Weekly Sonnet, No. 67
bookburn
Sonnet LXVII.
AH! wherefore with infection should he live
And with his presence grace impiety,
That sin by him advantage should achieve,
And lace itself with his society?
Why should false painting imitate his cheek, 5
And steel dead seeming of his living hue?
Why should poor beauty indirectly seek
Roses of shadow, since his rose is true?
Why should he live, now Nature bankrupt is,
Beggar'd of blood to blush through lively veins? 10
For she hath no exchequer now but his,
And, proud of many, lives upon his gains.
O! him she stores, to show what wealth she had
In days long since, before these last so bad.
1609 Quarto, old-fashioned spelling.
67
AH wherefore with infection should he liue,
And with his presence grace impietie,
That sinne by him aduantage should atchiue,
And lace it selfe with his societie ?
Why should false painting immitate his cheeke,
And steale dead seeing of his liuing hew?
Why should poore beautie indirectly seeke,
Roses of shaddow,since his Rose is true ?
Why should he liue,now nature banckrout is,
Beggerd of blood to blush through liuely vaines,
For she hath no exchecker now but his,
And proud of many,liues vpon his gaines?
O him she stores,to show what welth she had,
In daies long since,before these last so bad.
bookburn
unusual change to third person point of view, that " It seems as
if a third party has been introduced, a fictitious disinterested
observer who wishes to make comments and analyze the situation."
This seems to be an added complication in understanding the
sonnets, whether they are coherent, have unity of subject, show
logical development, etc. But perhaps it is a way of gaining
perspective that the author promotes, and we can take advantage?
>Sonnet LXVII.
> AH! wherefore with infection should he live
>And with his presence grace impiety,
> That sin by him advantage should achieve,
> And lace itself with his society?
We don't know who "he" is; presumably the Young Man, the object
of his love, but perhaps also himself in the way he contemplates
him. In going to the third person point of view, an objective,
analytical stance emerges and the poet looks critically at the
problem of love and beauty in the word of "infection", "impiety,"
and "sin."
>Why should false painting imitate his cheek, 5
>And steel dead seeming of his living hue?
>Why should poor beauty indirectly seek
> Roses of shadow, since his rose is true?
Perhaps the poet contemplates levels of reality in a Platonic
sense, from ideal to imperfect imitation, with love as a divine
influence that operates throughout; but he seems to say that the
"true"er ideal is in his natural makeup, rather than in the
artificial form.
> Why should he live, now Nature bankrupt is,
> Beggar'd of blood to blush through lively veins? 10
> For she hath no exchequer now but his,
> And, proud of many, lives upon his gains.
The question Why live, when Nature is bankrup? might apply
figuratively to "him" as someone being canabalized by a needy
nature, but as addressed to himself might address the problem of
growing old and blighted in nature, compared to earlier
perfection; or both? In Lear he says, "Ripeness is all."
> O! him she stores, to show what wealth she had
> In days long since, before these last so bad.
The ideal vs. real comes through strongly in the couplet in terms
of wealth of "days long since" vs. "these last so bad." That the
poet would personify nature as "she" and a key element in the
diatribe, along with "time," might be kept in mind when he
addresses the Dark Lady in the later sonnets, especially if he is
talking about aspects of himself.
bookburn
Paul Crowley
On Sonnet 67 I have tentative explanations/suggestions for
'infection'
'impiety'
'sin'
'days . . last so bad'
. . . and IMO good explanations for
'lace itself'
'false painting'
'him she stores'
and (IMO again) real substantial breakthroughs on
'roses of shadow'
'his rose is true'
'beggared of blood'
'blush through'
'lively veins'
'exchequer'
'proud of many'
'what wealth she had'
. . . showing how some involve complex puns
with two, three, and even, four distinct meanings.
Of course, I approach these sonnets from a completely
different direction. It seems that I might as well be
posting in Mandarin -- for all the connection it makes
with anyone around here. So, unless anyone asks --
and agrees (in principle at least) to discuss -- I'll keep
it all for the book.
Paul.
--
Email: pebj...@ubgznvy.pbz (apply ROT13)
bookburn
"Paul Crowley" <pebj...@ubgznvy.pbz (apply ROT13)> wrote in
message news:UIBw7.5486$w5.3...@news.indigo.ie...
I'm not clear about how you add up your analysis of complex puns
in the sonnets, except that they support your contention of
Elizabeth as an addressee and topical reference. I suppose it
wouldn't do to go from identifying a pattern of distinct meanings
associated with puns, to conclusions about the addressee, or
visa-versa; you probably need an academic corner stone. Is there
a theory of composition involved here, idiosyncratic mode of
regard the poet has for his subject, management of stylistic
devices that suggests a particular interpretation, something
about English language or Elizabethan times uniquely reflected in
the poet's use of the sonnet form, a developmental use of puns in
the sonnet sequence?
If you're doing a book, though, I think you would be justified in
not giving away the vision you have about the poet's use of puns
in the sonnets. But would a working title be something like,
"Oxford's Mask: the Mystery of Ambiguous Puns in the Sonnets" ?
bookburn
Hermione Winterstale
PAUL CROWLEY WROTE:
> Does anyone read my contributions on the sonnets anymore?
> Paul.
No
Paul Crowley
> I'm not clear about how you add up your analysis of complex puns
> in the sonnets, except that they support your contention of
> Elizabeth as an addressee and topical reference.
It's all part of one case. I present a certain scenario
and show how it all hangs together; complex puns
are part of it. If I can explain the meanings of certain
phrases and lines within my scenario -- where the
traditional interpreters conspicuously fail to do so
within theirs, then I am (for each word, phrase and
pun) several points up on them.
> I suppose it
> wouldn't do to go from identifying a pattern of distinct meanings
> associated with puns, to conclusions about the addressee, or
> visa-versa;
The 'conclusions' about the identity of the poet, the
addressee and the meaning succeed or fail as part
of one overall package. I doubt if any part can really
be taken from the whole.
> you probably need an academic corner stone.
I don't know what you mean by that.
> Is there a theory of composition involved here,
Yes. And also a view of the world, and of history, and
of literature, and of 'genius', and of much else. One
small part would be to say that I believe that great
poetry is rarely (or never) produced when the poet
addresses his/her 'muse' . . . . along the lines:
"O! My sweet and pure navel . . ". I see a much more
down-to-earth process. The guy wants to say some-
thing to his gal, and he's saying it about what's going
on between them, and his jealousies about that tall
handsome, much younger guy, to whom she's paying
a lot of attention.
> idiosyncratic mode of
> regard the poet has for his subject, management of stylistic
> devices that suggests a particular interpretation, something
> about English language or Elizabethan times uniquely reflected in
> the poet's use of the sonnet form, a developmental use of puns in
> the sonnet sequence?
Yeh, yeh, and all that too.
Although I prefer to focus on the money. Who was
paying for all this? Where did the guy get all that
time? Who really wanted all that amazing poetry?
Who could afford to pay for it?
> If you're doing a book, though, I think you would be justified in
> not giving away the vision you have about the poet's use of puns
> in the sonnets. But would a working title be something like,
> "Oxford's Mask: the Mystery of Ambiguous Puns in the Sonnets" ?
Nope. One possible title is "Let me not to the marriage
of true minds admit impediments . ." shown with a strip
cartoon !
Greg Reynolds
Hermione Winterstale wrote:
In what sense are they "contributions?"
More like wallpaper for your little world, Paul.
David Kathman
I hadn't seen this post of Crowley's, since I never read anything he
writes any more, but I'll add my "no". I virtually never open his
posts, least of all the ones on the sonnets.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
Paul Crowley
Don'tcha just love the way all the great unwashed
emerge from their cover when you raise a little
smoke (to mix a few of the ol' metaphors)?
Here's all these guys who _never_ contribute to the
sonnet threads -- and who _never_ read my posts
anyway -- somehow managing to READ them and
make their 'contributions' to a sonnet thread !
How can that be?
Still, I can see how Dave must be feeling a bit sore.
He's yet to tell us what he really meant to say in his
famous reply to Deirdre:
>I know about trainspotters. I'm a Monty Python fan. More
>directly, there was that movie with Ewan McGregor a few years ago.
>Very popular here in the States.
Dishonesty may work fine for you in academe, Dave
--- but it's liable to get a teeny bit counter-productive
around here.
Robert Stonehouse
>The Oxford Shakespeare: Poems. 1914.
>
>Sonnet LXVII.
>
>AH! wherefore with infection should he live
>And with his presence grace impiety,
>That sin by him advantage should achieve,
>And lace itself with his society?
>Why should false painting imitate his cheek, 5
Why should others' deceptive face-painting
mimic the beauty of his face /
>And steel dead seeming of his living hue?
and present an inorganic appearance stolen
from his living colours? /
>Why should poor beauty indirectly seek
Why should Beauty, reduced to poverty, try
expedients to produce /
>Roses of shadow, since his rose is true?
imitation roses, when he has real roses? /
>Why should he live, now Nature bankrupt is,
Why should his life coincide with the bankruptcy of nature, /
>Beggar'd of blood to blush through lively veins? 10
when nature no longer has enough blood, running
energetically in the veins, to show red through? /
>For she hath no exchequer now but his,
Nature has no reserve of resources now except his /
>And, proud of many, lives upon his gains.
and though she has many in the past to be proud of,
she now lives only on his income. /
> O! him she stores, to show what wealth she had
The reason is, that she keeps him to show how rich she was /
> In days long since, before these last so bad.
in times long ago, before these bad times at the end of the world. /
By quatrains:
(1) Why should my love have to live now and countenance all these
evils? (2) Why should artificial aids be used by inadequate beauty,
when my love has true beauty? (3) Why should he have to live now
when Nature has nothing else beautiful to show? (c) It is because
Nature wants to show how good things used to be.
Obviously it was right to take the end of sonnet 65 to mean "I leave
my love alone among all these evils". When I missed that point, I
fell into a trap the poet had set. 65 made a new start with a new
point of view and 66 continues directly on from it - as usual, the
two need to be read together, but the first gives no plain warning
of the fact.
The previous poem gave no indication of the sex of 'my love'. This
one makes plain that it is masculine.
Line 5, 'false painting'. Face painting, not portrait painting. The
poem gives us no reason to think of portrait painting as a portent
of the end of the world. It is the degeneracy of humanity that does
that. The loss of beauty leads to faking, which produces a
dead-looking, dead-feeling, unnatural, repellent surface.
Line 7. 'Beauty' I think is personified. The idea is 'Why should he
have to put up with imitations? Why should they be necessary?'
Line 9. The comma after 'live' is from the Quarto. Whatever it
conveyed to readers in 1609, I think it is damaging today and should
be removed. The question is not 'Why should he live?' but 'Why
should he live now?' It is the same question as in the first
quatrain, but the elaboration in the second has rather distracted us
from it and we need to be brought back.
Line 10, 'Beggar'd of blood to blush through lively veins'. The
phrase expands on 'bankrupt'; Nature is contrasted with 'my love'.
These are the last days of the world and Nature is old and wizened.
Line 12, 'proud of many'. Booth says 'No satisfactory explanation
has been offered for this phrase'. I do not see his problem. Nature
can be proud of all her beauties, but she can live only on those
that are now present: that is, only one. We need to take the two
contrasted halves of the line together. This idea is expanded in the
couplet.
Line 14, 'these last'. The idea that these are the last times,
approaching the end of the world, has not appeared before in the
sonnets. It would not have fitted very well with all the promises of
immortality. But then, nothing says there must be consistency in a
book of love poems.
ew...@bcs.org.uk
Paul Crowley
forgetting my doubts and posting my work on it so far.
1. Ah wherefore with infection should he live,
2. And with his presence grace impiety,
3. That sin by him advantage should achieve,
4. And lace itself with his society?
5. Why should false painting imitate his cheek,
6. And steal dead seeing (seeming?) of his living hue?
7. Why should poor beauty indirectly seek
8. Roses of shadow, since his Rose is true?
9. Why should he live, now nature bankrupt is,
10. Beggared of blood to blush through lively vaines?
11. For she hath no exchequer now but his,
12. And proud of many, lives upon his gains.
13. O him she stores, to show what wealth she had
14. In days long since, before these last so bad
Unusually, the principal subject of the poem is a 'he'--
someone referred to in the third person. The standard
commentaries assume that 'he' is the 'fair youth' yet
again. I don't know why. I suppose that they have so
little context, that they have no basis for thinking that
'he' might be anyone else.
There is an extraordinary degree of querulousness in
this sonnet. Lines 5, 7 and 9 start with the question:
'Why should . . ?". Line 1 is much the same: Wherefore
should . . ?". Two of these questions are about whether
or not 'he' should live . . . given (presumably) his health,
his condition, or his behaviour;
I see all these sonnets as being addressed by a courtier
to the Queen -- in common with a high proportion of
sonnets of that era.
The 'he' is a rival to the poet for the Queen's favours,
and once again, I am sure that it's Ralegh. Other rivals,
such as Leicester, Hatton, Heneage, or even Essex
could be considered, but there are several phrases
which point strongly to Ralegh.
So Ralegh is, I suggest, the 'he' who is bringing in
'infection', 'impiety' and 'sin'. But he has achieved such
a position of power and influence that the poet
sarcastically pretends to regard him as a quasi-monarch,
who should not be obliged to live with all the 'infection',
even if it was he who was responsible for it.
> 1. Ah wherefore with infection should he live,
The first quatrain is savagely sarcastic. I feel that the
word 'infection' must already have come up, possibly in
criticism of the poet, and this is part of his response.
Of course, the risk of physical 'infection' was constant in
the court. (Its abode rapidly became foul-smelling, which
is why it moved from palace to palace so frequently.)
The poet asks _twice_ "Why should this man live . . ?",
(see also line 9). While one or both could be taken
as "Why should he live like this?", I feel the former
meaning was the principal one the poet intended.
> 2. And with his presence grace impiety,
A sarcastic reference to 'his presence [ gracing .]'.
And 'impiety' is very strong. Ralegh's 'atheism' was
notorious. Possibly that is what is meant. Also Oxford
thought that the relationship between the Queen and
Ralegh was impious, per se. It generated scandal.
> 3. That sin by him advantage should achieve,
The poet IMO clearly has a specific 'sin' of Ralegh's in
mind. (And is there a pun on a meaning within a card
game? The word 'advantage implies such a possibility.)
However, we can hardly guess at it. Ralegh was obtaining
enormous advantages from the Queen -- by, in the poet's
view -- piracy, theft, corruption, flattery, and greed.
Possibly his sins of atheism and blasphemy were also
useful -- by making him more interesting to the Queen.
> 4. And lace itself with his society?
Ralegh was leading the fashion for fantastically elaborate
lace in the early 1580s. 'Sin' is still the subject here and it
is lacing itself (garbing itself outrageously as well as
winding its limbs in a quasi-erotic manner) with the
society of the Queen. The 'society/impiety' rhyme is
remarkably strong and, no doubt, full of meaning.
> 5. Why should false painting imitate his cheek,
'Cheek' in the sense of 'effrontery, impudence' is not
recorded in the OED until 1840, but it is very weak on
such colloquial uses. The OED gives another obsolete
'in defiance, cursing' sense (1c) which seems to me
close to it. I suspect that the modern 'colloquial' sense
descends from the latter. In any case, either sense
suits this line -- for a pun on Ralegh's personal
characteristics.
Ralegh was having a lot of portraits done of himself
at this time. The poet regards them as 'false' --
contrived to show him as much better (more
handsome and richer?) than he really was.
> 6. And steal dead seeing (seeming?) of his living hue?
'Seeing' is in the Quarto. I see no good reason to
alter it. 'Dead seeing' is no more strange than 'dead
seeming' and fits better with the astringent tone of the
rest of the sonnet. A portrait necessarily had a 'dead
seeing' and there are numerous possibilities for
meaningful puns: 'dead reckoning' is one; and ships
with portholes or gunports blocked had 'dead lights'.
> 7. Why should poor beauty indirectly seek
'Beauty' is the Queen; the poet suggests that she is
'poor' financially and, perhaps, as an object of pity for
other reasons (her infatuation with a scoundrel?).
Her association with Ralegh causes her to 'indirectly
seek the infection' with which he was associated, and
which would attach themselves to the Royal name, if
she continued in that manner -- the intensity and extent
of Ralegh's piratical activities, his peculation and his
greed; possibly there is a reference to his 'school of
the night'.
> 8. Roses of shadow, since his Rose is true?
The main sense of 'roses of shadow' is almost
certainly to 'rose-nobles', a gold coin worth about 35
shillings during Elizabeth's reign. The poet probably
just meant 'illicitly earned money' but he could have
been referring to a specific proposal made in 1586:
"Another economic problem arose in connection with
an offer to pay a substantial fee to the Crown for the
privilege of coining English rose-nobles in the Low
Countries. It held out promise that Elizabeth would
gain some 30,000 or 40,000 pounds a year. Burghley
was sceptical . . . . . It came to nothing in the end, for
the very obvious reason that the intrinsic value of the
rose-noble was far below the inflated value which for
a time it enjoyed."
(Conyers Read "Lord Burghley & QE" pp. 331-2).
'His rose is true' could refer to the design on a
mariner's compass (which was (and is?) referred to
as a 'rose', see OED sense 14c); the poet is saying
that Ralegh has his compass set true: he knows
where he wants to go.
> 9. Why should he live, now nature bankrupt is,
Lines 9 and 10 can be taken in two ways: either (i) it is
the 'he' (Ralegh) who is beggared of blood. . . "Why
should he live, beggared of blood to blush through
lively veins?" OR (ii) it is nature that is beggared of
blood. I don't think it matters which.
'Bankrupt' had a wider meaning at that time, and was
commonly used figuratively for 'exhausted of resources'
By 'now nature bankrupt is', the poet could have been
referring to some of the rich takings of Ralegh's fleet
of privateers -- all manner of cargoes were captured
and brought into English ports.
> 10. Beggared of blood to blush through lively vaines?
It is the 'peculiar phrases' in Shakespeare that yield
the most meaning. We must ask why the poet made
this extraordinary statement and examine what exactly
he said. Another poet might have said ' . . blood to pulse
in living veins'. Why does this one use 'blush through'
and 'lively'?
In the usual sense, veins can't be 'lively'. The poet was
punning on (a) the sense of 'vein' as 'a strain [of meaning
or character] . . . in a discourse or writing' (OED sense 9).
Good writing has 'lively veins'.
He was also punning on (b) the OED sense 2 of 'vane'
as 'a metal plate having the form of a plate or banner,
bearing a coat of arms, especially one supported by the
figure of an animal'. Ralegh's heraldic beasts seem to
be lions. A colour can 'blush through' on such an
emblem. In a roughly similar way, it was the fashion of
the early 1580s to cut long slashes in the outer layer of
garments to let the bright colour of linings 'blush through'.
He may also have been punning on (c) 'weather-vanes'
-- as in LLL where the Princess asks:
What plume of feathers is he that indited this letter?
What vane? what weathercock?
Brightly coloured plumes were commonly placed on the
bow of a ship to show the direction of the wind. 'Lively
vanes changed their direction frequently. Such
movements caused different colours to 'blush through'
The 'original meaning' of (d) 'veins' as blood-vessels,
is still present.
In all cases, the poet is saying that blood is not present,
or is thin. He meant, of course, NOBLE blood -- that
was the only blood that counted. Ralegh had none of it.
He had only the palest of imitations. That was all he
could show in his physical veins, in his poetry, in his
other writing, through his flighty 'weathercock', or in any
heraldic emblems to which he might pretend.
"Beggared of blood . . " might partially come from an
association between Ralegh and the 'Sea Beggars' --
Dutch pirates of the period 1572-76 (who at one point
captured Oxford). Although Oxford needed no excuse
to accuse Ralegh of being a beggar.
> 11. For she hath no exchequer now but his,
The 'she; in line 11 does not IMO mean 'nature' ; it
refers to the Queen, who had given so much to Ralegh,
that (the poet suggests) she has nothing left. (The
'exchequer' is the accounting department of the British
government; the 'Chancellor of the Exchequer' is
usually next-in line to the Prime Minister.)
> 12. And proud of many, lives upon his gains.
'Proud of many' has nautical and sailing references:
sailing ships are commonly said to 'sail proud'; also
seas can be 'proud' (OED sense 7c). The poet is
making the historically correct point that many others
lived on Ralegh's gains; the Queen is merely the one
of highest rank (OED sense 6: '" . . of exalted station,
of high degree.)
Ralegh was being so successful as a pirate that it
could be said (with a lot of exaggeration) that the
Queen (among many) 'lived upon his gains'.
" . the records of English piracy in the latter part of
Queen Elizabeth's reign - which are, of course, by
their nature sketchy - are dotted with references to
Walter Ralegh, his partners and their ships: the Bark
Randall owned by John Randall of Southampton, was
financed by Walter and Sir George Carey and brought
home some fabulous cargoes -pepper, cloves, mace,
sugar, ivory, brazil-wood and precious stones worth
well over £23,000; the Bark Burton, a Plymouth raider
financed, apparently, by Walter Ralegh alone, brought
home from just one voyage cochineal, hides and other
goods valued at £10,000; and the Pilgrim, a ship whose
captain, Jacob Whiddon, was the 'admiral' of the Ralegh
pirate fleet, captured valuable sumach, raisins and
almonds valued at £7500. Less glamorous cargoes
also proved worth the taking . . . . . "
(Robert Lacey "Sir Walter Ralegh" pp 75-6)
> 13. O him she stores, to show what wealth she had
A complaint about Ralegh's wealth, and the value
that the Queen places upon him -- partly in
consequence of all she has given him.
> 14. In days long since, before these last so bad
The poet could have been referring to the period of
his own disgrace and banishment from the court.
But mainly IMO he's thinking about Ralegh's
dominance at court.
Paul Crowley
> >AH! wherefore with infection should he live
> Oh, why should my love have to live in a diseased world /
Why identify 'he' with 'my love'?
Where does this disease come from?
What is its relevance?
> >And with his presence grace impiety,
> and, by being there, give countenance to sin, /
Why 'presence'? Why 'grace'? Why 'impiety'?
> >That sin by him advantage should achieve,
> so that sin can profit by his presence /
How does that happen? How could that happen?
What advantage can 'sin' ever achieve?
What does it mean to say 'sin profits'?
> >And lace itself with his society?
> and dress itself in the splendour of being his companion? /
Why should 'sin' dress itself in splendour?
Don't you feel the need to make some sense of
this. Or can 'poetic' images be explained by
more 'poetic' images?
> >Why should false painting imitate his cheek, 5
> Why should others' deceptive face-painting
> mimic the beauty of his face /
Surely that doesn't work? Can you give real
examples where it might? For example, would
anyone suggest that Barbara Cartland's face
paint really mimicked Lady Diana's beauty?
> >And steel dead seeming of his living hue?
> and present an inorganic appearance stolen
> from his living colours?
Another interpretation that does not work IMO.
> >Why should poor beauty indirectly seek
> Why should Beauty, reduced to poverty, try
> expedients to produce /
This is pretty hopeless. Beauty (by definition)
does not need expedients. Why or how should
(or could) beauty be 'poor'?
What is the significance of 'indirectly'?
> >Roses of shadow, since his rose is true?
> imitation roses, when he has real roses? /
What is beauty doing looking for imitation roses?
> >Why should he live, now Nature bankrupt is,
> Why should his life coincide with the bankruptcy of nature, /
What made Nature bankrupt? What is making
his life coincide with that state?
> >Beggar'd of blood to blush through lively veins? 10
> when nature no longer has enough blood, running
> energetically in the veins, to show red through? /
What deprived nature of this blood?
> >For she hath no exchequer now but his,
> Nature has no reserve of resources now except his /
Who or what brought about this state of affairs?
And why?
> >And, proud of many, lives upon his gains.
> and though she has many in the past to be proud of,
> she now lives only on his income. /
What is the relevance of nature's past? Why bring
it up? What is the 'many' of which she is supposedly
proud? Where does his 'income' come from?
Why bring it up? How can nature live off it?
> > O! him she stores, to show what wealth she had
> The reason is, that she keeps him to show how rich she was /
How come nature keeps him? She's supposedly
bankrupt.
> > In days long since, before these last so bad.
> in times long ago, before these bad times at the end of the world. /
What's all this about the end of the world? Where
else is that suggested?
> By quatrains:
> (1) Why should my love have to live now and countenance all these
> evils?
Why express such a point of view? What is its meaning?
And what evils?
> (2) Why should artificial aids be used by inadequate beauty,
> when my love has true beauty?
What is the relevance of artificial aids to all this?
> (3) Why should he have to live now
> when Nature has nothing else beautiful to show?
The repeated querulous complaints must surely have
some purpose? What can it be?
> (c) It is because
> Nature wants to show how good things used to be.
Why would Nature want that?
Overall -- meaningless crap -- although as good as
any of the traditional interpretations we see in the
books.
I'd give a schoolchild about 2 out of 10 -- and that
entirely for the evidence that he or she had read
the poem. I may or may not be right on the details
of my interpretation. But at least it can't be called
'meaningless'. I start by assuming that the poet
has some point to what he's saying, or some
reason for saying it.
Paul Crowley
> > 8. Roses of shadow, since his Rose is true?
>
> The main sense of 'roses of shadow' is almost
> certainly to 'rose-nobles', a gold coin worth about 35
> shillings during Elizabeth's reign. The poet probably
> just meant 'illicitly earned money'
I've done some more research on this -- and my
interpretation of this line requires emendation. First:
http://www.ece.iit.edu/~prh/coins/PiN/eod.html
"Elizabeth's first coinage continued the use of standard gold
and 0.81 fineness silver but introduced pieces of 20s, 10s,
5s and 2s 6d of gold of 0.833 fineness. Later the shilling was
suspended but silver pieces of 6d, 3d, 1 1/2d and 4d were
issued. These were differentiated from the groat, 2d and
penny by incorporation of a rose behind the queen's head."
I've seen an illustration of one of those coins (in Howard
Linecar's 'An Advanced Guide to Coin Collecting' (1970).
The rose behind the queen's head is placed quite
strangely -- and, from the coin alone, could well be
regarded as a 'rose of shadow'.
However, it is particularly so when contrasted with other
roses on coins of the period. The 'rose-nobles' were
much more valuable gold coins -- which essentially re-
established the financial probity of English coinage within
the first two years of Elizabeth's reign. The reverse side
of each of the various designs of the rose-noble had a
radiant sun in its centre surrounded by a Tudor rose.
So the roses on 'rose-nobles' were the opposite of
'roses of shadow'. The poet is contrasting the small,
cheap coins (of silver) with the fine expensive ones
of gold.
> 7. Why should poor beauty indirectly seek
> 8. Roses of shadow, since his Rose is true?
The poet is IMO saying "Why should 'poor beauty'
(i.e. the Queen) seek cheap coin (through Ralegh) by
indirect means (probably piracy)?"
This interpretation is supported by the many other
financial and monetary terms within the sonnet:
7. . . . poor
9. . . . . bankrupt
11. For she hath no exchequer now but his,
12. And proud of many, lives upon his gains.
13. O him she stores, to show what wealth she had
'Proud' in line 12 also has a reference to her image
on the coins.
Robert Stonehouse
>Robert Stonehouse <ew...@bcs.org.uk> wrote in message news:3bc48f72...@news.cityscape.co.uk...
>> >AH! wherefore with infection should he live
>> Oh, why should my love have to live in a diseased world /
>Why identify 'he' with 'my love'?
love'. The need for an antecedent for 'he' is one of the pointers to
the connection between the two poems.
>Where does this disease come from?
>What is its relevance?
sonnet. It means that, in this current age, the world is not a good
world.
>> >And with his presence grace impiety,
>> and, by being there, give countenance to sin, /
>>Why 'presence'? Why 'grace'? Why 'impiety'?
I do not see anything inadequate in my paraphrase, leaving the
meaning of these words in doubt. Are they a problem?
>
>> >That sin by him advantage should achieve,
>> so that sin can profit by his presence /
>How does that happen? How could that happen?
>What advantage can 'sin' ever achieve?
>What does it mean to say 'sin profits'?
It means that corruption is enabled to spread, because his
countenancing it (though only to the extent of existing while it
goes on) makes it more widely acceptable.
>
>> >And lace itself with his society?
>> and dress itself in the splendour of being his companion? /
>Why should 'sin' dress itself in splendour?
As above, to make itself accepted and enable itself to spread.
>
>Don't you feel the need to make some sense of
>this. Or can 'poetic' images be explained by
>more 'poetic' images?
I think it makes sense. Why do you put 'poetic' in quotation marks?
>
>> >Why should false painting imitate his cheek, 5
>> Why should others' deceptive face-painting
>> mimic the beauty of his face /
>Surely that doesn't work? Can you give real
>examples where it might? For example, would
>anyone suggest that Barbara Cartland's face
>paint really mimicked Lady Diana's beauty?
Not successfully, but that was the general idea.
>
>> >And steel dead seeming of his living hue?
>> and present an inorganic appearance stolen
>> from his living colours?
>
>Another interpretation that does not work IMO.
>
>> >Why should poor beauty indirectly seek
>> Why should Beauty, reduced to poverty, try
>> expedients to produce /
>
>This is pretty hopeless. Beauty (by definition)
>does not need expedients. Why or how should
>(or could) beauty be 'poor'?
Reduced to poverty by the corruption of the times.
>
>What is the significance of 'indirectly'?
A roundabout, artificial way of producing its effect.
>
>> >Roses of shadow, since his rose is true?
>> imitation roses, when he has real roses? /
>What is beauty doing looking for imitation roses?
As before, trying to repair the damage done by the corruption of the
last days.
>
>> >Why should he live, now Nature bankrupt is,
>> Why should his life coincide with the bankruptcy of nature, /
>
>What made Nature bankrupt?
The fact that these are the last days of the world.
> What is making his life coincide with that state?
The fact that he was not born at some other time.
>
>> >Beggar'd of blood to blush through lively veins? 10
>> when nature no longer has enough blood, running
>> energetically in the veins, to show red through? /
>What deprived nature of this blood?
Age and degeneration.
>
>> >For she hath no exchequer now but his,
>> Nature has no reserve of resources now except his /
>Who or what brought about this state of affairs?
>And why?
It is the inevitable progression of the world, from initial purity
to eventual corruption and decay.
>
>> >And, proud of many, lives upon his gains.
>> and though she has many in the past to be proud of,
>> she now lives only on his income. /
>What is the relevance of nature's past? Why bring
>it up? What is the 'many' of which she is supposedly
>proud?
Nature can be proud of all her beauties (regardless of date).
>Where does his 'income' come from?
I should have made this clearer - 'her income from him'.
>Why bring it up? How can nature live off it?
She enjoys and prides herself on his beauty. But she can only enjoy,
in that way, the beauties that are still around.
>
>> > O! him she stores, to show what wealth she had
>> The reason is, that she keeps him to show how rich she was /
>How come nature keeps him? She's supposedly
>bankrupt.
'Retains', not 'supports financially'.
>
>> > In days long since, before these last so bad.
>> in times long ago, before these bad times at the end of the world. /
>What's all this about the end of the world? Where
>else is that suggested?
'Nature bankrupt is' and 'these last <days>'. After reading the next
sonnet, I might be persuaded that this refers to the Age of Iron
versus the Golden Age.
>
>> By quatrains:
>> (1) Why should my love have to live now and countenance all these
>> evils?
>Why express such a point of view? What is its meaning?
>And what evils?
The evils listed in sonnet 66.
>
>> (2) Why should artificial aids be used by inadequate beauty,
>> when my love has true beauty?
>What is the relevance of artificial aids to all this?
'False painting' and 'roses of shadow'. But we don't really get into
this until sonnet 68.
>
>> (3) Why should he have to live now
>> when Nature has nothing else beautiful to show?
>The repeated querulous complaints must surely have
>some purpose? What can it be?
It leads up to the couplet, which answers all the questions.
>
>> (c) It is because
>> Nature wants to show how good things used to be.
>Why would Nature want that?
Because Nature takes pride in her beauties.
>
>Overall -- meaningless crap -- although as good as
>any of the traditional interpretations we see in the
>books.
It is not very unconventional. I am trying to stay close to the
words and not import extraneous imaginings - in these very abstract
poems that is a grave temptation.
>
>I'd give a schoolchild about 2 out of 10 -- and that
>entirely for the evidence that he or she had read
>the poem. I may or may not be right on the details
>of my interpretation. But at least it can't be called
>'meaningless'. I start by assuming that the poet
>has some point to what he's saying, or some
>reason for saying it.
You seem to assume that only a particular kind of point or reason is
acceptable, and that turns out to be a political point or reason.
Poets tend to be less interested in politics and more in poetry.
Political poetry ternds not to be very good.
ew...@bcs.org.uk
Paul Crowley
> The poet is IMO saying "Why should 'poor beauty'
> (i.e. the Queen) seek cheap coin (through Ralegh) by
> indirect means (probably piracy)?"
>
> This interpretation is supported by the many other
> financial and monetary terms within the sonnet:
>
> 7. . . . poor
> 9. . . . . bankrupt
> 11. For she hath no exchequer now but his,
> 12. And proud of many, lives upon his gains.
> 13. O him she stores, to show what wealth she had
>
> 'Proud' in line 12 also has a reference to her image
> on the coins.
Perhaps I should have explained that 'proud'
also means 'protruding' or 'raised' (of a surface).
But I've just seen some more of the multi-layered
puns in which the poet delighted so much. Firstly,
'many' is a pun for 'money', so 'proud of many' =
'proud of money'.
Secondly, the Queen 'lived upon his gains' in the
sense that her image was present on the gold
and silver coins made from the precious metal
which Ralegh obtained directly from (and
indirectly through) his piracy.
Paul Crowley
> "Paul Crowley" <pebj...@ubgznvy.pbz (apply ROT13)> wrote:
> >Robert Stonehouse <ew...@bcs.org.uk> wrote in message news:3bc48f72...@news.cityscape.co.uk...
> >> >AH! wherefore with infection should he live
> >> Oh, why should my love have to live in a diseased world /
> >Why identify 'he' with 'my love'?
> Because this line picks up from line 14 of the previous sonnet, 'my
> love'. The need for an antecedent for 'he' is one of the pointers to
> the connection between the two poems.
That's an extremely far-fetched theory. First, we have no
reason to believe that the poems were written sequentially.
(Does anyone believe that for the whole sequence?)
Secondly, the pronoun is different. This is the first time
the poet uses a 'he' as the principal subject.
Thirdly, all manner of pronouns come into these sonnets.
NO ONE'S identity is ever made clear, so there is no good,
nor automatic, reason why the first use in ANY sonnet
should refer back to any other sonnet.
> >Where does this disease come from?
> >What is its relevance?
> The disease is from 'infection' in the first line of this current
> sonnet. It means that, in this current age, the world is not a good
> world.
An infection is not necessarily a disease. Perhaps the
guy's got a bad tooth, or a sore leg. There is nothing
about 'the world'.
> >> >And with his presence grace impiety,
> >> and, by being there, give countenance to sin, /
> >>Why 'presence'? Why 'grace'? Why 'impiety'?
> I do not see anything inadequate in my paraphrase, leaving the
> meaning of these words in doubt. Are they a problem?
Yes. The words 'grace' and 'presence' had powerful and
specific connotations in the Elizabethan world -- which you
are ignoring. 'Impiety' is also a very strong word -- far
removed from mere 'sin'. (Was there something going
on which concerned the church, or a religious ceremony
or object, or person -- maybe a bishop?)
> >> >That sin by him advantage should achieve,
> >> so that sin can profit by his presence /
> >How does that happen? How could that happen?
> >What advantage can 'sin' ever achieve?
> >What does it mean to say 'sin profits'?
> It means that corruption is enabled to spread, because his
> countenancing it (though only to the extent of existing while it
> goes on) makes it more widely acceptable.
'Corruption' in the financial/political sense is a possibility
IMO, but that wasn't in your paraphrase. I'm just saying
that IMO there are major difficulties here, and your
interpretation seems to convey the view that there aren't
-- that is can all be reduced to some trivia.
> >> >And lace itself with his society?
> >> and dress itself in the splendour of being his companion? /
> >Why should 'sin' dress itself in splendour?
> As above, to make itself accepted and enable itself to spread.
'Lace' had a wider sense at the time; I should have
checked the OED on this earlier: it starts with three
obsolete and largely figurative meanings, mostly
suggesting entrapment.
> >Don't you feel the need to make some sense of
> >this. Or can 'poetic' images be explained by
> >more 'poetic' images?
> I think it makes sense. Why do you put 'poetic' in quotation marks?
The quotation marks are necessary because
'poetic' meanings or images are in the mind's eye,
and rarely have objective validity. Swapping one
for another is (more often than not) pure delusion.
> >> >Why should false painting imitate his cheek, 5
> >> Why should others' deceptive face-painting
> >> mimic the beauty of his face /
> >
> >Surely that doesn't work? Can you give real
> >examples where it might? For example, would
> >anyone suggest that Barbara Cartland's face
> >paint really mimicked Lady Diana's beauty?
>
> Not successfully, but that was the general idea.
The fact, that such attempts are commonly (indeed
almost necessarily) pathetic failures, means that
your interpretation of the line isn't right. The poet,
throughout this sonnet, is expressing anger and
annoyance -- not amusement.
> >> >Why should poor beauty indirectly seek
> >> Why should Beauty, reduced to poverty, try
> >> expedients to produce /
> >
> >This is pretty hopeless. Beauty (by definition)
> >does not need expedients. Why or how should
> >(or could) beauty be 'poor'?
> Reduced to poverty by the corruption of the times.
Abstract entities do not get reduced to poverty.
> >What is the significance of 'indirectly'?
> A roundabout, artificial way of producing its effect.
> >
> >> >Roses of shadow, since his rose is true?
> >> imitation roses, when he has real roses? /
> >What is beauty doing looking for imitation roses?
> As before, trying to repair the damage done by the corruption of the
> last days.
That's a crazy 'deduction'.
> >> >Why should he live, now Nature bankrupt is,
> >> Why should his life coincide with the bankruptcy of nature, /
> >
> >What made Nature bankrupt?
> The fact that these are the last days of the world.
Where does 'the last days of the world' come from?
<snip>
> You seem to assume that only a particular kind of point or reason is
> acceptable,
Yes. IMO that's how most of the sonnets got written.
The poet was saying a particular thing for a particular
reason. He was not spinning a empty web of
metaphorical candie-floss.
> and that turns out to be a political point or reason.
I relate it to particular people in a particular context
at a particular time. It's not especially 'political' -- no
more than, say, a poem written today becomes
'political' just because the poet has been affected by
the events of the last month.
> Poets tend to be less interested in politics and more in poetry.
Poets are affected by the events of their times, as
much as anyone else, and usually much more so --
good ones are more sensitive to what is going on.
Much of the great poetry that is remembered from
1900-1950 concerns the World Wars or the
atmosphere leading up to them, or caused by them,
or by the Depression: "The best lack all conviction;
The worst are full of passionate intensity . ."
You cannot abstract a great poet from his times --
yet that is what ALL Shakespeare commentators
try to do with his poetry. It's a recipe for inanity --
the main constituent of all commentaries on the
sonnets.
> Political poetry ternds not to be very good.
This is certainly not 'political poetry' -- whatever that
may be.
Robert Stonehouse
>Robert Stonehouse <ew...@bcs.org.uk> wrote in message news:3bc7e2d4...@news.cityscape.co.uk...
>> "Paul Crowley" <pebj...@ubgznvy.pbz (apply ROT13)> wrote:
>> >Robert Stonehouse <ew...@bcs.org.uk> wrote in message news:3bc48f72...@news.cityscape.co.uk...
>
>> >> >AH! wherefore with infection should he live
>> >> Oh, why should my love have to live in a diseased world /
>> >Why identify 'he' with 'my love'?
>
>> Because this line picks up from line 14 of the previous sonnet, 'my
>> love'. The need for an antecedent for 'he' is one of the pointers to
>> the connection between the two poems.
>
>That's an extremely far-fetched theory. First, we have no
>reason to believe that the poems were written sequentially.
>(Does anyone believe that for the whole sequence?)
reason to believe it for these two poems.
>Secondly, the pronoun is different. This is the first time
>the poet uses a 'he' as the principal subject.
addressee is possible (e.g. sonnet 20, which is in the third
person).
>NO ONE'S identity is ever made clear, so there is no good,
>nor automatic, reason why the first use in ANY sonnet
>should refer back to any other sonnet.
as these two do (and so does the next one), and that is a reason.
>
>> >Where does this disease come from?
>> >What is its relevance?
>> The disease is from 'infection' in the first line of this current
>> sonnet. It means that, in this current age, the world is not a good
>> world.
>
>An infection is not necessarily a disease. Perhaps the
>guy's got a bad tooth, or a sore leg. There is nothing
>about 'the world'.
sonnet which we are not entitled to ignore as you wish to.
>
> > >> >And with his presence grace impiety,
>> >> and, by being there, give countenance to sin, /
>> >>Why 'presence'? Why 'grace'? Why 'impiety'?
>> I do not see anything inadequate in my paraphrase, leaving the
>> meaning of these words in doubt. Are they a problem?
>
>Yes. The words 'grace' and 'presence' had powerful and
>specific connotations in the Elizabethan world -- which you
>are ignoring. 'Impiety' is also a very strong word -- far
>removed from mere 'sin'. (Was there something going
>on which concerned the church, or a religious ceremony
>or object, or person -- maybe a bishop?)
>> >> >That sin by him advantage should achieve,
>> >> so that sin can profit by his presence /
>> >How does that happen? How could that happen?
>> >What advantage can 'sin' ever achieve?
>> >What does it mean to say 'sin profits'?
>> It means that corruption is enabled to spread, because his
>> countenancing it (though only to the extent of existing while it
>> goes on) makes it more widely acceptable.
>
>'Corruption' in the financial/political sense is a possibility
>IMO, but that wasn't in your paraphrase. I'm just saying
>that IMO there are major difficulties here, and your
>interpretation seems to convey the view that there aren't
> -- that is can all be reduced to some trivia.
I do not see that 'the world is out of joint' is trivial. Nor do I
see that corruption need be financial or political.
>
>> >> >And lace itself with his society?
>> >> and dress itself in the splendour of being his companion? /
>> >Why should 'sin' dress itself in splendour?
>> As above, to make itself accepted and enable itself to spread.
>'Lace' had a wider sense at the time; I should have
>checked the OED on this earlier: it starts with three
>obsolete and largely figurative meanings, mostly
>suggesting entrapment.
Do we need these? Will not 'dress tself in finery' answer the
question?
>
>> >Don't you feel the need to make some sense of
>> >this. Or can 'poetic' images be explained by
>> >more 'poetic' images?
>> I think it makes sense. Why do you put 'poetic' in quotation marks?
>The quotation marks are necessary because
>'poetic' meanings or images are in the mind's eye,
>and rarely have objective validity. Swapping one
>for another is (more often than not) pure delusion.
If you don't feel able to accept poetic images, what are you doing
trying to understand poetry?
>
>> >> >Why should false painting imitate his cheek, 5
>> >> Why should others' deceptive face-painting
>> >> mimic the beauty of his face /
>> >Surely that doesn't work? Can you give real
>> >examples where it might? For example, would
>> >anyone suggest that Barbara Cartland's face
>> >paint really mimicked Lady Diana's beauty?
>> Not successfully, but that was the general idea.
>
>The fact, that such attempts are commonly (indeed
>almost necessarily) pathetic failures, means that
>your interpretation of the line isn't right. The poet,
>throughout this sonnet, is expressing anger and
>annoyance -- not amusement.
Something like what you say is what (in my view) the poet is saying.
He is resentful, not amused, but that is because of his starting
point.
>
>> >> >Why should poor beauty indirectly seek
>> >> Why should Beauty, reduced to poverty, try
>> >> expedients to produce /
>> >This is pretty hopeless. Beauty (by definition)
>> >does not need expedients. Why or how should
>> >(or could) beauty be 'poor'?
>
>> Reduced to poverty by the corruption of the times.
>
>Abstract entities do not get reduced to poverty.
Only in metaphor, but poets tend to use metaphor.
>
>> >What is the significance of 'indirectly'?
>> A roundabout, artificial way of producing its effect.
>> >
>> >> >Roses of shadow, since his rose is true?
>> >> imitation roses, when he has real roses? /
>> >What is beauty doing looking for imitation roses?
>> As before, trying to repair the damage done by the corruption of the
>> last days.
>
>That's a crazy 'deduction'.
It may seem so to you, but to me it seems entirely consistent with
the general tenor of the poem. So much so, that it hardly counts as
a deduction at all.
>
>> >> >Why should he live, now Nature bankrupt is,
>> >> Why should his life coincide with the bankruptcy of nature, /
>> >
>> >What made Nature bankrupt?
>> The fact that these are the last days of the world.
>
>Where does 'the last days of the world' come from?
I replace a few lines as follows: ********************
>> > In days long since, before these last so bad.
>> in times long ago, before these bad times at the end of the world. /
>What's all this about the end of the world? Where
>else is that suggested?
'Nature bankrupt is' and 'these last <days>'. After reading the next
sonnet, I might be persuaded that this refers to the Age of Iron
versus the Golden Age.
**********************************
I want to make more clearly the point that 'these last <days>' is
eschatological language. Bearing that in mind, I think the Age of
|ron in the next poem is a shift, not to be read back into this one.
>
><snip>
>
>> You seem to assume that only a particular kind of point or reason is
>> acceptable,
>
>Yes. IMO that's how most of the sonnets got written.
>The poet was saying a particular thing for a particular
>reason. He was not spinning a empty web of
>metaphorical candie-floss.
I say that every sonnet represents a thought, consistently and
consecutively expressed. That is why I offer two paraphrases, one to
show how it follows from quatrain to quatrain, and another to
demonstrate that I have not left anything out - or to betray me if I
have.
>
>> and that turns out to be a political point or reason.
>I relate it to particular people in a particular context
>at a particular time. It's not especially 'political' -- no
>more than, say, a poem written today becomes
>'political' just because the poet has been affected by
>the events of the last month.
>
>> Poets tend to be less interested in politics and more in poetry.
>Poets are affected by the events of their times, as
>much as anyone else, and usually much more so --
>good ones are more sensitive to what is going on.
>Much of the great poetry that is remembered from
>1900-1950 concerns the World Wars or the
>atmosphere leading up to them, or caused by them,
>or by the Depression: "The best lack all conviction;
>The worst are full of passionate intensity . ."
This is striking. It is the worst who are full of passionate
intensity. The best stick to their poetical business.
>
>You cannot abstract a great poet from his times --
>yet that is what ALL Shakespeare commentators
>try to do with his poetry. It's a recipe for inanity --
>the main constituent of all commentaries on the
>sonnets.
I deny that they try to do that, though it is a fact that he is not
of an age, but for all time, and that he wrote deliberately with
that in view, especially in the Sonnets. But exactly what features
of his time do we need to consider? We shall only find out by
reading the poems, not by making assumptions in advance.
The elaboration you insist on will fall under Occam's razor.
>> Political poetry ternds not to be very good.
"The worst are full of passionate intensity . ."
>This is certainly not 'political poetry' -- whatever that
>may be.
I go with that. I say it is poetical poetry, written by someone to
whom poetry mattered more than anything else.
ew...@bcs.org.uk
Paul Crowley
> >> Because this line picks up from line 14 of the previous sonnet, 'my
> >> love'. The need for an antecedent for 'he' is one of the pointers to
> >> the connection between the two poems.
> >
> >That's an extremely far-fetched theory. First, we have no
> >reason to believe that the poems were written sequentially.
> >(Does anyone believe that for the whole sequence?)
>
> There is no need to believe it for the whole sequence. We have good
> reason to believe it for these two poems.
It's just as likely (and IMO much more so) that the
'he' reference comes from the immediate situation
of the poet and the addressee. You seem to work
on the assumption that the poet is writing for US --
and that all references should be fairly 'obvious'.
I can't see how that's a defensible standpoint.
If he had wanted to make most things transparent,
he could easily have done so.
I believe that the poet wrote primarily for his 'love' --
who was also his patron; and that while he knew
he was (at times) _also_ writing for posterity, he
was obliged (for reasons we can only guess at)
to be thoroughly obscure most of the time.
> >Secondly, the pronoun is different. This is the first time
> >the poet uses a 'he' as the principal subject.
>
> Is that really significant? We know very well that a masculine
> addressee is possible (e.g. sonnet 20, which is in the third
> person).
I reject an interpretation of Sonnet 20 that requires
a masculine addressee.
> >Thirdly, all manner of pronouns come into these sonnets.
> >NO ONE'S identity is ever made clear, so there is no good,
> >nor automatic, reason why the first use in ANY sonnet
> >should refer back to any other sonnet.
>
> Agreed, up to a point. The sonnets themselves may imply a sequence,
> as these two do (and so does the next one), and that is a reason.
Sometimes a sequence is obvious. I don't see
any reasons for one here.
> A bad tooth is not a disease? But the world comes from the previous
> sonnet which we are not entitled to ignore as you wish to.
I agree with you about sonnet numberings and
that No 66 is a 'special'. Such special insertions
like that are unlikely to be part of a sequence.
> > > >> >And with his presence grace impiety,
> >> >> and, by being there, give countenance to sin, /
> >Yes. The words 'grace' and 'presence' had powerful and
> >specific connotations in the Elizabethan world -- which you
> >are ignoring.
>
> The words had special uses which are not in point here.
How do you know?
> >> >> >And lace itself with his society?
> >> >> and dress itself in the splendour of being his companion? /
> >
> >'Lace' had a wider sense at the time; I should have
> >checked the OED on this earlier: it starts with three
> >obsolete and largely figurative meanings, mostly
> >suggesting entrapment.
>
> Do we need these? Will not 'dress tself in finery' answer the
> question?
| don't think so. This poet used all kinds of
senses.
> >The quotation marks are necessary because
> >'poetic' meanings or images are in the mind's eye,
> >and rarely have objective validity. Swapping one
> >for another is (more often than not) pure delusion.
>
> If you don't feel able to accept poetic images, what are you doing
> trying to understand poetry?
I am quite happy with poetic images. But, like most
people, I often disagree with the 'poetic images'
others find in these sonnets. I can see no good
basis for most of them. They are, more often than
not, mere figments of over-heated imaginations.
> >> >> >Why should poor beauty indirectly seek
> >> >> Why should Beauty, reduced to poverty, try
> >> >> expedients to produce /
> >> >This is pretty hopeless. Beauty (by definition)
> >> >does not need expedients. Why or how should
> >> >(or could) beauty be 'poor'?
> >
> >> Reduced to poverty by the corruption of the times.
> >
> >Abstract entities do not get reduced to poverty.
>
> Only in metaphor, but poets tend to use metaphor.
I don't think that this poet makes such crude or
inappropriate ones.
[..]
> >> Poets tend to be less interested in politics and more in poetry.
> >
> >Poets are affected by the events of their times, as
> >much as anyone else, and usually much more so --
> >good ones are more sensitive to what is going on.
> >Much of the great poetry that is remembered from
> >1900-1950 concerns the World Wars or the
> >atmosphere leading up to them, or caused by them,
> >or by the Depression: "The best lack all conviction;
> >The worst are full of passionate intensity . ."
>
> This is striking. It is the worst who are full of passionate
> intensity. The best stick to their poetical business.
I gave those lines as an example of a poet
making a 'political' statement. He was
commenting on what he saw as a particularly
degenerate period (and few would disagree
with him). In better (or more normal) times,
poets would be concerned with politics -- as
were Thomas More, Wyatt, Surrey, Golding,
Fulke Greville, Sidney, Spenser, Ralegh, Dyer,
Davies, Marlowe, Donne, Jonson, Milton . . .
To claim that Shakespeare was NOT interested
nor involved in politics would be to claim that
he was quite unusual for his era.
> >You cannot abstract a great poet from his times --
> >yet that is what ALL Shakespeare commentators
> >try to do with his poetry. It's a recipe for inanity --
> >the main constituent of all commentaries on the
> >sonnets.
>
> I deny that they try to do that, though it is a fact that he is not
> of an age, but for all time, and that he wrote deliberately with
> that in view, especially in the Sonnets. But exactly what features
> of his time do we need to consider? We shall only find out by
> reading the poems, not by making assumptions in advance.
> The elaboration you insist on will fall under Occam's razor.
I don't know what you mean by that.
> >> Political poetry ternds not to be very good.
>
> "The worst are full of passionate intensity . ."
Those of 'passionate intensity' were the Marxists
and the Fascists of the 1930s. Few of them had
much time or interest in poetry, nor in Shakespeare.
> >This is certainly not 'political poetry' -- whatever that
> >may be.
>
> I go with that. I say it is poetical poetry, written by someone to
> whom poetry mattered more than anything else.
I don't believe that it's possible to be a good,
or even competent, poet if you have little interest
in other aspects of human life -- history, politics,
scientific achievements, etc.
Greg Reynolds
Paul Crowley wrote:
> I believe that the poet wrote primarily for his 'love' --
> who was also his patron;
So you believe Oxford, a patron, was patronized
(by Southampton or some other lesser noble).
No matter how you try, Paul, that doesn't fit.
However you build it into your understanding of
Shakespeare is faulty and incredible. Show us
what Oxford gained from his patron, please.
> and that while he knew
> he was (at times) _also_ writing for posterity, he
> was obliged (for reasons we can only guess at)
> to be thoroughly obscure most of the time.
No wonder you have such an admiration for the man--
he's just like you!
Greg Reynolds
Paul Crowley
> Paul Crowley wrote:
> > I believe that the poet wrote primarily for his 'love' --
> > who was also his patron;
>
> So you believe Oxford, a patron, was patronized
> (by Southampton or some other lesser noble).
Wake up, Greg. You may be able to get through
life on absolute shallowness, but you also need
to stay awake. It's years since I thought there
was any possibility that Southampton (or any
of the other 'fair youth' candidates) had a role
in his life.
I believe that the chief patron for poets in the
period 1558-1603 was the same person as to
whom a very high proportion of poems of the
period were written and dedicated. Well, there's
no one who would dispute that. It's all in the
record. She was the fount of vast sums of
money and innumerable favours and was (of
course) the Queen.
SHE was Oxford's patron and, in common
with a great many other poets of the day,he
addressed his sonnets to her. You see, that
made financial sense. She controlled all the
money and, if you were nice to her, she might
let you some now and then.
There was nothing she loved more than to be
told she was 'beautiful'. 'fair', 'sweet', with 'bright
eyes' and . . . . well you know all the rest.
> No matter how you try, Paul, that doesn't fit.
> However you build it into your understanding of
> Shakespeare is faulty and incredible. Show us
> what Oxford gained from his patron, please.
Money, money, money . . . lots and lots of money.
Money, money, money . . . it's what makes the
world go around. He didn't do quite as well as
some, particularly Ralegh and, later, Essex. He
did better (in financial terms) than others: Dyer,
Sidney, Heneage, Hatton and Spenser. (Every
one of them wrote poetry to her of a roughly similar
nature). Although it's an open kind of question.
How do you measure it, when a courtier spends
vast amounts of money, but leaves vast debts
owing to the crown when he dies?
> > and that while he knew
> > he was (at times) _also_ writing for posterity, he
> > was obliged (for reasons we can only guess at)
> > to be thoroughly obscure most of the time.
>
> No wonder you have such an admiration for the man--
> he's just like you!
I write clearly. Any obscurity you find comes from
the fog within your own brain.
Robert Stonehouse
>> >That's an extremely far-fetched theory. First, we have no
>> >reason to believe that the poems were written sequentially.
>> >(Does anyone believe that for the whole sequence?)
>> There is no need to believe it for the whole sequence. We have good
>> reason to believe it for these two poems.
Or rather, we have good reason to believe that these two poems were
written to be read in sequence, which may not be quite the same
thing.
>
>It's just as likely (and IMO much more so) that the
>'he' reference comes from the immediate situation
>of the poet and the addressee.
That would make it like your view of 'their' in 65.2. The more of
these you posit, the less plausible they are.
>You seem to work
>on the assumption that the poet is writing for US --
>and that all references should be fairly 'obvious'.
>I can't see how that's a defensible standpoint.
>If he had wanted to make most things transparent,
>he could easily have done so.
Yes, he is writing for us. There are three signs of that: (i) he has
published the poems as a book, (ii) he repeatedly expresses his hope
of immortality for his work, and that means our reading it, (iii) he
writes all the time about universal experiences and feelings, not
particular happenings, with only rare references to any contemporary
event.
>
>I believe that the poet wrote primarily for his 'love' --
>who was also his patron; and that while he knew
>he was (at times) _also_ writing for posterity, he
>was obliged (for reasons we can only guess at)
>to be thoroughly obscure most of the time.
>
>> >Secondly, the pronoun is different. This is the first time
>> >the poet uses a 'he' as the principal subject.
>>
>> Is that really significant? We know very well that a masculine
>> addressee is possible (e.g. sonnet 20, which is in the third
>> person).
>
>I reject an interpretation of Sonnet 20 that requires
>a masculine addressee.
>
>> >Thirdly, all manner of pronouns come into these sonnets.
>> >NO ONE'S identity is ever made clear, so there is no good,
>> >nor automatic, reason why the first use in ANY sonnet
>> >should refer back to any other sonnet.
>> Agreed, up to a point. The sonnets themselves may imply a sequence,
>> as these two do (and so does the next one), and that is a reason.
>Sometimes a sequence is obvious. I don't see
>any reasons for one here.
To avoid seeing a reason, you have to suppose that the writer is
prepared to throw in an unexplained 'he' or (sonnet 65) 'their',
meaning 'you know whom I mean' addressed to an individual, ignoring
the position of the readers to whom his book is published. I find
this supposition completely unjustified, obviously so on the face of
the page.
If you propose a far-out interpretation, it may be impossible to
refute in itself because of the general difficulty of proving a
negative. But when it involves you in denying things that are plain
from the words of the poem, then it becomes refutable.
...
>I agree with you about sonnet numberings and
>that No 66 is a 'special'. Such special insertions
>like that are unlikely to be part of a sequence.
I don't recognise this as anything I was trying to say. I mean that
66-67-68 are written so that they have to be read together.
>
>> > > >> >And with his presence grace impiety,
>> >> >> and, by being there, give countenance to sin, /
>> >Yes. The words 'grace' and 'presence' had powerful and
>> >specific connotations in the Elizabethan world -- which you
>> >are ignoring.
>> The words had special uses which are not in point here.
>How do you know?
You have pointed out some special uses. But here we get excellent
sense out of the ordinary uses. There is no reason to go farther
afield.
>
>> >> >> >And lace itself with his society?
>> >> >> and dress itself in the splendour of being his companion? /
>> >'Lace' had a wider sense at the time; I should have
>> >checked the OED on this earlier: it starts with three
>> >obsolete and largely figurative meanings, mostly
>> >suggesting entrapment.
>> Do we need these? Will not 'dress tself in finery' answer the
>> question?
>| don't think so. This poet used all kinds of senses.
Yes, of course. And in each case we have to decide which one he is
after this time. In the present case, there is no need to go farther
afield.
...
>> I deny that they try to do that, though it is a fact that he is not
>> of an age, but for all time, and that he wrote deliberately with
>> that in view, especially in the Sonnets. But exactly what features
>> of his time do we need to consider? We shall only find out by
>> reading the poems, not by making assumptions in advance.
>> The elaboration you insist on will fall under Occam's razor.
>I don't know what you mean by that.
I mean that we must take the most economical interpretation and not
go looking for more elaborate ones when a simple one is available
and fulfils the requirements. (There is an example of Brother
William applying his razor to the interpretation of a text in Octo
Quaestiones, question 2, chapter 13.)
...
ew...@bcs.org.uk
Paul Crowley
> "Paul Crowley" <pebj...@ubgznvy.pbz (apply ROT13)> wrote:
> >It's just as likely (and IMO much more so) that the
> >'he' reference comes from the immediate situation
> >of the poet and the addressee.
>
> That would make it like your view of 'their' in 65.2. The more of
> these you posit, the less plausible they are.
Why so? It comes from our overall understanding of the
identity of the parties, and the context and purpose of
these sonnets. I say such pronouns have an understood
reference between the poet and the addressee -- and you
insist that they must have an internal reference within the
poem. We can only assess it on a case by case basis.
In sonnet 65 you were obliged (a) to maintain that "sad
mortality o'ersways the boundless sea" -- in some quite
inexplicable manner; and (b) to mangle the grammar,
converting:
> 1. Since brass, nor stone, nor earth, nor boundless sea,
> 2. But sad mortality o'ersways their power,
into something like:
> >1. Stern brass, hard stone, dull earth, and boundless sea,
> >2. Yet sad mortality o'ersways their power,
Surely you accept that, in respect of those two lines,
and _on_an_objective_basis_, your theory falls and
mine stands?
> >You seem to work
> >on the assumption that the poet is writing for US --
> >and that all references should be fairly 'obvious'.
> >I can't see how that's a defensible standpoint.
> >If he had wanted to make most things transparent,
> >he could easily have done so.
>
> Yes, he is writing for us.
That is most unlikely -- historically speaking. The poets
of his day wrote for their own immediate times -- and
usually for a particular person, especially a wealthy
patron. They hardly ever intended to publish their poetry.
Making money from them was even more a hopeless
prospect than it is now, given the much smaller size of
the poetry-reading public, and the much higher cost of
printing.
> There are three signs of that: (i) he has published the
> poems as a book,
Which is often thought to be 'unapproved'.
Oxfordians maintain it was published after his
death -- and IMO, perhaps even more important,
after _her_ death.
> (ii) he repeatedly expresses his hope
> of immortality for his work, and that means our reading it,
We're told it was a commonly expressed viewpoint
in poetry. Although I accept that his was sincere here,
but I believe it was very much a secondary motive.
> (iii) he writes all the time about universal experiences and
> feelings, not particular happenings, with only rare references
> to any contemporary event.
Well, that's one of the big areas of dispute between
us. While at one level, his poetry commonly addresses
universal feelings, I am sure that he was, in fact, also
often writing about current events -- and the parts that
he, and his 'lover', played in them. But he was obliged
to keep those aspects hidden and obscure.
> >Sometimes a sequence is obvious. I don't see
> >any reasons for one here.
>
> To avoid seeing a reason, you have to suppose that the writer is
> prepared to throw in an unexplained 'he' or (sonnet 65) 'their',
> meaning 'you know whom I mean' addressed to an individual, ignoring
> the position of the readers to whom his book is published. I find
> this supposition completely unjustified, obviously so on the face of
> the page.
I think you are attaching far too much importance
to yourself -- as a member of a reading public
400 years down the road. Also, you are failing to
recognise his need to be obscure -- which is very
obvious throughout these sonnets.
> If you propose a far-out interpretation, it may be impossible to
> refute in itself because of the general difficulty of proving a
> negative.
On the contrary -- I relate my interpretations to well-
established facts about historical events. You can
undermine them in two ways (a) by showing the facts
which I propose conflict with the words, or with my
interpretation; and/or (b) by showing that they fit some
_other_ facts or _other_ situations as well -- or even
better.
Occasionally, I am absolutely categorical about
particular words applying to particular events. In
Sonnet 107, for example, I say that the line
> "Incertainties now crown themselves assured"
could ONLY have been said by ONE person at
ONE time in ONE place about ONE set of events
throughout the whole of human history. And that
was by Oxford in February/March 1582 about the
termination of the Anjou match.
Could you have a more disprovable statement?
(No one has yet attempted to disprove it.)
> But when it involves you in denying things that are plain
> from the words of the poem, then it becomes refutable.
What is 'plain from the words' is in dispute.
> >I agree with you about sonnet numberings and
> >that No 66 is a 'special'. Such special insertions
> >like that are unlikely to be part of a sequence.
>
> I don't recognise this as anything I was trying to say. I mean that
> 66-67-68 are written so that they have to be read together.
Don't you accept Sonnet 60 is about 'hours' and
Sonnet 12 is about a clock, and Sonnet 63, 77
and 81 are 'climacteric'? And that 66 is linked to
the Devil and to the idea of evil doings?
> >> > > >> >And with his presence grace impiety,
> >> >> >> and, by being there, give countenance to sin, /
> >> >Yes. The words 'grace' and 'presence' had powerful and
> >> >specific connotations in the Elizabethan world -- which you
> >> >are ignoring.
> >> The words had special uses which are not in point here.
> >How do you know?
>
> You have pointed out some special uses. But here we get excellent
> sense out of the ordinary uses. There is no reason to go farther
> afield.
With the sonnets there is ALWAYS a reason to
go further afield. He wrote at several levels of
meaning.
This is a gross mis-application of Occam. If we
are trying to sort out a scientific question, then
his Razor is indispensible. If it is a question of
human behaviour, and we have no reason to
believe that the person(s) had strange or devious
motives, then it is also highly useful. But when
we have good reason to suspect that the person
had highly complex motives and that he set out,
quite deliberately, to be as devious and as complex
as possible, then it is absurd to claim that only one
explanation of his words is required -- and that:
only what you find the most obvious.
Alisa Beaton
> The author of the Introductory Notes to No. 67 remarks on the
> unusual change to third person point of view, that " It seems as
> if a third party has been introduced, a fictitious disinterested
> observer who wishes to make comments and analyze the situation."
> This seems to be an added complication in understanding the
> sonnets, whether they are coherent, have unity of subject, show
> logical development, etc. But perhaps it is a way of gaining
> perspective that the author promotes, and we can take advantage?
>
> >Sonnet LXVII.
>
> > AH! wherefore with infection should he live
> >And with his presence grace impiety,
> > That sin by him advantage should achieve,
> > And lace itself with his society?
>
> We don't know who "he" is; presumably the Young Man, the object
> of his love, but perhaps also himself in the way he contemplates
> him. In going to the third person point of view, an objective,
> analytical stance emerges and the poet looks critically at the
> problem of love and beauty in the word of "infection", "impiety,"
> and "sin."
>
What if the sonnets, or some of them, were an exchange between two poets?
bookburn
"Alisa Beaton" <alisa...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:49c43974.01101...@posting.google.com...
I thought of that;, too. There is an example of answering poems
between Raleigh and Marlowe, I think; "come with me and be my
love," etc. I just have the idea that the poet might be
conducting some kind of interior dialogue with himself. Some
psychologists today say we have three personalities in one: the
child, the parent, and who you think you are. Or, maybe he is
talking three levels of platonism: the ideal, the imitated form,
and the "real" object.
bookburn
Greg Reynolds
bookburn wrote:
Then let's work in the characters of the sonnets:
(pardon my hopscotch/cipher/tables)
Psychologists: Child, Parent, Self-Image
Platonism: Ideal, Imitated, Real
Characters: Patron, Rival, Lady
Greg Reynolds
Art, stay out of this
bookburn
Id, ego, super-ego. Crowley says he wants to map it out in
cartoon strips, but I would prefer a puppet show psycho-drama.
Robert Stonehouse
>Robert Stonehouse <ew...@bcs.org.uk> wrote in message news:3bcd2e2c...@news.cityscape.co.uk...
>> "Paul Crowley" <pebj...@ubgznvy.pbz (apply ROT13)> wrote:
>In sonnet 65 you were obliged (a) to maintain that "sad
>mortality o'ersways the boundless sea" -- in some quite
>inexplicable manner; and (b) to mangle the grammar,
>converting:
>
>> 1. Since brass, nor stone, nor earth, nor boundless sea,
>> 2. But sad mortality o'ersways their power,
> into something like:
>> >1. Stern brass, hard stone, dull earth, and boundless sea,
>> >2. Yet sad mortality o'ersways their power,
>
>Surely you accept that, in respect of those two lines,
>and _on_an_objective_basis_, your theory falls and
>mine stands?
...
>> Yes, he is writing for us.
>
>That is most unlikely -- historically speaking. The poets
>of his day wrote for their own immediate times -- and
>usually for a particular person, especially a wealthy
>patron. They hardly ever intended to publish their poetry.
>Making money from them was even more a hopeless
>prospect than it is now, given the much smaller size of
>the poetry-reading public, and the much higher cost of
>printing.
write poetry. But while they may use poetry to make a living, that
is not what they are poets for. See what our poet says - immortality
is there and cannot be denied.
Reluctance to publish is a phenomenon of gentlemen poets, not
professionals. A professional wanted his name on the title-page.
>
>> There are three signs of that: (i) he has published the
>> poems as a book,
>Which is often thought to be 'unapproved'.
>Oxfordians maintain it was published after his
>death -- and IMO, perhaps even more important,
>after _her_ death.
>
>> (ii) he repeatedly expresses his hope
>> of immortality for his work, and that means our reading it,
>We're told it was a commonly expressed viewpoint
>in poetry. Although I accept that his was sincere here,
>but I believe it was very much a secondary motive.
It was expressed because it was commonly held! And it is not
expressed as secondary. It is expressed as a climax.
>
>> (iii) he writes all the time about universal experiences and
>> feelings, not particular happenings, with only rare references
>> to any contemporary event.
>Well, that's one of the big areas of dispute between
>us. While at one level, his poetry commonly addresses
>universal feelings, I am sure that he was, in fact, also
>often writing about current events -- and the parts that
>he, and his 'lover', played in them. But he was obliged
>to keep those aspects hidden and obscure.
>
>> >Sometimes a sequence is obvious. I don't see
>> >any reasons for one here.
>> To avoid seeing a reason, you have to suppose that the writer is
>> prepared to throw in an unexplained 'he' or (sonnet 65) 'their',
>> meaning 'you know whom I mean' addressed to an individual, ignoring
>> the position of the readers to whom his book is published. I find
>> this supposition completely unjustified, obviously so on the face of
>> the page.
>
>I think you are attaching far too much importance
>to yourself -- as a member of a reading public
>400 years down the road. Also, you are failing to
>recognise his need to be obscure -- which is very
>obvious throughout these sonnets.
Members of the reading public must read the poems for themselves.
There is no other way. No one of us has any special importance, and
so it behoves us to make sure we are talking sense. Abstraction (not
obscurity) is very apparent in the Sonnets. No need or other motive
for obscurity is apparent.
>
>> If you propose a far-out interpretation, it may be impossible to
>> refute in itself because of the general difficulty of proving a
>> negative.
>On the contrary -- I relate my interpretations to well-
>established facts about historical events. You can
>undermine them in two ways (a) by showing the facts
>which I propose conflict with the words, or with my
>interpretation; and/or (b) by showing that they fit some
>_other_ facts or _other_ situations as well -- or even
>better.
Not necessarily facts or situations (in your sense). They fit a
different approach to the problem of interpretation.
>
>Occasionally, I am absolutely categorical about
>particular words applying to particular events. In
>Sonnet 107, for example, I say that the line
>> "Incertainties now crown themselves assured"
>
>could ONLY have been said by ONE person at
>ONE time in ONE place about ONE set of events
>throughout the whole of human history. And that
>was by Oxford in February/March 1582 about the
>termination of the Anjou match.
>Could you have a more disprovable statement?
>(No one has yet attempted to disprove it.)
We shall come to sonnet 107 in time, if we are all spared.
Meanwhile, it seems odd to choose such a very abstract line as
possessing one, and only one, possible conversion into practical
terms.
...
>Don't you accept Sonnet 60 is about 'hours' and
>Sonnet 12 is about a clock, and Sonnet 63, 77
>and 81 are 'climacteric'? And that 66 is linked to
>the Devil and to the idea of evil doings?
Not 'about' hours. It puns on the number 60 to talk about a subject
many other sonnets also are about. I know about 666, but does this
apply to 66? If it does, then it would be possible that a similar
pun on the sonnet number is at work. But in either case, it is an
adjunct to the meaning, not essential to it.
...
>> I mean that we must take the most economical interpretation and not
>> go looking for more elaborate ones when a simple one is available
>> and fulfils the requirements. (There is an example of Brother
>> William applying his razor to the interpretation of a text in Octo
>> Quaestiones, question 2, chapter 13.)
>This is a gross mis-application of Occam. If we
>are trying to sort out a scientific question, then
>his Razor is indispensible. If it is a question of
>human behaviour, and we have no reason to
>believe that the person(s) had strange or devious
>motives, then it is also highly useful. But when
>we have good reason to suspect that the person
>had highly complex motives and that he set out,
>quite deliberately, to be as devious and as complex
>as possible, then it is absurd to claim that only one
>explanation of his words is required -- and that:
>only what you find the most obvious.
Looking at the words of the poems, I do not find the 'good reason'
you do.
Nothing releases us from the obligation to stick to economical
hypotheses. If the facts push us to an extra level of complexity,
then we must go that far, but not farther. There is no sudden escape
from the rules of method, after which the sky is the limit.
ew...@bcs.org.uk
Greg Reynolds
bookburn wrote:
> "Greg Reynolds" wrote :
>
> > bookburn wrote:
> >>I just have the idea that the poet might be
> >> conducting some kind of interior dialogue with himself. Some
> >> psychologists today say we have three personalities in one:
> >> the child, the parent, and who you think you are. Or, maybe he
> >> is talking three levels of platonism: the ideal, the imitated
> >> form, and the "real" object.
>
> > Then let's work in the characters of the sonnets:
> > (pardon my hopscotch/cipher/tables)
> >
> > Psychologists: Child, Parent, Self-Image
> > Platonism: Ideal, Imitated, Real
>
> Id, ego, super-ego. Crowley says he wants to map it out in
> cartoon strips, but I would prefer a puppet show psycho-drama.
Sluggo, Fritzi, Nancy.
Neuendorffer
> > >>I just have the idea that the poet might be
> > >> conducting some kind of interior dialogue with himself. Some
> > >> psychologists today say we have three personalities in one:
> > >> the child, the parent, and who you think you are. Or, maybe he
> > >> is talking three levels of platonism: the ideal, the imitated
> > >> form, and the "real" object.
> > "Greg Reynolds" wrote :
> >
> > > Then let's work in the characters of the sonnets:
> > > (pardon my hopscotch/cipher/tables)
> > >
> > > Psychologists: Child, Parent, Self-Image
> > > Platonism: Ideal, Imitated, Real
> bookburn wrote:
>
> > Id, ego, super-ego. Crowley says he wants to map it out in
> > cartoon strips, but I would prefer a puppet show psycho-drama.
Greg Reynolds wrote:
> Sluggo, Fritzi, Nancy.
Super-Sluggo = Phil Fumble
<<The comic strip we now know as Nancy was originally named Fritzi Ritz
and was created by Larry Whittington in 1922. It was all about the
exploits of a New York "flapper" & promising movie starlet.>>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross wrote:
> Richard Hathaway also left a bequest in his will to pay money he owed to a
> shepherd in his employ, Richard Whittington. In his own will (in 1601),
> Whittington included this item" "I give and bequeath unto the poor people
> of Stratford xls. that is in the hand of Anne Shaxpere, wife unto Mr.
> Wyllyam Shaxpere, and is due debt unto me, being paid to mine executor by
> the said Wyllyam Shaxpere or his assigns according to the true meaning of
> my will."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer