Barnabe Barnes' influence on Shakespeare's Sonnets
KQKnave
"Parthenophil and Parthenophe" begins his sequence
with a longer poem addressed to his book, where he
uses the now familiar conceit of the book being a
child of the author. The final lines read
"Then, if some lads, when thou go by,
Thee, "Bastard!" call; give them the lie!
So, get thee packing! And take heed!
And, though thou go in beggar's weed,
Hereafter (when I better may)
I'll send relief, some other day!"
Note the phrase "beggar's weed", which is echoed
by Shakespeare in his sonnet #2, where he refers
to clothing as "weeds", and like Barnes, in a similar
context (worn-out clothes):
"Thy youth's proud livery so gazed on now,
Will be a tattered weed of small worth held:"
Barnes included 12 sonnets, numbers 32 through 43,
on the signs of the zodiac. Shakespeare likewise
included 3 sonnets involving the influence of the stars,
numbers 14 and 15, and 25 in his sequence.
Barnes Aries, the Ram.
SONNET 32
Scarce seven times had PHOEBUS' wagon wheel
Obliquely wandered through the Zodiac's line,
Since Nature first to OPS did me resign,
When in mine youthful vein I well could feel
A lustful rage, which Reason's chains of steel
(With headstrong force of Lust) did still untwine.
Note "When in mine youthful vein I well could feel
a lustful rage...." and compare with Shakespeare's
"...men...Vaunt in their youthful sap," from his
sonnet 15:
Shakespeare, Sonnet 15
When I consider every thing that grows
Holds in perfection but a little moment.
That this huge stage presenteth nought but shows
Whereon the stars in secret influence comment.
When I perceive that men as plants increase,
Cheered and checked even by the self-same sky:
Vaunt in their youthful sap, at height decrease,
And wear their brave state out of memory.
Then the conceit of this inconstant stay,
Sets you most rich in youth before my sight,
Where wasteful time debateth with decay
To change your day of youth to sullied night,
And all in war with Time for love of you,
As he takes from you, I engraft you new.
Another verbal echo may be this one, in Barnes sonnet
26, where he says:
Like PHOEBUS, when through sudden clouds he starteth
(After stern tempests, showers, and thunder fearful) ;
Shakespeare, in his sonnet 14, writes
Nor can I fortune to brief minutes tell;
Pointing to each his thunder, rain and wind,
In Shakespeare's sonnet 25 ("Let those who are in favour
with their stars....") uses the word "razed":
"The painful warrior famoused for fight,
After a thousand victories once foiled,
Is from the book of honour razed quite,"
and Barnes in one of his zodiac sonnets (#36) likewise
uses "razed":
"And when of my great sorrows I complained,
She, Lion-like, wished "they might tenfold be !"
Then did I rage, and in unkindly passions
I rent mine hair, and razed my tender skin;"
Sidney Lee, in his two volume set on Elizabethan sonnets,
notes, in a footnote, that "The parallels between
Shakespeare's and Barnes' sonnets are far more numerous
than my present space permits me to indicate." He
does give a few examples of Barnes' use of legal language.
Here are some of his examples and one of my own (Barnes'
#10):
Barnes SONNET 10
Yet give me leave, since all my joys be perished,
Heart-less, to moan for my poor heart's departure!
Nor should I mourn for him if he were cherished.
Ah no! She keeps him like a slavish martyr.
Ah me! Since merciless she made that charter,
Sealed with the wax of steadfast continence,
Signed with those hands which never can unwrite it,
Writ with that pen, which (by preeminence)
Too sure confirms whats'ever was indightit:
What skills to wear thy girdle, or thy garter,
When other arms shall thy small arms embrace?
How great a waste of mind and body's weal!
Now melts my soul! I to thine eyes appeal!
If they, thy tyrant champions, owe me grace.
Note the language of business and law: charter,
sealed, signed, indicted.
Barnes SONNET 20
These Eyes (thy Beauty's Tenants!) pay due tears
For occupation of mine Heart, thy Freehold,
In Tenure of Love's service! If thou behold
With what exaction it is held through fears;
And yet thy Rents, extorted daily, bears.
Thou would not, thus, consume my quiet's gold!
And yet, though covetous thou be to make
Thy beauty rich, with renting me so roughly,
And at such sums: thou never thought dost take,
But still consumes me! Then thou dost misguide all!
Spending in sport for which I wrought so toughly!
When I had felt all torture, and had tried all;
And spent my Stock, through 'strain of thy extortion;
On that I had but good hopes for my portion.
Here we have tenants, tenure, exaction, rents,
extorted. Note also the relation to Shakespeare's
sonnet 46:
Shakespeare Sonnet 46
Mine eye and heart are at a mortal war,
How to divide the conquest of thy sight,
Mine eye, my heart thy picture's sight would bar,
My heart, mine eye the freedom of that right,
My heart doth plead that thou in him dost lie,
(A closet never pierced with crystal eyes)
But the defendant doth that plea deny,
And says in him thy fair appearance lies.
To side this title is impanelled
A quest of thoughts, all tenants to the heart,
And by their verdict is determined
The clear eye's moiety, and the dear heart's part.
As thus, mine eye's due is thy outward part,
And my heart's right, thy inward love of heart.
The similarity of eyes, hearts and tenants is striking.
Barnes SONNET 4
Laya, soon founding out his nature throughly
Found that he was a lovely virgin boy.
Causeless, why did thou then deal with him roughly?
Not yet content with him, sometimes, to toy;
But jealously kept, lest he should run from thee!
Whom, if thou kindly meant to love, 'twas needless!
Doubtless lest that he should run back to me!
If of him, any deal, thou didst stand heedless.
Thou coop'st him in thy closet's secret corners;
And then, thy heart's dear playfellow didst make him!
Whom thou in person guardest! (lest suborners
Should work his freelege, or in secret take him),
And to this instant, never would forsake him!
Since for soft service slavish bonds be changed,
Why didst thou from thy jealous master range?
Here we have suborners, freelege, bonds. "Bonds"
appears in Barnes' sonnets 11 and 15. His #15
also has "charter", making a connection with
Shakespeare's sonnet 87. "Suborn", like the
word "rent" in Barnes's sonnet 20, also appears
in Shakespeare's #125:
Shakespeare Sonnet 125:
Were't aught to me I bore the canopy,
With my extern the outward honouring,
Or laid great bases for eternity,
Which proves more short than waste or ruining?
Have I not seen dwellers on form and favour
Lose all, and more by paying too much rent
For compound sweet; forgoing simple savour,
Pitiful thrivers in their gazing spent?
No, let me be obsequious in thy heart,
And take thou my oblation, poor but free,
Which is not mixed with seconds, knows no art,
But mutual render, only me for thee.
Hence, thou suborned informer, a true soul
When most impeached, stands least in thy control.
Barnes SONNET 8
Then to PARTHENOPHE, with all post haste
(As full assurèd of the pawn fore-pledged),
I made; and, with these words disordered placed,
Smooth (though with fury's sharp outrages edged):
Quoth I, "Fair Mistress! Did I set mine heart
At liberty, and for that, made him free;
That you should arm him for another start,
Whose certain bail you promisèd to be!"
"Tush!" quoth PARTHENOPHE, "before he go,
I'll be his bail at last, and doubt it not!"
"Why then," said I, "that Mortgage must I show
Of your true love, which at your hands I got."
Ay me! She was, and is his bail, I wot:
But when the Mortgage should have cured the sore
She passed it off, by Deed of Gift before.
Here we have bail, mortgage, deed of gift. This one
also has a striking resemblance to Shakespeare's #133:
Shakespeare Sonnet 133
Beshrew that heart that makes my heart to groan
For that deep wound it gives my friend and me;
Is't not enough to torture me alone,
But slave to slavery my sweet'st friend must be?
Me from my self thy cruel eye hath taken,
And my next self thou harder hast engrossed,
Of him, my self, and thee I am forsaken,
A torment thrice three-fold thus to be crossed:
But then my friend's heart let my poor heart bail,
Whoe'er keeps me, let my heart be his guard,
Thou canst not then use rigour in my gaol.
And yet thou wilt, for I being pent in thee,
Perforce am thine and all that is in me.
Sidney Lee said about Barnes' work:
"To the historian of the Elizabethan sonnet his work
is, however, of first-rate importance. No thorough
investigator into the history of Shakespeare's sonnet
can afford to overlook it. Constantly he strikes a note
which Shakespeare clearly echoed in fuller tones."
Here are two more examples that Lee points out:
Barnes Sonnet 56
The Dial ! love, which shows how my days spend.
The leaden Plummets sliding to the ground !
My thoughts, which to dark melancholy bend.
The rolling Wheels, which turn swift hours round !
Thine eyes, PARTHENOPHE ! my Fancy's guide.
The Watch continually which keeps his stroke !
By whose oft turning every hour doth slide,
Figure the sighs which from my liver smoke,
Whose oft invasions finish my life's date.
The Watchman, which, each quarter, strikes the bell !
The love, which doth each part exanimante'
And in each quarter strikes his forces fell.
That Hammer and great Bell, which end each hour,
Death, my life's victor, sent by thy love's power.
Compare with Shakespeare's sonnet 77:
Shakespeare Sonnet 77
Thy glass will show thee how thy beauties wear,
Thy dial how thy precious minutes waste,
These vacant leaves thy mind's imprint will bear,
And of this book, this learning mayst thou taste.
The wrinkles which thy glass will truly show,
Of mouthed graves will give thee memory,
Thou by thy dial's shady stealth mayst know,
Time's thievish progress to eternity.
Look what thy memory cannot contain,
Commit to these waste blanks, and thou shalt find
Those children nursed, delivered from thy brain,
To take a new acquaintance of thy mind.
These offices, so oft as thou wilt look,
Shall profit thee, and much enrich thy book.
Barnes SONNET 64
If all the Loves were lost, and should be found;
And all the Graces' glories were decayed;
In thee the Graces' ornaments abound !
In me, the Loves, by thy sweet Graces laid !
And if the Muses had their voice foregone;
And VENUS' husband's forge had lost his fire,
The Muses' voice should, by thy voice, be known !
And VULCAN's heat be found in thy Desire !
I will accuse thee to the gods, of theft !
For PALLAS' eye, and VENUS' rosy cheek,
And PHOEBE's forehead, which thou hast bereft !
Complain of me to CUPID ! Let him seek
In vain for me each where and in all parts,
For, 'gainst my will, I stole one of his darts.
Compare with Shakespeare's #17:
Shakespeare Sonnet 17
Who will believe my verse in time to come
If it were filled with your most high deserts?
Though yet heaven knows it is but as a tomb
Which hides your life, and shows not half your parts:
If I could write the beauty of your eyes,
And in fresh numbers number all your graces,
The age to come would say this poet lies,
Such heavenly touches ne'er touched earthly faces.
So should my papers (yellowed with their age)
Be scorned, like old men of less truth than tongue,
And your true rights be termed a poet's rage,
And stretched metre of an antique song.
But were some child of yours alive that time,
You should live twice in it, and in my rhyme.
Also, in Shakespeare's sonnet 154, Cupid has his
"brand" stolen by a virgin, and there are also
echoes of Barnes' #64 in Shakespeare's #'s 37
and 40.
See for yourself that the Droeshout portrait is not unusual at all!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/shakenbake.html
Agent Jim
Richard Kennedy
Pat Dooley
"KQKnave" <kqk...@aol.comspamslam> wrote in message
news:20020317110322...@mb-ci.aol.com...
<snip>
<snip>
I consulted George Greenwood's "Shakespeare
Problem Restated".
Greenwood quotes Lord Campbell on sonnet 46:
<quote>
I need not go further than this sonnet, which is so intensely legal in
its language and imagery, that without a considerable knowledge of
English forensic procedure it cannot be fully understood. A lover
being supposed to have made a conquest of (i.e. to have gained by
purchase) his mistress, his eye and his heart holding as joint
tenants, have a contest as to how she is to be partitioned between
them, each moiety then to be held in severalty. There are regular
pleadings in the suit, the heart being represented as Plaintiff and
the eye as Defendant. At last issue is joined on what the one affirms
and the other denies. Now a jury (in the nature of an inquest) is to
be empanelled to decide, and by their verdict to apportion between the
litigating parties the subject-matter to be decided. The jury
fortunately are unanimous, and after due deliberation, find for the
eye in respect of the lady's outward form, and for the heart in
respect of her inward love.
</quote>
On Barne's Sonnet 20, Sir George Greenwood wrote:
<quote>
What have we? The common notion of going bail for a prisoner; giving a
pledge for his good behaviour; a Bond; a Mortgage; a charter; a Deed,
signed and sealed; Freehold; Tenure ("of love's service");
Rents; -- surely the introduction of such well-known terms as these,
jumbled together with nothing to suggest that the writer had any
special knowledge of the subject from which they are borrowed, but
rather the contrary, cannot be seriously put forward as a parallel to
Shakespeare's familiarity with law and lawyers, and the persistency
and accuracy with which he makes use of legal phraseology!
</quote>
While one may disagree as to where Greenwood is
trying to go, he does make the case that the extended
legal metaphor in Sonnet 46 is more sophisticated
than Barnes' use of legal terminology.
One issue is whether Barnes influenced Shakespeare or
vice versa. The Barnes sonnets were published in 1592.
We know Shakespeare was an extremely accomplished poet
by 1592. The fashion for sonnet sequences started in the
1580s (during Sidney's lifetime), peaked in the mid 1590s
and had petered out by 1598-99. It does not seem
unreasonable to propose that the poet of "Venus and
Adonis" had tried his hand at sonnets by 1592.
In 1598 Mere's tells us that Shakespeare's sonnets were
circulating in manuscript form. Perhaps Barnes
saw some of Shakespeare's sonnets by 1592. Mark
Eccles describes Barnes as "the most striking of
the lesser sonneteers."
In 1592, Shakespeare would have been 28 and Barnes
23. It seems to me unlikely that the older more
accomplished poet borrowed from the younger
less accomplished poet.
Pat Dooley
Webmaster of www.shakespeare-authorship.com
KQKnave
<patd...@nospam.allowed.nls.net> writes:
Greenwood was an idiot. We all know that Shakespeare was a greater
poet than Barnes. Shakespeare makes greater poetry out of the
bric-a-brac of legal terminology than Barnes does, the same
way that Shakespeare makes better poetry out of Holinshed
in H5 or North's Plutarch in A&C, or all of English, for that
matter. There is no wayto tell from the poems whether or not either
one was lawyer. Barnes was the son of Richard Barnes, bishop of Durham.
He entered Brasenose College, Oxford, in 1586 but took no degree;
in 1591 he joined the expedition to Normandy led by the Earl of Essex.
>While one may disagree as to where Greenwood is
>trying to go, he does make the case that the extended
>legal metaphor in Sonnet 46 is more sophisticated
>than Barnes' use of legal terminology.
>
>One issue is whether Barnes influenced Shakespeare or
>vice versa. The Barnes sonnets were published in 1592.
>We know Shakespeare was an extremely accomplished poet
>by 1592.
Since when do believe that Shakespeare wrote the works
attributed to him? You have been screaming for over a year
that there is no evidence that Shakespeare was a writer!
>The fashion for sonnet sequences started in the
>1580s (during Sidney's lifetime),
No, the sonnet craze began with the publishing of Sidney's
sonnets in 1591.
>peaked in the mid 1590s
>and had petered out by 1598-99. It does not seem
>unreasonable to propose that the poet of "Venus and
>Adonis" had tried his hand at sonnets by 1592.
>
>In 1598 Mere's tells us that Shakespeare's sonnets were
>circulating in manuscript form. Perhaps Barnes
>saw some of Shakespeare's sonnets by 1592. Mark
>Eccles describes Barnes as "the most striking of
>the lesser sonneteers."
>In 1592, Shakespeare would have been 28 and Barnes
>23. It seems to me unlikely that the older more
>accomplished poet borrowed from the younger
>less accomplished poet.
Nonsense. Shakespeare made a living by turning other
poet's lead into gold, and his sonnets are no exception.
It makes perfect sense that Shakespeare would take
the conceits of Barnes' sonnets and make something
better of them, just as he took Kyd's Spanish Tragedy
and made "Hamlet" out of it. The fact is, two of Shakespeare's
sonnets were published in 1599, and the rest in 1609,
so the historical facts point to Shakespeare borrowing from
Barnes, not the other way around. Given the superiority
of Shakespeare's sonnets over all the others, it hardly
seems likely that they would have escaped publishing
if they were really circulating in manuscript by 1592.
It seems more likely that that circulation began in
1597-98, resulting in 2 of them being published in
1599's "Passionate Pilgrim". And if you are going to
quote "authority" (and I use that term loosely in
reference to Greenwood), why not quote someone who
knows what he's talking about, like Sidney Lee:
"Shakespeare was the greatest poetic genius who was
drawn into the sonneteering current of the sixteenth
century. His supremacy of poetic power and invention
creates a very wide interval between his efforts and
those of his contemporaries. Nevertheless the Elizabethan
age was too completely steeped in the Petrarchan
conventions to permit him full freedom from their toils.
His commanding powers converted into gold most of
the base ore which is the fabric of the Elizabethan sonnet
in others' hands. Yet, as soon as Shakespeare's endeavor
is minutely scrutinized, the processes of assimilation, which
were characteristic of contemporary sonneteers, are seen
to be at work in it also. Many a phrase and sentiment of
Petrarch and Ronsard, or of English sonneteers who wrote
earlier than he, give the cue to Shakespeare's noblest poems.
Only when the Elizabethan sonnet is studied comparatively
with the sonnet of France and Italy are the elements of its
composition revealed. When the analysis is completed,
Shakespeare's sonnets, despite their exalted poetic quality,
will be acknowledged to owe a very large debt to the vast
sonneteering literature of sixteenth-century Europe on which
they set a glorious crown."
bookburn
"KQKnave" <kqk...@aol.comspamslam> wrote in message
news:20020317110322...@mb-ci.aol.com...
> "Parthenophil and Parthenophe" begins his sequence
> with a longer poem addressed to his book, where he
> uses the now familiar conceit of the book being a
> child of the author.
That conceit, the one about the book being a boat sent onto
unknown waters, and being influenced by the stars, is as old as
literature, don't you think? But my main reservations about
identifying influences on Shakespeare's sonnets are: 1) hard to
tell what is a direct influence as opposed to indirect, as in an
even earlier 3rd source (mysteriously, ideas seem to pop up from
many sources all at once); and how do you account for "broadside"
influences, such as what comes through something published; 2)
need to differentiate between influence at a verbal, formal,
thematic, developmental level (is it the sonnets, his art, or
Shakespeare you target?); 3) how to estimate influence that
appears behind purpose, as when Byron, Keats, and maybe
Shakespeare avoided being dominated by English Bible themes and
plots, but their thought and imagery show influence of it; 4) the
study is possibly misleading when you consider an author's genius
may be his/her ability to transcend borrowed plots, forms, and
influences. bookburn
". . . the wag (joker) is wild."
Sir Walter Raleigh, "To His Son"
> Agent Jim
>
Gary Kosinsky
kqk...@aol.comspamslam (KQKnave) wrote:
SNIP
Jim: For the benefit of those of us who may be
rather obtuse and who have short attention spans (ahem),
could you possibly briefly summarize the point you are trying
to make with your comparison?
Barnes and Shakespeare seem to use some words and phrases
in common in their respective sonnet cycles. So what? I gather you're
making a larger point here, but I'm not sure what it is.
Thanks.
KQKnave
writes:
>"KQKnave" <kqk...@aol.comspamslam> wrote in message
>news:20020317110322...@mb-ci.aol.com...
>> Barnabe Barnes, as part of his sonnet sequence
>> "Parthenophil and Parthenophe" begins his sequence
>> with a longer poem addressed to his book, where he
>> uses the now familiar conceit of the book being a
>> child of the author.
>
>That conceit, the one about the book being a boat sent onto
>unknown waters, and being influenced by the stars, is as old as
>literature, don't you think?
Where is the conceit of a book being a boat in Barnes' poem?
In his conceit, the book is a child, like the conceit used in
Thorpe's dedication to Shakespeare in the 1609 sonnets.
KQKnave
>But my main reservations about
>identifying influences on Shakespeare's sonnets are: 1) hard to
>tell what is a direct influence as opposed to indirect, as in an
>even earlier 3rd source (mysteriously, ideas seem to pop up from
>many sources all at once);
I don't think it's that hard to tell. There are certain conceits that
are widespread throughout the sonnet literature, and those
are easily identified, such as conferring eternity on the beloved
through verse. Many conceits originated with Petrarch. But when
specific words are associated with the same themes, over and
over, it appears to me to be quite clear who a specific influence
was. Shakespeare was not only influenced by Barnes, but by
many others, especially Daniel.
> and how do you account for "broadside"
>influences, such as what comes through something published;
Don't know what you mean here. Wasn't Barnes' published?
> 2)need to differentiate between influence at a verbal, formal,
>thematic, developmental level (is it the sonnets, his art, or
>Shakespeare you target?);
I thought I was clear on the verbal and thematic influences of
Barnes' sonnets on Shakespeare's sonnets. Your complaint
sounds more like a smokescreen than anything. If Barnes'
uses "beauty's rose" and "ornament" in one poem, and Shakespeare
uses "beauty's rose" and "ornament" in one poem, it is clear
to me that the most likely explanation is not chance or a third
source, but that Shakespeare read Barnes. Same with
"bright eyes" and "lies", etc.
>3) how to estimate influence that
>appears behind purpose, as when Byron, Keats, and maybe
>Shakespeare avoided being dominated by English Bible themes and
>plots, but their thought and imagery show influence of it;
Aren't you stating the obvious? Shakespeare appears to
rather obviously toy with and improve upon the standard
conceits of the sonnet sequence.
>4) the study is possibly misleading when you consider an author's genius
>may be his/her ability to transcend borrowed plots, forms, and
>influences.
Stating the obvious again. We all know that Shakespeare wrote
the best sonnets. The questions is, it seems to me, whether or
not Shakespeare's sonnets are primarily autobiographical or
primarily a reaction to the literature of his time.
KQKnave
writes:
>
> Barnes and Shakespeare seem to use some words and phrases
>in common in their respective sonnet cycles. So what? I gather you're
>making a larger point here, but I'm not sure what it is.
>
Autobiographical versus literary sources.
Gary Kosinsky
kqk...@aol.comspamslam (KQKnave) wrote:
>In article <PIQl8wyT...@vcn.bc.ca>, gk...@vcn.bc.ca (Gary Kosinsky)
>writes:
>> Barnes and Shakespeare seem to use some words and phrases
>>in common in their respective sonnet cycles. So what? I gather you're
>>making a larger point here, but I'm not sure what it is.
>Autobiographical versus literary sources.
Jim: Since you seem to know about these things:
How many Elizabethan sonnet collections do we know of,
approximately? And do we have any idea how many of them are primarily
literary exercises, and how many are rooted in the author's
biography?
KQKnave
writes:
>In article <20020317162037...@mb-fn.aol.com>,
>kqk...@aol.comspamslam (KQKnave) wrote:
>>In article <PIQl8wyT...@vcn.bc.ca>, gk...@vcn.bc.ca (Gary Kosinsky)
>>writes:
>>> Barnes and Shakespeare seem to use some words and phrases
>>>in common in their respective sonnet cycles. So what? I gather you're
>>>making a larger point here, but I'm not sure what it is.
>
>
>>Autobiographical versus literary sources.
>
> Jim: Since you seem to know about these things:
>
> How many Elizabethan sonnet collections do we know of,
>approximately? And do we have any idea how many of them are primarily
>literary exercises, and how many are rooted in the author's
>biography?
>
That "primarily" is key, since in a sonnet sequence, nothing
prevents a poet from throwing in an autobiographical sonnet, such
as Shakespeare's "Hathaway/Hate Away" sonnet. Note carefully
Giles Fletcher's comments on his own sonnets below.
1582 - Thomas Watson. "Passionate Century of Love". A collection
of 100 poems rather than a sonnet sequence, many of the poems have 18 lines.
Watson specifically notes before each poem the source (usually Petrarch or
Ronsard).
1584 - John Soothern. "Pandora". According to Lee: "In discordant
doggerel, and in a vocabulary freely strewn with French words and
idioms, this writer composed a series of sonnets, odes and 'odelets,'
which were translated with an unsurpassable crudity from the French
of Ronsard."
1591 - Philip Sidney (written ~1581-2). Stella was Penelope Devereaux,
later Rich. Sidney plays upon the name of Rich in his sonnet 24. Sidney
Lee notes that Petrarch does the same thing with Laura, who was married
to another man. He also notes that "...the imitative quality that
characterizes Watson's 'Passionate Century of Love' is visible throughout
Sidney's ample
effort, and destroys most of those specious pretensions to autobiographic
confessions which the unwary reader may discern in them." Lee gives
numerous examples.
1591-2 Samuel Daniel. "To Delia". Many literal translations and adaptions of
the French poet Desportes, with some Petrarch and Ronsard thrown in,
the Petrarch mostly through Desportes' French translation of the
original Italian. Lee provides numerous examples. For example,
Daniel's famous "Care-charmer Sleep, son of the sable Night/Brother
to death, in silent darkness born.' is from Desportes "Amours d'Hippolyte",
75: "Sommeil, paisible fils de la nuict solitaire,.../O frere de la mort,
que tu m'es ennemy!"
1592 - Henry Constable. "Diana". 23 sonnets of his along with 8 of
Sidney's and 41 with unknown authors. Constables sonnets are a mix
of paraphrases of Ronsard, and echoes of Sidney, Watson and Daniel.
1593 - Thomas Lodge. "Phillis". Lee points out the sources for
Lodge's previous works, some of which Lodge points out himself, but
in this sequence, according to Lee, "...that Lodge sinks deepest into
the mire of deceit and mystification...Artless simplicity is all he claims
for his verse. He modestly deprecates comparison between himself
and 'learned Colin' (i.e. Spenser), or Daniel, whom he hails as Delia's
'sweet prophet.' There is no word in the preface to indicate that in his
sonnet-sequence he is anywhere wearing borrowed laurels. In his
"Margarite of America" Lodge hints at a part of the truth when he
wrote 'Few men are able to second the sweet conceits of Philip
Desportes, whose poetical writings [are] for the most part Englished,
and ordinarily in everybody's hands.' But this admission does not
prepare the reader for the discovery that the majority of Lodge's
poetic addresses to the rustic Phillis - his village maiden's 'country
carolling' - are ingeniously contrived literal translations of sonnets
which are scattered throught the collections of Ronsard, Desportes,
Ariosto, and other French and Italian poets." Lee gives many, many
examples of Lodge's theft.
1593 - Barnabe Barnes. "Parthenophil and Parthenophe". As I pointed
out earlier, there is no real person involved here, since at the end of
the volume the author quite graphically describes coitus with the woman.
Lee notes his sources, though he does not appear to be a plagiarist, as
Lodge, Soothern, and to some extent Daniel, were.
1593 - Giles Fletcher. "Licia". According to Lee: "He bears, in fact,
useful testimony to the procedure in vogue among his sonneteering
contemporaries by announcing on his title page that his 'poems of
love' were written 'to the imitation of the best Latin poets and others.'
In the address to his patroness, he deprecates the notion that his
book enshrines any episode in his own experience. He merely claims
to follow the fashion, and to imitate the 'men of learning and great
parts' of Italy, France, and England, who have already written 'poems
and sonnets of love.' Most men, he explains, have some personal
knowledge of the passion, but experience is not an essential
preliminary to the penning of amorous verse. 'A man may write of
love and not be in love, as well as of husbandry and not go to the
plough, or of witches and be none, or of holiness and be flat prophane.'
He regrets the English poets' proclivities to borrow 'from Italy, Spain, and
France their best and choice conceits,' and expresses a pious
preference for English homespun; but this is counsel of perfection,
and he makes no pretense to personal independence of foreign
models. He laughlingly challenges his critics to identify his lady
love Licia with any living woman. 'If thou muse, What my Licia is?
Take her to be some Diana, or some Minerva: no Venus, fairer far.
It may be she is Learning's Image, or some heavenly wonder: which
the Precisest may not mislike. Perhaps under that name I have
shadowed "Discipline" [i.e., the ideal of puritanism]. It may be, I
mean that kind of courtesy which I found at the Patroness of these
Poems, it may be some College. It may be my conceit, and pretend
nothing. Whatsoever it be, if thou like it, take it.'"
1593 - Watson again, "The Tears of Fancy", 60 sonnets, imitiations
of Petrarch and Ronsard.
1594 - Michael Drayton. "Idea's Mirror". In his address to the reader,
Drayton says "Into these loves, who but for passion looks;/ At this
first sight, here let him lay them by!/ And seek elsewhere in turning
other books,/ Which better may his labor satisfy./ No far-fetched sigh
shall ever wound my breast!/ Love from mine eye, a Tear shall never
wring!/ No "Ah me!"'s my whining sonnets drest!/ A libertine! fantasticly
I sing." Drayton also says in the dedication, "Yet these mine owne: I
wrong not other men,/ Nor trafique further than thys happy Clyme,/
Nor filch from Portes, nor from Petrarch's pen,/ A fault too common
in this latter tyme." Lee then shows that Drayton was being a bit
disingenuous, and his sonnet sequence was based upon the French
sequence "L'Idee", by Claude de Pontoux.
1595 - Richard Barnfield. "Cynthia". Probably homosexual, written
to "Ganymede". It seems to me that I read somewhere that there
was a real person involved here, but I can't remember.
"But in the ode which follows his sonnets, he says that though
he once loved Ganymede, now he loves a "Lasse". Barnfield
did eventually marry and have a son." (From "Elizabethan Sonnets",
edited by Maurice Evans.)
1595 - Edmund Spenser. "Amoretti". Probably the only mostly
autobiographical sequence. The sonnets were written to his wife
to be, and her name, along with his mother's and Queen Elizabeth's
is mentioned in his sonnet 74. He also mentions by name his
friend Lodowick Briskett in his sonnet 33. Spenser nevertheless
borrows some things from Petrarch, Ronsard, etc.
1596 - John Davies. "Gulling Sonnets". He ridicules the conceits
of the sonneteers, particularly the conceit of using legal language
in sonnets.
1596- Bartholomew Griffin. "Fidessa". His sonnet 15, "Care-charmer
sleep, sweet ease in restless misery," is freely adapted from
Daniel's sonnet "Care-charmer sleep". Dedicated to the gentlemen
of the Inns of Court, it essentially borrows from other English
sonnet sequences. Nothing autobiographical that I know of.
1596 - William Smith. "Chloris". Similar to Griffin's.
Enough for now.
David Kathman
kqk...@aol.comspamslam (KQKnave) wrote:
>1595 - Richard Barnfield. "Cynthia". Probably homosexual, written
>to "Ganymede". It seems to me that I read somewhere that there
>was a real person involved here, but I can't remember.
>"But in the ode which follows his sonnets, he says that though
>he once loved Ganymede, now he loves a "Lasse". Barnfield
>did eventually marry and have a son." (From "Elizabethan Sonnets",
>edited by Maurice Evans.)
Actually, Barnfield did not marry, nor did he have a son;
he died unmarried in 1620, and in fact was disinherited by
his father, possibly because of his alleged homosexuality.
See Andrew Worrall's article in *Notes & Queries*,
September 1992, pp. 370-1. The Richard Barnfield whose
will in 1627 mentioned a wife and son was actually the
poet's father, and the son was the poet's brother.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
Pat Dooley
"KQKnave" <kqk...@aol.comspamslam> wrote in message
Greenwood was one of the guys who inspired Pollard
to manufacture the Hand D attribution so he had the
Stratfordians worried. I wasn't quoting him to indicate
that I agreed that Shakespeare had formal legal training.
> >While one may disagree as to where Greenwood is
> >trying to go, he does make the case that the extended
> >legal metaphor in Sonnet 46 is more sophisticated
> >than Barnes' use of legal terminology.
> >
> >One issue is whether Barnes influenced Shakespeare or
> >vice versa. The Barnes sonnets were published in 1592.
> >We know Shakespeare was an extremely accomplished poet
> >by 1592.
>
> Since when do believe that Shakespeare wrote the works
> attributed to him? You have been screaming for over a year
> that there is no evidence that Shakespeare was a writer!
Whoever he was, the writer of V&A was an accomplished
poet by 1592.
> >The fashion for sonnet sequences started in the
> >1580s (during Sidney's lifetime),
>
> No, the sonnet craze began with the publishing of Sidney's
> sonnets in 1591.
Sidney wrote them before 1586. They would have been
circulating in manuscript form from before that time.
> >peaked in the mid 1590s
> >and had petered out by 1598-99. It does not seem
> >unreasonable to propose that the poet of "Venus and
> >Adonis" had tried his hand at sonnets by 1592.
> >
> >In 1598 Mere's tells us that Shakespeare's sonnets were
> >circulating in manuscript form. Perhaps Barnes
> >saw some of Shakespeare's sonnets by 1592. Mark
> >Eccles describes Barnes as "the most striking of
> >the lesser sonneteers."
>
> >In 1592, Shakespeare would have been 28 and Barnes
> >23. It seems to me unlikely that the older more
> >accomplished poet borrowed from the younger
> >less accomplished poet.
>
> Nonsense. Shakespeare made a living by turning other
> poet's lead into gold, and his sonnets are no exception.
> It makes perfect sense that Shakespeare would take
> the conceits of Barnes' sonnets and make something
> better of them, just as he took Kyd's Spanish Tragedy
> and made "Hamlet" out of it.
Conjecture.
> The fact is, two of Shakespeare's
> sonnets were published in 1599, and the rest in 1609,
> so the historical facts point to Shakespeare borrowing from
> Barnes, not the other way around. Given the superiority
> of Shakespeare's sonnets over all the others, it hardly
> seems likely that they would have escaped publishing
> if they were really circulating in manuscript by 1592.
> It seems more likely that that circulation began in
> 1597-98, resulting in 2 of them being published in
> 1599's "Passionate Pilgrim". And if you are going to
> quote "authority" (and I use that term loosely in
> reference to Greenwood), why not quote someone who
> knows what he's talking about, like Sidney Lee:
Whatever I say or you say can only be conjecture.
However, the sonnet vogue had faded away by
1597 when just one sonnet sequence appeared
in print. You would have Shakespeare belatedly
following a fashion long after it's peak despite his
having shown his poetic genius by 1592.
<snip>
Pat Dooley
Gary Kosinsky
Jim: Thank you very much for the list. Very interesting.
As I read it, of the fifteen sonnet collections you
listed, three (Sidney's "Astrophel & Stella"; Barnfield's "Cynthia";
and Spenser's "Amoretti") have some link to their author's biography.
Twelve, from what you've written, are primarily literary exercises. And
certainly, as you point out, Fletcher's remarks about his "Licia",
if generally applicable, lends weight to the idea that the sonnet
cycles were primarily literary exercises.
Still.....
I'm wondering if you have read many of these different
collections? If so, how does their **content** compare to the
content of Shakespeare's sonnets? It seems to me as I read
Shakespeare that the story he tells is rooted in real life.
He talks about the Dark Lady and an apparent love triangle. He
talks about the challenge presented by the Rival Poet. He
describes the ups and downs of a relationship with the Fair
Young Man. There seems to be a detailed specificity about
these things that suggests, to me, actual events. I realize
it's very subjective, but do you get the same feeling from
reading the other collections? Or do they deal in vague
generalities?
It seems possible to me that even if Shakespeare
borrowed words and phrases from other literary exercises, he
may have used them in service of real events in his life.
What do you think?
KQKnave
<patd...@nospam.allowed.nls.net> writes:
>> Since when do believe that Shakespeare wrote the works
>> attributed to him? You have been screaming for over a year
>> that there is no evidence that Shakespeare was a writer!
>
>Whoever he was, the writer of V&A was an accomplished
>poet by 1592.
V&A was the first poem that Shakespeare published, "the first
heir of my invention". The sonnets were published in 1609,
with two published in 1599.
>> >The fashion for sonnet sequences started in the
>> >1580s (during Sidney's lifetime),
>>
>> No, the sonnet craze began with the publishing of Sidney's
>> sonnets in 1591.
>
>Sidney wrote them before 1586. They would have been
>circulating in manuscript form from before that time.
Did you look at the other post listing the dates of publication
of the major sequences? The sonnet craze began after the
publication of Sidney's sequence in 1591, peaking in 1593-96.
>> >peaked in the mid 1590s
>> >and had petered out by 1598-99. It does not seem
>> >unreasonable to propose that the poet of "Venus and
>> >Adonis" had tried his hand at sonnets by 1592.
>> >
>> >In 1598 Mere's tells us that Shakespeare's sonnets were
>> >circulating in manuscript form. Perhaps Barnes
>> >saw some of Shakespeare's sonnets by 1592. Mark
>> >Eccles describes Barnes as "the most striking of
>> >the lesser sonneteers."
>>
>> >In 1592, Shakespeare would have been 28 and Barnes
>> >23. It seems to me unlikely that the older more
>> >accomplished poet borrowed from the younger
>> >less accomplished poet.
>>
>> Nonsense. Shakespeare made a living by turning other
>> poet's lead into gold, and his sonnets are no exception.
>> It makes perfect sense that Shakespeare would take
>> the conceits of Barnes' sonnets and make something
>> better of them, just as he took Kyd's Spanish Tragedy
>> and made "Hamlet" out of it.
>
>Conjecture.
Conjecture? Is it conjecture to say that he improved Holinshed's
Salic law section for H5? That he improved North's Plutarch
for A&C? It's not conjecture that Shakespeare improved the
sources he had at hand, it's fact.
>
>> The fact is, two of Shakespeare's
>> sonnets were published in 1599, and the rest in 1609,
>> so the historical facts point to Shakespeare borrowing from
>> Barnes, not the other way around. Given the superiority
>> of Shakespeare's sonnets over all the others, it hardly
>> seems likely that they would have escaped publishing
>> if they were really circulating in manuscript by 1592.
>> It seems more likely that that circulation began in
>> 1597-98, resulting in 2 of them being published in
>> 1599's "Passionate Pilgrim". And if you are going to
>> quote "authority" (and I use that term loosely in
>> reference to Greenwood), why not quote someone who
>> knows what he's talking about, like Sidney Lee:
>
>Whatever I say or you say can only be conjecture.
1599 and 1609 are not conjecture, they are fact.
>However, the sonnet vogue had faded away by
>1597 when just one sonnet sequence appeared
>in print. You would have Shakespeare belatedly
>following a fashion long after it's peak despite his
>having shown his poetic genius by 1592.
Right, right, right. And the fashion for "Hamlet" plays
peaked around 1590, but that didnt' stop him from
improving it and performing it in 1600-1. NOBODY in
print remarked that Shakespeare's sonnets were being
imitated by other sonneteers, yet it was remarked by
several poets that Petrarch, Ronsard and others were
being copied. The Parnassus plays say that Shakespeare
was imitating Daniel in his sonnets, which were published
in 1591-2. If you want to make extraordinary claims, you
had better have extraordinary evidence, and you have none.
KQKnave
writes:
>
> Jim: Thank you very much for the list. Very interesting.
>
> As I read it, of the fifteen sonnet collections you
>listed, three (Sidney's "Astrophel & Stella"; Barnfield's "Cynthia";
>and Spenser's "Amoretti") have some link to their author's biography.
>Twelve, from what you've written, are primarily literary exercises. And
>certainly, as you point out, Fletcher's remarks about his "Licia",
>if generally applicable, lends weight to the idea that the sonnet
>cycles were primarily literary exercises.
>
> Still.....
>
> I'm wondering if you have read many of these different
>collections?
I've read Daniel, Spenser, Sidney in their entirety. I haven't
read all of the others in their entirety, but I've read many
of their sonnets.
>If so, how does their **content** compare to the
>content of Shakespeare's sonnets? It seems to me as I read
>Shakespeare that the story he tells is rooted in real life.
>He talks about the Dark Lady and an apparent love triangle.
Barnes has a love triangle as well, spread over 6 or 8 sonnets,
but if you don't read the first one in that part, you'd never know
that one of the parties was his heart, which he then calls
"he", "him" etc.
>He
>talks about the challenge presented by the Rival Poet. He
>describes the ups and downs of a relationship with the Fair
>Young Man. There seems to be a detailed specificity about
>these things that suggests, to me, actual events.
If Shakespeare can make up plays, he can make up a story,
or what seems to be a story, to lend some dramatic interest
to a sonnet sequence. Most of the sonnets don't have anything
to do with these implied "stories". The few that do seem to
me to be tacked on.
>I realize
>it's very subjective, but do you get the same feeling from
>reading the other collections? Or do they deal in vague
>generalities?
I get the same feeling from the best sonnets of the others
that I get from the best sonnets of Shakespeare. Their
best sonnets deal with universal truths independent of any
story. What kind of feeling do you get from sonnet 22, or
sonnet 148? I think that for many readers of Shakespeare's
sonnets the impression of the few memorable ones
swamps the others.
> It seems possible to me that even if Shakespeare
>borrowed words and phrases from other literary exercises, he
>may have used them in service of real events in his life.
> What do you think?
I think the "story" of the sonnets is flakey and not very realistic. The first
17
are focused on urging the young man to have kids, then many
of the rest could be independent of gender, then he switches
from the man to a woman of questionable morals, and many
of the worst sonnets are in that part. I don't believe a word of it.
He is too consciously playing off the conceits of those who
came before him for me to believe that the majority have anything
to do with his life. That doesn't mean he can't put a sonnet like
145, with its "Hathaway/Hate-away" pun. If the young man sonnets
are part of his life, why isn't there some clear signal, of the type that
Spenser puts in his sonnets?
bookburn
"KQKnave" <kqk...@aol.comspamslam> wrote in message
I get this from studies on influences in ballad transmission,
where publishers pandered to popular tastes and made changes to
hype certain styles, etc. Were there influences associated with
censorship and the approval process? Jonson and Shakespeare
complained about throwing sops for populal applause that dropped
from common jaws.
> > 2)need to differentiate between influence at a verbal,
formal,
> >thematic, developmental level (is it the sonnets, his art, or
> >Shakespeare you target?);
>
> I thought I was clear on the verbal and thematic influences of
> Barnes' sonnets on Shakespeare's sonnets. Your complaint
> sounds more like a smokescreen than anything. If Barnes'
> uses "beauty's rose" and "ornament" in one poem, and
Shakespeare
> uses "beauty's rose" and "ornament" in one poem, it is clear
> to me that the most likely explanation is not chance or a third
> source, but that Shakespeare read Barnes. Same with
> "bright eyes" and "lies", etc.
I'd have to say you would be hard put to make a logical syllogism
out of that and need to be supported by the kind of statistical
study that goes beyond stylometrics, as I understand it. Maybe
it's about possibilities, semi-permiables, permutations, etc.?
>
> >3) how to estimate influence that
> >appears behind purpose, as when Byron, Keats, and maybe
> >Shakespeare avoided being dominated by English Bible themes
and
> >plots, but their thought and imagery show influence of it;
>
> Aren't you stating the obvious? Shakespeare appears to
> rather obviously toy with and improve upon the standard
> conceits of the sonnet sequence.
So, just as you can trace some influences by their presence, are
there also influences noticeable by their absence?
Psychologists say we sometimes conceal things from ourselves, in
our unconscious, etc. Jung would find archetypes, and so would
Caroline Spurgeon, who was going that way in her stylometrics, I
understand.
> >4) the study is possibly misleading when you consider an
author's genius
> >may be his/her ability to transcend borrowed plots, forms, and
> >influences.
> Stating the obvious again. We all know that Shakespeare wrote
> the best sonnets. The questions is, it seems to me, whether or
> not Shakespeare's sonnets are primarily autobiographical or
> primarily a reaction to the literature of his time.
Or did he write for himself (expressive), to creat an object
(objective), to imitate another standard (mimetic), or to
communicate with an audience to entertain, inform, instruct
(pragmatic)?
--
bookburn
". . . the wag (joker) is wild."
Sir Walter Raleigh, "To His Son"
bookburn
"KQKnave" <kqk...@aol.comspamslam> wrote in message
> In article <u9a0291...@corp.supernews.com>, "bookburn"
<book...@yahoo.com>
> writes:
>
> >"KQKnave" <kqk...@aol.comspamslam> wrote in message
> >news:20020317110322...@mb-ci.aol.com...
> >> Barnabe Barnes, as part of his sonnet sequence
> >> "Parthenophil and Parthenophe" begins his sequence
> >> with a longer poem addressed to his book, where he
> >> uses the now familiar conceit of the book being a
> >> child of the author.
> >
> >That conceit, the one about the book being a boat sent onto
> >unknown waters, and being influenced by the stars, is as old
as
> >literature, don't you think?
>
> Where is the conceit of a book being a boat in Barnes' poem?
> In his conceit, the book is a child, like the conceit used in
> Thorpe's dedication to Shakespeare in the 1609 sonnets.
I meant to say that, like the conceit of comparing a book to
one's child, other conceits, such as the one about comparing
one's book to a boat, and comparing one's source of inspiration
to the stars, are old conventions of literture and probably not
just "now familiar" conceits.
Pat Dooley
"KQKnave" <kqk...@aol.comspamslam> wrote in message
<snip>
> Right, right, right. And the fashion for "Hamlet" plays
> peaked around 1590, but that didnt' stop him from
> improving it and performing it in 1600-1. NOBODY in
> print remarked that Shakespeare's sonnets were being
> imitated by other sonneteers, yet it was remarked by
> several poets that Petrarch, Ronsard and others were
> being copied. The Parnassus plays say that Shakespeare
> was imitating Daniel in his sonnets, which were published
> in 1591-2. If you want to make extraordinary claims, you
> had better have extraordinary evidence, and you have none.
Where in the Parnassus plays do they say "Shakespeare
was imitating Daniel in his sonnets"?
KQKnave
<patd...@nospam.allowed.nls.net> writes:
>
>> Right, right, right. And the fashion for "Hamlet" plays
>> peaked around 1590, but that didnt' stop him from
>> improving it and performing it in 1600-1. NOBODY in
>> print remarked that Shakespeare's sonnets were being
>> imitated by other sonneteers, yet it was remarked by
>> several poets that Petrarch, Ronsard and others were
>> being copied. The Parnassus plays say that Shakespeare
>> was imitating Daniel in his sonnets, which were published
>> in 1591-2. If you want to make extraordinary claims, you
>> had better have extraordinary evidence, and you have none.
>
>Where in the Parnassus plays do they say "Shakespeare
>was imitating Daniel in his sonnets"?
>
My mistake, they say that he is imitating Daniel in Romeo
and Juliet.
Pat Dooley
"KQKnave" <kqk...@aol.comspamslam> wrote in message
> In article <CXtl8.1224$rr6....@news.webusenet.com>, "Pat Dooley"
> <patd...@nospam.allowed.nls.net> writes:
>
> >
> >> Right, right, right. And the fashion for "Hamlet" plays
> >> peaked around 1590, but that didnt' stop him from
> >> improving it and performing it in 1600-1. NOBODY in
> >> print remarked that Shakespeare's sonnets were being
> >> imitated by other sonneteers, yet it was remarked by
> >> several poets that Petrarch, Ronsard and others were
> >> being copied. The Parnassus plays say that Shakespeare
> >> was imitating Daniel in his sonnets, which were published
> >> in 1591-2. If you want to make extraordinary claims, you
> >> had better have extraordinary evidence, and you have none.
> >
> >Where in the Parnassus plays do they say "Shakespeare
> >was imitating Daniel in his sonnets"?
> >
>
> My mistake, they say that he is imitating Daniel in Romeo
> and Juliet.
Then the passage you are referring to is this one:
<The Return from Parnassus - 982>
Gullio: Pardon, fair lady, though sick-thoughted Gullio makes amaine
[exceedingly, with full force] unto thee, and like a bold-faced suitor
‘gins to woo thee.
Ingenioso: (We shall have nothing but pure Shakspeare and shreds of
poetry that he has gathered at the theaters!)
Gullio: Pardon me, my mistress, as I am a gentleman, the moon in
comparison of thy bright hue a mere slut, Antony’s Cleopatra a black
browed milkmaid, Helen a dowdy.
Ingenioso: (Mark, Romeo and Juliet! O monstrous theft! I think he will
run through a whole book of Samuel Daniel’s!)
</The Return from Parnassus - 982>
Gullio starts by misquoting the opening stanza of V&A and
then shreds some lines from R&J which Ingenioso seems to
think he's stolen from Samuel Daniel.
Can you explain how you transmute Ingenioso's line to mean
that Shakespeare was imitating Daniel in R&J?
KQKnave
<patd...@nospam.allowed.nls.net> writes:
We went through this a year ago. I had forgotten it and was relying on
my memory of the line "run through a whole book of Samuel Daniels".
Here is what you said in Jan 2001:
>In Parnassus Part II Ingenioso appears to attribute R&J
>to Samuel Daniel. The lines in question are:
>
>INGENIOSO: (We shall have nothing but pure Shakspeare and shreds of
>poetry that he has gathered at the theaters!)
>
>GULLIO: Pardon me, my mistress, as I am a gentleman, the moon in
>comparison of thy bright hue a mere slut, Antony's Cleopatra a black
>browed milkmaid, Helen a dowdy.
>
>INGENIOSO: (Mark, Romeo and Juliet! O monstrous theft! I think he will
>run through a whole book of Samuel Daniel's!)
>
>So here the anonymous author(s) of the Parnassus play are
>speculating that Daniel wrote R&J.
And this is what I replied then:
I forgot. We are in Dooleyland, where words mean what he wants
them to mean. The lines by Gullio are a parody of Romeo and Juliet,
and Ingenioso is merely pointing that out. Here's the whole thing
again, with the lines Dooley left out purposefully:
In the first lines, Gullio says
Gullio: Pardon fair lady, though sicke thoughted Gullio makes amain
unto thee, & like a bold faced suitor gins to woo thee.
[This is a parody of Shakespeare's lines 5&6 from Venus and Adonis]
Then Ingenioso, commenting on how Gullio will try to woo his lady
by stealing from Shakespeare and bits from other plays he has seen:
Ingenioso: We shall have nothing but pure Shakspeare and shreds of
poetry that he has gathered at the theaters!
Dooley left out the first comments by Gullio so that readers might
think that Shakespeare is doing the stealing. Gullio's next
comments (Antony's...dowdy) are a parody of Romeo and Juliet, so Ingenioso
notes that in his first comment, and then comments that
he is afraid that Gullio will run through a whole book of Daniel's
(presumably his sonnets) in his attempt to woo:
Ingenioso: Mark, Romeo and Juliet. O monstrous theft, I think he will
run through a whole book of Samuel Daniel's
****************************************************************************
In the context of this thread, I should have just left that comment out,
but it doesn't change anything. It's more likely that Shakespeare did
the borrowing because a) his sonnets were published long after Barnes
sonnets (Barnes - 1592, Shakespeare - 2 in 1599, all in 1609) and
b) that is what Shakespeare's practice was. He borrowed stories and
plots and even words from other writers and made them his own.
In that sense, the sonnets are a typical product of his pen c) Nobody
noted that Shakespeare was being stolen from, yet they noted the
thefts from other writers.
Pat Dooley
"KQKnave" <kqk...@aol.comspamslam> wrote in message
I believed I had provided enough context to show that Ingenioso
says Gullio was stealing from Shakespeare and from the theatres.
> Gullio's next
> comments (Antony's...dowdy) are a parody of Romeo and Juliet, so
Ingenioso
> notes that in his first comment, and then comments that
> he is afraid that Gullio will run through a whole book of Daniel's
> (presumably his sonnets) in his attempt to woo:
>
> Ingenioso: Mark, Romeo and Juliet. O monstrous theft, I think he
will
> run through a whole book of Samuel Daniel's
When Gullio mangles R&J Ingenioso then says
"Mark, Romeo and Juliet!"
which I take to mean that he has recognized the lines from R&J.
Ingenioso then says:
"O monstrous theft!"
And I think that means that he belives Gullio is stealing
lines from R&J.
And he finishes the line by saying:
" I think he will run through a whole book of Samuel Daniel's!"
The only reason why Ingenioso would say "Samuel Daniel's"
instead of "Shakespeare's" is because he thinks Daniel
wrote R&J. Otherwise, the reference to Daniel is coming
out of nowhere.
> In the context of this thread, I should have just left that comment
out,
> but it doesn't change anything.
It took away one of your supporting arguments.
> It's more likely that Shakespeare did
> the borrowing because a) his sonnets were published long after
Barnes
> sonnets (Barnes - 1592, Shakespeare - 2 in 1599, all in 1609) and
> b) that is what Shakespeare's practice was. He borrowed stories and
> plots and even words from other writers and made them his own.
> In that sense, the sonnets are a typical product of his pen c)
Nobody
> noted that Shakespeare was being stolen from, yet they noted the
> thefts from other writers.
Shakespeare made use of a wide range of sources
but it was rare that he simply recycled old material.
I still doubt that Shakespeare was influenced by
Barnes in the example you cited; the legal conceit
does not match well. But then, I shouldn't be surprised;
you seemed to see strong parallels between these
two passages (defending Hand D):
Sir Thomas More:
William. Trash, trash; they breed sore *eyes*, and
'tis enough to infect the city with the *palsy*.
Lin. Nay, it has infect it with the *palsy*; for these
bastards of dung, as you know they grow in dung, have
infected us, and it is our infection will make the
city shake, which partly comes through the eating
of parsnips.
"Troilus&Cressida"
THERSITES: Why, his masculine whore. Now, the rotten diseases
of the south, the guts-griping, ruptures, catarrhs,
loads o' gravel i' the back, lethargies, cold
* palsies*, *raw eyes*, dirt-rotten livers, wheezing
lungs, bladders full of imposthume, sciaticas,
limekilns i' the palm, incurable bone-ache, and the
rivelled fee-simple of the tetter, take and take
again such preposterous discoveries!
I gave you a counter-example which seems to me
to be closer to the More passage than the Troilus
passage.
"A Yorkshire Tragedy"
Two here, and one at Nurse, my pretty beggars,
I see how ruine with a *palsie* hand
Begins to shake the ancient seat to dust: [390]
The heavy weight of sorrow drawes my lids
Over my dankish *eyes*: I can scarce see;
Thus grief will last, it wakes and sleeps with me.
Pat Dooley
Webmaster of www.shakespeare-authorship,com
KQKnave
<patd...@nospam.allowed.nls.net> writes:
>
>Shakespeare made use of a wide range of sources
>but it was rare that he simply recycled old material.
>I still doubt that Shakespeare was influenced by
>Barnes in the example you cited;
I cited *many* examples. That's part of the point.
You would choose to take one and *claim* that
Shakespeare was not influenced by him, which
is difficult to believe, when the same words are
used in the same or similar contexts, in a work
published long before Shakespeare's sonnets
were published.
Again, there are *many* parallels between Hand D
and Shakespeare. It doesn't matter if *one* also
has parallels to another writer. If all or many of them
were concentrated in one other play or writer, then you would
have a point.
Let's go back to the original example which caused you to
reply:
Barnes SONNET 20
Shakespeare Sonnet 46
The similarity of eyes, hearts and tenants is striking:
Barnes:
The speaker's eyes are the tenants of beauty.
They pay in tears to occupy the speaker's heart,
which is also his lover's beauty's property while
he is in love.
Shakespeare:
Like Barnes, his heart and eyes are separate entities
with separate functions in this love. His eye and heart
are at war. The eyes would prevent the heart from seeing
the beloved, and vice versa. The heart believes that
the beloved lives in the heart, while the eyes say
that the beloved lives in the eyes (the opposite of
Barnes picture). The speakers thoughts, which are tenants
of the heart, decide the issue.
The differences and similarities.seem clear to me. A sentiment
similar to Barnes' poem is expressed, again with legal language,
in one of the anonymous sonnets in "Zepharia", from 1594:
Zepharia Sonnet 38
From the revenue of thine eyes exchequer,
My faith his subsidy did near detract.
Though in thy favor's book I rest thy debtor,
Yet 'mongst accomptants who their faith have cracked,
My name thou findest not irrotulat.
I list not stand indebted to infame;
Fowl them befall who pay in counterfeit.
Be they recogniz'd in black book of shame.
But if the rent which wont was of assise
Thou shalt enhance, through pride and coy disdain,
Exacting double tribute to thine eyes,
And yet encroachest on my heart's demain,
Needs must I wish, though 'gainst by foyalty,
That thou unsceptered be of nature's royalty.
[Notes: accomptant: accountant; cracked: bankrupted;
irrotulat: entered in the roll; of assise: normally
assessed; foyalty: allegiance.]