Sonnet No 87: Farewell - thou art too dear for my possessing,
Julia
87
-
1. Farewell - thou art too dear for my possessing,
2. And like enough thou know'st thy estimate:
3. The charter of thy worth gives thee releasing;
4. My bonds in thee are all determinate.
5. For how do I hold thee but by thy granting?
6. And for that riches where is my deserving?
7. The cause of this fair gift in me is wanting,
8. And so my patent back again is swerving.
9. Thy self thou gav'st, thy own worth then not knowing;
10. Or me, to whom thou gav'st it, else mistaking;
11. So thy great gift, upon misprision growing,
12. Comes home again on better judgement making.
13. Thus have I had thee as a dream doth flatter,
14. In sleep a king, but waking no such matter.
-
--
Julia
Robert Stonehouse
> 87
>-
> 1. Farewell - thou art too dear for my possessing,
Goodbye - you are too expensive an item for me to own /
> 2. And like enough thou know'st thy estimate:
and very probably you know what your valuation is. /
> 3. The charter of thy worth gives thee releasing;
Your value is (metaphorically) the legal grant that frees you; /
> 4. My bonds in thee are all determinate.
my legal claims upon you have all run out. /
> 5. For how do I hold thee but by thy granting?
What right of ownership have I in you except by your grant, /
> 6. And for that riches where is my deserving?
and what is there about me that deserves such luxury? /
> 7. The cause of this fair gift in me is wanting,
There is no reason why I should be given such a gift /
> 8. And so my patent back again is swerving.
and so the royal assignment returns to where it came from. /
> 9. Thy self thou gav'st, thy own worth then not knowing;
You gave yourself at a time when you did not know your
own value /
>10. Or me, to whom thou gav'st it, else mistaking;
or when you were under an illusion about me,
the person you gave to; /
>11. So thy great gift, upon misprision growing,
so your rich grant, being based on a failure
of understanding, /
>12. Comes home again on better judgement making.
returns to you, when you revise your decision. /
>13. Thus have I had thee as a dream doth flatter,
The way I possessed you was like the delightful deception
of a dream; /
>14. In sleep a king, but waking no such matter.
while I was asleep, I was a king; but when I woke up, nothing
of the kind. /
Ten of the fourteen lines end in -ing. Except for lines 2 and 4,
they are all feminine rhymes. The last time we had a lot of feminine
rhymes, in sonnet 20, it was a pun between the 'master-mistress' and
the French technical term. (There is nothing feminine about these
rhymes in English; the term comes from French, where it means a
rhyme ending in the mute -e- which ends so many French feminine
words.) I do not know if anything can be made of that here. This
poet tends not to repeat past moves.
The generally soothing effect of these long, chiming lines makes
lines 2 and 4 stand out as abrupt and uncomforting. Even at the end
of lines 13-14, which retain the feminine rhyme, the sounds are hard
and short, creating a sense of desolation that grows through the
second half of line 14 - I assume a second, lighter pause after
'waking'. (Of course, it is not about flattering a king - there is a
stop at the end of line 13. But maybe that is a Shakespearean trap
set for us.)
The language starts as financial but quickly turns legal, from
'charter' (line 3) to 'misprision' (line 11) or possibly 'judgment'
(line 12). I do not think this judgment is anything like a judicial
decision in a case, but the word may be meant to sound legal without
meaning anything legal. In general, there seem to be legal metaphors
scattered through the poem, not a single consistent metaphor
developed all the way.
The situation is one of past possession being resigned. In sonnet 86
and some others it is more a matter of not getting started. There
seem to be no rivals and no resentment, only personal regret.
This is a famous sonnet, often found in anthologies. Those always
seem the best ones, which I suppose justifies the anthologisers. But
is it just familiarity that does it? I seem to find the same effect
now, any time I go back to one of the earlier poems that we read
months ago. With time and rest, these sonnets sink in and become
part of us.
ew...@bcs.org.uk
Nigel Davies
Theme: Loss of patron.
Content: Great dignity and modesty at a time of loss: the end of his
relationship with his subject.
> 1. Farewell thou art too dear for my possessing,
> 2. And like enough thou know'st thy estimate:
> 3. The charter of thy worth gives thee releasing;
> 4. My bonds in thee are all determinate.
- The end of his relationship with his subject who is worth more than him. The
relationship is a formal one as alluded to in "charter" and "bonds".
- "Farewell" though, rather than "Goodbye" leaving open the prospect of future
reconciliation.
- Possible pun on "dear": "too precious" and "too costly".
- Counterpoint in the rhyming of "possessing" with "releasing".
- Counterpoint also in the rhyming of "estimate" with "determinate".
- This is a "-th-" sonnet: "thou…thou…thy…The…thy worth…thee…thee"
> 5. For how do I hold thee but by thy granting?
> 6. And for that riches where is my deserving?
> 7. The cause of this fair gift in me is wanting,
> 8. And so my patent back again is swerving.
- He is at the mercy of his patron who doesn't owe him anything, and he doesn't
deserve anything.
- A mass of feminine line endings.
- Counterpoint in "thy granting" with "my deserving" and "wanting".
- Singular relationship between subject and author asserted in "patent".
- "Th-" alliteration continues: "thee…thy…that…The…this".
> 9. Thyself thou gav'st, thy own worth then not knowing,
> 10. Or me to whom thou gav'st it else mistaking;
> 11. So thy great gift, upon misprision growing,
> 12. Comes home again, on better judgement making.
- Very self-effacing comment suggesting his patron did not initially know their
own worth when they employed him as their poet and that they have now taken back
that gift on better judgement.
- Another mass of feminine line endings.
- Counterpoint between "knowing" and "mistaking".
- Mid-line rhyme of "upon" and "on".
- "-th-" alliteration continues: "Thyself thou…thy…worth then…thou…thy"
> 13. Thus have I had thee as a dream doth flatter:
> 14. In sleep a king, but waking no such matter.
- Beautiful final couplet symbolising his patron's dream-like influence making
him feel like a king but that going when reality bites.
- Probable linkage between "king" in the couplet with the embedded kings in
"mistaKING" and "maKING" in Q3.
- Internal rhyme of "a king" with "waking".
- Contrasting linkage between the masculinity of "king" and all the feminine
"-ing" endings throughout the sonnet.
- "-th-" alliteraton concludes: "Thus…thee…doth"
______________________________________________________________________
nda...@emirates.net.ae
volker multhopp
> 87
> 1. Farewell - thou art too dear for my possessing,
> 2. And like enough thou know'st thy estimate:
> 3. The charter of thy worth gives thee releasing;
> 4. My bonds in thee are all determinate.
Goodbye, you're too good for me, and you probably know it: your quality
sets you free; my ties to you are limited.
> 5. For how do I hold thee but by thy granting?
> 6. And for that riches where is my deserving?
> 7. The cause of this fair gift in me is wanting,
> 8. And so my patent back again is swerving.
I cannot have you but that you let me, and why should I deserve you? I
am unworthy, so my right to you again is doubtful.
> 9. Thy self thou gav'st, thy own worth then not knowing;
> 10. Or me, to whom thou gav'st it, else mistaking;
> 11. So thy great gift, upon misprision growing,
> 12. Comes home again on better judgement making.
You gave yourself, not knowing your worth or me (to whom you gave it),
or [at least] erred; so your great gift, based on this worsening error,
is returned upon better consideration.
> 13. Thus have I had thee as a dream doth flatter,
> 14. In sleep a king, but waking no such matter.
So I had you, like a dream, asleep a king, awake to nothing.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The situation is that our poet discovered this Beloved before others
did, before the Beloved him(her)self was aware of his own true worth
("thy own worth then not knowing"). But the Beloved is matured, almost
certainly others recognize his worth. Now B understands his worth ("And
like enough thou know'st thy estimate"), and so the relationship is
ending. It is unclear whether the poet is initiating or merely
acknowledging the end of the affair.
If I were a Strat I would be tempted to believe class difference is the
wedge splitting the lovers-- the repeated counterpointing between B's
great worth and WS's unworthiness. But class differences almost always
remain fixed-- here we see there's been a great change. An explanation
would be that the poet recognized and seduced a budding adolescent B.
But B, now in blossom, no longer has interest in the aged poet.
This sonnet must be a cave-in for any Quarto-Orderist. This thou-poem
has no connection to the preceeding you-poem (*lacking matter* in the
last line?). S86 was stiff, formal, concerned with a rival poet, and
his own inability to address the B. The relationship between WS and B
was undefined, but likely still growable. This S87 is intimate,
reflective of an affair that's already over. And if this really is
*farewell*, how can the series go on? It makes no sense holding the
Quarto order.
--Volker
Greg Reynolds
thirty two sonnets by two men and two women (of the The Shakespeare
Project, directed by Peter Garino). This sonnet was recited
despairingly by a woman to a man who stood silent. She made it sad,
weeping a little between words, sometimes reaching out to him. It
works fine as a read to a lover, especially from a woman to a man, to
genderize the "king" simile in the L13-14 dream sequence and keep it
in the love vein.
But a woman doesn't read this. So love is out, this is strictly
business, a talk about return on investment.
The king is the boss, not the lover.
Worth is money not love.
Kept in the patron vein, this sonnet records the break up of the
relationship, with the poet graciously saying "farewell," that he
doesn't live up to the responsibility. The goodwill or compensation
he receives is not being earned by him and its obvious to both.
So without apologizing or offer of remuneration, he is saying that he
can see that either he (the poet) or you (the patron) was mistaken
about the potential of the set up to begin with. One of you just
overestimated the value of the poet. So its over, no hard feelings.
Who knows if this is really good-bye? If the poet accurately reads
his audience, this may be just the thing to get himself a fat raise.
Its great to have an employee who can file everyday office memoranda
into world class poetry.
LXXXVII. Mistaken Identity
> 1. Farewell - thou art too dear for my possessing,
We're through, I can't afford to continue with you like this
> 2. And like enough thou know'st thy estimate:
Of course, you see it the same way.
> 3. The charter of thy worth gives thee releasing;
You're absolutely right in cutting me loose...
> 4. My bonds in thee are all determinate.
It obvious that you call the shots, and the handwriting's on the
wall--I'm done.
> 5. For how do I hold thee but by thy granting?
Our relationship was based solely on your generosity...
> 6. And for that riches where is my deserving?
...but how have I lived up to that responsibility?
> 7. The cause of this fair gift in me is wanting,
> 8. And so my patent back again is swerving.
Your objective in paying me has not been fulfilled,
so you're changing your mind about patronizing me
> 9. Thy self thou gav'st, thy own worth then not knowing;
When we first set out, you optimistically offered me too much,
>10. Or me, to whom thou gav'st it, else mistaking;
Or I made the mistake of letting you think that I was worth that much
>11. So thy great gift, upon misprision growing,
>12. Comes home again on better judgement making.
You reevaluated now, so you're cutting your losses, and you are
withdrawing your support of me.
>13. Thus have I had thee as a dream doth flatter,
>14. In sleep a king, but waking no such matter.
I see it was all wishful thinking; now I must face reality.
Greg Reynolds
Julia gives thee releasing:
>
> 87
> -
> 1. Farewell - thou art too dear for my possessing,
> 2. And like enough thou know'st thy estimate:
> 3. The charter of thy worth gives thee releasing;
> 4. My bonds in thee are all determinate.
> 5. For how do I hold thee but by thy granting?
> 6. And for that riches where is my deserving?
> 7. The cause of this fair gift in me is wanting,
> 8. And so my patent back again is swerving.
> 9. Thy self thou gav'st, thy own worth then not knowing;
> 10. Or me, to whom thou gav'st it, else mistaking;
> 11. So thy great gift, upon misprision growing,
> 12. Comes home again on better judgement making.
> 13. Thus have I had thee as a dream doth flatter,
> 14. In sleep a king, but waking no such matter.
> -
>
> --
> Julia
Greg Reynolds
sonnet. Of course, respondents tend to give an interpretation on its own, along
with a detailed explanation. When double entendres are present, respondents offer
their favorite, then explain other meanings as needed. But we have seen many times
that a phrase has multiple possibilities without being a pure double entendre.
Such is the case of the couplet here, and its no big deal, but it was the only
real difference in the various reads this week.
I felt that the king in L14 was the second person, the patron, set up by the thee
in L13:
> 13. Thus have I had thee as a dream doth flatter,
> 14. In sleep a king, but waking no such matter.
Both Nigel and Robert say king refers to the first person, the writer. I can't
fight that, but I prefer the king being you, in the sense that the writer has
lowered his own appraisal of the patron, and that when he "wakes up," you are not
such a god-send, not such an important person after all.
Query to Volker: Your read did not quite tip off the person of the king, so I ask
if you regard that word as a simile of "I," the writer, or "thee," the B. If you
intentionally left that open, I may just think that's the best accommodation of
this line, that it can mean either (but not both, of course.)
Care to clarify? Here's your context:
volker multhopp wrote:
> > 13. Thus have I had thee as a dream doth flatter,
> > 14. In sleep a king, but waking no such matter.
>
> So I had you, like a dream, asleep a king, awake to nothing.
In a way, L4 (and other) offers the same difficulty, and in any case of a bond or
a grant or a relationship, there are two parties, and the reads vary when applying
a you or me pronoun, but that's minor as the bond involves both, so the bond is
possessive for either, and you take your choice for your read. They all seem on
target, and articulate, but lets notice the cluster of interpretables:
• "thou knows't thy estimate" may be your estimate of your worth or of my worth
• "The charter of thy worth" may be your power or my "report card" in your eyes
• "My bonds in thee" could be from my point of view or yours
• "thy granting?" could be a formal arrangement or a mere tolerance
Again, all these instances regard a two-party arrangement and both are "owners" of
the relationship, although the patron controls it outright, and is the one
apparently ending it.
But look at this: although the very first line of the poem claims that "thou art
too dear for my possessing" this literally is the utter opposite of the sentiment
of the next 13 lines which say repeatedly that I am the one too expensive for your
patronage.
I can't tell if this is intentional, or just not fully thought out by the poet.
Anyone else bothered by it?
Greg Reynolds
volker multhopp
> I felt that the king in L14 was the second person, the patron, set up by the thee
> if you regard that word as a simile of "I," the writer, or "thee," the B. If you
> intentionally left that open, I may just think that's the best accommodation of
> this line, that it can mean either (but not both, of course.)
> Care to clarify? Here's your context:
> > > 14. In sleep a king, but waking no such matter.
> > So I had you, like a dream, asleep a king, awake to nothing.
a dream, was a king. I see your reading, and I do not put it past the
author to have *also* intended your meaning, under his his breath, so to
speak. "While I had you in the night, you were a like a king; but now
in the stark light of day you are plain."
...
> But look at this: although the very first line of the poem claims that "thou art
> too dear for my possessing" this literally is the utter opposite of the sentiment
> of the next 13 lines which say repeatedly that I am the one too expensive for your
> patronage.
I wouldn't say the next 13 lines oppose the first, but I agree the poem
lends itself to a second interpretation, and it begins in the 1st line.
Either the Beloved is too *valuable* for the hampered poet to continue
to possess, OR the Beloved is too *costly*-- the poet doesn't consider
the B is worth the price of maintaining. Shakespeare is the master of
ambiguity.
--Volker
Greg Reynolds
volker multhopp wrote:
> I wouldn't say the next 13 lines oppose the first, but I agree the poem
> lends itself to a second interpretation, and it begins in the 1st line.
> Either the Beloved is too *valuable* for the hampered poet to continue
> to possess, OR the Beloved is too *costly*-- the poet doesn't consider
> the B is worth the price of maintaining. Shakespeare is the master of
> ambiguity.
That is of course the warning label on all the sonnets. The reading of sonnets I saw
Thursday mentioned them as "Elizabethan crossword puzzles"--I wanted to be sure to
relate that to hlas. I mean, they are as much work and as effort-inducing as the New
York Times puzzle, though I know I'd finish a sonnet in less than two hours or so and
maybe never finish the NYT puzzle.
It occurs regularly that the ambiguity exists and hlas readers quell the riddles with
ease, but this was more obvious than usual. I'll be keying on this more in the future,
and maybe pay respect to both paths of a given ambiguity rather than choosing.
Greg Reynolds
Robert Stonehouse
...
>I felt that the king in L14 was the second person, the patron, set up by the thee
>> 13. Thus have I had thee as a dream doth flatter,
>> 14. In sleep a king, but waking no such matter.
>fight that, but I prefer the king being you, in the sense that the writer has
>lowered his own appraisal of the patron, and that when he "wakes up," you are not
>such a god-send, not such an important person after all.
I want to qualify what I said about 'flatter' and 'king'.
Grammatically, they are totally separate, almost separate sentences,
just as I said. But the _idea_ of flattery carries over and
introduces the idea of 'king'; the king is the person who is
flattered. It follows that the king is the dreamer, who is
charmingly deceived by the dream. (Stanley Wells prints a colon at
the end of line 13, without indicating that it is different from the
Quarto - does anyone know what the Quarto punctuation is?)
...
>• "thou knows't thy estimate" may be your estimate of your worth or of my worth
Not 'your estimate', surely, in the sense of an estimate made by
you, or there could be no question about your knowing it. It must be
'your true value'.
>• "The charter of thy worth" may be your power or my "report card" in your eyes
A charter, as a legal document, may grant either powers or
liberties. Doesn't the word 'releasing' mean this one grants
liberties? (I'm not clear what a 'report card' is.)
>• "My bonds in thee" could be from my point of view or yours
That is, either 'the chains in which I lie, constituted by something
about you', or 'the legal documents that give me claims over you'? I
don't see that it could be 'the legal documents that give you claims
over me', because that is not a natural way to use 'in'.
>• "thy granting?" could be a formal arrangement or a mere tolerance
Yes it could, though the general legal atmosphere is against a mere
tolerance on the whole.
>Again, all these instances regard a two-party arrangement and both are "owners" of
>the relationship, although the patron controls it outright, and is the one
>apparently ending it.
I don't see that. We are not told why it is all over, but the person
saying 'Farewell' is the poet.
>
>But look at this: although the very first line of the poem claims that "thou art
>too dear for my possessing" this literally is the utter opposite of the sentiment
>of the next 13 lines which say repeatedly that I am the one too expensive for your
>patronage.
>I can't tell if this is intentional, or just not fully thought out by the poet.
>Anyone else bothered by it?
I don't see the opposition. 'Thou art too dear for my possessing'
and 'for that riches where is my deserving?' seem to me to be saying
the same thing. 'I am not the person to own something as precious as
you' seems to me to go from line 1 to the end, where I am not a king
and therefore get no precious possessions.
Maybe in paraphrasing line 1 I should have said 'precious' rather
than 'expensive' - trying too hard to get in the less appropriate
aspect of 'dear'.
ew...@bcs.org.uk
Robert Stonehouse
Maybe as part of my quiet crusade for finding the minimum possible
number of meanings, not the maximum, it would be fair to point out
that a crossword puzzle has one right answer - al least, if it's a
good crossword puzzle.
Often, we have to take account of overtones in the words that
express the single consistent argument of a sonnet. Occasionally we
have to think in terms of two meanings at once - it is not possible
to exclude either. But if we try to make every line mean as many
things as possible, then the whole thing will degenerate into an
undifferentiated mush.
ew...@bcs.org.uk
S.L. Johnson
>-
> 1. Farewell - thou art too dear for my possessing,
My 2-second observation: This line parallels Much Ado, Act II Sc i
Don Pedro: Will you have me, lady?
Beatrice: No, my lord, unless I might have another for working-days.
Your Grace is too costly to wear every day.
--
S.L. Johnson
mail me, SLJHNSN, at my provider, MA.ULTRANET.COM
"When in doubt, deny all terms & definitions."--Calvin & Hobbes
Nigel Davies
> >I felt that the king in L14 was the second person, the patron, set up by the thee
> >in L13:
> >> 13. Thus have I had thee as a dream doth flatter,
> >> 14. In sleep a king, but waking no such matter.
> >Both Nigel and Robert say king refers to the first person, the writer. I can't
> >fight that, but I prefer the king being you, in the sense that the writer has
> >lowered his own appraisal of the patron, and that when he "wakes up," you are not
> >such a god-send, not such an important person after all.
My copy of this sonnet also has a colon at the end of line 13, though the 1609
version has a comma. I can see what you mean though. I felt this had ambiguity
initially and that the king could be interpreted as the patron - the author
having a parting shot. But instead I resolved it to be the author.
______________________________________________________________________
nda...@emirates.net.ae
KQKnave
Stonehouse) writes:
>This is a famous sonnet, often found in anthologies. Those always
>seem the best ones, which I suppose justifies the anthologisers. But
>is it just familiarity that does it? I seem to find the same effect
>now, any time I go back to one of the earlier poems that we read
>months ago. With time and rest, these sonnets sink in and become
>part of us.
The most famous sonnets seem to be expressions of easily understood
romantic cliches, expressed with a freshness of phrase that provides
a sense of unique beauty. There are beauties in 1-17, but most
people have a hard time identifying with what is being said, even if the
expression is exquisite.
Jim
KQKnave
Elizabethan sonneteers, recognized enough to be parodied.
Shakespeare may have been making serious use of this
convention, or he may have been deliberately trying to
improve on the efforts of his predecessors, or he may
have been parodying it when he wrote sonnet 87.
The following sonnets are from *Zepheria*, published in
London in 1594 by an anonymous author. They illustrate
the use of legal terms:
Sonnet 20 from *Zepheria
How often hath my pen, mine heart's solicitour,
Instructed thee in breviat of my case?
While fancie-pleading eyes (thy beautie's visitour)
Have patternd to my quill an angel's face.
How have my Sonnets (faithfull counsellers)
Thee without ceasing mov'd for day of hearing?
While they my plaintive cause (my faith's revealers)
Thy long delay, my patience, in thine eare ring.
How have I stood at barre of thine owne conscience,
When in requesting court my suite I brought?
How have thy long adjournments slow'd the sentence,
Which I through much expence of teares besought?
Through many difficulties have I run:
Ah sooner wert thou lost (I wis) then wonne.
Sonnet 21 from *Zepheria*
And is it by immutable decree
(Immutable, yet cruell ordenance)
Ordayn'd (still forst I cry, 'Oh strange impietie')
On true-love to impose such tyrant penance,
That we unto each other shall surrender
The seal'd indentures of our love compacted,
And that thereof we make such loyall tender,
As best shall seem to them that so enacted?
Then list while I advertize once againe:
Though we yeeld up our charters so ensealed,
Yet see that thou safe-guard my counterpane,
And I in heart shall keepe they bond uncanceled:
And so hereafter (if at least you please)
Weele plead this redeliverie was by duresse.
Sonnet 37 from *Zepheria*
When last mine eyes dislodged from thy beautie,
Though serv'd with proces of a parents' writ,
A Supersedeas countermanding dutie
Even then I saw upon thy smiles to sit.
Those smiles which me invited to a partie,
Disperpling clowdes of faint respecting feare
Against the summons which was serv'd on me,
A larger priviledge of dispence did beare,
Thine eyes' edict, the statute of repeale,
Doth other duties wholly abrogate,
Save such as thee endeere in heartie zeale:
Then be it farre from me that I should derogate
From nature's law enregistered in thee:
So might my love encur a premunire.
[Notes: Supersedeas: writ commanding the stay of legal
proceedings. 'to a partie': to become an accessory in
an action at law. Disperpling: dispersing. Premunire:
a legal summons.]
Sir John Davies *did* deliberately parody this type of
sonnet (quite hilariously, I think) in his *Gullinge Sonnets*
(about 1594), in this case even using the name *Zepheria*
to make it clear:
Sonnet 8 from *Gullinge Sonnets*:
My case is this: I love Zepheria brighte.
Of her I hold my harte by fealtye
Which I discharge to her perpetuallye,
Yet she thereof will never me accquite.
For now supposinge I withold her righte,
She hathe distreinde my harte to satisfie
The duty which I never did denye,
And far away impounds it with despite.
I labor therefore justlie to repleave
My harte which she unjustly doth impounde,
But quick conceite which nowe is love's highe Shreife
Retornes it as esloynde, not to be founde:
Then, which the lawe afords, I onely crave
Her harte for myne in withername to have.
[Notes: repleave: bail out. esloynde: removed out of
the jurisdiction of. withername: in an action of
replevin, the reprisal of other goods in lieu of those
taken and esloynde.]
All sonnets and notes are from *Elizabethan Sonnets*,
ed. by Maurice Evans and Roy J. Booth.
Jim
Robert Stonehouse
>The use of terms from the law was a convention of
>Elizabethan sonneteers, recognized enough to be parodied.
>Shakespeare may have been making serious use of this
>convention, or he may have been deliberately trying to
>improve on the efforts of his predecessors, or he may
>have been parodying it when he wrote sonnet 87.
These are great fun. But if Zepheria is not parody, then surely
Shakespeare is not, _a fortiori_. The legal terms in sonnet 87 do
not force themselves on us; it is possible to get the gist without
realising that it is legal at all. There is nothing like Zepheria's
'supersedeas'. John Davies has hard work to outdo that. Even
'misprision' can be taken as just 'misunderstanding'.
KQKnave
Stonehouse) writes:
>
>These are great fun. But if Zepheria is not parody, then surely
>Shakespeare is not, _a fortiori_. The legal terms in sonnet 87 do
>not force themselves on us; it is possible to get the gist without
>realising that it is legal at all.
Yes, Shakespeare is much more subtle in his use of legal
terminology when he does use it. I don't think we need to
claim that Shakespeare had legal training; we can see that
he was probably responding to a conceit of the sonnetteers
of his time.
>There is nothing like Zepheria's
>'supersedeas'. John Davies has hard work to outdo that. Even
>'misprision' can be taken as just 'misunderstanding'.
Yes, I agree. Parody was probably not Shakespeare's intent
in this case. It is more like a solution to a problem: "How can
I create something beautiful using a conceit of my competitors?"
Jim