Sonnet 151
Robert Stonehouse
Loue is too young to know what conscience is,
Yet who knowes not conscience is borne of loue,
Then gentle cheater vrge not my amisse,
Least guilty of my faults thy sweet selfe proue.
For thou betraying me, I doe betray
My nobler part to my grose bodies treason,
My soule doth tell my body that he may,
Triumph in loue,flesh staies no farther reason.
But rysing at thy name doth point out thee,
As his triumphant prize,proud of this pride,
He is contented thy poore drudge to be
To stand in thy affaires,fall by thy side.
No want of conscience hold it that I call,
Her loue,for whose deare loue I rise and fall.
Love is too young to know what conscience is,
Yet who knows not, conscience is born of love?
Then gentle cheater, urge not my amiss,
Lest guilty of my faults thy sweet self prove.
For, thou betraying me, I do betray
My nobler part to my gross body's treason,
My soul doth tell my body that he may
Triumph in love; flesh stays no farther reason,
But rising at thy name doth point out thee
As his triumphant prize; proud of this pride
He is contented thy poor drudge to be,
To stand in thy affairs, fall by thy side.
No want of conscience hold it that I call
Her love, for whose dear love I rise and fall.
Robert Stonehouse
<ew...@bcs.org.invalid> wrote:
> 151
>Love is too young to know what conscience is,
Cupid is only a baby and knows nothing about self-restraint,
>Yet who knows not, conscience is born of love?
but all the same, everyone knows that self-restraint is the product of
human charity.
>Then gentle cheater, urge not my amiss,
So, my noble deceiver, do not press my faults too hard,
>Lest guilty of my faults thy sweet self prove.
or you yourself may turn out to be guilty of the same wrongs as you
accuse me of.
>For, thou betraying me, I do betray
Because, if you are not loyal to me, then I abandon
>My nobler part to my gross body's treason,
my higher passions in favour of the sinful desires of physical
sensuality.
>My soul doth tell my body that he may
My mind says to my body that it can
>Triumph in love; flesh stays no farther reason,
win what love wants; the body waits no longer
>But rising at thy name doth point out thee
but rises up on hearing your name and points to you
>As his triumphant prize; proud of this pride
as the prize of victory; exulting at this elevation
>He is contented thy poor drudge to be,
it is happy to be your lowly slave,
>To stand in thy affairs, fall by thy side.
taking its stand among your supporters, falling limply at your side.
> No want of conscience hold it that I call
Do not conclude it is sinful, when I use the word
> Her love, for whose dear love I rise and fall.
'love' about that person, for whom I stand up or lie down.
When Shakespeare wants to talk bawdy, he knows very well how to do it.
He does not require us to find out by elaborate detective work.
Line 2 seems to be Christian doctrine. The idea of Christian charity
was very powerful and led to a variety of doctrines: Thomas Aquinas in
the Summa Theologiae, II(ii) question 23, spends some time in
refuting the more extreme ones. Charity, stemming from God, was the
foundation of all human virtue as it related to other humans.
I am not clear exactly what the Dark Lady has done, in censuring the
speaker's faults, that is likely to lead her into the same faults
herself (lines 3-4). Has she called him puritanical or
over-censorious? It does not seem very likely - it is not the woman's
part in love poetry.
I am not perfectly clear, either, why her betraying him causes him to
become gross. If he suspects she is disloyal, why should that cause
the physical reactions he describes? Or does it just remove the other
(spiritual) reactions and leave him with the physical ones alone? I
have trouble getting this second interpretation out of the words. (The
'gross body', of course, prepares us for the rest of the poem.)
In the last quatrain the physical aspects dominate. Clearly, the scene
is one at which they are both present. His erection points at her. But
in that case, why 'at thy name'? He can see her! Why does he need to
hear her name mentioned to produce the effect? Someone else may know
more about this than I do.
In line 14, the ostensible image is that of a loyal soldier who fights
and dies beside his comrades. The second image, of course, is
something else. 'Stand' means his erection. 'Affairs' probably refers
to the sexual organ - I remember a museum attendant in Rome (Villa
Giulia?) remarking about the Apollo of Veii "Ha un affare" (it was
obvious through his stone-carved clothing). 'By thy side' then means
'after withdrawal'.
Why exactly is the couplet in the third person? Is this, the use of
the word 'love' about her, the thing to which she has objected?
Paul Crowley
news:rlof13ljaee0stahi...@4ax.com...
>>Triumph in love; flesh stays no farther reason,
> win what love wants; the body waits no longer
>
>>But rising at thy name doth point out thee
> but rises up on hearing your name and points to you
>>As his triumphant prize; proud of this pride
> as the prize of victory; exulting at this elevation
>>He is contented thy poor drudge to be,
> it is happy to be your lowly slave,
>>To stand in thy affairs, fall by thy side.
> taking its stand among your supporters, falling limply at your side.
>
>> No want of conscience hold it that I call
> Do not conclude it is sinful, when I use the word
>> Her love, for whose dear love I rise and fall.
> 'love' about that person, for whom I stand up or lie down.
>
>
> When Shakespeare wants to talk bawdy, he knows very well how to do it.
On the contrary. In your best simple-minded
Stratfordian manner, you read in the crudest
form of dirty talk -- and call it 'bawdy'. The
sense you take is far from 'bawdy': that word
implies humour, joking, fun, amusement, light-
heartedness -- something in the head, not in
the pants. Dull straight porn is not bawdy,
nor is it humorous or amusing.
At other times you have objected to readings-
in by others of sexual imagery -- sometimes
IMHO rightly but, even when wrong, we can
be sympathetic to your reasons and instincts.
Crudity does not make for good poetry. And,
while your reading here is quite standard, it
is appallingly crude.
> He does not require us to find out by elaborate detective work.
You are wrong there too. Of course, his
initial reader knew him very well, and would
have understood the full context before she
started to read the poem. We don't -- so we
have to put a lot of effort into working it out.
> I am not perfectly clear, either, why her betraying him causes him to
> become gross.
It doesn't. You are misreading. You should
know this without having to be told.
> If he suspects she is disloyal, why should that cause
> the physical reactions he describes?
It doesn't. Of course, he is playing with that
sense -- but he does not 'really mean' it. It is
there to be seen -- as it is so often in many
other sonnets (where it is often missed) -- but
it is genuine bawdy. He is really talking about
something else, while jokingly playing with the
bawdy suggestion.
> In the last quatrain the physical aspects dominate. Clearly, the scene
> is one at which they are both present. His erection points at her.
No, it does not. This poem is about the best
illustration of uselessness of a Stratfordian
understanding. The sensitivity they
demonstrate is as delicate as a sledgehammer.
Paul.
Willedever
02. Yet who knows not, conscience is born of love?
03. Then gentle cheater, urge not my amiss,
04. Lest guilty of my faults thy sweet self prove.
05. For, thou betraying me, I do betray
06. My nobler part to my gross body's treason,
07. My soul doth tell my body that he may
08. Triumph in love; flesh stays no farther reason,
09. But rising at thy name doth point out thee
10. As his triumphant prize; proud of this pride
11. He is contented thy poor drudge to be,
12. To stand in thy affairs, fall by thy side.
13. No want of conscience hold it that I call
14. Her love, for whose dear love I rise and fall.
~~~~~~~
A paraphrase, somewhat different from Robert's.
1. Cherub Cupid, the symbol and cause of Love, is too
young to know what conscience is,
2. Yet, who can say that conscience can't arise in Love?
3. So, gentle deceiver, Cupid/Love, don't urge me to
go astray,
4. Lest your own sweet self become guilty of my faults
of conscience.
5. Since, if you (Love) betray me, I'll then betray
6. My more noble part, my soul, and join in
my carnal body's treason against my soul,
7. My soul does tell my body that it may
8. Triumph when there's Love, and my
body needs no further permission,
9. But my carnal flesh rises at hearing "Love"
and points you (my Love) out
10. As his triumphant prize; swelled with his pride
11. He is content to be only your poor slave, my Love,
12. To stand, for your needs, and fall by your side.
13. Don't hold any lack of conscience against me,
because I call
14. Her "Love," for whose dear love I rise and fall.
=-=-=-=
1-2. The first couplet makes the observation that Love, (classically
symbolized as the infant Cupid,) is too young to know what conscience
is. Conscience is a phenomenon of the mature world. The Poet
considers, however, that although love, itself, is without conscience,
love may cause conscience.
3-4. In the second couplet, the Poet warns Cupid not to send him
astray, lest Cupid, himself, feel guilty about his shot going astray.
If the Poet ends up with a guilty conscience, Cupid should have a
guilty conscience about causing the problem. "Cheater" is probably
best read as "deceiver."
5-6. In the third couplet, the Poet says that if Love betrays him, he
in turn will betray his soul, and join with his body's "treason"
against his soul. His soul is his pure, moral self - his "true"
self. The soul is the residence of conscience. There's some
implication the Poet is pondering adultery, or something else
considered untrue or immoral, creating conflict between soul/
conscience and body. That is not entirely clear, however, and the
Sonnet does admit of a different reading.
7-8. In the fourth couplet, the Poet observes that when it is Love,
the soul permits the body to act, and the flesh requires no further
permission for action, than that the soul/conscience permits it.
9-12. The fifth and sixth couplets then describe the male reaction, at
least in plain reading. "Thy name" in line 9 means the person,
herself. The Poet elsewhere wrote, "what's in a name," but here he
equates the name and the person, for poetic convenience.
The phrase "thy name" is more complicated, however, since it can be
read as reference to Love, itself. It's possible to read the Sonnet
as concerned with only ideals, until "her" in the last line introduces
the physical mate. But exactly how consistent that alternate reading
is, I'm not sure at the moment.
13-14. In the closing couplet, the Poet then says not to say it's any
lack of conscience when he calls his lady "Love," and "rises and
falls" for her. No problem of conscience arises, because it is,
indeed, Love. There's the implication that his "her"/lover is a very
young woman, too young, herself, to know what conscience is. He casts
her, in a way, as "young love," itself. That, if taken by itself,
might tend to indicate the Sonnet should be earlier in the sequence,
however, it is quite a sophisticated Sonnet, that shows poetic
maturity. Altogether, it's quite interesting, and rather
problematic. It is unlikely to be a Dark Lady Sonnet.
Gary
<ew...@bcs.org.invalid> wrote:
SNIP
>I am not clear exactly what the Dark Lady has done, in censuring the
>speaker's faults, that is likely to lead her into the same faults
>herself (lines 3-4). Has she called him puritanical or
>over-censorious? It does not seem very likely - it is not the woman's
>part in love poetry.
SNIP
Is is possible that she has been chastizing him for saying he
is in love with her, and telling him that he doesn't really 'love'
her, but simply wants her for sexual satisfaction? And he responds by
saying that if there is something wrong with simply satisfying
yourself sexually, then she is just as guilty as he with her affairs?
Or something like that?
- Gary
Gary
wrote:
SNIP
The problem with your reading, it seems to me, is that you
have two different addressees in the body of the poem being addressed
as "thee", "thy" or "thou" - Cupid, and the speaker's lady-love.
Unless you want to argue that the first twelve lines are *all*
addressed to Cupid. In which case you have to argue that the speaker
is claiming Cupid as his "triumphant prize". Trying to equate "gentle
cheater" and line 5's "thou" to Cupid is clever, but I don't think it
works throughout the rest of the poem.
- Gary
Willedever
> The problem with your reading, it seems to me, is that you
> have two different addressees in the body of the poem
Where?
> ... In which case you have to argue that the speaker
> is claiming Cupid as his "triumphant prize".
Gary, don't be silly. Cupid is not a real person.
Gary
wrote:
>On Apr 8, 6:07 pm, g...@vcn.bc.ca (Gary) wrote:
>
>> The problem with your reading, it seems to me, is that you
>> have two different addressees in the body of the poem
>
>Where?
Here is your reading again:
>A paraphrase, somewhat different from Robert's.
>1. Cherub Cupid, the symbol and cause of Love, is too
> young to know what conscience is,
>2. Yet, who can say that conscience can't arise in Love?
>3. So, gentle deceiver, Cupid/Love, don't urge me to
> go astray,
>4. Lest your own sweet self become guilty of my faults
> of conscience.
The first quatrain, including line 4's "thy", according to
you, is addressed to Cupid.
>5. Since, if you (Love) betray me, I'll then betray
>6. My more noble part, my soul, and join in
> my carnal body's treason against my soul,
Line 5's "thou", presumably, refers to the same person as line
4's "thy", so line 5 must also refer to Cupid if the first quatrain
refers to Cupid.
>7. My soul does tell my body that it may
>8. Triumph when there's Love, and my
> body needs no further permission,
>9. But my carnal flesh rises at hearing "Love"
> and points you (my Love) out
Line 9 mentions "thy name". The "thy" in this line seems to
refer back to the "thou" of line 5 and the "thy" of line 4, and that
addressee must be Cupid if, as you seem to say, the first quatrain is
addressed to Cupid and if there is only one addressee in the poem.
OR, you are suggesting that there are two addressees in the one poem.
>10. As his triumphant prize; swelled with his pride
>11. He is content to be only your poor slave, my Love,
>12. To stand, for your needs, and fall by your side.
>13. Don't hold any lack of conscience against me,
> because I call
>14. Her "Love," for whose dear love I rise and fall.
>
>> ... In which case you have to argue that the speaker
>> is claiming Cupid as his "triumphant prize".
>
>Gary, don't be silly. Cupid is not a real person.
No, he's not. But that wouldn't necessarily mean he couldn't
be the addressee of a poem. But I agree that he is not the addressee
of this poem. The problem is, as I try to explain above, it seems to
me that your reading suggests that you think Cupid *is* the addressee
of this poem, or else you are suggesting that there are two different
addressees in this one poem being referred to as "thy", "thee" and
"thou". Or else I'm badly misunderstanding your reading which is
always a possibility.
- Gary
Willedever
>
> The first quatrain, including line 4's "thy", according to
> you, is addressed to Cupid.
Well, not exactly. Cupid is introduced to explain Love being young.
The mention of Cupid is supposed to be merely explanatory. I tried to
clarify that by using Cupid/Love, with the slash between. Anyway,
Cupid isn't intended to be taken literally there. The addressee is
Love.
>
> OR, you are suggesting that there are two addressees in the one poem.
It appears to be mixed. The Sonnet appears to be addressed to both
Love, itself, and also to Love and a second person. It's hard to
capture that in a paraphrase. More of ye olde author ambiguity, that
we've already seen so often.
But yes, it can be read to have two addressees, the first being Love,
(personified,) and the other being a real person.
And it might be that the best reading would skip Cupid, and use the
"her/she" (whoever it is) as the personification of Love, from line 1
onward. Instead of Cupid, substitute "young lady" as the
personification of Love. Might work.
>
> No, he's not. [Cupid a real person] But that wouldn't necessarily mean he couldn't
> be the addressee of a poem.
That's true.
Ms. Mouse
> On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 08:59:45 +0100, Robert Stonehouse
>
> > 151
> >Love is too young to know what conscience is,
>
> Cupid is only a baby and knows nothing about self-restraint,>Yet who knows not, conscience is born of love?
>
> but all the same, everyone knows that self-restraint is the product of
> human charity.>Then gentle cheater, urge not my amiss,
>
> So, my noble deceiver, do not press my faults too hard,>Lest guilty of my faults thy sweet self prove.
>
> or you yourself may turn out to be guilty of the same wrongs as you
> accuse me of.
>
> >For, thou betraying me, I do betray
>
> Because, if you are not loyal to me, then I abandon>My nobler part to my gross body's treason,
I don't see an "if" there.
I realise this is a bit controversial, but I'm coming more and more to
the opinion that some of these late sonnets may be about the fair
youth, or at least, the love triangle. The "gentle cheater" seems to
me to be more reminiscent of how Shakespeare addresses the youth, for
example.
I'm going to attempt an interpretation of the last part of the sonnet,
although I don't understand it all.
But rysing at thy name doth point out thee,
As his triumphant prize,proud of this pride,
This is clearly about erection. "My penis, rising at your name, you
who are its triumphant prize. It is proud of this erect show..."
He is contented thy poore drudge to be
To stand in thy affaires,fall by thy side.
"It is content to be used by you, to rise and fall by your side--
facing your side?" The word affairs is interesting here also.
No want of conscience hold it that I call,
Her loue,for whose deare loue I rise and fall.
"There's no problem of conscience that I call her (the dark lady)
'love,' although it is for the DL's own love (the youth?) who is also
my own true love, that I really feel desire."
Sorry, a bit mixed up, but perhaps you can see what I'm getting at.
There seem to be three people in this sonnet (or rather three plus
penis). I, thou, he (which would now be "it,") and she. :(
Mouse
laraine
Lynne's Lacanian remarks for the day.
You have to admit we're pretty graphic
on this newsgroup at times, whether
subconsciously or not.
C.
laraine
The odd thing to me is that if a teacher
discusses this sort of thing in a classroom,
or even if it is discussed in rec.art.books,
it doesn't seem to be very noticeable.
But on this group, everything gets magnified,
for some reason.
C.
Ms. Mouse
Well, I'm not sure "Lacanian" is correct in this context, laraine,
because imo Shakespeare was fully conscious of the sexual content he
placed in the sonnet.
Mouse
>
> You have to admit we're pretty graphic
> on this newsgroup at times, whether
> subconsciously or not.
>
> C.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
laraine
Are you sure? I'd bet a good lit critic could do
something with it.
> because imo Shakespeare was fully conscious of the sexual content he
> placed in the sonnet.
Well, you always say that :), though I'm sure
he might have been to some extent.
C., not Spurgeon
Peter Groves
--
Peter G.
"The nonsense started around 1785. That was the year a Warwickshire
clergyman fantasized that William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon was not
the author of the works everyone had until then supposed he had written. In
doing so, he laid the foundations of the so-called authorship question,
which has grown into an immense monument to human folly." (Stanley Wells)
"Ms. Mouse" <lynnek...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1176166112.2...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
OED 5 (marked obsolete) is interesting, particularly the Chapman quotation.
5. Doing, action, performance. Obs. rare.
c1500 Lancelot 983 Wich ware to few aaine the gret affere Of galiot. 1596
CHAPMAN Iliad V. 503 Mars..with his best affair, Obey'd the pleasure of the
Sun.
Peter G.
Paul Crowley
news:1176166112.2...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> But rysing at thy name doth point out thee,
> As his triumphant prize,proud of this pride,
>
> This is clearly about erection.
No, it is not. If it were, it would be straight
pornography -- something that Shake-
speare NEVER wrote.
> "My penis, rising at your name, you
> who are its triumphant prize. It is proud of this erect show..."
Total nonsense -- even if standard
Stratfordian nonsense. Strat idiots
have no context and so are compelled
into the weirdest and most appalling
readings.
Oxfordians should be capable of
remembering that the poet was a courtier,
and it was routine for courtiers to stand
(and sometimes knell) when a certain
name was announced.
> He is contented thy poore drudge to be
> To stand in thy affaires,fall by thy side.
>
> "It is content to be used by you, to rise and fall by your side--
> facing your side?" The word affairs is interesting here also.
The poet is, of course, playing on the
sexual sense -- but it HAS TO BE one
in a minor tone. His surface meaning
(or superficial sense) must necessarily
be acceptable. Unusually, for the
sonnets, that sense in this poem is
not readily accessible to Stratfordians,
which is why they go so obviously --
and so horribly -- wrong.
'Drudge', 'affairs', 'stand by thy side', etc.,
are all to be taken in the standard meaning
that courtiers would automatically assume
even if they have a bawdy undertone.
> Sorry, a bit mixed up, but perhaps you can see what I'm getting at.
> There seem to be three people in this sonnet (or rather three plus
> penis). I, thou, he (which would now be "it,") and she. :(
There are, as usual, three people in this
sonnet, and it is not too difficult to see
who they are, and what the overall game-
plan is -- but first you have to stop
thinking in hideous 'Strat mode'.
Paul.
Willedever
02. Yet who knows not, conscience is born of love?
03. Then gentle cheater, urge not my amiss,
04. Lest guilty of my faults thy sweet self prove.
05. For, thou betraying me, I do betray
06. My nobler part to my gross body's treason,
07. My soul doth tell my body that he may
08. Triumph in love; flesh stays no farther reason,
09. But rising at thy name doth point out thee
10. As his triumphant prize; proud of this pride
11. He is contented thy poor drudge to be,
12. To stand in thy affairs, fall by thy side.
13. No want of conscience hold it that I call
~~~~~~~
I'll try the "young lady as 'Love'" idea in a paraphrase. In other
words, skip Cupid, and make it the young lady, herself, who is treated
as Love, personified.
1. (My young lady) Love is too young to know what
conscience is,
2. Yet, who can say conscience won't be born of Love?
It tends to indicate the young lady now sees nothing wrong with her
involvement, with him, but someday might. She might "give birth" to a
conscience, and regret it. The "give birth" idea can also easily be
read to imply undesired pregnancy, of course. However, the Poet might
be using the "born" idea to tease. He was capable of that.
3. So, gentle "faller," my young love, don't tempt me to
go awry,
4. Lest your own sweet self become guilty of my deceits.
The word "cheat" goes back to "escheat," a law term with a root
meaning of "fall." The fact is interesting in relation to the plays,
since young Ophelia famously fell from a tree, in Hamlet. If the word
root is being invoked, it could imply this young lady is perhaps
related to the Ophelia character, in some way or other. Speculation,
of course. Nevertheless, the Author did know his words, and he did
like law terms. So the "fall" possibility is interesting.
"Fault" has a root meaning of "lack," but (conjecturily) goes back to
a meaning of "deceive" (Latin 'fallere.') "Deceit" goes with
"conscience" so the meaning works pretty well. "Deceit" implies being
"untrue," with the ambiguity, in turn, that the idea of being 'untrue'
raises. "Untrue" as in unfaithful, or untrue as in lying?
5. Since, if you (young lady Love) betray me,
I'll then betray
6. My more noble part, my soul, and join in
my lower body's treason against my soul,
"Betray" carries the same ambiguity: unfaithful, or lying? Could be
either. And "betray" adds even more ambiguity, since it can also mean
revealing the truth when one should not. Wheels within wheels.
The essential idea of "betray" is "to hand over" to one's enemies.
The Poet appears to take it that his baser nature ("gross body") is
his enemy, in the moral sense.
7. My soul does tell my body that it may
8. Triumph when there's Love, and my
body needs no further permission,
Again there's ambiguity. Does the Poet mean his soul is saying "okay"
now, or is he citing a general principle?
9. But my posture rises at hearing "Love"
and points you (my Love) out
10. As his triumphant prize; swelled with his pride
Here, I'm trying the interpretation that the Poet is teasing us.
While suggesting "penis" he actually means "posture." View it that
his entire body stands when, let's say, the young lady enters a room.
He's simply standing up for her, as normal politeness.
Shakespeare could be a scamp, sometimes. He might be teasing us.
It's possible to read it as, "I, my whole self, "stand up for you, my
love, with pride." That idea.
11. He is content to be only your poor slave, my Love,
12. To stand, for your needs, and fall by your side.
Read "He" as "my whole body." The "stand up" can be read as: I,
myself, stand up. "Fall" can be read as no more than "sit beside
you." It's possible.
Shakespeare could play with your mind, so various possibilities need
investigation.
13. (Dear reader,) Don't hold it as any lack of conscience
against me, because I call
14. Her "Love," for whose dear love I stand up and sit down.
=-=-=-=
Hm. Is he having us on?
Willedever
kneeling, and the innuendo, only that. The "Oxford the courtier"
implication is a tough one, though, since it's hard to get Elizabeth I
into the role of being a young lady, too young to know what conscience
is, in the Oxford years. Or can you do it? (And I can't believe I
asked.)
Ms. Mouse
<slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
> "Ms. Mouse" <lynnekosit...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1176166112.2...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > But rysing at thy name doth point out thee,
> > As his triumphant prize,proud of this pride,
>
> > This is clearly about erection.
>
> No, it is not. If it were, it would be straight
> pornography --
No, actually, it would be gay pornography, or rather erotica,
according to my interpretation. ;)
> something that Shake-
> speare NEVER wrote.
You are saying that Shakespeare would never write about erection? How
do you know this to be true? It looks pretty evident here that rising
and falling, when used in concert with the language of love, is about
love-making. That does not, of course, make this interpretation the
only one. It is likely one of several layers.
More interesting to me is that there clearly seem to be three people
in the sonnet, I, thou, and she, even though no one I've read seems to
acknowledge this, except, wow, you.
Not only courtiers would use these words. I'm not sure, in addition,
what "drudge" would have to do with the court.
>
> > Sorry, a bit mixed up, but perhaps you can see what I'm getting at.
> > There seem to be three people in this sonnet (or rather three plus
> > penis). I, thou, he (which would now be "it,") and she. :(
>
> There are, as usual, three people in this
> sonnet,
I agree there are three people, but why "as usual"? Many of the
sonnets are clearly just about the poet and an addressee.
>and it is not too difficult to see
> who they are, and what the overall game-
> plan is
It is very difficult, Paul. Your explanations are generally quite
simplistic and not accompanied by much in the way of proof.
>-- but first you have to stop
> thinking in hideous 'Strat mode'.
I don't think in Strat Mode (or Ox Mode). I think in Mouse Mode. This
means I look at the poems and see what they tell me without my trying
to torture them to fit into various unlikely and rigid scenarios. This
method, of course, leads me to conclusions--often tentative ones--very
different from yours. I also try to listen to what others here have to
say, and sometimes modify my ideas.
Ms. Mouse
>
> Paul.
Paul Crowley
>> > But rysing at thy name doth point out thee,
>> > As his triumphant prize,proud of this pride,
>>
>> > This is clearly about erection.
>>
>> No, it is not. If it were, it would be straight
>> pornography --
>
> No, actually, it would be gay pornography, or rather erotica,
> according to my interpretation. ;)
>
>> something that Shake-
>> speare NEVER wrote.
>
> You are saying that Shakespeare would never write about erection? How
> do you know this to be true?
Err . . we have the texts. It is their content
-- within the wider spectrum of all that
went on in the literature of the day -- on
which I base my judgements. If you know
of any other places in the canon where
there is something as crude (and as boring)
as the standard reading of these lines,
then they would be easy to quote.
The only other place remotely similar is
that ghastly misreading of Sonnet 20.
(" . . since she prickt thee out for
womens pleasure").
> It looks pretty evident here that rising
> and falling, when used in concert with the language of love, is about
> love-making.
Only to the ignorant and literal-minded,
who believe that poetry should be
written with a sledgehammer, and
read in the same manner.
> That does not, of course, make this interpretation the
> only one. It is likely one of several layers.
What other 'layers' have you mentioned
in respect of these lines? What others
are described in the standard
commentaries?
>> 'Drudge', 'affairs', 'stand by thy side', etc.,
>> are all to be taken in the standard meaning
>> that courtiers would automatically assume
>> even if they have a bawdy undertone.
>
> Not only courtiers would use these words.
The relevance here (which you seem to
have forgotten) is that the poet WAS
a courtier.
> I'm not sure, in addition,
> what "drudge" would have to do with the court.
Courtiers who obtained favour (and
many who didn't) were obliged to perform
all manner of 'drudgery' -- partly as tests
of their loyalty. Anyway, this is our poet
stating his opinion of a rival who he implies
did not have the capacity for anything else.
>> There are, as usual, three people in this
>> sonnet,
>
> I agree there are three people, but why "as usual"? Many of the
> sonnets are clearly just about the poet and an addressee.
Almost no sonnets are "just about the
poet and an addressee". That would be
exceedingly boring. It is how Strats read
them, but there is no need to be as lost
or as foolish.
>>and it is not too difficult to see
>> who they are, and what the overall game-
>> plan is
>
> It is very difficult, Paul. Your explanations are generally quite
> simplistic and not accompanied by much in the way of proof.
I know that you would only accept as
'proof' a properly witnessed affidavit
signed by the poet. However, there are
huge amounts -- for example, the sheer
repetition of his 'code-words' -- always
in much the same contexts.
>>-- but first you have to stop
>> thinking in hideous 'Strat mode'.
>
> I don't think in Strat Mode (or Ox Mode).
Strat thinking pervades every nook
and cranny of your brain. When, for
example, did you last read one of the
sonnets with the consciousness that
the poet was a courtier?
> I think in Mouse Mode. This
> means I look at the poems and see what they tell me without my trying
> to torture them to fit into various unlikely and rigid scenarios. This
> method, of course, leads me to conclusions--often tentative ones--very
> different from yours. I also try to listen to what others here have to
> say, and sometimes modify my ideas.
You listen to Strats, who have not one
iota of awareness of who the poet was,
nor of how he wrote. When reading
the sonnets they forget that he also
wrote the plays, and (for some strange
reason) exclude all possibility that he
might demonstrate a sense of humour.
When did you last read any humour
into any sonnet? Your reading in
here of humourless pornography is
quite typical.
Paul.
Ms. Mouse
<slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
> "Ms. Mouse" <lynnekosit...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1176233419.0...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> >> > But rysing at thy name doth point out thee,
> >> > As his triumphant prize,proud of this pride,
>
> >> > This is clearly about erection.
>
> >> No, it is not. If it were, it would be straight
> >> pornography --
>
> > No, actually, it would be gay pornography, or rather erotica,
> > according to my interpretation. ;)
>
> >> something that Shake-
> >> speare NEVER wrote.
>
> > You are saying that Shakespeare would never write about erection? How
> > do you know this to be true?
>
> Err . .
Yes, you err.
>we have the texts. It is their content
> -- within the wider spectrum of all that
> went on in the literature of the day -- on
> which I base my judgements.
But you seem not to be able to admit that you might be wrong when
dealing with this highly ambiguous and complex art form.
If you know
> of any other places in the canon where
> there is something as crude (and as boring)
> as the standard reading of these lines,
> then they would be easy to quote.
They are very easy. For example: "He of tall building, and of goodly
pride..." and much of the rest of that sonnet.
>
> The only other place remotely similar is
> that ghastly misreading of Sonnet 20.
> (" . . since she prickt thee out for
> womens pleasure").
I read this at one level as "Since Nature gave you a penis in order to
give women pleasure..." Can you honestly say the line cannot mean
this?
>
> > It looks pretty evident here that rising
> > and falling, when used in concert with the language of love, is about
> > love-making.
>
> Only to the ignorant and literal-minded,
> who believe that poetry should be
> written with a sledgehammer, and
> read in the same manner.
I would say that's the way *you* read poetry, at least in part. No one
could pretend you're literal-minded. You invent extravagant fantasies
to explain the sonnets.
>
> > That does not, of course, make this interpretation the
> > only one. It is likely one of several layers.
>
> What other 'layers' have you mentioned
> in respect of these lines? What others
> are described in the standard
> commentaries?
I haven't mentioned any. I was simply pointing out one facet of the
sonnet as I (tentatively) see it. I was hoping that Gary or Robert or
someone would discuss what I've said with me and perhaps argue.
>
> >> 'Drudge', 'affairs', 'stand by thy side', etc.,
> >> are all to be taken in the standard meaning
> >> that courtiers would automatically assume
> >> even if they have a bawdy undertone.
>
> > Not only courtiers would use these words.
>
> The relevance here (which you seem to
> have forgotten) is that the poet WAS
> a courtier.
First: I try to come to these sonnets without preconceptions.
Second: If you're speaking of Oxford, he was not a courtier (in the
sense of "person of the court") for a good piece of his adult life. He
was in Italy, he was in jail, he was out of favour....I'm sure you get
the picture.
>
> > I'm not sure, in addition,
> > what "drudge" would have to do with the court.
>
> Courtiers who obtained favour (and
> many who didn't) were obliged to perform
> all manner of 'drudgery' -- partly as tests
> of their loyalty. Anyway, this is our poet
> stating his opinion of a rival who he implies
> did not have the capacity for anything else.
You have offered no reasonable evidence for your stance.
>
> >> There are, as usual, three people in this
> >> sonnet,
>
> > I agree there are three people, but why "as usual"? Many of the
> > sonnets are clearly just about the poet and an addressee.
>
> Almost no sonnets are "just about the
> poet and an addressee". That would be
> exceedingly boring.
It appears to me that you don't understand poetry at all. It is not
the number of people shoved into a sonnet, like meat stuffed into a
sausage casing, that makes it either exciting or boring. It is not
even necessarily the subject matter. It is the language, both
figurative and literal, and the mastery of rhythm and metre, and the
depth of emotion, and the layering of meaning, and a million other
things, none of which you seem to comprehend.
> It is how Strats read
> them, but there is no need to be as lost
> or as foolish.
I am certainly not lost. To paraphrase MM, I'll leave it up to others
to decide which of us is the more foolish.
>
> >>and it is not too difficult to see
> >> who they are, and what the overall game-
> >> plan is
>
> > It is very difficult, Paul. Your explanations are generally quite
> > simplistic and not accompanied by much in the way of proof.
>
> I know that you would only accept as
> 'proof' a properly witnessed affidavit
> signed by the poet. However, there are
> huge amounts -- for example, the sheer
> repetition of his 'code-words' -- always
> in much the same contexts.
Unfortunately only you recognise code words such as "time" meaning
"mite," and you offer no proof that your "code words" are what the
poet actually meant.
>
> >>-- but first you have to stop
> >> thinking in hideous 'Strat mode'.
>
> > I don't think in Strat Mode (or Ox Mode).
>
> Strat thinking pervades every nook
> and cranny of your brain.
No, you're quite wrong. I disagree with both Stratfordians and
Oxfordians when I feel they are wrong. IMO, almost anyone who thinks
he has a watertight solution for the sonnets is almost certainly wrong
and also drags the poet down to his own poverty-stricken level.
Shakespeare was brilliant, and his sonnets are too fragmented, too
contradictory, too complex, for anyone to say definitively what they
are about.
>When, for
> example, did you last read one of the
> sonnets with the consciousness that
> the poet was a courtier?
See above. Your "consciousness" of something does not necessarily make
it so.
>
> > I think in Mouse Mode. This
> > means I look at the poems and see what they tell me without my trying
> > to torture them to fit into various unlikely and rigid scenarios. This
> > method, of course, leads me to conclusions--often tentative ones--very
> > different from yours. I also try to listen to what others here have to
> > say, and sometimes modify my ideas.
>
> You listen to Strats, who have not one
> iota of awareness of who the poet was,
> nor of how he wrote. When reading
> the sonnets they forget that he also
> wrote the plays, and (for some strange
> reason) exclude all possibility that he
> might demonstrate a sense of humour.
>
> When did you last read any humour
> into any sonnet? Your reading in
> here of humourless pornography is
> quite typical.
I think some of the sonnets or parts of sonnets are decidedly amusing.
Some, though, are not. Are you obliging the poet to be humorous all
the time? And erections can be at least as amusing as defecating
contests, don't you think?
Ms. Mouse
>
> Paul.- Hide quoted text -
Gary
wrote:
SNIP
>I realise this is a bit controversial, but I'm coming more and more to
>the opinion that some of these late sonnets may be about the fair
>youth, or at least, the love triangle. The "gentle cheater" seems to
>me to be more reminiscent of how Shakespeare addresses the youth, for
>example.
>I'm going to attempt an interpretation of the last part of the sonnet,
>although I don't understand it all.
(Oh suuurrre. She disappears for weeks, but as soon as an
erection pops up in a sonnet, she's back in a flash!)
>But rysing at thy name doth point out thee,
>As his triumphant prize,proud of this pride,
>
>This is clearly about erection. "My penis, rising at your name, you
>who are its triumphant prize. It is proud of this erect show..."
>
>He is contented thy poore drudge to be
>To stand in thy affaires,fall by thy side.
>
>"It is content to be used by you, to rise and fall by your side--
>facing your side?" The word affairs is interesting here also.
>
> No want of conscience hold it that I call,
> Her loue,for whose deare loue I rise and fall.
>
>"There's no problem of conscience that I call her (the dark lady)
>'love,' although it is for the DL's own love (the youth?) who is also
>my own true love, that I really feel desire."
>
>Sorry, a bit mixed up, but perhaps you can see what I'm getting at.
>There seem to be three people in this sonnet (or rather three plus
>penis). I, thou, he (which would now be "it,") and she. :(
And once again Mouse comes through with an ingenious reading.
(Why is she able to decipher the risque sonnets so well?)
But seriously, a very interesting reading that seems quite
plausible. And it really ups the stakes on the what the relationship
was between the speaker and the FYM.
- Gary
Gary
<slkwuoiut...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
SNIP
>Almost no sonnets are "just about the
>poet and an addressee". That would be
>exceedingly boring. It is how Strats read
>them, but there is no need to be as lost
>or as foolish.
From a recent post by David Webb:
> But what I cannot understand is why Shakespeare's works are so
>popular, and so widely read -- generations of readers have wrongly
>imagined that his sonnets treated banal themes like love, mortality,
>mutability, and other aspects of the human condition, but it took the
>transcendent genius of a Crowley to grasp that arguably the greatest
>poetry in the English language actually concerns petty court rivalries
>and royal crapping competitions. Since Shakespeare's poetry had been
>so spectacularly misread for the four hundred years prior to Mr.
>Crowley's exegetic exploits, why is it so popular nonetheless?
>Inquiring minds want to know, and wish that Mr. Crowley would explain
>this seeming anomaly.
Well, Paul?
- Gary
Ms. Mouse
> On 9 Apr 2007 17:48:32 -0700, "Ms. Mouse" <lynnekosit...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> SNIP
>
> >I realise this is a bit controversial, but I'm coming more and more to
> >the opinion that some of these late sonnets may be about the fair
> >youth, or at least, the love triangle. The "gentle cheater" seems to
> >me to be more reminiscent of how Shakespeare addresses the youth, for
> >example.
> >I'm going to attempt an interpretation of the last part of the sonnet,
> >although I don't understand it all.
>
> (Oh suuurrre. She disappears for weeks,
I've been away in the States. But I've been thinking about the
sonnets, and wondering whether the FY plays a greater part in some of
the last sonnets than we are accustomed to believe.
>but as soon as an
> erection pops up in a sonnet, she's back in a flash!)
My mother asked me to tell you that it's nothing to do with my very
proper upbringing. ;)
>
> >But rysing at thy name doth point out thee,
> >As his triumphant prize,proud of this pride,
>
> >This is clearly about erection. "My penis, rising at your name, you
> >who are its triumphant prize. It is proud of this erect show..."
>
> >He is contented thy poore drudge to be
> >To stand in thy affaires,fall by thy side.
>
> >"It is content to be used by you, to rise and fall by your side--
> >facing your side?" The word affairs is interesting here also.
>
> > No want of conscience hold it that I call,
> > Her loue,for whose deare loue I rise and fall.
>
> >"There's no problem of conscience that I call her (the dark lady)
> >'love,' although it is for the DL's own love (the youth?) who is also
> >my own true love, that I really feel desire."
>
> >Sorry, a bit mixed up, but perhaps you can see what I'm getting at.
> >There seem to be three people in this sonnet (or rather three plus
> >penis). I, thou, he (which would now be "it,") and she. :(
>
> And once again Mouse comes through with an ingenious reading.
> (Why is she able to decipher the risque sonnets so well?)
I think, actually, it's because I grew up in England, where everyone
seemed to be a master-mistress of double entendre. Or something.
>
> But seriously, a very interesting reading that seems quite
> plausible.
Thanks much, Gary.
L.
>And it really ups the stakes on the what the relationship
> was between the speaker and the FYM.
>
> - Gary- Hide quoted text -
Paul Crowley
> From a recent post by David Webb:
>
>> But what I cannot understand is why Shakespeare's works are so
>>popular, and so widely read -- generations of readers have wrongly
>>imagined that his sonnets treated banal themes like love, mortality,
>>mutability, and other aspects of the human condition, but it took the
>>transcendent genius of a Crowley to grasp that arguably the greatest
>>poetry in the English language actually concerns petty court rivalries
>>and royal crapping competitions. Since Shakespeare's poetry had been
>>so spectacularly misread for the four hundred years prior to Mr.
>>Crowley's exegetic exploits, why is it so popular nonetheless?
>>Inquiring minds want to know, and wish that Mr. Crowley would explain
>>this seeming anomaly.
>
> Well, Paul?
But what I cannot understand is why nursery rhymes --
like *Humpty Dumpty*, or *Mary, Mary, Quite Contrary*
or *The Queen of Hearts Baked Some Tarts* -- have long
been so popular, and so widely read -- generations of
readers have wrongly imagined that these works treated
strange if banal themes like love, mortality, mutability, and
other aspects of the human condition, but it took the
transcendent genius of some historian to grasp that arguably
the greatest poetry in the English language actually concern
sordid skirmishes or low gossip about celebrities, court
intrigues and rivalries. Since these poems had been so
spectacularly misread for the hundred of years prior to
their so-called 'explanations', why were they so popular
nonetheless? Inquiring minds want to know, and wish that
Gary and David Webb would explain this seeming anomaly.
In fact, I have explained 'this seeming anomaly'
many times in this forum. I outline, often in
immense detail, the precise circumstances in
which the Sonnets were written. Webb, and
his likes, can find no fault with any of my
exegeses -- so they are reduced to "criticisms"
of this nature.
>> But what I cannot understand is why Shakespeare's works are so
>>popular, and so widely read -- generations of readers have wrongly
>>imagined that his sonnets treated banal themes like love, mortality,
>>mutability, and other aspects of the human condition,
As predictable, Webb does not understand
how the poems were created, nor the role of
ambiguity. The Sonnets were, quite consciously,
written partly as 'nursery rhymes for adults' --
while at the same time being commentaries
on public and private persons and events.
>>but it took the
>>transcendent genius of a Crowley to grasp that arguably the greatest
>>poetry in the English language actually concerns petty court rivalries
>>and royal crapping competitions.
It was not too hard once the identity of the
poet was known. But strangely the great
bulk of Oxfordians don't allow this fact to
have any effect on their understanding of
the plays or the poems. They continue to
see them in almost exactly the same way as
Stratfordians, merely crossing out the name
of the Stratman, and putting in that of
Edward de Vere. They have them all written
at the same time (or almost the same time)
and for the same reasons -- to make money
and entertain the masses. Tamely following
Strat idiocy, they quite fail to recognise the
political nature of the canon and the centrality
of the role of monarch -- as the poet's artistic
and political patron, and as she is represented.
>> Since Shakespeare's poetry had been
>>so spectacularly misread for the four hundred years prior to Mr.
>>Crowley's exegetic exploits
No one claims to have presented or even
seen a remotely coherent or meaningful
account of the Sonnets.
>> why is it so popular nonetheless?
Nursery rhymes are popular.
Paul.
Paul Crowley
>> > You are saying that Shakespeare would never write about erection? How
>> > do you know this to be true?
> >we have the texts. It is their content
>> -- within the wider spectrum of all that
>> went on in the literature of the day -- on
>> which I base my judgements.
>
> But you seem not to be able to admit that you might be wrong when
> dealing with this highly ambiguous and complex art form.
I am quite happy to admit to being wrong
-- when shown where and how. How is
it that you always seek to skip that bit?
>> If you know
>> of any other places in the canon where
>> there is something as crude (and as boring)
>> as the standard reading of these lines,
>> then they would be easy to quote.
>
> They are very easy. For example: "He of tall building, and of goodly
> pride..." and much of the rest of that sonnet.
Ridiculous. Even Booth (who is the most
extreme of the standard commentators in
this respect) can find no more to say
about Sonnet 80 than:
" . . . This sonnet contains many words used elsewhere in
sexual senses . . . none of them is fully activated here, but
their concentration gives the poem vague sexual overtones."
>> The only other place remotely similar is
>> that ghastly misreading of Sonnet 20.
>> (" . . since she prickt thee out for
>> womens pleasure").
>
> I read this at one level as "Since Nature gave you a penis in order to
> give women pleasure..." Can you honestly say the line cannot mean
> this?
Of course. You have to be very thick,
and believe that the poet was excessively
crude, ignorant and banal, if you are
willing to express the view that he would
have said (or even implied) such a thing.
> I would say that's the way *you* read poetry, at least in part. No one
> could pretend you're literal-minded. You invent extravagant fantasies
> to explain the sonnets.
Extravagant invented fantasies are always
easy to pull apart -- and would bear little
relationship to the words of the sonnet.
How come you never make the effort to
show that? How come no other Strat (nor
quasi-Strat) around here ever makes that
effort?
Your one attempt was merely to ask
what proof I had that the poet meant X?
You have not yet worked out how
such a question is inappropriate.
>> > That does not, of course, make this interpretation the
>> > only one. It is likely one of several layers.
>>
>> What other 'layers' have you mentioned
>> in respect of these lines? What others
>> are described in the standard
>> commentaries?
>
> I haven't mentioned any. I was simply pointing out one facet of the
> sonnet as I (tentatively) see it. I was hoping that Gary or Robert or
> someone would discuss what I've said with me and perhaps argue.
Weeds among weeds -- Strats among
Strats. Would you go to convention
of Flat-Earthers expecting to find out
useful information on major issues in
Astronomy? Would you attend a
meeting of Creationists to learn about
Evolution?
>> The relevance here (which you seem to
>> have forgotten) is that the poet WAS
>> a courtier.
>
> First: I try to come to these sonnets without preconceptions.
You bring in sets of quite explicit, if
totally absurd, preconceptions about
"The Fair Youf", and "The Dark Lady"
-- every fatuous word of which comes
from the Strats.
> Second: If you're speaking of Oxford, he was not a courtier (in the
> sense of "person of the court") for a good piece of his adult life. He
> was in Italy, he was in jail, he was out of favour....I'm sure you get
> the picture.
No, I don't. You don't have one. Oxford
was an English courtier from his birth to
his death. Even the plays make that clear.
Remember all the talk of 'banishment' in
AYLI -- and elsewhere in the canon?
Many of the Sonnets were written while
he was in the Tower or under house arrest.
What were they likely to about? Oh,
I remember. The Strats necessarily think
that they were only about Lurve, and other
eternal verities. And who are you to
disagree with all those generations of
Stratfordian 'scholars'?
>> Almost no sonnets are "just about the
>> poet and an addressee". That would be
>> exceedingly boring.
>
> It appears to me that you don't understand poetry at all.
One of the greatest impediments to an
Oxfordian account of the Sonnets has
been a 'Stratfordian conception' of poetry
which most Oxfordians adopt without
question. Under this, 'poetry' must
necessarily be recitable -- preferably by
a Laurence Olivier type, in a deeply
sonorous tone. It must always be deadly
serious, readily understandable by the
none-too-bright audiences, and have
nothing in the least way complicated.
Ambiguity is, of course, out of the
question -- as are all non-serious tones
of voice, such as irony or sarcasm. In
any case, the nature of the permissible
topics is such as not to lend themselves
to tones other than the pompous.
> It is not
> the number of people shoved into a sonnet, like meat stuffed into a
> sausage casing, that makes it either exciting or boring. It is not
> even necessarily the subject matter. It is the language, both
> figurative and literal, and the mastery of rhythm and metre, and the
> depth of emotion, and the layering of meaning, and a million other
> things, none of which you seem to comprehend.
What you are trying (and failing) to
express, is that the poet must have
something to say -- which, nearly always,
will be on matters about which he has
deep feelings and intense emotions. The
language that he uses: the words, their
metre, rhythm, rhyming, etc., must all
support his expression. Our poet, being
perfectly normal, felt intensely about a
range of matters in his normal life --
especially on the politics of the day,
and on the likely catastrophe that would
result from the lack of an agreed heir to
the throne. It was on those matters that
he wrote sonnets.
Strats (and quasi-Strats), idiotically
believe that 'true poets' live on some
kind of elevated plane -- removed from
daily life, and would never write poems
on the normal things that concern
ordinary humans. Being idiots, they
further believe that deep feelings and
intense emotions necessarily rule out
the possibility of the expression of
humour.
>> It is how Strats read
>> them, but there is no need to be as lost
>> or as foolish.
>
> I am certainly not lost.
Of course, you are. Honest Strats admit
to being lost in the Sonnets. Why can't
you? You haven't a clue where to start.
>> > It is very difficult, Paul. Your explanations are generally quite
>> > simplistic
That is the highest praise. If they were
wrong, it would be easy to show how
and why. How come you never make
the slightest attempt?
>> I know that you would only accept as
>> 'proof' a properly witnessed affidavit
>> signed by the poet. However, there are
>> huge amounts -- for example, the sheer
>> repetition of his 'code-words' -- always
>> in much the same contexts.
>
> Unfortunately only you recognise code words such as "time" meaning
> "mite," and you offer no proof that your "code words" are what the
> poet actually meant.
I appreciate that you would only accept
as 'proof' a properly witnessed affidavit
signed by the poet. In fact, there are
other methods, but since you would
not accept anything other than the
aforementioned signed and witnessed
affidavit, I won't bother to explain.
>> Strat thinking pervades every nook
>> and cranny of your brain.
>
> No, you're quite wrong. I disagree with both Stratfordians and
> Oxfordians when I feel they are wrong. IMO, almost anyone who thinks
> he has a watertight solution for the sonnets is almost certainly wrong
This belief comes from a superstition
of a thoroughly Stratfordian nature.
Your 'thinking' goes like this -- great
Stratfordian scholars have been trying
to sort this out for centuries -- and
getting nowhere. Oxfordians bring
nothing new (nor even worthwhile)
to the enquiry. (What for example,
could the relevance of his being a
courtier have?) Therefore there is
no point in even considering claims
to any kind of a solution.
Of course, it's also based on large
amounts of both laziness and cowardice.
It 'absolves' you from ever seriously
considering any account of any sonnet,
and it 'frees' you from the obligation of
making up your mind on any issue of
significance. You hear nothing, see
nothing, and so cannot be expected to
say anything.
> and also drags the poet down to his own poverty-stricken level.
> Shakespeare was brilliant, and his sonnets are too fragmented, too
> contradictory, too complex, for anyone to say definitively what they
> are about.
And you claim that you are not lost !
Paul.
Ms. Mouse
<slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
> "Ms. Mouse" <lynnekosit...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1176254226.3...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > You are saying that Shakespeare would never write about erection? How
> >> > do you know this to be true?
> > >we have the texts. It is their content
> >> -- within the wider spectrum of all that
> >> went on in the literature of the day -- on
> >> which I base my judgements.
>
> > But you seem not to be able to admit that you might be wrong when
> > dealing with this highly ambiguous and complex art form.
>
> I am quite happy to admit to being wrong
> -- when shown where and how. How is
> it that you always seek to skip that bit?
Simply because I've tried many times and given up as you are wilfully
blind.
>
> >> If you know
> >> of any other places in the canon where
> >> there is something as crude (and as boring)
> >> as the standard reading of these lines,
> >> then they would be easy to quote.
>
> > They are very easy. For example: "He of tall building, and of goodly
> > pride..." and much of the rest of that sonnet.
>
> Ridiculous. Even Booth (who is the most
> extreme of the standard commentators in
> this respect) can find no more to say
> about Sonnet 80 than:
>
> " . . . This sonnet contains many words used elsewhere in
> sexual senses . . . none of them is fully activated here, but
> their concentration gives the poem vague sexual overtones."
I thought you didn't listen to Stratfordians? Why quote Booth?
Although I must say, he tends more to confirm my interpretation than
you give him credit for. I've just gone a step further than he, and
can easily do a complete and coherent "sexual" reading of the sonnet.
>
> >> The only other place remotely similar is
> >> that ghastly misreading of Sonnet 20.
> >> (" . . since she prickt thee out for
> >> womens pleasure").
>
> > I read this at one level as "Since Nature gave you a penis in order to
> > give women pleasure..." Can you honestly say the line cannot mean
> > this?
>
> Of course. You have to be very thick,
One thing I'm not, Paul, is thick. Your continuing to assert that I am
says more about you than about me.
> and believe that the poet was excessively
> crude,
He *was* excessively crude. Wasn't it you who pointed out "riding on
the balls of mine" as being ambiguous? He had other qualities too, of
course.
> ignorant and banal,
Not so. Talking about sex does not necessarily make one ignorant or
banal. That Shakespeare can include the bawdy with a whole raft of
other meanings makes him rather brilliant and exciting.
>if you are
> willing to express the view that he would
> have said (or even implied) such a thing.
What was he saying then? Especially since he employs mention of
pricks, women, and pleasure? Did you miss those quite overt
references? And what can this, from R and J, possibly mean:
"The bawdy hand of the dial is now upon the prick of noon."
I understand that "prick" can literally mean mark or division on a
clock, but why "bawdy" if there's no suggestive interpretation? I'll
await your answer.
Mouse
Gary
>Love is too young to know what conscience is,
>Yet who knows not, conscience is born of love?
>As his triumphant prize; proud of this pride
Thinking out loud about this poem after reading Lynne's ideas.
The speaker says:
>Love is too young to know what conscience is,
>Yet who knows not, conscience is born of love?
and
>No want of conscience hold it that I call
>Her love
I'm still not clear on what he means by line 2. "Conscience
is born of love". What does that mean? In any event, it does seem
clear that someone is accusing the speaker of something to do with
conscience. Specifically, that he has called some woman "love".
So who is this woman who he has called "love", and who is
criticizing him for it, and why?
It seems to me that the L3's "gentle cheater", L4's "thy",
L5's "thou", L9's "thy" and "thee", L11's "thy" and L12's double "thy"
all refer to the same person. I can't go along with WdV's idea that
there may be two addressees in these lines.
The speaker describes the addressee as "gentle cheater" and
"sweet self". As Lynne pointed out, these sound very much like the
terms the speaker has previously used in describing the FYM.
I read L3's "urge not my amiss" to mean something like: Don't
criticize my apparent failing. I've noted that others read that
phrase differently.
The speaker accuses the addressee of betraying him. And what
is the addressee's betrayal? One possible betrayal already suggested
in the poems is the FYM's affair with the DL. Or does the betrayal
consist of the addressee's urging the speaker's amiss?
Because the addressee has betrayed him, the speaker seems to
feel justified in doing....what? The speaker says that, in response
to the addressee's betrayal, he, the speaker, will betray his nobler
part to his body's treason. What is this nobler part? Is it the soul
of L7 that gives permission to the body to triumph in love? Seems
unlikely, given that the soul is giving permission rather than being
betrayed. Then what? The speaker's mind, perhaps, as opposed to his
soul and body? Perhaps.
And what is the result of the speaker's betrayal? The result,
despite Paul's protestation, seems to be sexual excitement about the
addressee. If Lynne is correct in her idea that the addressee of L3 -
12 is the FYM, is the speaker then saying that he will stop fighting
against his sexual longings for the FYM and indulge them instead? But
if so, how is that an understandable response to the addressee's
initial betrayal of the speaker? ("You betrayed me, so I'm going to
get an erection over you!")
Seems to me there are some loose ends to be tied up in this
poem. I still think, though, that Lynne may be on the right track.
This poem may be about a homosexual lovers' spat. The FYM is miffed
because the speaker has called the DL his "love", and the speaker is
explaining his way out of the problem. He may be saying: "Don't
criticize me for doing something (ie messing around with the DL) which
you yourself are doing, and besides, calling her "Love" is justified
since I get so turned on by her love, which happens to be you."
Or, then again, maybe it's about Ralegh's affair with the
Queen, or the spiritual seeker striving to break free of material
bonds.
- Gary
Peter Groves
news:wQ9Th.18936$j7.3...@news.indigo.ie...
It's amusing to see Crowley, our Magister Coprophiliae, suddenly
metamorphose into a maiden aunt.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> > that ghastly misreading of Sonnet 20.
> > (" . . since she prickt thee out for
> > womens pleasure").
>
> I read this at one level as "Since Nature gave you a penis in order to
> give women pleasure..." Can you honestly say the line cannot mean
> this?
Anybody not a pasty-brained Strat or pseudo-Strat HAS to say the line
means "Since Nature P(at)rick'd you--or gave you (Elizabeth)--the
Christian English Religion required to make us English-speakers top
dogs forever--women are happy--all women, not just English-speaking
women, because no other world could be better for everybody. It seems
to me inconceivable that so obvious a word-play could have been missed
until I, a mere second-order genius, came along, but that's the way it
is in the wasteland of Shakespeare scholarlship.
--Bob G.
Joe Mulligan
>>>>>You are saying that Shakespeare would never write about erection?
’Tis no less, I tell you; for the bawdy hand of the dial is now upon the
prick of noon.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> >> that ghastly misreading of Sonnet 20.
> >> (" . . since she prickt thee out for
> >> womens pleasure").
>
> > I read this at one level as "Since Nature gave you a penis in order to
> > give women pleasure..." Can you honestly say the line cannot mean
> > this?
>
> Of course. You have to be very thick,
> and believe that the poet was excessively
> crude, ignorant and banal, if you are
> willing to express the view that he would
> have said (or even implied) such a thing.
I find this incredible. Paul is always excoriating us puritanical
Americans who refuse to acknowledge the turds and other dirty stuff in
Shakespeare, but here refuses to accept that "prick't" could have
anything to do with "having a prick." Although he can find "my
Indian" in "minde" when he wants to force Raleigh into a sonnet. What
is the true meaning of the Nurse's reference to "the prick of noon" in
Romeo and Juliet, Paul? While we're at it, how do you read "But since
she prick't thee out for women's pleasure/ Mine be thy love, and thy
love's use their treasure?"
--Bob G.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> -- when shown where and how. How is
> it that you always seek to skip that bit?
I must have something seriously wrong with me, but no matter how many
times Paul comes out with this line or a variation of it, I burst out
laughing.
--Bob G.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> like *Humpty Dumpty*, or *Mary, Mary, Quite Contrary*
> or *The Queen of Hearts Baked Some Tarts* -- have long
> been so popular, and so widely read -- generations of
> readers have wrongly imagined that these works treated
> strange if banal themes like love, mortality, mutability, and
> other aspects of the human condition, but it took the
> transcendent genius of some historian to grasp that arguably
> the greatest poetry in the English language actually concern
> sordid skirmishes or low gossip about celebrities, court
> intrigues and rivalries. Since these poems had been so
> spectacularly misread for the hundred of years prior to
> their so-called 'explanations', why were they so popular
> nonetheless? Inquiring minds want to know, and wish that
> Gary and David Webb would explain this seeming anomaly.
I've already explained it. Those poems have been popular FOR CHILDREN
AND ADULTS RELIVING OR REMEMBERING THEIR CHILDHOOD OR ENJOYING THE
POEMS EFFECT ON CHILDREN not because of their themes, which few if any
scholars have claimed were important elements of them, but because of
their verbal music, their silliness, their heightened, fantasy-charged
imagery. That some of them may once have been intended as satirical
comments is irrelevant: they are loved in spite of the trivial
journalistic meanings they may once have had but have shed.
The popularity of Shakespeare's poems is entirely different. They are
not popular with children, but with adults, and they are popular
because of their music, their imagery AND because of their standard
themes and the poet's effective treatment of those themes. Trivial
details like who the Sonnet's addressee was, if a real person, are
interesting enough but have no bearing on why the poems are enjoyed to
the degree they are. That's because it's what's universal in poetry
that captures the public. The Aeneid (which I've never liked) has
been popular for centuries not because of whatever allusions to the
court of Augustus might be in it, but because of its universal
characters and story-line, and the effectiveness of its poetry as
poetry (something you might want to study sometime, Paul, because what
poetry does as poetry is important). That the Aeneid is NOT history
the way you say the Sonnets are does not diminish its value to those
who like it. It enhances it, I believe.
--Bob G.
Paul Crowley
news:hedTh.12276$M.9...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> > I read this at one level as "Since Nature gave you a penis in order to
>> > give women pleasure..." Can you honestly say the line cannot mean
>> > this?
>>
>> Of course. You have to be very thick,
>> and believe that the poet was excessively
>> crude, ignorant and banal, if you are
>> willing to express the view that he would
>> have said (or even implied) such a thing.
>
> It's amusing to see Crowley, our Magister Coprophiliae, suddenly
> metamorphose into a maiden aunt.
Strats (and quasi-Strats) seem to live
on another planet, appearing (or
pretending) to be quite unaware of
what takes place on this one/
In civilised societies (on this planet)
there are by-and-large agreed
conventional ways of behaving and
talking.
For example, normal people don't
usually expose their genitals at polite
dinner parties. But, for the bulk of the
modern (i.e. western) world, the
existence of genitalia is not a taboo
subject. Whereas, it is one in many
of the more traditional societies.
It was one in the west -- among the
middle-classes -- around 100 years
ago, and it still is in many segments.
Likewise in normal poetry, it is not
(and was not) acceptable to describe
the sex act in explicit pornographic or
quasi-medical terms. However, it was
possible (and often common) to allude
to such acts (and allied facts), but in
a coded or covert manner. Partly this
would have been to avoid upsetting
those who disapproved of such talk,
and who would therefore be unlikely
to understand such codes. But, in
fact, the reasons go much deeper.
Pornography is inherently boring.
It does not recognise the duality of
human nature -- the strange
concurrence of the ideal (or the
rational) and the brutally physical.
That requires a light touch, and is
best brought out by humour.
All this is well-known. How come
then, that when you come to read
Elizabethan poetry you forget all
commonsense, and start believing
in the most absurd nonsense?
Paul.
Paul Crowley
>> >> The only other place remotely similar is
>> >> that ghastly misreading of Sonnet 20.
>> >> (" . . since she prickt thee out for
>> >> womens pleasure").
>>
>> > I read this at one level as "Since Nature gave you a penis in order to
>> > give women pleasure..." Can you honestly say the line cannot mean
>> > this?
>>
>> Of course. You have to be very thick,
>
> One thing I'm not, Paul, is thick. Your continuing to assert that I am
> says more about you than about me.
>
>> and believe that the poet was excessively
>> crude,
>
> He *was* excessively crude. Wasn't it you who pointed out "riding on
> the balls of mine" as being ambiguous? He had other qualities too, of
> course.
You completely miss the point. The
ambiguity of "riding on the balls of mine"
allows non-aware readers to see it as
only about eye-balls. That's how it is
'explained' in ALL the current and
standard Stratfordian commentaries.
That's how all our teachers read it when
we were at school. It's how we all read
it -- even though we thought we were
alert to all possible bawdy meanings.
Yet HERE -- in Sonnet 151 -- you claim
that there is NO ambiguity, and that
the only possible reading is explicit
pornography. Of course, here you
follow the profoundly ignorant Strats,
who are so dim as to be unable to read
it in any other way.
>> ignorant and banal,
>
> Not so. Talking about sex does not necessarily make one ignorant or
> banal.
Believing that a 16c century poet could
write in such an ignorant and banal way
is only possible for the excessively stupid
-- and the excessively Stratfordian.
> That Shakespeare can include the bawdy with a whole raft of
> other meanings makes him rather brilliant and exciting.
Somehow you've forgotten to say
(at any point) what these 'other
meanings' might be. Remember that
Strats exclude all possibility of that
hideous concept -- ambiguity.
>>if you are
>> willing to express the view that he would
>> have said (or even implied) such a thing.
>
> What was he saying then? Especially since he employs mention of
> pricks, women, and pleasure?
I have explained Sonnet 20 numerous
times. Firstly the 'woman' was Raleigh
(with 'women' being the over-dressed
long-haired, perfumed, earring-wearing
courtiers who followed his lead in all
such matters). Secondly the addressee
(who was 'prickt out') was Elizabeth.
Thirdly, all the bawdy suggestions are
jokes -- in the way someone might tell
you to 'husband your resources' -- with
some allusion to your private domestic
arrangements.
> Did you miss those quite overt
> references? And what can this, from R and J, possibly mean:
>
> "The bawdy hand of the dial is now upon the prick of noon."
>
> I understand that "prick" can literally mean mark or division on a
> clock, but why "bawdy" if there's no suggestive interpretation? I'll
> await your answer.
This is not the poet speaking in his own
voice -- these are words placed in the
mouth of Mercutio, who is extremely
bawdy generally. Yet even Mercutio
does not get into pornography. It is
all DOUBLE-talk. Surely you can see
the difference? One is SINGLE and the
other is DOUBLE. Even a yank must
be able to see that difference.
Or perhaps not.
Paul.
Paul Crowley
news:1176333368....@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> I've already explained it. Those poems have been popular FOR CHILDREN
> AND ADULTS RELIVING OR REMEMBERING THEIR CHILDHOOD OR ENJOYING THE
> POEMS EFFECT ON CHILDREN not because of their themes, which few if any
> scholars have claimed were important elements of them, but because of
> their verbal music, their silliness, their heightened, fantasy-charged
> imagery. That some of them may once have been intended as satirical
> comments is irrelevant: they are loved in spite of the trivial
> journalistic meanings they may once have had but have shed.
>
> The popularity of Shakespeare's poems is entirely different. They are
> not popular with children, but with adults,
The differences here is trivial. The
adult versions merely use longer
words and more complex metres.
> and they are popular because of their music, their imagery
This is much the same as in nursery rhymes.
> AND because of their standard
> themes and the poet's effective treatment of those themes.
Nonsense. Quote a standard commentator
expatiating on one of the 'standard themes'
in any particular sonnet.
> Trivial
> details like who the Sonnet's addressee was, if a real person, are
> interesting enough but have no bearing on why the poems are enjoyed to
> the degree they are. That's because it's what's universal in poetry
> that captures the public.
It's the same sort of thing as in nursery
rhymes.
> The Aeneid (which I've never liked) has
> been popular for centuries not because of whatever allusions to the
> court of Augustus might be in it, but because of its universal
> characters and story-line, and the effectiveness of its poetry as
> poetry (something you might want to study sometime, Paul, because what
> poetry does as poetry is important).
What nursery rhymes do as nursery
rhymes is also important (and is
much the same).
> That the Aeneid is NOT history
> the way you say the Sonnets are does not diminish its value to those
> who like it. It enhances it, I believe.
'Humpty Dumpty' is NOT history
(to >99.99% of children). The fact that
it can be read as such does not diminish
its value to those who like it. In fact, it
enhances it -- to those who enjoy
understanding the nature of poetry,
and appreciating how it is -- sometimes
-- created.
Paul.
Ms. Mouse
<slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
> "Ms. Mouse" <lynnekosit...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Good God, Paul, I have claimed nothing of the sort. Can't you read? I
have said over and over again that the bawdy is only one of several
meanings. I believe in ambiguity, especially with regard to
Shakespeare's writing. For instance, I gave three separate readings of
Sonnet 7. I was just pointing out here, re my point about bawdy, that
Shakespeare may be speaking to both a man and a woman in this sonnet.
Giving one meaning doesn't suggest that there aren't others. Nor does
it mean that I have to give or have mastery of all of them.
>Of course, here you
> follow the profoundly ignorant Strats,
> who are so dim as to be unable to read
> it in any other way.
>
> >> ignorant and banal,
>
> > Not so. Talking about sex does not necessarily make one ignorant or
> > banal.
>
> Believing that a 16c century poet could
> write in such an ignorant and banal way
> is only possible for the excessively stupid
> -- and the excessively Stratfordian.
You still haven't explained why it DOESN'T, at one level, mean what
any intelligent person would take it to mean. In other words, if
Shakespeare didn't mean what is so incredibly obvious that even high
school students see the bawdy with no difficulty, he was excessively
stupid, as he didn't understand the power of words and the many
meanings they carried.
>
> > That Shakespeare can include the bawdy with a whole raft of
> > other meanings makes him rather brilliant and exciting.
See this above? "With a whole raft of other meanings." How could you
even suggest that I don't accept double entendre or ambiguity?
>
> Somehow you've forgotten to say
> (at any point) what these 'other
> meanings' might be. Remember that
> Strats exclude all possibility of that
> hideous concept -- ambiguity.
I didn't say because I was making a point about this particular
meaning. I was making a foray, as it were, into bawdy territory. Nor
do I find that "Strats," for the most part, deny ambiguity in the
sonnets. Booth, whom you quoted yesterday, certainly doesn't.
>
> >>if you are
> >> willing to express the view that he would
> >> have said (or even implied) such a thing.
>
> > What was he saying then? Especially since he employs mention of
> > pricks, women, and pleasure?
>
> I have explained Sonnet 20 numerous
> times. Firstly the 'woman' was Raleigh
> (with 'women' being the over-dressed
> long-haired, perfumed, earring-wearing
> courtiers who followed his lead in all
> such matters). Secondly the addressee
> (who was 'prickt out') was Elizabeth.
Not to see what is obvious to most while seeing what no one else in
the world sees is just downright ridiculous.
> Thirdly, all the bawdy suggestions are
> jokes -- in the way someone might tell
> you to 'husband your resources' -- with
> some allusion to your private domestic
> arrangements.
>
> > Did you miss those quite overt
> > references? And what can this, from R and J, possibly mean:
>
> > "The bawdy hand of the dial is now upon the prick of noon."
>
> > I understand that "prick" can literally mean mark or division on a
> > clock, but why "bawdy" if there's no suggestive interpretation? I'll
> > await your answer.
>
> This is not the poet speaking in his own
> voice -- these are words placed in the
> mouth of Mercutio, who is extremely
> bawdy generally.
No kidding. Shakespeare uses similar double entendres himself over and
over again in the sonnets. All your exegeses appear really to be
eisegeses, vain attempts to explain away what is clearly in the text
while substituting your own ideas.
>Yet even Mercutio
> does not get into pornography.
It is only you who speak of pornography. I talk of bawdy, in this case
highly charged sexual images. Why it might be acceptable for
Shakespeare to speak of defecation derbies but not sex is beyond my
comprehension.
>It is
> all DOUBLE-talk. Surely you can see
> the difference? One is SINGLE and the
> other is DOUBLE. Even a yank must
> be able to see that difference.
Even a Crowley must be able to remember at some point that I am not a
Yank.
Your other point, such as it is, is totally ridiculous, by the way.
You accuse others of not seeing ambiguity when you can't even
recognise a double entendre when it's presented to you on a plate.
Ooh, unfortunate image. ;)
Lynne
>
> Or perhaps not.
Ms. Mouse
> >Love is too young to know what conscience is,
> >Yet who knows not, conscience is born of love?
> >Then gentle cheater, urge not my amiss,
> >Lest guilty of my faults thy sweet self prove.
> >For, thou betraying me, I do betray
> >My nobler part to my gross body's treason,
> >My soul doth tell my body that he may
> >Triumph in love; flesh stays no farther reason,
> >But rising at thy name doth point out thee
> >As his triumphant prize; proud of this pride
> >He is contented thy poor drudge to be,
> >To stand in thy affairs, fall by thy side.
> > No want of conscience hold it that I call
> > Her love, for whose dear love I rise and fall.
>
> Thinking out loud about this poem after reading Lynne's ideas.
>
> The speaker says:
>
> >Love is too young to know what conscience is,
> >Yet who knows not, conscience is born of love?
>
> and
>
> >No want of conscience hold it that I call
> >Her love
>
> I'm still not clear on what he means by line 2. "Conscience
> is born of love". What does that mean?
Not sure at all. Maybe--one develops a conscience through loving
someone?
>In any event, it does seem
> clear that someone is accusing the speaker of something to do with
> conscience. Specifically, that he has called some woman "love".
>
> So who is this woman who he has called "love", and who is
> criticizing him for it, and why?
>
> It seems to me that the L3's "gentle cheater", L4's "thy",
> L5's "thou", L9's "thy" and "thee", L11's "thy" and L12's double "thy"
> all refer to the same person. I can't go along with WdV's idea that
> there may be two addressees in these lines.
>
> The speaker describes the addressee as "gentle cheater" and
> "sweet self". As Lynne pointed out, these sound very much like the
> terms the speaker has previously used in describing the FYM.
>
> I read L3's "urge not my amiss" to mean something like: Don't
> criticize my apparent failing. I've noted that others read that
> phrase differently.
>
> The speaker accuses the addressee of betraying him. And what
> is the addressee's betrayal? One possible betrayal already suggested
> in the poems is the FYM's affair with the DL. Or does the betrayal
> consist of the addressee's urging the speaker's amiss?
>
> Because the addressee has betrayed him, the speaker seems to
> feel justified in doing....what? The speaker says that, in response
> to the addressee's betrayal, he, the speaker, will betray his nobler
> part to his body's treason. What is this nobler part? Is it the soul
> of L7 that gives permission to the body to triumph in love?
No, don't think so. His body betrays his reason/soul/mind. (?)
> Seems
> unlikely, given that the soul is giving permission rather than being
> betrayed. Then what? The speaker's mind, perhaps, as opposed to his
> soul and body? Perhaps.
>
> And what is the result of the speaker's betrayal? The result,
> despite Paul's protestation, seems to be sexual excitement about the
> addressee. If Lynne is correct in her idea that the addressee of L3 -
> 12 is the FYM, is the speaker then saying that he will stop fighting
> against his sexual longings for the FYM and indulge them instead? But
> if so, how is that an understandable response to the addressee's
> initial betrayal of the speaker? ("You betrayed me, so I'm going to
> get an erection over you!")
>
> Seems to me there are some loose ends to be tied up in this
> poem.
Absolutely.
>I still think, though, that Lynne may be on the right track.
> This poem may be about a homosexual lovers' spat. The FYM is miffed
> because the speaker has called the DL his "love",
Not sure about this. Not to press the "point," this sonnet is "hard."
>and the speaker is
> explaining his way out of the problem. He may be saying: "Don't
> criticize me for doing something (ie messing around with the DL) which
> you yourself are doing, and besides, calling her "Love" is justified
> since I get so turned on by her love, which happens to be you."
>
> Or, then again, maybe it's about Ralegh's affair with the
> Queen, or the spiritual seeker striving to break free of material
> bonds.
That must be it. ;)
Mouse
>
> - Gary
Paul Crowley
>> You completely miss the point. The
>> ambiguity of "riding on the balls of mine"
>> allows non-aware readers to see it as
>> only about eye-balls. That's how it is
>> 'explained' in ALL the current and
>> standard Stratfordian commentaries.
>> That's how all our teachers read it when
>> we were at school. It's how we all read
>> it -- even though we thought we were
>> alert to all possible bawdy meanings.
>>
>> Yet HERE -- in Sonnet 151 -- you claim
>> that there is NO ambiguity, and that
>> the only possible reading is explicit
>> pornography.
>
> Good God, Paul, I have claimed nothing of the sort. Can't you read?
In effect, that is your claim. It is also
the one that Strats -- in effect -- make.
Like you, they can see no other possible
meaning, so (like you) they propose none.
> I have said over and over again that the bawdy is only one of several
> meanings. I believe in ambiguity, especially with regard to
> Shakespeare's writing. For instance, I gave three separate readings of
> Sonnet 7. I was just pointing out here, re my point about bawdy, that
> Shakespeare may be speaking to both a man and a woman in this sonnet.
> Giving one meaning doesn't suggest that there aren't others. Nor does
> it mean that I have to give or have mastery of all of them.
There is no sense to claiming to see
ambiguity in the abstract. Either
you see it in a particular case, or you
don't. You _might_ say that the
expression of the poet is in some
way peculiar, and that you suspect
he also intends another meaning --
but you have said no such thing
here. In fact, you seem to find his
"bawdy" sense (in your use of the
term) entirely sufficient.
>> > Not so. Talking about sex does not necessarily make one ignorant or
>> > banal.
>>
>> Believing that a 16c century poet could
>> write in such an ignorant and banal way
>> is only possible for the excessively stupid
>> -- and the excessively Stratfordian.
>
> You still haven't explained why it DOESN'T, at one level, mean what
> any intelligent person would take it to mean.
Yes, I have -- quite fully, and in a post
addressed to you (10 April 2007 17:08).
The poet is using the language of the
court. The fact that you now happen
to see "an erotic sense" does NOT
mean that it is obvious, nor even the
most obvious. Remember that millions
(including you and me) have read the
"riding on the balls of mine" speech,
without the least awareness of its full
complexity of its meaning.
> In other words, if
> Shakespeare didn't mean what is so incredibly obvious that even high
> school students see the bawdy with no difficulty, he was excessively
> stupid, as he didn't understand the power of words and the many
> meanings they carried.
It is quite probable that when penning
this sonnet the poet had no awareness
of (or had forgotten) the way in which
it would be read by the ignorant masses.
They were not his main concern -- even
though I think that he usually kept them
vaguely in mind.
>> > That Shakespeare can include the bawdy with a whole raft of
>> > other meanings makes him rather brilliant and exciting.
>
> See this above? "With a whole raft of other meanings." How could you
> even suggest that I don't accept double entendre or ambiguity?
OK, you know what you ought to say.
It is a shame that you have no idea
what it means, nor how to apply it.
>> Somehow you've forgotten to say
>> (at any point) what these 'other
>> meanings' might be. Remember that
>> Strats exclude all possibility of that
>> hideous concept -- ambiguity.
>
> I didn't say because I was making a point about this particular
> meaning. I was making a foray, as it were, into bawdy territory. Nor
> do I find that "Strats," for the most part, deny ambiguity in the
> sonnets. Booth, whom you quoted yesterday, certainly doesn't.
Booth is exceptional -- but again for him
it is almost entirely theory rather than
practice. He does, at least, sometimes
sense that there is something else going
on, even if he can't begin to think what
it might be.
>> I have explained Sonnet 20 numerous
>> times. Firstly the 'woman' was Raleigh
>> (with 'women' being the over-dressed
>> long-haired, perfumed, earring-wearing
>> courtiers who followed his lead in all
>> such matters). Secondly the addressee
>> (who was 'prickt out') was Elizabeth.
>
> Not to see what is obvious to most while seeing what no one else in
> the world sees is just downright ridiculous.
The rest of the world (including you)
is Stratfordian. It is absurd to claim
that statements made from such a
point of view can have any validity
-- except in special cases, where it
has to be justified.
> No kidding. Shakespeare uses similar double entendres himself over and
> over again in the sonnets. All your exegeses appear really to be
> eisegeses, vain attempts to explain away what is clearly in the text
> while substituting your own ideas.
This is just shallow abuse. If you had
anything useful to say, you'd attempt
to attack particular readings of mine of
particular words, phrases and lines.
You don't because you can't -- like all
other Strats and quasi-Strats around
here.
>>Yet even Mercutio
>> does not get into pornography.
>
> It is only you who speak of pornography.
Pornography is the graphic description
or illustration of sex acts and of allied
topics. Its sense is always undeniable.
Bawdy is always deniable -- at least
when taken instance by instance.
> I talk of bawdy, in this case highly charged sexual images.
Like almost all on that side of the
Atlantic you don't know what
bawdy is. But don't worry. Since
it necessarily involves humour (or
'humor') there is no hope that you
ever will.
But, as a test, see if you can explain
the difference between pornography
and bawdy.
> Why it might be acceptable for
> Shakespeare to speak of defecation derbies but not sex is beyond my
> comprehension.
He does not speak of "defecation
derbies", any more than he speaks of
sex acts. He ambiguously _alludes_
to them. There is a difference. But
again, don't try to think to hard about
it. You are on the wrong side of the
Atlantic for a start.
>>It is
>> all DOUBLE-talk. Surely you can see
>> the difference? One is SINGLE and the
>> other is DOUBLE. Even a yank must
>> be able to see that difference.
>
> Even a Crowley must be able to remember at some point that I am not a
> Yank.
>
> Your other point, such as it is, is totally ridiculous, by the way.
> You accuse others of not seeing ambiguity when you can't even
> recognise a double entendre when it's presented to you on a plate.
> Ooh, unfortunate image. ;)
What a hopeless case you are.
Don't you know French? It seems
that for you the phrase 'double-
entendre' means only 'dirty talk'.
Ambiguity requires at least TWO
meanings. Point out one Strat
commentary where two (or more)
meanings are read into these lines:
> But rysing at thy name doth point out thee,
> As his triumphant prize,proud of this pride,
Paul.
Willedever
-=-=-=-
1. My young lady, whom I call "Love," is too young
to know what conscience is,
2. Yet who can know that conscience might not
arise from love/in Love?
This is wordplay on calling a lover "my love," as though "Love" is the
name of the lover. That's quite frequent, of course, that the person
one loves is called "love." ("my love," "dear love," etc., and
sometimes just "love.") The meaning of the first couplet connects to
the last couplet, where the Poet says he calls her "love."
3. Therefore, gentle deceiver, love, don't cause me
to go amiss, in love,
4. Lest you, love, prove guilty of my own mistake.
Love is the sweet deceiver, sometimes. Love can possibly lead one
astray.
He is still using the idea of the one he calls "my love" being Love,
itself. He's combining that love can be a sweet deceiver, and also
his lover, "my love," could potentially be a sweet deceiver, if it
doesn't work out.
If he goes astray in love, his lover will also have gone astray. It
will affect both of them. A love affair that does not work out
affects both parties. He's cautioning his lover, "my love," that if
he's guilty of a mistake in love, she will be, too.
5. For, if you betray me, love, I would betray
6. My higher moral self to my baser nature,
His higher self seeks "true love." If this love turns out not to be
"true" it would mean a betrayal of his higher self. Acting on a love
which is not really "true" would mean aligning himself with his baser
nature. It would be "treason" against the ideals of his higher self.
7. My higher self does, when it *is* love, permit
my body to
8. Proceed with the love affair. The body requires
no further permission, to act.
What he's talking about here, is that when his higher self thinks it
is, indeed, love, the higher self permits the body to proceed. Higher
self is mind/soul/judgment, whatever one takes as being in control of
the body.
9. But, rising at they name, "love," he "points out"
thee
10. As his triumphant prize. Proud of this pride
He now goes into bodily behavior, when the higher self permits.
11. He is contented thy poor drudge to be,
12. To stand in thy affairs, fall by thy side.
More about body behavior, when permitted.
13. Don't take it as any lack of conscience that I call
14. Her "love," for whose dear love I rise and fall.
=-=-=-=
The closing couplet is addressed to the reader. It's an "aside."
He's saying his conscience is fully active during all this, and he
doesn't think he's gone astray (although he recognizes the theoretical
possibility.) He thinks it is love, and he's right to call the young
lady "love." His point is that he isn't calling her "love" just
because she stimulates him. He's well aware of the various
considerations, and he sincerely thinks it is "true love."
His lover is female. There is no Fair Youth in this Sonnet. Nor is
there anything of the Dark Lady. His young lady love is "too young to
know what conscience is." She's very young, so he's considering the
subject of conscience on her behalf.
Say, Paul, Anne Cecil was 15 when de Vere married her. A young 15 at
that, only two weeks after her birthday. If you want a young lady
love "too young to know what conscience is," there y'are.
Retrospective, of course.
Willedever
Trying one more time. C'mon, Google.
-=-=-=-
1. My young lady, whom I call "Love," is too young
to know what conscience is,
=-=-=-=
love "too young to know what conscience is," there y'are.
Willedever
Again.....
-=-=-=-
1. My young lady, whom I call "Love," is too young
to know what conscience is,
=-=-=-=
Willedever
>
> I'm still not clear on what he means by line 2. "Conscience
> is born of love". What does that mean?
It means a guilty conscience can arise from love.
>
> In any event, it does seem
> clear that someone is accusing the speaker of something to do with
> conscience.
That's wrong.
>
> So who is this woman who he has called "love", and who is
> criticizing him for it, and why?
The woman is his young lady love. Nobody has criticized him for it.
>
> ... I can't go along with WdV's idea that
> there may be two addressees in these lines.
That's because you don't understand the Sonnet.
>
> The speaker describes the addressee as "gentle cheater" and
> "sweet self". As Lynne pointed out, these sound very much like the
> terms the speaker has previously used in describing the FYM.
No, they don't sound like that, at least not to anybody who can read.
>
> I read L3's "urge not my amiss" to mean something like: Don't
> criticize my apparent failing. I've noted that others read that
> phrase differently.
It means "don't press me to go awry."
>
> The speaker accuses the addressee of betraying him.
No, he doesn't.
>
> And what
> is the addressee's betrayal?
There isn't any.
>
> Because the addressee has betrayed him,
No, she hasn't.
>
> the speaker seems to
> feel justified in doing....what? The speaker says that, in response
> to the addressee's betrayal, he, the speaker, will betray his nobler
> part to his body's treason. What is this nobler part? Is it the soul
> of L7 that gives permission to the body to triumph in love? Seems
> unlikely, given that the soul is giving permission rather than being
> betrayed. Then what? The speaker's mind, perhaps, as opposed to his
> soul and body? Perhaps.
Gary, take a deep breath.
>
> And what is the result of the speaker's betrayal?
None, because there isn't any. You're reading it wrong.
>
> ... If Lynne is correct in her idea that the addressee of L3 -
> 12 is the FYM,
Lynne is wrong, and it's a stupid idea.
>
> ... But
> if so, how is that an understandable response to the addressee's
> initial betrayal of the speaker?
There isn't any betrayal. You've read it wrong.
>
> I still think, though, that Lynne may be on the right track.
There's not a chance. Lynne's crazy notion is only that.
>
> This poem may be about a homosexual lovers' spat.
That's insane. It's a crazy idea. It's as crazy as anything Paul has
written, or more.
Willedever
book...@yahoo.com
wrote:
>On Apr 11, 5:55 pm, g...@vcn.bc.ca (Gary) wrote:
This is where explicators go round and round, it seems, because one
angle is that lust comes before love, and love comes before
conscience; another is that conscience is primary with the Fall of
Man. I'm sure some could testify that love comes before lust, too.
I like Henry Miller on this, because he, though a dedicated wild man
of the French sort, has a lot of intellectual honesty. In the '60s
there was a return to sexual honesty, but the next generation went
retro, conservative, or something. bookburn
Ms. Mouse
<slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
> "Ms. Mouse" <lynnekosit...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1176379345.3...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> >> You completely miss the point. The
> >> ambiguity of "riding on the balls of mine"
> >> allows non-aware readers to see it as
> >> only about eye-balls. That's how it is
> >> 'explained' in ALL the current and
> >> standard Stratfordian commentaries.
> >> That's how all our teachers read it when
> >> we were at school. It's how we all read
> >> it -- even though we thought we were
> >> alert to all possible bawdy meanings.
>
> >> Yet HERE -- in Sonnet 151 -- you claim
> >> that there is NO ambiguity, and that
> >> the only possible reading is explicit
> >> pornography.
>
> > Good God, Paul, I have claimed nothing of the sort. Can't you read?
>
> In effect, that is your claim. It is also
> the one that Strats -- in effect -- make.
> Like you, they can see no other possible
> meaning, so (like you) they propose none.
Well, the sexual meaning is extremely overpowering in this case,
especially as he actually talks of "flesh." however, take
To stand in thy affaires, fall by thy side.
This is talking sexually, but it can also be seen as a statement of
loyalty. "My fortunes ascend with yours. If you fall from grace, so do
I."
>
> > I have said over and over again that the bawdy is only one of several
> > meanings. I believe in ambiguity, especially with regard to
> > Shakespeare's writing. For instance, I gave three separate readings of
> > Sonnet 7. I was just pointing out here, re my point about bawdy, that
> > Shakespeare may be speaking to both a man and a woman in this sonnet.
> > Giving one meaning doesn't suggest that there aren't others. Nor does
> > it mean that I have to give or have mastery of all of them.
>
> There is no sense to claiming to see
> ambiguity in the abstract. Either
> you see it in a particular case, or you
> don't. You _might_ say that the
> expression of the poet is in some
> way peculiar, and that you suspect
> he also intends another meaning --
> but you have said no such thing
> here. In fact, you seem to find his
> "bawdy" sense (in your use of the
> term) entirely sufficient.
No, it is not sufficient in this sonnet, but it is pretty obvious.
>
> >> > Not so. Talking about sex does not necessarily make one ignorant or
> >> > banal.
>
> >> Believing that a 16c century poet could
> >> write in such an ignorant and banal way
> >> is only possible for the excessively stupid
> >> -- and the excessively Stratfordian.
>
> > You still haven't explained why it DOESN'T, at one level, mean what
> > any intelligent person would take it to mean.
>
> Yes, I have -- quite fully, and in a post
> addressed to you (10 April 2007 17:08).
> The poet is using the language of the
> court. The fact that you now happen
> to see "an erotic sense" does NOT
> mean that it is obvious, nor even the
> most obvious.
So you're now saying it may be there, although not the most obvious
reading?
>Remember that millions
> (including you and me) have read the
> "riding on the balls of mine" speech,
> without the least awareness of its full
> complexity of its meaning.
This is much more obvious than the Bassanio speech. One has to
scramble to find another meaning, in fact.
>
> > In other words, if
> > Shakespeare didn't mean what is so incredibly obvious that even high
> > school students see the bawdy with no difficulty, he was excessively
> > stupid, as he didn't understand the power of words and the many
> > meanings they carried.
>
> It is quite probable that when penning
> this sonnet the poet had no awareness
> of (or had forgotten) the way in which
> it would be read by the ignorant masses.
> They were not his main concern -- even
> though I think that he usually kept them
> vaguely in mind.
You're saying that Shakespeare spoke often about what was recognised
as bawdy by the ignorant masses, but he didn't notice he was doing it?
>
> >> > That Shakespeare can include the bawdy with a whole raft of
> >> > other meanings makes him rather brilliant and exciting.
>
> > See this above? "With a whole raft of other meanings." How could you
> > even suggest that I don't accept double entendre or ambiguity?
>
> OK, you know what you ought to say.
> It is a shame that you have no idea
> what it means, nor how to apply it.
>
> >> Somehow you've forgotten to say
> >> (at any point) what these 'other
> >> meanings' might be. Remember that
> >> Strats exclude all possibility of that
> >> hideous concept -- ambiguity.
>
> > I didn't say because I was making a point about this particular
> > meaning. I was making a foray, as it were, into bawdy territory. Nor
> > do I find that "Strats," for the most part, deny ambiguity in the
> > sonnets. Booth, whom you quoted yesterday, certainly doesn't.
>
> Booth is exceptional -- but again for him
> it is almost entirely theory rather than
> practice. He does, at least, sometimes
> sense that there is something else going
> on, even if he can't begin to think what
> it might be.
By "something going on..." I can only assume that you feel that he
sees through a glass darkly what you accept to be the meaning.
>
> >> I have explained Sonnet 20 numerous
> >> times. Firstly the 'woman' was Raleigh
> >> (with 'women' being the over-dressed
> >> long-haired, perfumed, earring-wearing
> >> courtiers who followed his lead in all
> >> such matters). Secondly the addressee
> >> (who was 'prickt out') was Elizabeth.
>
> > Not to see what is obvious to most while seeing what no one else in
> > the world sees is just downright ridiculous.
>
> The rest of the world (including you)
> is Stratfordian.
Stratfordians, some of whom work very hard to keep me out of their
conferences and journals, would be very surprised to hear this.
>It is absurd to claim
> that statements made from such a
> point of view can have any validity
> -- except in special cases, where it
> has to be justified.
You mean, except where and when you wish to make an exception?
>
> > No kidding. Shakespeare uses similar double entendres himself over and
> > over again in the sonnets. All your exegeses appear really to be
> > eisegeses, vain attempts to explain away what is clearly in the text
> > while substituting your own ideas.
>
> This is just shallow abuse. If you had
> anything useful to say, you'd attempt
> to attack particular readings of mine of
> particular words, phrases and lines.
> You don't because you can't -- like all
> other Strats and quasi-Strats around
> here.
It's pointless. I've tried in the past. You seem to have no conception
how *unusual* and *unlikely* some of your interpretations are.
>
> >>Yet even Mercutio
> >> does not get into pornography.
>
> > It is only you who speak of pornography.
>
> Pornography is the graphic description
> or illustration of sex acts and of allied
> topics. Its sense is always undeniable.
> Bawdy is always deniable -- at least
> when taken instance by instance.
Bawdy is usually deniable. That's why I call what Shakespeare does
bawdy or bawdry rather than pornography.
>
> > I talk of bawdy, in this case highly charged sexual images.
>
> Like almost all on that side of the
> Atlantic you don't know what
> bawdy is.
I suggest you look the word up in a dictionary.
>But don't worry. Since
> it necessarily involves humour (or
> 'humor')
I'm English so I write "humour," although my editors often take out
the u. Bawdy often, but not always, involves humour.
>there is no hope that you
> ever will.
O good. I'll give up then.
>
> But, as a test, see if you can explain
> the difference between pornography
> and bawdy.
I don't submit to tests by people who don't seem to understand the
dictionary definition of bawdy. It means lewd, vulgar, sometimes
humorous.
>
> > Why it might be acceptable for
> > Shakespeare to speak of defecation derbies but not sex is beyond my
> > comprehension.
>
> He does not speak of "defecation
> derbies", any more than he speaks of
> sex acts. He ambiguously _alludes_
> to them. There is a difference.
He often ambiguously alludes to sex acts.
>But
> again, don't try to think to hard about
> it. You are on the wrong side of the
> Atlantic for a start.
I'm certainly on the wrong side of the Atlantic to understand your
eisegeses. But I think even people in Britain are likely on the wrong
side to understand them.
>
> >>It is
> >> all DOUBLE-talk. Surely you can see
> >> the difference? One is SINGLE and the
> >> other is DOUBLE. Even a yank must
> >> be able to see that difference.
>
> > Even a Crowley must be able to remember at some point that I am not a
> > Yank.
>
> > Your other point, such as it is, is totally ridiculous, by the way.
> > You accuse others of not seeing ambiguity when you can't even
> > recognise a double entendre when it's presented to you on a plate.
> > Ooh, unfortunate image. ;)
>
> What a hopeless case you are.
> Don't you know French? It seems
> that for you the phrase 'double-
> entendre' means only 'dirty talk'.
Mon dieu, maintenant je ne comprends pas le français! Double entendre
means "A word or phrase having a double meaning, especially when the
second meaning is risqué." The last word is French. Do you understand
it?
> Ambiguity requires at least TWO
> meanings. Point out one Strat
> commentary where two (or more)
> meanings are read into these lines:
>
> > But rysing at thy name doth point out thee,
> > As his triumphant prize,proud of this pride,
It's hard in this case, I know. The sexual meaning is so overwhelming,
especially with the "rising" and "pride." "Pride" is accepted by many
scholars to have a bawdy meaning. And the subject is "he." It could
conceivably, I suppose, be involving another person, other than the I,
the thou, and the she, who rises from the bed to point out the
addressee. But that's a real stretch.
Aren't we having fun?
Mouse
Robert Stonehouse
wrote:
>On Apr 11, 5:55 pm, g...@vcn.bc.ca (Gary) wrote:
...
>> I'm still not clear on what he means by line 2. "Conscience
>> is born of love". What does that mean?
>
>Not sure at all. Maybe--one develops a conscience through loving
>someone?
...
I did try with this one! As follows:
>
>Line 2 seems to be Christian doctrine. The idea of Christian charity
>was very powerful and led to a variety of doctrines: Thomas Aquinas in
>the Summa Theologiae, II(ii) question 23, spends some time in
>refuting the more extreme ones. Charity, stemming from God, was the
>foundation of all human virtue as it related to other humans.
...
That is, the foundation of human knowledge of right and wrong and
desire to do right, is God's love for humanity instilled into us. In
fact, it does not need to be Christian. It could be based on sympathy
or something else. The poet steps aside a moment to point out a
paradox to us: love has no conscience - but where does conscience come
from? From love.
Paul Crowley
>> > You still haven't explained why it DOESN'T, at one level, mean what
>> > any intelligent person would take it to mean.
>>
>> Yes, I have -- quite fully, and in a post
>> addressed to you (10 April 2007 17:08).
>> The poet is using the language of the
>> court. The fact that you now happen
>> to see "an erotic sense" does NOT
>> mean that it is obvious, nor even the
>> most obvious.
>
> So you're now saying it may be there, although not the most obvious
> reading?
That is what I have been saying all along.
IF you see the poet as courtier (a view
barred to Strats and quasi-Strats, such as
yourself) then another reading becomes
obvious -- and at least AS obvious.
>> Remember that millions
>> (including you and me) have read the
>> "riding on the balls of mine" speech,
>> without the least awareness of its full
>> complexity of its meaning.
>
> This is much more obvious than the Bassanio speech. One has to
> scramble to find another meaning, in fact.
Only when you're a Strat or quasi-Strat.
>> It is quite probable that when penning
>> this sonnet the poet had no awareness
>> of (or had forgotten) the way in which
>> it would be read by the ignorant masses.
>> They were not his main concern -- even
>> though I think that he usually kept them
>> vaguely in mind.
>
> You're saying that Shakespeare spoke often about what was recognised
> as bawdy by the ignorant masses, but he didn't notice he was doing it?
NO, I am not. I am saying that his reading
audience consisted of courtiers -- one in
particular who was a super-courtier.
He recognised that his poems would be
read by the ignorant masses, and generally
he provided them with a reading that was
banal -- if often quite obscure. However, in
THIS case, he did not do that. The reading
he left for them -- whether deliberately or by
oversight -- is not banal; it is pornographic.
The 'courtier reading' was so obvious to him,
that he might have simply forgotten that it
would not be so to the ignorant masses.
>> > No kidding. Shakespeare uses similar double entendres himself over and
>> > over again in the sonnets. All your exegeses appear really to be
>> > eisegeses, vain attempts to explain away what is clearly in the text
>> > while substituting your own ideas.
>>
>> This is just shallow abuse. If you had
>> anything useful to say, you'd attempt
>> to attack particular readings of mine of
>> particular words, phrases and lines.
>> You don't because you can't -- like all
>> other Strats and quasi-Strats around
>> here.
>
> It's pointless. I've tried in the past.
It's a shame that you cannot quote any
instance -- except that one occasion
(1/1/07) when you asked for documentary
evidence as to the poet meanings.
> You seem to have no conception
> how *unusual* and *unlikely* some of your interpretations are.
I am fully aware of how *unusual* and
*unlikely* they are -- when viewed
through Stratfordian eyes. Can you
imagine ! I maintain that the poet was a
courtier -- and indeed -- a courtier-poet.
You'd never want to claim anything like
THAT.
>> Pornography is the graphic description
>> or illustration of sex acts and of allied
>> topics. Its sense is always undeniable.
>> Bawdy is always deniable -- at least
>> when taken instance by instance.
>
> Bawdy is usually deniable. That's why I call what Shakespeare does
> bawdy or bawdry rather than pornography.
Yet you maintain that the presence of
bawdy in these lines in undeniable --
in every possible sense. So how can
you claim that they are NOT pornography?
> > But rysing at thy name doth point out thee,
> > As his triumphant prize,proud of this pride,
>> > I talk of bawdy, in this case highly charged sexual images.
>>
>> Like almost all on that side of the
>> Atlantic you don't know what
>> bawdy is.
>
> I suggest you look the word up in a dictionary.
Dictionaries are not reliable as regards
this word. The definitions of 'bawdy' are
inherited from Victorians for whom ALL
this kind of talk was disgusting and
reprehensible. However, the world has
changed, and today most of us can
distinguish between bawdy and
pornography -- even if only a few
(and none in America) are capable of
explaining the difference.
Paul.
Willedever
to material intended to arouse sexual interest. The Sonnet is not
pornographic. The Bard is talking about his response, not aiming
particularly to stimulate yours.
"Bawdy" refers to things characteristic of a bawd - no matter whether
one is turned on by it or not.
Neither word is very fitting here.
"Prurient" would be better, since it can mean "expressing lustful
ideas."
Ms. Mouse
<slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
> X-No-archive: yes
> 1. Loue is too young to know what conscience is,
> 2. Yet who knowes not conscience is borne of loue,
> 3. Then gentle cheater vrge not my amisse,
> 4. Least guilty of my faults thy sweet selfe proue.
> 5. For thou betraying me, I doe betray
> 6. My nobler part to my grose bodies treason,
> 7. My soule doth tell my body that he may,
> 8. Triumph in loue, flesh staies no farther reason,
> 9. But rysing at thy name doth point out thee,
> 10. As his triumphant prize, proud of this pride,
> 11. He is contented thy poore drudge to be
> 12. To stand in thy affaires, fall by thy side.
> 13. No want of conscience hold it that I call,
> 14. Her loue, for whose deare loue I rise and fall.
>
> This is yet another sonnet on the
> Queen-Oxford-Raleigh triangle, and
> seems to have been written relatively
> early in that relationship.
How do you know this?
>The tone
> is primarily joking with little of the
> bitterness of later sonnets.
>
> 1. Loue is too young to know what conscience is,
>
> By 'love' here the poet primarily means
> Raleigh, who had been until recently
> his close friend.
How do you know this? In fact, "love" might well be an abstract
quality rather than a person.
>His attitude towards
> the Queen's new infatuation is largely
> one of amusement. He assumes that it
> will not last. But neither does he like
> to see Raleigh playing along with it --
> however he does not expect Raleigh to
> have any twinges of conscience. After
> all, Raleigh is there to capitalise on
> whatever slight strains of good fortune
> he might find.
>
> By 'love' the poet also means this
> infatuation.
I see. Is this what you mean by ambiguity?
> He feels that it is both too
> ridiculous and too new to give rise to
> serious concerns, but yet he is worried.
> The Queen is displaying a serious lack
> of dignity (and 'conscience') in her
> frivolous pursuit of Raleigh.
I'm not sure how we got to the Queen and Raleigh at all, except that
you have decided that they are represented in this sonnet.
>
> 2. Yet who knowes not conscience is borne of loue,
>
> If the Queen truly loved her people
> (as she constantly claimed) then her
> conscience would better inform her
> as to what she should do, and how
> she should behave.
How did the people of England suddenly get into this? I thought you
were speaking of the Queen and Raleigh?
>
> 3. Then gentle cheater vrge not my amisse,
>
> The 'gentle cheater' is, of course, the
> Queen.
Why is she? What clues you in to this?
>She had cheated the nation of
> the heir to the throne so often promised.
> The poet's 'a - misse' is Raleigh. Our poet
> requests the Queen not to encourage him.
This is pure speculation, I think. Give a reference.
The word is "amiss" not miss.
Raleigh is not "a miss." He's a mister.
If Raleigh is "a miss," how do you translate "Then gentle cheater vrge
not my amisse," which would mean, according to what you've written,
"Your majesty, who is cheating our people of an heir, urge not MY
Raleigh." Does this make sense to you?
Why have you not looked up the actual word amiss, to see what you
could eke out from it, rather than going straight to "miss," which is
not the word in the sonnet? I agree that "a-miss" could be a secondary
meaning, but it doesn't work here.
>
> 'Miss' (OED)
> 1. A kept mistress; a concubine. Less commonly, a common prostitute, whore. Obsolete.
> 1645 Evelyn Diary June, The com'on misses [at Venice] . . . go abroad bare-fac'd.
> 1662 Ibid. 9 Jan., She being taken to be the Earle of Oxford's Misse (as at this
> time they began to call lewd women).
You haven't even given evidence that "amiss" is meant to be read "a
miss" or that "a miss" is Raleigh, who is a man.
>
> The late date for the first record of this
> use (in 1645) should not be a problem;
> slang is poorly recorded.
No, let's not let anything get in the way of your exegesis.
>
> 'Cheater' plays on several senses of
> the word -- all listed here are obsolete:
> 1. a. The officer appointed to look after the king's escheats; an escheator.
> 1588 Shakes. Tit. A. v. i. 111, I play'd the Cheater for thy Fathers hand.
> 1598 I Merry W. i. iii. 77, I will be Cheaters to them both, and they shall
> bee Exchequers to mee.
> 2. A dishonest gamester, a sharper.
> 4. tame cheater: a decoy duck or other tame animal used as a decoy.
You appear to have missed "cheater" in its sense of someone who
sexually betrays another. This kind of deliberate leaving out to make
your case, if case it can be called, is what we commonly call
cheating. Where is meaning number three?
>
> 4. Least guilty of my faults thy sweet selfe proue.
>
> There is probably a pun on 'faults' /
> 'salts' (relying on the similarity of the
> long 's' to the 'f') -- this pun is made
> several other times in the sonnets.
> Here the poet is warning the Queen
> that Raleigh's affection can only lead
> to trouble -- as it did for him.
OK, so the "thou" in the poem is definitely the Queen?
>
> Oxford had felt that Raleigh had
> used him to get access to the court
> and then betrayed his friendship, by
> switching his allegiance to other
> courtiers (i.e. Leicester and Sidney).
>
> 5. For thou betraying me, I doe betray
>
> It is hard to say what Oxford's gripe is
> at this point -- there are plenty to choose
> from. The sonnet may have been written
> after Oxford's denouncement of his
> Howard cousins, where he felt that he
> did not receive the due reward from the
> Queen, instead seeming to fall under
> suspicion himself.
I'm glad you at least have some doubt here. This is probably because
you've written yourself into a corner.
>
> 6. My nobler part to my grose bodies treason,
>
> The poet puns on 'part' (almost
> predictably). Firstly he has lost his
> role as the Queen's favourite -- to this
> low cad. Secondly, he is being ironic
> about the 'nobility' of his 'bosom friend'
> whom he has just lost. The 'grose body'
> plays on Raleigh's only title as this time,
> as "Esquire of the Body Extraordinary".
OK, so Raleigh is "my gross body"?
>
> 7. My soule doth tell my body that he may,
>
> 'Soul' was a word our poet often
> attached to Raleigh in the Sonnets,
> coming from one of his favourite
> topics of conversation, his escapade
> with his cloak and the Queen's sole,
> and much else. Our poet is saying
> that Raleigh is telling himself that he
> has real chances now that the Queen
> has become so infatuated.
Aha. Raleigh doth tell himself that he may. OK. Got that.
>
> 8. Triumph in loue, flesh staies no farther reason,
>
> The real triumph would be to marry the
> Queen and become King. Our poet
> believes that, in reality, this is next to
> inconceivable, but it is worth suggesting
> that Raleigh has the prospect in mind.
How do you know?
>
> With ' . . flesh staies . .' he is implying
> that the Queen is now at, or near, meno-
> pause, and there would be no unwanted
> pregnancies.
No, flesh is clearly Raleigh, according to your exegesis. Body=flesh.
> flesh staies no farther reason,
>There is a pun on 'farther'/
> 'father': Raleigh would not become the
> father of a future king.
According to your exegesis so far, importing a little reason, you are
saying
"Raleigh is not waiting to be a father."
>In another sense,
> the Queen has no close relations who
> might stop her behaving in such a
> manner.
Oops, no, sorry. These two people are both part of the same reading.
In other words, flesh and "he," etc., can't represent both of them.
>
> 9. But rysing at thy name doth point out thee,
>
> The bawdy sense of this line is so well
> known that it is likely to strike modern
> readers as though it was obvious, but
> that impression is false.
It was obvious then too. Flesh rising?
>All courtiers
> rose when the name of the Queen was
> announced -- especially "Esquires of the
> Body Extraordinary". Their duty to
> protect the Queen operated to point her
> out.
Agreed that had you shown evidence that flesh was courtiers, as well
as Elizabeth and the young a-miss Raleigh, this could well mean that
the fortunes of courtiers rose and fell with her. Not sure about
pointing her out.
>
> 10. As his triumphant prize, proud of this pride,
>
> The Queen, of course, did not view it
> in this way; she did not see herself as
> 'a prize' -- or the possession of anyone.
That's ok, because you haven't show any evidence that this is what the
scenario is. By the way, who is "he"? I thought Raleigh was a she.
>
> 11. He is contented thy poore drudge to be
>
> As effectively the Queen's bodyguard
> most of the time, Raleigh would have
> been sent on trivial errands. Our poet
> is also making the point that -- unlike
> himself -- Raleigh is capable of little more
> than 'a drudge'.
Who is he? The "miss" who is Raleigh? You've said over and over again
in your interpretations that "she" means Raleigh, and "he" means the
Queen.
>
> 12. To stand in thy affaires, fall by thy side.
>
> Raleigh would have been asked to
> represent the Queen's interests on
> various committees, and with foreign
> ambassadors and delegations, where his
> fluent French would have been useful.
Evidence? And since you believe Oxford wrote the sonnets, wouldn't his
French have been just as helpful?
>
> 13. No want of conscience hold it that I call,
> 14. Her loue, for whose deare loue I rise and fall.
>
> The poet is being thoroughly ambiguous
> about whom here he is calling 'Love'.
Well, he would have to be, given what you have written so far about
the sonnet.
> In one sense it is the Queen, to whom
> he had devoted his life (as he would
> maintain)-- if sometimes failing to please.
I remind you that at the beginning, you said "love" represented
Raleigh.
> In a second sense, it is Raleigh whom he
> often refers to as female.
Aha, there you go. But "often refers to"? How is the reader supposed
to know when Raleigh's male and when female? Could it possibly just be
a matter of convenience, to suit your interpretation?
>Possibly he
> briefly rose in the Queen's estimation
> when he introduced Raleigh, but now
> he has been so supplanted, he has
> suffered a great fall.
>
> In a third sense it is Anne Vavasour,
Oh, she's in the sonnet too? It's getting a bit crowded.
> and he is bawdily referring to their love-
> making and, possibly also -- especially
> if this Sonnet post-dates the birth of
> their illegitimate son, and that affair has
> become known to the Queen -- the
> disastrous effects on his own social
> and political standing.
There are rules that govern ambiguity. Probably the most important one
is that you should be able to make a rational and coherent reading. In
other words, if "love" means Raleigh at the beginning, it means
Raleigh at the end. If someone is a "he," that person doesn't suddenly
become a "she" or vice versa. Otherwise, anything can mean anything,
which is what is happening in your readings. Also, the ambiguous terms
should be able to fit grammatically into a/the sentence, no matter
which meaning they're representing. The sole exception to this might
be a number of words scattered throughout the sonnet that as well as
having their usual meaning, united give the flavour of something else.
Shakespeare does this, for example, with the legal and monetary terms
we find scattered throughout his work (which are often also sexual).
Even so, many of them fit beautifully into the lines, giving a viable
alternative meaning.
On the other hand, at the very most, one could say that only you can
understand your own exegeses as you continually shift your meanings to
your "code" words, unless by some remote and thoroughly inexplicable
chance, Shakespeare did too.
Mouse
Paul Crowley
news:1177251178.5...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 21, 10:22 am, "bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net" <bobgrum...@nut-n-
> but.net> wrote:
>> In case my post got lost in the knave's tantrum, Paul, I'm posting
>> this to get the thread back on page one. I await your answer with
>> keen interest.
>>
>> --Bob G.
>
> One other thing, Paul: do you really believe that your being familiar
> with the works of almost no other poets other than Shakespeare does
> not disqualify you as a commentator on Shakespeare's poems? If so,
> why do you believe Shakespeare ought to have read all the books you
> believe he did?
>
> --Bob G.
Again, the original context is lost:
> I say children and adults like nursery rhymes but
> only adults like Shakespeare's Sonnets. Are you
> saying it's because the Sonnets have more complexity?
Yes. But the motivation is IMHO mainly
pretentiousness. Adults like to
pretend that they have grown out of
childish things.
> If so, you have indicated a difference between
> nursery rhymes and the Sonnets for adults.
It is, in this context, a relatively
minor one. Shake-speare knew exactly
what he was doing -- he was creating
"nursery rhymes for adults".
>> >> > AND because of their standard
>> >> > themes and the poet's effective treatment of those themes.
>> >> >
>> >> Nonsense. Quote a standard commentator
>> >> expatiating on one of the 'standard themes'
>> >> in any particular sonnet.
>> >>
>> > ME: Sorry, I should have said "themes recognized as standard by all
>> > interpretors of the Sonnets but Crowley." An example (from Sonnet
>> > 73):
>> >
>> > That time of year thou mayst in me behold
>> > When yellow leaves, or none, or few, do hang
>> > Upon those bough which shakes against the cold
>> > Bare ruined choirs where late the sweet brids sang
>> >
>> > Standard theme: aging.
>>
>> Is it? I doubt it. Recite it to (say) a
>> class of students, ask them to write
>> down the 'theme'; I doubt if many
>> would say 'ageing'.
> What would they say?
Ask a few people and find out;
it would be all manner of things.
>> > Other sonnets do variations on the standard
>> > theme of life's shortness compared to the longevity of art. Sonnet
>> > 18's standard theme is the superiority in value of a loved one to fine
>> > weather. Etc.
>
>> Silly.
>
> So you say, which is why arguing with you is such a waste of time.
> You automatically ask for some A, and automatically reject any attempt
> to give you an A as invalid.
I give you clear simple reasons why
you are wrong. It is not my fault that
your head is full of (Strat) bullshit.
>> > No, it is not much the same. Take:
>> >
>> > Hi diddle diddle,
>> > The cat and the fiddle;
>> > The cow jumped over the moon.
>> > The little dog laughed
>> > To see such craft,
>> > And the dish ran away with the spoon.
>> >
>> > Do you not recognize that the tone of this is different from the tone
>> > of the Aeneid?
[..]
>> > Tone in poetry is important, Paul. Do you not also
>> > see that the nursery rhyme has nothing to do with human relationships,
>> > important social events, anything genuinely archetypal, unless escape
>> > from rationality is.
You go wrong on basic facts -- one
reason being that your head is so full
of (Strat) nonsense, that you come to
believe in all manner of counter-factuals.
In fact, 'Hey, diddle, diddle'IS based on
reality. The 'cat'was Elizabeth (Mary QS
pictured her as a ginger one on her
embroidery), as was 'the moon' (also
conventional -- remember 'mortal moon').
Mary QS jumped over her when she
sailed direct to Edinburgh, without
crossing England -- to Elizabeth's
annoyance. The 'Dish' was a courtier,
responsible for serving Elizabeth, and
'the spoon'was a female royal taster --
all nobility, of course. These names
reflect their exact title or function, and
every courtier would have known who
they were -- although they knew all
about this escapade anyway.
The rhyme is so brilliant -- and the
timing just right -- that it may well have
come from our very own poet.
>> Comparing your beloved to a Summer's
>> day is likewise an escape from reality.
>
> No, Paul. A cow jumping over the moon is unreal. A comparison of a
> beloved person is not fantasy, but descriptive. The poet is saying
> that the beloved is IN SOME RESPECT like a summer's day. The beloved
> shares certain happy features with the summer's day. Nothing unreal
> about it: the beloved is soothing, like the day; the beloved is as
> beautiful as the day; etc.
>
>> When did you last compare someone to
>> a day, a week, a month, a year, a century,
>> or any other period of time, such as
>> a second, a minute or an hour?
>
> I wonder if anyone could say anything that more conclusively proved he
> knew nothing about poetry than that last statement, Paul. (1) The
> sonnet compares a loved one not to a day but to a SUMMER'S day. (2)
> There's no reason for some poet not to compare a person to a period of
> time if it made poetic sense. I might write that X is 23 hours of
> each day of my life. Or I could say that when I read the great poets,
> I am like a nano-second lost among centuries.
Except that you cannot think of any real
case -- or when you, or anyone you have
ever known, has compared anyone to
such a period. The only reason you
believe that it is a 'realistic'comparison is
because Sonnet 18 is so familiar -- and is
taken as "serious poetry".
> What does Sonnet 18 (or any of the Sonnets) have to do
> with "important social events" -- under your readings?
What is the matter with you? I have
spelled out what Sonnet 18 is about
here many times. Remember who was
'Somer'? And that 'day'and 'die'are
pronounced the same by the London
working classes?
> The writing of poetry that will last for eternity is an important
> social event.
So are nursery rhymes.
> Sonnet 18 is not about any important social event as
> far as I can tell; it's about a human relationship.
You have no idea -- and it seems to make
no difference how often you are told.
> As are most of the sonnets.
In SOME ways, that was the intention
of the poet. But he was fooling you.
Not that such an operation was in the
least difficult.
>> > Little Miss Muffet
>> > Sat on a tuffet,
>> > Eating her curds and whey.
>> > Along came a spider
>> > Who sat down beside her
>> > And scared poor Miss Muffet away.
>> >
>> > This is not nonsense, but light verse.
>>
>> Yet again, you are lost in literalism.
>> Whatever this rhyme is about, there
>> is vastly more to it than a little girl
>> sitting on a tuffet. Why do you think
>> a high proportion of nursery rhymes
>> originated as political skits?
> I'm not so sure that's true but it has nothing to do with what we've
> been talking about, which is whether adult appreciation of Miss Muffet
> (without knowing what you think you know about her) is the same as
> adult appreciation of the Sonnets (without knowing what you think you
> know about them).
In essence, it is the same. Apart from
the 'eternal themes' (which you can't list)
-- and maybe some slight 'complexity'
you have stated none.
> You can't create any poem out of nothing. The question is what you
> need to make it out of. You say important autobiographical details,
> I say all kinds of things inclduing (only sometimes) autobiographical
> details. I also say it doesn't matter what the poet uses, only what
> his poem says.
The poet is much more likely to have
something to say about his own life
and experience . . . especially if that is
at the centre of events or of the nation's
(or the world's) life. Our poet hoped to
change immediate events (by persuading
the Queen to marry). He turned out to be
wrong on that issue -- but, in fact, he got
muxh more right, in ways he did not fully
understand at the time. With the Queen
he embodied a range of attitudes and
(usually inarticulated) beliefs which now
govern the way we live -- and, far more
often than not -- the fact that we exist.
The Stratman would never have begun
to think about any such things -- for all
the manifestly obvious reasons: who he
was, the insignificance of his existence,
his being peripheral to everything, and
so on and on.
>> Once the political skit has lost its
>> context, the verse becomes mysterious
>> in an interesting way. It clearly says
>> _something_ but that meaning is not
>> accessible, leaving us with a strange
>> fantasy, that is both intangible and
>> nearly-tangible at the same time.
> We're going off-subject. Our subject is the difference between the
> way nursery rhymes are taken by adults and serious poetry is.
We are NOT going off-subject. Our
poet wrote Sonnets in a way that he
knew was very similar to that in which
nursery rhymes were created: their
superficial 'fantasy' themes come from
a reality no longer accessible to almost
all readers. He consciously did the
same, allowing even his knowledge-
able reader(s) to see what he was
doing -- and get the fantasy element.
>> The Sonnets are clearly of a similar
>> nature. They only pretend to be about
>> things like a 'summers day'.
>
> What explicit evidence do you have of this? What poet has ever
> confessed that he only pretended to say in his lyric poetry what that
> poetry clearly says on the surface, but was really talking about
> something else? Name some lyric poem of note that is "really" not
> about what it seems to be the way you claim Shakespeare's sonnets are
> not "really" about summer days and the like?
I don''t know of any as 'devious' in
this respect as Shake-speare. But he
was in a special position -- writing to
someone about certain things where
he could not allow his readers outside
a very intimate circle to know the
identities of either the poet or the
addressee, or the subject of the poem.
Most poets who write with that kind
of ambiguity want their readership
to appreciate the nature of their work,
and leave plenty of obvious clues, if
not direct statements.
>> Maybe a Sonnet is generally more
>> complex than a nursery rhyme -- big
>> deal. But it is essentially the same
>> thing. Also nursery rhymes can cover
>> the full range, and many are tragic or
>> terrifying and far from comic.
>
> Okay, demonstrate that some nursery rhyme of your choice does what I
> say Sonnet 73 does.
That is an absurd request. What you
say is garbage -- and one reason it's
garbage is that no one writes in that
way -- except maybe the truly appalling
who make some very poor attempts,
rarely published.
>> Your problem here is a near-complete
>> blindness to the depth present in
>> nursery rhymes.
>
> Right, but my blindness has been shared by every great poet or critic
> of poetry I know of. Why?
I doubt if many have ever said much on
nursery rhymes. So you are guessing.
But it's quite possible that many never
considered them seriously -- taking the
standard adult view without question.
Paul.
Gary
Hmmm....so is he saying, then, in lines 1 & 2:
Romantic/sexual love (symbolized by Cupid) is too young to know what
conscience is,
Yet who knows not that conscience is born of God's love for us?
If so, what does this philosophic rumination about the
different meanings of love have to do with the rest of the poem?
Specifically, why does he lead off line 3 with "Then"? With that
"Then", he seems to be saying that the reason why the addressee should
not 'urge his amiss' follows from what he has said in lines 1 & 2.
The problem is, if the speaker is saying what I think you would have
him say, these lines don't make much sense as a group.
I'm beginning to wonder if WdV hasn't got a point with his
idea that the meaning is something like: a guilty conscience is born
of love.
- Gary
Gary
wrote:
>Try this.....
>
>-=-=-=-
>
>1. My young lady, whom I call "Love," is too young
> to know what conscience is,
>2. Yet who can know that conscience might not
> arise from love/in Love?
>
>This is wordplay on calling a lover "my love," as though "Love" is the
>name of the lover. That's quite frequent, of course, that the person
>one loves is called "love." ("my love," "dear love," etc., and
>sometimes just "love.") The meaning of the first couplet connects to
>the last couplet, where the Poet says he calls her "love."
>
>3. Therefore, gentle deceiver, love, don't cause me
> to go amiss, in love,
>4. Lest you, love, prove guilty of my own mistake.
>
>Love is the sweet deceiver, sometimes. Love can possibly lead one
>astray.
>
>He is still using the idea of the one he calls "my love" being Love,
>itself. He's combining that love can be a sweet deceiver, and also
>his lover, "my love," could potentially be a sweet deceiver, if it
>doesn't work out.
>
>If he goes astray in love, his lover will also have gone astray. It
>will affect both of them. A love affair that does not work out
>affects both parties. He's cautioning his lover, "my love," that if
>he's guilty of a mistake in love, she will be, too.
The problem with identifying L1's "Love" with the addressee,
it seems to me, is that he would be talking about the addressee in the
third person. Then, in line 3, he suddenly starts talking directly to
the addressee. That strikes me as an odd way to proceed. I think he
is making some point about the emotion of Love (whatever type of love
it may be), and using that point in a discussion with the addressee.
>5. For, if you betray me, love, I would betray
>6. My higher moral self to my baser nature,
>
>His higher self seeks "true love." If this love turns out not to be
>"true" it would mean a betrayal of his higher self. Acting on a love
>which is not really "true" would mean aligning himself with his baser
>nature. It would be "treason" against the ideals of his higher self.
How would the addressee's faithlessness constitute a betrayal
on the part of the speaker to himself? It would be a disappointment,
or a disillusionment. But I don't see how it could be interpreted as
the speaker betraying himself, or *his* body committing treason.
>
>7. My higher self does, when it *is* love, permit
> my body to
>8. Proceed with the love affair. The body requires
> no further permission, to act.
>
>What he's talking about here, is that when his higher self thinks it
>is, indeed, love, the higher self permits the body to proceed. Higher
>self is mind/soul/judgment, whatever one takes as being in control of
>the body.
Okay.
>
>9. But, rising at they name, "love," he "points out"
> thee
>10. As his triumphant prize. Proud of this pride
>
>He now goes into bodily behavior, when the higher self permits.
Okay.
>11. He is contented thy poor drudge to be,
>12. To stand in thy affairs, fall by thy side.
>
>More about body behavior, when permitted.
Okay.
>13. Don't take it as any lack of conscience that I call
>14. Her "love," for whose dear love I rise and fall.
>
>=-=-=-=
>
>The closing couplet is addressed to the reader. It's an "aside."
Yes, I think that is the commonly accepted view of these last
two lines. At least, it was the way I was reading it until Lynne came
up with her idea.
>He's saying his conscience is fully active during all this, and he
>doesn't think he's gone astray (although he recognizes the theoretical
>possibility.) He thinks it is love, and he's right to call the young
>lady "love." His point is that he isn't calling her "love" just
>because she stimulates him. He's well aware of the various
>considerations, and he sincerely thinks it is "true love."
I think most of us agree that he is calling some woman "love"
in the couplet.
>His lover is female. There is no Fair Youth in this Sonnet. Nor is
>there anything of the Dark Lady. His young lady love is "too young to
>know what conscience is." She's very young, so he's considering the
>subject of conscience on her behalf.
On this we disagree.
- Gary
Gary
wrote:
>On Apr 11, 4:55 pm, g...@vcn.bc.ca (Gary) wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm still not clear on what he means by line 2. "Conscience
>> is born of love". What does that mean?
>
>It means a guilty conscience can arise from love.
Okay, maybe, why not.
>>
>> In any event, it does seem
>> clear that someone is accusing the speaker of something to do with
>> conscience.
>
>That's wrong.
Why is it wrong? In L13 the speaker says:
No want of conscience hold it that I call
Her 'love'...
To me, it seems quite likely that someone *has* accused him of
a want of conscience because he has called some woman 'love', and he
is defending himself against that accusation.
>>
>> So who is this woman who he has called "love", and who is
>> criticizing him for it, and why?
>
>The woman is his young lady love. Nobody has criticized him for it.
I would suggest that the whole poem may be a reaction to the
criticism.
>>
>> ... I can't go along with WdV's idea that
>> there may be two addressees in these lines.
>
>That's because you don't understand the Sonnet.
Or is it because you don't understand the Sonnet, and have to
fall back on a morphing addressee in order to make your paraphrase
work? Crowley does that all the time, and it's one of the reasons I
think his paraphrases are wrong.
>
>>
>> The speaker describes the addressee as "gentle cheater" and
>> "sweet self". As Lynne pointed out, these sound very much like the
>> terms the speaker has previously used in describing the FYM.
>
>No, they don't sound like that, at least not to anybody who can read.
What about, to pick one out at random, Sonnet 63's "my sweet
love's beauty"? Or "I do forgive thy robb'ry, gentle thief" from
Sonnet 40?
>>
>> I read L3's "urge not my amiss" to mean something like: Don't
>> criticize my apparent failing. I've noted that others read that
>> phrase differently.
>
>It means "don't press me to go awry."
From KDJ's gloss of the poem:
urge not: do not charge me strongly with, or press a strong claim
for; see OED urge 3c, 9a.
>>
>> The speaker accuses the addressee of betraying him.
>
>No, he doesn't.
Yes he does. Or at least, he might be.
>> And what
>> is the addressee's betrayal?
>
>There isn't any.
There may be.
>
>>
>> Because the addressee has betrayed him,
>
>No, she hasn't.
Yes, she may have. (I enjoy these insightful discussions.
Don't you?)
>
>>
>> the speaker seems to
>> feel justified in doing....what? The speaker says that, in response
>> to the addressee's betrayal, he, the speaker, will betray his nobler
>> part to his body's treason. What is this nobler part? Is it the soul
>> of L7 that gives permission to the body to triumph in love? Seems
>> unlikely, given that the soul is giving permission rather than being
>> betrayed. Then what? The speaker's mind, perhaps, as opposed to his
>> soul and body? Perhaps.
>
>Gary, take a deep breath.
Will do.
>
>>
>> And what is the result of the speaker's betrayal?
>
>None, because there isn't any.
There may be.
> You're reading it wrong.
That is certainly possible.
>
>> ... If Lynne is correct in her idea that the addressee of L3 -
>> 12 is the FYM,
>
>Lynne is wrong, and it's a stupid idea.
I thought it was quite ingenious.
>
>> ... But
>> if so, how is that an understandable response to the addressee's
>> initial betrayal of the speaker?
>
>There isn't any betrayal. You've read it wrong.
Perhaps. But I'd like a bit more info on where I've read it
wrong.
>
>>
>> I still think, though, that Lynne may be on the right track.
>
>There's not a chance. Lynne's crazy notion is only that.
Or she may have nailed a reading that has been missed by many,
many people.
>>
>> This poem may be about a homosexual lovers' spat.
>
>That's insane. It's a crazy idea. It's as crazy as anything Paul has
>written, or more.
Harrumph! I don't mind one of my ideas being described as
crazy. But to say it's as crazy, or more, as anything Paul has
written is really going too far, sir!
Indignantly yours,
Gary
Willedever
> The problem with identifying L1's "Love" with the addressee,
> it seems to me, is that he would be talking about the addressee in the
> third person. Then, in line 3, he suddenly starts talking directly to
> the addressee. That strikes me as an odd way to proceed.
As I look at it more.....
"Love," the first word of the Sonnet, is ambiguous. It means both
Love with a capital-L, and it also means his young lady love, at the
same time. The latter is established by the closing couplet, where he
says he calls her "love."
So that first word, Love, is both the ideal, and also her. Both
meanings apply, simultaneously.
In the first couplet, he's both addressing her, and speaking of the
ideal, at the same time, so it's no abrupt transition when he
continues.
In the second couplet, he's still using that same ambiguity. "Gentle
cheater" means both capital-L "Love," and his lady love, at the same
time. A real lady can (potentially) be a gentle cheater, and Love,
itself can (potentially) be a gentle cheater, too, if it leads one
amiss.
Love, personified, is a "sweet self," and his human lady love is a
"sweet self." Same ambiguity there. And the ambiguity, in the
meaning of "love," continues up to the closing couplet. It can be
read all the way through the first twelve lines.
A complete paraphrase would have to be two paraphrases, side by side,
one dealing with capital-L Love, and the other with the human lady
love. A single paraphrase won't do the job, on this Sonnet.
Think of the addressee as being a dual entity, both cap-L Love, and
the lady love, at the same time. That isn't really so difficult,
because it's the same kind of thing Cupid is.
Cupid is both the concept of Love, and a human entity,
simultaneously. Just substitute a real young lady in place of Cupid.
Use the young lady to personify Love. Then you'll get both the
concept of Love, and a real person you could call "love," in the same
entity.
He's substituted his young lady in place of Cupid. That gives him,
simultaneously, in the same figure, both the Love concept, and his
real lady whom he calls (my) "love."
You can try it at home. :-) Substitute your girlfriend in place of
Cupid, as the personification of "Love." After doing that, when you
say "love" you'll mean both "Love" and (my) love, at the same time.
And when you say "thou" you'll be addressing both your girlfriend, and
Love, at the same time.
It's very nice, the way he's done it. But basically it's simple
enough. Essentially, he's using his lady love as the personification
of "Love," so that when he says "love" he means both.
> How would the addressee's faithlessness constitute a betrayal
> on the part of the speaker to himself?
The logic is.....
If love sends him astray, "betrays him," that is, then in his sexual
activity he'll act with his body, but it will turn out contrary to his
moral sense. He'll have gone "amiss," in something that isn't true
love.
His body will have acted against his moral sense of true love. And in
his behavior he will have sided with his body, against his moral
sense.
So he'll have betrayed his own moral sense. There's the betrayal of
himself - *IF* he goes "amiss" in love.
And then, going contrary to one's moral sense leads to a guilty
conscience. Thus the mention of conscience.
It's quite a Sonnet, conceptually intricate, and much tougher to
handle than it appears at first.
It's no Fair Youth Sonnet, unless the FY had a sex change operation.
This "young love" is a her.
It's very unlikely to be a Dark Lady Sonnet, unless it's way out of
order, and should be the first one of the series, long before he
thought her "foul" and she drove him "mad." This lady, to him, is
gentle, sweet, young, dear "love."
Willedever
> Or is it because you don't understand the Sonnet, and have to
> fall back on a morphing addressee in order to make your paraphrase
> work?
You go ahead and write a paraphrase, of the whole Sonnet. You've been
around for 150 of them, haven't you? You should be able to do that by
now.
> >> ... If Lynne is correct in her idea that the addressee of L3 -
> >> 12 is the FYM,
>
> >Lynne is wrong, and it's a stupid idea.
>
> I thought it was quite ingenious.
It is not ingenious to think the FY is a her.
> >> I still think, though, that Lynne may be on the right track.
>
> >There's not a chance. Lynne's crazy notion is only that.
>
> Or she may have nailed a reading that has been missed by many,
> many people.
A reading that the Fair Youth is a woman? How is "she" going to set
maiden gardens, to produce an heir? "Nailing" is not the word for it.
Lynne wanders by proposing that the Fair Youth is a "her," then she
goes and tries to give Crowley a hard time about Raleigh being a
"miss." It's loopy.
Robert Stonehouse
Not too much. For one thing, we can hardly ever get any idea of what
one of the sonnets is about by reading the first two lines. Typically,
Shakespeare makes it look as if he was starting out in one direction,
and then proceeds in a completely different one. He sets traps for us.
We have to fall into them and then retreat and find our way round
them. It is part of the experience the poet intends for us.
Secondly, separately but not very differently, we have the word 'love'
coming up repeatedly. I still contend that when Shakespeare uses a
word twice, he uses it in different senses. (I used to say it as a
challenge: 'always', but now I would allow there may be one or two
counter-instances in the sonnets.) So the 'different meanings' point
is again typical of Shakespeare's technique.
>Specifically, why does he lead off line 3 with "Then"? With that
>"Then", he seems to be saying that the reason why the addressee should
>not 'urge his amiss' follows from what he has said in lines 1 & 2.
>The problem is, if the speaker is saying what I think you would have
>him say, these lines don't make much sense as a group.
Another point about Shakespeare. He is not a logician, although in a
more modern sense he seems to me to be a philosopher. Sometimes he
writes what looks like a syllogism, but it is never logically valid.
He varies the meaning of his words to stop it working. He is an
anti-logician. His arguments work in terms of feeling, not logic.
>
> I'm beginning to wonder if WdV hasn't got a point with his
>idea that the meaning is something like: a guilty conscience is born
>of love.
It would spoil the paradoxical opposition in the first two lines.
Paul Crowley
While I will deal with your other
points later, your core problem seems
to be near-total confusion over the
question of ambiguity.
> There are rules that govern ambiguity. Probably the most important one
> is that you should be able to make a rational and coherent reading.
Where on earth do you get this doctrine?
It is fine for scientific papers and police
reports. I reckon that you have spent
far too much time in the wild west.
Another origin of your problems is your
daft respect for Stratfordian 'scholars'.
> In other words, if "love" means Raleigh at the beginning,
> it means Raleigh at the end.
It would seem that you have never
heard or read any kind of even slightly
extended ambiguous statement -- such
as most males regularly hear from their
spouses, or all of us hear from bankers
politicians, etc., (if you ever listen).
> If someone is a "he," that person doesn't suddenly
> become a "she" or vice versa.
Nonsense. The 'she' is an insult,
thrown in whenever convenient.
Here it is to fit the poet's intense
use of ambiguity. You have not the
faintest grasp of its nature.
> Otherwise, anything can mean anything,
On the contrary, there are only three
people in this sonnet -- and in a large
number of others. The conventions
of describing them, particularly the
Rival, become close to hackneyed.
Your criticism might have some force
if I claimed that this was the only
sonnet to cover the Queen-Oxford-
Raleigh triangle. If this sonnet could
be taken on its own, I would probably
have little justification for reading
'she' references as Raleigh.
But that is not the case. The Strat
argument (which you support) is that
Raleigh or the Queen are no more
present in these sonnets than are Bill
Clinton and Monica Lewinsky; that
my claims (in this respect) are insane.
The positions could not be more
opposed. Your petty 'objections' fail
to recognise this huge dichotomy.
If your case was based on reality,
you would easily find massive and
overwhelming arguments.
Paul Crowley
news:1176482494.1...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>> 1. Loue is too young to know what conscience is,
>> 2. Yet who knowes not conscience is borne of loue,
>> 3. Then gentle cheater vrge not my amisse,
>> 4. Least guilty of my faults thy sweet selfe proue.
>> 5. For thou betraying me, I doe betray
>> 6. My nobler part to my grose bodies treason,
>> 7. My soule doth tell my body that he may,
>> 8. Triumph in loue, flesh staies no farther reason,
>> 9. But rysing at thy name doth point out thee,
>> 10. As his triumphant prize, proud of this pride,
>> 11. He is contented thy poore drudge to be
>> 12. To stand in thy affaires, fall by thy side.
>> 13. No want of conscience hold it that I call,
>> 14. Her loue, for whose deare loue I rise and fall.
>>
>> This is yet another sonnet on the
>> Queen-Oxford-Raleigh triangle, and
>> seems to have been written relatively
>> early in that relationship.
>
> How do you know this?
You have a remarkable talent for wildly
inappropriate questions. This is from
Robert Stonehouse's exegesis. Would
you direct the same question to him?
>||>>>Love is too young to know what conscience is,
>||> Cupid is only a baby and knows nothing about self-restraint,
. . . . How does Robert know this?
>> 1. Loue is too young to know what conscience is,
>>
>> By 'love' here the poet primarily means
>> Raleigh, who had been until recently
>> his close friend.
>
> How do you know this? In fact, "love" might well be an abstract
> quality rather than a person.
Our poet does not write silly nonsense
on abstractions. That's the province
of the truly bad.
>>His attitude towards
>> the Queen's new infatuation is largely
>> one of amusement. He assumes that it
>> will not last. But neither does he like
>> to see Raleigh playing along with it --
>> however he does not expect Raleigh to
>> have any twinges of conscience. After
>> all, Raleigh is there to capitalise on
>> whatever slight strains of good fortune
>> he might find.
>>
>> By 'love' the poet also means this
>> infatuation.
>
> I see. Is this what you mean by ambiguity?
Yes. Glad to see you manage to get
the point.
>> He feels that it is both too
>> ridiculous and too new to give rise to
>> serious concerns, but yet he is worried.
>> The Queen is displaying a serious lack
>> of dignity (and 'conscience') in her
>> frivolous pursuit of Raleigh.
>
> I'm not sure how we got to the Queen and Raleigh at all, except that
> you have decided that they are represented in this sonnet.
>>
>> 2. Yet who knowes not conscience is borne of loue,
>>
>> If the Queen truly loved her people
>> (as she constantly claimed) then her
>> conscience would better inform her
>> as to what she should do, and how
>> she should behave.
>
> How did the people of England suddenly get into this? I thought you
> were speaking of the Queen and Raleigh?
>>
>> 3. Then gentle cheater vrge not my amisse,
>>
>> The 'gentle cheater' is, of course, the
>> Queen.
>
> Why is she? What clues you in to this?
A very high proportion of the Sonnets
are directly addressed to the Queen.
>>She had cheated the nation of
>> the heir to the throne so often promised.
>> The poet's 'a - misse' is Raleigh. Our poet
>> requests the Queen not to encourage him.
>
> This is pure speculation, I think.
Eh? What exactly are you doubting?
> Give a reference.
A reference for what?
> The word is "amiss" not miss.
Agreed. There is ALSO a play on the
French for 'friend': "ami". Here the
poet converts it into a fake feminine
version.
> Raleigh is not "a miss." He's a mister.
The poet often refers to him as a female:
alluding to his good looks, his long
hair (quite unfashionable up to its
introduction by Raleigh), his use of
earrings, rouge and perfume, and his
elaborate dress.
> If Raleigh is "a miss," how do you translate "Then gentle cheater vrge
> not my amisse," which would mean, according to what you've written,
> "Your majesty, who is cheating our people of an heir, urge not MY
> Raleigh." Does this make sense to you?
This is pathetic. It's the ancient red-
neck line that used to be so common
around here: "Ambiguity is Impossible".
I thought we had got over that.
> Why have you not looked up the actual word amiss, to see what you
> could eke out from it, rather than going straight to "miss," which is
> not the word in the sonnet? I agree that "a-miss" could be a secondary
> meaning, but it doesn't work here.
Our poet also commonly refers to his
rival / replacement as a common thing
-- not deserving a 'the', but to be
referenced by the indefinite article.
He does this with 'a petite' in Sonnets
56, 110, 118, 147; "a boundance' in
Sonnet 1, 23, 135, "a taint" in Sonnet
82; 'a prill' in Sonnets 21, 98, 104;
'a pier' in Sonnet 102, 'a like' in Sonnet
105, and 'a side' in Sonnet 139,
>> 'Miss' (OED)
>> 1. A kept mistress; a concubine. Less commonly, a common prostitute, whore. Obsolete.
>> 1645 Evelyn Diary June, The com'on misses [at Venice] . . . go abroad bare-fac'd.
>> 1662 Ibid. 9 Jan., She being taken to be the Earle of Oxford's Misse (as at this
>> time they began to call lewd women).
>
> You haven't even given evidence that "amiss" is meant to be read "a
> miss" or that "a miss" is Raleigh, who is a man.
I'm sure that the only evidence you'd
accept would be a signed and witnessed
affidavit from the poet. If not, please
say what you might find acceptable.
>> 'Cheater' plays on several senses of
>> the word -- all listed here are obsolete:
>> 1. a. The officer appointed to look after the king's escheats; an escheator.
>> 1588 Shakes. Tit. A. v. i. 111, I play'd the Cheater for thy Fathers hand.
>> 1598 I Merry W. i. iii. 77, I will be Cheaters to them both, and they shall
>> bee Exchequers to mee.
>> 2. A dishonest gamester, a sharper.
>> 4. tame cheater: a decoy duck or other tame animal used as a decoy.
>
> You appear to have missed "cheater" in its sense of someone who
> sexually betrays another. This kind of deliberate leaving out to make
> your case, if case it can be called, is what we commonly call
> cheating. Where is meaning number three?
Unlilke you (and the Strats) I try to avoid
discussing the obvious. We all know
what 'a cheater' is in the ordinary modern
usage.
>> 6. My nobler part to my grose bodies treason,
>>
>> The poet puns on 'part' (almost
>> predictably). Firstly he has lost his
>> role as the Queen's favourite -- to this
>> low cad. Secondly, he is being ironic
>> about the 'nobility' of his 'bosom friend'
>> whom he has just lost. The 'grose body'
>> plays on Raleigh's only title as this time,
>> as "Esquire of the Body Extraordinary".
>
> OK, so Raleigh is "my gross body"?
Yes and No. (Can you cope with such
and answer? Will your brain refuse
to compute?)
>> 8. Triumph in loue, flesh staies no farther reason,
>>
>> The real triumph would be to marry the
>> Queen and become King. Our poet
>> believes that, in reality, this is next to
>> inconceivable, but it is worth suggesting
>> that Raleigh has the prospect in mind.
>
> How do you know?
How do I know what -- exactly?
Are you asking about history
or about a reading of the words
of the sonnet?
>> With ' . . flesh staies . .' he is implying
>> that the Queen is now at, or near, meno-
>> pause, and there would be no unwanted
>> pregnancies.
>
> No, flesh is clearly Raleigh, according to your exegesis. Body=flesh.
You should not be so simple-minded.
(Sorry, that's a silly thing to say to
a quasi-Strat.)
>> flesh staies no farther reason,
>
>>There is a pun on 'farther'/
>> 'father': Raleigh would not become the
>> father of a future king.
>
> According to your exegesis so far, importing a little reason, you are
> saying
>
> "Raleigh is not waiting to be a father."
Quasi-Strats should not seek to
'import a little reason'.
>>In another sense,
>> the Queen has no close relations who
>> might stop her behaving in such a
>> manner.
>
> Oops, no, sorry. These two people are both part of the same reading.
> In other words, flesh and "he," etc., can't represent both of them.
Never heard of 'ambiguity' then?
God help us.
>> 12. To stand in thy affaires, fall by thy side.
>>
>> Raleigh would have been asked to
>> represent the Queen's interests on
>> various committees, and with foreign
>> ambassadors and delegations, where his
>> fluent French would have been useful.
>
> Evidence? And since you believe Oxford wrote the sonnets, wouldn't his
> French have been just as helpful?
It would help if you knew some history.
At this point Oxford was NOT the
favourite (being in disgrace -- to a
greater or lesser degree) and he would
not have been asked to perform duties
of an ambassadorial nature.
>> In a third sense it is Anne Vavasour,
>
> Oh, she's in the sonnet too? It's getting a bit crowded.
The poet tried to write about as much
as possible at the same time.
> There are rules that govern ambiguity.
Hopeless.
Paul.
Gary
wrote:
>On Apr 13, 6:23 pm, g...@vcn.bc.ca (Gary) wrote:
>
>> The problem with identifying L1's "Love" with the addressee,
>> it seems to me, is that he would be talking about the addressee in the
>> third person. Then, in line 3, he suddenly starts talking directly to
>> the addressee. That strikes me as an odd way to proceed.
>
>As I look at it more.....
>
>"Love," the first word of the Sonnet, is ambiguous. It means both
>Love with a capital-L, and it also means his young lady love, at the
>same time.
Let's suppose that you're right - that "Love" refers to two
addresses at the same time. The problem (for me) remains: Why is he
talking *about* the addressee(s) in the third person in the first two
lines, and then suddenly addressing them directly in the next 10
lines?
>The latter is established by the closing couplet, where he
>says he calls her "love."
That's an interesting point.
SNIP
- Gary
Gary
wrote:
>On Apr 13, 6:23 pm, g...@vcn.bc.ca (Gary) wrote:
>
>> Or is it because you don't understand the Sonnet, and have to
>> fall back on a morphing addressee in order to make your paraphrase
>> work?
>
>You go ahead and write a paraphrase, of the whole Sonnet. You've been
>around for 150 of them, haven't you? You should be able to do that by
>now.
I have been around for 150 of them, and I have written the
occasional paraphrase. But I have to admit, I can't do a complete
paraphrase of this one. Still too many questions for me, despite the
efforts of yourself, Robert and Lynne.
>> >> ... If Lynne is correct in her idea that the addressee of L3 -
>> >> 12 is the FYM,
>>
>> >Lynne is wrong, and it's a stupid idea.
>>
>> I thought it was quite ingenious.
>
>It is not ingenious to think the FY is a her.
But she's not suggesting that the FY is a female.
>> >> I still think, though, that Lynne may be on the right track.
>>
>> >There's not a chance. Lynne's crazy notion is only that.
>>
>> Or she may have nailed a reading that has been missed by many,
>> many people.
>
>A reading that the Fair Youth is a woman? How is "she" going to set
>maiden gardens, to produce an heir? "Nailing" is not the word for it.
>
>Lynne wanders by proposing that the Fair Youth is a "her," then she
>goes and tries to give Crowley a hard time about Raleigh being a
>"miss." It's loopy.
Again, Lynne is not suggesting that the Fair Youth is the
"Her" of L14. I believe she is saying the FY is the addressee of L3 -
12. The "Her" of line 14 is a third person, in addition to the
speaker and the FY. She is probably the DL. Whoever this "Her" is,
she is in love with the FY. The FY is the "dear love" (L14) of this
"Her", and is the person for whom the speaker "rise[s] and fall[s]".
Does this make things any clearer?
The possible scenario behind this poem is that the FY is upset
and jealous with the speaker because the speaker has called the DL his
love. And so the speaker is trying to explain himself out of a jam.
The problem I have with this general reading or scenario is L5
& 6. I can't see how they can be paraphrased in any sensible way to
go with the flow of the rest of the poem based on this scenario.
- Gary
Ms. Mouse
On Apr 14, 2:13 pm, "Paul Crowley"
<slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
> "Ms. Mouse" <lynnekosit...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1176482494.1...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> >> 1. Loue is too young to know what conscience is,
> >> 2. Yet who knowes not conscience is borne of loue,
> >> 3. Then gentle cheater vrge not my amisse,
> >> 4. Least guilty of my faults thy sweet selfe proue.
> >> 5. For thou betraying me, I doe betray
> >> 6. My nobler part to my grose bodies treason,
> >> 7. My soule doth tell my body that he may,
> >> 8. Triumph in loue, flesh staies no farther reason,
> >> 9. But rysing at thy name doth point out thee,
> >> 10. As his triumphant prize, proud of this pride,
> >> 11. He is contented thy poore drudge to be
> >> 12. To stand in thy affaires, fall by thy side.
> >> 13. No want of conscience hold it that I call,
> >> 14. Her loue, for whose deare loue I rise and fall.
>
> >> This is yet another sonnet on the
> >> Queen-Oxford-Raleigh triangle, and
> >> seems to have been written relatively
> >> early in that relationship.
>
> > How do you know this?
>
> You have a remarkable talent for wildly
> inappropriate questions.
So my husband tells me. But I don't think this inappropriate. You are
saying the sonnet is written early in a particular relationship. You
say what the relationship is. I was wondering where your evidence
comes from, except out of your head.
This is from
> Robert Stonehouse's exegesis. Would
> you direct the same question to him?
I might. I've questioned Robert's interpretations at times. But Robert
is very sensible, and I see his "Cupid" as a figure of speech for an
abstract quality in this case. Besides, he's not saying: "This sonnet
took place on a cold and snowy Sunday morning, 1582, at 5.35 am, when
the Queen, who had frozen toes and constipation, was sitting in her
closet entertaining Raleigh before he went to sea while the poet, who
was the courtier Oxford, counted her bowel movements..." If that were
the case, I would be asking for evidence from Robert also.
>
> >||>>>Love is too young to know what conscience is,
> >||> Cupid is only a baby and knows nothing about self-restraint,
>
> . . . . How does Robert know this?
>
> >> 1. Loue is too young to know what conscience is,
>
> >> By 'love' here the poet primarily means
> >> Raleigh, who had been until recently
> >> his close friend.
>
> > How do you know this? In fact, "love" might well be an abstract
> > quality rather than a person.
>
> Our poet does not write silly nonsense
> on abstractions. That's the province
> of the truly bad.
This is only your opinion. And a strange opinion it is too, seeing as
you have never met the poet.
What does this mean,
"Love is not love which alters where it alteration finds..."
if "love" is not an abstract quality?
>
> >>His attitude towards
> >> the Queen's new infatuation is largely
> >> one of amusement. He assumes that it
> >> will not last. But neither does he like
> >> to see Raleigh playing along with it --
> >> however he does not expect Raleigh to
> >> have any twinges of conscience. After
> >> all, Raleigh is there to capitalise on
> >> whatever slight strains of good fortune
> >> he might find.
>
> >> By 'love' the poet also means this
> >> infatuation.
>
> > I see. Is this what you mean by ambiguity?
>
> Yes. Glad to see you manage to get
> the point.
Um, isn't love meaning infatuation an abstract quality? I thought the
poet doesn't write "silly nonsense on abstractions."
>
>
>
>
>
> >> He feels that it is both too
> >> ridiculous and too new to give rise to
> >> serious concerns, but yet he is worried.
> >> The Queen is displaying a serious lack
> >> of dignity (and 'conscience') in her
> >> frivolous pursuit of Raleigh.
>
> > I'm not sure how we got to the Queen and Raleigh at all, except that
> > you have decided that they are represented in this sonnet.
No response on this?
>
> >> 2. Yet who knowes not conscience is borne of loue,
>
> >> If the Queen truly loved her people
> >> (as she constantly claimed) then her
> >> conscience would better inform her
> >> as to what she should do, and how
> >> she should behave.
>
> > How did the people of England suddenly get into this? I thought you
> > were speaking of the Queen and Raleigh?
No response on this?
>
> >> 3. Then gentle cheater vrge not my amisse,
>
> >> The 'gentle cheater' is, of course, the
> >> Queen.
>
> > Why is she? What clues you in to this?
>
> A very high proportion of the Sonnets
> are directly addressed to the Queen.
What evidence do you have for this? I grant it's possible, especially
in the DL sonnets, but by no means definitely so.
>
> >>She had cheated the nation of
> >> the heir to the throne so often promised.
> >> The poet's 'a - misse' is Raleigh. Our poet
> >> requests the Queen not to encourage him.
>
> > This is pure speculation, I think.
>
> Eh? What exactly are you doubting?
That the lines are about the Queen
That she or the poet feels she has cheated the nation of an heir
That Raleigh is "a-misse" or even necessarily in the sonnet
That the poet is requesting the Queen not to encourage him.
>
> > Give a reference.
>
> A reference for what?
For any of the statements I've given above.
>
> > The word is "amiss" not miss.
>
> Agreed. There is ALSO a play on the
> French for 'friend': "ami". Here the
> poet converts it into a fake feminine
> version.
Where is there a play on "ami"? Ah, me, surely not "amiss," which is
pronounced entirely differently?
>
> > Raleigh is not "a miss." He's a mister.
>
> The poet often refers to him as a female:
> alluding to his good looks, his long
> hair (quite unfashionable up to its
> introduction by Raleigh), his use of
> earrings, rouge and perfume, and his
> elaborate dress.
Why would the poet to allude to this as a negative if he is Oxford?
Oxford was well known for the same kinds of traits.
And again, how do you know he's speaking of Raleigh? I believe
Southampton was very feminine, as, no doubt, were others.
And how would the reader ever know he's speaking of Raleigh or any
other specific person if he alludes to him as both male and female
depending on your whim? And speaking of the queen as both male and
female also? In fact, how would the reader work out that anyone is
anyone?
>
> > If Raleigh is "a miss," how do you translate "Then gentle cheater vrge
> > not my amisse," which would mean, according to what you've written,
> > "Your majesty, who is cheating our people of an heir, urge not MY
> > Raleigh." Does this make sense to you?
>
> This is pathetic. It's the ancient red-
> neck line that used to be so common
> around here: "Ambiguity is Impossible".
> I thought we had got over that.
This is nothing to do with whether ambiguity is impossible. That's
just an excuse of yours. People don't accept your eisegeses? They
don't know anything about ambiguity. Off with their heads!
But as it happens, my own poems are often extremely ambiguous. This
discussion, in fact, has nothing to do with ambiguity in general, but
whether this particular piece of what *you* call ambiguity is
impossible. "A miss" does not fit grammatically into the sentence:
"Gentle cheater, urge not my a miss."
Huh?
>
> > Why have you not looked up the actual word amiss, to see what you
> > could eke out from it, rather than going straight to "miss," which is
> > not the word in the sonnet? I agree that "a-miss" could be a secondary
> > meaning, but it doesn't work here.
>
> Our poet also commonly refers to his
> rival / replacement as a common thing
> -- not deserving a 'the', but to be
> referenced by the indefinite article.
> He does this with 'a petite' in Sonnets
> 56, 110, 118, 147; "a boundance' in
> Sonnet 1, 23, 135, "a taint" in Sonnet
> 82; 'a prill' in Sonnets 21, 98, 104;
> 'a pier' in Sonnet 102, 'a like' in Sonnet
> 105, and 'a side' in Sonnet 139,
Evidence that these "ambiguities" are in fact meant by the poet and
are about Raleigh?
>
> >> 'Miss' (OED)
> >> 1. A kept mistress; a concubine. Less commonly, a common prostitute, whore. Obsolete.
> >> 1645 Evelyn Diary June, The com'on misses [at Venice] . . . go abroad bare-fac'd.
> >> 1662 Ibid. 9 Jan., She being taken to be the Earle of Oxford's Misse (as at this
> >> time they began to call lewd women).
>
> > You haven't even given evidence that "amiss" is meant to be read "a
> > miss" or that "a miss" is Raleigh, who is a man.
>
> I'm sure that the only evidence you'd
> accept would be a signed and witnessed
> affidavit from the poet. If not, please
> say what you might find acceptable.
Well, I'd certainly find it more likely if you didn't say the poet
calls Raleigh both a him and a her in the same sonnet, and if your
emendation of "amiss" made grammatical sense. Even then, though, it
would be speculative.
>
> >> 'Cheater' plays on several senses of
> >> the word -- all listed here are obsolete:
> >> 1. a. The officer appointed to look after the king's escheats; an escheator.
> >> 1588 Shakes. Tit. A. v. i. 111, I play'd the Cheater for thy Fathers hand.
> >> 1598 I Merry W. i. iii. 77, I will be Cheaters to them both, and they shall
> >> bee Exchequers to mee.
> >> 2. A dishonest gamester, a sharper.
> >> 4. tame cheater: a decoy duck or other tame animal used as a decoy.
>
> > You appear to have missed "cheater" in its sense of someone who
> > sexually betrays another. This kind of deliberate leaving out to make
> > your case, if case it can be called, is what we commonly call
> > cheating. Where is meaning number three?
>
> Unlilke you (and the Strats) I try to avoid
> discussing the obvious. We all know
> what 'a cheater' is in the ordinary modern
> usage.
You've said I'm very thick. You've said the Strats here are very
thick. Therefore, you need to spell everything out for us. But the
truth is that "cheater" in its plainest usage goes to my
interpretation, not yours, so it was more helpful to you to leave it
out.
>
> >> 6. My nobler part to my grose bodies treason,
>
> >> The poet puns on 'part' (almost
> >> predictably). Firstly he has lost his
> >> role as the Queen's favourite -- to this
> >> low cad. Secondly, he is being ironic
> >> about the 'nobility' of his 'bosom friend'
> >> whom he has just lost. The 'grose body'
> >> plays on Raleigh's only title as this time,
> >> as "Esquire of the Body Extraordinary".
>
> > OK, so Raleigh is "my gross body"?
>
> Yes and No. (Can you cope with such
> and answer? Will your brain refuse
> to compute?)
Well, how is he "my gross body," and how is he not?
>
> >> 8. Triumph in loue, flesh staies no farther reason,
>
> >> The real triumph would be to marry the
> >> Queen and become King. Our poet
> >> believes that, in reality, this is next to
> >> inconceivable, but it is worth suggesting
> >> that Raleigh has the prospect in mind.
>
> > How do you know?
>
> How do I know what -- exactly?
> Are you asking about history
> or about a reading of the words
> of the sonnet?
How do you know that he wanted to marry the queen and become king?
How do you know that this is Raleigh anyway?
How do you know that the poet thought this inconceivable?
How do you know that this is a correct reading?
Not to press the point, but "etcetera."
>
> >> With ' . . flesh staies . .' he is implying
> >> that the Queen is now at, or near, meno-
> >> pause, and there would be no unwanted
> >> pregnancies.
>
> > No, flesh is clearly Raleigh, according to your exegesis. Body=flesh.
>
> You should not be so simple-minded.
> (Sorry, that's a silly thing to say to
> a quasi-Strat.)
Yes, it is. "Flesh," according to the structure of the sentence, is a
synonym/replacement noun for "body," (as well as being a well-known
replacement for the word penis). So how come it's simple-minded to
say so?
>
> >> flesh staies no farther reason,
>
> >>There is a pun on 'farther'/
> >> 'father': Raleigh would not become the
> >> father of a future king.
>
> > According to your exegesis so far, importing a little reason, you are
> > saying
>
> > "Raleigh is not waiting to be a father."
>
> Quasi-Strats should not seek to
> 'import a little reason'.
You're right. It's useless in this case.
>
> >>In another sense,
> >> the Queen has no close relations who
> >> might stop her behaving in such a
> >> manner.
>
> > Oops, no, sorry. These two people are both part of the same reading.
> > In other words, flesh and "he," etc., can't represent both of them.
>
> Never heard of 'ambiguity' then?
In the same reading, it would be highly unlikely for two characters to
both be represented by the same word, I imagine. But not impossible,
you're right. Give well-known instances of this and a grammatical
reading in both cases and I'll accept it.
>
> God help us.
>
> >> 12. To stand in thy affaires, fall by thy side.
>
> >> Raleigh would have been asked to
> >> represent the Queen's interests on
> >> various committees, and with foreign
> >> ambassadors and delegations, where his
> >> fluent French would have been useful.
>
> > Evidence? And since you believe Oxford wrote the sonnets, wouldn't his
> > French have been just as helpful?
>
> It would help if you knew some history.
> At this point Oxford was NOT the
> favourite (being in disgrace -- to a
> greater or lesser degree) and he would
> not have been asked to perform duties
> of an ambassadorial nature.
At which point? What year was this sonnet written? Give evidence for
your opinion. Apart from your just abitrarily deciding it fits your
scenario, I mean.
>
> >> In a third sense it is Anne Vavasour,
>
> > Oh, she's in the sonnet too? It's getting a bit crowded.
>
> The poet tried to write about as much
> as possible at the same time.
Evidence? Why would he do something like this? It simply blurs the
focus of a short poem. And who--apart from you--knows whether Anne
Vavasour was around when this sonnet was written?
>
> > There are rules that govern ambiguity.
>
> Hopeless.
Yes, you are pretty hopeless, Paul. There are rules that govern
ambiguity specifically because otherwise anything could mean anything.
The fact that people don't understand this is the reason we have so
many different but extremely detailed theories of what the sonnets are
saying, almost all by amateurs. They can't all be right. Nor is your
reading any more likely than any of the others.
But you haven't even made an attempt to answer what's wrong with
having rules, or why you aren't obliged to follow them. I might add
that the most curious thing about your sonnet interpretations is that
you knock out any available evidence there might be for Oxford--such
as the fact that the poet repeats several times that he is lame, such
as the fact that Southampton is almost certainly the FY--and you
replace it with highly speculative nonsense.
And speaking of ambiguity, the reason that the sonnets DON'T yield
themselves to a clear and coherent story but bend and sway depending
on who reads them is in part because they ARE so ambiguous.
Ms. Mouse
Ms. Mouse
> On 14 Apr 2007 01:51:41 -0700, "Willedever" <blagsnat...@yahoo.com>
Yes, thank you, Gary. You say it much better than I say it myself. ;)
In this possible interpretation, the FY is "thou." The DL is "she." I
think it's unlikely the DL would be both thou and she in the same
sonnet.
>The "Her" of line 14 is a third person, in addition to the
> speaker and the FY. She is probably the DL. Whoever this "Her" is,
> she is in love with the FY. The FY is the "dear love" (L14) of this
> "Her", and is the person for whom the speaker "rise[s] and fall[s]".
>
> Does this make things any clearer?
>
> The possible scenario behind this poem is that the FY is upset
> and jealous with the speaker because the speaker has called the DL his
> love. And so the speaker is trying to explain himself out of a jam.
>
> The problem I have with this general reading or scenario is L5
> & 6. I can't see how they can be paraphrased in any sensible way to
> go with the flow of the rest of the poem based on this scenario.
For thou betraying me, I doe betray
My nobler part to my grose bodies treason...
Warning: what follows is highly speculative:
I'm wondering whether this sonnet is a kind of answer to something the
FY has said--as possibly in 116--such as "I've betrayed you."
How about this response:
(As) For thou betraying me, I doe betray
My nobler part to my grose bodies treason,
In other words, he is excusing the FY's betrayal, by saying he, the
poet, has betrayed himself and continues to do so. I'm not sure at all
that it's acceptable. Is there a similar construction anywhere in the
canon?
Just random thoughts.
L.
>
> - Gary
Ms. Mouse
<slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
> "Ms. Mouse" <lynnekosit...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1176482494.1...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> While I will deal with your other
> points later, your core problem seems
> to be near-total confusion over the
> question of ambiguity.
>
> > There are rules that govern ambiguity. Probably the most important one
> > is that you should be able to make a rational and coherent reading.
>
> Where on earth do you get this doctrine?
> It is fine for scientific papers and police
> reports. I reckon that you have spent
> far too much time in the wild west.
I've never been to the wild west. I went to university in Sheffield,
England. Empson was my teacher.
> Another origin of your problems is your
> daft respect for Stratfordian 'scholars'.
It is important to read what has been written. Have you, for example,
read Empson on ambiguity?
>
> > In other words, if "love" means Raleigh at the beginning,
> > it means Raleigh at the end.
>
> It would seem that you have never
> heard or read any kind of even slightly
> extended ambiguous statement -- such
> as most males regularly hear from their
> spouses, or all of us hear from bankers
> politicians, etc., (if you ever listen).
>
> > If someone is a "he," that person doesn't suddenly
> > become a "she" or vice versa.
>
> Nonsense. The 'she' is an insult,
> thrown in whenever convenient.
Whenever convenient to you, you mean. Nothing to do with the poet at
all. It's arbitrariness would defeat any sane reader.
> Here it is to fit the poet's intense
> use of ambiguity. You have not the
> faintest grasp of its nature.
You have not the faintest grasp of literary criticism.
>
> > Otherwise, anything can mean anything,
>
> On the contrary, there are only three
> people in this sonnet --
No according to you, the sonnet includes the Queen, Raleigh, Oxford,
Vavasour, and the entire populace of England.
>and in a large
> number of others. The conventions
> of describing them, particularly the
> Rival, become close to hackneyed.
> Your criticism might have some force
> if I claimed that this was the only
> sonnet to cover the Queen-Oxford-
> Raleigh triangle. If this sonnet could
> be taken on its own, I would probably
> have little justification for reading
> 'she' references as Raleigh.
That's not the point, Paul. If the poet calls both addressees he and
she within the same sonnet, he will confuse everyone, just as he would
confuse everyone if the addressee of what is traditionally known as
the FY sonnets was really, without any clues at all, a woman. The job
of poetry is to convey one or several meanings to the reader.
>
> But that is not the case. The Strat
> argument (which you support) is that
> Raleigh or the Queen are no more
> present in these sonnets than are Bill
> Clinton and Monica Lewinsky;
No, not them. They were born too late. How about Oxford, Southampton,
Trentham? I know someone who thinks they are the main participants,
and his interpretations make more sense than yours, although I don't
buy them by any means as the only possibility.
> that
> my claims (in this respect) are insane.
> The positions could not be more
> opposed. Your petty 'objections' fail
> to recognise this huge dichotomy.
> If your case was based on reality,
> you would easily find massive and
> overwhelming arguments.
My arguments that you may be way off-base are overwhelming to everyone
except you. Doesn't that make you even a little suspicious of your own
talent in deciphering?
Guess not.
Mouse
>
>
>
> >> 1. Loue is too young to know what conscience is,
> >> 2. Yet who knowes not conscience is borne of loue,
> >> 3. Then gentle cheater vrge not my amisse,
> >> 4. Least guilty of my faults thy sweet selfe proue.
> >> 5. For thou betraying me, I doe betray
> >> 6. My nobler part to my grose bodies treason,
> >> 7. My soule doth tell my body that he may,
> >> 8. Triumph in loue, flesh staies no farther reason,
> >> 9. But rysing at thy name doth point out thee,
> >> 10. As his triumphant prize, proud of this pride,
> >> 11. He is contented thy poore drudge to be
> >> 12. To stand in thy affaires, fall by thy side.
> >> 13. No want of conscience hold it that I call,
> >> 14. Her loue, for whose deare loue I rise and fall.- Hide quoted text -
johnan...@johnpandrews.freeserve.co.uk
straightforward? I agree that the "Love" in the first line can refer
to an abstract quality and to an embodied adressee. I think that the
word "young" can refer to both lacking in age in terms of the love
object, which reminds us of cupid, and to the palpitations of
infatuation at the earliest stages. I blush to quote the saying, I
know not where I heard it, "A standing prick has no conscience" which
seems to me to hover provocatively over this sonnet. To question
whether the sonnet has any bawdy connotations seems to me absurd - it
is full of them. The only thing I agree with Paul over is the tone of
the sonnet which seems to me to be playfully sexual. For me the
pronouns are always the giveaway - "I" and "thee", with their
concomitant associates, dominate - which confirm the simplicity of the
conversation which is between two figures: the "speaker" and the
"adressee". The loveliness of the line which gives problems of
interpretation - "Yet who knows not conscience is born of love?" - is
that the word "conscience" also means "consciousness" - awareness, if
you like. This gives the idea of the amazing potential for the
flowering of human perceptions which come from love.
To Paul I would refer William Empson's criticism, especially where he
investigates which interpretations infringe the unwritten laws of what
is acceptable as interpretation. For poems which were written for the
enjoyment of a circle of intimates, why would an elaborate code be
invoked which only an Irishman 500 years distant would be able to
decode be employed?
Best wishes
John Andrews
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
johnan...@johnpandrews.freeserve.co.uk
>
>
>
>
>
> <slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
> > "Ms. Mouse" <lynnekosit...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:1176482494.1...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > While I will deal with your other
> > points later, your core problem seems
> > to be near-total confusion over the
> > question of ambiguity.
>
> > > There are rules that govern ambiguity. Probably the most important one
> > > is that you should be able to make a rational and coherent reading.
>
> > Where on earth do you get this doctrine?
> > It is fine for scientific papers and police
> > reports. I reckon that you have spent
> > far too much time in the wild west.
>
> I've never been to the wild west. I went to university in Sheffield,
> England. Empson was my teacher.
Can I just say here, while my interjection to an earlier post doesn't
seem to have appeared in Google, that when in it I referred Paul to
William Empson I had not read your post here and had no idea you had
been taught by him. I will refrain from gushing, but I have been a
great admirer of his criticism all my adult life. I remember going to
one of his guest lectures where he talked about mistaken
interpretations - based, if I remember rightly, on a critic writing
about a poem (Dryden? Pope?) using the word "lawn" and intepreting it
as a piece of grass whereas the word meant "linen". He was very funny
about the extent to which the structuralist generosity to reader
interpretation can be taken. He would have found lots to amuse in
Paul's extravagant indulgence in reader interpretation vis a vis this
sonnet. I'm very envious of you having been taught by such a great man
and a great critic. (How can you be an Oxfordian!!!???)
Yours
John Andrews
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Ms. Mouse
Somehow I think Professor Empson, who was rather an unusual, eccentric
man, might have approved of any divergence from orthodoxy ;) Even
better, my Shakespeare teacher was the late great Roma Gill, whom I
adored. How lucky was I to have both for teachers? How stupidly
oblivious I was, though, at the ages of eighteen and nineteen, to
their brilliance.
Best wishes,
Lynne
Paul Crowley
NO ONE (except you) interrupts an
exegeticist in their first line asking 'How
do you know'. They are setting out a
case, which stands or falls on the detail
they present, the extent to which it fits
the words of the poem, and its overall
coherence.
> This is from
>> Robert Stonehouse's exegesis. Would
>> you direct the same question to him?
>
> I might.
If you did you would be demonstrating
the same kind of ignorance -- showing
that you don't know what is going on.
> I've questioned Robert's interpretations at times. But Robert
> is very sensible, and I see his "Cupid" as a figure of speech for an
> abstract quality in this case.
All you are saying here is that you generally
agree with Robert's prejudices. No one
would be in the least surprised about
someone so thoroughly quasi-Strat.
>> Our poet does not write silly nonsense
>> on abstractions. That's the province
>> of the truly bad.
>
> This is only your opinion. And a strange opinion it is too, seeing as
> you have never met the poet.
>
> What does this mean,
>
> "Love is not love which alters where it alteration finds..."
>
> if "love" is not an abstract quality?
I have posted here (more than once) a long
and detailed exegesis of Sonnet 116 showing
how it is NOT about 'Lurve'. Of course, your
head is so jam-packed with Stratfordian muck
that you were probably incapable of reading it,
let alone remembering anything about it.
>> >>His attitude towards
>> >> the Queen's new infatuation is largely
>> >> one of amusement. He assumes that it
>> >> will not last. But neither does he like
>> >> to see Raleigh playing along with it --
>> >> however he does not expect Raleigh to
>> >> have any twinges of conscience. After
>> >> all, Raleigh is there to capitalise on
>> >> whatever slight strains of good fortune
>> >> he might find.
>>
>> >> By 'love' the poet also means this
>> >> infatuation.
>>
>> > I see. Is this what you mean by ambiguity?
>>
>> Yes. Glad to see you manage to get
>> the point.
>
> Um, isn't love meaning infatuation an abstract quality? I thought the
> poet doesn't write "silly nonsense on abstractions."
You are misreading (again!). Here the
poet is not referring to 'LURVE' but to
a SPECIFIC infatuation -- in a woman
nearing menopause for a particularly
handsome man, 20 years her junior.
>> >> He feels that it is both too
>> >> ridiculous and too new to give rise to
>> >> serious concerns, but yet he is worried.
>> >> The Queen is displaying a serious lack
>> >> of dignity (and 'conscience') in her
>> >> frivolous pursuit of Raleigh.
>>
>> > I'm not sure how we got to the Queen and Raleigh at all, except that
>> > you have decided that they are represented in this sonnet.
>
> No response on this?
It's absurd. How does Robert decide that
Cupid is in the Sonnet? He PROPOSES the
idea, and then sees if the words, etc., fit.
But, in fact, it does not work too well -- as
all the discussion here has shown.
Likewise, here, I initially propose the presence
of Raleigh and the Queen. Then we see if the
rest of the Sonnet fits all the very-well-known
history of their relationship and of both of
them with the poet.
That's how it works. I should not have to
explain such things. Any serious attempt
at criticism from you (and we have seen
none) might point out (say) that the Queen
did not have the right relationship with the
poet -- nor with Raleigh -- at the time, or
that the words of Line X do not fit what we
know (or can reasonably assume) went on
at the time.
>> >> 2. Yet who knowes not conscience is borne of loue,
>>
>> >> If the Queen truly loved her people
>> >> (as she constantly claimed) then her
>> >> conscience would better inform her
>> >> as to what she should do, and how
>> >> she should behave.
>>
>> > How did the people of England suddenly get into this? I thought you
>> > were speaking of the Queen and Raleigh?
>
> No response on this?
It's ridiculous. Her claimed relationship
with her people impinged on every aspect
of her life. Our poet (like nearly all other
courtiers) felt that she was disgracing
herself, and putting the state in danger
with her behaviour with Raleigh. This
is Elizabethan History 101.
>> >> 3. Then gentle cheater vrge not my amisse,
>>
>> >> The 'gentle cheater' is, of course, the
>> >> Queen.
>>
>> > Why is she? What clues you in to this?
>>
>> A very high proportion of the Sonnets
>> are directly addressed to the Queen.
>
> What evidence do you have for this?
I have outlined HERE the sense of a very
high proportion of them.
> I grant it's possible, especially
> in the DL sonnets, but by no means definitely so.
First you have to forget the Stratfordian
nonsense of the 'Fair Youf' and the 'Dark
Lady' -- and the 'difference' between 'them'.
But knowing your deep respect for the
Stratfordian 'scholars', I accept that you
will probably find that quite impossible.
>> >>She had cheated the nation of
>> >> the heir to the throne so often promised.
>> >> The poet's 'a - misse' is Raleigh. Our poet
>> >> requests the Queen not to encourage him.
>>
>> > This is pure speculation, I think.
>>
>> Eh? What exactly are you doubting?
>
> That the lines are about the Queen
That is the theory we are testing. Asking
the question again and again and again
gets us nowhere.
> That she or the poet feels she has cheated the nation of an heir
Read some basic history on the reign.
Primary school texts would deal with
this issue. Probably even Infant school
texts.
> That Raleigh is "a-misse" or even necessarily in the sonnet
That is the theory we are testing.
> That the poet is requesting the Queen not to encourage him.
Given what we historically know
about the people and events in the
Elizabethan court in the early 1580s,
is it likely that our poet would make
such a request (in poetry) ?
>> > Give a reference.
>>
>> A reference for what?
>
> For any of the statements I've given above.
Almost ANY book on Elizabethan
history -- you should start with
primary school texts.
>> > Raleigh is not "a miss." He's a mister.
>>
>> The poet often refers to him as a female:
>> alluding to his good looks, his long
>> hair (quite unfashionable up to its
>> introduction by Raleigh), his use of
>> earrings, rouge and perfume, and his
>> elaborate dress.
>
> Why would the poet to allude to this as a negative if he is Oxford?
> Oxford was well known for the same kinds of traits.
At last -- a specific criticism directed
at a reading. However, in this case,
both your history is quite wrong and
your awareness of court fashions is
quite mistaken. While the fashions of
the court changed regularly, there was
a huge introduction of 'feminisation' in
the early 1580s. Secondly, while Oxford
may at times have been a leader in fashion
up to the late 1570s, one essential for the
role was a lot of spending-money. Oxford
had none after the "Fool's Gold"episode
of 1578, and it is well known that Raleigh
became the principal 'leader of fashion'
soon after.
> And again, how do you know he's speaking of Raleigh?
It is a proposition that stands or falls
on the evidence. (This is like talking
to a child.)
> I believe
> Southampton was very feminine, as, no doubt, were others.
If you want to try to relate the lines of
the Sonnets to Southampton, just go
ahead. You will note that NO Oxfordian
has ever made more than a token attempt
-- for the very good reason that it is a
total dead-end.
> And how would the reader ever know he's speaking of Raleigh or any
> other specific person if he alludes to him as both male and female
> depending on your whim? And speaking of the queen as both male and
> female also? In fact, how would the reader work out that anyone is
> anyone?
They have to read carefully. I admit
that it's confusing. No American
should ever try -- nor an academic.
The Sonnets should carry a health
warning.
> But as it happens, my own poems are often extremely ambiguous. This
> discussion, in fact, has nothing to do with ambiguity in general, but
> whether this particular piece of what *you* call ambiguity is
> impossible. "A miss" does not fit grammatically into the sentence:
>
> "Gentle cheater, urge not my a miss."
>
> Huh?
Try not to be so literal. Remember
that the poet was not writing a
police report, but was having fun
with words. If it helps, see the
phrase as being within quotation
marks:
Gentle cheater, urge not my "a miss".
The poet was saying that Raleigh had
been one of his 'girl-friends', a low-
class casual whore, one of many,
whom he had picked up in some bar.
>> > Why have you not looked up the actual word amiss, to see what you
>> > could eke out from it, rather than going straight to "miss," which is
>> > not the word in the sonnet? I agree that "a-miss" could be a secondary
>> > meaning, but it doesn't work here.
>>
>> Our poet also commonly refers to his
>> rival / replacement as a common thing
>> -- not deserving a 'the', but to be
>> referenced by the indefinite article.
>> He does this with 'a petite' in Sonnets
>> 56, 110, 118, 147; "a boundance' in
>> Sonnet 1, 23, 135, "a taint" in Sonnet
>> 82; 'a prill' in Sonnets 21, 98, 104;
>> 'a pier' in Sonnet 102, 'a like' in Sonnet
>> 105, and 'a side' in Sonnet 139,
>
> Evidence that these "ambiguities" are in fact meant by the poet and
> are about Raleigh?
What would you accept as 'evidence'
-- other than a signed and witnessed
affidavit from the poet?
>> >> 8. Triumph in loue, flesh staies no farther reason,
>>
>> >> The real triumph would be to marry the
>> >> Queen and become King. Our poet
>> >> believes that, in reality, this is next to
>> >> inconceivable, but it is worth suggesting
>> >> that Raleigh has the prospect in mind.
>>
>> > How do you know?
>>
>> How do I know what -- exactly?
>> Are you asking about history
>> or about a reading of the words
>> of the sonnet?
>
> How do you know that he wanted to marry the queen and become king?
It was commonly asserted by the anti-
Raleigh courtiers (i.e. nearly all of
them) of the day.
> How do you know that this is Raleigh anyway?
That is the proposition to be tested.
> How do you know that the poet thought this inconceivable?
He was the 17th Earl. Among the
courtiers of the day, Raleigh had
about the lowest social origins.
> How do you know that this is a correct reading?
That is the proposition to be tested.
>> >> With ' . . flesh staies . .' he is implying
>> >> that the Queen is now at, or near, meno-
>> >> pause, and there would be no unwanted
>> >> pregnancies.
>>
>> > No, flesh is clearly Raleigh, according to your exegesis. Body=flesh.
>>
>> You should not be so simple-minded.
>> (Sorry, that's a silly thing to say to
>> a quasi-Strat.)
>
> Yes, it is. "Flesh," according to the structure of the sentence, is a
> synonym/replacement noun for "body,"
This "synonym" may (or may not) suit
your reading (if you have one). It does
not fit mine. There is no obligation on
anyone to read in sets of synonyms
which others might vaguely think
suitable.
>> >> 12. To stand in thy affaires, fall by thy side.
>>
>> >> Raleigh would have been asked to
>> >> represent the Queen's interests on
>> >> various committees, and with foreign
>> >> ambassadors and delegations, where his
>> >> fluent French would have been useful.
>>
>> > Evidence? And since you believe Oxford wrote the sonnets, wouldn't his
>> > French have been just as helpful?
>>
>> It would help if you knew some history.
>> At this point Oxford was NOT the
>> favourite (being in disgrace -- to a
>> greater or lesser degree) and he would
>> not have been asked to perform duties
>> of an ambassadorial nature.
>
> At which point? What year was this sonnet written? Give evidence for
> your opinion. Apart from your just abitrarily deciding it fits your
> scenario, I mean.
Oxford was in _some_ disgrace after 1578
-- after his near-bankruptcy resulting from
the "Fool's Gold" episode. Then there was
the bust-up with his Howard cousins in
December 1580, then there was his
imprisonment in the Tower in May 1581.
Raleigh came on the scene in about 1579,
rising rapidly in 1580 and 1581. My guess
is that this sonnet was written in late 1580,
but it could have been later (or possibly
earlier). There is nothing in the Sonnet
(which I can see) that would enable us
to date it with any better precision.
> I might add
> that the most curious thing about your sonnet interpretations is that
> you knock out any available evidence there might be for Oxford--such
> as the fact that the poet repeats several times that he is lame,
That is about as weak and as shallow
an 'argument' as could be found. Most
of the population was 'lame' at some
point or other.
> such
> as the fact that Southampton is almost certainly the FY
Your basic rule -- "Stick with doctrine,
forget any facts".
Paul.
Paul Crowley
in message
news:1176596112.3...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> To Paul I would refer William Empson's criticism, especially where he
> investigates which interpretations infringe the unwritten laws of what
> is acceptable as interpretation. For poems which were written for the
> enjoyment of a circle of intimates,
Like the vast bulk of poems written by
courtier-poets of that day (and of most
courts at most times) they were essentially
written for ONE person -- the monarch.
That person was the fount of all favour,
all appointments and all other resources,
and the courtier-poets were no different
from other courtiers in their desires and
ambitions.
It is impossible for us to know to what
extent others of his day read the Sonnets
(as we have them) nor whether _these_
sonnets formed part of those referred
to by Meres, nor how accurate Meres's
statement (about 'among his private
friends') was, or was meant to be.
> why would an elaborate code be
> invoked which only an Irishman 500 years distant would be able to
> decode be employed?
The code is not elaborate. It is fairly
obvious to anyone who puts time into
reading these sonnets, knowing who
the poet was, when he was an active
participant in the life of the court, and
who has studied the events of those
times. The great bulk of (often so-
called) Oxfordians come to these Sonnets
thoroughly imbued with nonsensical
Stratfordian attitudes, and are not
prepared to put any work into a study
of the history of times.
Paul.
johnan...@johnpandrews.freeserve.co.uk
<slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
> "johnantis...@johnpandrews.freeserve.co.uk" <johnanti-s...@johnpandrews.freeserve.co.uk> wrote
> in messagenews:1176596112.3...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > To Paul I would refer William Empson's criticism, especially where he
> > investigates which interpretations infringe the unwritten laws of what
> > is acceptable as interpretation. For poems which were written for the
> > enjoyment of a circle of intimates,
>
> Like the vast bulk of poems written by
> courtier-poets of that day (and of most
> courts at most times) they were essentially
> written for ONE person -- the monarch.
So why aren't they dedicated to Elizabeth? Why are some adressed to
female figures, some to male, some to a "dark lady". How would some of
them escape censure = "My mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun"...
off with his head!
> That person was the fount of all favour,
> all appointments and all other resources,
> and the courtier-poets were no different
> from other courtiers in their desires and
> ambitions.
So there was no patronage that wasn't exercised by the monarch?? How
come there are so many other dedicatees to poetic works in the period?
> It is impossible for us to know to what
> extent others of his day read the Sonnets
> (as we have them) nor whether _these_
> sonnets formed part of those referred
> to by Meres, nor how accurate Meres's
> statement (about 'among his private
> friends') was, or was meant to be.
We do know they weren't published until 1609 - long after Oxford was
food for worms.
> > why would an elaborate code be
> > invoked which only an Irishman 500 years distant would be able to
> > decode be employed?
>
> The code is not elaborate.
It is elaborate and far-fetched and goes against any natural, normal
reading of a poem.
It is fairly
> obvious to anyone who puts time into
> reading these sonnets,
So no-one in the 500 years since they were written has put any time
into reading the sonnets? 'Cos no-one else has come up with cracking
interpretations you've found.
knowing who
> the poet was, when he was an active
> participant in the life of the court, and
> who has studied the events of those
> times. The great bulk of (often so-
> called) Oxfordians come to these Sonnets
> thoroughly imbued with nonsensical
> Stratfordian attitudes,
So the Oxfordians are wrong and the Stratfordians are wrong. Paul
Crowley stands in lonely eminence as the sole arbiter of intepretation
of these poems however bizarre his readings?
and are not
> prepared to put any work into a study
> of the history of times.
You may in this case have put some work in the study of the history of
the times - there's got to be a first for everything - but you've mis-
applied what you've learnt. I suggest you begin by reading the poems
with care - interpreting what you read without prejudice and without
an idee fixe about shoe-horning your favourite figures into these
innocent poems. You may then persuade someone to share your views
instead of deriding you.
>
> Paul.
Best wishes
John Andrews
Ms. Mouse
<slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
> "Ms. Mouse" <lynnekosit...@gmail.com> wrote in message
So far, then, you're batting about zero for a hundred, based on your
ideas of what constitutes coherence.
I'm sorry, but I'd like some evidence other than your own exigesis.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >>His attitude towards
> >> >> the Queen's new infatuation is largely
> >> >> one of amusement. He assumes that it
> >> >> will not last. But neither does he like
> >> >> to see Raleigh playing along with it --
> >> >> however he does not expect Raleigh to
> >> >> have any twinges of conscience. After
> >> >> all, Raleigh is there to capitalise on
> >> >> whatever slight strains of good fortune
> >> >> he might find.
>
> >> >> By 'love' the poet also means this
> >> >> infatuation.
>
> >> > I see. Is this what you mean by ambiguity?
>
> >> Yes. Glad to see you manage to get
> >> the point.
>
> > Um, isn't love meaning infatuation an abstract quality? I thought the
> > poet doesn't write "silly nonsense on abstractions."
>
> You are misreading (again!). Here the
> poet is not referring to 'LURVE' but to
> a SPECIFIC infatuation -- in a woman
> nearing menopause for a particularly
> handsome man, 20 years her junior.
Evidence? Especially as the poet definitely refers to the FY as
younger than himself. Or is this another one of your opposites? Men
are she, women are he, youth means age? At least sometimes, but not
always?
>
> >> >> He feels that it is both too
> >> >> ridiculous and too new to give rise to
> >> >> serious concerns, but yet he is worried.
> >> >> The Queen is displaying a serious lack
> >> >> of dignity (and 'conscience') in her
> >> >> frivolous pursuit of Raleigh.
>
> >> > I'm not sure how we got to the Queen and Raleigh at all, except that
> >> > you have decided that they are represented in this sonnet.
>
> > No response on this?
>
> It's absurd. How does Robert decide that
> Cupid is in the Sonnet? He PROPOSES the
> idea, and then sees if the words, etc., fit.
> But, in fact, it does not work too well -- as
> all the discussion here has shown.
>
> Likewise, here, I initially propose the presence
> of Raleigh and the Queen. Then we see if the
> rest of the Sonnet fits all the very-well-known
> history of their relationship and of both of
> them with the poet.
If you're going to go that route, the Queen's relationship with
Leicester was much more problematic and well-known. Also, to make your
case, you have to make Raleigh a she, a he, and a thou. Or am I
missing something?
You did Elizabethan History 101, did you? Please provide a source for
the above, which are what I would call speculations.
>
> >> >> 3. Then gentle cheater vrge not my amisse,
>
> >> >> The 'gentle cheater' is, of course, the
> >> >> Queen.
>
> >> > Why is she? What clues you in to this?
>
> >> A very high proportion of the Sonnets
> >> are directly addressed to the Queen.
>
> > What evidence do you have for this?
>
> I have outlined HERE the sense of a very
> high proportion of them.
>
> > I grant it's possible, especially
> > in the DL sonnets, but by no means definitely so.
>
> First you have to forget the Stratfordian
> nonsense of the 'Fair Youf' and the 'Dark
> Lady' -- and the 'difference' between 'them'.
> But knowing your deep respect for the
> Stratfordian 'scholars', I accept that you
> will probably find that quite impossible.
I am using them merely as an aid to show which batch of poems I am
speaking of. I have respect for some Stratfordian scholars, yes. But I
don't need to visit them to think for myself that a man is usually a
he and a woman a she. Anything else is difficult in a poem. Changing
back and forth is impossible.
>
> >> >>She had cheated the nation of
> >> >> the heir to the throne so often promised.
> >> >> The poet's 'a - misse' is Raleigh. Our poet
> >> >> requests the Queen not to encourage him.
>
> >> > This is pure speculation, I think.
>
> >> Eh? What exactly are you doubting?
>
> > That the lines are about the Queen
>
> That is the theory we are testing. Asking
> the question again and again and again
> gets us nowhere.
Your answer that it's in your earlier exigeses also gets us nowhere,
as you've offered no evidence at any point that anyone except you
would agree with or even understand.
>
> > That she or the poet feels she has cheated the nation of an heir
>
> Read some basic history on the reign.
> Primary school texts would deal with
> this issue. Probably even Infant school
> texts.
Thanks, but I specialised at one point in Tudor history. When did you
do so?
>
> > That Raleigh is "a-misse" or even necessarily in the sonnet
>
> That is the theory we are testing.
Yes, well, where is your evidence?
>
> > That the poet is requesting the Queen not to encourage him.
>
> Given what we historically know
> about the people and events in the
> Elizabethan court in the early 1580s,
> is it likely that our poet would make
> such a request (in poetry) ?
No, don't think so. I'm still not persuaded that this sonnet was even
written in the 1580s.
>
> >> > Give a reference.
>
> >> A reference for what?
>
> > For any of the statements I've given above.
>
> Almost ANY book on Elizabethan
> history -- you should start with
> primary school texts.
I read them at six, under cover of my desk, while the rest of the
class was doing maths.
>
> >> > Raleigh is not "a miss." He's a mister.
>
> >> The poet often refers to him as a female:
> >> alluding to his good looks, his long
> >> hair (quite unfashionable up to its
> >> introduction by Raleigh), his use of
> >> earrings, rouge and perfume, and his
> >> elaborate dress.
>
> > Why would the poet to allude to this as a negative if he is Oxford?
> > Oxford was well known for the same kinds of traits.
>
> At last -- a specific criticism directed
> at a reading. However, in this case,
> both your history is quite wrong and
> your awareness of court fashions is
> quite mistaken. While the fashions of
> the court changed regularly, there was
> a huge introduction of 'feminisation' in
> the early 1580s.
I'm sure I said something that would accord with that. It weakens your
case if many men were feminine.
>Secondly, while Oxford
> may at times have been a leader in fashion
> up to the late 1570s, one essential for the
> role was a lot of spending-money. Oxford
> had none after the "Fool's Gold"episode
> of 1578, and it is well known that Raleigh
> became the principal 'leader of fashion'
> soon after.
Oxford wore his old feminine clobber in the eighties, I guess, but
what I was asking was actually, if Oxford was effeminate, why would he
censure someone else for being so?
>
> > And again, how do you know he's speaking of Raleigh?
>
> It is a proposition that stands or falls
> on the evidence. (This is like talking
> to a child.)
What evidence? So far you are talking in circles. You usually give as
evidence other of your exigeses.
>
> > I believe
> > Southampton was very feminine, as, no doubt, were others.
>
> If you want to try to relate the lines of
> the Sonnets to Southampton, just go
> ahead. You will note that NO Oxfordian
> has ever made more than a token attempt
> -- for the very good reason that it is a
> total dead-end.
This is simply not so. I don't say they're right in every detail, but
Hank Whittemore has done so, as have scores of others.
>
> > And how would the reader ever know he's speaking of Raleigh or any
> > other specific person if he alludes to him as both male and female
> > depending on your whim? And speaking of the queen as both male and
> > female also? In fact, how would the reader work out that anyone is
> > anyone?
>
> They have to read carefully. I admit
> that it's confusing. No American
> should ever try -- nor an academic.
> The Sonnets should carry a health
> warning.
I'm not an American or an academic, and yet I don't get it either.
>
> > But as it happens, my own poems are often extremely ambiguous. This
> > discussion, in fact, has nothing to do with ambiguity in general, but
> > whether this particular piece of what *you* call ambiguity is
> > impossible. "A miss" does not fit grammatically into the sentence:
>
> > "Gentle cheater, urge not my a miss."
>
> > Huh?
>
> Try not to be so literal. Remember
> that the poet was not writing a
> police report, but was having fun
> with words. If it helps, see the
> phrase as being within quotation
> marks:
> Gentle cheater, urge not my "a miss".
Haha.
>
> The poet was saying that Raleigh had
> been one of his 'girl-friends', a low-
> class casual whore, one of many,
> whom he had picked up in some bar.
Just a minute. Stop right there. Are you now saying that Oxford was
gay?
You are funny, Paul. I must say you brighten my dreary days.
Lynne
>
>
>
> >> > Why have you not looked up the
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Gary
know?
We may have learned that the speaker had homosexual longings
for the FYM. Or maybe not.
One word description of the poem: Conscience.
Sonnet sub-group: ?
***************************************************
The story so far:
So after one hundred-and-fifty-one sonnnets, what do we know?
Regarding the first 126 sonnets:
The addressee or referent of the first one
hundred-and-twenty-six sonnets is probably the same person (although
it has been speculated that perhaps the speaker of the first seventeen
poems is different). At any rate, we are assuming that the same
person is the addressee of these sonnets.
We still don't know what the relationship is between
the speaker and the addressee. It is clearly an intense,
emotional/romantic relationship. Whether it is sexual is uncertain.
The speaker says the addressee is physically
attractive. The description of that beauty is in terms that
would seem more suitable to a woman than a man. (1 - 7, 9,
13, 17-19, especially 20, 41, 54)
The speaker has known the addressee for three years. (104)
The speaker cannot tell what the addressee is thinking by
looking at the addressee's face. (93)
The speaker says that the addressee is narcissistic.
(1 - 4, 6)
The speaker may be chiding the addressee's sexual
habits. (1 - 4, 6, 9, 40 - 42, 58, 61, 69, 96)
The speaker suggests that, while they may acknowledge the
addressee's physical good looks, some unnamed others have a critical
opinion of some aspect of the addressee's character, morals and/or
behaviour. (69, 96) However, the speaker defends the addressee
against this criticism/slander (70). Yet, the speaker himself seems to
suspect that the addressee, in some way, is not behaving as he should.
But it is difficult to tell this by simply looking at he addressee's
fair appearance. (93, 95)
The addressee is male. (3, 9, 16, 19-20, 26, 33, 39, 41, 63,
67 - 68, 101)
The speaker is male. (20, 32)
The addressee is of marriageable age, meaning (I
think) that he would be in the 17 - 26 age range. (1 - 4, 6,
8 - 13, 16, 17)
The speaker is older than the addressee. (62 - 63)
The speaker is old. (73)
After an undefined time into the relationship, the speaker
still refers to the addressee as "sweet boy", which raises the
question of how old the addressee actually is. (But this may simply be
a poetic device wherein the speaker is trying to indicate that, to
him, the addressee has not gotten older.) (108)
The speaker claims he has no interest in sexual
relations with the addressee. (20)
The addressee is sexually interested in women. (41)
The speaker is sexually interested in women. (41)
Women are sexually attracted to the addressee. (3, 16, 20,
41,)
The speaker has a wife or mistress. (40 - 42).
A snag appears in the relationship between the
speaker and addressee. (33, 34)
The snag that appeared in the relationship between
the speaker and addressee seems to concern something that
the addressee did to the speaker which caused the speaker
shame. The addressee, however, is contrite, and the speaker
has forgiven him. (34)
While it's not certain, the snag that appeared in
the relationship between the speaker and the addressee
probably concerns a love stolen from the speaker by the
addressee. (35)
It seems that the addressee *has* stolen a lover
from the speaker (40 - 42), but the speaker forgives him.
(40, 42)
The speaker expresses concern that he might lose the
affections/attention of the addressee. (48, 90-93).
The speaker tells the addressee he loves him more today than
yesterday, but not as much as tomorrow. (115)
The speaker has a very humble opinion of himself, and is
prepared to excuse almost any behaviour of the addressee (35, 49,
57-58, 87-89).
It's still uncertain what class the speaker and addressee
belong to. Some have argued that Sonnet 25 indicates that the speaker
is not a member of the nobility, while others argue that it indicates
that he is a member of the nobility. Some readers have also suggested
that certain words and phrases used in the sonnets indicate that the
addressee is of noble birth. (37, 40)
The speaker's life involved travel that took him
away from the addressee. Possibly, the travel involved
service for the addressee (27 - 28, 39, 43 - 45, 47, 50 - 51, 61).
The speaker and addressee were separated during the summer (97) and
the spring (98).
By the time of Sonnet 52, whenever it is, the speaker
doesn't seem to be seeing the addressee very often (52). There also
seems to have been a lapse wherein the speaker did not write about the
addressee (100 - 101).
The speaker seems to find it necessary to explain away a
charge of lessening affection or waywardness after being absent from
the addressee (109).
The speaker has indulged in wayward behaviour vis-a-vis the
addressee in the past, but says he will not to do it again (110).
The speaker claims his past waywardness was just a test of the
addressee's love. (117)
The speaker suggests that his relationship with the addressee
has been made stronger as a result of his past philanderings. (119)
The speaker suggests that his philanderings may be excused on
account of the previous philanderings of the addressee. (120)
The speaker rationalizes giving away a gift the addressee had
given him. (122)
The speaker affirms his fidelity to the addressee despite
time's changes and death. (123)
The speaker is ashamed about something in his life and asks
for the addressee's pity (111). The speaker was involved in some sort
of public scandal, but is only concerned with what the addressee
thinks of him. (112)
The speaker feels he has been unjustly accused of something.
(121)
Note that we still don't know where the speaker or
the addressee live.
There seems to have been a lull in the speaker/addressee's
emotional relationship. (56)
The speaker has a picture of the addressee which he enjoys
looking at. (47)
The speaker is preoccupied at night by images of the
addressee. (27 - 28, 43, 61)
The speaker is unaware of anything except the addressee. (113
- 114)
The poet says he is in disgrace for some reason, and
that he is a self-described outcast of some sort, and that
he feels sorry for himself and envious of others, a feeling
that is dispelled when he thinks of his relationship with
the addressee. (29)
The speaker thinks the addressee is too good for him. (87)
For some reason, the speaker thinks that the
addressee will be dishonoured by publicly associating with
the speaker. (36, 71 - 72)
The speaker tells us that his sad memories are
dispelled when he thinks of the addressee. (30)
The speaker's feelings for the addressee are so strong that
they leave the speaker tongue-tied about those feelings in the
presence of the addressee. (23)
The speaker expresses humility about his ability to
express, in writing, his feelings for the addressee. (26,
32, 38, 102) Yet, the speaker also says his writings contain that
which is best in him. (73 - 74).
The speaker says that he is poor, despised and,
possibly, physically disabled. (37, 89)
The speaker distinguishes himself from "the rich". (52)
However, while the speaker says he is poor in Sonnet 37, he
then says, in Sonnet 48, that he owns jewels. (48)
The speaker so identifies with the addressee, that
any and all of the speaker's faults and shortcomings are
resolved in the positive attributes of the addressee. (37, 62)
The speaker says he sees, in the addressee, the
embodiment of former deceased loves. (31)
The speaker says all good things are but shadows of the
addressee. (53)
The speaker says the addressee has a pleasant
speaking voice and enjoys listening to sad music. (8)
The speaker says the addressee has a gracious and
kind presence. (10)
The speaker seems to think that the addressee has
some sort of love for the speaker. (10, 25, 34, 36, 39, 41, 61, 73)
The speaker seems to have some sort of affectionate
feelings for the addressee, calling him such things as
"love", "dear my love", "master-mistress of my passion", "Lord of my
love" & "sweet love". (13, 19, 20-33, 40, 54, 57-58, 66, 76)
The speaker seems to have believed in a religious theory of
the resurrection of the dead. (55)
The speaker is an aesthetic snob. (11)
The speaker may believe in astrology. (15)
The speaker rides a horse. (50 - 51)
The speaker, at least at times, was disillusioned with his
world. (66 - 68)
The speaker seems to think that the writers of antiquity were
better able to describe beauty than his contemporaries. (106)
The addressee has been given a blank book in which to record
his thoughts. The book is possibly from the speaker. (77)
Other poets are using the addressee for their subject matter.
(78)
The speaker is concerned about losing his place with the
addressee to some other male poet. (79)
The speaker considers his ability as a poet to be inferior to
the ability of the male rival poet. (80)
The speaker is jealous of the attention the addressee is
paying to the rival poets. (82)
After intially being confounded by the rival poet, the speaker
is once again writing poetry. (86)
The addressee is fond of praise, which lessens him in the eyes
of the speaker. (84)
The speaker initially thinks that having children is
a better method than a painting or a poem for the addressee
to preserve himself. (16, 17) However, the speaker comes to
say that he can preserve the beauty of the addressee in his
poetry. (18 - 19, 54 -55, 60, 63 - 65, 81, 100 -101, 104, 107)
The addressee seems to have been critical of the speaker in
some way concerning his descriptions of the addressee. (83)
The speaker believes he can preserve the best part of himself
in his writings. (74)
The speaker cautions the addressee that he will eventually
grow old. (126)
The speaker, having posed a problem for the
addressee, is offering a solution to that problem - namely
that the addressee should have children - specifically, a
son. (1-14, 16, 17). (But let's remember that it's only the
speaker's assertion that beautiful people have some sort of
obligation to the world to propagate or preserve their
beauty.)
While seeming to chastise the addressee for his
narcissistic failure to preserve or propagate his beauty,
the speaker is, at the same time, acknowledging that beauty,
and so is flattering the addressee.
The speaker may have had homosexual longings for the FYM.
(151)
Regarding the sonnets after 126:
The addressee of Sonnet 127 is a woman with beautiful dark
eyes.
The speaker disapproves of makeup on women. (127)
The addressee can play a musical instrument. (128)
The speaker has a very realistic view of the addressee and his
relationship to her. (130)
The speaker is deeply infatuated with the addressee, despite
what others may think of her. There may be a suggestion that her
behaviour is immoral. (131, 142, 149)
The speaker has a very harsh view of lust. (129)
The speaker's friend is also enthralled by the dark lady.
(133)
The speaker may be suggesting that the addressee is
promiscuous. (134)
The speaker is regretting his infatuation with the dark lady,
and he re-emphasizes her promiscuous behaviour. (137, 142)
The speaker, while knowing that his lover is untrue, is
pretending not to know, in order to appear young and naive, and to
keep the relationship going. (138)
The addressee flirts with other men while she is with the
speaker. (139)
The speaker warns the addressee that she should not treat him
with disdain lest he start to badmouth her. (140)
The speaker has a very ambivalent attitude towards the
addressee. (141)
The speaker fears the dark lady is seducing his male friend.
(144)
The speaker seems to have religious concerns about himself or
someone else. (146)
The speaker seems to be wallowing in lust and frustration, and
seems to hate the dark lady. (147)
The speaker seems to realize there is a contradiction between
what he feels for the dark lady and what he knows about her. (148)
The speaker says even the addressee's faults make him love her
all the more. (150)
Sonnet groupings (a tentative listing of the sonnets
read so far and how they might be grouped):
Get married, young man: 1 - 14, 16 - 17.
Forever young: 15, 18 - 19, 54 - 55, 60, 63 - 65, 77, 81, 100 - 101,
104, 107, 126.
You are so beautiful: 20 - 21, 53, 59, 82 - 84, 99, 105 - 106.
We two are one: 22, 25, 31, 37, 39, 42, 62, 96, 109 - 110.
Words fail me: 23, 26, 32, 38, 78 - 80, 85 - 86, 102 - 103, 108.
You're in my heart: 24, 46 - 47.
Missin' you: 27 - 28, 43 - 45, 50 - 51, 97 - 98.
You lift me up: 29 - 30, 52.
Can't stop thinkin' 'bout you: 75 - 76, 113 - 114, 122.
You done me wrong: 33 - 34, 40 - 41.
Anything you do is alright with me: 35, 49, 57 - 58, 89.
I am unworthy: 36, 71 - 72, 87 - 88, 111 - 112.
Am I losing you?: 48, 56, 61, 90 - 95.
What's a nice person like you doin' in a place like this?: 66 - 70.
When I'm gone: 73 - 74.
I did you wrong: 117 - 120.
The Twelfth of Never: 116, 123.
Ebony Eyes: 127, 128, 130 - 144, 147 - 148 [and possibly 57 - 58].
? - 115, 121, 124, 125, 129, 145 - 146, 151
One word descriptions of the sonnets:
01) Introduction; 02) Siege; 03) Mirror; 04) Usury; 05) Perfume;
06) Money-lending; 07) Sun; 08) Music; 09) Widow; 10) Self-hate;
11) Snob; 12) Breed; 13) Endless; 14) Astrology;
15) Transience; 16) Lines; 17) Memorial; 18) Summer;
19) Permanence; 20) Pricked; 21) True; 22) Hearts;
23) Tongue-tied; 24) Eyes; 25) Constancy; 26) Humility;
27) Travel; 28) Exhausted; 29) Fulfillment; 30) Remembrance;
31) Reincarnation; 32) Modesty; 33) Stained; 34) Disgrace;
35) Thief; 36) Blots; 37) Transference; 38) Muse;
39) Separation; 40) Theft; 41) False; 42) Loss; 43) Bright;
44) Thought;45) Elements; 46) Dispute; 47) Amity; 48) Guard;
49) Justify; 50) Weary; 51) Return; 52) Rare; 53) Shadows;
54) Distill; 55) Forever; 56) Lull; 57) Slave; 58) Slavery;
59) Unique; 60) Time; 61) Nightmare; 62) Identification;
63) Preservation; 64) Inevitability; 65) Possibility;
66) Disillusioned; 67) Memento; 68) Souvenir; 69) Weeds;
70) Target; 71) Forget; 72) Nameless; 73) Soon; 74) Essence;
75) Dilemma; 76) Repetition; 77) Book; 78) Inspiration;
79) Borrowings; 80) Compare; 81) Entombed; 82) Variety;
83) Shortcoming; 84) Unparalleled; 85) Actions; 86) Dumbstruck;
87) Released; 88) Forsworn; 89) Transference; 90) Now; 91) Best;
92) Lifelong; 93) Unreadable; 94) Unmoveable; 95) Disguise;
96) Appearance; 97) Absence; 98) Image; 99) Thieves;
100) Neglect; 101) Excuse; 102) Temperance; 103) Incomparable;
104) Three; 105) Constant; 106) Antiquity; 107) Prophecy;
108) Eternal; 109) Permanent; 110) Remorse; 111) Pity;
112) Indifferent; 113) Blind; 114) Illusion; 115) More;
116) Love; 117) Test; 118) Homeopathy; 119) Healed; 120) Ransom;
121) Unjust; 122) Unforgettable; 123) Pyramids; 124) Child;
125) Canopy; 126) Postpone; 127) Black; 128) Jacks; 129) Lust;
130) Realistic; 131) Groan; 132) Mourning; 133) Jail; 134) Debtor;
135) Will; 136) Name; 137) Delusion; 138) Lies; 139) Aside;
140) Pretend; 141) Ambivalent; 142) Hypocrite; 143) Chase;
144) Angel; 145) Hate; 146) Soul; 147) Fever; 148) Contradiction;
149) Self-abnegation; 150) Unworthiness; 151) Conscience;
- Gary
Gary
wrote:
>On Apr 14, 6:01 pm, g...@vcn.bc.ca (Gary) wrote:
SNIP
>> The possible scenario behind this poem is that the FY is upset
>> and jealous with the speaker because the speaker has called the DL his
>> love. And so the speaker is trying to explain himself out of a jam.
>>
>> The problem I have with this general reading or scenario is L5
>> & 6. I can't see how they can be paraphrased in any sensible way to
>> go with the flow of the rest of the poem based on this scenario.
>
>For thou betraying me, I doe betray
>My nobler part to my grose bodies treason...
>
>Warning: what follows is highly speculative:
>
>I'm wondering whether this sonnet is a kind of answer to something the
>FY has said--as possibly in 116--such as "I've betrayed you."
I think the poem may very well be a response to something the
addressee (whoever that addressee is) said. And what the addressee
said was to 'urge the speaker's amiss', whatever that means. And the
speaker is responding to that.
>How about this response:
>
>(As) For thou betraying me, I doe betray
>My nobler part to my grose bodies treason,
>
>In other words, he is excusing the FY's betrayal, by saying he, the
>poet, has betrayed himself and continues to do so. I'm not sure at all
>that it's acceptable. Is there a similar construction anywhere in the
>canon?
I don't think he is *excusing* the FY's betrayal. If
anything, he seems to be saying, in L's 3 & 4, that the addressee will
be guilty of something if he/she continues with his/her accusation.
This is one of those poems that I really can't get a clear
grasp on. After all the discussion we've had, I still have many basic
questions.
Who is the "gentle cheater"?
What did this "gentle cheater" say, exactly, when he/she
'urged the amiss' of the speaker? Did he/she take the speaker to task
for something the speaker did? Or did he/she encourage the speaker to
do something he shouldn't?
Of what faults is the speaker guilty? And why would the
addressee be guilty of those same faults if he/she continues to 'urge
the amiss' of the speaker?
What does the betrayal of the speaker by the addressee consist
of?
What is the speaker's "nobler part"? And what is his "gross
body's treason"?
Who is claiming that the speaker is displaying a "want of
conscience" by calling some woman "love"?
Bah! I think I just gonna move on to 152!
- Gary
Gary
"johnan...@johnpandrews.freeserve.co.uk"
<johnan...@johnpandrews.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>On 15 Apr, 00:34, "Ms. Mouse" <lynnekosit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 14, 7:58 am, "Paul Crowley"
>>
>Were it not for Paul's exegesis, wouldn't this sonnet be rather
>straightforward?
You have GOT to be kidding!
>I agree that the "Love" in the first line can refer
>to an abstract quality and to an embodied adressee. I think that the
>word "young" can refer to both lacking in age in terms of the love
>object, which reminds us of cupid, and to the palpitations of
>infatuation at the earliest stages.
Okay. So I'll ask you the same question that I asked WdV:
Why does the speaker addressee the addressee (multiple or single) in
the third person in the first two lines, and then address
him/her/it/them directly in the next 10 lines? That strikes me as
very odd.
>I blush to quote the saying, I
>know not where I heard it, "A standing prick has no conscience" which
>seems to me to hover provocatively over this sonnet.
Interesting phrasing.
>To question
>whether the sonnet has any bawdy connotations seems to me absurd - it
>is full of them.
Agreed.
>The only thing I agree with Paul over is the tone of
>the sonnet which seems to me to be playfully sexual.
I'm not sure that I see it as all that *playful*. But maybe.
>For me the
>pronouns are always the giveaway - "I" and "thee", with their
>concomitant associates, dominate - which confirm the simplicity of the
>conversation which is between two figures: the "speaker" and the
>"adressee". The loveliness of the line which gives problems of
>interpretation - "Yet who knows not conscience is born of love?" - is
>that the word "conscience" also means "consciousness" - awareness, if
>you like. This gives the idea of the amazing potential for the
>flowering of human perceptions which come from love.
The problem of interpretation connected with those lines, for
me, comes with the word "Then" in L3. Whatever the speaker is saying
in those first two lines, whether it concerns conscience or
consciousness, seems to be the reason why the speaker tells the
addressee that the addressee should not 'urge the amiss' of the
speaker. I don't see any meaningful connection between what is being
said in those first two lines, and demonstrating to the addressee
that, as a result of them, the addressee should or should not continue
to do something.
>To Paul I would refer William Empson's criticism, especially where he
>investigates which interpretations infringe the unwritten laws of what
>is acceptable as interpretation.
I should probably read that myself one day.
>For poems which were written for the
>enjoyment of a circle of intimates, why would an elaborate code be
>invoked which only an Irishman 500 years distant would be able to
>decode be employed?
And one who hasn't even meditated for 42 years!
- Gary
Paul Crowley
>> > What does this mean,
>>
>> > "Love is not love which alters where it alteration finds..."
>>
>> > if "love" is not an abstract quality?
>>
>> I have posted here (more than once) a long
>> and detailed exegesis of Sonnet 116 showing
>> how it is NOT about 'Lurve'. Of course, your
>> head is so jam-packed with Stratfordian muck
>> that you were probably incapable of reading it,
>> let alone remembering anything about it.
>
> I'm sorry, but I'd like some evidence other than your own exigesis.
What for you would count as evidence?
>> You are misreading (again!). Here the
>> poet is not referring to 'LURVE' but to
>> a SPECIFIC infatuation -- in a woman
>> nearing menopause for a particularly
>> handsome man, 20 years her junior.
>
> Evidence?
What for you would count as evidence?
> Especially as the poet definitely refers to the FY as
> younger than himself.
Where is this exactly? I can bet
that it's yet another misreading.
> Or is this another one of your opposites? Men
> are she, women are he, youth means age? At least sometimes, but not
> always?
If you can't quote it, no one can say
anything.
>> Likewise, here, I initially propose the presence
>> of Raleigh and the Queen. Then we see if the
>> rest of the Sonnet fits all the very-well-known
>> history of their relationship and of both of
>> them with the poet.
>
> If you're going to go that route, the Queen's relationship with
> Leicester was much more problematic and well-known.
In advance, I would have expected
to find Leicester in the Sonnets rather
than Raleigh. But I didn't. Surprisingly
perhaps Leicester does not seem to fit
any of them -- as far as I can see.
The reason must be that Oxford and
Leicester were never really rivals for
the Queen's affection. Unlike Raleigh,
Leicester did not displace the poet;
he was well established with the
Queen when Oxford was a child.
> Also, to make your
> case, you have to make Raleigh a she, a he, and a thou. Or am I
> missing something?
You are missing a vast amount:
(a) the huge amount of repetition
-- about Raleigh;
(b) he is only a 'thou' in Sonnet 126
AFAIR; our poet's playing with
gender is fully to be expected
(except by Strat or quasi-Strat dopes
-- quite ignorant of the plays.)
>> First you have to forget the Stratfordian
>> nonsense of the 'Fair Youf' and the 'Dark
>> Lady' -- and the 'difference' between 'them'.
>> But knowing your deep respect for the
>> Stratfordian 'scholars', I accept that you
>> will probably find that quite impossible.
>
> I am using them merely as an aid to show which batch
> of poems I am speaking of.
Stratfordians created those 'batches'.
You should not follow them so
dopily,
> I have respect for some Stratfordian scholars, yes.
Which ones? And why?
> But I don't need to visit them to think for myself that a man
> is usually a he and a woman a she.
Usually indeed. But you should not
keep your eyes shut to the tricks of
which this poet was capable. Can
you recall our poet ever switching
the genders of characters in any of
the plays?
> Anything else is difficult in a poem. Changing
> back and forth is impossible.
Simply nonsense,
>> > That the lines are about the Queen
>>
>> That is the theory we are testing. Asking
>> the question again and again and again
>> gets us nowhere.
>
> Your answer that it's in your earlier exigeses also gets us nowhere,
> as you've offered no evidence at any point that anyone except you
> would agree with or even understand.
What for you would count as evidence?
>> At last -- a specific criticism directed
>> at a reading. However, in this case,
>> both your history is quite wrong and
>> your awareness of court fashions is
>> quite mistaken. While the fashions of
>> the court changed regularly, there was
>> a huge introduction of 'feminisation' in
>> the early 1580s.
>
> I'm sure I said something that would accord with that. It weakens your
> case if many men were feminine.
I said NOTHING of the sort. The
'feminisation' in fashions (longer
hair, etc.,) did not mean that the men
were feminine -- even IF it gave our
poet the opportunity to make that
sort of allegation.
>>Secondly, while Oxford
>> may at times have been a leader in fashion
>> up to the late 1570s, one essential for the
>> role was a lot of spending-money. Oxford
>> had none after the "Fool's Gold"episode
>> of 1578, and it is well known that Raleigh
>> became the principal 'leader of fashion'
>> soon after.
>
> Oxford wore his old feminine clobber in the eighties,
Ridiculous. Oxford stuck with the older
(and more masculine) fashions -- shorter
hair, no rouge, no perfume, no jewellery,
only moderately expensive clothes --
little of which he could afford anyway.
> I guess, but what I was asking was actually, if Oxford was
> effeminate, why would he censure someone else for being so?
He wasn't, so he was quite free to cast
his aspersions.
>> If you want to try to relate the lines of
>> the Sonnets to Southampton, just go
>> ahead. You will note that NO Oxfordian
>> has ever made more than a token attempt
>> -- for the very good reason that it is a
>> total dead-end.
>
> This is simply not so. I don't say they're right in every detail, but
> Hank Whittemore has done so, as have scores of others.
Hank Whittemore's work is a joke --
it is close to the ultimate in quasi-
Stratfordian vagueness and vacuity.
>> The poet was saying that Raleigh had
>> been one of his 'girl-friends', a low-
>> class casual whore, one of many,
>> whom he had picked up in some bar.
>
> Just a minute. Stop right there. Are you now saying that
> Oxford was gay?
Of course not. The concept barely
impinged. Oxford was just being as
insulting as possible within the terms
of the day. Homosexuality would have
been an accusation too far; it would
have been akin to calling someone a
paedophile today.
Paul.
Paul Crowley
>> Your criticism might have some force
>> if I claimed that this was the only
>> sonnet to cover the Queen-Oxford-
>> Raleigh triangle. If this sonnet could
>> be taken on its own, I would probably
>> have little justification for reading
>> 'she' references as Raleigh.
>
> That's not the point, Paul. If the poet calls both addressees he and
> she within the same sonnet, he will confuse everyone
The sonnet was addressed to the Queen
and she would not have much difficulty
telling which 'she' was her and which was
Raleigh -- although I'm not saying that
it would be immediately obvious to her.
She'd have had to think. Also the poet
might mean her in one sense and Raleigh
in another (and perhaps ironic) sense.
The point is that his poetry is NOT meant
to be easy. Elizabeth would have expected
to need to think about it. So why do you
think you should grasp it easily -- 400
years later, and nearly completely ignorant
of almost everything remotely relevant?
> just as he would
> confuse everyone if the addressee of what is traditionally known as
> the FY sonnets was really, without any clues at all, a woman. The job
> of poetry is to convey one or several meanings to the reader.
Is some dopey American, completely
ignorant of all Elizabethan history
supposed to be able to make sense of
it easily?
>> But that is not the case. The Strat
>> argument (which you support) is that
>> Raleigh or the Queen are no more
>> present in these sonnets than are Bill
>> Clinton and Monica Lewinsky;
>
> No, not them. They were born too late.
You are misreading again. Look at
my analogy more carefully. Either
the Queen and Raleigh are present
in these sonnets OR they are not.
Likewise for Clinton and Monica
(although I think we can agree that
they are not present).
> How about Oxford, Southampton,
> Trentham? I know someone who thinks they are the main participants,
> and his interpretations make more sense than yours,
It is easy to show the worthlessness
of all available interpretations of the
Sonnets (apart, of course, from mine).
> although I don't
> buy them by any means as the only possibility.
Eh? Either they work or they don't.
They are not 'possibilities'. Who is
Trentham, btw?
>> that
>> my claims (in this respect) are insane.
>> The positions could not be more
>> opposed. Your petty 'objections' fail
>> to recognise this huge dichotomy.
>> If your case was based on reality,
>> you would easily find massive and
>> overwhelming arguments.
>
> My arguments that you may be way off-base are overwhelming
> to everyone except you.
I have not seen anything resembling
an argument from you yet. (And don't
worry about the fact that you can't
remember any -- you are not, in this
instance at least, losing your mental
faculties.)
> Doesn't that make you even a little suspicious of your own
> talent in deciphering?
Not at all. Humans are notorious for
their inability to absorb new ideas --
and their adherence to old ones, no
matter how bad. You present no
evidence that you have been able to
consider any part of my reading of
the Sonnets.
You have not posed one serious
question -- in fact, no questions at
all. The 'argument' that " . . the Strats
are right about their 'Fair Youf' and
'Dark Lady' because I've never
doubted them . . . " is not exactly
convincing.
You should be able to take any line
of my exegeses and show that it
does not fit the history of the day
OR those words in the sonnet OR
the rest of the sonnet. You have to
rely on some invented-on-the-spot
'rules for the use ambiguity'
Paul.
Paul Crowley
in message news:1176655136....@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> Like the vast bulk of poems written by
>> courtier-poets of that day (and of most
>> courts at most times) they were essentially
>> written for ONE person -- the monarch.
>
> So why aren't they dedicated to Elizabeth?
They were much too 'close to the
bone'. Since childhood, our poet had
been in the habit of writing anonymously
or using pseudonyms. This gave him
great freedom but, at the same time,
meant that his work could not be
published over his name.
> Why are some adressed to female figures,
> some to male, some to a "dark lady".
Much of this is nonsense. You have
to study each sonnet carefully in order
to establish who is the (principal)
addressee and what is its subject
> How would some of them escape censure =
> "My mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun"...
> off with his head!
This sonnet was, in fact, about Raleigh.
Nothing in it fits Elizabeth -- with 'her
breasts are dun' etc.,
>> That person was the fount of all favour,
>> all appointments and all other resources,
>> and the courtier-poets were no different
>> from other courtiers in their desires and
>> ambitions.
>
> So there was no patronage that wasn't exercised by the monarch?? How
> come there are so many other dedicatees to poetic works in the period?
It depends on the rank of the poet.
When you're near the bottom of the
heap you groom the next level up.
There was only one person Oxford
would have considered grooming.
>> > why would an elaborate code be
>> > invoked which only an Irishman 500 years distant would be able to
>> > decode be employed?
>>
>> The code is not elaborate.
>
> It is elaborate and far-fetched and goes against any natural, normal
> reading of a poem.
Your 'natural reading' derives from
centuries of Strat nonsense. That
it IS nonsense is pretty obvious.
> It is fairly
>> obvious to anyone who puts time into
>> reading these sonnets,
>
> So no-one in the 500 years since they were written has put any time
> into reading the sonnets? 'Cos no-one else has come up with cracking
> interpretations you've found.
First you have to know who the poet is.
Then you have to know the history of
the reign. Then you have to put in a
VAST amount of work. I can show
_huge_ amounts of work I did on the
Sonnets before I ever thought of
Raleigh.
> You may in this case have put some work in the study of the history of
> the times - there's got to be a first for everything - but you've mis-
> applied what you've learnt.
Misapplications are easy to demonstrate.
Why not come up with a couple of
examples? (Remember that, according
to you, the Queen, Oxford and Raleigh
are no more present in the Sonnets than
are Bill and Hilary Clinton and Monica
Lewinsky.) So it should be a trivially
easy task for you.
Paul.
Ms. Mouse
<slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
> "Ms. Mouse" <lynnekosit...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1176593680.7...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
>
> Eh? Either they work or they don't.
> They are not 'possibilities'. Who is
> Trentham, btw?
You are joking, right? You are an Oxfordian, calling everyone on their
lack of historical knowledge, but you don't know that Trentham was
Oxford's wife?
I give up.
Mouse
Paul Crowley
Sorry, I had forgotten the name.
I could have easily found out --
without asking. But I knew it
was no one important.
She is 'outside my period' --
Oxford had done the great bulk
of his work before his second
marriage, and she has no literary
significance whatsoever.
Paul.
Ms. Mouse
<slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
> "Ms. Mouse" <lynnekosit...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1176727501.7...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 16, 4:17 am, "Paul Crowley"
> > <slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
> >> "Ms. Mouse" <lynnekosit...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:1176593680.7...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > [snip]
>
> >> Eh? Either they work or they don't.
> >> They are not 'possibilities'.
If several scenarios fit the sonnets, that's exactly what they are. If
certain facts are unknown, that's exactly what they are. Possibility
I can't understand why you are so blind to rational argument.
>>>Who is
> >> Trentham, btw?
>
> > You are joking, right? You are an Oxfordian, calling everyone on their
> > lack of historical knowledge, but you don't know that Trentham was
> > Oxford's wife?
>
> > I give up.
>
> Sorry, I had forgotten the name.
> I could have easily found out --
> without asking. But I knew it
> was no one important.
No one important? The wife of your candidate? She is someone extremely
important to the Oxford story, for several reasons, not least to do
with discussions about why certain works were published at certain
times.
>
> She is 'outside my period' --
> Oxford had done the great bulk
> of his work before his second
> marriage, and she has no literary
> significance whatsoever.
That's ludicrous. You're studying the sonnets, you say they're by
Oxford, but you don't bother to research his own WIFE as possible DL?
You don't even know who she WAS although she was Lady in Waiting to
Elizabeth? You don't bother to study other Elizabethan periods to see
if they could ALSO fit the pattern of the sonnets? This is the kind of
thing that makes Oxfordians laughing stocks and smears all of us.
You really should have studied Elizabeth Trentham because John Hamill
has suggested she is the protagonist in Willoughby His Avisa as well
as the DL in the sonnets. Without understanding his arguments, which
fit the sonnets just as well as yours--actually much better--you
cannot keep saying yours is the only possible solution. It's not. It's
one of very, very many. That's in part why they're such an enigma.
L.
>
> Paul.- Hide quoted text -
johnan...@johnpandrews.freeserve.co.uk
>
> <johnanti-s...@johnpandrews.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> >On 15 Apr, 00:34, "Ms. Mouse" <lynnekosit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Apr 14, 7:58 am, "Paul Crowley"
>
> >Were it not for Paul's exegesis, wouldn't this sonnet be rather
> >straightforward?
>
> You have GOT to be kidding!
>
> >I agree that the "Love" in the first line can refer
> >to an abstract quality and to an embodied adressee. I think that the
> >word "young" can refer to both lacking in age in terms of the love
> >object, which reminds us of cupid, and to the palpitations of
> >infatuation at the earliest stages.
>
> Okay. So I'll ask you the same question that I asked WdV:
> Why does the speaker addressee the addressee (multiple or single) in
> the third person in the first two lines, and then address
> him/her/it/them directly in the next 10 lines? That strikes me as
> very odd.
I don't find it so - turning from a generalised philosophical, almost
proverbial, statement to the particular situation "at hand" seems to
me to be relatively common in the sonnets.
Good point. One way to paraphrase the opening lines to make the link
clear to the third would be: "The heat love in its early stages is so
strong that it will overpower moral restraint, but everyone knows that
regret and guilt follows sexual gratification...therefore, don't tempt
me missus..."
> >To Paul I would refer William Empson's criticism, especially where he
> >investigates which interpretations infringe the unwritten laws of what
> >is acceptable as interpretation.
>
> I should probably read that myself one day.
>
> >For poems which were written for the
> >enjoyment of a circle of intimates, why would an elaborate code be
> >invoked which only an Irishman 500 years distant would be able to
> >decode be employed?
>
> And one who hasn't even meditated for 42 years!
>
> - Gary
Any use?
Best wishes
John Andrews
johnan...@johnpandrews.freeserve.co.uk
This should be "The heat of love..." sorry
"The heat love in its early stages is so
> strong that it will overpower moral restraint, but everyone knows that
> regret and guilt follows sexual gratification...therefore, don't tempt
> me missus..."
>
> > >To Paul I would refer William Empson's criticism, especially where he
> > >investigates which interpretations infringe the unwritten laws of what
> > >is acceptable as interpretation.
>
> > I should probably read that myself one day.
>
> > >For poems which were written for the
> > >enjoyment of a circle of intimates, why would an elaborate code be
> > >invoked which only an Irishman 500 years distant would be able to
> > >decode be employed?
>
> > And one who hasn't even meditated for 42 years!
>
> > - Gary
>
> Any use?
>
> Best wishes
>
> John Andrews- Hide quoted text -
Gary
"johnan...@johnpandrews.freeserve.co.uk"
<johnan...@johnpandrews.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>On 15 Apr, 23:44, g...@vcn.bc.ca (Gary) wrote:
>> On 14 Apr 2007 17:15:12 -0700,
>> "johnantis...@johnpandrews.freeserve.co.uk"
>>
>> <johnanti-s...@johnpandrews.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>> >On 15 Apr, 00:34, "Ms. Mouse" <lynnekosit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Apr 14, 7:58 am, "Paul Crowley"
>>
>> >Were it not for Paul's exegesis, wouldn't this sonnet be rather
>> >straightforward?
>>
>> You have GOT to be kidding!
>>
>> >I agree that the "Love" in the first line can refer
>> >to an abstract quality and to an embodied adressee. I think that the
>> >word "young" can refer to both lacking in age in terms of the love
>> >object, which reminds us of cupid, and to the palpitations of
>> >infatuation at the earliest stages.
>>
>> Okay. So I'll ask you the same question that I asked WdV:
>> Why does the speaker addressee the addressee (multiple or single) in
>> the third person in the first two lines, and then address
>> him/her/it/them directly in the next 10 lines? That strikes me as
>> very odd.
>
>I don't find it so - turning from a generalised philosophical, almost
>proverbial, statement to the particular situation "at hand" seems to
>me to be relatively common in the sonnets.
Can you point out a few? Specifically, where the speaker
talks *about* the addressee at the outset of the poem, and then talks
directly to the addressee later on? I've skimmed the poems, but your
point may well be valid.
SNIP
>> >For me the
>> >pronouns are always the giveaway - "I" and "thee", with their
>> >concomitant associates, dominate - which confirm the simplicity of the
>> >conversation which is between two figures: the "speaker" and the
>> >"adressee". The loveliness of the line which gives problems of
>> >interpretation - "Yet who knows not conscience is born of love?" - is
>> >that the word "conscience" also means "consciousness" - awareness, if
>> >you like. This gives the idea of the amazing potential for the
>> >flowering of human perceptions which come from love.
>>
>> The problem of interpretation connected with those lines, for
>> me, comes with the word "Then" in L3. Whatever the speaker is saying
>> in those first two lines, whether it concerns conscience or
>> consciousness, seems to be the reason why the speaker tells the
>> addressee that the addressee should not 'urge the amiss' of the
>> speaker. I don't see any meaningful connection between what is being
>> said in those first two lines, and demonstrating to the addressee
>> that, as a result of them, the addressee should or should not continue
>> to do something.
>
>Good point. One way to paraphrase the opening lines to make the link
>clear to the third would be: "The heat love in its early stages is so
>strong that it will overpower moral restraint, but everyone knows that
>regret and guilt follows sexual gratification...therefore, don't tempt
>me missus..."
SNIP
Okay. So that takes us to line 3. And line 4 can be
understood. But what does the addressee's betrayal of the speaker in
line 5 consist of?
- Gary
Paul Crowley
>> > [snip]
>>
>> >> Eh? Either they work or they don't.
>> >> They are not 'possibilities'.
>
> If several scenarios fit the sonnets, that's exactly what they are.
That is a quite absurd statement.
We have a huge amount of data about
the sonnets -- especially the 2,155 lines
packed with dense meaning. It is VERY
easy to examine bad scenarios and
show their lack of fit. There are NONE
(except mine, of course) that begin to
provide any kind of 'fit' at all.
Your problem is a total credulousness
allied to complete incapacity to examine
the evidence, or to ask questions.
Presumably you regard the statement:
"Me tinks dat Sir Francis Bacon writ
dem" qualifies as a scenario and is as
good ' a theory ' as any other.
> If certain facts are unknown, that's exactly what
> they are. Possibility
Don't pretend that ignorance is knowledge.
The standard opinion is that no one has
much of a clue as to why the sonnets were
written nor whom to, nor when. To say
that each 'scenario' is a real possibility is
not just empty verbiage -- it is nonsense.
This is what you wrote:
>>||> although I don't
>>||> buy them by any means as the only possibility.
>> Sorry, I had forgotten the name.
>> I could have easily found out --
>> without asking. But I knew it
>> was no one important.
>
> No one important? The wife of your candidate? She is someone extremely
> important to the Oxford story, for several reasons, not least to do
> with discussions about why certain works were published at certain
> times.
Nonsense. Her name is (rightly) hardly
ever mentioned in Oxfordian discussions.
>> She is 'outside my period' --
>> Oxford had done the great bulk
>> of his work before his second
>> marriage, and she has no literary
>> significance whatsoever.
>
> That's ludicrous. You're studying the sonnets, you say they're by
> Oxford, but you don't bother to research his own WIFE as possible DL?
No one does. The idea is nonsensical.
> You don't even know who she WAS although she was Lady in Waiting to
> Elizabeth? You don't bother to study other Elizabethan periods to see
> if they could ALSO fit the pattern of the sonnets? This is the kind of
> thing that makes Oxfordians laughing stocks and smears all of us.
Nope. It is well-understood -- even by
the likes of Booth -- that the Sonnets are
'courtly' -- they are about what went on
at court, its conventions and intrigues.
It is generally agreed that Oxford spent
little time at court in the 1590s. He would
have had no occasion to write sonnets --
even IF that's when the daft Stratfordians
think they were written, and some even
dafter Oxfordians follow them down this
hopeless road.
> You really should have studied Elizabeth Trentham because John Hamill
> has suggested she is the protagonist in Willoughby His Avisa
It can be no more than a suggestion.
> as well as the DL in the sonnets.
This guy is an idiot. There are plenty
such in the world, but I'm not going
to bother reading them.
> Without understanding his arguments, which
> fit the sonnets just as well as yours--actually much better--
What a laugh. Try posting the best
of them here.
> you
> cannot keep saying yours is the only possible solution. It's not. It's
> one of very, very many. That's in part why they're such an enigma.
Ridiculous. If there are 5,000 'solutions',
then at least 4,999 of them are transparently
bad, and no one should waste time on
them.
Paul.
Ms. Mouse
<slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
> "Ms. Mouse" <lynnekosit...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1176734448.6...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > [snip]
>
> >> >> Eh? Either they work or they don't.
> >> >> They are not 'possibilities'.
>
> > If several scenarios fit the sonnets, that's exactly what they are.
>
> That is a quite absurd statement.
> We have a huge amount of data about
> the sonnets -- especially the 2,155 lines
> packed with dense meaning. It is VERY
> easy to examine bad scenarios and
> show their lack of fit. There are NONE
> (except mine, of course) that begin to
> provide any kind of 'fit' at all.
>
> Your problem is a total credulousness
> allied to complete incapacity to examine
> the evidence, or to ask questions.
> Presumably you regard the statement:
> "Me tinks dat Sir Francis Bacon writ
> dem" qualifies as a scenario and is as
> good ' a theory ' as any other.
It's a pity you can't be as critical of yourself as you are of
others.
>
> > If certain facts are unknown, that's exactly what
> > they are. Possibility
>
> Don't pretend that ignorance is knowledge.
> The standard opinion is that no one has
> much of a clue as to why the sonnets were
> written nor whom to, nor when. To say
> that each 'scenario' is a real possibility is
> not just empty verbiage -- it is nonsense.
I didn't say each scenario is a real possibility. I don't think yours,
for example, is a real possibility, not with all its bells and
whistles, anyhow.
>
> This is what you wrote:
>
> >>||> although I don't
> >>||> buy them by any means as the only possibility.
> >> Sorry, I had forgotten the name.
> >> I could have easily found out --
> >> without asking. But I knew it
> >> was no one important.
>
> > No one important? The wife of your candidate? She is someone extremely
> > important to the Oxford story, for several reasons, not least to do
> > with discussions about why certain works were published at certain
> > times.
>
> Nonsense. Her name is (rightly) hardly
> ever mentioned in Oxfordian discussions.
Paul, I've never seen you at a single conference I've attended, and I
attend most of them. How on earth do you know what's being discussed?
And which newsletters do you subscribe to?
>
> >> She is 'outside my period' --
> >> Oxford had done the great bulk
> >> of his work before his second
> >> marriage, and she has no literary
> >> significance whatsoever.
>
> > That's ludicrous. You're studying the sonnets, you say they're by
> > Oxford, but you don't bother to research his own WIFE as possible DL?
>
> No one does. The idea is nonsensical.
See, this is your idea of research. Anything you don't believe or
which cuts across your eisegesis is nonsensical.
>
> > You don't even know who she WAS although she was Lady in Waiting to
> > Elizabeth? You don't bother to study other Elizabethan periods to see
> > if they could ALSO fit the pattern of the sonnets? This is the kind of
> > thing that makes Oxfordians laughing stocks and smears all of us.
>
> Nope. It is well-understood -- even by
> the likes of Booth -- that the Sonnets are
> 'courtly' -- .
She was a lady in waiting to the queen. How could she not be courtly?
The same would apply to Anne Vavasour, Emilia Bassano Lanier, and
several other women suggested as the DL by Strats or non-Strats.
>they are about what went on
> at court, its conventions and intrigues
Where does Booth say this? I must have missed it.
> It is generally agreed that Oxford spent
> little time at court in the 1590s.
>He would
> have had no occasion to write sonnets --
Because he wasn't at court? I'm amazed at some of your "theorying."
> even IF that's when the daft Stratfordians
> think they were written, and some even
> dafter Oxfordians follow them down this
> hopeless road.
Most believe this, although I believe it's possible that some are
earlier, However, you have Shakespeare writing some very mature
sonnets at the age of about fourteen. I think that's a crock.
>
> > You really should have studied Elizabeth Trentham because John Hamill
> > has suggested she is the protagonist in Willoughby His Avisa
>
> It can be no more than a suggestion.
How do you know? Have you heard him speak?
>
> > as well as the DL in the sonnets.
>
> This guy is an idiot. There are plenty
> such in the world, but I'm not going
> to bother reading them.
Of course not. One thing John is not is an idiot, even though I might
not be persuaded by his interpretation.
>
> > Without understanding his arguments, which
> > fit the sonnets just as well as yours--actually much better--
>
> What a laugh. Try posting the best
> of them here.
Go do some research of your own. Ask him for some of his work. It
might enlighten you a little.
>
> > you
> > cannot keep saying yours is the only possible solution. It's not. It's
> > one of very, very many. That's in part why they're such an enigma.
>
> Ridiculous. If there are 5,000 'solutions',
> then at least 4,999 of them are transparently
> bad, and no one should waste time on
> them.
You mean yours is the only good one? I think you must be suffering
from delusions of grandeur. There's not much point in trying to
dialogue with someone who cannot see the huge wooden beam in his own
eye.
L.
>
> Paul.
Paul Crowley
> It's a pity you can't be as critical of yourself as you are of
> others.
It's a pity others can't be as critical of me
I am of them. But, actually, there's a good
reason. I am intensely self-critical and try
very hard not to spout nonsense -- which
is not to say it cannot happen.
> I didn't say each scenario is a real possibility.
You said (or implied) each was a possibility.
>> Nonsense. Her name is (rightly) hardly
>> ever mentioned in Oxfordian discussions.
>
> Paul, I've never seen you at a single conference I've attended, and I
> attend most of them.
I find it hard to imagine a more pointless
and shameful way of destroying the planet
than flying around attending Strat or quasi-
Strat conferences.
>> > You don't even know who she WAS although she was Lady in Waiting to
>> > Elizabeth? You don't bother to study other Elizabethan periods to see
>> > if they could ALSO fit the pattern of the sonnets? This is the kind of
>> > thing that makes Oxfordians laughing stocks and smears all of us.
>>
>> Nope. It is well-understood -- even by
>> the likes of Booth -- that the Sonnets are
>> 'courtly' -- .
>
> She was a lady in waiting to the queen. How could she not be courtly?
Basically she was too late. Everyone knows
that the 1590s were a depressing, down-beat
time, with bad harvests, a tedious and expensive
war, high taxes, and so on. The period we have
to focus on is not the one in which the Strats
are imprisoned, but the 'golden age' as described
by Peacham: "in the time of our late Queen
Elizabeth, which was truly a golden age,"
That age was in the 1560s, 70s and some of
the 80s --- the time before the war, when the
whole court could unashamedly enjoy the
'more frivolous' arts.
> The same would apply to Anne Vavasour, Emilia Bassano Lanier, and
> several other women suggested as the DL by Strats or non-Strats.
You have to forget this Strat nonsense of
the 'Dark Lady' (as well as, of course, the
even greater nonsense of the 'Fair Youf').
But, I accept that Strats have so thoroughly
infected your brain, that there is little hope
for you in this regard.
>>they are about what went on
>> at court, its conventions and intrigues
>
> Where does Booth say this? I must have missed it.
------------------------------ On Booth ---------------------
page 163 on Sonnet 20
"mistress" here is an almost technical term of courtly love: a lady to whom
the lover swears allegiance-on the pattern of a vassal who swore allegiance
to a lord, his master - and to whom he addresses his love poems;
page 172 on SONNET 24
The body of this poem is a playfully grotesque and literal-minded elaboration
on a traditional topic of courtly love poetry
page 174 on SONNET 25
1. "who are in favor with their stars" whose stars are propitious (the astrological
statement is cast in a metaphor of court politics; see RIII I.i.79: "we will keep in
favour with the King").
page 180 on Sonnet 29
Compare sonnet 105; both poems derive energy from activating the literal implication
in the courtly love conceit of love as a religion in which the lover "worships" the beloved.
page 187 on Sonnet 33
OED cites a passage from 1600 that speaks of courtiers' fear of the king's disgrace;
that sense of the word recalls the courtly metaphor of line 2 and underscores the
transformation in the sovereign sun that formerly condescended to the courtier-like
mountains; note also that in Shakespeare's time "to be under a cloud" already
meant "to be in disgrace").
And so on and on . . .
There are so many passages that it could
be worth putting them all together. If Strats
had open minds they might see that the
notion the poet was other than a courtier is
ridiculous. Of course, they could readily
see that from the plays -- if they were not
inured into utter stupidity.
Booth sometimes gets some of the sense,
but nearly always misreads some aspect in a
hilarious manner, like in this next passage.
He seems quite ignorant of the very strong
associations at the time (and for a long time
before and after) of 'the rose' and 'the lily'.
Page 318 on Sonnet 98
. . . thus, like the presence of the lily and the rose in lines 9 and 10, reinforces
the persistent and essential analogy Shakespeare draws between the speaker's
relationship with a beloved and the traditional courtly love poet's relationship
with a mistress.
----------------------------End on Booth -------------------
>> It is generally agreed that Oxford spent
>> little time at court in the 1590s.
>
>>He would
>> have had no occasion to write sonnets --
>
> Because he wasn't at court? I'm amazed at some of your "theorying."
Sorry, I forgot that you think they are all
about "l u r v e".
>> even IF that's when the daft Stratfordians
>> think they were written, and some even
>> dafter Oxfordians follow them down this
>> hopeless road.
>
> Most believe this, although I believe it's possible that some are
> earlier, However, you have Shakespeare writing some very mature
> sonnets at the age of about fourteen. I think that's a crock.
Ever heard of Rimbaud? Shake-speare
was far more precocious. Of course,
he had much greater advantages,
surrounded by actors, as well as the
super-elite of the day, from the time
when he was an infant.
Paul.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
ME:
> > I've already explained it. Those poems have been popular FOR CHILDREN
> > AND ADULTS RELIVING OR REMEMBERING THEIR CHILDHOOD OR
ENJOYING THE
> > POEMS EFFECT ON CHILDREN not because of their themes, which few if any
> > scholars have claimed were important elements of them, but because of
> > their verbal music, their silliness, their heightened, fantasy-charged
> > imagery. That some of them may once have been intended as satirical
> > comments is irrelevant: they are loved in spite of the trivial
> > journalistic meanings they may once have had but have shed.
> > The popularity of Shakespeare's poems is entirely different. They are
> > not popular with children, but with adults,
PAUL:
> The differences here is trivial. The
> adult versions merely use longer
> words and more complex metres.
ME: Still, they are not popular with children, as I said, but with
adults. Why would that
be, Paul?
They don't use more complex meter, by the way. They do use longer
words. Further on I
will list the more important, very obvious differences.
> > and they are popular because of their music, their imagery
>
> This is much the same as in nursery rhymes.
ME: Yes, but:.
> > AND because of their standard
> > themes and the poet's effective treatment of those themes.
>
> Nonsense. Quote a standard commentator
> expatiating on one of the 'standard themes'
> in any particular sonnet.
ME: Sorry, I should have said "themes recognized as standard by all
interpretors of the Sonnets but Crowley." An example (from Sonnet
73):
That time of year thou mayst in me behold
When yellow leaves, or none, or few, do hang
Upon those bough which shakes against the cold
Bare ruined choirs where late the sweet brids sang
Standard theme: aging. Other sonnets do variations on the standard
theme of life's shortness compared to the longevity of art. Sonnet
18's standard theme is the superiority in value of a loved one to fine
weather. Etc.
> > Trivial
> > details like who the Sonnet's addressee was, if a real person, are
> > interesting enough but have no bearing on why the poems are enjoyed to
> > the degree they are. That's because it's what's universal in poetry
> > that captures the public.
>
> It's the same sort of thing as in nursery
> rhymes.
Maybe, but what's universal in nursery rhymes is hugely different from
what's universal in the Sonnets and other serious poetry for adults.
>
> > The Aeneid (which I've never liked) has
> > been popular for centuries not because of whatever allusions to the
> > court of Augustus might be in it, but because of its universal
> > characters and story-line, and the effectiveness of its poetry as
> > poetry (something you might want to study sometime, Paul, because what
> > poetry does as poetry is important).
>
> What nursery rhymes do as nursery
> rhymes is also important (and is
> much the same).
No, it is not much the same. Take:
Hi diddle diddle,
The cat and the fiddle;
The cow jumped over the moon.
The little dog laughed
To see such craft,
And the dish ran away with the spoon.
Do you not recognize that the tone of this is different from the tone
of the Aeneid? Tone in poetry is important, Paul. Do you not also
see that the nursery rhyme has nothing to do with human relationships,
important social events, anything genuinely archetypal, unless escape
from rationality is. It well may be, it probably is--but that
particular archetype belongs to nursery rhymes and nonsense verse
ONLY, not to verse like the Aeneid or the
passage from Sonnet 73 I quoted.
To be fair, let me quote another famous nursery rhyme (from memory so
perhaps incorrectly, as the above may also be):
Little Miss Muffet
Sat on a tuffet,
Eating her curds and whey.
Along came a spider
Who sat down beside her
And scared poor Miss Muffet away.
This is not nonsense, but light verse. Different in tone from the
Aeneid and Sonnet 73 because of its two-syllable rhymes, which include
the amusing forced "side her" to make a rhyme with "spider." It's
obviously not about a crucial event in the life of someone important.
There's no metaphoric richness--as there is in most of the Sonnets,
and in very few other nursery rhymes, if any. The meter includes
anapaests, which are more jingly than iambs, and more noticeable.
This seems true of most nursery rhymes. Nursery
rhymes are much more auditory than serious verse--because not greatly
complicated by adult subject matter.
The major difference between a poem like Shakespeare's Sonnet 73 and a
nursery rhyme, for those who appreciate them as texts without the kind
of secondary meanings some nursery rhymes may have and you believe the
Sonnets have, is that the Sonnet will put a reader in what I call
Manywhere-at-Once, generally two or three different experiences with
archetypal depth of the REAL world--in this case aging man, autumn
woods and ruined church, a nursery rhyme will put a reader in a single
experience of an obviously comic unreal world.
No one with the ability to appreciate poetry could possibly believe
people like Keats, Coleridge and Wordsworth would experience the
Sonnets no differently than they experience nursery rhyme, or that
anyone lacking your key to The Sonnets would.
> > That the Aeneid is NOT history
> > the way you say the Sonnets are does not diminish its value to those
> > who like it. It enhances it, I believe.
>
> 'Humpty Dumpty' is NOT history
> (to >99.99% of children). The fact that
> it can be read as such does not diminish
> its value to those who like it. In fact, it
> enhances it -- to those who enjoy
> understanding the nature of poetry,
> and appreciating how it is -- sometimes
> -- created.
>
> Paul.
Paul, you have no idea how poetry is made. You seem only to know well
Shakespeare's poetry, and those few poems you've been forced to read
in your search to make authorship points. I am different. You once
asserted that I didn't know any good poets, so I made a list for HLAS
of the pre-contemporary English or American poets others claim are
good that I do know. Each of the following eleven I know well enough
to write a book without
referring to any other books except those containing hisr poems. Yhe
eleven are: Wordsworth, Shakespeare, Keats, Dylan Thomas, Roethke,
Stevens, Yeats, Pound, Cummings, Frost, Coleridge. I've written
essays on all of these, in some cases for publication in mainstream
reference books. I feel I also know three or four dozen other pre-
contemporary poets, mainly English or American reasonably well, too,
like Hardy and Jeffers, Williams and Eliot. I challenge you to name
the poets you know well. I'd be amazed if there were more than three
or four. If so, how can you believe you know anything about poetry?
--Bob G.
Peter Groves
news:1176863357.9...@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> ME:
> > > I've already explained it. Those poems have been popular FOR CHILDREN
> > > AND ADULTS RELIVING OR REMEMBERING THEIR CHILDHOOD OR
> ENJOYING THE
> > > POEMS EFFECT ON CHILDREN not because of their themes, which few if any
> > > scholars have claimed were important elements of them, but because of
> > > their verbal music, their silliness, their heightened, fantasy-charged
> > > imagery. That some of them may once have been intended as satirical
> > > comments is irrelevant: they are loved in spite of the trivial
> > > journalistic meanings they may once have had but have shed.
>
> > > The popularity of Shakespeare's poems is entirely different. They are
> > > not popular with children, but with adults,
>
> PAUL:
> > The differences here is trivial. The
> > adult versions merely use longer
> > words and more complex metres.
>
> ME: Still, they are not popular with children, as I said, but with
> adults. Why would that
> be, Paul?
>
> They don't use more complex meter, by the way.
Loth as I am to offer any support to Crowley, he is in fact correct here.
BTW, Bob, the other day I came across a curious internet run-in you had with
some pompous rambling half-educated nutter called (IIRC) Daniel Schneider,
who sounds a lot like our own pompous rambling half-educated nutter Eddie
Bilge, and who claims that metre doesn't even exist (I think that's his
claim -- he was hopelessly incoherent in his blog). You were claiming --
with no little justice -- that his poetry was basically crap.
Peter G.
Paul Crowley
news:1176863357.9...@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> The differences here is trivial. The
>> adult versions merely use longer
>> words and more complex metres.
>
> ME: Still, they are not popular with children, as I said, but with
> adults. Why would that be, Paul?
I can't see your problem. Human beings like
to 'make music' with words. Children can
cope only with simpler words and rhythms;
adults can -- generally - cope with more
complexity but, in any case, they like to
pretend that they are more sophisticated,
and have left childish things behind.
Don't ask me to explain why humans like music.
>> > and they are popular because of their music, their imagery
>>
>> This is much the same as in nursery rhymes.
>
> ME: Yes, but:.
>
>> > AND because of their standard
>> > themes and the poet's effective treatment of those themes.
>>
>> Nonsense. Quote a standard commentator
>> expatiating on one of the 'standard themes'
>> in any particular sonnet.
>
> ME: Sorry, I should have said "themes recognized as standard by all
> interpretors of the Sonnets but Crowley." An example (from Sonnet
> 73):
>
> That time of year thou mayst in me behold
> When yellow leaves, or none, or few, do hang
> Upon those bough which shakes against the cold
> Bare ruined choirs where late the sweet brids sang
>
> Standard theme: aging.
Is it? I doubt it. Recite it to (say) a
class of students, ask them to write
down the 'theme'; I doubt if many
would say 'ageing'.
> Other sonnets do variations on the standard
> theme of life's shortness compared to the longevity of art. Sonnet
> 18's standard theme is the superiority in value of a loved one to fine
> weather. Etc.
Silly. You might as well start listing
the 'standard themes' of nursery
rhymes.
> Maybe, but what's universal in nursery rhymes is hugely different from
> what's universal in the Sonnets and other serious poetry for adults.
I don't agree.
> No, it is not much the same. Take:
>
> Hi diddle diddle,
> The cat and the fiddle;
> The cow jumped over the moon.
> The little dog laughed
> To see such craft,
> And the dish ran away with the spoon.
>
> Do you not recognize that the tone of this is different from the tone
> of the Aeneid?
The Aenied is a long discursive
history, and not comparable.
The tone of this nursery rhyme is quite
different from others: e.g. 'Jack and Jill',
'Humpty Dumpty'.
> Tone in poetry is important, Paul. Do you not also
> see that the nursery rhyme has nothing to do with human relationships,
> important social events, anything genuinely archetypal, unless escape
> from rationality is.
Comparing your beloved to a Summer's
day is likewise an escape from reality.
When did you last compare someone to
a day, a week, a month, a year, a century,
or any other period of time, such as
a second, a minute or an hour?
What does Sonnet 18 (or any of the
Sonnets) have to do with "important
social events" -- under your readings?
> It well may be, it probably is--but that
> particular archetype belongs to nursery rhymes and nonsense verse
> ONLY, not to verse like the Aeneid or the
> passage from Sonnet 73 I quoted.
>
> To be fair, let me quote another famous nursery rhyme (from memory so
> perhaps incorrectly, as the above may also be):
>
> Little Miss Muffet
> Sat on a tuffet,
> Eating her curds and whey.
> Along came a spider
> Who sat down beside her
> And scared poor Miss Muffet away.
>
> This is not nonsense, but light verse.
Yet again, you are lost in literalism.
Whatever this rhyme is about, there
is vastly more to it than a little girl
sitting on a tuffet. Why do you think
a high proportion of nursery rhymes
originated as political skits?
The answer seems to be that they
have to have some real meaning in
the world-- to become known, or get
circulation, in the first place, but also
because it is virtually impossible (or
at least extremely difficult) to create
a 'nonsense verse' out of nothing.
Once the political skit has lost its
context, the verse becomes mysterious
in an interesting way. It clearly says
_something_ but that meaning is not
accessible, leaving us with a strange
fantasy, that is both intangible and
nearly-tangible at the same time.
The Sonnets are clearly of a similar
nature. They only pretend to be about
things like a 'summers day'. Those who
like their nursery rhymes to be just
nursery rhymes will not want to know
anything of their origin, nor how they
were created.
> The major difference between a poem like Shakespeare's Sonnet 73 and a
> nursery rhyme, for those who appreciate them as texts without the kind
> of secondary meanings some nursery rhymes may have and you believe the
> Sonnets have, is that the Sonnet will put a reader in what I call
> Manywhere-at-Once, generally two or three different experiences with
> archetypal depth of the REAL world--in this case aging man, autumn
> woods and ruined church, a nursery rhyme will put a reader in a single
> experience of an obviously comic unreal world.
I don't go along with your analysis.
Maybe a Sonnet is generally more
complex than a nursery rhyme -- big
deal. But it is essentially the same
thing. Also nursery rhymes can cover
the full range, and many are tragic or
terrifying and far from comic.
> No one with the ability to appreciate poetry could possibly believe
> people like Keats, Coleridge and Wordsworth would experience the
> Sonnets no differently than they experience nursery rhyme, or that
> anyone lacking your key to The Sonnets would.
Your problem here is a near-complete
blindness to the depth present in
nursery rhymes.
Paul.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> > Shakespeare's poetry, and those few poems you've been forced to read
> > in your search to make authorship points. I am different. You once
> > asserted that I didn't know any good poets, so I made a list for HLAS
> > of the pre-contemporary English or American poets others claim are
> > good that I do know. Each of the following eleven I know well enough
> > to write a book without
> > eleven are: Wordsworth, Shakespeare, Keats, Dylan Thomas, Roethke,
> > Stevens, Yeats, Pound, Cummings, Frost, Coleridge. I've written
> > essays on all of these, in some cases for publication in mainstream
> > reference books. I feel I also know three or four dozen other pre-
> > contemporary poets, mainly English or American reasonably well, too,
> > like Hardy and Jeffers, Williams and Eliot. I challenge you to name
> > the poets you know well. I'd be amazed if there were more than three
> > or four. If so, how can you believe you know anything about poetry?
>
answer my question? What makes you think you're competent to
contradict me or anybody else on anything concerning poetry?
--Bob G.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> >> adult versions merely use longer
> >> words and more complex metres.
>
> > ME: Still, they are not popular with children, as I said, but with
> > adults. Why would that be, Paul?
>
> I can't see your problem. Human beings like
> to 'make music' with words. Children can
> cope only with simpler words and rhythms;
> adults can -- generally - cope with more
> complexity but, in any case, they like to
> pretend that they are more sophisticated,
> and have left childish things behind.
>
> Don't ask me to explain why humans like music.
>
Shakespeare's Sonnets. Are you saying it's because the Sonnets have
more complexity? If so, you have indicated a difference between
nursery rhymes and the Sonnets for adults.
>
Human being like music because (a) they are wired to enjoy some sounds
and (2) they are wired to like repetition and variation.
>
> >> > and they are popular because of their music, their imagery
>
> >> This is much the same as in nursery rhymes.
>
> > ME: Yes, but:.
>
> >> > AND because of their standard
> >> > themes and the poet's effective treatment of those themes.
>
> >> Nonsense. Quote a standard commentator
> >> expatiating on one of the 'standard themes'
> >> in any particular sonnet.
>
> > ME: Sorry, I should have said "themes recognized as standard by all
> > interpretors of the Sonnets but Crowley." An example (from Sonnet
> > 73):
>
> > That time of year thou mayst in me behold
> > When yellow leaves, or none, or few, do hang
> > Upon those bough which shakes against the cold
> > Bare ruined choirs where late the sweet brids sang
>
> > Standard theme: aging.
>
> Is it? I doubt it. Recite it to (say) a
> class of students, ask them to write
> down the 'theme'; I doubt if many
> would say 'ageing'.
What would they say?
> > Other sonnets do variations on the standard
> > theme of life's shortness compared to the longevity of art. Sonnet
> > 18's standard theme is the superiority in value of a loved one to fine
> > weather. Etc.
>
> Silly.
So you say, which is why arguing with you is such a waste of time.
You automatically ask for some A, and automatically reject any attempt
to give you an A as invalid.
> You might as well start listing
> the 'standard themes' of nursery
> rhymes.
> > Maybe, but what's universal in nursery rhymes is hugely different from
> > what's universal in the Sonnets and other serious poetry for adults.
>
> I don't agree.
>
> > No, it is not much the same. Take:
>
> > Hi diddle diddle,
> > The cat and the fiddle;
> > The cow jumped over the moon.
> > The little dog laughed
> > To see such craft,
> > And the dish ran away with the spoon.
>
> > Do you not recognize that the tone of this is different from the tone
> > of the Aeneid?
>
> The Aenied is a long discursive
> history, and not comparable.
The nursery rhyme has a tone and the Aeneid has a tone; therefore they
can be compared. The nursery rhyme's differs from the Aeneid's. This
is one of many differences between why an adult's appreciation of the
Aeneid differs from his appreciation of nursery rhymes, although you
claim there is no difference between the two.
> The tone of this nursery rhyme is quite
> different from others: e.g. 'Jack and Jill',
> 'Humpty Dumpty'.
No two poems share a tone exactly, but all nursery rhymes share
tonalities they do not share with Shakespere's Sopnnets or the Aeneid.
> > Tone in poetry is important, Paul. Do you not also
> > see that the nursery rhyme has nothing to do with human relationships,
> > important social events, anything genuinely archetypal, unless escape
> > from rationality is.
>
> Comparing your beloved to a Summer's
> day is likewise an escape from reality.
No, Paul. A cow jumping over the moon is unreal. A comparison of a
beloved person is not fantasy, but descriptive. The poet is saying
that the beloved is IN SOME RESPECT like a summer's day. The beloved
shares certain happy features with the summer's day. Nothing unreal
about it: the beloved is soothing, like the day; the beloved is as
beautiful as the day; etc.
> When did you last compare someone to
> a day, a week, a month, a year, a century,
> or any other period of time, such as
> a second, a minute or an hour?
I wonder if anyone could say anything that more conclusively proved he
knew nothing about poetry than that last statement, Paul. (1) The
sonnet compares a loved one not to a day but to a SUMMER'S day. (2)
There's no reason for some poet not to compare a person to a period of
time if it made poetic sense. I might write that X is 23 hours of
each day of my life. Or I could say that when I read the great poets,
I am like a nano-second lost among centuries.
> What does Sonnet 18 (or any of the
> Sonnets) have to do with "important
> social events" -- under your readings?
The writing of poetry that will last for eternity is an important
social event. Sonnet 18 is not about any important social event as
far as I can tell; it's about a human relationship. As are most of
the sonnets.
> > It well may be, it probably is--but that
> > particular archetype belongs to nursery rhymes and nonsense verse
> > ONLY, not to verse like the Aeneid or the
> > passage from Sonnet 73 I quoted.
>
> > To be fair, let me quote another famous nursery rhyme (from memory so
> > perhaps incorrectly, as the above may also be):
>
> > Little Miss Muffet
> > Sat on a tuffet,
> > Eating her curds and whey.
> > Along came a spider
> > Who sat down beside her
> > And scared poor Miss Muffet away.
>
> > This is not nonsense, but light verse.
>
> Yet again, you are lost in literalism.
> Whatever this rhyme is about, there
> is vastly more to it than a little girl
> sitting on a tuffet. Why do you think
> a high proportion of nursery rhymes
> originated as political skits?
I'm not so sure that's true but it has nothing to do with what we've
been talking about, which is whether adult appreciation of Miss Muffet
(without knowing what you think you know about her) is the same as
adult appreciation of the Sonnets (without knowing what you think you
know about them).
> The answer seems to be that they
> have to have some real meaning in
> the world-- to become known, or get
> circulation, in the first place, but also
> because it is virtually impossible (or
> at least extremely difficult) to create
> a 'nonsense verse' out of nothing.
You can't create any poem out of nothing. The question is what you
need to make it out of. You say important autobiographical details, I
say all kinds of things inclduing (only sometimes) autobiographical
details. I also say it doesn't matter what the poet uses, only what
his poem says.
> Once the political skit has lost its
> context, the verse becomes mysterious
> in an interesting way. It clearly says
> _something_ but that meaning is not
> accessible, leaving us with a strange
> fantasy, that is both intangible and
> nearly-tangible at the same time.
We're going off-subject. Our subject is the difference between the
way nursery rhymes are taken by adults and serious poetry is.
> The Sonnets are clearly of a similar
> nature. They only pretend to be about
> things like a 'summers day'.
What explicit evidence do you have of this? What poet has ever
confessed that he only pretended to say in his lyric poetry what that
poetry clearly says on the surface, but was really talking about
something else? Name some lyric poem of note that is "really" not
about what it seems to be the way you claim Shakespeare's sonnets are
not "really" about summer days and the like?
> Those who
> like their nursery rhymes to be just
> nursery rhymes will not want to know
> anything of their origin, nor how they
> were created.
> > The major difference between a poem like Shakespeare's Sonnet 73 and a
> > nursery rhyme, for those who appreciate them as texts without the kind
> > of secondary meanings some nursery rhymes may have and you believe the
> > Sonnets have, is that the Sonnet will put a reader in what I call
> > Manywhere-at-Once, generally two or three different experiences with
> > archetypal depth of the REAL world--in this case aging man, autumn
> > woods and ruined church, a nursery rhyme will put a reader in a single
> > experience of an obviously comic unreal world.
>
> I don't go along with your analysis.
> Maybe a Sonnet is generally more
> complex than a nursery rhyme -- big
> deal. But it is essentially the same
> thing. Also nursery rhymes can cover
> the full range, and many are tragic or
> terrifying and far from comic.
Okay, demonstrate that some nursery rhyme of your choice does what I
say Sonnet 73 does.
> > No one with the ability to appreciate poetry could possibly believe
> > people like Keats, Coleridge and Wordsworth would experience the
> > Sonnets no differently than they experience nursery rhyme, or that
> > anyone lacking your key to The Sonnets would.
>
> Your problem here is a near-complete
> blindness to the depth present in
> nursery rhymes.
Right, but my blindness has been shared by every great poet or critic
of poetry I know of. Why?
--Bob G.
Paul Crowley
news:1176930508.9...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
As I have told you before.
OK, Ok. I'll be fully upfront about this. I was Miss
America in 1953 and I was awarded 2nd prize for
'Best Gladioli' at the Peckham Flower Show of
1926.
Does that help?
Paul.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
this to get the thread back on page one. I await your answer with
keen interest.
--Bob G.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
One other thing, Paul: do you really believe that your being familiar
with the works of almost no other poets other than Shakespeare does
not disqualify you as a commentator on Shakespeare's poems? If so,
why do you believe Shakespeare ought to have read all the books you
believe he did?
--Bob G.