii is
> > "I earn that I eat, get that I wear, owe no man hate, envy
> > no man's happiness, glad of other men's good, content
> > with my harm, and the greatest of my pride is to see my
> > ewes graze and my lambs suck." That's enough, Corin.
> >
> > So what would be the bigger character flaw--to envy
> > another's good graces or to gain satisfaction from them
> > as if they were your own?
>
> If this sonnet (and all the others) WERE addressed
> to a 'fair youth' then it would show faults of character
> in the poet far too gross to be believable.
I dare you to flesh that idea out.
What flaws of character are shown by writing to a fair youth?
> > > AS a decrepit father takes delight
> > > To see his active child do deeds of youth,
> > > So I, made lame by Fortune's dearest spite,
> > > Take all my comfort of thy worth and truth;
> >
> > I become satisfied involving myself in your life. My own
> > life never gave me that satisfaction, and I feel like an old
> > man who derives pride and enjoyment from the
> > accomplishments of his child.
> >
> > > For whether beauty, birth, or wealth, or wit, 5
> > > Or any of these all, or all, or more,
> > > Entitled in thy parts do crowned sit,
> > > I make my love engrafted to this store:
> >
> > You have so much going for you, your looks, your
> > lineage, your money, and your intellect--yet on top
> > of all that, you also have my friendship and admiration.
>
> What crap! -- As addressed to a some youth. Who at
> that time had such qualities? Birth? Wealth? Wit?
> And, above all, beauty?
Everyone had all of these to some degree.
> Southampton? His wealth
> was pathetic -- by the standards of the aristocracy,
> and his lineage was insignificant.
So what? I don't mention Southhampton.
How do I merit your vitriolic attack?
> William Herbert?
> He falls down badly in the beauty stakes. Neither
> were known for their 'wit'.
Its poetry, not a police report.
> There was only one person in Elizabethan England
> to whom such lines could reasonably be addressed
> -- Elizabeth herself -- they certainly weren't all true of
> her either -- but at least there were well-established
> social and poetic conventions of addressing such
> lines to her.
You are saying poetic convention is valid with one subject,
but not others. What nonsense.
Who are you to make the rules?
And who is the earl to speak as a decrepit father to the Queen?
Really, Paul, make sense and I'll pay attention.
> And line 7:
> > > Entitled in thy parts do crowned sit,
>
> . . . . rather gives the game away. Why should
> the fair youth 'sit crowned' in his parts?
Why do you even read poetry if it torments you so?
> > > So then I am not lame, poor, nor despis'd,
> > > Whilst that this shadow doth such substance give 10
> >
> > This remarkably changes my own station in life. By
> > involving myself in your stellar life, my own faults
> > and shortcomings diminish.
> >
> > > That I in thy abundance am suffic'd,
> > > And by a part of all thy glory live.
> >
> > And I thrive just as an adjunct to your greatness.
>
> Greatness? For this 17(?) year-old youth?
You are obviously picturing a 17 year old youth although
nothing in the poem or my reading mentions it.
Is this really a reply to me, Paul?
Your points are all akimbo, with no response to my points at all.
> > > Look what is best, that best I wish in thee:
> > > This wish I have; then ten times happy me!
> >
> > And I hope you only improve and continue to
> > blossom in your goodness, because it will elevate
> > my own self-esteem tenfold.
>
> Scarcely a word (let alone a line) fits an address to
> a 'fair youth'.
This isn't about the sonnet, is it, Paul?
Its about your external blarney and your made-up rules to
fit your undefendable position.
> Every syllable fits the form of an
> address to the Queen -- and does so beautifully.
You are joking, I'm sure. Here's what the earl would be saying
to the Queen, IF your asinine foolhardiness was used:
> > > AS a decrepit father takes delight
> > > To see his active child do deeds of youth,
Hi, Queen, I feel like Henry VIII
Glad you finally made it to the throne
after my hard work to keep you away from it.
> > > So I, made lame by Fortune's dearest spite,
> > > Take all my comfort of thy worth and truth;
I disgrace myself again and again but its okay because
your merit gives me comfort in jail and in banishment.
> > > For whether beauty, birth, or wealth, or wit, 5
> > > Or any of these all, or all, or more,
> > > Entitled in thy parts do crowned sit,
> > > I make my love engrafted to this store:
Here's a heap of flattering lies because I think you
are stupid enough to believe this flufftalk,
And I love you for it, your majesty.
> > > So then I am not lame, poor, nor despis'd,
> > > Whilst that this shadow doth such substance give 10
Glad you have time for my emotional outbursts, Queen.
> > > That I in thy abundance am suffic'd,
> > > And by a part of all thy glory live.
Even though I have a trunk full of tin, wool, oil,
and fruit licensing rights proposals I'd also like
you grant to me, just in case your abundance
really doesn't suffice.
> > > Look what is best, that best I wish in thee:
> > > This wish I have; then ten times happy me!
Even though you know I lack sincerity, your Majesty,
I hope you are stupid enough to be flattered by this poem.
+
Paul, you do not know whether Elizabeth or the Earl ever
saw, read, or heard of this poem. And you have absolutely
no way to show how these private papers of the Queen or
the Earl could have made it into Thorpe's publication.
So, thanks for nothing. Its a rare post at HLAS that offers
absolutely nothing of worth, but you achieved it this time.
Greg Reynolds
Charles Gillen
>Paul, [snip] thanks for nothing. Its a rare post at HLAS that offers
>absolutely nothing of worth, but you achieved it this time.
But if we all plonk-filed him, we might miss the hilarious bits :^)
John W. Kennedy
>
> John W. Kennedy <jwke...@mailbox.bellatlantic.net> wrote in message news:3ABA1586...@mailbox.bellatlantic.net...
>
> > Paul Crowley wrote:
>
> > > . . . . . not seeing that his
> > > children were taught to read and write is a class thing
> > > -- entirely a mark of social status -- not an aspect of
> > > character.
> >
> > You're lying again. We do _not_ know that "his children were [not]
> > taught to read and write".
>
> That they were not taught to read and write is as well-
> established as almost any fact in history.
No it isn't. Stop telling lies.
Greg Reynolds
Paul Crowley wrote:
> Greg Reynolds <eve...@core.com> wrote in message news:3ab52bdb$0$62141$272e...@news.execpc.com...
>
> > This is how groupies feel when they hang around the stars.
> > They feel a little of the glory rubs off on them, too. I am
> > nothing, but by loving you, I am a part of something special.
> > This is called living vicariously, supping glory from another's
> > grandeur.
>
> And do you think such would be the case when the highly
> intelligent Shakespeare hung around some pimply youth?
Where do I imply I know to whom it may be the addressed? Where
did I state it was written to a youth? (The first line of the sonnet
portrays a possible age difference, but who knows?)
> Do you know (or know OF) any youths of that age to whom
> you could ever address words of this nature?
What age is that? You're far astray of my context.
> Can you name any person in the modern world OR in
> history OR in literature who ever addressed a youth
> in this manner?
The modern world? This is the world of poetry, Paul,
and the rules are made by the poets.
> Can you suggest any person in the modern world OR in
> history OR in literature who could reasonably have been
> thought to have used such language towards a youth?
It's poetry.
If I wrote you a letter and started it "Dear Paul"
does that mean I consider you dear?
Sentiments in literature or statements in correspondence need not be factual.
> > What it shows is an adherence to the lesson learned in the
> > Parable of the Talents--that we must not covet another's
> > goods. The way Corin says it in As You Like It, III,ii is
> > "I earn that I eat, get that I wear, owe no man hate, envy
> > no man's happiness, glad of other men's good, content
> > with my harm, and the greatest of my pride is to see my
> > ewes graze and my lambs suck." That's enough, Corin.
> >
> > So what would be the bigger character flaw--to envy
> > another's good graces or to gain satisfaction from them
> > as if they were your own?
>
> If this sonnet (and all the others) WERE addressed
> to a 'fair youth' then it would show faults of character
> in the poet far too gross to be believable.
I dare you to flesh that idea out.
What flaws of character are shown by writing to a fair youth?
> > > AS a decrepit father takes delight
> > > To see his active child do deeds of youth,
> > > So I, made lame by Fortune's dearest spite,
> > > Take all my comfort of thy worth and truth;
> >
> > I become satisfied involving myself in your life. My own
> > life never gave me that satisfaction, and I feel like an old
> > man who derives pride and enjoyment from the
> > accomplishments of his child.
> >
> > > For whether beauty, birth, or wealth, or wit, 5
> > > Or any of these all, or all, or more,
> > > Entitled in thy parts do crowned sit,
> > > I make my love engrafted to this store:
> >
> > You have so much going for you, your looks, your
> > lineage, your money, and your intellect--yet on top
> > of all that, you also have my friendship and admiration.
>
> What crap! -- As addressed to a some youth. Who at
> that time had such qualities? Birth? Wealth? Wit?
> And, above all, beauty?
Everyone had all of these to some degree.
> Southampton? His wealth
> was pathetic -- by the standards of the aristocracy,
> and his lineage was insignificant.
So what? I don't mention Southampton.
How do I merit your vitriolic attack?
> William Herbert?
> He falls down badly in the beauty stakes. Neither
> were known for their 'wit'.
Its poetry, not a police report.
> There was only one person in Elizabethan England
> to whom such lines could reasonably be addressed
> -- Elizabeth herself -- they certainly weren't all true of
> her either -- but at least there were well-established
> social and poetic conventions of addressing such
> lines to her.
You are saying poetic convention is valid with one subject,
but not others. What nonsense.
Who are you to make the rules?
And who is the earl to speak as a decrepit father to the Queen?
Really, Paul, make sense and I'll pay attention.
> And line 7:
> > > Entitled in thy parts do crowned sit,
>
> . . . . rather gives the game away. Why should
> the fair youth 'sit crowned' in his parts?
Why do you even read poetry if it torments you so?
> > > So then I am not lame, poor, nor despis'd,
> > > Whilst that this shadow doth such substance give 10
> >
> > This remarkably changes my own station in life. By
> > involving myself in your stellar life, my own faults
> > and shortcomings diminish.
> >
> > > That I in thy abundance am suffic'd,
> > > And by a part of all thy glory live.
> >
> > And I thrive just as an adjunct to your greatness.
>
> Greatness? For this 17(?) year-old youth?
You are obviously picturing a 17 year old youth although
nothing in the poem or my reading mentions it.
Is this really a reply to me, Paul?
Your points are all akimbo, with no response to my points at all.
> > > Look what is best, that best I wish in thee:
> > > This wish I have; then ten times happy me!
> >
> > And I hope you only improve and continue to
> > blossom in your goodness, because it will elevate
> > my own self-esteem tenfold.
>
> Scarcely a word (let alone a line) fits an address to
> a 'fair youth'.
This isn't about the sonnet, is it, Paul?
Its about your external blarney and your made-up rules to
fit your undefendable position.
> Every syllable fits the form of an
> address to the Queen -- and does so beautifully.
You are joking, I'm sure. Here's what the earl would be saying
to the Queen, IF your asinine foolhardiness was used:
> > > AS a decrepit father takes delight
> > > To see his active child do deeds of youth,
Hi, Queen, I feel like Henry VIII
Glad you finally made it to the throne
after my hard work to keep you away from it.
> > > So I, made lame by Fortune's dearest spite,
> > > Take all my comfort of thy worth and truth;
I disgrace myself again and again but its okay because
your merit gives me comfort in jail and in banishment.
> > > For whether beauty, birth, or wealth, or wit, 5
> > > Or any of these all, or all, or more,
> > > Entitled in thy parts do crowned sit,
> > > I make my love engrafted to this store:
Here's a heap of flattering lies because I think you
are stupid enough to believe this flufftalk,
And I love you for it, your majesty.
> > > So then I am not lame, poor, nor despis'd,
> > > Whilst that this shadow doth such substance give 10
Glad you have time for my emotional outbursts, Queen.
> > > That I in thy abundance am suffic'd,
> > > And by a part of all thy glory live.
Even though I have a trunk full of tin, wool, oil,
and fruit licensing rights proposals I'd also like
you grant to me, just in case your abundance
really doesn't suffice.
> > > Look what is best, that best I wish in thee:
> > > This wish I have; then ten times happy me!
Even though you know I lack sincerity, your Majesty,
I hope you are stupid enough to be flattered by this poem.
+
Paul, you do not know whether Elizabeth or the Earl ever
saw, read, or heard of this poem. And you have absolutely
no way to show how these private papers of the Queen or
the Earl could have made it into Thorpe's publication.
So, thanks for nothing. Its a rare post at HLAS that offers
absolutely nothing of worth, but you achieved it this time.
Greg Reynolds
Paul Crowley
> > > This is how groupies feel when they hang around the stars.
> > > They feel a little of the glory rubs off on them, too. I am
> > > nothing, but by loving you, I am a part of something special.
> > > This is called living vicariously, supping glory from another's
> > > grandeur.
> >
> > And do you think such would be the case when the highly
> > intelligent Shakespeare hung around some pimply youth?
>
> Where do I imply I know to whom it may be the addressed? Where
> did I state it was written to a youth? (The first line of the sonnet
> portrays a possible age difference, but who knows?)
So the sonnet may have been addressed to the poet's
dog? Or to his favourite cockroach? Or to no one and
nothing in particular?
We all write within very well-known contexts. If
you had meant to exclude the (absurd) 'fair youth'
scenario, you would have said so.
> You are joking, I'm sure. Here's what the earl would be saying
> to the Queen, IF your asinine foolhardiness was used:
>
> > > > AS a decrepit father takes delight
> > > > To see his active child do deeds of youth,
That's what's called a metaphor. It does not imply
that the addressee is 'a decrepit father'. Or if you
think it does, how do you fit it into your theory?
> Hi, Queen, I feel like Henry VIII
> Glad you finally made it to the throne
> after my hard work to keep you away from it.
What are you on about? The Queen succeeded
to the throne in 1558, when the poet was aged 8.
> > > > So I, made lame by Fortune's dearest spite,
> > > > Take all my comfort of thy worth and truth;
>
> I disgrace myself again and again but its okay because
> your merit gives me comfort in jail and in banishment.
Where does 'disgrace' come in? This would have
been written after 1583 when Oxford was injured in
a fight with Thomas Knyvet.
> > > > For whether beauty, birth, or wealth, or wit, 5
> > > > Or any of these all, or all, or more,
> > > > Entitled in thy parts do crowned sit,
> > > > I make my love engrafted to this store:
>
> Here's a heap of flattering lies because I think you
> are stupid enough to believe this flufftalk,
She was 'stupid' enough. She must have known (or
doubted) the truth of the words on occasion, but she
was a woman, and they seem to like such words, no
matter how false they may seem to all objective
bystanders.
> > > > So then I am not lame, poor, nor despis'd,
> > > > Whilst that this shadow doth such substance give 10
>
> Glad you have time for my emotional outbursts, Queen.
Where's this about 'emotional outbursts'?
> > > > That I in thy abundance am suffic'd,
> > > > And by a part of all thy glory live.
>
> Even though I have a trunk full of tin, wool, oil,
> and fruit licensing rights proposals I'd also like
> you grant to me, just in case your abundance
> really doesn't suffice.
Sure, all the courtiers (such as Ralegh and Essex)
both wrote sonnets to her and sought favours from
her. Where's the conflict?
> > > > Look what is best, that best I wish in thee:
> > > > This wish I have; then ten times happy me!
>
> Even though you know I lack sincerity, your Majesty,
> I hope you are stupid enough to be flattered by this poem.
You could 'attack' any sonnet by Dyer, Spenser,
Davies, Harrington, Ralegh, Essex or any of the
others in the same way. Yet this IS the kind of
sonnet that they wrote. Such sonnets were 'over
the top'; and often they appear (to us) to lack
sincerity.
You might have noticed that sonnet-writing was
not a common practice among the burghers of
Stratford, nor among the actors and theatre
personnel of London (neither the horse-holders
nor the shareholders).
Is sonnet-writing a common practice at your
place of work? Does your corporation have
sonnet-writing competitions? Does the chief
executive solicit adulatory sonnets -- or those for
important anniversaries or occasions -- the
production, say, of the ten millionth widget?
> Paul, you do not know whether Elizabeth or the Earl ever
> saw, read, or heard of this poem.
I (and you) know that Elizabeth and the Earl of
Oxford saw many sonnets of roughly this nature.
We have every ground for believing that Oxford
wrote such sonnets.
Greg, you do not know if the Stratman ever saw a
sonnet, or was even capable of reading one, let
alone of writing one. He simply did not come from
a sonnet-writing environment. The idea that he
put a vast amount of work into sonnet-writing is
completely absurd -- it's weirdly and wildly fantastic.
> And you have absolutely
> no way to show how these private papers of the Queen or
> the Earl could have made it into Thorpe's publication.
It is FAR more likely -- under my scenario -- that
such sonnets would have been printed, than under
yours. The poet had been dead for five years, yet
these poems had undoubtedly been put together by
the author for publication. They were far too good
_not_ to have been published. Although there must
have been some qualms among those responsible.
They knew that they could only be misunderstood.
It makes NO sense under your scenario. Why should
such a playwright write such sonnets in the first place?
What was in it for him? Who was going to PAY him for
the work? Why should a famous and successful
playwright allow such potentially damaging poems to
come out under his name when he was at the height
of his career? How come we hear _absolutely
_nothing_ about their being robbed (if that was the
case) nor about _anything_else_?
> So, thanks for nothing. Its a rare post at HLAS that offers
> absolutely nothing of worth, but you achieved it this time.
You make no effort to defend your ridiculous theory (the
traditional scenario -- I would never accuse you of being
original). The words of the sonnet have not the
remotest connection with it.
If my scenario was false, you should be able to shoot it
down without the least trouble. But you fail conspicuously.
Btw, the Scottish antiquarian, George Chalmers (1740-
1827) seems to have been the first to suggest it -- in the
sense he said all the 'fair youth' sonnets were addressed
to the Queen. He maintained this even though he was a
Stratfordian. God knows how he accommodated both
beliefs. I reckon that he had heard a tradition passed
down in the Alexander family. William Alexander (the first
Earl of Stirling) published a small collection of sonnets
under his own name around 1604, along much the same
lines, that were IMHO almost certainly Shakespeare's.
William Alexander must have known what was going on.
Paul Crowley
> > > Paul Crowley wrote:
> >
> > > > . . . . . not seeing that his
> > > > children were taught to read and write is a class thing
> > > > -- entirely a mark of social status -- not an aspect of
> > > > character.
> > >
> > > You're lying again. We do _not_ know that "his children were [not]
> > > taught to read and write".
> >
> > That they were not taught to read and write is as well-
> > established as almost any fact in history.
>
> No it isn't. Stop telling lies.
You snipped and ignored the rest of my post.
Cat got your tongue? Did you bother to go to the
website I mentioned? Or don't you like evidence
that goes against your deeply held irrational
beliefs? Here is the rest of my post again:
That they were not taught to read and write is as well-
Greg Reynolds
Paul Crowley wrote:
> Greg Reynolds <eve...@core.com> wrote in message news:3aba7d24$0$88188$272e...@news.execpc.com...
>
> > > > This is how groupies feel when they hang around the stars.
> > > > They feel a little of the glory rubs off on them, too. I am
> > > > nothing, but by loving you, I am a part of something special.
> > > > This is called living vicariously, supping glory from another's
> > > > grandeur.
> > >
> > > And do you think such would be the case when the highly
> > > intelligent Shakespeare hung around some pimply youth?
> >
> > Where do I imply I know to whom it may be the addressed? Where
> > did I state it was written to a youth? (The first line of the sonnet
> > portrays a possible age difference, but who knows?)
>
> So the sonnet may have been addressed to the poet's
> dog? Or to his favourite cockroach? Or to no one and
> nothing in particular?
I don't speak for Shakespeare.
> We all write within very well-known contexts. If
> you had meant to exclude the (absurd) 'fair youth'
> scenario, you would have said so.
You don't speak for me.
> > You are joking, I'm sure. Here's what the earl would be saying
> > to the Queen, IF your asinine foolhardiness was used:
> >
> > > > > AS a decrepit father takes delight
> > > > > To see his active child do deeds of youth,
>
> That's what's called a metaphor. It does not imply
> that the addressee is 'a decrepit father'. Or if you
> think it does, how do you fit it into your theory?
Metaphor, huh?
Metaphor, n: a poetic device that only Paul understands
and which only works in Paul's unterpretations
> > Hi, Queen, I feel like Henry VIII
> > Glad you finally made it to the throne
> > after my hard work to keep you away from it.
>
> What are you on about? The Queen succeeded
> to the throne in 1558, when the poet was aged 8.
I cannot account for your attention span, but this is a POEM.
If the poet is speaking as a decrepit father, what image is that
to stir in Elizabeth?
The "I" in my ridiculous Paul-inspired interpretation is the
voice in the poem, personifying Eliz' father. The earl was
8 when the Queen ascended, Shakespeare was minus 6
and counting.
> > > > > So I, made lame by Fortune's dearest spite,
> > > > > Take all my comfort of thy worth and truth;
> >
> > I disgrace myself again and again but its okay because
> > your merit gives me comfort in jail and in banishment.
>
> Where does 'disgrace' come in?
Sonnet 37.
> This would have
> been written after 1583 when Oxford was injured in
> a fight with Thomas Knyvet.
It was written before 1609 is all we know.
> > > > > For whether beauty, birth, or wealth, or wit, 5
> > > > > Or any of these all, or all, or more,
> > > > > Entitled in thy parts do crowned sit,
> > > > > I make my love engrafted to this store:
> >
> > Here's a heap of flattering lies because I think you
> > are stupid enough to believe this flufftalk,
>
> She was 'stupid' enough. She must have known (or
> doubted) the truth of the words on occasion, but she
> was a woman, and they seem to like such words, no
> matter how false they may seem to all objective
> bystanders.
So beyond poetry, you can also explain women.
Right, Paul.
> > > > > So then I am not lame, poor, nor despis'd,
> > > > > Whilst that this shadow doth such substance give 10
> >
> > Glad you have time for my emotional outbursts, Queen.
>
> Where's this about 'emotional outbursts'?
The guy is pouring out his heart, no?
> > > > > That I in thy abundance am suffic'd,
> > > > > And by a part of all thy glory live.
> >
> > Even though I have a trunk full of tin, wool, oil,
> > and fruit licensing rights proposals I'd also like
> > you grant to me, just in case your abundance
> > really doesn't suffice.
>
> Sure, all the courtiers (such as Ralegh and Essex)
> both wrote sonnets to her and sought favours from
> her. Where's the conflict?
Well, for starters, the poet in Sonnet 37 DOES NOT seek
favours from the Queen. He is telling his subject that
by loving only he feels rewarded.
That distinguishes this poem from one written by a
courtier. They had their monetary and honorary liaisons
with the Queen, but the poet has only devotion, and that is
his happiness to the tenth power, and his reason for
writing the poem. It is not about or to the Queen.
> > > > > Look what is best, that best I wish in thee:
> > > > > This wish I have; then ten times happy me!
> >
> > Even though you know I lack sincerity, your Majesty,
> > I hope you are stupid enough to be flattered by this poem.
>
> You could 'attack' any sonnet by Dyer, Spenser,
> Davies, Harrington, Ralegh, Essex or any of the
> others in the same way.
I am attacking your minah-bird approach to Shakespeare,
not the poem!
> Yet this IS the kind of
> sonnet that they wrote. Such sonnets were 'over
> the top'; and often they appear (to us) to lack
> sincerity.
I find the poem sincere. The subject was not so vaunted that he
must follow protocol. It is a sentiment he captured from his
own emotions. I do not doubt the sincerity, whereas I would
have to doubt the earl could seriously write such pomp to the
Queen herself.
But you were so unconvincing in the first 17 sonnets, and left
open such gross unresolvable issues, such as maiden gardens
awaiting her seed, that I don't know how you persist in this.
> You might have noticed that sonnet-writing was
> not a common practice among the burghers of
> Stratford, nor among the actors and theatre
> personnel of London (neither the horse-holders
> nor the shareholders).
Neither was bridge-engineering, but Lord Hugh Clopton did it.
Neither was becoming Lord Mayor of London, but Lord Hugh
Clopton did it. Neither was becoming Archbishop of
Canterbury but neighboring burgher John Whitgift did it.
Your elitism is showing.
> Is sonnet-writing a common practice at your
> place of work?
As I am self-employed and write a few, YES!
> Does your corporation have
> sonnet-writing competitions?
I staged a beauty contest at one of my clients to find the
most beautiful new ideas for growth and success. It would
be ungracious for me to stage a sonnet-writing contest, as
I would beat them all silly.
> Does the chief
> executive solicit adulatory sonnets -- or those for
> important anniversaries or occasions -- the
> production, say, of the ten millionth widget?
I just wrote this Shakespearean Sonnet to my daughter
last month as a "coming of age" piece to surprise her on retreat:
+
Mankind travels forth on feet of children
They're drawn into the future on their own
Parents lose their touch, and feel bewildering
To see their youngsters carry on alone
Once so dependent, crying for each need
And asking every question in creation
But now you're standing tall enough to lead
And parents learn what's meant by "generation"
With our material world accelerated
We hold inside our hearts the simple fact
No matter how complex or complicated
Our simply human value stays intact
Now you see you've always been my equal
Someday, have your child and write your sequel
+
Yes, you could say it was written to Queen Elizabeth if you like.
> > Paul, you do not know whether Elizabeth or the Earl ever
> > saw, read, or heard of this poem.
>
> I (and you) know that Elizabeth and the Earl of
> Oxford saw many sonnets of roughly this nature.
> We have every ground for believing that Oxford
> wrote such sonnets.
I do not believe such, especially based on the fact that you
are devoid of any evidence to promote such a belief.
In the Earl's attributed writing--NO SONNETS!
> Greg, you do not know if the Stratman ever saw a
> sonnet, or was even capable of reading one, let
> alone of writing one.
And I freely admit it. Though the preponderance of evidence is
huge compared to anything to the contrary. That there was no
known literature conspiracy forces you and your posse to
invent it. But your proposed conspiracy, not developed until
the early 19th century, has no basis in the Elizabethan era.
Does it?
> He simply did not come from
> a sonnet-writing environment.
He came from a glove-making environment, but you cannot
show any evidence he made a glove! So let's allow people
to come from any environment they may, and achieve their own
accomplishments.
> The idea that he
> put a vast amount of work into sonnet-writing is
> completely absurd -- it's weirdly and wildly fantastic.
Care to substantiate?
> > And you have absolutely
> > no way to show how these private papers of the Queen or
> > the Earl could have made it into Thorpe's publication.
>
> It is FAR more likely -- under my scenario -- that
> such sonnets would have been printed, than under
> yours. The poet had been dead for five years, yet
> these poems had undoubtedly been put together by
> the author for publication. They were far too good
> _not_ to have been published.
What platitude! Does the CEO of your company have
platitude-writing contests?
> Although there must
> have been some qualms among those responsible.
> They knew that they could only be misunderstood.
That's your job. I work the other way--to understand them.
> It makes NO sense under your scenario.
Paul, I spoke only in the context of the poem itself, just the
fourteen lines. I relayed the sentiment I found within. I did
not mention a youth or a Southampton, so I offered no
scenario, simply an interpretation of a poem. It is a world
unto itself, created by the master of characterization.
You are the one speaking of its exterior scenario.
Again, I don't know how your rebuttal responded to my
translation.
> Why should
> such a playwright write such sonnets in the first place?
> What was in it for him? Who was going to PAY him for
> the work?
These are all outside my context. Ask someone who
knows, or who would like a good fight.
> Why should a famous and successful
> playwright allow such potentially damaging poems to
> come out under his name when he was at the height
> of his career?
HE-HE, when was the Earl famous for writing the plays?
See, in your subconscious, you too disallow such an odd idea.
> How come we hear _absolutely
> _nothing_ about their being robbed (if that was the
> case) nor about _anything_else_?
Robbed?
> > So, thanks for nothing. Its a rare post at HLAS that offers
> > absolutely nothing of worth, but you achieved it this time.
>
> You make no effort to defend your ridiculous theory (the
> traditional scenario -- I would never accuse you of being
> original).
Wrongo! Read my original post and see I offer NO theory.
> The words of the sonnet have not the
> remotest connection with it.
>
> If my scenario was false, you should be able to shoot it
> down without the least trouble. But you fail conspicuously.
It lacks credibility, there!
The earl would not personify a decrepit father to an older woman,
because that makes no sense to anyone but you, there!
> Btw, the Scottish antiquarian, George Chalmers (1740-
> 1827) seems to have been the first to suggest it -- in the
> sense he said all the 'fair youth' sonnets were addressed
> to the Queen.
"Suggest" is one thing, Paul, you proclaim it!
> He maintained this even though he was a
> Stratfordian.
There was no such thing as a Stratfordian then.
> God knows how he accommodated both
> beliefs.
You ignore the FACT that Shakespeare as member of the
Chamberlain's Men AND the King's Men, was a royal
household servant, even AFTER the Earl died.
So to imagine that Shakespeare wrote for the Queen is
conceivable, though I better read Chalmers for my edification.
Was the Earl ever known to have written a sonnet?
> I reckon that he had heard a tradition passed
> down in the Alexander family. William Alexander (the first
> Earl of Stirling) published a small collection of sonnets
> under his own name around 1604, along much the same
> lines, that were IMHO almost certainly Shakespeare's.
> William Alexander must have known what was going on.
William Alexander, earl of Stirling, went to England on the
accession of James I. He was made Viscount Stirling in
1630 and Earl of Stirling in 1633. His work includes Aurora
(1604), love sonnets; An Encouragement to Colonies (1624);
and Four Monarchicke Tragedies (1664?67), on Croesus,
Darius, Alexander, and Julius Caesar.
http://personal.bellsouth.net/lig/k/d/kd4tdn/earl.html
So, Paul, what involvement did Alexander have with the Queen?
Greg Reynolds
John W. Kennedy
> You snipped and ignored the rest of my post.
> Cat got your tongue? Did you bother to go to the
> website I mentioned? Or don't you like evidence
> that goes against your deeply held irrational
> beliefs? Here is the rest of my post again:
A) One signature, executed at an unknown date, under unknown conditions
(and if they're known, why have you censored them?), can hardly
constitute proof of anything.
B) You're seriously arguing that a given letter looking different in
different parts of a _signature_ constitutes proof that the writer
couldn't really write, and was merely "drawing" it? Have you ever
really looked at a signature in your life? Even your own? Heck, I
"draw" my signature, myself -- if, and only if, I want it to be legible
without a context. It's _written_ signatures that are careless.
C) And even if it were to be admitted that Susannah Hall was
unaccustomed to _writing_, that would only make her unaccustomed to
writing, not illiterate. (Apart from checks, telephone numbers, and
hastily scribbled stage directions in the margins of scripts, I
virtually never write, myself, and, apart from the Internet [an artifact
singularly absent from the 17th century] and my profession [which is not
"huswif"], I rarely type, either.)
Paul Crowley
> Paul Crowley wrote:
> > > Where do I imply I know to whom it may be the addressed? Where
> > > did I state it was written to a youth? (The first line of the sonnet
> > > portrays a possible age difference, but who knows?)
> >
> > So the sonnet may have been addressed to the poet's
> > dog? Or to his favourite cockroach? Or to no one and
> > nothing in particular?
>
> I don't speak for Shakespeare.
Yes, you do. All comments on the meaning of phrases
in his sonnets or plays are attempts to 'speak for' him.
> > We all write within very well-known contexts. If
> > you had meant to exclude the (absurd) 'fair youth'
> > scenario, you would have said so.
>
> You don't speak for me.
So do you exclude the (absurd) 'fair youth' scenario
or don't you? You can tell us. Don't be shy.
> > > > > > AS a decrepit father takes delight
> > > > > > To see his active child do deeds of youth,
[..]
> I cannot account for your attention span, but this is a POEM.
> If the poet is speaking as a decrepit father, what image is that
> to stir in Elizabeth?
So why do no commentators AFAIK speculate on
the state of health of the father of the 'fair youth'?
> > > > > > For whether beauty, birth, or wealth, or wit, 5
> > > > > > Or any of these all, or all, or more,
> > > > > > Entitled in thy parts do crowned sit,
> > > > > > I make my love engrafted to this store:
> > >
> > > Here's a heap of flattering lies because I think you
> > > are stupid enough to believe this flufftalk,
> >
> > She was 'stupid' enough. She must have known (or
> > doubted) the truth of the words on occasion, but she
> > was a woman, and they seem to like such words, no
> > matter how false they may seem to all objective
> > bystanders.
>
> So beyond poetry, you can also explain women.
> Right, Paul.
Explain? Never. I can only make the shallowest
of observations on that topic.
> I just wrote this Shakespearean Sonnet to my daughter
> last month as a "coming of age" piece to surprise her on retreat:
>
> +
> Mankind travels forth on feet of children
> They're drawn into the future on their own
> Parents lose their touch, and feel bewildering
> To see their youngsters carry on alone
>
> Once so dependent, crying for each need
> And asking every question in creation
> But now you're standing tall enough to lead
> And parents learn what's meant by "generation"
>
> With our material world accelerated
> We hold inside our hearts the simple fact
> No matter how complex or complicated
> Our simply human value stays intact
>
> Now you see you've always been my equal
> Someday, have your child and write your sequel
> +
You have one enormous advantage over
Shakespeare (at least your conception of him)
-- your daughter can read the poems that you
write to her!
Otherwise, I'm afraid that it's fairly clear that
you don't come from a sonnet-writing
environment.
> > Greg, you do not know if the Stratman ever saw a
> > sonnet, or was even capable of reading one, let
> > alone of writing one.
>
> And I freely admit it. Though the preponderance of evidence is
> huge compared to anything to the contrary.
The 'preponderance of evidence' is the attachment
of a _similar_ name to this (probably illiterate) rustic
from an illiterate family who had illiterate children.
> That there was no
> known literature conspiracy forces you and your posse to
> invent it. But your proposed conspiracy, not developed until
> the early 19th century, has no basis in the Elizabethan era.
> Does it?
The material wasn't available for study until December
1623. Then, after the Civil War and Interregnum, there
was a drastic dumbing-down of both the Shakespearean
canon and the theatre generally. It wasn't until the
original texts became widely available that a proper
study became feasible -- which was the early 19th
century, as you point out.
> > He simply did not come from
> > a sonnet-writing environment.
>
> He came from a glove-making environment, but you cannot
> show any evidence he made a glove! So let's allow people
> to come from any environment they may, and achieve their own
> accomplishments.
It would have been amazing if he had succeeded
from such a background. I'd be prepared to believe
it if there was any real evidence for it. But . . . . .
> > The idea that he
> > put a vast amount of work into sonnet-writing is
> > completely absurd -- it's weirdly and wildly fantastic.
>
> Care to substantiate?
Sonnet-writing did not pay -- except, possibly, for
courtiers who wrote them to the Queen. There is
no way that the money-grubbing Stratman, who
traits we know so well, would have put all that time
and effort into such a 'pointless' activity.
All activities are 'social'. People rarely take up
activities that are wholly foreign their environment.
Sonnet-writing was wholly foreign to almost all
Elizabethans -- outside a few highly restricted
social groups. The Stratman was not a member
of any of them.
[..]
> > Why should a famous and successful
> > playwright allow such potentially damaging poems to
> > come out under his name when he was at the height
> > of his career?
>
> HE-HE, when was the Earl famous for writing the plays?
> See, in your subconscious, you too disallow such an odd idea.
I am perfectly familiar with the Stratfordian way of
thinking, and I can frame questions from the point of
view of a Stratfordian. (Stratfordians are always
completely incapable of doing it the other way around.)
My 'subconscious' was not showing at all.
> > How come we hear _absolutely
> > _nothing_ about their being robbed (if that was the
> > case) nor about _anything_else_?
>
> Robbed?
Stratfordians commonly maintain that the publication
of the sonnets did not have the permission of the
author -- and therefore the copies must have been
stolen.
> You ignore the FACT that Shakespeare as member of the
> Chamberlain's Men AND the King's Men, was a royal
> household servant, even AFTER the Earl died.
Yet somehow neither the Stratman nor any of his family
ever made a reference to the couple of decades he
supposedly spent in such a role.
> So to imagine that Shakespeare wrote for the Queen is
> conceivable, though I better read Chalmers for my edification.
It is inconceivable that the Stratman wrote SUCH
sonnets to the Queen.
> William Alexander, earl of Stirling, went to England on the
> accession of James I. He was made Viscount Stirling in
> 1630 and Earl of Stirling in 1633. His work includes Aurora
> (1604), love sonnets; An Encouragement to Colonies (1624);
> and Four Monarchicke Tragedies (1664?67), on Croesus,
> Darius, Alexander, and Julius Caesar.
> http://personal.bellsouth.net/lig/k/d/kd4tdn/earl.html
>
> So, Paul, what involvement did Alexander have with the Queen?
None, so far as I know. The DNB suggests that he came
south with James I. But he could easily have been in
London before 1604.
Paul Crowley
> A) One signature, executed at an unknown date, under unknown conditions
> (and if they're known, why have you censored them?), can hardly
> constitute proof of anything.
It's all we've got. But I can see no reason why we should
doubt that it was representative. One signature is usually
taken to be so. That's why there is a convention of signing
documents in our civilisation -- one that has existed for
many hundreds of years.
> B) You're seriously arguing that a given letter looking different in
> different parts of a _signature_ constitutes proof that the writer
> couldn't really write, and was merely "drawing" it? Have you ever
> really looked at a signature in your life? Even your own? Heck, I
> "draw" my signature, myself -- if, and only if, I want it to be legible
> without a context. It's _written_ signatures that are careless.
No. It's not the 'carelessness' that is the problem -- it's
the manifest _care_. Just look at her three 'A's. Each
IS drawn carefully -- but each is drawn in a different way.
It's almost as though she did not know that they were
supposed to be the same letter. Susanna Hall clearly
was not in the habit of writing 'A's.
> C) And even if it were to be admitted that Susannah Hall was
> unaccustomed to _writing_, that would only make her unaccustomed to
> writing, not illiterate.
People come in two fairly narrow categories -- the literate,
and the illiterate. Those that are capable of writing, do so
from time to time -- and you can readily see that from their
style of writing. Once learnt, it's not a skill that gets
forgotten (excluding mental illness, etc.). There were
plenty of literate people in Stratford. When the other
daughter Judith signed a document with her mark, her
friend (?Elizabeth Quiney) did so with a signature
> (Apart from checks, telephone numbers, and
> hastily scribbled stage directions in the margins of scripts, I
> virtually never write, myself, and, apart from the Internet [an artifact
> singularly absent from the 17th century] and my profession [which is not
> "huswif"], I rarely type, either.)
If Susanna had been capable of writing, she would have
communicated in writing with her father when he was in
London (assuming he was literate), and presumably with
other relations (such as uncles) and friends in London
and elsewhere.
She was born in 1583. When she was 19, the young
Thomas Greene (a highly educated barrister) moved
into New Place as a long-staying guest. Dave Kathman
presents a picture of New Place with a constant flow of
legal friends coming and going. Susanna would have
had plenty of opportunity for writing, had she the capacity.
She had only one child, so her 'huswifery' was hardly
onerous. She was married to a learned doctor who
practised from home, and her literacy (if she had it)
would have been useful in helping him with his work
(think of a doctor's secretary or receptionist today).
The crucial question is whether or not the Stratman
came from a social class where reading and writing
was normal and expected. The evidence
_overwhelmingly_ is that he didn't. He made enough
money to enable his descendants to move up a class
-- but he did not do it in time for his own children (to be
more accurate: he wasn't much interested in making
such an effort for them) and there was only one in the
next that survived (his granddaughter Elizabeth).