Re: Astrophil and Stella: sonnet 6
LynnE
"Jim KQKnave" <kqk...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:716b251.04061...@posting.google.com...
> Some lovers speake, when they their Muses entertaine,
> Of hopes begot by feare, of wot not what desires,
> Of force of heav'nly beames infusing hellish paine,
> Of living deaths, dere wounds, faire storms, and freesing fires:
> Some one his song in Jove and Joue's strange tales attires,
> Broadred with buls and swans, powdred with golden raine:
> Another, humbler wit, to shepherds pipe retires,
> Yet hiding royall bloud full oft in rurall vaine.
> To some a sweetest plaint a sweetest stile affords:
> While teares poure out his inke, and sighes breathe out his words,
> His paper pale despaire, and pain his pen doth move.
> I can speake what I feele, and feele as much as they,
> But thinke that all the map of my state I display
> When trembling voice brings forth, that I do Stella love.
>
> Some lovers speak, when they their Muses entertain,
> Of hopes begot by fear, of wot not what desires,
> Of force of heav'nly beams infusing hellish pain,
> Of living deaths, dear wounds, fair storms, and freezing fires:
> Some one his song in Jove and Joue's strange tales attires,
> 'Broidered with bulls and swans, powdered with golden rain:
> Another, humbler wit, to shepherd's pipe retires,
> Yet hiding royal blood full oft in rural vein.
> To some a sweetest plaint a sweetest style affords:
> While tears pour out his ink, and sighs breath out his words,
> His paper pale despair, and pain his pen doth move.
> I can speak what I feel, and feel as much as they,
> But think that all the map of my state I display
> When trembling voice brings forth, that I do Stella love.
>
> See my demolition of Monsarrat's RES paper!
> http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/monsarr1.html
>
> The Droeshout portrait is not unusual at all!
> http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/shakenbake.html
>
> Agent Jim
Thanks, Jim. Some nice oxymorons here. But I keep wishing the poet would get
on with saying whatever he has to say. Or maybe all he has to say is that he
loves Stella. Sigh.
Lynne
Robert Stonehouse
Some lovers speak, when they their Muses entertain,
Of hopes begot by fear, of wot not what desires,
Of force of heavenly beams, infusing hellish pain,
Of living deaths, dear wounds, fair storms and freezing fires;
Some one his song in Jove, and Jove’s strange tales, attires,
Broidered with bulls and swans, powdered with golden rain;
Another humbler wit to shepherd’s pipe retires,
Yet hiding royal blood full oft in rural vein.
To some a sweetest plaint a sweetest style affords,
While tears pour out his ink, and sighs breathe out his words,
His paper, pale despair, and pain his pen doth move.
I can speak what I feel, and feel as much as they,
But think that all the map of my state I display
When trembling voice brings forth that I do Stella love.
1. Some love-poets, when they apply themselves to writing a poem, talk
2. about fear giving hope, about longings for no-one knows what,
3. about the strength of sunbeams from heaven engendering the pains of
hell,
4. about death in life, beloved hurts, calm tempests and fire in ice.
For ‘freezing fires’ compare the madrigal, ‘Thule, the period of
cosmography’ – though the rest of it is not up to this first line
(Iceland, the punctuation mark that brings the world to an end).
5. One perhaps dresses up his poem with Zeus and his fabulous stories,
6. embroidering it with Europa and the Bull, Leda and the Swan,
spangling it with Danae’s golden shower;
7. another clever fellow, not aiming so high, writes in pastoral
style,
8. though as often as not the rustic manner conceals a Prince of the
Blood.
9. One chooses sweet-sounding language to fit a sweet complaint;
10. his ink is made of tears, his every word a sigh,
11. pale-faced hopelessness is his paper, anguish moves his pen across
it.
12. But I say what I feel to be true – and I can feel just as well as
they do –
13. only I have said everything about my state of mind
14. when I have declared in an unsteady voice that I love Stella.
Line 1 ‘entertain’. Not ‘invite to dinner’, but ‘have dealings with’.
Line 2 ‘wot’. ‘Know’, as many times in Malory (if I remember) ‘Wit you
well, Sir Lancelot …’.
Lines 2-4 are satirically full of conventional oxymoron.
Line 5, ‘Jove’ is what the Romans used for Zeus, and was generally
used in Sidney’s day. The stories are Greek and we generally learn
them with Greek names, and so I have put ‘Zeus’.
Line 6 ‘Broadred’ (Ringler’s text: more usually ‘brodered’ he says:
cf. _broderie anglaise_). Some manuscripts have ‘bordered’, a fairly
obvious scribal simplification. (Indeed, Microsoft Word recommends it
to me.) But why confine the description of the poem’s dress to its
borders? Why should the rest of the dress have nothing, or at most a
dusting of gold?
Line 8. I do not know an instance of a person of royal blood who wrote
pastoral poetry, but real instances are not the point. It could be
anyone, except a real shepherd.
Note the assonance of ‘royal’ and ‘rural’, followed respectively by
‘blood’ and ‘vein’, a comical pun, though the literal meaning of
‘vein’ here is ‘a special or characteristic style of language or
expression’ (Shorter Oxford III.3).
Line 9, ‘sweetest’. Mocking the repetition, I think, as well as the
contrived euphony.
Lines 10-11. Ridiculous personification and metaphor mixed. Despairing
people go pale, therefore Despair personified is pale-faced, paper is
pale, therefore the lover’s paper is the face of Despair. Sidney means
us to laugh. For a Sidneian joke, compare the _sprezzatura_ of the end
of An Apology for Poetry: “Thus doing, your name shall flourish in the
printers’ shops; thus doing, you shall be of kin to many a poetical
preface; thus doing, you shall be most fair, most rich, most wise,
most all; you shall dwell upon superlatives.”
Line 14. I am not sure I have got the point of ‘trembling’. It seems
to combine the lover’s mental turmoil with the writer’s modesty?
He has progressed from ‘I must’ in sonnet 5 to ‘I do’ here. The word
‘do’ is not a mere expletive, joining its feeble aid. (Just as a
precaution: this has nothing to do with the marriage service, which
does not contain the words ‘I do’ as is widely supposed.)
Anyway, these last lines well express the problem of love poetry.
There is not very much to say, and when you have said it, what do you
do next? That is the dilemma from which others escape into the
extravagances Sidney satirises. What he himself will do about it, we
have yet to see.
--
Robert Stonehouse
To mail me, replace invalid with uk. Inconvenience regretted.
Terry Ross
> 6
>
[snip]
> Some one his song in Jove, and Jove’s strange tales, attires,
> Broidered with bulls and swans, powdered with golden rain;
[snip to notes on these lines]
> 5. One perhaps dresses up his poem with Zeus and his fabulous stories,
> 6. embroidering it with Europa and the Bull, Leda and the Swan,
> spangling it with Danae’s golden shower;
[snip]
>
> Line 5, ‘Jove’ is what the Romans used for Zeus, and was generally
> used in Sidney’s day. The stories are Greek and we generally learn
> them with Greek names, and so I have put ‘Zeus’.
I think it might be better to render "Jove" as "Jove" or "Jupiter" - to
use the Roman Gods rather than the Greek ones as the "default" classical
gods for the Elizabethans. I doubt we learn the Greek names first, but
even if that were true, but surely the Elizabethans would have been more
familiar with the Roman names. In this particular case, I think Sidney is
thinking of Ovid's account of the tapestry Arachne wove in her contest
with Pallas. Arachne depicted a series of divine rapes, including those
of Europa, Leda, and Danae. Pallas was not pleased.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross Visit the SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP home page
http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
> > Some lovers speake, when they their Muses entertaine,
> > Of hopes begot by feare, of wot not what desires,
> > Of force of heav'nly beames infusing hellish paine,
> > Of living deaths, dere wounds, faire storms, and freesing fires:
> > Some one his song in Jove and Joue's strange tales attires,
> > Broadred with buls and swans, powdred with golden raine:
> > Another, humbler wit, to shepherds pipe retires,
> > Yet hiding royall bloud full oft in rurall vaine.
> > To some a sweetest plaint a sweetest stile affords:
> > While teares poure out his inke, and sighes breathe out his words,
> > His paper pale despaire, and pain his pen doth move.
> > I can speake what I feele, and feele as much as they,
> > But thinke that all the map of my state I display
> > When trembling voice brings forth, that I do Stella love.
"LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote
> Thanks, Jim. Some nice oxymorons here. But I keep wishing the poet would
get
> on with saying whatever he has to say. Or maybe all he has to say is that
he
> loves Stella. Sigh.
Where's Stanley Kowalski when you really need him?
Art
Art Neuendorffer
> Some one his song in Jove, and Jove's strange tales, attires,
> Broidered with bulls and swans, powdered with golden rain;
> 5. One perhaps dresses up his poem with Zeus and his fabulous stories,
> 6. embroidering it with Europa and the Bull, Leda and the Swan,
> spangling it with Danae's golden shower;
> Line 5, 'Jove' is what the Romans used for Zeus, and was generally
> used in Sidney's day. The stories are Greek and we generally learn
> them with Greek names, and so I have put 'Zeus'.
I think it might be better to render "Jove" as "Jove" or "Jupiter" - to
use the Roman Gods rather than the Greek ones as the "default" classical
gods for the Elizabethans. I doubt we learn the Greek names first, but
even if that were true, but surely the Elizabethans would have been more
familiar with the Roman names. In this particular case, I think Sidney is
thinking of Ovid's account of the tapestry Arachne wove in her contest
with Pallas. Arachne depicted a series of divine rapes, including those
of Europa, Leda, and Danae. Pallas was not pleased.
Couldn't Pallas just book her for d'rape rape?
Art
Art Neuendorffer
> Some one his song in Jove, and Jove's strange tales, attires,
> Broidered with bulls and swans, powdered with golden rain;
> 5. One perhaps dresses up his poem with Zeus and his fabulous stories,
> 6. embroidering it with Europa and the Bull, Leda and the Swan,
> spangling it with Danae's golden shower;
> Line 5, 'Jove' is what the Romans used for Zeus, and was generally
> used in Sidney's day. The stories are Greek and we generally learn
> them with Greek names, and so I have put 'Zeus'.
"Terry Ross" <tr...@bcpl.net> wrote
<<I think it might be better to render "Jove" as "Jove" or "Jupiter" - to
use the Roman Gods rather than the Greek ones as the "default" classical
gods for the Elizabethans. I doubt we learn the Greek names first, but
even if that were true, but surely the Elizabethans would have been more
familiar with the Roman names. In this particular case, I think Sidney is
thinking of Ovid's account of the tapestry Arachne wove in her contest
with Pallas. Arachne depicted a series of divine rapes, including those
of Europa, Leda, and Danae. Pallas was not pleased.>>
Couldn't Pallas just book her for d'rape rape?
Art
Art Neuendorffer
"LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote
Lynne Kositsky paging Stanley Kowalski!
Lynne Kositsky paging Sidney Kowalski!
Art
Art Neuendorffer
> > Some lovers speake, when they their Muses entertaine,
> > Of hopes begot by feare, of wot not what desires,
> > Of force of heav'nly beames infusing hellish paine,
> > Of living deaths, dere wounds, faire storms, and freesing fires:
> > Some one his song in Jove and Joue's strange tales attires,
> > Broadred with buls and swans, powdred with golden raine:
> > Another, humbler wit, to shepherds pipe retires,
> > Yet hiding royall bloud full oft in rurall vaine.
> > To some a sweetest plaint a sweetest stile affords:
> > While teares poure out his inke, and sighes breathe out his words,
> > His paper pale despaire, and pain his pen doth move.
> > I can speake what I feele, and feele as much as they,
> > But thinke that all the map of my state I display
> > When trembling voice brings forth, that I do Stella love.
"LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote
> Thanks, Jim. Some nice oxymorons here. But I keep wishing
> the poet would get on with saying whatever he has to say.
> Or maybe all he has to say is that he loves Stella. Sigh.
Lynne Kositsky paging Stanley Kowalski!
biancas842001
"Terry Ross" <tr...@bcpl.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, Robert Stonehouse wrote:
>
>> 6
>>
>
> [snip]
>
>> Some one his song in Jove, and JoveÇs strange tales, attires,
>> Broidered with bulls and swans, powdered with golden rain;
>
> [snip to notes on these lines]
>
>
>> 5. One perhaps dresses up his poem with Zeus and his fabulous
stories,
>> 6. embroidering it with Europa and the Bull, Leda and the Swan,
>> spangling it with DanaeÇs golden shower;
>
> [snip]
>
>
>>
>> Line 5, åJoveÇ is what the Romans used for Zeus, and was generally
>> used in SidneyÇs day. The stories are Greek and we generally learn
>> them with Greek names, and so I have put åZeusÇ.
>
> I think it might be better to render "Jove" as "Jove" or "Jupiter" - to
> use the Roman Gods rather than the Greek ones as the "default" classical
> gods for the Elizabethans. I doubt we learn the Greek names first, but
> even if that were true, but surely the Elizabethans would have been more
> familiar with the Roman names. In this particular case, I think Sidney is
> thinking of Ovid's account of the tapestry Arachne wove in her contest
> with Pallas. Arachne depicted a series of divine rapes, including those
> of Europa, Leda, and Danae. Pallas was not pleased.
>
Is the point to try to describe what the Elizabethans would have
thought, or what we think, when we read? I read those two lines as
suggesting that everyone knows who Jove is, but not everyone picks up
on the significance of "bulls and swans." This idea seems to be
strengthened by "broidered": they are not part of the story, but
decorative doodads added on by the artist.
I also usually assume that, like us, the Elizabethans saw the
classical gods as alien to themselves and to their own religion.
These were not really gods but just stories -- as when the D'Aulaires
end their book of Greek myths by telling how Zeus was eventually
recognized as the only real God.
----
Bianca S.
Terry Ross
>
> Thanks, Jim. Some nice oxymorons here. But I keep wishing the poet would get
> on with saying whatever he has to say. Or maybe all he has to say is that he
> loves Stella. Sigh.
>
Lynne, you may enjoy the ride more if you don't worry why it isn't going
somewhere else. Astrophil knows all the conventions of love poetry:
Some louers speake, when they their Muses entertaine,
Of hopes begot by feare, of wot not what desires,
Of force of heau'nly beames infusing hellish paine,
Of liuing deaths, dere wounds, faire storms, and freesing fires:
These "nice oxymorons" are not something Astrophil claims to have thought
up; they are things he has read (they are also things that other poets
have read). What has any of that to do with love? How can a lover
express what seems (to him or her) something new and powerful in the world
by relying on the common storehouse sacked by earlier writers of love
poems? But what else is there? The publication of Sidney's sequence
jump-started the sonnet craze of the 1590s, but already in *Astrophil and
Stella* we find concern that the genre has become exhausted. This is not
a problem that has disappeared for poets and songwriters.
Astrophil has also read poems poems that use mythological lore:
Some one his song in Ioue and Ioues strange tales attires,
Bordred with buls and swans, powdred with golden raine:
The picture is delightful: the myth-mongering poet "attires" his verse
with stories borrowed from Ovid or some other chronicler of the gods'
loves; we may be reminded of Arachne's entry in the Classical Idol weaving
competition. Such a poet may be learned, but does he really love?
A love poet may turn to pastoral:
Another, humbler wit, to shepherds pipe retires,
Yet hiding royall bloud full oft in rurall vaine.
Pastorals are not generally written by actual shepherds, but by well-off
cosmopolitans who pretend to narrow their imaginations to what they
imagine a shepherd might comprehend. A pastoral love poem tells us that
the poet is familiar with the conventions of the chosen genre, but what
does it tell us of love?
To some a sweetest plaint a sweetest stile affords:
While teares poure out his inke, and sighes breathe out his words,
His paper pale despaire, and pain his pen doth moue.
The physical symptoms that a would-be love poet has read about in earlier
love poems here afflict not the poet himself, but the tools with which he
writes. He writes of love, but what does he know of love?
I can speake what I feele, and feele as much as they,
Astrophil here tries to distinguish himself from those earlier poets. Of
course, the fact that he can describe them proves that he has read them in
depth, and we know that Sidney himself was a very skilled deployer of
classical learning and poetic conventions. In fact, the plain style he
tries to put on here is itself a convention (and the anadiplosis of "feel"
and "feel" shows that even Astrophil's plainness is rhetorically
sophisticated). CAN he (or any lover) truly speak what he feels, or can
he only use the conventions employed by earlier poets (whose loves, he is
sure, were no stronger than his)? Are studied conventionalism, wit, and
virtuosity able to convey genuine feeling, or do they only convey the
poet's artistry?
But thinke that all the map of my state I display
When trembling voyce brings forth, that I do Stella loue.
Lynne, you want Astrophil to say something more than that he loves Stella
-- well, he has said a great deal more already, in six sonnets, but he
continues to wrestle with the problem of trying to express what may be
inexpressible except in the simplest terms. A great deal of the fun of
this (and I hope you enjoy the poems) is that he is such a skilled
wrestler.
One thing that hasn't been commented on yet is that in the first six
sonnets Sidney has used six different rhyme schemes. In sonnet 7 he will
return to the rhyme scheme of sonnet 1, but whereas 1 was in hexameter, 7
will be in pentameter. Sonnet 9 will be the first one to use both the
same meter and the same rhyme scheme as one of the earlier sonnets.
Sidney's technique is dazzling, but it creates its own problem. Each
sonnet seems like a splendid performance; Stella may be moved to applause,
but will anything move her to love? In dramatic terms, of course, the
beloved must remain unsatisfying to (yet still desired by) the poet,
otherwise there would be no reason to write another sonnet.
LynnE
"Terry Ross" <tr...@bcpl.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.58.0406141341300.7950@mail...
> On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, LynnE wrote:
>
> >
> > Thanks, Jim. Some nice oxymorons here. But I keep wishing the poet would
get
> > on with saying whatever he has to say. Or maybe all he has to say is
that he
> > loves Stella. Sigh.
> >
>
> Lynne, you may enjoy the ride more if you don't worry why it isn't going
> somewhere else.
Always my problem. When I'm off to Knoxville, I wonder why I'm not going to
Baltimore to see the 17 year cicada phenomenon. When I'm in Baltimore, I
wonder why I'm not at home. ;)
I'm interested that you've widened "royal blood" to mean well-off
cosmopolitans.
And would you say that this could also be a comment on the themes
themselves: narratives of shepherds who turn out to be of royal blood? Such
as (written later, I know and not a poem) Winter's Tale?
Yes, he has said quite a lot. But I'm not enjoying the poems yet, although
you're helping.
>
> One thing that hasn't been commented on yet is that in the first six
> sonnets Sidney has used six different rhyme schemes. In sonnet 7 he will
> return to the rhyme scheme of sonnet 1, but whereas 1 was in hexameter, 7
> will be in pentameter. Sonnet 9 will be the first one to use both the
> same meter and the same rhyme scheme as one of the earlier sonnets.
> Sidney's technique is dazzling, but it creates its own problem. Each
> sonnet seems like a splendid performance; Stella may be moved to applause,
> but will anything move her to love? In dramatic terms, of course, the
> beloved must remain unsatisfying to (yet still desired by) the poet,
> otherwise there would be no reason to write another sonnet.
Thanks for your take, Terry. Please stick around to comment on each one.
Maybe I'll develop a liking for them.
L.
Terry Ross
> On 6/14/04 6:14 PM, in article Pine.GSO.4.58.0406141800490.13115@mail,
> "Terry Ross" <tr...@bcpl.net> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, Robert Stonehouse wrote:
> >
> >> 6
> >>
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >> Some one his song in Jove, and Jove‚s strange tales, attires,
> >> Broidered with bulls and swans, powdered with golden rain;
> >
> > [snip to notes on these lines]
> >
> >
> >> 5. One perhaps dresses up his poem with Zeus and his fabulous
> stories,
> >> 6. embroidering it with Europa and the Bull, Leda and the Swan,
> >> spangling it with Danae‚s golden shower;
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Line 5, ŒJove‚ is what the Romans used for Zeus, and was generally
> >> used in Sidney‚s day. The stories are Greek and we generally learn
> >> them with Greek names, and so I have put ŒZeus‚.
> >
> > I think it might be better to render "Jove" as "Jove" or "Jupiter" - to
> > use the Roman Gods rather than the Greek ones as the "default" classical
> > gods for the Elizabethans. I doubt we learn the Greek names first, but
> > even if that were true, but surely the Elizabethans would have been more
> > familiar with the Roman names. In this particular case, I think Sidney is
> > thinking of Ovid's account of the tapestry Arachne wove in her contest
> > with Pallas. Arachne depicted a series of divine rapes, including those
> > of Europa, Leda, and Danae. Pallas was not pleased.
> >
>
> Is the point to try to describe what the Elizabethans would have
> thought, or what we think, when we read?
Both, of course. In my own case, I certainly heard of Mars before I heard
of Ares, and I don't think I'm unusual in that regard.
> I read those two lines as suggesting that everyone knows who Jove is,
> but not everyone picks up on the significance of "bulls and swans."
Perhaps not everybody, but the allusions were commonplace, and are
frequently found in Elizabethan writings. Modern readers who are not as
familiar with classical myths may need such helpful notes as Robert
Stonehouse has provided, but any educated reader of Sidney's day would
pick up on the significance of bulls and swans.
> This idea seems to be strengthened by "broidered": they are not part of
> the story, but decorative doodads added on by the artist.
I think Astrophil's point is poets who borrow classical stories to express
their own love may be offering their own "decorative doodads" in place of
(or as a failure to express) genuine emotion. It would be possible to
regard all poetry and even all art as "decorative doodads added on by the
artist" -- but Sidney finds great merit in some of those "doodads." He
uses related language of the poet as a weaver in a passage in his "Apology
for Poetry":
"Only the Poet disdeining to be tied to any such subjection, lifted up
with the vigor of his own invention, doth grow in effect into another
nature: in making things either better then nature bringeth foorth, or
quite a new, formes such as never were in nature: as the Heroes, Demigods,
Cyclops, Chymeras, Furies, and such like; so as he goeth hand in hand with
nature, not enclosed within the narrow warrant of her gifts, but freely
raunging within the Zodiack of his owne wit. Nature never set foorth the
earth in so rich Tapistry as diverse Poets have done, neither with so
pleasaunt rivers, fruitfull trees, sweete smelling flowers, nor whatsoever
els may make the too much loved earth more lovely: her world is brasen,
the Poets only deliver a golden."
Do poets create a "rich tapestry" or are they merely offering "decorative
doodads"? Are genuine emotions adequately expressed by either kind of
work? These are among the kinds of questions that are raised by
*Astrophil and Stella*.
>
> I also usually assume that, like us, the Elizabethans saw the classical
> gods as alien to themselves and to their own religion.
There is no question that Sidney was a Christian, and that he did not
believe in the divinity of classical gods, but he would not banish
classical poetry on the grounds that its theology was no more than
superstition.
> These were not really gods but just stories -- as when the D'Aulaires
> end their book of Greek myths by telling how Zeus was eventually
> recognized as the only real God.
It is precisely because Christians such as Sidney did not believe in the
classical gods that classical poetry should be safe from attempts to
banish it from the republic.
Robert Stonehouse
>On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, Robert Stonehouse wrote:
>> Line 5, 'Jove' is what the Romans used for Zeus, and was generally
>> used in Sidney's day. The stories are Greek and we generally learn
>> them with Greek names, and so I have put 'Zeus'.
>
>I think it might be better to render "Jove" as "Jove" or "Jupiter" - to
>use the Roman Gods rather than the Greek ones as the "default" classical
>gods for the Elizabethans. I doubt we learn the Greek names first, but
Certainly I did myself, and still have trouble envisaging Jupiter
Capitolinus in the situations the Greek Zeus was forced into, by the
need of Greek families to explain why their family trees were so
short. But if it is thought inappropriate, I'll not do it in future!
>even if that were true, but surely the Elizabethans would have been more
>familiar with the Roman names.
Yes, for sure. Elizabethan acquaintance with Greek was not high.
Archbishop Whitgift (I think it was) had no Greek at all. Hence
Sidney's usage, which seemed to me inappropriate for our times.
> In this particular case, I think Sidney is
>thinking of Ovid's account of the tapestry Arachne wove in her contest
>with Pallas. Arachne depicted a series of divine rapes, including those
>of Europa, Leda, and Danae. Pallas was not pleased.
Sounds right: the poem satirised is dressed in Arachne's embroidery.
LynnE
news:<eWjzc.8682$nY.2...@news20.bellglobal.com>...
> SEVENTEEN poems? I wish he would have limited the subject to two poems.
Well, maybe five. ;)
>
> You seem to miss the relevance of Sidney's #6 to Shakespeare's other
> sonnets, for example, 12, 78, 82 and 85. Here are the last three:
Oops. Robert is a stern taskmaster. He does not allow us to peek ahead.
Regards,
Lynne
Snip no doubt glorious but unread sonnets.
> Agent Jim
Terry Ross
> On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 18:14:09 -0400, Terry Ross <tr...@bcpl.net> wrote:
> >On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, Robert Stonehouse wrote:
> ...
> >> Line 5, 'Jove' is what the Romans used for Zeus, and was generally
> >> used in Sidney's day. The stories are Greek and we generally learn
> >> them with Greek names, and so I have put 'Zeus'.
> >
> >I think it might be better to render "Jove" as "Jove" or "Jupiter" - to
> >use the Roman Gods rather than the Greek ones as the "default" classical
> >gods for the Elizabethans. I doubt we learn the Greek names first, but
>
> Certainly I did myself,
I wonder how common that is? On the other hand, the cultural introduction
I had to Latin is something from a distant and ever-receding era.
> and still have trouble envisaging Jupiter Capitolinus in the situations
> the Greek Zeus was forced into, by the need of Greek families to explain
> why their family trees were so short. But if it is thought
> inappropriate, I'll not do it in future!
Just a suggestion -- but you are the annotator, so by all means do what
feels most comfortable to you.
>
> >even if that were true, but surely the Elizabethans would have been more
> >familiar with the Roman names.
>
> Yes, for sure. Elizabethan acquaintance with Greek was not high.
> Archbishop Whitgift (I think it was) had no Greek at all. Hence Sidney's
> usage, which seemed to me inappropriate for our times.
Should we rewrite Tennyson and Joyce, who used the name "Ulysses" rather
than "Odysseus"? Should *Mourning Becomes Electra* become *Mourning
Becomes Elektra*? There may have been a shift against the Latin forms in
recent decades -- Kirk Douglas played "Ulysses" in 1955, while Sean Bean
is playing "Odysseus" this year. Is there a sense that the Greek is
somehow more authentic, or does this perhaps reflect an ever-diminishing
acquaintance with Latin? In any event, for quite a long time, the
standard English names of the characters were closer to the Latin names.
>
> > In this particular case, I think Sidney is
> >thinking of Ovid's account of the tapestry Arachne wove in her contest
> >with Pallas. Arachne depicted a series of divine rapes, including those
> >of Europa, Leda, and Danae. Pallas was not pleased.
>
> Sounds right: the poem satirised is dressed in Arachne's embroidery.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
biancas842001
Pine.GSO.4.58.0406151224460.19491@mail, "Terry Ross" <tr...@bcpl.net>
wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jun 2004, biancas842001 wrote:
>
>> On 6/14/04 6:14 PM, in article
Pine.GSO.4.58.0406141800490.13115@mail,
>> "Terry Ross" <tr...@bcpl.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, Robert Stonehouse wrote:
>>>
>>>> 6
>>>>
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>> Some one his song in Jove, and Jove!=s strange tales, attires,
>>>> Broidered with bulls and swans, powdered with golden rain;
>>>
>>> [snip to notes on these lines]
>>>
>>>
>>>> 5. One perhaps dresses up his poem with Zeus and his fabulous
>> stories,
>>>> 6. embroidering it with Europa and the Bull, Leda and the Swan,
>>>> spangling it with Danae!=s golden shower;
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Line 5, ‘Jove!= is what the Romans used for Zeus, and was
generally
>>>> used in Sidney!=s day. The stories are Greek and we generally
learn
>>>> them with Greek names, and so I have put ‘Zeus!=.
>>>
>>> I think it might be better to render "Jove" as "Jove" or "Jupiter"
- to
>>> use the Roman Gods rather than the Greek ones as the "default"
classical
>>> gods for the Elizabethans. I doubt we learn the Greek names
first, but
>>> even if that were true, but surely the Elizabethans would have
been more
>>> familiar with the Roman names. In this particular case, I think
Sidney is
>>> thinking of Ovid's account of the tapestry Arachne wove in her
contest
>>> with Pallas. Arachne depicted a series of divine rapes, including
those
>>> of Europa, Leda, and Danae. Pallas was not pleased.
>>>
>>
>> Is the point to try to describe what the Elizabethans would have
>> thought, or what we think, when we read?
>
> Both, of course. In my own case, I certainly heard of Mars before I heard
> of Ares, and I don't think I'm unusual in that regard.
Most books I've read use the name "Mars" in what they call the "Greek
myths." I don't think I've ever seen a book on "Roman" myths. I
think trying to make too much out of the distinction, in this
newsgroup, is almost certainly specious.
>
>> I read those two lines as suggesting that everyone knows who Jove
is,
>> but not everyone picks up on the significance of "bulls and swans."
>
> Perhaps not everybody, but the allusions were commonplace, and are
> frequently found in Elizabethan writings. Modern readers who are not as
> familiar with classical myths may need such helpful notes as Robert
> Stonehouse has provided, but any educated reader of Sidney's day would
> pick up on the significance of bulls and swans.
Would a grammar-school educated journeyman? Or even a chorister at
one of the better public schools? A nicely brought-up woman? In
painting and architecture you can often clearly see where the meanings
of certain symbols have been lost. I don't see why things should be
different in the case of literature.
>
>> This idea seems to be strengthened by "broidered": they are not
part of
>> the story, but decorative doodads added on by the artist.
>
> I think Astrophil's point is poets who borrow classical stories to express
> their own love may be offering their own "decorative doodads" in place of
> (or as a failure to express) genuine emotion.
You don't mean that the poet ought to be "sincere," do you? I don't
think poets are ever sincere, while they are being poets, except maybe
once or twice, by chance. I doubt it would be possible for most
people to write very much, if they could only write until they'd
exhausted their stock of sincere feelings. And to the degree their
own feelings differed from those of the greater number of their
readers, their sincerity could not possibly be understood, in any way.
On the other hand, I believe that a poet could write sincerely (in a
slightly different sense, perhaps) using a myth, classical or
otherwise, or using someone else's story or idea. I know that some
artists and theorists have believed otherwise. I also feel that some
artists (and even critics) who have believed a particular idea was
original, can occasionally be seen to have been using an idea that is
so common it might almost be called a stock idea. This is what Harold
Bloom calls "the anxiety of influence," more or less: when you realize
that what you thought, at the time, sounded original, in fact sounds
just like someone else.
On the other hand, I think it is foolish at best to ignore the signs
in a text that the writer does _not_ himself or herself believe an
individual proposition. There are more complicated situations, but
someone who can't cope with that one simple question isn't, in my
opinion, going to be qualified to consider those others. (One of
those signs is simply the declaration, "this is a poem," or any sign
that indicates such.)
My own opinion is that it's generally none of our business what the
artist "really" believes. This question only arises in face-to-face
interactions, or the equivalent. Literature is designed,
specifically, to be read in _non_ face-to-face interactions. And even
face-to-face, there is much that is none of our business and that it
is not necessary to know.
Poetic language almost always deals in absolutes. But _almost_ all
literary writers have been aware that real people's thoughts and
feelings are _not_ absolute. Maybe there have been a few who have
really believed that in better times, poets had been able to write in
"God's own language," in effect: a few French Symbolists in the 19th
century, maybe, or some of the more Fascistically leaning Modernists
in the 20th. I'm almost unable to imagine a contemporary writer of
poetry, drama, or literary fiction, who really believes it is (or
really should be) possible to write in absolutes, say the whole truth,
and be understood, all at the same time.
It would be possible to
> regard all poetry and even all art as "decorative doodads added on by the
> artist" -- but Sidney finds great merit in some of those "doodads."
I wasn't criticizing those decorative motifs, but pointing out that
Sidney can be read as criticizing them, or alternatively, as
expressing others' criticism or incomprehension of them.
Possibly I should point out that in painting, at least, for about the
past 150 years, "decorative" has been a swear word. "Decorative"
means "nice things for well brought up ladies to hang in their drawing
rooms, that won't draw too much attention to themselves but will blend
in with the décor and look pretty, and that certainly will not _mean_
anything at all." Or for masculine men who don't know anything about
art and don't want anyone to inadvertently mistake them for someone
who does. Matisse's wavy-line wallpaper and carpet patterns, in some
of his paintings of interiors (i.e., the insides of rooms), were
initially seen as "decorative." William Morris had not worried about
that, and probably the Pre-Raphaelites had not, either. Present-day
artists almost without exception do.
So Philip Sidney might be complaining about the poets, in these two
lines, or he might be complaining about their readers.
At one time, this was an ideological issue -- e.g., Copley's
"Republican" portraits are almost entirely without decoration -- but
now it's mainly an aesthetic one.
He
> uses related language of the poet as a weaver in a passage in his "Apology
> for Poetry":
>
> "Only the Poet disdeining to be tied to any such subjection, lifted up
> with the vigor of his own invention, doth grow in effect into another
> nature: in making things either better then nature bringeth foorth, or
> quite a new, formes such as never were in nature: as the Heroes, Demigods,
> Cyclops, Chymeras, Furies, and such like; so as he goeth hand in hand with
> nature, not enclosed within the narrow warrant of her gifts, but freely
> raunging within the Zodiack of his owne wit. Nature never set foorth the
> earth in so rich Tapistry as diverse Poets have done, neither with so
> pleasaunt rivers, fruitfull trees, sweete smelling flowers, nor whatsoever
> els may make the too much loved earth more lovely: her world is brasen,
> the Poets only deliver a golden."
>
> Do poets create a "rich tapestry" or are they merely offering "decorative
> doodads"? Are genuine emotions adequately expressed by either kind of
> work? These are among the kinds of questions that are raised by
> *Astrophil and Stella*.
>
I would add: Is delivering a better world, in one's poetry, a good
thing or a bad one? Is adding more variety to the stock of poetic
imagery in use a good thing or a bad one? Is depicting things that
could never exist in nature a good thing or a bad one? Is thinking
for oneself (as a poet) a good thing or a bad one?
You seem to want to limit the questions under consideration to, "Does
he really believe this?" Why should we want to discuss what we think
Shakespeare believed, on the evidence we see in the sonnets, about the
merits of having children?
----
Bianca S.
LynnE
"Jim KQKnave" <kqk...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:716b251.04061...@posting.google.com...
> "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>
> > > > Thanks, Jim. Some nice oxymorons here. But I keep wishing the poet
would
> > get
> > > > on with saying whatever he has to say. Or maybe all he has to say is
> > that he
> > > > loves Stella. Sigh.
> > >
> > > And what does Shakespeare have to say, over and over, in the first
> > > SEVENTEEN poems? I wish he would have limited the subject to two
poems.
> >
> > Well, maybe five. ;)
> >
> > >
> > > You seem to miss the relevance of Sidney's #6 to Shakespeare's other
> > > sonnets, for example, 12, 78, 82 and 85. Here are the last three:
> >
> > Oops. Robert is a stern taskmaster. He does not allow us to peek ahead.
>
> spin whatever silly theory he wants to about the sonnet under discussion
> without having to deal with contradictions that show up later.
>
> In any case, this the Sidney thread, and the whole point is to compare
> his sonnets with Shakespeare's sonnets, isn't it?
O is it? Sorry.
Lynne, out of the loop as usual.
Robert Stonehouse
>On Tue, 15 Jun 2004, Robert Stonehouse wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 18:14:09 -0400, Terry Ross <tr...@bcpl.net> wrote:
>> >On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, Robert Stonehouse wrote:
...
>> >use the Roman Gods rather than the Greek ones as the "default" classical
>> >gods for the Elizabethans. I doubt we learn the Greek names first, but
>>
>> Certainly I did myself,
I assumed.
>
>I wonder how common that is? On the other hand, the cultural introduction
>I had to Latin is something from a distant and ever-receding era.
>Should we rewrite Tennyson and Joyce, who used the name "Ulysses" rather
>than "Odysseus"? Should *Mourning Becomes Electra* become *Mourning
>Becomes Elektra*? There may have been a shift against the Latin forms in
>recent decades -- Kirk Douglas played "Ulysses" in 1955, while Sean Bean
>is playing "Odysseus" this year. Is there a sense that the Greek is
>somehow more authentic, or does this perhaps reflect an ever-diminishing
>acquaintance with Latin? In any event, for quite a long time, the
>standard English names of the characters were closer to the Latin names.
>
the 'paraphrasable content'. So whatever people find easiest and most
natural is best.
...
Robert Stonehouse
Stonehouse) wrote:
>On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 18:14:09 -0400, Terry Ross <tr...@bcpl.net> wrote:
>>On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, Robert Stonehouse wrote:
...
>>thinking of Ovid's account of the tapestry Arachne wove in her contest
>>with Pallas. Arachne depicted a series of divine rapes, including those
>>of Europa, Leda, and Danae. Pallas was not pleased.
>
>Sounds right: the poem satirised is dressed in Arachne's embroidery.
Looking at Ovid (Metamorphoses 6.103-129), I should have noted that
the competition between Arachne and Pallas is in weaving tapestry, not
in embroidery - the action of the looms is described with emphasis.
But Sidney, of course, needs applied decoration for his metaphor, not
a picture woven into the fabric itself. (The Bayeux Tapestry is
mis-named.)
Ovid's point in this part of the Metamorphoses is that competing with
the gods is a bad strategy. What most angers Pallas is that neither
she nor Envy itself could find any fault in Arachne's work (lines
129-130) but using it to cock a snook like this certainly makes things
worse.
Robert Stonehouse
<lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>"Jim KQKnave" <kqk...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:716b251.04061...@posting.google.com...
>> "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>news:<eWjzc.8682$nY.2...@news20.bellglobal.com>...
>> > "Jim KQKnave" <kqk...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> > news:716b251.04061...@posting.google.com...
>> You seem to miss the relevance of Sidney's #6 to Shakespeare's other
>> sonnets, for example, 12, 78, 82 and 85. Here are the last three:
>
>Oops. Robert is a stern taskmaster. He does not allow us to peek ahead.
I haven't jumped on anybody, have I? (At least lately.) There is a
special purpose in this and at the moment I am feeling vindicated.
When we got to sonnet 5 there was an uncomfortable atmosphere all
round - the poem was not about what we expected. And where did we get
those expectations except from 1-4? We got to sonnet 6 and it began
'Then ...' and proceeded to unravel the problem. It applied sonnet 5
in a way that made it relevant to the subject of 1-4 and showed the
poet was only playing with us in seeming to depart from it.
So if we take sonnet 5 on its own, we can treat it as a perfumery
piece. But if we take it in order, together with 1-4 and 6, then it is
a Shakespearian trap for us to fall into and then climb out of. That
surely is a strong indication that the sequence of the poems as we
have them is not random - the sequence, that is, of 1-6.
An unwarranted speculation: the poet's book is a construction, but at
the same time he wants the poems, or many or some of them, to be
available as separate units for people to apply to themselves, their
lives, and each other. So he limits the connections between them, he
keeps everything on a high old abstract level, he names no names, he
avoids history and biography, because all those things would reduce
the widespread applicability of his work. No doubt Jim will think I am
just trying to "spin whatever silly theory he wants to", but I do try
to start from the words and not from any theory at all, and to admit
to what I am doing.
LynnE
"Robert Stonehouse" <ew...@bcs.org.invalid> wrote in message
news:40d0664...@news.cityscape.co.uk...
> On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 13:02:50 -0400, "LynnE"
> <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >"Jim KQKnave" <kqk...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:716b251.04061...@posting.google.com...
> >> "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> >news:<eWjzc.8682$nY.2...@news20.bellglobal.com>...
> >> > "Jim KQKnave" <kqk...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> >> > news:716b251.04061...@posting.google.com...
> ...
> >> You seem to miss the relevance of Sidney's #6 to Shakespeare's other
> >> sonnets, for example, 12, 78, 82 and 85. Here are the last three:
> >
> >Oops. Robert is a stern taskmaster. He does not allow us to peek ahead.
>
> I haven't jumped on anybody, have I? (At least lately.) There is a
> special purpose in this and at the moment I am feeling vindicated.
I actually like doing it this way. Before I've always picked and chosen
sonnets rather than going from A to Z. It certainly changes one's point of
view to go through them in order--no matter who initially imposed that
order.
L.
Art Neuendorffer
> I actually like doing it this way. Before I've always picked and chosen
> sonnets rather than going from A to Z. It certainly changes one's point of
> view to go through them in order--no matter who initially imposed that
> order.
From chicken soup to peanuts.
Gary Kosinsky
KQKnave) wrote:
SNIP
>In any case, this the Sidney thread, and the whole point is to compare
>his sonnets with Shakespeare's sonnets, isn't it?
While that may be a spin-off benefit, I'm enjoying
the series on its own terms.
- Gary Kosinsky
Robert Stonehouse
wrote:
And he's the one who suggested it! The idea was just to vary the diet,
I think.
(There may be a point in some comparisons, but not yet.)
Robert Stonehouse
wrote:
>ew...@bcs.org.invalid (Robert Stonehouse) wrote in message news:<40d0664...@news.cityscape.co.uk>...
>> On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 13:02:50 -0400, "LynnE"
>> <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> >"Jim KQKnave" <kqk...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> >news:716b251.04061...@posting.google.com...
>> >> "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>> news:<eWjzc.8682$nY.2...@news20.bellglobal.com>...
>> >> > "Jim KQKnave" <kqk...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> >> > news:716b251.04061...@posting.google.com...
...
>> round - the poem was not about what we expected.
>
You, and me, and all of us. We are all going through this
simultaneously, and together.
>
>>And where did we get
>> those expectations except from 1-4?
>
>particular.
Many people were surprised - would that be a less provocative way to
put it than to talk about expectations?
>
>>We got to sonnet 6 and it began
>> 'Then ...' and proceeded to unravel the problem. It applied sonnet 5
>> in a way that made it relevant to the subject of 1-4 and showed the
>> poet was only playing with us in seeming to depart from it.
>
There was a great deal of discussion by a lot of people on the general
subject 'What is going on here?' Well over 100 postings in the thread.
So I don't feel it's unreasonable to use the word 'problem'.
>Sonnet 6 follows pretty clearly from sonnet 5 because of the "Then..."
>and the theme of distillation, but otherwise I see no problem
>with the first 4 or their relationship to the next two.
>
>> So if we take sonnet 5 on its own, we can treat it as a perfumery
>> piece. But if we take it in order, together with 1-4 and 6, then it is
>> a Shakespearian trap for us to fall into and then climb out of. That
>> surely is a strong indication that the sequence of the poems as we
>> have them is not random - the sequence, that is, of 1-6.
>
>and there is no "trap".
It depends on what you mean by 'specifically'! We should be capable of
seeing how the sequence fits, without needing a keyword like 'then'
every time. There are various kinds and levels of ways to tie them
together. We have to be sensitive to al of them, or as many as we can.
>And all of the first 17 go together in general because they are all about
>urging the young man to marry. You created a straw man with a straw
>solution, but there is no reason not to jump ahead to see how the themes
>of this part of the sequence are related to others later on, or to
>connect what we see in Shakespeare's sonnets to the sonnets of others.
>
>> An unwarranted speculation: the poet's book is a construction, but at
>> the same time he wants the poems, or many or some of them, to be
>> available as separate units for people to apply to themselves, their
>> lives, and each other. So he limits the connections between them, he
>> keeps everything on a high old abstract level, he names no names, he
>> avoids history and biography, because all those things would reduce
>> the widespread applicability of his work. No doubt Jim will think I am
>> just trying to "spin whatever silly theory he wants to", but I do try
>> to start from the words and not from any theory at all, and to admit
>> to what I am doing.
>
>The silly theory is in the previous paragraphs. Your last comments
>are simply re-wordings of some things I've said myself about the
>universality of the sonnets.
Terry Ross
I'm responding to Lynne's June 15 post here.
> On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 LynnE wrote:
> > On Tue, 15 Jun 2004, Terry Ross wrote:
[snip]
> >
> > Lynne, you may enjoy the ride more if you don't worry why it isn't
> > going somewhere else.
>
> Always my problem. When I'm off to Knoxville, I wonder why I'm not going
> to Baltimore to see the 17 year cicada phenomenon. When I'm in
> Baltimore, I wonder why I'm not at home. ;)
Most of the cicadas are gone (I had not thought death had undone so many),
leaving behind flagged trees and a melancholy that has not been reported
in the psychiatric manuals.
[snip]
> > A love poet may turn to pastoral:
> >
> > Another, humbler wit, to shepherds pipe retires,
> > Yet hiding royall bloud full oft in rurall vaine.
> >
> > Pastorals are not generally written by actual shepherds, but by
> > well-off cosmopolitans who pretend to narrow their imaginations to
> > what they imagine a shepherd might comprehend.
>
> I'm interested that you've widened "royal blood" to mean well-off
> cosmopolitans.
Sidney himself was not a member of the royalty, but the character
Musidorus in Sidney's *Arcadia* was a prince of Thessalia who disguised
himself as a shepherd.
>
> And would you say that this could also be a comment on the themes
> themselves: narratives of shepherds who turn out to be of royal blood?
> Such as (written later, I know and not a poem) Winter's Tale?
There is some difference between deliberately "hiding royal blood" and
"turning out to be of royal blood." Musidorus knows that he is a prince.
The non-royal Shakespeare borrowed his plot from the non-royal Greene:
Greene's Fawnia did not know she was a king's daughter; Shakespeare's
Perdita did not know that she was a king's daughter.
Astrophil's author has at one time or another done just about everything
that Astrophil complains of in other poets.
[snip]
> >
> > Lynne, you want Astrophil to say something more than that he loves
> > Stella -- well, he has said a great deal more already, in six sonnets,
> > but he continues to wrestle with the problem of trying to express what
> > may be inexpressible except in the simplest terms. A great deal of
> > the fun of this (and I hope you enjoy the poems) is that he is such a
> > skilled wrestler.
>
> Yes, he has said quite a lot. But I'm not enjoying the poems yet,
> although you're helping.
He may grow on you.
> >
> > One thing that hasn't been commented on yet is that in the first six
> > sonnets Sidney has used six different rhyme schemes. In sonnet 7 he
> > will return to the rhyme scheme of sonnet 1, but whereas 1 was in
> > hexameter, 7 will be in pentameter. Sonnet 9 will be the first one to
> > use both the same meter and the same rhyme scheme as one of the
> > earlier sonnets. Sidney's technique is dazzling, but it creates its
> > own problem. Each sonnet seems like a splendid performance; Stella may
> > be moved to applause, but will anything move her to love? In dramatic
> > terms, of course, the beloved must remain unsatisfying to (yet still
> > desired by) the poet, otherwise there would be no reason to write
> > another sonnet.
>
> Thanks for your take, Terry. Please stick around to comment on each one.
> Maybe I'll develop a liking for them.
In that case I'll continue to chime in from time to time. You owe it to
yourself to give Sidney a chance.
Art Neuendorffer
> > > would have been more familiar with the Roman names.
>
> > Yes, for sure. Elizabethan acquaintance with Greek was not high.
> > Archbishop Whitgift (I think it was) had no Greek at all. Hence
> > Sidney's usage, which seemed to me inappropriate for our times.
> Should we rewrite Tennyson and Joyce, who used the name "ULYSSES"
> rather than "Odysseus"? Should *Mourning Becomes Electra* become
> *Mourning Becomes Elektra*? There may have been a shift against the Latin
> while Sean Bean is playing "ODYSSEUS" this year.
'I HATE' from HATE away she threw,
And sav'd my life, saying 'not you' - Sonnet 145
Notes on ODYSSEUS' Name & Pseudonyms
http://faculty.gvsu.edu/websterm/m'onomakluton.html
ODYSSEUS' name is related to the Greek verb
ODUSSOMAI, which usually means "to HATE,"
However, in Homer's ODYSSEY the verb usually
means "to cause pain" or "to bear a grudge against."
Thus, ODYSSEUS' name means "he who causes pain
or makes others angry." Hence when he names ODYSSEUS,
AUTOLYCUS associates that name with his own tricky behavior:
"odious, yes, HATEful to many for the pain I have caused".
"That I do WASTE with others' love,
that HATH myself in HATE," - E.O.
http://www3.telus.net/oxford/oxfordspoems.html#toppoems
-----------------------------------------------------------------
<<If others have their WILL Ann HATH a way.>>
-- ULYSSES by Joyce
------------------------------------------------------
ULYSSES
(SYD)ne(YES)
ODYSSEY
ULYSSES was recognized by his wound in the thigh.
---------------------------------------------------------
On The Countesse Dowager of Pembroke
Mary (Sidney) Herbert,
(U)nderneath this sable Herse
(LYES) the subiect of all verse:
(SYD)ne(YES) sister, Pembroke's Mother:
Death, ere thou hast slaine another,
Faire, & Learn'd, & good as she,
Tyme shall throw a DART at thee.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.renaissance.dm.net/heraldry/blazons3.html
http://www.geocities.co.jp/Milano/8947/m455a.gif
with long barbs which are engrailed on the inner edge.>>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
T O T H E [O.] N L I E B probabilities:
_ E G E T T [E.] R O F T H
__ E S E I N [S.] V I N G S __ TIBIAL: 1 in 11,600
O N N E T [S.] M r W H A EMEPH: 1 in 300
__ L H A P ___ I N E S ___ GROTS: 1 in 199
___ |L] N D T [P] A T E [S| ___ PHEON: 1 in 127
____ [E|A] T I [H] P R [T|E]
- R___[N|I] Y [E] V [O|M] I
S E__ [D|B] [O] [R|E] V E
-- R L I__ [V|I][N][G|P] O E [T]
W I S H__ [E||T||H] T H [E] _ [W]
E L L W I__ [S] H I--[N] G - [A]
D V E N T_ [U] R- [E]--R I - [N]
S E T T I___ [N] [G] F O R - [T]
--------------------------------------------------------------
ODYSSEY - Homer (tr. Samuel Butler)
<<I can throw a DART farther than any one else can shoot an arrow.>>
<<ULYSSES struck the son of Damastor with a spear in close fight,
---------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
> > >
> > > Another, humbler wit, to shepherds pipe retires,
> > > Yet hiding royall bloud full oft in rurall vaine.
> > >
> > > Pastorals are not generally written by actual shepherds, but by
> > > well-off cosmopolitans who pretend to narrow their imaginations
> > > to what they imagine a shepherd might comprehend.
> > I'm interested that you've widened "royal blood"
> > to mean well-off cosmopolitans.
> Sidney himself was not a member of the royalty, but the character
> Musidorus in Sidney's *Arcadia* was a prince of Thessalia
> who disguised himself as a shepherd.
MUS: MOUSE (Latin, Danish, Norwegian)
--------------------------------------------------------------
_Finnegans Wake_ -- "Bigamy Bob and his old Shanvocht!
The Blackfriars treacle plaster outrage be liddled!"
"ORANGE MARMALADE"
_ d_l_h_o _ X
__ i_i_o_r __F
__ t_c_d_i _ O
__ h-e_a_r R
______ a _ D
'Once upon a time there were three little sisters,' the Dormouse
began in a great hurry; 'and their names were Elsie, Lacie,
'What did they live on?' said Alice, who always took
'They lived on treacle,' said the Dormouse,
'They couldn't have done that, you know,'
'So they were,' said the Dormouse; ' very ill.'
Alice tried to fancy to herself what such an extraordinary ways
of living would be like, but it puzzled her too much, so
'Take some more tea,' the March Hare said to Alice,
'I've had nothing yet,' Alice replied in an offended tone,
'You mean you can't take less ,' said the Hatter:
'Nobody asked your opinion,' said Alice.
'Who's making personal remarks now?'
Alice did not quite know what to say to this: so she helped
herself to some tea and bread-and-butter, and then turned
The Dormouse again took a minute or two to think about it,
'There's no such thing!' Alice was beginning very angrily, but
the Hatter and the March Hare went 'Sh! sh!' and
'No, please go on!' Alice said very humbly;
'One, indeed!' said the Dormouse indignantly. However,
'What did they draw?' said Alice, quite forgetting her promise.
'treacle,' said the Dormouse, without considering at all this time.
'I want a clean cup,' interrupted the Hatter: 'let's all move one
place on.'
He moved on as he spoke, and the Dormouse followed him: the
unwillingly took the place of the March Hare. The Hatter was the
only one who got any advantage from the change: and Alice was
Alice did not wish to offend the Dormouse again, so
'You can draw water out of a water-well,' said the Hatter;
'But they were in the well,' Alice said to the Dormouse,
not choosing to notice this last remark.
'Of course they were', said the Dormouse; '--well in.'
This answer so confused poor Alice, that she let
'They were learning to draw,' the Dormouse went on, yawning and
rubbing its eyes, for it was getting very sleepy; 'and they drew
all manner of things--everything that begins with an M--'
'Why with an M?' said Alice.
'Why not?' said the March Hare.