[Clive Watkins]

Hello again!

That Tom’s woes involve in part his encounters with Maudlin is clear enough, and it is reasonable to assume that his original audience, whatever this was, would have grasped this point. That he inherited a fortune which he then squandered is, however, by no means clear from the text which has come down to us.

In your original post you write as follows of the verse that begins "When I short have shorne my sowce face": "Basically this says that Tom (in short time) spends all his money on his whore and winds up in debtor's prison… Tom has made a fool of himself and used up his inheritance." But it is far from clear which words in this line, or in the subsequent lines, tell us that Tom has spent all his money on his whore. (Surely, too, it is wilful to read "short" as meaning "in short time" when one of the key images in the line concerns shaving.)

Of course, "short" cannot mean "short of cash" (which you do not suggest). This is a relatively modern usage; at the time of the Earle MS (1615), the word had not, it seems, acquired this idiomatic sense. The earliest appearance of "short" in this sense occurs in a quotation from 1752: "Being run short of money"; and in 1762 we find "I am so short in cash, that I am not able to pay my workmen".

By the way, your confidence that Tom must have been twenty-one when he inherited his supposed fortune still needs defending. In England in past centuries, different ages of majority applied in different circumstances. The source of this confidence seems to be your sense of what you see as the underlying tale, but which version are you relying on? To use it in support of your case, you will have to demonstrate its currency in a period relevant to the Earle MS.

Your new idea that "Twice twenty" in "Twice twenty enraged" is merely an intensifier is unnecessary - as well as unEnglish. Surely the point is the craziness of the arithmetic, part of the Abraham-man’s act to convince his audience he is mad. Furthermore, your willingness to distinguish between the apparent nonsense of line 2 and line 3 (""Twice twenty" and "forty" of the next line are actually unconnected in meaning") begs questions. On what basis are you deciding that part of the text is coherent and part is not? Or that two parts of the text are consistent with each other and two other parts are not? (In this connexion it is worth asking why you decided to exclude from your consideration of the verse beginning "The palsie plagues my pulses" and "The Gipsie snap & Pedro".)

"Having a "bowl of cockle pottage" at a "stew" etc." - Of course, the word "stew" is not mentioned anywhere in the surviving text, though of course the general sense of the lines seems clear.

As to your interpretation of the "Conquest", it is good to hear of your absolute confidence that "your gloss… is 100% correct."


I do think your project, though interesting, will need to address two fundamental matters before you can explicate this poem. One is the status of the text, which is uncertain. So far, this discussion-thread has relied on Graves’s text (itself based on unspecified research by Jack Lindsay), with the suppression noted above of verses 5 and 7. Graves was in many respects and on some topics a good scholar, but to achieve certainty of interpretation on the basis of a text whose authenticity you have not yet firmly established seems doomed.

The second point (it is clearly connected to the first) is the question of the intended or expected audience for the "original" text, assuming such a text could be established. Without going the whole way with Graves, there are strong reasons for believing that we have here a poem (or song) which arose within a particular social and cultural milieu, the well-attested vagabondage that occurred in England in the later sixteenth century. Your reading assumes the poem is a riddle. Riddles are written for specific audiences, and their difficulty is gauged by their contrivers in relation to the ability of their audience to decipher them. (As you say in your last post, a "riddle is designed to confuse but be perfectly clear once you get the solution.") So, riddles designed for children make assumptions different from those designed for adults; and of course among adults there can be wide variations in interpretative skill - and also of general education and background knowledge. What audience do you imagine for your "original" text? To whom is Tom’s "riddle" addressed?

As I noted elsewhere in connexion with your account of Shakespeare’s Sonnet 107, I have enjoyed thinking about these things and am to that extent grateful to you for provoking the discussion. I can see no way, however, in which anything further I might have to say on this present topic would be of any help to you.

Clive Watkins

[ewrgall]

Originally posted by Clive Watkins:

That Tom’s woes involve in part his encounters with Maudlin is clear enough, and it is reasonable to assume that his original audience, whatever this was, would have grasped this point. That he inherited a fortune which he then squandered is, however, by no means clear from the text which has come down to us. He squandered his inheritence which in most cases was not a fortune. It is a proverbial story. Many "gentlemen" recieved money when they reached their majority. It was supposed be their "start". Tom squandered his. Or the young men of the proverbial story always squander theirs.

In your original post you write as follows of the verse that begins "When I short have shorne my sowce face": "Basically this says that Tom (in short time) spends all his money on his whore and winds up in debtor's prison… Tom has made a fool of himself and used up his inheritance." But it is far from clear which words in this line, or in the subsequent lines, tell us that Tom has spent all his money on his whore. (Surely, too, it is wilful to read "short" as meaning "in short time" when one of the key images in the line concerns shaving.) You are quite right. I was aware of both possibilities. I like to try things out. Generally I start with the least likely and work up to the more probable.

By the way, your confidence that Tom must have been twenty-one when he inherited his supposed fortune still needs defending. In England in past centuries, different ages of majority applied in different circumstances. The source of this confidence seems to be your sense of what you see as the underlying tale, but which version are you relying on? To use it in support of your case, you will have to demonstrate its currency in a period relevant to the Earle MS. When I read them I didnt know that later I would need them.

Your new idea that "Twice twenty" in "Twice twenty enraged" is merely an intensifier is unnecessary - as well as unEnglish. Surely the point is the craziness of the arithmetic, part of the Abraham-man’s act to convince his audience he is mad. Who says an Abraham-man or men wrote this? Just Graves and how much does he ever get right? If beggers sang this song, they did it to get money by entertaining, not from pity. The more I think about it I doubt that begger's ever wrote the original version of this song. Furthermore, your willingness to distinguish between the apparent nonsense of line 2 and line 3 (""Twice twenty" and "forty" of the next line are actually unconnected in meaning") begs questions. On what basis are you deciding that part of the text is coherent and part is not? both parts are coherent just coherent in different ways. Its a riddle and you have to riddle out the shifting meanings. Or that two parts of the text are consistent with each other and two other parts are not? (In this connexion it is worth asking why you decided to exclude from your consideration of the verse beginning "The palsie plagues my pulses" and "The Gipsie snap & Pedro".)I didnt include those two stanzas because I hate typing. I will put them in at a later time. There is not much of interest in them. "Spare"=spar=to bar or confront. Tom does not get in the face of those he begs from. He is not an aggresive panhandler. "Sullen" confuses me. Something tells me Sullen might be Chantiler's hen but I have to go check that when I get a chance.


I do think your project, though interesting, will need to address two fundamental matters before you can explicate this poem. One is the status of the text, which is uncertain. And will always be uncertain unless somebody finds a better version. So far, this discussion-thread has relied on Graves’s text (itself based on unspecified research by Jack Lindsay), with the suppression noted above of verses 5 and 7. Graves was in many respects and on some topics a good scholar, but to achieve certainty of interpretation on the basis of a text whose authenticity you have not yet firmly established seems doomed.

The second point (it is clearly connected to the first) is the question of the intended or expected audience for the "original" text, assuming such a text could be established. Without going the whole way with Graves, there are strong reasons for believing that we have here a poem (or song) which arose within a particular social and cultural milieu, the well-attested vagabondage that occurred in England in the later sixteenth century. Your reading assumes the poem is a riddle. Riddles are written for specific audiences, and their difficulty is gauged by their contrivers in relation to the ability of their audience to decipher them. (As you say in your last post, a "riddle is designed to confuse but be perfectly clear once you get the solution.") So, riddles designed for children make assumptions different from those designed for adults; and of course among adults there can be wide variations in interpretative skill - and also of general education and background knowledge. What audience do you imagine for your "original" text? To whom is Tom’s "riddle" addressed?This version was addressed to a theater auidnece sometime after James I began his reign. I say that because of what i have decided "Sky bless you all" probably means. Its a joke that Scots would get. When "Tom" was originally written--I dont know. Tom may have been an archtype long before he got his own song. That is my best guess "today".

As I noted elsewhere in connexion with your account of Shakespeare’s Sonnet 107, I have enjoyed thinking about these things and am to that extent grateful to you for provoking the discussion. I can see no way, however, in which anything further I might have to say on this present topic would be of any help to you. You have been helpful.

ewrgall





[This message has been edited by ewrgall (edited June 01, 2001).]

[ewrgall]

Jack,

thanks for the e-mail. I will look into it


ewrgall

[ian hurley]

This paragraph from the Wiki article on Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester should help:

"Duke Humphrey's Walk was the name of an aisle in Old St Paul's Cathedral near to what was popularly believed to be Duke Humphrey's tomb, though, according to W. Carew Hazlitt, it was, in reality, a monument to John Lord Beauchamp de Warwick (died 1360). This was an area frequented by thieves and beggars. The phrase "to dine with Duke Humphrey" was used of poor people who had no money for a meal, in reference to this. Saki updates the phrase by referring to a "Duke Humphrey picnic", one without food, in his short story "The Feast of Nemesis". In fact, Humphrey's tomb is in the Abbey of St Albans (the Cathedral): it was restored by Hertfordshire Freemasons in 2000 to celebrate the millennium."

[E. Shaun Russell]

The above post may set the record for the oldest thread innocently resurrected by a new user on this site: 21 years, 3 months, 8 days, 3 hours, and 6 minutes after the previous post.

Funnily enough, Wikipedia was founded the same year as this thread was created.