Sonnet 16
Robert Stonehouse
Bvt wherefore do not you a mightier waie
Make warre vppon this bloudie tirant time?
And fortifie your selfe in your decay
With meanes more blessed then my barren rime?
Now stand you on the top of happie houres,
And many maiden gardens yet vnset,
With vertuous wish would beare your liuing flowers,
Much liker then your painted counterfeit:
So should the lines of life that life repaire
Which this (Times pensel or my pupill pen )
Neither in inward worth nor outward faire
Can make you liue your selfe in eies of men,
To giue away your selfe,keeps your selfe still,
And you must liue drawne by your owne sweet skill,
But wherefore do not you a mightier way
Make war upon this bloody tyrant, Time,
And fortify yourself in your decay
With means more blessed than my barren rhyme? 4
Now stand you on the top of happy hours
And many maiden gardens yet unset
With virtuous wish would bear your living flowers,
Much liker than your painted counterfeit. 8
So should the lines of life that life repair
Which this time's pencil or my pupil pen
Neither in inward worth nor outward fair
Can make you live yourself in eyes of men. 12
To give away yourself, keeps yourself still,
And you must live, drawn by your own sweet skill. 14
--
Robert Stonehouse
To mail me, replace invalid with uk. Inconvenience regretted.
Robert Stonehouse
(Robert Stonehouse) wrote:
> 16
...
>But wherefore do not you a mightier way
But why don't you in a more effective manner
>Make war upon this bloody tyrant, Time,
do battle against the savage cruelty of Time
>And fortify yourself in your decay
and defend your personality, as your body gradually dies
away,
>With means more blessed than my barren rhyme? 4
with methods more likely to succeed than my poetry, which
bears no fruit?
>Now stand you on the top of happy hours
At present you are at the pinnacle of the best time of your
life
>And many maiden gardens yet unset
and many virgins, like unplanted gardens,
>With virtuous wish would bear your living flowers,
would bring forth real, live flowers of your sowing, with
holy satisfaction,
>Much liker than your painted counterfeit. 8
and those would resemble you much better than your portrait
imitates you.
>So should the lines of life that life repair
In that way, the line of your descendants would make good
your own life,
>Which this time's pencil or my pupil pen
which neither today's miniaturist nor my poetry which learns
from him
>Neither in inward worth nor outward fair
can, in goodness of character or external beauty,
>Can make you live yourself in eyes of men. 12
bring you back to live in your own person, for everyone to
see.
>To give away yourself, keeps yourself still,
Giving yourself away means that your self still exists;
>And you must live, drawn by your own sweet skill. 14
the way for you to live is by lines drawn by your own art of
attraction.
Like sonnets 5 and 6, 15 and 16 make a pair. But this time,
the second poem goes further to change the meaning of the
first. Sonnet 15 on its own seems to recommend poetry as a
way to achieve immortality. 15 and 16 together make poetry a
feeble and unsatisfactory way of doing that, a poor second
to having children.
Line 8, 'your painted counterfeit'. Once again, I take this
dramatically. At this point we are to imagine some business
with a miniature portrait. These words are much more natural
if a particular portrait is meant. (I question whether
'counterfeit' on its own means 'portrait', if there is
nothing in the context, like 'painted' here, to make the
point.)
The third quatrain. This has caused much dispute. Rather
than try to expound all of it, which would take a lot of
space, I have ridden roughshod over it with a line that
seems to make consistent sense of the poem – you have been
warned!
Lines 9-10. The pencil and the pen are alternatives, neither
of which 'can make you live' (12) 'that life' (9). By
contrast, 'the lines of life' can 'repair' that same life.
'That life' in line 9 is the antecedent of 'Which' in line
10.
The pencil is the fine brush of the miniaturist – its
fineness often exaggerated in literature, to the extent of
inventing a brush made of a single hair which (I understand)
would be useless. Because of the pencil, I say this is a
portrait in miniature.
Since line 1, the poet has been saying that descendants are
better than poetry as a defence against death. I paraphrase
here to say that the family tree of descendants from the
addressee is better than poetry and painting together: the
particular poetry of this poet (here describing himself as
such for the first time) and the particular painting of the
miniature he holds in his hand.
None of the commentators in print keeps the brackets of the
Quarto in line 10, but Ingram and Redpath do. They describe
the text usually printed as "a radical departure, only
justifiable if Q were unintelligible", which seems at odds
with the description of Q's punctuation in their
introduction (1977 impression): "The Quarto punctuation
seems rather to be just an inferior example of normal
printing-house practice at the time". In the Quarto, this
sonnet ends with a comma, helping to justify that view.
'My pupil pen'. I see no reason why Shakespeare at this
point should announce in general terms that he is only a
learner-poet. It would contribute nothing to the argument of
the poem. In fact, it would detract. It allows the response:
"If your poetry can't do the job, then find a more
experienced poet who can". So I take him to mean that, in
describing the addressee, he is a follower of the painter
and learns from him: the pen is a pupil of the pencil.
Art Neuendorffer
news:41264661...@news.cityscape.co.uk...
Oxford's wealthy wife (Ann Cecil) is now dead with no male offspring to
continue the Earls of Oxford. At this stage in his life should Oxford
continue to preoccupy himself with perfecting his immortal offspring (his
works) or attempt to take on the added emotional & financial responsibility
of producing & providing for the next Earls of Oxford? (Oxford like Hamlet
prefers monologues and leaves the fatherly preaching to others.)
Art Neuendorffer
news:41264661...@news.cityscape.co.uk...
Oxford's wealthy wife (Ann Cecil) is now dead with no male offspring to
continue the Earls of Oxford. At this stage in his life should Oxford
continue to preoccupy himself with perfecting his immortal offspring (his
works) or attempt to take on the added emotional & financial responsibility
prefers monologues and leaves fatherly preaching to others.)
Art Neuendorffer
Gary Kosinsky
<ew...@bcs.org.invalid> wrote:
>On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 18:46:33 GMT, ew...@bcs.org.invalid
>(Robert Stonehouse) wrote:
>
>> 16
>...
>>But wherefore do not you a mightier way
>But why don't you in a more effective manner
>>Make war upon this bloody tyrant, Time,
>do battle against the savage cruelty of Time
>>And fortify yourself in your decay
>and defend your personality, as your body gradually dies
>away,
>>With means more blessed than my barren rhyme? 4
>with methods more likely to succeed than my poetry, which
>bears no fruit?
>
>>Now stand you on the top of happy hours
>At present you are at the pinnacle of the best time of your
>life
>>And many maiden gardens yet unset
>and many virgins, like unplanted gardens,
>>With virtuous wish would bear your living flowers,
>would bring forth real, live flowers of your sowing, with
>holy satisfaction,
Yet another sonnet that indicates that the addressee
is a man.
>>Much liker than your painted counterfeit. 8
>and those would resemble you much better than your portrait
>imitates you.
>
>>So should the lines of life that life repair
>In that way, the line of your descendants would make good
>your own life,
>>Which this time's pencil or my pupil pen
>which neither today's miniaturist nor my poetry which learns
>from him
>>Neither in inward worth nor outward fair
>can, in goodness of character or external beauty,
The poet, for a change, compliments the addressee on
something in addition to his good looks.
I took it as an example of false modesty.
- Gary Kosinsky
biancas842001
> 16
>
> Bvt wherefore do not you a mightier waie
> Make warre vppon this bloudie tirant time?
> And fortifie your selfe in your decay
> With meanes more blessed then my barren rime?
> Now stand you on the top of happie houres,
> And many maiden gardens yet vnset,
> With vertuous wish would beare your liuing flowers,
> Much liker then your painted counterfeit:
> So should the lines of life that life repaire
> Which this (Times pensel or my pupill pen )
> Neither in inward worth nor outward faire
> Can make you liue your selfe in eies of men,
> To giue away your selfe,keeps your selfe still,
> And you must liue drawne by your owne sweet skill,
Clearly, Sonnet 16 is written by the Earl of Oxford to Mary, Queen of
Scots. The "painted counterfeit" is Queen Elizabeth.
----
Bianca Steele
LynnE
"biancas842001" <bianca...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:456bd92f.04082...@posting.google.com...
Nonsense, Bianca. It is clear to me that this poet is clairvoyant. He speaks
of the future as if it were the present, and the first clue to this is that
the addressee should "make war upon this bloody tirant time." The poet then
continues in this vein. For example, who does not understand the reference
to "Happy Hours," the period at bars when one can buy cheap drinks? "Fortify
yourself in your decay" means that the addressee should see a dentist for a
fluoride treatment.
An explanatory note is necessary here about sixteenth century bawdry,
although we are mainly speaking of the present: The addressee is interested
in maiden's gardens--this is a reference to "country matters." And the
poet's "pupil pen" is his penis.
If one changes a letter or two, one can also get a reference to HLAS.
"Unset" is really "Usenet." As Terry Ross will tell us, even though he
doesn't understand the first thing about the sonnets, adding one letter to
an anagram is definitely acceptable. The poet therefore understands that in
four hundred years his poetry will be discussed ad infinitum on a newsgroup.
Finally, "painted counterfeits" are fake hundred dollar bills.
Taking all of the above into consideration, it is clear that the addressee
is the sweet eating, Lesbian, drunk, bawdy Elizabeth, with whom the poet is
in love and wants to try his "pupil pen," as she can teach him a trick or
two. "Time's Pencil" refers to Essex' nether regions. Essex is, after all,
the poet's rival, so he must be in this poem. He is also to be executed, so
"time" is of the essence to him. But the Queen is interested in neither of
them. She is only interested in other women, so the poet, piqued (or
"peaked"--a reference to post coitus which I have inserted) is also trying
to tell posterity that the Queen, in her grant to him of one thousand pounds
per annum, is passing counterfeit notes, as well as sundry other things.
Why can't you Strats and Quasi Strats get it straight?
>
> ----
> Bianca Steele
Paul Crowley
news:_25Xc.22162$DG.10...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > > Bvt wherefore do not you a mightier waie
> > > Make warre vppon this bloudie tirant time?
> > > And fortifie your selfe in your decay
> > > With meanes more blessed then my barren rime?
> > > Now stand you on the top of happie houres,
> > > And many maiden gardens yet vnset,
> > > With vertuous wish would beare your liuing flowers,
> > > Much liker then your painted counterfeit:
> > > So should the lines of life that life repaire
> > > Which this (Times pensel or my pupill pen )
> > > Neither in inward worth nor outward faire
> > > Can make you liue your selfe in eies of men,
> > > To giue away your selfe,keeps your selfe still,
> > > And you must liue drawne by your owne sweet skill,
> >
> > Clearly, Sonnet 16 is written by the Earl of Oxford to Mary, Queen of
> > Scots. The "painted counterfeit" is Queen Elizabeth.
>
> Nonsense, Bianca. It is clear to me that this poet is clairvoyant. He speaks
> of the future as if it were the present, and the first clue to this is that
> the addressee should "make war upon this bloody tirant time." The poet then
> continues in this vein. For example, who does not understand the reference
> to "Happy Hours," the period at bars when one can buy cheap drinks? "Fortify
> yourself in your decay" means that the addressee should see a dentist for a
> fluoride treatment.
We have to be thankful for small mercies
around here and, at least, this is a sign of
life -- if but a small sign.
> An explanatory note is necessary here about sixteenth century bawdry,
> although we are mainly speaking of the present: The addressee is interested
> in maiden's gardens--this is a reference to "country matters." And the
> poet's "pupil pen" is his penis.
"Maiden's gardens" are certainly well-recognised
as potentially bawdy. (Did you know this?)
And pens have indeed often been used as
phallic symbols. (Do you want quotes from
Shakespeare on these topics?)
> If one changes a letter or two, one can also get a reference to HLAS.
> "Unset" is really "Usenet." As Terry Ross will tell us, even though he
> doesn't understand the first thing about the sonnets, adding one letter to
> an anagram is definitely acceptable. The poet therefore understands that in
> four hundred years his poetry will be discussed ad infinitum on a newsgroup.
The poet hardly expected the Puritan
dominance to last 400 years, even if he
could see it gathering force during his
life. But, apart from that, he would have
expected his poems to receive much the
same attention as his plays. They haven't,
for several reasons; one is because the
conventions governing "the appreciation
of Shakespeare's Sonnets" were set by
sets of ghastly Victorian academics to
whom the idea that the Great Bard could
have been bawdy, sarcastic, ironic or
malicious, was unthinkable. Of course
the fact that they had the wrong guy,
did not help, nor the fact that they had
not a clue to whom they were addressed.
The sonnets have not been reinterpreted
since the time of the Victorians because
no modern critic can make the slightest
sense of them. Having the wrong guy
as author, and not knowing to whom
they were addressed, are substantial
impediments.
Oxfordians do know the identity of the
poet. They 'know' he was a courtier;
they 'know' to whom courtiers addressed
their poetry, they 'know' the intensity of
the rivalry involved, and they 'know' the
identity of the rival poets. Yet the great
bulk of them are so amazingly dopey --
so utterly dumb and stupid -- that they
accept the essence of the Strat line, even
though they 'know' it makes not one
scrap of sense.
Tell me, Lynne, who do YOU think was
the rival poet? Do you swallow the Strat
line here -- like everywhere else? Do you
have Peele, or someone else in the late
1590s sending homosexual love poetry
to Southampton?
OK, I've asked you this before, and not
got an answer. But I'm a bit relentless;
I don't give up so easily.
> Finally, "painted counterfeits" are fake hundred dollar bills.
You missed the 'cunt' aspect of 'counterfeit'
-- although in this case it's a term of abuse.
Who was the 'painted cunt' whom Oxford
despised and hated so much? (A clue --
it's in the historical record.)
Of course, you also miss all the other
relevant senses of 'counterfeit'.
> Taking all of the above into consideration, it is clear that the addressee
> is the sweet eating, Lesbian, drunk, bawdy Elizabeth, with whom the poet is
> in love and wants to try his "pupil pen," as she can teach him a trick or
> two. "Time's Pencil" refers to Essex' nether regions. Essex is, after all,
> the poet's rival, so he must be in this poem. He is also to be executed, so
> "time" is of the essence to him. But the Queen is interested in neither of
> them. She is only interested in other women, so the poet, piqued (or
> "peaked"--a reference to post coitus which I have inserted) is also trying
> to tell posterity that the Queen, in her grant to him of one thousand pounds
> per annum, is passing counterfeit notes, as well as sundry other things.
>
> Why can't you Strats and Quasi Strats get it straight?
Phil Innes tried something similar a while
ago. (At least, I think it was him.) But it
was just as weak. IF I put forward anything
one-hundreth as bad, I'd be rightly torn to
bits. Even you might be able to find a few
weak points.
Paul.
LynnE
"Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiut...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote in message
news:vg9Xc.25825$Z14....@news.indigo.ie...
Much funnier than my parody, Paul, is the fact that you replied to it.
Regards,
LynnE
>
>
> Paul.
>
>
biancas842001
<_25Xc.22162$DG.10...@news20.bellglobal.com>, LynnE wrote:
(It's the temporal cold war!)
> continues in this vein. For example, who does not understand the reference
> to "Happy Hours," the period at bars when one can buy cheap drinks? "Fortify
> yourself in your decay" means that the addressee should see a dentist for a
> fluoride treatment.
I hope you're not swallowing your fluoride rinse -- perhaps they
didn't have those in London?
>
> An explanatory note is necessary here about sixteenth century bawdry,
> although we are mainly speaking of the present: The addressee is interested
> in maiden's gardens--this is a reference to "country matters." And the
> poet's "pupil pen" is his penis.
Which is giving him trouble?
>
> If one changes a letter or two, one can also get a reference to HLAS.
> "Unset" is really "Usenet." As Terry Ross will tell us, even though he
> doesn't understand the first thing about the sonnets, adding one letter to
> an anagram is definitely acceptable. The poet therefore understands that in
> four hundred years his poetry will be discussed ad infinitum on a newsgroup.
> Finally, "painted counterfeits" are fake hundred dollar bills.
Perhaps "you must live drawn" refers to too much Viagra (e.g., "the
sword outwears its sheath").
>
> Taking all of the above into consideration, it is clear that the addressee
> is the sweet eating, Lesbian, drunk, bawdy Elizabeth, with whom the poet is
> in love and wants to try his "pupil pen," as she can teach him a trick or
> two. "Time's Pencil" refers to Essex' nether regions. Essex is, after all,
> the poet's rival, so he must be in this poem. He is also to be executed, so
> "time" is of the essence to him. But the Queen is interested in neither of
> them. She is only interested in other women, so the poet, piqued (or
> "peaked"--a reference to post coitus which I have inserted) is also trying
> to tell posterity that the Queen, in her grant to him of one thousand pounds
> per annum, is passing counterfeit notes, as well as sundry other things.
Ouch!
LynnE
LynnE
Neil Brennen
> Much funnier than my parody, Paul, is the fact that you replied to it.
>
> Regards,
> LynnE
We can count on Crowley for that. He even responded to the "Poul Chowdley"
posts a couple of years ago....
--
Innes is never going to admit that he did not
quote Orwell, even though anyone can google his post and ascertain
that he did not. Since no rational man could imagine that such a
deception would succeed, I conclude - reluctantly, for I don't like
saying such things - that he is not in his right mind. Responding to
him is like arguing with one of those lunatics who declaim
incoherently on street corners.
-Tom Veal
Paul Crowley
> Much funnier than my parody, Paul, is the fact that you replied to it.
Parodies are supposed to bear some
resemblance to the original.
More to the point is that, as ever, you
refuse to take part in any discussion or
debate. Perhaps even the Strats around
here can learn something from your case.
It's not so much that you refuse, but
more that there appears to be a
constitutional incapacity. You simply
cannot handle an argument which
conflicts with your current prejudices.
My questions to you are crystal clear,
and perfectly fair. For example, who do
you think was the Rival Poet? There is
not a snowball's chance in hell that I will
ever get an answer. You don't believe
in rational debate -- you are incapable
of it. (Why are the politically-correct
so similar to their fascist precursors?
Hmm . . . )
Of course there are lots of people like
you -- the Strats here are pretty much the
same. But, at least, they can claim that
they are part of a large flock of sheep,
and see no reason why they should ever
start to use their minds in an independent
manner. The main difference between you
and them is that (for some strange reason)
you have scratched out the Stratman's
name as author and replaced it with
Oxford's. But nothing else has
happened within your brain.
Paul.
LynnE
> "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:dr9Xc.22323$DG.11...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> > Much funnier than my parody, Paul, is the fact that you replied to it.
>
> Parodies are supposed to bear some
> resemblance to the original.
The author of the original can usually not recognise himself in a parody.
>
> More to the point is that, as ever, you
> refuse to take part in any discussion or
> debate.
I refuse to take part in discussion with *you* for obvious reasons. I
certainly discuss matters on hlas, on the Fellowship boards, and write
articles on the topic.
Perhaps even the Strats around
> here can learn something from your case.
> It's not so much that you refuse, but
> more that there appears to be a
> constitutional incapacity. You simply
> cannot handle an argument which
> conflicts with your current prejudices.
>
> My questions to you are crystal clear,
> and perfectly fair. For example, who do
> you think was the Rival Poet? There is
> not a snowball's chance in hell that I will
> ever get an answer. You don't believe
> in rational debate -- you are incapable
> of it. (Why are the politically-correct
> so similar to their fascist precursors?
> Hmm . . . )
Amazing how fascism keeps coming up on hlas. It can't apply to me, anyhow.
I'm apparently so politically incorrect some of my books are banned in some
schools.
Regards,
Lynne
Gary Kosinsky
So what have we learned from Sonnet 16 that we
didn't already know?
The poet thinks that having children is a better
method than a painting or a poem for the addressee to
preserve himself.
This sonnet is also another sonnet that identifies
the addressee as male.
*****************************************************
The story so far:
So after sixteen sonnets, what do we know? -
In all probability the addressee of these sixteen
sonnets is the same person (although it has been speculated
that perhaps the speaker of each poem is different).
The poet says the addressee is physically
attractive. The description of that beauty is in terms that
would seem more suitable to a woman than a man. (1 - 7, 9,
13)
The poet says that the addressee is narcissistic. (1
- 4, 6)
The poet may be chiding the addressee's sexual
habits. (1 - 4, 6, 9)
The addressee is male. (3, 6, 9, 16)
The addressee is of marriageable age, meaning (I
think) that he would be in the 17 - 26 age range. (1 - 4, 6,
8 - 13, 16)
The poet says the addressee has a pleasant speaking
voice and enjoys listening to sad music. (8)
The poet says the addressee has a gracious and kind
presence. (10)
The poet seems to think that the addressee has some
sort of love for the poet. (10)
The poet seems to have some sort of affectionate
feelings for the addressee, calling him "love" and "dear my
love". (13)
The poet is an aesthetic snob. (11)
The poet may believe in astrology. (15)
The poet thinks that having children is a better
method than a painting or a poem for the addressee to
preserve himself. (16)
The poet, having posed a problem for the addressee,
is offering a solution to that problem - namely that the
addressee should have children - specifically, a son. (But
let's remember that it's only the poet's assertion that
beautiful people have some sort of obligation to the world
to propagate or preserve their beauty.) (1 - 14, 16).
In addition, the poet suggests that he, personally,
has a way of maintaining the addressee's beauty. (15)
The poet seems mainly concerned with the
addressee's beauty, and not overly much with the addressee
as a person. (Exceptions: 10, 14, 16)
While seeming to chastise the addressee for his
narcissistic failure to preserve or propagate his beauty,
the poet is, at the same time, acknowledging that beauty,
and so is flattering the addressee.
We still don't know the sex of the poet.
We still don't know which class the poet or the
addressee belong to. Some readers have suggested that
certain words and phrases used in the Sonnets indicate that
the addressee is of noble birth.
We still don't know what the relationship is between
the poet and the addressee. Is he a relative or family
friend - the poems so far have an avuncular quality to them.
Or perhaps he is in a position of some authority over the
addressee - a teacher maybe. The poems can also be read as
being deferential - perhaps the poet is in a subordinate
position to the addressee. Perhaps later sonnets will make
this clear. Or perhaps not.
One word descriptions of the sonnets:
1) Introduction; 2) Siege; 3) Mirror; 4) Usury; 5) Perfume;
6) Money-lending; 7) Sun; 8) Music; 9) Widow; 10) Self-hate;
11) Snob; 12) Breed; 13) Endless; 14) Astrology; 15)
Transience; 16) Lines;
- Gary Kosinsky
David L. Webb
"Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiut...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
> "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:dr9Xc.22323$DG.11...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> > Much funnier than my parody, Paul, is the fact that you replied to it.
> Parodies are supposed to bear some
> resemblance to the original.
Lynne's parody was spot-on, and VERy amusing. Granted, perhaps there
was not enough coprophilia, and no bombastic, absolutist pontifications
concerning the genuineness of the "Ray Mignot" sonnet -- but I concede
that the latter was so uproariously funny that any conceivable parody
would be _de trop_.
> More to the point is that, as ever, you
> refuse to take part in any discussion or
> debate.
Mr. Crowley must have read few, if any, of Lynne's posts if he
believes that.
> Perhaps even the Strats around
> here can learn something from your case.
> It's not so much that you refuse, but
> more that there appears to be a
> constitutional incapacity. You simply
> cannot handle an argument which
> conflicts with your current prejudices.
As Peter Groves would say, comment would be superfluous.
> My questions to you are crystal clear,
> and perfectly fair. For example, who do
> you think was the Rival Poet? There is
> not a snowball's chance in hell that I will
> ever get an answer.
Well, don't keep us in suspense -- who WAS it?
> You don't believe
> in rational debate -- you are incapable
> of it. (Why are the politically-correct
> so similar to their fascist precursors?
> Hmm . . . )
Mr. Crowley is perilously close to prompting an invocation of
Godwin's Law here.
> Of course there are lots of people like
> you -- the Strats here are pretty much the
> same. But, at least, they can claim that
> they are part of a large flock of sheep,
> and see no reason why they should ever
> start to use their minds in an independent
> manner. The main difference between you
> and them is that (for some strange reason)
> you have scratched out the Stratman's
> name as author and replaced it with
> Oxford's. But nothing else has
> happened within your brain.
Lynne can thank her good fortune for that!
> Paul.