Second Issue: Sonnet No 16
Julia Cuffe
Sonnet No 16
1. But wherefore do not you a mightier way
2. Make war upon this bloody tyrant Time,
3. And fortify yourself in your decay
4. With means more bless`ed than my barren rhyme?
5. Now stand you on the top of happy hours,
6. And many maiden gardens, yet unset,
7. With virtuous wish would bear your living flowers,
8. Much liker than your painted counterfeit.
9. So should the lines of life that life repair
10. Which this, Time's pencil, or my pupil pen,
11. Neither in inward worth nor outward fair
12. Can make you live yourself in eyes of men.
13. To give away yourself keeps your self still,
14. And you must live drawn by your own sweet skill
--
Julia Cuffe
Nigel Davies
Content: Encouragement for the subject to have children at the expense of the
author putting down his own verse.
> 1. But wherefore do not you a mightier way
> 2. Make war upon this bloody tyrant Time,
> 3. And fortify yourself in your decay
> 4. With means more bless`ed than my barren rhyme?
- "Why don't you make war against time by having children, which is a better way
of memorialising yourself than my verse?"
- This is predominantly an "m" quatrain perhaps emphasising tiMe as the enemy.
- Modesty of the poet revealed in "barren rhyme".
- "Mightier way" immediately morphs into "Make war".
- The word "war" seems to be pivotal to this sonnet, echoed here to start with
in "wherefore" and also in "way".
> 5. Now stand you on the top of happy hours,
> 6. And many maiden gardens, yet unset,
> 7. With virtuous wish would bear your living flowers,
> 8. Much liker than your painted counterfeit.
- "You are now at your peak with many virgins wishing to have your children that
would resemble you better than your portrait."
- The flower analogy is re-introduced with the virgin women being portrayed as
virgin soil yet to have flowers planted in them and the children being the
flowers that will grow there.
- The verse, classified as "barren" in Q1, is contrasted with the fertile
virgins who are able to "bear" the subject's children.
- Paintings are also classified as an inadequate reproduction of the subject's
image compared to the real article: children.
- "War" appears again, this time within "floWERs".
> 9. So should the lines of life that life repair
> 10. Which this, Time's pencil, or my pupil pen,
> 11. Neither in inward worth nor outward fair
> 12. Can make you live yourself in eyes of men.
- "The drawings and writings of today can not make you literally live in the
eyes of men/mankind."
- "lines of life" alludes to lines on the subject's ageing face, the family
lineage of the subject that will be continued if he has children, and the poet's
own lines of poetry.
- This is predominantly a "p" quatrain (set up by "painted" in the previous
quatrain).
- Reference to the writer's modesty again in "pupil pen" which also repeats that
the verse is inadequate compared to the subject having children.
- Possible pun on "penis" in "pencil" and "pen", particularly with the "p"
alliteration.
- "War" appears again within inWARd, outWARd, WORth, and perhaps NOR.
> 13. To give away yourself keeps your self still,
> 14. And you must live drawn by your own sweet skill
- "To father children is to capture you as you are today, drawn from your own
self, not artifically drawn."
- The couplet closes the artificial drawing/painting analogy with "drawn" and
resolves it to new life being drawn/produced from the subject.
- "Drawn" also contains the pivotal word "war" in reverse, suggesting that the
subject has to deal with the opposite of drawing, i.e. produce the real thing in
children, to replicate his own image. In fact, "drawn" contains not only the
reverse of war but also the reverse of "iNWARD".
______________________________________________________________________
Nigel....@BTInternet.com
Paul Crowley
>
> 1. But wherefore do not you a mightier way
> 2. Make war upon this bloody tyrant Time,
> 3. And fortify yourself in your decay
Could the word 'decay' be reasonably addressed
to a 16- or 17-year-old Southampton? Would he
have been thinking what to do about his 'decay'?
> 4. With means more bless`ed than my barren rhyme?
Listen to the tone of this first quatrain. These
are not instructions to a 16-year-old. They
are arguments with an adult who is facing
'decay' and is making war upon the bloody
tyrant 'Time'. The poet urges stronger means
in this war.
> 5. Now stand you on the top of happy hours,
A 16- or 17-year-old Southampton might be
to _expect_ many happy hours; but could he
be said to 'stand on top of them'? Surely this
refers to hours past rather than to come?
> 6. And many maiden gardens, yet unset,
'Maiden' can be used in a neutral sense:
e.g. 'maiden speech', 'maiden over'
> 7. With virtuous wish would bear your living flowers,
This could refer to subsequent generations.
while also being partly a feigned masculinity.
> 8. Much liker than your painted counterfeit.
It's unlikely that Southampton (or Pembroke)
already had his portrait painted -- or if he had
that the poet would refer to it in so casual and
derogatory a manner. If there was already a
portrait of Southampton (or Pembroke) it was
presumably competently done.
.
Whereas portraits of the Queen were
ubiquitous and often bore only a remote
resemblance to her.
> 9. So should the lines of life that life repair
> 10. Which this, Time's pencil, or my pupil pen,
> 11. Neither in inward worth nor outward fair
> 12. Can make you live yourself in eyes of men.
> 13. To give away yourself keeps your self still,
'To give away yourself' is _not_ an appropriate
thing to say to a man entering marriage. It could
be said of the Queen (although, in practice, any
such marriage would be subject to detailed
negotiations).
> 14. And you must live drawn by your own sweet skill
The emphasis here should be on 'must'. It
says that you MUST live forever in the eyes of
men. The poet implies a danger of a kind of
extinction -- appropriate to the Queen facing
her climacteric.
Paul.
--
Email: pebj...@ubgznvy.pbz (apply ROT13)
Greg Reynolds
Paul Crowley wrote:
> > Sonnet No 16
> >
> > 1. But wherefore do not you a mightier way
> > 2. Make war upon this bloody tyrant Time,
> > 3. And fortify yourself in your decay
>
> Could the word 'decay' be reasonably addressed
> to a 16- or 17-year-old Southampton?
Absolutely. More likely than to a monarch already in decay.
> Would he
> have been thinking what to do about his 'decay'?
This could prompt him.
> > 4. With means more bless`ed than my barren rhyme?
>
> Listen to the tone of this first quatrain. These
> are not instructions to a 16-year-old. They
> are arguments with an adult who is facing
> 'decay' and is making war upon the bloody
> tyrant 'Time'. The poet urges stronger means
> in this war.
No, the poem regards the prime of life and the height of fertility.
> > 5. Now stand you on the top of happy hours,
>
> A 16- or 17-year-old Southampton might be
> to _expect_ many happy hours; but could he
> be said to 'stand on top of them'? Surely this
> refers to hours past rather than to come?
No, he is dead center on top of them at this writing.
The Queen is twice past that moment in life.
> > 6. And many maiden gardens, yet unset,
>
> 'Maiden' can be used in a neutral sense:
> e.g. 'maiden speech', 'maiden over'
Its obviously not neutral.
People cannot marry neutrals.
Maiden means maiden, not non-maiden.
The man has maidens ready for his husbandry.
But your impossible reads turns disastrous claiming the Queen can marry
a neutral.
No wonder you get killfiled, your logic stinks.
> > 7. With virtuous wish would bear your living flowers,
>
> This could refer to subsequent generations.
It does refer to subsequent generations. Great find!
> while also being partly a feigned masculinity.
The feigning is over when the man attempts bearing children.
So your read is ridiculous, impossible and limited to your mind.
> > 8. Much liker than your painted counterfeit.
>
> It's unlikely that Southampton (or Pembroke)
> already had his portrait painted -- or if he had
> that the poet would refer to it in so casual and
> derogatory a manner.
Its a poem; there needn't be an existing portrait.
He is saying life as an artist will paint a truer portrait than any
poetry can.
> If there was already a
> portrait of Southampton (or Pembroke) it was
> presumably competently done.
That's immaterial.
> Whereas portraits of the Queen were
> ubiquitous and often bore only a remote
> resemblance to her.
Maybe they were of a young man, too, but you can't perceive the
difference.
Your idiotic reasoning just told us that:
1. If there was already a portrait of Southampton
(or Pembroke) it was presumably competently done.
But that:
2. ...Portraits of the Queen were... often bore only a remote
resemblance to her.
So, the 16/17 year olds had better quality portraits than did the Queen.
Why do you bother, Paul?
I feel sorry for anyone looking to you for understanding.
You are absolutely prevaricating here.
> > 9. So should the lines of life that life repair
> > 10. Which this, Time's pencil, or my pupil pen,
> > 11. Neither in inward worth nor outward fair
> > 12. Can make you live yourself in eyes of men.
> > 13. To give away yourself keeps your self still,
>
> 'To give away yourself' is _not_ an appropriate
> thing to say to a man entering marriage.
The giving away is to future generations, that the future will have his
essence as well. Its not cryptic. You are purposely misreading the
poem to keep your insupportable views alive. I declare them dead.
> It could
> be said of the Queen (although, in practice, any
> such marriage would be subject to detailed
> negotiations).
Sorry you can't enjoy a poem for what it is.
> > 14. And you must live drawn by your own sweet skill
>
> The emphasis here should be on 'must'. It
> says that you MUST live forever in the eyes of
> men.
Does not.
> The poet implies a danger of a kind of
> extinction -- appropriate to the Queen facing
> her climacteric.
No way, she was well along that path for a decade already.
She never married or bore children and there was no danger.
Yes, Paul, I was waiting to hear you reconcile the queen having maiden
gardens waiting to bear her living flowers.
Your result is a disaster, of course; in fact I think you planted here
as a prank.
Greg Reynolds
Robert Stonehouse
> Sonnet No 16
> 1. But wherefore do not you a mightier way
But why not use this method, which is more powerful, /
> 2. Make war upon this bloody tyrant Time,
to combat the murderous cruelty of time, /
> 3. And fortify yourself in your decay
and build yourself up, as time wears you down, /
> 4. With means more bless`ed than my barren rhyme?
with an instrument superior to my poems, which cannot
create real people? /
> 5. Now stand you on the top of happy hours,
At this moment, you are at the peak of the best
time of your life /
> 6. And many maiden gardens, yet unset,
and many virgins, like unplanted gardens, /
> 7. With virtuous wish would bear your living flowers,
have the admirable desire to produce real children for
you, like beautiful new plants /
> 8. Much liker than your painted counterfeit.
which reproduce you far better than your portrait here. /
> 9. So should the lines of life that life repair
In that way, the decline of your life is made up
by your line of descent /
>10. Which this, Time's pencil, or my pupil pen,
which the painting of our age or my apprentice
art of poetry /
>11. Neither in inward worth nor outward fair
cannot, as to the value of the mind or even in beauty
of appearance, /
>12. Can make you live yourself in eyes of men.
bring you alive as a real person for people to admire. /
>13. To give away yourself keeps your self still,
When you make a gift of yourself, you continue to
preserve yourself: /
>14. And you must live drawn by your own sweet skill
it is your own dear art that must keep your memory alive. /
By quatrains:
But why not find a better way than poetry? Many women would like to
bear you children who would reproduce you better than painting.
Descendants bring you alive. You yourself must act to make it
happen.
Line 1: 'But' - this continues from the previous sonnet and so
explains why it had nothing in it explicitly about children. The
link with children is now made. This happens in 15-16 just as it did
in 5-6. I don't know whether to take the coincidence in numbers
seriously. In case 'but' alone is not enough for us, 'war' and
'time' are carried forward from the couplet of sonnet 15.
Line 8: the portrait. The whole of the rest of the poem uses this
idea. How can we understand its being introduced so casually, as
late as line 8? I can only think that this poem was originally
spoken in front of the portrait, at a gathering invited to admire it
after its first delivery. So it would be prominent enough in
everybody's mind for them to pick up this allusion and follow it
through.
If that is right, then it is an indication (the first, I think) that
we need to envisage the situations in which these speeches are being
made. Can we envisage the speaker's actions too? Does he point at
it? I doubt if we can say anything about how a very expert actor
made his point.
Line 10. The Quarto has parentheses round '(Times pensel or my
pupill pen)'. Parentheses are not uncommon in the Quarto and editors
seem to take most of them out, apparently to modernise the
punctuation as they normally modernise the spelling. I suggest that
here, they are simply an error, and there should be no punctuation
after 'this'. So we get a straightforward meaning.
Booth devotes several pages of his introduction to discussing this
passage with reference to Empson's Seven Types of Ambiguity. I want
to point out that Empson discusses this, also over several pages,
under Type 2, which he defines as follows:
'An example of the second type of ambiguity, in word or syntax,
occurs when two or more meanings are resolved into one. There are
alternatives, even in the mind of the author, not only different
emphases as in the first type; but an ordinary good reading can
extract one resultant from them.'
What I am trying to do is to produce an ordinary good reading and
extract one resultant, a single meaning. There is more, much more,
in Empson and Booth, but there is not room for it all on the
newsgroup or, perhaps, in my head!.
Commentators connect 'pen' and 'pencil' with 'penis'. Helen Vendler
only says 'perhaps'. For what it is worth, the Shorter Oxford gives
the first use of 'penis' in English as 1693 - about a hundred years
too late.
ew...@bcs.org.uk
Nigel Davies
> > Sonnet No 16
>
> Line 8: the portrait. The whole of the rest of the poem uses this
> idea. How can we understand its being introduced so casually, as
> late as line 8? I can only think that this poem was originally
> spoken in front of the portrait, at a gathering invited to admire it
> after its first delivery. So it would be prominent enough in
> everybody's mind for them to pick up this allusion and follow it
> through.
Yes, I am very much of this view aswell. Just as I feel Sonnet 12 was rendered
in front of a clock, 3 perhaps in front of a mirror, 8 perhaps after a musical
interlude, and 17 the perfect way of closing the oral rendition of the 17
sonnets by the giving of the book of them from the author to the subject. The
portrait, clock, mirror, book may well have been birthday presents at an
important stage in the subject's life and their presentation may have been part
of a formal presentation and oration of these sonnets.
> If that is right, then it is an indication (the first, I think) that
> we need to envisage the situations in which these speeches are being
> made. Can we envisage the speaker's actions too? Does he point at
> it? I doubt if we can say anything about how a very expert actor
> made his point.
For me, 17 fits very well as a closing sonnet of this set encouraging the man to
marry and have children. It is unequivocally from the author to the subject
linking the author's written material with him. I can almost see Shakespeare
handing the sonnets to the young man in the "Who will believe my verse in time
to come...You should live twice: in it, and in my rhyme" speech. The mix of
"you" and "thou" of the other sonnets accommodates different speakers rendering
them. The objects referred to (painting, clock, etc.) accommodates them being
presents from the speakers. The series has a sense of occasion fitting well with
Southampton's 17th. birthday.
...
> Commentators connect 'pen' and 'pencil' with 'penis'. Helen Vendler
> only says 'perhaps'. For what it is worth, the Shorter Oxford gives
> the first use of 'penis' in English as 1693 - about a hundred years
> too late.
I think it has earlier reference than that. According to the OED, the earliest
recorded use of the noun "prick" to mean penis is 1592. I don't have my
references to hand but I was sure "penis" is earlier than 1693.
______________________________________________________________________
Nigel....@BTInternet.com
Paul Crowley
> Paul Crowley wrote:
> > > Sonnet No 16
> > >
> > > 1. But wherefore do not you a mightier way
> > > 2. Make war upon this bloody tyrant Time,
> > > 3. And fortify yourself in your decay
> >
> > Could the word 'decay' be reasonably addressed
> > to a 16- or 17-year-old Southampton?
>
> Absolutely. More likely than to a monarch already in decay.
>
> > Would he
> > have been thinking what to do about his 'decay'?
>
> This could prompt him.
Do you actually know anyone under 20?
Try and find some young males and ask
them about their plans for their decay. If
you can't find any, get Bob Grumman to
do the investigation for you at his school.
> > > 4. With means more bless`ed than my barren rhyme?
> >
> > Listen to the tone of this first quatrain. These
> > are not instructions to a 16-year-old. They
> > are arguments with an adult who is facing
> > 'decay' and is making war upon the bloody
> > tyrant 'Time'. The poet urges stronger means
> > in this war.
>
> No, the poem regards the prime of life and the height of fertility.
Again, try the argument with some 16- or
17-year-old males. Failing that, give us
some parallels in ANY form of literature or
letters at ANY time in ANY language in
ANY culture.
> > > 5. Now stand you on the top of happy hours,
> >
> > A 16- or 17-year-old Southampton might be
> > to _expect_ many happy hours; but could he
> > be said to 'stand on top of them'? Surely this
> > refers to hours past rather than to come?
>
> No, he is dead center on top of them at this writing.
> The Queen is twice past that moment in life.
>
> > > 6. And many maiden gardens, yet unset,
> >
> > 'Maiden' can be used in a neutral sense:
> > e.g. 'maiden speech', 'maiden over'
>
> Its obviously not neutral.
> People cannot marry neutrals.
> Maiden means maiden, not non-maiden.
> The man has maidens ready for his husbandry.
> But your impossible reads turns disastrous claiming the Queen can marry
> a neutral.
> No wonder you get killfiled, your logic stinks.
The word would be 'neuter' if it was applicable
('neutral' is political policy -- Ireland was
neutral in World War 2 -- like Sweden and
Switzerland -- but we prefer not to talk about
that now). Here 'maiden' could be regarded
much the same as 'widow' -- a word that
could be applied to both sexes.
[..]
> Yes, Paul, I was waiting to hear you reconcile the queen having maiden
> gardens waiting to bear her living flowers.
> Your result is a disaster, of course; in fact I think you planted here
> as a prank.
It's an exercise in subtlety. So forget it when
it comes to interpretation by Stratfordians (or
Americans). You get on your 90-ton tank
and buldoze through forgetting that you are
supposed to relate it to human beings in
a real world. You have YET to find ONE
example of a young man being praised for
being beautiful in a homo-erotic manner by
a homosexual poet who's under a commission
from a noble family to persuade the young
scion to start a family by marrying a bride who
cannot be mentioned.
Paul Crowley
> > 8. Much liker than your painted counterfeit.
> Line 8: the portrait. The whole of the rest of the poem uses this
> idea. How can we understand its being introduced so casually, as
> late as line 8? I can only think that this poem was originally
> spoken in front of the portrait, at a gathering invited to admire it
> after its first delivery. So it would be prominent enough in
> everybody's mind for them to pick up this allusion and follow it
> through.
This is an absurd fantasy. How many people really
appreciate the depth, complexity, sophistication and
beauty of these sonnets? They take a great amount
of work -- reading in private, or in a study group.
They are _not_ material for a quick public reading.
If that had been the scenario, we would have a very
different kind of work.
In any case, the allusion to the portrait(s) is slighting.
And do you really say a 16- or 17-year-old has a
poorly executed portrait?
> >10. Which this ((Time's pencil or my pupil pen))
> Line 10. The Quarto has parentheses round '(Times pensel or my
> pupill pen)'. Parentheses are not uncommon in the Quarto and editors
> seem to take most of them out, apparently to modernise the
> punctuation as they normally modernise the spelling. I suggest that
> here, they are simply an error, and there should be no punctuation
> after 'this'.
The parentheses marks stand out in size and
intensity in the Quarto printing. Looking at them
it is very hard to see how they could be 'mistakes'
or 'accidental'. Taking them seriously, we need
a more subtle reading. I suggest that 'my pupil
pen' is not to be taken seriously. It's a 'poetic
modesty' and is entirely false. This poet knows
exactly how good he is. Here he is partly saying
that his pen is eternal. (It's a common statement
of his: the next sonnet has "You should live twice;
in it and in my rhyme." and in #18 we have :
" So long as men can breathe or eyes can see,
So long lives this and this gives life to thee. " )
Putting (Time's pencil or my pupil pen) together
does not sound wrong when they are seen as
roughly equivalent entities.
> Booth devotes several pages of his introduction to discussing this
> passage with reference to Empson's Seven Types of Ambiguity.
I'll have to get my hands on Booth and Empson.
> Commentators connect 'pen' and 'pencil' with 'penis'. Helen Vendler
> only says 'perhaps'. For what it is worth, the Shorter Oxford gives
> the first use of 'penis' in English as 1693 - about a hundred years
> too late.
The OED shows that the use in 1693 was in
a textbook of physiology. So it looks like an
invented medical euphemism and not a word
Shake-speare would have known a hundred
years earlier.
Greg Reynolds
Paul Crowley wrote:
> Greg Reynolds <eve...@megsinet.net> wrote in message news:39e7a169$0$1591$23c9...@news.corecomm.net...
>
> > Paul Crowley wrote:
> > > > Sonnet No 16
> > > >
> > > > 1. But wherefore do not you a mightier way
> > > > 2. Make war upon this bloody tyrant Time,
> > > > 3. And fortify yourself in your decay
> > >
> > > Could the word 'decay' be reasonably addressed
> > > to a 16- or 17-year-old Southampton?
> >
> > Absolutely. More likely than to a monarch already in decay.
> >
> > > Would he
> > > have been thinking what to do about his 'decay'?
> >
> > This could prompt him.
>
> Do you actually know anyone under 20?
My home is full of teenagers most the time. Right now, in fact.
Were you ever a teenager, Paul? Were you a no-mind and thus believe
all teenagers to be no-minds? In the Jewish faith, the rites of manhood
is celebrated at 13!
You will pay dearly if you underestimate the maturity of a teenager.
They only lack experience--they have every quality and trait already
developed and ready for action. They are capable of everything
older people are.
Shakespeare married at 18, like it or not!
> Try and find some young males and ask
> them about their plans for their decay.
These 17 poems are to bring it to his attention.
> If
> you can't find any, get Bob Grumman to
> do the investigation for you at his school.
You're the one isolated. I have four teenagers in this house right
now. They study poetry, they learn ethics, they are fully equipped
to understand the message here.
It isn't age that qualifies a reader to get the point here.
Look at you--you're babbling like a pre-teen mistaking every
point in the poem. Of course a teenager would get it better than
you have. Of course, you're striving to misunderstand it.
> > > > 4. With means more bless`ed than my barren rhyme?
> > >
> > > Listen to the tone of this first quatrain. These
> > > are not instructions to a 16-year-old. They
> > > are arguments with an adult who is facing
> > > 'decay' and is making war upon the bloody
> > > tyrant 'Time'. The poet urges stronger means
> > > in this war.
> >
> > No, the poem regards the prime of life and the height of fertility.
>
> Again, try the argument with some 16- or
> 17-year-old males. Failing that, give us
> some parallels in ANY form of literature or
> letters at ANY time in ANY language in
> ANY culture.
The Bar Mitzvah ceremony is a typical cultural message to a teenager.
King James' own lessons to his sons.
All cultures view the rites of passage in teen age.
You are isolated and unaware of this world.
> > > > 5. Now stand you on the top of happy hours,
> > >
> > > A 16- or 17-year-old Southampton might be
> > > to _expect_ many happy hours; but could he
> > > be said to 'stand on top of them'? Surely this
> > > refers to hours past rather than to come?
> >
> > No, he is dead center on top of them at this writing.
> > The Queen is twice past that moment in life.
> >
> > > > 6. And many maiden gardens, yet unset,
> > >
> > > 'Maiden' can be used in a neutral sense:
> > > e.g. 'maiden speech', 'maiden over'
> >
> > Its obviously not neutral.
> > People cannot marry neutrals.
> > Maiden means maiden, not non-maiden.
> > The man has maidens ready for his husbandry.
> > But your impossible reads turns disastrous claiming the Queen can marry
> > a neutral.
> > No wonder you get killfiled, your logic stinks.
>
> The word would be 'neuter' if it was applicable
> ('neutral' is political policy -- Ireland was
> neutral in World War 2 -- like Sweden and
> Switzerland -- but we prefer not to talk about
> that now).
I saw your entire navy at Dun Loaraighe one time--all eleven boats.
YOU introduced neutral, Paul, in a transparent attempt to make believe
the subject is a woman--but we prefer not to talk about
that now.
If we can't go by what the poem says, why go by your twisted ideas?
The poem says maiden, I will regard the poet as having meant maiden--
not an invented alternative to please arrogant you.
Sonnet 16 is not written to the Queen. Admit it (at least to yourself).
> Here 'maiden' could be regarded
> much the same as 'widow' -- a word that
> could be applied to both sexes.
>
> [..]
>
> > Yes, Paul, I was waiting to hear you reconcile the queen having maiden
> > gardens waiting to bear her living flowers.
> > Your result is a disaster, of course; in fact I think you planted here
> > as a prank.
>
> It's an exercise in subtlety. So forget it when
> it comes to interpretation by Stratfordians (or
> Americans).
Find anyone dumb enough to believe you and I'll salute you.
Where is Richard Kennedy to defend you here? I remember his
neighbor explaining to HLAS that RK was having difficulties
and didn't mean all he said. There's your brain trust.
> You get on your 90-ton tank
> and buldoze through forgetting that you are
> supposed to relate it to human beings in
> a real world.
My read is not ready yet, but there is no bulldozer.
And no fantasies such as your queen fixation.
> You have YET to find ONE
> example of a young man being praised for
> being beautiful in a homo-erotic manner by
> a homosexual poet who's under a commission
> from a noble family to persuade the young
> scion to start a family by marrying a bride who
> cannot be mentioned.
That's not a job for me. I don't call the poet homosexual,
I know nothing of the family angle or commissions, I thought
the patron had his own money, and as for the bride being
named, this poem says there are many maidens, so I don't
think any selection was made yet.
Well, I'm gonna go talk to the teenagers, they make sense.
Greg Reynolds
Really, Paul this is not a good poem for your lame theory.
You would have fared better taking the week off.
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
> > > 8. Much liker than your painted counterfeit.
>
> > Line 8: the portrait. The whole of the rest of the poem uses this
> > idea. How can we understand its being introduced so casually, as
> > late as line 8? I can only think that this poem was originally
> > spoken in front of the portrait, at a gathering invited to admire it
> > after its first delivery. So it would be prominent enough in
> > everybody's mind for them to pick up this allusion and follow it
> > through.
>
> This is an absurd fantasy.
Why "absurd," Paul? Mistaken, perhaps, but not absurd.
> How many people really
> appreciate the depth, complexity, sophistication and
> beauty of these sonnets?
Certainly not the people who have written books on them. But,
I really do believe, a few more than you alone.
> They take a great amount
> of work -- reading in private, or in a study group.
> They are _not_ material for a quick public reading.
> If that had been the scenario, we would have a very
> different kind of work.
That's baloney. I think most serious poets try for poems that
can work in a public reading BUT ALSO contain layers that come
out only after more readings. In the case of a "quick public
reading" of this poem, it is quite possible that copies of the
poem were distributed so the listeners could read along, and later
study the poem. Certainly, ONE copy of it could have been passed
around and even discussed afterwards. The poet may have been
asked to repeat it, too. I tend not to believe in the idea
that the poems were written for public readings, but consider
myself not knowledgeable enough to know how frequent such events
were, etc., and certainly see nothing wrong with the idea.
> In any case, the allusion to the portrait(s) is slighting.
Wrong again, Paul The poet only says that the portrait is less
like the youth than his sons will be--since, obviously, they will
not only look like him, as the portrait can, but will have his
animation, voice, gestures, odor, and so on. In fact, the
comparison would be weakened if the portrait were a poor one: it
almost has to be a good one, to give impact to the poet's saying
that the children he can produce will be better likenesses of him.
> And do you really say a 16- or 17-year-old has a
> poorly executed portrait?
You could, but the poet doesn't say that here: he isn't necessarily
speaking of a 16- or 17-year-old, and he is definitely not
calling the portrait poor.
> > >10. Which this ((Time's pencil or my pupil pen))
>
> > Line 10. The Quarto has parentheses round '(Times pensel or my
> > pupill pen)'. Parentheses are not uncommon in the Quarto and editors
> > seem to take most of them out, apparently to modernise the
> > punctuation as they normally modernise the spelling. I suggest that
> > here, they are simply an error, and there should be no punctuation
> > after 'this'.
>
> The parentheses marks stand out in size and
> intensity in the Quarto printing. Looking at them
> it is very hard to see how they could be 'mistakes'
> or 'accidental'. Taking them seriously, we need
> a more subtle reading. I suggest that 'my pupil
> pen' is not to be taken seriously. It's a 'poetic
> modesty' and is entirely false. This poet knows
> exactly how good he is. Here he is partly saying
> that his pen is eternal. (It's a common statement
> of his: the next sonnet has "You should live twice;
> in it and in my rhyme." and in #18 we have :
> " So long as men can breathe or eyes can see,
> So long lives this and this gives life to thee. " )
I find the line tricky but suggest the parentheses be considered
parentheses, making the gist of the passage: the lines of life
(lineage the youth is asked to produce) should restore your peak
period of life which this (which is time's pencil or my pupil pen)--
can not do--and I take "my pupil pen" literally because the poet
is arguing that time's pencil, which is writing one older and older,
thus not doing a good job, or his pupil pen, which will also do a poor
job, which makes it essential that the youth procreate). True, in
other poems the poet thinks he's a great writer; but in yet other
poems he thinks the opposite. So we have to take him as variable and
go on a case by case basis.
> Putting (Time's pencil or my pupil pen) together
> does not sound wrong when they are seen as
> roughly equivalent entities.
I agree.
--Bob G.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Robert Stonehouse
>Robert Stonehouse <ew...@bcs.org.uk> wrote in message news:39e7f7d...@news.cityscape.co.uk...
>
>> Line 8: the portrait. The whole of the rest of the poem uses this
>> idea. How can we understand its being introduced so casually, as
>> late as line 8? I can only think that this poem was originally
>> spoken in front of the portrait, at a gathering invited to admire it
>> after its first delivery. So it would be prominent enough in
>> everybody's mind for them to pick up this allusion and follow it
>> through.
>
>appreciate the depth, complexity, sophistication and
>of work -- reading in private, or in a study group.
>They are _not_ material for a quick public reading.
>If that had been the scenario, we would have a very
>different kind of work.
They take us a great amount of work. Perhaps if we heard them spoken
by the author things would be different? After all, he was an
eminent actor with clear views on how things should be spoken. But
obviously, different hearers would get different amounts of his
meaning, especially first time. The (rather poor) MS versions of
sonnet 2 illustrate that.
>
>In any case, the allusion to the portrait(s) is slighting.
>And do you really say a 16- or 17-year-old has a
>poorly executed portrait?
He doesn't say it's poorly executed, I think: only that portraits
are no substitute for the original.
>
>> >10. Which this ((Time's pencil or my pupil pen))
>
>> Line 10. The Quarto has parentheses round '(Times pensel or my
>> pupill pen)'. Parentheses are not uncommon in the Quarto and editors
>> seem to take most of them out, apparently to modernise the
>> punctuation as they normally modernise the spelling. I suggest that
>> here, they are simply an error, and there should be no punctuation
>> after 'this'.
>
>The parentheses marks stand out in size and
>intensity in the Quarto printing. Looking at them
>it is very hard to see how they could be 'mistakes'
>or 'accidental'.
I really don't see that it's an argument to say 'The printer printed
these parentheses very hard; he really pressed down on them; with
all that effort he obviously meant them seriously,and so must
everybody back to the author'. Anyway, printing doesn't work that
way. If one letter looks bolder than another, it probably wasn't so
well seated in the forme - a purely accidental matter.
> Taking them seriously, we need
>a more subtle reading. I suggest that 'my pupil
>pen' is not to be taken seriously. It's a 'poetic
>modesty' and is entirely false. This poet knows
>exactly how good he is.
Accepting this, and shrugging off the mock-modesty, still I don't
feel entitled to take him as meaning the opposite of what he says.
>Here he is partly saying
>that his pen is eternal. (It's a common statement
>of his: the next sonnet has "You should live twice;
>in it and in my rhyme." and in #18 we have :
>" So long as men can breathe or eyes can see,
> So long lives this and this gives life to thee. " )
>
>Putting (Time's pencil or my pupil pen) together
>does not sound wrong when they are seen as
>roughly equivalent entities.
Quite right - I have no diifficulty with that.
>
>> Booth devotes several pages of his introduction to discussing this
>> passage with reference to Empson's Seven Types of Ambiguity.
>
>I'll have to get my hands on Booth and Empson.
>
>> Commentators connect 'pen' and 'pencil' with 'penis'. Helen Vendler
>> only says 'perhaps'. For what it is worth, the Shorter Oxford gives
>> the first use of 'penis' in English as 1693 - about a hundred years
>> too late.
>
>The OED shows that the use in 1693 was in
>a textbook of physiology. So it looks like an
>invented medical euphemism and not a word
>Shake-speare would have known a hundred
>years earlier.
Perhaps 'technical term' rather than euphemism. Thank you for the
source - the Shorter does not give them.
ew...@bcs.org.uk
Paul Crowley
>
> > > > 8. Much liker than your painted counterfeit.
> >
> > > Line 8: the portrait. The whole of the rest of the poem uses this
> > > idea. How can we understand its being introduced so casually, as
> > > late as line 8? I can only think that this poem was originally
> > > spoken in front of the portrait, at a gathering invited to admire it
> > > after its first delivery. So it would be prominent enough in
> > > everybody's mind for them to pick up this allusion and follow it
> > > through.
> > They take a great amount
> > of work -- reading in private, or in a study group.
> > They are _not_ material for a quick public reading.
> > If that had been the scenario, we would have a very
> > different kind of work.
>
> That's baloney. I think most serious poets try for poems that
> can work in a public reading BUT ALSO contain layers that come
> out only after more readings.
Robert's point was that the 'public reading'
was important enough for him to be able
to detect it in the poet's composition. THAT
is crazy for a sonnet with so many levels of
complexity.
> In the case of a "quick public
> reading" of this poem, it is quite possible that copies of the
> poem were distributed so the listeners could read along, and later
> study the poem.
It's "possible" only in a theoretical sense.
They could have been read on top of
Snowdon. But you won't detect it in the
writing.
> > In any case, the allusion to the portrait(s) is slighting.
>
> Wrong again, Paul The poet only says that the portrait is less
> like the youth than his sons will be--since, obviously, they will
> not only look like him, as the portrait can, but will have his
> animation, voice, gestures, odor, and so on.
The line is:
> 8. Much liker than your painted counterfeit.
It says nothing about voice, odor, etc. It says
"much liker . . . " and few sons are 'much liker'
their fathers than their portraits.
> In fact, the
> comparison would be weakened if the portrait were a poor one: it
> almost has to be a good one, to give impact to the poet's saying
> that the children he can produce will be better likenesses of him.
READ the verse. The poet uses the term:
' . . painted counterfeit .'. Is that an ordinary or
acceptable way of designating a particular portrait?
A 'counterfeit' is something (often an image)
designed to cheat or defraud. It is a wholly
inappropriate description of a single portrait,
about to be unveiled as an accurate portrayal --
as in Robert's fantasy.
I see it as a generic reference to all the images
of the Queen. They appeared all over the place,
including on her coins, which were sometimes
counterfeited. He was implying that her painted
images were commonly false (as was often
stated). And he's saying her son (or daughter)
will be much more like her.
> > And do you really say a 16- or 17-year-old has a
> > poorly executed portrait?
>
> You could, but the poet doesn't say that here: he isn't necessarily
> speaking of a 16- or 17-year-old, and he is definitely not
> calling the portrait poor.
You _might_ be able to read it non-derogatorily.
But that's not my point. A derogatory reading is
readily available -- and that rules out Robert's
'portrait presentation' fantasy.
[..]
Paul Crowley
> > > > > Sonnet No 16
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. But wherefore do not you a mightier way
> > > > > 2. Make war upon this bloody tyrant Time,
> > > > > 3. And fortify yourself in your decay
> My home is full of teenagers most the time. Right now, in fact.
So do the experiment. Take them, one by one,
into a room, read them the first quatrain (give
them a copy too) and tell them that the poet
is addressing a young person (like themselves)
urging them to get married, because he's
worried (or his elders are worried, and the
poet is speaking on their behalf) about
their _decay_.
Ask them if that line rings a bell with them.
Does it make them want to get married soon?
Ask them if they know whether or not their
friends often get a similar message from their
parents.
> Were you ever a teenager, Paul? Were you a no-mind and thus believe
> all teenagers to be no-minds? In the Jewish faith, the rites of manhood
> is celebrated at 13!
And do those rites set out such a message?
"Think about your decay -- and get married
soon so you'll be fortified against it."
> You will pay dearly if you underestimate the maturity of a teenager.
> They only lack experience--they have every quality and trait already
> developed and ready for action. They are capable of everything
> older people are.
Sure -- but everything is appropriate to the stage in
life. Do you commonly urge 16- and 17-year-old
boys to get married -- by praising their beauty.
Get your four teenagers together and try some of
the lines from the rest of the sonnets on them.
Get one to pretend he is Southampton, and have
the others read him lines like:
"Unthrifty loveliness, why dost thou spend
Upon thyself thy beauty's legacy?
"Those hours, that with gentle work did frame
The lovely gaze where every eye doth dwell,
Will play the tyrants to the very same
And that unfair which fairly doth excel:"
"Is it for fear to wet a widow's eye
That thou consumest thyself in single life?
Ah! if thou issueless shalt hap to die.
The world will wail thee, like a makeless wife";
Let us know how it all works out . . . . . .
[..]
> > Again, try the argument with some 16- or
> > 17-year-old males. Failing that, give us
> > some parallels in ANY form of literature or
> > letters at ANY time in ANY language in
> > ANY culture.
>
> The Bar Mitzvah ceremony is a typical cultural message to a teenager.
> King James' own lessons to his sons.
> All cultures view the rites of passage in teen age.
> You are isolated and unaware of this world.
So quote parallel passages from ANY of it.
[..]
> > The word would be 'neuter' if it was applicable
> > ('neutral' is political policy -- Ireland was
> > neutral in World War 2 -- like Sweden and
> > Switzerland -- but we prefer not to talk about
> > that now).
>
> I saw your entire navy at Dun Loaraighe one time--all eleven boats.
You must have been counting the lifeboats as well !
I bet you never saw our air force . . . Well, you've
lost your chance. The biplanes have been
grounded; they were just too old to continue
defending the country against the Russians.
> YOU introduced neutral, Paul,
Oops, sorry, it was a typo. You should have
noticed.
Greg Reynolds
challenge to the subject that the poetry is not going to tell the
story of his life as well as he could do himself if he had offspring.
Children could show the true image, whereas the poetry is "barren."
(So he's back into his self-deprecation mode regarding his lowly
writing skills--right!)
Nothing represents you as well as yourself, and the best portrait
you could commission is a little baby with your countenance.
Any other likeness of you is a fake, anyway.
Is the poet tiring of this exercise? He's sure made an effort. If he's
paid
to create sonnets, why suggest alternative means?
Lines 9-12 is the most nebulous phraseology I've seen in the sonnets.
It seems to be light on a verb or punctuation or both. (I partially
understood
it a number of different ways, so I'll be interested in whatever I've
missed.)
We already knew "hours" and "flowers" were single-syllable
words, and now we know that "virtuous" is a two-syllable word.
XVI Draw Your Own Conclusion
> 1. But wherefore do not you a mightier way
> 2. Make war upon this bloody tyrant Time,
So why aren't you taking real action against your own mortality?
> 3. And fortify yourself in your decay
> 4. With means more bless`ed than my barren rhyme?
Your own measures to preserve your family name would outgrace
any poetry I write on your behalf, you know.
> 5. Now stand you on the top of happy hours,
> 6. And many maiden gardens, yet unset,
> 7. With virtuous wish would bear your living flowers,
> 8. Much liker than your painted counterfeit.
You're at the prime of your life; you have young available
women desiring you who would gladly marry you and continue
your bloodline, producing an image of you much more realistic
than any of my glitzy contrivances.
> 9. So should the lines of life that life repair
> 10. Which this, Time's pencil, or my pupil pen,
> 11. Neither in inward worth nor outward fair
> 12. Can make you live yourself in eyes of men.
Lets hope your life story is told by your life's own events,
because whether its your lasting fame or these poems, only
your own efforts can define you, either spiritually or socially.
> 13. To give away yourself keeps your self still,
> 14. And you must live drawn by your own sweet skill
If you reproduce, you will preserve yourself, and then instead
of just poetry about you, there will be a true life portrait of you
drawn by your own loving ability.
Greg Reynolds
Julia with virtuous wish would bear:
> Sonnet No 16
>
> 1. But wherefore do not you a mightier way
> 2. Make war upon this bloody tyrant Time,
> 3. And fortify yourself in your decay
> 4. With means more bless`ed than my barren rhyme?
> 5. Now stand you on the top of happy hours,
> 6. And many maiden gardens, yet unset,
> 7. With virtuous wish would bear your living flowers,
> 8. Much liker than your painted counterfeit.
> 9. So should the lines of life that life repair
> 10. Which this, Time's pencil, or my pupil pen,
> 11. Neither in inward worth nor outward fair
> 12. Can make you live yourself in eyes of men.
> 13. To give away yourself keeps your self still,
> 14. And you must live drawn by your own sweet skill
>
> --
> Julia Cuffe
Robert Stonehouse
>Robert's point was that the 'public reading'
>was important enough for him to be able
>to detect it in the poet's composition. THAT
>is crazy for a sonnet with so many levels of
>complexity.
I am picking up one particular problem; this is not merely
capricious, unmotivated romancing. The portrait is obviously
important in the poem. In view of that, how do we explain the way it
is introduced? It doesn't appear until line 8 and then it comes in
almost incidentally, in a metaphor. How can we know what the
'painted counterfeit' is when we first hear about it?
There is nothing unlikely in suggesting these poems were written to
be spoken by the author in front of some audience. On the contrary,
since they were not immediately printed, that is one of the most
obvious means of publication. The style supports, or at least does
not condemn, the suggestion: for example, each poem has an arresting
beginning suitable for getting the attention of an audience.
Nigel Davies points out I was wrong to say this was the first
indication. Certainly number 8, 'Music to hear, why hear'st thou
music sadly?' points at least as strongly to the same conclusion. If
we think along those lines then other possibilities appear; perhaps
all the props used in the poems, like the mirror in number 3, derive
from the surroundings at the first performance.
That would not mean the value of the poems is limited to their first
performance. Poems of importance are not like that. What it means
for us is that we have to think of the poems as being presented
orally, by the author, in an environment whose features we can pick
up where we need to. We have to use our mind's eye as well as our
mind's ear.
ew...@bcs.org.uk
Stephanie Caruana
But---
"Robert Stonehouse" <ew...@bcs.org.uk> wrote in message
news:39eb531...@news.cityscape.co.uk...
> "Paul Crowley" <pebj...@ubgznvy.pbz (apply ROT13)> wrote:
> ...
> >Robert's point was that the 'public reading'
> >was important enough for him to be able
> >to detect it in the poet's composition. THAT
> >is crazy for a sonnet with so many levels of
> >complexity.
> ...
> I am picking up one particular problem; this is not merely
> capricious, unmotivated romancing. The portrait is obviously
> important in the poem. In view of that, how do we explain the way it
> is introduced? It doesn't appear until line 8 and then it comes in
> almost incidentally, in a metaphor. How can we know what the
> 'painted counterfeit' is when we first hear about it?
From my point of view, the sonnets were written by the Earl of Oxford, over
a long period of time, as very personal expressions, to people he cared
about--not for public audience. The "painted counterfeit" is just as likely
to have been a miniature, painted by Nicholas Hilliard, or Oliver, as a
full-sized portrait. Hilliard was the "official" court painter for some
years, and miniature portraits were all the rage, kept in keepsake cabinets,
or worn on a chain or ribbon around the neck, from the Queen on down to her
Courtiers and Ladies. He might, or might not, have shared some of them with
friends, but I really don't see him trying to get an audience's attention
through the way they are written. I don't ask anyone to agree with this who
is not so inclined, but I do want to express a different point of view.
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
> > That's baloney. I think most serious poets try for poems that
> > can work in a public reading BUT ALSO contain layers that come
> > out only after more readings.
>
> was important enough for him to be able
> to detect it in the poet's composition. THAT
> is crazy for a sonnet with so many levels of
> complexity.
Crazy? That Robert thought it could work well in a public reading
so may well have been composed for a public reading? I think it
crazy to believe that the poem was not composed with the possibility
of public readings of it in mind.
> > In the case of a "quick public
> > reading" of this poem, it is quite possible that copies of the
> > poem were distributed so the listeners could read along, and later
> > study the poem.
>
> It's "possible" only in a theoretical sense.
> They could have been read on top of
> Snowdon. But you won't detect it in the writing.
My point is that a poem's being complex does not make it crazy
to think it could have been composed for public readings, or even
composed MAINLY for a public reading. Such a public reading, as I
thought I said, could have been made easier for listeners through
copies of the poem to study before and or after the reading; and/or
with more than one reading of the poem; and/or with discussions of
the poem afterward, with the poet's participation.
>
> > > In any case, the allusion to the portrait(s) is slighting.
> >
> > Wrong again, Paul The poet only says that the portrait is less
> > like the youth than his sons will be--since, obviously, they will
> > not only look like him, as the portrait can, but will have his
> > animation, voice, gestures, odor, and so on.
>
> The line is:
> > 8. Much liker than your painted counterfeit.
>
> It says nothing about voice, odor, etc.
"liker" mean "more like"; it does not mean only "more visually
like." In this context, it clearly means "more like because more
than a merely visual static representation."
> It says "much liker . . . " and few sons are 'much liker'
> their fathers than their portraits.
Oh, so most sons are two dimensional, unmoving, silent and smell
like dried paint?
> > In fact, the
> > comparison would be weakened if the portrait were a poor one: it
> > almost has to be a good one, to give impact to the poet's saying
> > that the children he can produce will be better likenesses of him.
>
> READ the verse.
Learn what poetry is.
> The poet uses the term:
> ' . . painted counterfeit .'. Is that an ordinary or
> acceptable way of designating a particular portrait?
It is in a poem when you want a rhyme for "set," and know that a
secondary dictionary meaning of "counterfeit" is image, and know that
the context of your poem assures than only cranks will read it as
something else. Why would Shakespeare insult a painting--especially
when he could say that the youth's offspring will be even more
like him than a wonderful likeness is like him instead of saying that
the youth's offspring will be more like him than a bad portrait of him.
If I wrote a poem honoring you, which would you prefer, that I said
you argued better than, well, Bob Grumman, or that you argued better
than Volker Multhopp?
> A 'counterfeit' is something (often an image)
> designed to cheat or defraud. It is a wholly
> inappropriate description of a single portrait,
> about to be unveiled as an accurate portrayal --
> as in Robert's fantasy.
>
> I see it as a generic reference to all the images
> of the Queen. They appeared all over the place,
> including on her coins, which were sometimes
> counterfeited. He was implying that her painted
> images were commonly false (as was often
> stated). And he's saying her son (or daughter)
> will be much more like her.
> > > And do you really say a 16- or 17-year-old has a
> > > poorly executed portrait?
> >
> > You could, but the poet doesn't say that here: he isn't necessarily
> > speaking of a 16- or 17-year-old, and he is definitely not
> > calling the portrait poor.
>
> You _might_ be able to read it non-derogatorily.
> But that's not my point. A derogatory reading is
> readily available -- and that rules out Robert's
> 'portrait presentation' fantasy.
Not if, as I think Robert suggested, the portrait was in the room
that the poem was declaimed in and everyone could look at it, and
see that it was a fine one, if it was.
Greg Reynolds
Robert Stonehouse wrote:
> Julia Cuffe <J...@mistylaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Sonnet No 16
>
> <>
>
> > 9. So should the lines of life that life repair
> In that way, the decline of your life is made up
> by your line of descent /
> >10. Which this, Time's pencil, or my pupil pen,
> which the painting of our age or my apprentice
> art of poetry /
> >11. Neither in inward worth nor outward fair
> cannot, as to the value of the mind or even in beauty
> of appearance, /
> >12. Can make you live yourself in eyes of men.
> bring you alive as a real person for people to admire. /
Just wondering, Robert, how much time this Q took you to figure.
I was over an hour and feel its the roughest ride in the sonnets.
<>
> Line 8: the portrait. The whole of the rest of the poem uses this
> idea. How can we understand its being introduced so casually, as
> late as line 8? I can only think that this poem was originally
> spoken in front of the portrait, at a gathering invited to admire it
> after its first delivery. So it would be prominent enough in
> everybody's mind for them to pick up this allusion and follow it
> through.
>
> If that is right, then it is an indication (the first, I think) that
> we need to envisage the situations in which these speeches are being
> made. Can we envisage the speaker's actions too? Does he point at
> it? I doubt if we can say anything about how a very expert actor
> made his point.
I do not see the need for a tangible portrait (as in a painting) of the
subject.
The "portrait" can be the poem and this large collection of poems to the
subject.
You say he brings it up casually and rather late in the poem, but he
does not indicate there is a portrait, and the idea of the barren poetry
being the portrait is readily spoken throughout the poem:
> 3. fortify yourself
> 4. With means more bless`ed than my barren rhyme?
> 7. would bear your living flowers,
> 8. Much liker than your painted counterfeit.
> 9. So should the lines of life that life repair
> 10. Which this, Time's pencil, or my pupil pen,
> 11. Neither
> 12. Can make you live yourself in eyes of men.
> 14. you must live drawn by your own sweet skill
If there is a new portrait (painting of the subject) present, would the
poet make these less-than-praiseworthy comments? Why call the painting
counterfeit? That's much more the vein he uses to describe his own
portrayal (his poetry).
He's already denigrated his poetry, which is certainly a portrayal, so
thematically it follows that the portrait that is counterfeit is indeed
his
barren poetry.
Did you reject this idea already in your study of S16?
Now, I like the idea of the public reading, and the assortment of gifts
(mirror, clock) but this poem needs no physical painted portrait to make
perfect sense as is.
Greg Reynolds
Nigel Davies
...
> Certainly number 8, 'Music to hear, why hear'st thou
> music sadly?' points at least as strongly to the same conclusion. If
> we think along those lines then other possibilities appear; perhaps
> all the props used in the poems, like the mirror in number 3, derive
> from the surroundings at the first performance.
Sonnet 8 seems rather well positioned for being spoken after a musical interlude
midway through the reading of the series of 17 sonnets too. Perhaps a musical
interlude after the 8th. sonnet, rather than before it, would have been more
dead centre but it strikes me that if these sonnets were presented orally, at
once, at an occasion of some sort, then they would need some relief and
distraction at this midway point that a musical interlude would provide.
...
______________________________________________________________________
Nigel....@BTInternet.com
Nigel Davies
...
> If there is a new portrait (painting of the subject) present, would the
> poet make these less-than-praiseworthy comments? Why call the painting
> counterfeit? That's much more the vein he uses to describe his own
> portrayal (his poetry).
I see the poem enhanced by the presence of a painting that the speaker can refer
to from within the sonnet. He is making a relative comparison here so the
presence of the painting he speaks of would add value and give the oral
rendition of the poem an added dynamic.
"Counterfeit" is just a term for a painting like fair Portia's counterfeit in
the lead casket in MoV. I don't see anything derogatory in this reference just
like there isn't any of Portia's.
> He's already denigrated his poetry, which is certainly a portrayal, so
> thematically it follows that the portrait that is counterfeit is indeed
> his
> barren poetry.
No, it's specifically a "painted counterfeit". It has to be a painting. The item
could be an existing painting that the poet is using as a prop or it could be a
present from the poet himself which he dismisses as second to the subject's
natural beauty.
...
______________________________________________________________________
Nigel....@BTInternet.com
Robert Stonehouse
>"Robert Stonehouse" <ew...@bcs.org.uk> wrote in message
>news:39eb531...@news.cityscape.co.uk...
>> I am picking up one particular problem; this is not merely
>> capricious, unmotivated romancing. The portrait is obviously
>> important in the poem. In view of that, how do we explain the way it
>> is introduced? It doesn't appear until line 8 and then it comes in
>> almost incidentally, in a metaphor. How can we know what the
>> 'painted counterfeit' is when we first hear about it?
>
>From my point of view, the sonnets were written by the Earl of Oxford, over
>a long period of time, as very personal expressions, to people he cared
>about--not for public audience.
I'm not suggesting they were recited at the Globe, or even at
Blackfriars. I have in mind a nobleman and his circle of friends and
associates. But up to now, they do seem to have the ring of
something written to be spoken.
>The "painted counterfeit" is just as likely
>to have been a miniature, painted by Nicholas Hilliard, or Oliver, as a
>full-sized portrait. Hilliard was the "official" court painter for some
>years, and miniature portraits were all the rage, kept in keepsake cabinets,
>or worn on a chain or ribbon around the neck, from the Queen on down to her
>Courtiers and Ladies.
Quite possibly. I don't know how many portraits of Southampton
exist. The engraving in the Folger library, reproduced in Jonathan
Bate, 'The Genius of Shakespeare', looks as if it was taken from a
full-size portrait, but there is no reason why the one mentioned in
the sonnet should be one that survived.
>He might, or might not, have shared some of them with
>friends, but I really don't see him trying to get an audience's attention
>through the way they are written. I don't ask anyone to agree with this who
>is not so inclined, but I do want to express a different point of view.
Robert Stonehouse
>Robert Stonehouse wrote:
>...
>> Certainly number 8, 'Music to hear, why hear'st thou
>> music sadly?' points at least as strongly to the same conclusion. If
>> we think along those lines then other possibilities appear; perhaps
>> all the props used in the poems, like the mirror in number 3, derive
>> from the surroundings at the first performance.
>
>Sonnet 8 seems rather well positioned for being spoken after a musical interlude
>midway through the reading of the series of 17 sonnets too. Perhaps a musical
>interlude after the 8th. sonnet, rather than before it, would have been more
>dead centre but it strikes me that if these sonnets were presented orally, at
>once, at an occasion of some sort, then they would need some relief and
>distraction at this midway point that a musical interlude would provide.
They certainly would! I have been thinking of them as done one or
two a week - probably two, because of 5-6 and 15-16, both odd-even
pairs.
ew...@bcs.org.uk
Robert Stonehouse
>Robert Stonehouse wrote:
>> > 9. So should the lines of life that life repair
>> In that way, the decline of your life is made up
>> by your line of descent /
>> >10. Which this, Time's pencil, or my pupil pen,
>> which the painting of our age or my apprentice
>> art of poetry /
>> >11. Neither in inward worth nor outward fair
>> cannot, as to the value of the mind or even in beauty
>> of appearance, /
>> >12. Can make you live yourself in eyes of men.
>> bring you alive as a real person for people to admire. /
>
>Just wondering, Robert, how much time this Q took you to figure.
>I was over an hour and feel its the roughest ride in the sonnets.
I don't time these, or I'd probably give up! But I'm sure this one
was over an hour.
...
>I do not see the need for a tangible portrait (as in a painting) of the
>subject.
>The "portrait" can be the poem and this large collection of poems to the
>subject.
>You say he brings it up casually and rather late in the poem, but he
>does not indicate there is a portrait, and the idea of the barren poetry
>being the portrait is readily spoken throughout the poem:
I thought the poet contrasted the two, but I see I have created this
effect by my understanding of 'this time's pencil or my pupil pen',
and so it is hardly evidence. I do find it awkward, though, to treat
the two as being one, especially when the word 'painted' first comes
in..
>
>> 3. fortify yourself
>> 4. With means more bless`ed than my barren rhyme?
>> 7. would bear your living flowers,
>> 8. Much liker than your painted counterfeit.
>> 9. So should the lines of life that life repair
>> 10. Which this, Time's pencil, or my pupil pen,
>> 11. Neither
>> 12. Can make you live yourself in eyes of men.
>> 14. you must live drawn by your own sweet skill
>
>If there is a new portrait (painting of the subject) present, would the
>poet make these less-than-praiseworthy comments? Why call the painting
>counterfeit? That's much more the vein he uses to describe his own
>portrayal (his poetry).
>
>He's already denigrated his poetry, which is certainly a portrayal, so
>thematically it follows that the portrait that is counterfeit is indeed
>his barren poetry.
>
>Did you reject this idea already in your study of S16?
I don't think he's saying it's a bad portrait, only that the
original (the person being addressed) is better - something the
painter himself would hardly deny, at any rate to the subject's
face!
>
>Now, I like the idea of the public reading, and the assortment of gifts
>(mirror, clock) but this poem needs no physical painted portrait to make
>perfect sense as is.
>
>Greg Reynolds
Paul Crowley
[..]
> > You _might_ be able to read it non-derogatorily.
> > But that's not my point. A derogatory reading is
> > readily available -- and that rules out Robert's
> > 'portrait presentation' fantasy.
>
> Not if, as I think Robert suggested, the portrait was in the room
> that the poem was declaimed in and everyone could look at it, and
> see that it was a fine one, if it was.
That simply does not follow. A hack poet
hired to praise a newly commissioned
portrait would never dare call it a 'painted
counterfeit'.
In any case, if it was the 'unveiling of a portrait',
then a reference to it within the first few lines
would be virtually obligatory.
It is manifestly not such an occasion. Yet,
as Robert implies, the 'painted counterfeit'
is a major theme for the sonnet, although
only coming in as a metaphor at line 8.
What does that tell us?
I suggest that the subject's 'painted counterfeit'
was all around, and that generally it was
indeed a 'counterfeit' -- i.e. a bad reproduction.
It was so ubiquitous, common and unremarked
upon, that no one would have found it strange
coming in as a metaphorical reference at line 8.
Guess who that fits.
Paul Crowley
> "Paul Crowley" <pebj...@ubgznvy.pbz (apply ROT13)> wrote:
> ...
> >Robert's point was that the 'public reading'
> >was important enough for him to be able
> >to detect it in the poet's composition. THAT
> >is crazy for a sonnet with so many levels of
> >complexity.
> ...
> I am picking up one particular problem; this is not merely
> capricious, unmotivated romancing. The portrait is obviously
> important in the poem. In view of that, how do we explain the way it
> is introduced? It doesn't appear until line 8 and then it comes in
> almost incidentally, in a metaphor. How can we know what the
> 'painted counterfeit' is when we first hear about it?
That is well-observed. We have an important
subject which is not at the forefront of the
mind of the poet (or the audience) when the
poem starts. Yet it comes in quite naturally
at a late stage. I suggest that this image is
all around them; that they live with it on a
daily basis, and that it does not normally call
for comment, although it can be used at any
time. It's like desert sand to a Berber or
snow to an Inuit.
My context is, of course, the Queen, whose
portraits were ubiquitous. Introducing a
casual metaphorical reference to them at
line 8 would be unremarkable.
However, I can see your point -- that in a
Stratfordian context, a new and important
subject should not be introduced at line 8
in an incidental, metaphorical manner.
But perhaps you should re-consider that
context (if that's at all possible for you).
> There is nothing unlikely in suggesting these poems were written to
> be spoken by the author in front of some audience. On the contrary,
> since they were not immediately printed, that is one of the most
> obvious means of publication.
Again the crucial difference is in our starting
positions. I see no need for 'publication' -- in
fact, I see the opposite. A poet writes intimate
missives to his mistress; they are so beautiful
that, in due course, they are published -- but
only after both are dead, and then with
sufficient disguise to hide their identity.
But think about what _you_ are saying. A
hired poet is being paid to _publicly_
persuade a young man to have children
(with no mention of marriage) by praising
his beauty! Many find homoerotic overtones
in all that. Was that a view to be considered
by the audience on this occasion? If not,
what rules it out?
> The style supports, or at least does
> not condemn, the suggestion: for example, each poem has an arresting
> beginning suitable for getting the attention of an audience.
That's just a mark of good writing. No other
explanation is necessary.
> Nigel Davies points out I was wrong to say this was the first
> indication. Certainly number 8, 'Music to hear, why hear'st thou
> music sadly?' points at least as strongly to the same conclusion. If
> we think along those lines then other possibilities appear; perhaps
> all the props used in the poems, like the mirror in number 3, derive
> from the surroundings at the first performance.
I find such notions hopelessly artificial, and
unnatural, and utterly out of keeping with the
overall tone and substance of the poems.
It's like saying that the first performance of
Beethoven's Eroica was as Muzak in an
elevator. There is _nothing_ presentational
in any of the sonnets. There is no 'Look at
this X , isn't it well done?'. That's what we
would expect if any had been written in such
a context.
> That would not mean the value of the poems is limited to their first
> performance.
It almost invariably does. That's the nature of
that sort of enterprise.
> Poems of importance are not like that.
Poems 'of importance' don't get written like
that. Maybe you'll be able to find one or two
good ones from amid the tens of thousands
of dross. But I doubt it.
Numerous poems have been written for such
occasions. It's partly what the Poet Laureate
is, or was, paid for. Jonson wrote reams for
the arrival of James into London. Such poems
are almost invariably superficial, banal and
quite unmemorable. That's fine. It's what the
client wants. And he pays by the line.
But Shakespeare did not write a single poem of
this nature in the whole of his career. It's quite
wrong to shoehorn him into something he did
not do, nor apparently want to do -- merely to
satisfy your preconceptions about what you
think his social role ought to have been.
> What it means
> for us is that we have to think of the poems as being presented
> orally, by the author, in an environment whose features we can pick
> up where we need to. We have to use our mind's eye as well as our
> mind's ear.
Complex sonnets are wholly inappropriate to
such occasions. The audience would go away
puzzled, confused and probably irritated and
suspicious, saying "What did he mean by that?
Was he referring to this or to that, to him or to
her? I'm sure he meant X -- the dirty bugger".
The poems are too short and far too difficult.
The clients would not want it. It's just a bad
idea. Forget it.
Erik Nielsen
> That simply does not follow. A hack poet
> hired to praise a newly commissioned
> portrait would never dare call it a 'painted
> counterfeit'.
>
sixteenth century that it now carries.
> In any case, if it was the 'unveiling of a portrait',
> then a reference to it within the first few lines
> would be virtually obligatory.
The presence of the portrait itself would remove that necessity.
>
> It is manifestly not such an occasion. Yet,
> as Robert implies, the 'painted counterfeit'
> is a major theme for the sonnet, although
> only coming in as a metaphor at line 8.
> What does that tell us?
Possibly that there was some reson why the counterfeit didn't NEED to be
mentioned. (For example, its presence at the reading of the sonnet.)
>
> I suggest that the subject's 'painted counterfeit'
> was all around, and that generally it was
> indeed a 'counterfeit' -- i.e. a bad reproduction.
> It was so ubiquitous, common and unremarked
> upon, that no one would have found it strange
> coming in as a metaphorical reference at line 8.
Again, you're presupposing a negative connotation to "counterfeit" that
wasn't necessarily assumed when the poem was written.
>
> Guess who that fits.
A lot of people. A lot of people made a lot of portraits of a lot of
people.
Volker Multhopp
> Sonnet 8 seems rather well positioned for being spoken after a musical interlude
> midway through the reading of the series of 17 sonnets too. Perhaps a musical
> interlude after the 8th. sonnet, rather than before it, would have been more
> dead centre but it strikes me that if these sonnets were presented orally, at
> once, at an occasion of some sort, then they would need some relief and
> distraction at this midway point that a musical interlude would provide.
This sort of Strat reading makes some of the Oxfordian *seance
readings* seem positively intelligent.
--Volker
Paul Crowley
> "Counterfeit" is just a term for a painting like fair Portia's counterfeit in
> the lead casket in MoV. I don't see anything derogatory in this reference just
> like there isn't any of Portia's.
An interesting point. I too did a search on the canon
on 'counterfeit' -- finding 72 occurrences. All the ones
I stopped to study were derogatory. But I did not get to
the MoV one. However, this exception proves a rule
that Nigel would prefer not know.
Oxfordians maintain that Portia is a portrayal of
Queen Elizabeth. Finding a 'painted counterfeit'
of her under such conditions backs both that
case and mine -- that Sonnet 16 is referring to
the same thing.
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
> > Not if, as I think Robert suggested, the portrait was in the room
> > that the poem was declaimed in and everyone could look at it, and
> > see that it was a fine one, if it was.
>
> hired to praise a newly commissioned
> portrait would never dare call it a 'painted
> counterfeit'.
Shakespeare was not a hack poet. Aside from that, who are you
to say what he would have dared? Also, why did you snip my
showing you that "counterfeit" could mean simply "image,"
and suggesting that it was used for the rhyme?
> In any case, if it was the 'unveiling of a portrait',
> then a reference to it within the first few lines
> would be virtually obligatory.
Again, you know all about it. But if Shakespeare was a hack
poet, maybe he didn't know it was obligatory.
(Did Robert suggest the unveiling of a portrait was the
occasion of this sonnet? I thought the idea was simply that
a portrait may have been in the same room as the supposed
reading of the poem. In any case, the poem is a companion to the
preceding one, and it is to that preceding one that its opening
refers.)
> It is manifestly not such an occasion. Yet,
> as Robert implies, the 'painted counterfeit'
> is a major theme for the sonnet, although
> only coming in as a metaphor at line 8.
> What does that tell us?
One possibility: that the idea that the youth, by procreating,
can surpass even a painted counterfeit of himself at defeating
the ravages of time is the climax of the first eight lines. The
first four lines introduce the theme of procreation's beating art
as a way of preserving a person's virtues, the second four bring
it to a climax. Poems can build to an important part, Paul; they
don't have to start at an important part.
> I suggest that the subject's 'painted counterfeit'
> was all around, and that generally it was
> indeed a 'counterfeit' -- i.e. a bad reproduction.
> It was so ubiquitous, common and unremarked
> upon, that no one would have found it strange
> coming in as a metaphorical reference at line 8.
No one but you (and, I suppose, a few other wackos) find it
strange that a reference (it is not metaphoric) to a portrait
is made in a poem about the superiority of passing on one's
looks and other virtues to a son to what the arts can do to
pass on one's looks and other virtues.
> Guess who that fits.
Yeah, Paul, the poet is saying, "Hey, Queenie, have some kids;
that way you can defeat time's ravages better than any of the
lousy paintings of you one sees all over the place."
Robert Stonehouse
>Robert Stonehouse <ew...@bcs.org.uk> wrote in message news:39eb531...@news.cityscape.co.uk...
>> "Paul Crowley" <pebj...@ubgznvy.pbz (apply ROT13)> wrote:
...
>portraits were ubiquitous. Introducing a
>casual metaphorical reference to them at
>line 8 would be unremarkable.
>However, I can see your point -- that in a
>Stratfordian context, a new and important
>subject should not be introduced at line 8
>in an incidental, metaphorical manner.
>But perhaps you should re-consider that
>context (if that's at all possible for you).
Introducing the Queen into this does seem very strange, whoever one
thinks wrote the poems.
>> There is nothing unlikely in suggesting these poems were written to
>> be spoken by the author in front of some audience. On the contrary,
>> since they were not immediately printed, that is one of the most
>> obvious means of publication.
>
>Again the crucial difference is in our starting
>positions. I see no need for 'publication' -- in
>fact, I see the opposite. A poet writes intimate
>missives to his mistress; they are so beautiful
>that, in due course, they are published -- but
>only after both are dead, and then with
>sufficient disguise to hide their identity.
>
>But think about what _you_ are saying. A
>hired poet is being paid to _publicly_
>persuade a young man to have children
>(with no mention of marriage) by praising
>his beauty!
I haven't said anything about 'hired' or 'paid'. Nor do I mean
'publicly': I mean in the group of friends and associates among whom
his daily life is led. Eminent people in those days had little or
nothing of what we would call privacy - there were always people
about.
>Many find homoerotic overtones
>in all that. Was that a view to be considered
>by the audience on this occasion? If not,
>what rules it out?
I don't think they do in 1-17, particularly? It seems to me that
urging a man to get children is the reverse of homo-erotic.
>> The style supports, or at least does
>> not condemn, the suggestion: for example, each poem has an arresting
>> beginning suitable for getting the attention of an audience.
>
>That's just a mark of good writing. No other
>explanation is necessary.
That's a tenable view, though it's not my own impression of 1-17.
>> Nigel Davies points out I was wrong to say this was the first
>> indication. Certainly number 8, 'Music to hear, why hear'st thou
>> music sadly?' points at least as strongly to the same conclusion. If
>> we think along those lines then other possibilities appear; perhaps
>> all the props used in the poems, like the mirror in number 3, derive
>> from the surroundings at the first performance.
>
>I find such notions hopelessly artificial, and
>unnatural, and utterly out of keeping with the
>overall tone and substance of the poems.
>It's like saying that the first performance of
>Beethoven's Eroica was as Muzak in an
>elevator. There is _nothing_ presentational
>in any of the sonnets. There is no 'Look at
>this X , isn't it well done?'. That's what we
>would expect if any had been written in such
>a context.
I see it in number 8, 'Your musicians were doing well; why did you
stop them?' and 16, 'This painting here reproduces you well, but
children are a much better form of reproduction'. Not expressed as
explicitly as that, but explicitness is not the poet's way; we have
to pick things up.
...
>But Shakespeare did not write a single poem of
>this nature in the whole of his career. It's quite
>wrong to shoehorn him into something he did
>not do, nor apparently want to do -- merely to
>satisfy your preconceptions about what you
>think his social role ought to have been.
It does seem noticeable that he never wrote occasional poems. In
particular, he wrote nothing on the Queen's death, which caused
protest. Now this presents us with a problem in reading sonnets
1-17, because they have some appearance of being occasional, whoever
the addressee was, and we have to find a sense in which they are
not. Getting away from assumptions about 'hired' and 'paid' is a
start.
>
>> What it means
>> for us is that we have to think of the poems as being presented
>> orally, by the author, in an environment whose features we can pick
>> up where we need to. We have to use our mind's eye as well as our
>> mind's ear.
>
>Complex sonnets are wholly inappropriate to
>such occasions. The audience would go away
>puzzled, confused and probably irritated and
>suspicious, saying "What did he mean by that?
>Was he referring to this or to that, to him or to
>her? I'm sure he meant X -- the dirty bugger".
>The poems are too short and far too difficult.
>The clients would not want it. It's just a bad
>idea. Forget it.
From the MS version of sonnet 2, I agree some of the audience did
not completely get it. But poetry can communicate without being
fully understood - or so T.S. Eliot thought (mind, he needed to).
And we should not underestimate what a first-class reading can do -
a reading by the author, who was also a very skilled actor.
ew...@bcs.org.uk
Robert Stonehouse
...
>(Did Robert suggest the unveiling of a portrait was the
>occasion of this sonnet? I thought the idea was simply that
>a portrait may have been in the same room as the supposed
>reading of the poem. In any case, the poem is a companion to the
>preceding one, and it is to that preceding one that its opening
>refers.)
I would like it to be a new portrait, because there must be a reason
why the portrait is in everyone's mind. But it isn't essential.
ew...@bcs.org.uk
Peter Farey
>
> Robert Stonehouse wrote:
> >
> > Certainly number 8, 'Music to hear, why hear'st thou
> > music sadly?' points at least as strongly to the same conclusion. If
> > we think along those lines then other possibilities appear; perhaps
> > all the props used in the poems, like the mirror in number 3, derive
> > from the surroundings at the first performance.
>
> midway through the reading of the series of 17 sonnets too. Perhaps a musical
> interlude after the 8th. sonnet, rather than before it, would have been more
> dead centre but it strikes me that if these sonnets were presented orally, at
> once, at an occasion of some sort, then they would need some relief and
> distraction at this midway point that a musical interlude would provide.
I was rather sad that nobody had anything to say about my
suggested list of "readers" for this occasion if it had indeed
been Southampton's 17th birthday in 1590. For number 8, I had
Mary, Countess of Pembroke, who could perhaps have given the
Sonnet as *part* of a lute recital.
Just in case you missed it, here is the list again.
Sonnet 1: The Queen (57)
If she were at such an occasion and had been asked to join in,
she would certainly go first. "We desire increase" has a regal
sound to it, and Katherine Duncan-Jones's note for line 10 is
that "There may be a suggestion that the young man shows great
promise as a courtier". I also see it as quite appropriate for
her, more than anyone, to call him "tender churl".
Sonnet 2: Lord Burghley (70)
As the person who commissioned these poems, he goes next. It
sounds a good one for an old man to speak. As Duncan-Jones says
of line 2 - "If stress is placed on 'thy', it implies that the
speaker's brow is already wrinkled".
Sonnet 3: Lady Mary Wriothesley (37)
The Dowager Countess of Southampton, Henry's mother.
This would give a nice explanation for both mentions of 'mother',
and why it is the resemblance to mother rather than to his late
father that is mentioned. That she herself would be reclling
"the lovely April of her prime" makes it far more interesting.
Sonnet 4: The Earl of Oxford (40)
He is the father of Southampton's official fiancee, whom these
sonnets encourage him to get around to actually wedding.
Perhaps his own profligate life-style is ironically referred to
here (and Burghley would have liked that).
Sonnet 5: Lady Penelope Rich (28?)
The 'Stella' of the late Philip Sidney's as yet unpublished
*Astrophel and Stella*, Essex's sister, married to Robert Rich.
The reference in this Sonnet to Sidney's recently published
*New Arcadia* makes either her or Sidney's sister, Mary Herbert,
a good choice. The words "where every eye doth dwell" makes
this one better for a woman, and Kerrigan also sees "an image
of the hours as a gentlewoman weaving the young man's beauty in
a tapestry-frame".
Sonnet 6: Sir Robert Cecil (27)
Lord Burghley's son. Not at all physically "fair" himself and,
one imagines, a bit pedantic, more interested in numbers than
in words, as parodied in all the "ten times" repetitions here.
Sonnet 7: Lord Robert Rich (?)
Lady Penelope's husband (An unhappy marriage, so he might not
have been there). He did at least have one son by then, as
recommended here, although his wife's "fore-duteous" eyes had,
of course, for some time been looking "another way".
Sonnet 8: Lady Mary Herbert (29)
Sister of Philip Sidney, now Countess of Pembroke and a mother.
An accomplished lutanist, one can imagine her using her lute to
illustrate the "mutual ordering" leading to "one pleasing note".
Duncan-Jones and Kerrigan both point out that line 6 echoes
Sidney's *New Arcadia*, which she had just published.
Sonnet 9: Lady Ursula Walsingham (about 60?)
Widow of Sir Francis, who had died 6 months earlier, leaving
only the one daughter, Frances. Lady Ursula was frequently seen
at court after the death of her husband. Frances was living with
her, in effect barred from court, following her secret marriage
to Essex earlier in the year.
Sonnet 10: The Earl of Essex (24)
Assuming that his friendship with Southampton had started by
now, this sounds the sort of thing a good friend would feel
able to say, where others might not. As Duncan-Jones says,
Southampton "should at least procreate, for the sake of his
friend..."
Sonnet 11: Lady Dorothy Perrot (nee Devereux) (22?)
Essex's younger sister. Married to Sir Thomas Perrot who,
because of the Queen's disapproval of this marriage, would
probably not have been welcome. Indeed, "so fast thou growest"
may well be said by someone whose own marriage was apparently
accompanied by shot-guns. The whole thing is rather disparaging
of 'older' husbands, not made for 'store'.
Sonnet 12: Henry Herbert, Earl of Pembroke (52)
Mary Herbert's husband. A Sonnet best spoken by an older man, a
father, and one concerned with 'breed', all of which Pembroke
now was.
Sonnet 13: Elizabeth de Vere (15)
Oxford's daughter, Burghley's granddaughter, and Southampton's
fiancee. Although this is the first 'you' sonnet, she was
probably the only one in that company - other than his mother -
who would be able to call him 'dear my love'. Spoken by her,
'husbandry' is given extra relevance.
Sonnet 14: Sir Walter Raleigh (36?)
If he was still around Court at that time, he would be my best
bet for the one who has 'astronomy'. Interesting, but not
conclusive, is Duncan-Jones's note to line 14: "Cf. Ralegh's
reply to Marlowe's 'Passionate Shepherd'': 'Had joyes no date,
nor age no need'".
Sonnets 15-17. The poet himself (26)
The last two, as Nigel pointed out, tell us this, and I also
include Sonnet 15 because of its reference to "this huge stage",
and the words "I engraft you new". These three are the only
other 'you' sonnets.
Peter F.
pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm
Nigel Davies
> Nigel Davies wrote:
>
> > Sonnet 8 seems rather well positioned for being spoken after a musical interlude
> > midway through the reading of the series of 17 sonnets too. Perhaps a musical
> > interlude after the 8th. sonnet, rather than before it, would have been more
> > dead centre but it strikes me that if these sonnets were presented orally, at
> > once, at an occasion of some sort, then they would need some relief and
> > distraction at this midway point that a musical interlude would provide.
>
> readings* seem positively intelligent.
Why? What is so impossible that these specifically 17 sonnets, a form of poetry
designed to have a speaker and be spoken aloud, could not have been spoken by a
variety of speakers on the occasion of the subject's 17th. birthday? That the
articles referred to by several of the sonnets (mirror, musical instrument,
clock, painting) could not have been part of the environment in which they were
spoken or presents to the subject on such an occasion? Have you ever visited
Lyme Hall, Chatsworth, Capesthorne Hall, Bowood, Longleat, Beaulieu and seen
such environments as alluded to in these sonnets? I was at Beaulieu 2 months ago
which was acquired by the 2nd. Earl of Southampton with the portraits of the
Southamptons on the walls, the collection of keyboard instruments, the clocks,
the mirrors. Beaulieu today is not as it was in Shakespeare's time but it would
be a fool indeed to not recognise the environments in which these sonnets are
quite capable of having been rendered.
And just what physically or intellectually challenging a task is it to present
the 17 sonnets in such a way? Each sonnet can be comfortably rendered in 1
minute without rushing so after an unchallenging 7 minutes the first 7 could
have been performed, followed by a musical interlude, followed by another 10
minutes to render the remainder. Compared to a 5-hour uncut performance of
"Hamlet" such a rendition would be a little party piece.
You've previously alluded to the reading of Ovid's "Metamorphoses" as though it
was comparable to climbing Everest yet I'd say no more than 1-2 days of a
person's time is required to achieve such a task. I'd like to know what in the
content or its spoken form makes you think less than 20 minutes of sonnet
speaking in an environment that has the articles referred to at hand is such a
hopelessly impossible scenario. You seem to have lapsed into schoolground
naa-naa-na-naaing again instead of intelligent constructive criticism.
______________________________________________________________________
Nigel....@BTInternet.com
Nigel Davies
> Nigel Davies wrote:
> >
> > Robert Stonehouse wrote:
> > >
> > > Certainly number 8, 'Music to hear, why hear'st thou
> > > music sadly?' points at least as strongly to the same conclusion. If
> > > we think along those lines then other possibilities appear; perhaps
> > > all the props used in the poems, like the mirror in number 3, derive
> > > from the surroundings at the first performance.
> >
> > Sonnet 8 seems rather well positioned for being spoken after a musical interlude
> > midway through the reading of the series of 17 sonnets too. Perhaps a musical
> > interlude after the 8th. sonnet, rather than before it, would have been more
> > dead centre but it strikes me that if these sonnets were presented orally, at
> > once, at an occasion of some sort, then they would need some relief and
> > distraction at this midway point that a musical interlude would provide.
>
> I was rather sad that nobody had anything to say about my
> suggested list of "readers" for this occasion if it had indeed
> been Southampton's 17th birthday in 1590. For number 8, I had
> Mary, Countess of Pembroke, who could perhaps have given the
> Sonnet as *part* of a lute recital.
I couldn't venture to guess who the speakers could be myself. There would seem
to be a wide variety of contenders. Are you suggesting a sonnet, perhaps 8,
could have been sung instead of spoken?
______________________________________________________________________
Nigel....@BTInternet.com
Paul Crowley
> Shakespeare was not a hack poet.
He was (according to you) hired to write sonnets
to the noble young man in order to urge him to
procreate. At least I think that's what you believe;
it's the standard theory and you're always keen
to follow the standard. Although I know you don't
like anyone to spell it out (because the clearer it's
stated the more ridiculous it sounds); but you've
been careful never to put forward any alternative
So IMO 'hack poet' fits.
> Aside from that, who are you to say what he would have dared?
Hacks have to do what their current bosses
want. Otherwise they get fired.
> Also, why did you snip my
> showing you that "counterfeit" could mean simply "image,"
I dealt with it later -- my point that even what
you say is true, a poet being paid to praise a
portrait cannot use words that are normally
derogatory. Do a search in the canon -- you'll
see that nearly all the 72 uses of 'counterfeit'
are explicitly derogatory.
> and suggesting that it was used for the rhyme?
That was idiotic. Do you think Shakespeare had
difficulties making a rhyme? Or that he'd say
something he didn't mean to contrive one?
[..]
> Yeah, Paul, the poet is saying, "Hey, Queenie, have some kids;
> that way you can defeat time's ravages better than any of the
> lousy paintings of you one sees all over the place."
Your capacity to interpret complex poetry is
astounding (I won't say in what ways). But
surely you can see that whether or not the
Queen had an heir was a slightly more
important matter than whether or not your
16- or 17-year-old youth eventually produced
some offspring? Or that the question of the
continuance of the Tudor dynasty might be
more likely to give rise to better poetry than
that of Joe Bloggs's procreation?
Greg Reynolds
Peter Farey wrote:
> Nigel Davies wrote:
> >
> > Robert Stonehouse wrote:
> > >
> > > Certainly number 8, 'Music to hear, why hear'st thou
> > > music sadly?' points at least as strongly to the same conclusion. If
> > > we think along those lines then other possibilities appear; perhaps
> > > all the props used in the poems, like the mirror in number 3, derive
> > > from the surroundings at the first performance.
> >
> > Sonnet 8 seems rather well positioned for being spoken after a musical interlude
> > midway through the reading of the series of 17 sonnets too. Perhaps a musical
> > interlude after the 8th. sonnet, rather than before it, would have been more
> > dead centre but it strikes me that if these sonnets were presented orally, at
> > once, at an occasion of some sort, then they would need some relief and
> > distraction at this midway point that a musical interlude would provide.
>
> I was rather sad that nobody had anything to say about my
> suggested list of "readers" for this occasion if it had indeed
> been Southampton's 17th birthday in 1590. For number 8, I had
> Mary, Countess of Pembroke, who could perhaps have given the
> Sonnet as *part* of a lute recital.
>
> Just in case you missed it, here is the list again.
Thanks for the reprint, Peter, though I kept your original. I am
fascinated with your effort and I need to see and understand
the entire set of 17 (or more) to fully get the idea, then I want
to talk. I doubt anyone ignored your ideas, but that they want
the entire scheme. After next week, I'll be writing you.
Greg Reynolds
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
"Paul Crowley" <pebj...@ubgznvy.pbz (apply ROT13)> wrote:
news:8sj0dm$pge$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
>
> to the noble young man in order to urge him to
> procreate. At least I think that's what you believe;
> it's the standard theory and you're always keen
> to follow the standard.
(1) If you paid any attention to the many posts I've made in
answer to your posts you would find that there are few people in
the entire world to whom the description "always keen to follow
the standard" applies less than to me, Paul.
(2) If you paid any attention to the many posts I've made in
answer to your posts you would find that I do NOT know the
circumstances behind Shakespeare's writing the sonnets. I
find his being hired to write sonnets to a noble young man
possible but I don't like it. Of the ten or twelve possibilies
I've considered (and I certainly don't think there aren't more),
the one I lean to most is that Shakespeare knew the family of
a young man who seemed likely to remain single his whole life,
and they didn't want him to. Shakespeare then took it on himself
to write some sonnets that he thought would amuse the young man, and
prehaps his family--and also perhaps make him more receptive toward
getting a wife. I lean toward the young man's being a noble, and
the sonnets being a means of ingratiating himself with the young
mand and his family for the poet--for patronage, but also for
simple friendship. Since the sonnets were circulated, I assume
Shakespeare also used them to build his literary reputation. I
think he also wrote them because he liked writing poetry, and grabbed
any excuse--such as, in this case possibly, a birthday--to do so.
But there are other scenarios I like only slightly less than this one.
I interpret the sonnets on the basis of what they say, though, not on
the basis of what I think their background is.
> Although I know you don't
> like anyone to spell it out (because the clearer it's
> stated the more ridiculous it sounds); but you've
> been careful never to put forward any alternative
Now I'm seriously worrying about you, Paul. I certainly have.
Surely you remember the one about Shakespeare's writing the
sonnets to his cat. I've mentioned others. I HAVE been careful
to say I haven't picked ANY alternative because I lack sufficient
data to do so.
> So IMO 'hack poet' fits.
No. Even if he was paid, it doesn't make him a hack, unless
Michelangelo was a hack painter.
> > Aside from that, who are you to say what he would have dared?
>
> Hacks have to do what their current bosses
> want. Otherwise they get fired.
This is so stupid it's hard to respond to. Do you think the nobles
paying Shakespeare told him exactly what to write? Do you think
he couldn't have written what he wanted to and convinced them it
was close enough to what they wanted? How do you know what
his alleged bosses would have wanted, anyway? How would you know
how ready they were to fire someone? Maybe they paid him in advance
and were stuck with what he turned out. Etc.
> > Also, why did you snip my
> > showing you that "counterfeit" could mean simply "image,"
>
> I dealt with it later -- my point that even what
> you say is true, a poet being paid to praise a
> portrait cannot use words that are normally
> derogatory. Do a search in the canon -- you'll
> see that nearly all the 72 uses of 'counterfeit'
> are explicitly derogatory.
I don't have a search engine. Also, I doubt that you have any
idea what's explicitly derogatory and what isn't. Also, in this
case it clearly wasn't derogatory, and it is this case that counts.
> > and suggesting that it was used for the rhyme?
>
> That was idiotic. Do you think Shakespeare had
> difficulties making a rhyme? Or that he'd say
> something he didn't mean to contrive one?
Ah, here's the noted poet and literary critic putting me in
my place again. Do I think Shakespeare had difficulties
making a rhyme? Yes. All poets in English have difficulties
in making rhymes. Shakespeare often makes feeble ones. In this
case, he needed a word that meant "image" and rhymed with "set";
"counterfeit" worked, so he used it. If he was anything like
me, and other poets I know or have read about, he may have spent
time rearranging his words to try to get improved sense and sound,
but couldn't. (He also may have liked "paiNTed couNTerfeiT," too.)
Poets working in songmode poetry (another of my coinages, Paul--
suggest a better one before rebuking me for using it), often have
to make compromises of this sort--picking a word that doesn't
exactly convey the right meaning but rhymes over one that better
conveys the meaning wanted but doesn't rhyme--or fit the meter,
etc.--or skipping a rhyme to get the exact meaning, etc.)
> [..]
>
> > Yeah, Paul, the poet is saying, "Hey, Queenie, have some kids;
> > that way you can defeat time's ravages better than any of the
> > lousy paintings of you one sees all over the place."
>
> Your capacity to interpret complex poetry is
> astounding (I won't say in what ways).
The above is my understanding of your interpretation. Correct me
if I'm wrong.
> But surely you can see that whether or not the
> Queen had an heir was a slightly more
> important matter than whether or not your
> 16- or 17-year-old youth eventually produced
> some offspring?
Ah, here's an instance where I fear I ignore the standard answer to
say no, I don't, if the youth was really beautiful. Beauty is
more important than politics. But if the reverse were true, so
what? Columbus's discovery of the new world was more important
than whether Queen Elizabeth had an heir or not, but Shakespeare
wrote no sonnets about it.
> Or that the question of the
> continuance of the Tudor dynasty might be
> more likely to give rise to better poetry than
> that of Joe Bloggs's procreation?
Oh, absolutely not. But the sonnets under discussion
do not have to do with Joe Blogg's procreation but of
the passing on of beauty, which is more important than
the name of sovereigns.
Paul Crowley
> "Paul Crowley" <pebj...@ubgznvy.pbz (apply ROT13)> wrote:
> >My context is, of course, the Queen, whose
> >portraits were ubiquitous. Introducing a
> >casual metaphorical reference to them at
> >line 8 would be unremarkable.
> Introducing the Queen into this does seem very strange, whoever one
> thinks wrote the poems.
I can't understand how you have failed to grasp
that my whole theme has been that ALL these
sonnets have been addressed to the Queen.
The basic argument is:
1) To what single person in Elizabethan England
was it appropriate to devote so much energy
in persuading them to have an heir?
2) Who else in the nobility had large estates
and a 'beauteous roof . . which to repair
should be thy chief desire'?
3) Who else could be praised to the skies
for her beauty, her deserts and her graces?
> I haven't said anything about 'hired' or 'paid'.
Well, that's the standard Stratfordian position.
You DO assume that (believing, for example,
that he was a 'very skilled actor').
> Nor do I mean
> 'publicly': I mean in the group of friends and associates among whom
> his daily life is led. Eminent people in those days had little or
> nothing of what we would call privacy - there were always people
> about.
Well, that's what I meant. Here we supposedly
have a young man, in the midst of his family and
friends, being praised for his beauty in the most
extravagant terms. I find that scenario absurd.
> >Many find homoerotic overtones
> >in all that. Was that a view to be considered
> >by the audience on this occasion? If not,
> >what rules it out?
>
> I don't think they do in 1-17, particularly? It seems to me that
> urging a man to get children is the reverse of homo-erotic.
So do I, but that's not my point. Many people
_do_ see homoeroticism. We must assume
that it was something that could be read in by
at least some of the audience. If so, do you
have a credible scenario? If not, why not?
[..]
> I see it in number 8, 'Your musicians were doing well; why did you
> stop them?' and 16, 'This painting here reproduces you well, but
> children are a much better form of reproduction'. Not expressed as
> explicitly as that, but explicitness is not the poet's way; we have
> to pick things up.
To explain his _complete_ lack of explicitness
as being ' . . not the poet's way . . ' is, to me,
simply a head-in-sand approach. You can
give no reason why he does not explicitly
state the name of this subject, nor the family
nor anything else.
[..]
> >Complex sonnets are wholly inappropriate to
> >such occasions. The audience would go away
> >puzzled, confused and probably irritated and
> >suspicious, saying "What did he mean by that?
> >Was he referring to this or to that, to him or to
> >her? I'm sure he meant X -- the dirty bugger".
> >The poems are too short and far too difficult.
> >The clients would not want it. It's just a bad
> >idea. Forget it.
>
> From the MS version of sonnet 2, I agree some of the audience did
> not completely get it.
We simply have to read a few lines of almost
any sonnet to grasp the complexity and depth
of meaning.
> But poetry can communicate without being
> fully understood - or so T.S. Eliot thought (mind, he needed to).
Fine -- in the right context. But obscurity is
entirely inappropriate where groups are
gathered together for some event,
especially when the poem is to mark some
gift or other transaction.
> And we should not underestimate what a first-class reading can do -
> a reading by the author, who was also a very skilled actor.
A bad reading can obstruct understanding,
but I don't see how a good one is going to
remove or resolve the multiplicity of ambiguities
and uncertainties we see throughout these
sonnets.
Nigel Davies
> "Paul Crowley" <pebj...@ubgznvy.pbz (apply ROT13)> wrote:
> > <BobGr...@Nut-N-But.Net> wrote in message
> news:8sj0dm$pge$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > I dealt with it later -- my point that even what
> > you say is true, a poet being paid to praise a
> > portrait cannot use words that are normally
> > derogatory. Do a search in the canon -- you'll
> > see that nearly all the 72 uses of 'counterfeit'
> > are explicitly derogatory.
BASSANIO
What find I here?
Opening the leaden casket
Fair Portia's COUNTERFEIT! What demi-god
Hath come so near creation? Move these eyes?
Or whether, riding on the balls of mine,
Seem they in motion? Here are sever'd lips,
Parted with sugar breath: so sweet a bar
Should sunder such sweet friends. Here in her hairs
The painter plays the spider and hath woven
A golden mesh to entrap the hearts of men,
Faster than gnats in cobwebs; but her eyes,--
How could he see to do them? having made one,
Methinks it should have power to steal both his
And leave itself unfurnish'd. Yet look, how far
The substance of my praise doth wrong this shadow
In underprizing it, so far this shadow
Doth limp behind the substance. Here's the scroll,
The continent and summary of my fortune.
______________________________________________________________________
Nigel....@BTInternet.com
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
> BASSANIO
> What find I here?
>
> Opening the leaden casket
>
> Fair Portia's COUNTERFEIT! What demi-god
> Hath come so near creation? Move these eyes?
> Or whether, riding on the balls of mine,
> Seem they in motion? Here are sever'd lips,
> Parted with sugar breath: so sweet a bar
> Should sunder such sweet friends. Here in her hairs
> The painter plays the spider and hath woven
> A golden mesh to entrap the hearts of men,
> Faster than gnats in cobwebs; but her eyes,--
> How could he see to do them? having made one,
> Methinks it should have power to steal both his
> And leave itself unfurnish'd. Yet look, how far
> The substance of my praise doth wrong this shadow
> In underprizing it, so far this shadow
> Doth limp behind the substance. Here's the scroll,
> The continent and summary of my fortune.
Thankee, Nigel--though it won't mean anything to Paul.
Robert Stonehouse
>> "Paul Crowley" <pebj...@ubgznvy.pbz (apply ROT13)> wrote:
>> >My context is, of course, the Queen, whose
>> >portraits were ubiquitous. Introducing a
>> >casual metaphorical reference to them at
>> >line 8 would be unremarkable.
>
>> thinks wrote the poems.
>
>that my whole theme has been that ALL these
>sonnets have been addressed to the Queen.
I haven't failed to grasp it - it just seems very strange.
>
>The basic argument is:
>1) To what single person in Elizabethan England
> was it appropriate to devote so much energy
> in persuading them to have an heir?
>2) Who else in the nobility had large estates
> and a 'beauteous roof . . which to repair
> should be thy chief desire'?
>3) Who else could be praised to the skies
> for her beauty, her deserts and her graces?
>
>> I haven't said anything about 'hired' or 'paid'.
>
>Well, that's the standard Stratfordian position.
>You DO assume that (believing, for example,
>that he was a 'very skilled actor').
Oh yes, he was someone who got paid for some of his activities. But
I suspect patronage relationships were more complicated.
>
>> Nor do I mean
>> 'publicly': I mean in the group of friends and associates among whom
>> his daily life is led. Eminent people in those days had little or
>> nothing of what we would call privacy - there were always people
>> about.
>
>Well, that's what I meant. Here we supposedly
>have a young man, in the midst of his family and
>friends, being praised for his beauty in the most
>extravagant terms. I find that scenario absurd.
>
>> >Many find homoerotic overtones
>> >in all that. Was that a view to be considered
>> >by the audience on this occasion? If not,
>> >what rules it out?
>>
>> I don't think they do in 1-17, particularly? It seems to me that
>> urging a man to get children is the reverse of homo-erotic.
>
>So do I, but that's not my point. Many people
>_do_ see homoeroticism. We must assume
>that it was something that could be read in by
>at least some of the audience. If so, do you
>have a credible scenario? If not, why not?
If I claimed to be able to explain everything without exception,
that would be suspicious! 1-17 are urging a young man to have
children, and that is non-homoerotic, even anti-homoerotic. It is an
obvious point: surely they would notice? And they would be (at least
mostly) dependants, not inclined to rush to derogatory conclusions.
>
>[..]
>> I see it in number 8, 'Your musicians were doing well; why did you
>> stop them?' and 16, 'This painting here reproduces you well, but
>> children are a much better form of reproduction'. Not expressed as
>> explicitly as that, but explicitness is not the poet's way; we have
>> to pick things up.
>
>To explain his _complete_ lack of explicitness
>as being ' . . not the poet's way . . ' is, to me,
>simply a head-in-sand approach. You can
>give no reason why he does not explicitly
>state the name of this subject, nor the family
>nor anything else.
There is not a single name throughout the sonnets except for a few,
very few, mythological names. That has to be explained as a part of
the poet's manner, not something relating to one family.
>
>[..]
>> >Complex sonnets are wholly inappropriate to
>> >such occasions. The audience would go away
>> >puzzled, confused and probably irritated and
>> >suspicious, saying "What did he mean by that?
>> >Was he referring to this or to that, to him or to
>> >her? I'm sure he meant X -- the dirty bugger".
>> >The poems are too short and far too difficult.
>> >The clients would not want it. It's just a bad
>> >idea. Forget it.
>>
>> From the MS version of sonnet 2, I agree some of the audience did
>> not completely get it.
>
>We simply have to read a few lines of almost
>any sonnet to grasp the complexity and depth
>of meaning.
>
>> But poetry can communicate without being
>> fully understood - or so T.S. Eliot thought (mind, he needed to).
>
>Fine -- in the right context. But obscurity is
>entirely inappropriate where groups are
>gathered together for some event,
>especially when the poem is to mark some
>gift or other transaction.
>
>> And we should not underestimate what a first-class reading can do -
>> a reading by the author, who was also a very skilled actor.
>
>A bad reading can obstruct understanding,
>but I don't see how a good one is going to
>remove or resolve the multiplicity of ambiguities
>and uncertainties we see throughout these
>sonnets.
Have you never found this when watching a play? I am often surprised
how much a sensitive performance can elucidate tricky passages.
ew...@bcs.org.uk
Nigel Davies
> >So do I, but that's not my point. Many people
> >_do_ see homoeroticism.
Many people think that France is in Asia. So what? Stupidity, ignorance or gross
mis-reading does not mean ridiculous notions such as this have any merit. There
is no homo-eroticism in verse addressed to a young man encouraging him to sire
children. That is manifestly obvious. The two are mutually exclusive. And there
is explicit anti-homosexuality in Sonnet 20 that makes it crystal clear in plain
and metaphorical English that the male subject was pricked out for women's
pleasure. I don't understand why cross-eyed reading of this verse by people who
imagine (or, like Volker, implant) homo-eroticism in it justifies any attention
when the poet's own words unequivocally state the opposite.
> >We must assume
> >that it was something that could be read in by
> >at least some of the audience. If so, do you
> >have a credible scenario? If not, why not?
We must assume that those people who believe in alien adbuctions, levitations,
Baconian ciphers in Shakespeare, Longfellow and last week's copy of the Sunday
Times are the same sorts of people who see homo-eroticism in verse addressed to
a man encouraging him to sire children. Such people may also read homo-eroticism
in the lusting of Venus & Adonis, Rape of Lucrece, Romeo & Juliet, Anthony &
Cleopatra, Othello & Desdemona, Petruchio & Kate, Troilus & Cressida, etc., but
it's more a sad reflection of their inability to comprehend the English language
rather than this poet intending homo-eroticism in lines such as "You had a
father; let your son say so".
...
> >A bad reading can obstruct understanding,
> >but I don't see how a good one is going to
> >remove or resolve the multiplicity of ambiguities
> >and uncertainties we see throughout these
> >sonnets.
Branaugh's rendition of the "country matters" exchange between Hamlet and
Ophelia suggests he has no comprehension of the double entendre contained
therein. Richard McCabe's performance that I saw last week brought the play
alive with his excellent understanding of the script and intra-character
dynamics that goes well beyond just speaking the words. I'm amazed that you fail
to appreciate that an informed reading of a play or sonnet will inevitably be
superior to an ill-informed one.
______________________________________________________________________
Nigel....@BTInternet.com
Greg Reynolds
BobGr...@Nut-N-But.Net wrote:
> Thanks for the instances of Shakespeare's use of "counterfeit" in
> the plays, Richie. As I suspected, many of them are not
> derogatory. Several mean, simply, "image."
>
> --Bob G.
Yes, likeness.
This all started in Sonnet 16. Richie's list is wanting, btw.
I have much more to say on this, but time restricts me now, but by
Monday I intend to clean up all my open posts at HLAS, including
Zenner/Sejanus, Multhopp/Strachey, and Sonnet 16.
Greg Reynolds
"Thanks for your patients."
-Dr. Frankenstein
R D Miller
ANTHONY AND CLEOPATRA:
none
CORIOLANUS:
"I will practise the insinuating nod and be off to them most
**counterfeitly**; that is, sir, I will **counterfeit** the bewitchment of
some popular man and give it bountiful to the desirers."
Hamlet:
"Look here, upon this picture, and on this, The **counterfeit** presentment
of two brothers."
JULIUS CAESAR:
none
KING LEAR:
"[Aside] My tears begin to take his part so much, They'll mar my
**counterfeiting**."
MACBETH:
"Shake off this downy sleep, death's **counterfeit**, And look on death
itself!"
OTHELLO:
"why, none; why, none: a slipper and subtle knave, a finder of occasions,
that has an eye can stamp and **counterfeit** advantages, though true
advantage never present itself; a devilish knave."
"And, O you mortal engines, whose rude throats The immortal Jove's dead
clamours **counterfeit**, Farewell! Othello's occupation's gone!"
"Two or three groan: it is a heavy night: These may be **counterfeits**:
let's think't unsafe To come in to the cry without more help."
ROMEO AND JULIET:
"Signior Romeo, bon jour! there's a French salutation to your French slop.
You gave us the **counterfeit** fairly last night.
"Good morrow to you both. What **counterfeit** did I give you?
"The ship, sir, the slip; can you not conceive?"
"When the sun sets, the air doth drizzle dew; But for the sunset of my
brother's son It rains downright. How now! a conduit, girl? what, still in
tears? Evermore showering? In one little body Thou **counterfeit'st** a
bark, a sea, a wind; For still thy eyes, which I may call the sea, Do ebb
and flow with tears; the bark thy body is, Sailing in this salt flood; the
winds, thy sighs; Who, raging with thy tears, and they with them, Without a
sudden calm, will overset Thy tempest-tossed body. How now, wife! Have you
deliver'd to her our decree?"
"Pity not honour'd age for his white beard; He is an usurer: strike me the
**counterfeit** matron; It is her habit only that is honest, Herself's a
bawd:"
TIMON OF ATHENS:
"Ye're honest men: ye've heard that I have gold; I am sure you have: speak
truth; ye're honest men.
"So it is said, my noble lord; but therefore Came not my friend nor I.
"Good honest men! Thou draw'st a **counterfeit** Best in all Athens:
thou'rt, indeed, the best; Thou **counterfeit'st** most lively."
TITUS ANDRONICUS:
none
--
Richie Miller
www.omencity.com
****************************************
Posting Oxfordian Scholarship since 1999
****************************************
R D Miller
anything it is a creative INVENTION on your part that gives us yet another
way of having fun with Shakespeare, which is what I think he wanted us to
do. You have my complete approval and good wishes.
This is a thread I've only peeked at from time to time and I can see now
that I've missed out on something really exceptional. I was so engrossed
in my own agenda that I've missed the party.
God damn that Looney.
Richie
--
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
the plays, Richie. As I suspected, many of them are not
derogatory. Several mean, simply, "image."
--Bob G.
R D Miller
eve...@megsinet.net says...
>
>
> BobGr...@Nut-N-But.Net wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the instances of Shakespeare's use of "counterfeit" in
> > the plays, Richie. As I suspected, many of them are not
> > derogatory. Several mean, simply, "image."
> >
> > --Bob G.
>
I agree with Bob. But I've missed most of the argument because I haven't
followed the thread.
> Yes, likeness.
> This all started in Sonnet 16. Richie's list is wanting, btw.
I was going to cut and paste them all but it was becoming apparent that
Peter's claim may have been over stated. so I only did the tragedies.
> I have much more to say on this, but time restricts me now, but by
> Monday I intend to clean up all my open posts at HLAS, including
> Zenner/Sejanus, Multhopp/Strachey, and Sonnet 16.
>
> Greg Reynolds
>
> "Thanks for your patients."
> -Dr. Frankenstein
>
LOL
Paul Crowley
> > BASSANIO
> > What find I here?
> >
> > Opening the leaden casket
> >
> > Fair Portia's COUNTERFEIT! What demi-god
> > Hath come so near creation? Move these eyes?
> Thankee, Nigel--though it won't mean anything to Paul.
>
> --Bob G.
Nigel is being his usual deceptive self.
As I posted two days ago:
--------------- start of post of 17th Oct ------------------
--------------- end of post of 17th Oct ------------------
Greg Reynolds
Paul Crowley wrote:
> Robert Stonehouse <ew...@bcs.org.uk> wrote in message news:39ed3f25...@news.cityscape.co.uk...
>
> > "Paul Crowley" <pebj...@ubgznvy.pbz (apply ROT13)> wrote:
> > >My context is, of course, the Queen, whose
> > >portraits were ubiquitous. Introducing a
> > >casual metaphorical reference to them at
> > >line 8 would be unremarkable.
>
> > Introducing the Queen into this does seem very strange, whoever one
> > thinks wrote the poems.
>
> I can't understand how you have failed to grasp
> that my whole theme has been that ALL these
> sonnets have been addressed to the Queen.
>
> The basic argument is:
> 1) To what single person in Elizabethan England
> was it appropriate to devote so much energy
> in persuading them to have an heir?
How DID you rule out everyone else?
I'm sure you have no answer.
>
> 2) Who else in the nobility had large estates
> and a 'beauteous roof . . which to repair
> should be thy chief desire'?
All with families, try the poetic sense.
When does a subject tell the Queen what her chief concerns are to be?
Well, at least you enjoy these poems, that's what they're meant for, I guess.
> 3) Who else could be praised to the skies
> for her beauty, her deserts and her graces?
Her?
Reread, Paul. The only *her*s are the maidens to have
*his* children.
Or don't reread; you may lose your enjoyment.
> > I haven't said anything about 'hired' or 'paid'.
>
> Well, that's the standard Stratfordian position.
You explaining Stratfordian dogma reminds me of
Shakespeare describing Padua. You guys don't know
your subject matter but you go ahead anyway!
> You DO assume that (believing, for example,
> that he was a 'very skilled actor').
He was a member of the Lord Chamberlain's Men.
Oxford can make no such claim.
He was a member of the King's Men. I find that impressive.
Oxford can make no such claim.
His was the premiere acting company of his time.
Maybe that doesn't mean anything to you because you
resent the guy so much, but he's got you right where he
wants you. Oxford can make no such claim.
> > Nor do I mean
> > 'publicly': I mean in the group of friends and associates among whom
> > his daily life is led. Eminent people in those days had little or
> > nothing of what we would call privacy - there were always people
> > about.
What are you about?
> Well, that's what I meant. Here we supposedly
> have a young man, in the midst of his family and
> friends, being praised for his beauty in the most
> extravagant terms. I find that scenario absurd.
I don't get any family angle.
I think the poetry to be too bawdy and too personal
for a family event. You're thinking his father and mother
are present? I don't get that.
> > >Many find homoerotic overtones
> > >in all that. Was that a view to be considered
> > >by the audience on this occasion? If not,
> > >what rules it out?
> >
> > I don't think they do in 1-17, particularly? It seems to me that
> > urging a man to get children is the reverse of homo-erotic.
>
> So do I, but that's not my point. Many people
> _do_ see homoeroticism.
Let them speak for themselves. Its not your point, remember?
> We must assume
> that it was something that could be read in by
> at least some of the audience. If so, do you
> have a credible scenario? If not, why not?
Um, well maybe because making up credible scenarios
for every dipstick in the audience would be time-consuming,
unproductive, and fruitless?
Guessing here.
> [..]
> > I see it in number 8, 'Your musicians were doing well; why did you
> > stop them?' and 16, 'This painting here reproduces you well, but
> > children are a much better form of reproduction'. Not expressed as
> > explicitly as that, but explicitness is not the poet's way; we have
> > to pick things up.
>
> To explain his _complete_ lack of explicitness
> as being ' . . not the poet's way . . ' is, to me,
> simply a head-in-sand approach. You can
> give no reason why he does not explicitly
> state the name of this subject, nor the family
> nor anything else.
He used no proper names of living people in the
sonnets--only gods or muses.
> > >Complex sonnets are wholly inappropriate to
> > >such occasions. The audience would go away
> > >puzzled, confused and probably irritated and
> > >suspicious, saying "What did he mean by that?
> > >Was he referring to this or to that, to him or to
> > >her? I'm sure he meant X -- the dirty bugger".
> > >The poems are too short and far too difficult.
> > >The clients would not want it. It's just a bad
> > >idea. Forget it.
> >
> > From the MS version of sonnet 2, I agree some of the audience did
> > not completely get it.
>
> We simply have to read a few lines of almost
> any sonnet to grasp the complexity and depth
> of meaning.
You said it! (What the hell were you thinking?)
> > But poetry can communicate without being
> > fully understood - or so T.S. Eliot thought (mind, he needed to).
>
> Fine -- in the right context. But obscurity is
> entirely inappropriate where groups are
> gathered together for some event,
> especially when the poem is to mark some
> gift or other transaction.
>
> > And we should not underestimate what a first-class reading can do -
> > a reading by the author, who was also a very skilled actor.
>
> A bad reading can obstruct understanding,
> but I don't see how a good one is going to
> remove or resolve the multiplicity of ambiguities
> and uncertainties we see throughout these
> sonnets.
The creator of the sonnet could deliver it correctly.
Greg Reynolds
Erik Nielsen
> > that he was a 'very skilled actor').
>
> He was a member of the Lord Chamberlain's Men.
> Oxford can make no such claim.
> He was a member of the King's Men. I find that impressive.
> Oxford can make no such claim.
> His was the premiere acting company of his time.
Fine, then, Crowley... so let's say he wasn't a talented actor. Then he
must have had other talents that were usegful to a dramatic company,
no? Like... um... hm, what else does a dramatic company need other than
actors?
Paul Crowley
>
>
> Paul Crowley wrote:
> > 1) To what single person in Elizabethan England
> > was it appropriate to devote so much energy
> > in persuading them to have an heir?
>
> How DID you rule out everyone else?
> I'm sure you have no answer.
An idiotic point. Obviously, I ruled out all the other
4 million or so by making a detailed study of each
of them -- their condition in life and their wealth at
the point of their deaths. What else did you think?
> > 2) Who else in the nobility had large estates
> > and a 'beauteous roof . . which to repair
> > should be thy chief desire'?
>
> All with families, try the poetic sense.
So the 'poetic sense' need have no connection
with reality?
> When does a subject tell the Queen what her chief concerns are to be?
When he is her 'allowed fool'. Rulers do often
need to be told things that they might prefer
were not the case. Good ones recognise that.
[..]
> > 3) Who else could be praised to the skies
> > for her beauty, her deserts and her graces?
>
> Her?
> Reread, Paul. The only *her*s are the maidens to have
> *his* children.
There is no 'his' and 'maidens' can be either sex.
<snip>
Paul Crowley
> > "Paul Crowley" <pebj...@ubgznvy.pbz (apply ROT13)> wrote:
>
> > >So do I, but that's not my point. Many people
> > >_do_ see homoeroticism.
>
> Many people think that France is in Asia. So what? Stupidity, ignorance or gross
> mis-reading does not mean ridiculous notions such as this have any merit.
The people inferring homoeroticism include some of
the most respected of Stratfordian commentators.
> There
> is no homo-eroticism in verse addressed to a young man encouraging him to sire
> children. That is manifestly obvious. The two are mutually exclusive.
Well, that's my opinion too. But I can see how many
come to see homoeroticism. The relationship between
the poet and the subject appears strongly sexual, with a
VAST amount of praise of the subject's 'beauty', both in
general and on features like the eyes.
> And there
> is explicit anti-homosexuality in Sonnet 20 that makes it crystal clear in plain
> and metaphorical English that the male subject was pricked out for women's
> pleasure. I don't understand why cross-eyed reading of this verse by people who
> imagine (or, like Volker, implant) homo-eroticism in it justifies any attention
> when the poet's own words unequivocally state the opposite.
There is little 'unequivocal' in these sonnets, and
certainly not in Sonnet 20. Our conclusions about
them have to exclude certain strands that are either
manifest in the sonnets or which we have mistakenly
assumed to be manifest in them: (a) they are
deliberately obscure (b) the show a sexual relationship
between the poet and the subject (c) they urge the
subject to have children (d) the subject has wealthy
estates and is under great pressure to have an heir
for them.
By far the most parsimonious solution IMO is that they
were addressed to the Queen, which required some
concealment; so the impression is often given that
they are addressed to a male.
> > >A bad reading can obstruct understanding,
> > >but I don't see how a good one is going to
> > >remove or resolve the multiplicity of ambiguities
> > >and uncertainties we see throughout these
> > >sonnets.
>
> Branaugh's rendition of the "country matters" exchange between Hamlet and
> Ophelia suggests he has no comprehension of the double entendre contained
> therein. Richard McCabe's performance that I saw last week brought the play
> alive with his excellent understanding of the script and intra-character
> dynamics that goes well beyond just speaking the words. I'm amazed that you fail
> to appreciate that an informed reading of a play or sonnet will inevitably be
> superior to an ill-informed one.
There is a world of difference between 'an informed
reading of a play' and ' informed reading of a
sonnet'. In one the characters are on stage and
exhibit a certain sort of relationship, much of which
comes out in the dialogue. In sonnets there is one
voice, which necessarily has layers of meaning,
few of which can be brought out by vocal tones or
gestures.
These sonnets are rarely performed on stage --
partly for that reason.
Paul Crowley
> > > You DO assume that (believing, for example,
> > > that he was a 'very skilled actor').
> >
> > He was a member of the Lord Chamberlain's Men.
> > Oxford can make no such claim.
> > He was a member of the King's Men. I find that impressive.
> > Oxford can make no such claim.
> > His was the premiere acting company of his time.
>
> Fine, then, Crowley... so let's say he wasn't a talented actor. Then he
> must have had other talents that were usegful to a dramatic company,
> no? Like... um... hm, what else does a dramatic company need other than
> actors?
This company needed (indirectly) a stooge in a remote
country town, who could pretend to be the playwright.
(Not that he was ever available to answer any
questions, or give interviews.)
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
> > Fine, then, Crowley... so let's say he wasn't a talented actor.
> > Then he must have had other talents that were usegful to a dramatic
> > company, no? Like... um... hm, what else does a dramatic company
> > need other than actors?
>
> This company needed (indirectly) a stooge in a remote
> country town, who could pretend to be the playwright.
> (Not that he was ever available to answer any
> questions, or give interviews.)
>
Right. And, according to Paul, overseers to keep an eye on him,
including a fast-lane lawyer sent to live in his house with him.
Plus (not according to Paul but almost certain to be the case)
ten or twenty ushers for each performance to make sure none of the
spectators broke decorum by (gracious sakes) mentioning the name
of The True Author.
The truth is that Paul's just pissed because he got the run-around
when he went to interview Will. I can sympathize: all the other
writers were granting dozens of interviews a month, but Shakespeare,
the swine, refused all requests for interviews. (We know Paul is 450-
years-old because no one not that old could know the time and place as
well as he does.)
Greg Reynolds
Paul Crowley wrote:
> Greg Reynolds <eve...@megsinet.net> wrote in message news:39f2947f$0$99052$1dc6...@news.corecomm.net...
> >
> >
> > Paul Crowley wrote:
> > > 1) To what single person in Elizabethan England
> > > was it appropriate to devote so much energy
> > > in persuading them to have an heir?
> >
> > How DID you rule out everyone else?
> > I'm sure you have no answer.
>
> An idiotic point. Obviously, I ruled out all the other
> 4 million or so by making a detailed study of each
> of them -- their condition in life and their wealth at
> the point of their deaths. What else did you think?
I think that's the only answer you can give--nonsense.
> > > 2) Who else in the nobility had large estates
> > > and a 'beauteous roof . . which to repair
> > > should be thy chief desire'?
> >
> > All with families, try the poetic sense.
>
> So the 'poetic sense' need have no connection
> with reality?
Okay, we'll try reality, to show how wrong you must be.
Which roof of hers needed repair? Did it leak?
You are divorced from any reality, thus your diatribe of Shakespeare.
> > When does a subject tell the Queen what her chief concerns are to be?
>
> When he is her 'allowed fool'. Rulers do often
> need to be told things that they might prefer
> were not the case. Good ones recognise that.
So you have him in jail writing sugred sonnets to the one
who imprisoned him? Paul, please list all the prisoners
of any era who have penned affectionate poems
to their accusers and captors.
> > > 3) Who else could be praised to the skies
> > > for her beauty, her deserts and her graces?
> >
> > Her?
> > Reread, Paul. The only *her*s are the maidens to have
> > *his* children.
>
> There is no 'his' and 'maidens' can be either sex.
You're kidding I hope. Maiden gardens to bear your living
flowers cannot be applied to men. Women are the child-bearing
gender, Paul, then and now. To tell the queen there are maiden
gardens waiting to bear her children is simply absurd. And
impossible/implausible/stupid/inane/ridiculous.
Your selective ignoring of the poem's context has destroyed
your ability to grasp it. And to think of all the valuable insights
you've been given to appreciate the poem!
Greg Reynolds