Eratosphere Forums - Metrical Poetry, Free Verse, Fiction, Art, Critique, Discussions Able Muse - a review of poetry, prose and art

Forum Left Top

Notices

Closed Thread
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Unread 05-29-2001, 10:15 PM
ewrgall ewrgall is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Portland Oregon USA
Posts: 633
Post

Tim Murphy is rather unfamiliar with Shakespeare's work. He claimed that my statement that Sonnet 107 was an Easter sonnet flew in the face of everything else that Shakespeare had written. Below is sonnet 146 a highly religious sonnet. Tim Murphy will now explain why what follows isn't a religious sonnet or Tim will have to admit he doesn't know what he is talking about.

Sonnet 146

Poore soule the center of my sinfull earth,
My sinfull earth these rebel powres that thee array,
Why dost thou pine within and suffer dearth
Painting thy outward walls so costlie gay?
Why so large cost having so short a lease,
Dost thou upon they fading manision spend?
Shall wormes inheritors of this excesse,
Eate up thy charge? is this thy bodies end?
Then soule live thou upon thy servants losse,
And let that pine to aggravat thy store;
Buy tearmes divine in selling houres of drosse:
Within be fed, without be rich no more,
So shalt thou feed on death, that feeds on men,
And death once dead, ther's no more dying then.

And the last line certainly implies the same message as "O lives of ageless age" in sonnet 107. By believing in Christ and being properly Christian Shakespeare kills death by gaining an immortal life in heaven. (Compare "There's no more dying then" with "Oh! Lives of endless age".) Shakespeare seems consistent in his beliefs doesn't he.

The second line contains a very famous copying error that amazingly no one has ever corrected properly. The line should read,

My sin these rebel powres that thee array,

"My sinful earth" in the second line was just an unfortunate echo from the first list caused by the second line beginning with the words "My sin" and the first line ending with "My sinful earth".

So Tim. Is this a religious sonnet or not? So can we agree that Shakespeare does write religious sonnets??? And if one religious sonnet, why not two? And if two why not a couple more? Sonnet 30 opens, Note:I am editing in the full text of sonnet 30 which I should have done in the first place.

When to the Sessons of sweet silent thought
I sommon up remembrance of things past,
I sigh the lacke of many a thing I sought,
And with old woes new waile my deare times waste:
Then can I drowne an eye (un-us'd to flow)
For precious friends hid in deaths dateles night,
And weepe a fresh loves long since canceld woe,
And mone th'expence of many a vannisht sight.
Then can I greeve at greevances fore-gon,
And heavily from woe to woe tell ore
The sad account of fore-bemoned mone,
Which I new pay as if not payd before.
But if the while I thinke on thee (dear friend)
All losses are restored, and sorrows end.

He is talking about sitting in a church not a courtroom as certain academic idiots would have us believe The following is taken from Shakespeare's Sonnets by Stephen Booth. It is the only explanation that Booth gives.*****Sessions---the periodic sittings of judges, a court of law. Seymour-Smith notes that the legal metaphor "adds the notion of guilt and punishmennt to that of nostalgia". Ingram and Redpath point out that "the atmosphere suggested by the language of the sonnet is that of an enquiry in a manorial court, presided over by thought, the Lord of the Manor, or his Steward, into the condition of the estate, its losses and resources"----I repeat--academic idiots would have us believe Shakespeare is sitting in a courtroom. Can you just imagine--Shakespeare sitting in a courtroom crying his eyes out????? DO YOU THINK SHAKESPEARE GOES TO COURTROOOMS TO CRY!!!!!!But that type of behavior is acceptable in a church, the only place on this planet where it would be acceptable. (The OED gives church services as another meaning of sessions) And in sonnet 107 Shakespeare talks about "the drops of this most balmy time"---again he is having a religious experience and breaking into tears. Sonnets 107, sonnet 146, and sonnet 30 are all religious sonnets.

And the end of the sonnet---

But if the while I thinke on thee (deare friend)
All losses are restord, and sorrowes end.

The only one who restores the loss of dead friends and supplies compensation for the troubles of this world is (if you are not an atheist like me) Jesus Christ. The line should be read

But if the while I thinke on thee, Jesus
All losses are restord, and sorrowes end.

Tim, ignorance about the sonnets is plentiful in this world. You are just a small part of that ignorance.

ewrgall



[This message has been edited by ewrgall (edited June 02, 2001).]
  #2  
Unread 06-01-2001, 11:16 AM
Caleb Murdock Caleb Murdock is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: New York City
Posts: 797
Post

Ewrgall, I probably shouldn't respond to this post, but in an attempt to reach you I am going to stick my neck out one more time. I'm not going to respond to everything you said, just your comments about sonnet 30.

Your problem is that you read things into poems that aren't there. Then, to support your arguments, you make wild claims about copying errors and such. To the rest of us, it makes you look crazy.

Sonnet 30 is a perfect example:

"When to the Sessons of sweet silent thought
I sommon up remembrance of things past,"

There is nothing in those lines to suggest that he is either in court or in church. "Sessions of sweet silent thought" just means that he is thinking, nothing more -- it doesn't refer to any kind of formal gathering.

"But if the while I thinke on thee (deare friend)
All losses are restord, and sorrowes end."

In these lines, "deare friend" does not refer to Jesus. All he is saying is that the memory of his friends is enough to restore them to life (in his mind) and erase his sorrow. You are making it far more complicated than it needs to be.

People like you are the same ones who come up with wild conspiracy theories. Unlike life, where conspiracies do exist, poets generally want to be understood, and will not hide their meaning unnecessarily.

As for Tim Murphy, whatever good or bad points he may have, one thing for sure is that he is well read!


------------------
Caleb
www.poemtree.com
  #3  
Unread 06-01-2001, 04:25 PM
ewrgall ewrgall is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Portland Oregon USA
Posts: 633
Post

Originally posted by Caleb Murdock:
Ewrgall, I probably shouldn't respond to this post, but in an attempt to reach you I am going to stick my neck out one more time. Caleb, it is you who are totally unreachable. I'm not going to respond to everything you said, just your comments about sonnet 30.

Your problem is that you read things into poems that aren't there. Then, to support your arguments, you make wild claims about copying errors and such. The copying error in Sonnet 146 ("my sinful earth" starting the second line) is probably the most famous error in the sonnets. All editors of the sonnets have pointed it out and most have tried to correct it. I simply show what the obvious correct solution is. That the sonnets are poorly typeset and printed with many errors is a mantra that all editors of the sonnet repeat over and over again. I make the claim in sonnet 107 that the phrase "Olives of endless age" is really supposed to be "O lives (Oh! Lives) of endless age. I believe I also mention somewhere that "given to time" is really "give not time" but that error is in another sonnet and I mention it in passing and don't use it to support my arguments about sonnet 107 except as another example of such an error. Your say I make wild claims about copying errors (note your plural) when I make a single statement about "O lives of endless age" being a copying error. Why don't you accurately state what I have actually said instead of making vast multitudes out of a single instance? I told you in the sonnet 107 thread that you don't pay the slightest attention to what people write. You make totally off the wall statements about what people say when they don't say anything like that at all. The things you say are totally in your head and not in anything I have written. To the rest of us, it makes you look crazy.Someone is crazy--I think it is you.

Sonnet 30 is a perfect example: Above what you talked about is that I "read things into the sonnets that aren't there and then, to support my arguments I make wild claims about copying errors and such." I say nothing about any copying errors in sonnet 30. How does what I say prove your point that I make wild statements about copying errors? Not only do you not understand what Shakespeare writes, or what I write, but quite obviously YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU YOURSELF ARE WRITING!!!

"When to the Sessons of sweet silent thought
I sommon up remembrance of things past,"

There is nothing in those lines to suggest that he is either in court or in church. "Sessions of sweet silent thought" just means that he is thinking, nothing more -- it doesn't refer to any kind of formal gathering. Note the capital of Sessions---it is a noun arch-type. Go read the OED, Caleb. You don't know what you are talking about. And let me point out to you that the sonnet that follows sonnet 30 says:

How many a holy and obsequious teare
Hath deare religious love stolne from mine eye,

Here Shakespeare openly says that he gets teary eyed over religious things. My God! Caleb! Why do you have such a problem with this???


"But if the while I thinke on thee (deare friend)
All losses are restord, and sorrowes end."

In these lines, "deare friend" does not refer to Jesus. All he is saying is that the memory of his friends is enough to restore them to life (in his mind) and erase his sorrow. You are making it far more complicated than it needs to be. Earlier in the poem Shakespeare talks about "dead friends" (note the plural). How did these "dead friends" get reduced down to a single "dear friend"??? Shakespeare sits in a church grieving for his dead friends and it is the thought of Christ and His promise of "lives of endless age" in heaven that ends Shakespeare's sorrow. He will meet his dead friends in heaven. Caleb, the conclusion you draw doesn't follow either the thoughts nor the grammar of the poem.

People like you are the same ones who come up with wild conspiracy theories. This is called "poisoning the well"--an ad homonem attack on the man rather than his argument. It is the type of ploy that people use who have no real argument to put forth. You are really weak, Caleb. Unlike life, where conspiracies do exist, poets generally want to be understood, and will not hide their meaning unnecessarily. Shakespeare isn't hiding his meaning. He is being perfectly clear, if you are equipped with any common sense.

As for Tim Murphy, whatever good or bad points he may have, one thing for sure is that he is well read! Quite apparently Tim never read sonnet 146 or he never would have so emphatically stated that Shakespeare doesn't write religious sonnets. And how about sonnet 31 where Shakespeare clearly says that religious love has stolen tears from his eyes? But I hope that "deeply read" Tim will answer for himself. You were no help to him.

ewrgall






[This message has been edited by ewrgall (edited June 02, 2001).]
  #4  
Unread 06-01-2001, 07:15 PM
Alder Ellis Alder Ellis is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: New York, NY, USA
Posts: 924
Post

Hi ewrgall,

>> How many a holy and obsequious teare
Hath deare religious love stolne from mine eye,

Here Shakespeare openly says that he gets teary eyed over religious things. My God! Caleb! Why do you have such a problem with this??? <<

This is a good example of an interpretive error which I think you make on several occasions: whenever Shakespeare uses religious terminology, you assume that he is expressing a religious point of view. But Shakespeare uses such terms metaphorically. He is writing within a tradition of love-poetry that conventionally applies religious terms to love situations, partly to indicate the intensity of feelings involved and partly as a subtle mockery of how seriously lovers take themselves. It's not about religion, it's conventional love-poetry.
  #5  
Unread 06-02-2001, 12:42 PM
ewrgall ewrgall is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Portland Oregon USA
Posts: 633
Post

Originally posted by AE:
Hi ewrgall,

>> How many a holy and obsequious teare
Hath deare religious love stolne from mine eye,

Here Shakespeare openly says that he gets teary eyed over religious things. My God! Caleb! Why do you have such a problem with this??? <<

This is a good example of an interpretive error which I think you make on several occasions: whenever Shakespeare uses religious terminology, you assume that he is expressing a religious point of view. But Shakespeare uses such terms metaphorically. He is writing within a tradition of love-poetry that conventionally applies religious terms to love situations, Gee, it is obvious you took a college course. partly to indicate the intensity of feelings involved and partly as a subtle mockery of how seriously lovers take themselves. It's not about religion, it's conventional love-poetry.


So let me understand this--no matter how clearly Shakespeare says--"How many a holy and obsequious teare Hath deare religious love stolne from mine eye"---he is not really saying that but meant something else??????

It would be impossible for me to explain the sonnets as a whole on this thread but let me just say that the sonnets contain a variety of different subject matters. One subject was religion. They are addressed to Southampton but are not love (sexual or emotional passion) sonnets. Southampton was Shakespeare's well paying patron and hence got Shakespeare's loyalty(love). The relationship between Southampton and Shakespeare was an old fashioned feudal one. A reciprocal "love" between master and servant. Each had responsibilities to the other---duties and obligations. Since Southampton was young one of Shakespeare's duties (besides being entertaining) was to "teach"--particularly about "character" and "morality". Part of the wit of the sonnets is that Shakespeare manages to "address" the sonnets to Southampton while discussing deeper issues. This bit of wit (nominally warping Southampton into each of the sonnets) has (to modern readers) obscured the true subject matter and purposes of many of the sonnets.

Sonnet 31

Thy bosome is indeard with all hearts,
Which I by lacking have supposed dead,
And there raignes Love and all Loves loving parts,
And all those friends which I thought buried.
How many a holy and obsequious teare
Hath deare religious love stolne from mine eye,
As interest of the dead, which now appeare,
But thngs remov'd that hidden in there lie,
Thou are the grave where buried love doth live,
Hung with the tropheis of my lovers gon,
Who all their parts of me to thee did give,
That due of many, now is thine alone,
Their images I lov'd, I view in thee,
And thou (all they) hast all the all of me

In Sonnet 31, Shakespeare is not addressing Southampton (only a person of monstrous ego could think this sonnet was addressed to him) but the sonnet is sent to Southampton (who had to figure that out--which might have been quite hard for that teenage earl to do). The true addressee is Christ and Shakespeare is making a comparison between the Catholic and Protestant points of view about how to treat the dead. In the Catholic belief one prayed for the dead telling of their virtues, lit candles for them, paid money to have masses said for them---(all "as interest of the dead")---all sort of "buying" their way into heaven. The Protestants believed that nothing that occurred after a person was dead could effect God's judgment. THIS WAS A MAJOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CATHOLICS AND PROTESTANTS. In this poem Shakespeare, though once a Catholic, now believes as Protestant do. The souls of his friends are in the bosom of Christ. He no longer lights candles for them or prays for them. Instead, like a good Protestant he uses his prayers properly--addressing them to his Savior.

Southampton was raised as a Catholic but after the death of his father became a ward of the Crown. He remained a Catholic through his youth finally "converting" while in the tower for treason. Shakespeare, in this sonnet, is doing a little preaching to his young patron--in a highly intellectual and amusing way. It is a Protestant religious sonnet. At this time in his life, one can be almost certain that Shakespeare (though raised a Catholic) had become a Protestant. (I find it highly amusing that in the first seventeen sonnets Shakespeare continually tells Southampton to marry. Here we find Shakespeare hinting that Southampton should change his religion.)

Knowing a little about the life of Southampton and about the religious issues that wracked Shakespeare's age would enable you to read this sonnet correctly.


ewrgall








[This message has been edited by ewrgall (edited June 04, 2001).]
  #6  
Unread 06-02-2001, 04:12 PM
Caleb Murdock Caleb Murdock is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: New York City
Posts: 797
Post

AE, I think your comments were meant for Ewrgall and not for me. That's one person I'd rather not be confused with.
  #7  
Unread 06-02-2001, 04:29 PM
ewrgall ewrgall is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Portland Oregon USA
Posts: 633
Post

Originally posted by Caleb Murdock:
AE, I think your comments were meant for Ewrgall and not for me. That's one person I'd rather not be confused with.

Caleb,

Only you would be confused about who AE was addressing.

And I visited your web site. I like it.---One personal nit. I am of the personal opinion that the poems with dark backgrounds don't show up well.

ewrgall


  #8  
Unread 06-05-2001, 01:15 AM
Nigel Holt Nigel Holt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The United Arab Emirates
Posts: 983
Post

A semiological interpretation of a text always throws up what I tell my students - namely that the text reads the person - not the other way around. This thread is a demonstration of that axiom.

To read the mind of a living person through their work or interview is an almost impossible task - to do it to a man whose remains are ossified more than the reputations of the literary and critical theorists who endlessly discuss these very issues, is pointless if one is attempting to come up with a certainty. It is mere opinion.

Wisest is he who knows nothing.

Nigel

[This message has been edited by Nigel Holt (edited June 05, 2001).]
  #9  
Unread 06-05-2001, 10:24 AM
ewrgall ewrgall is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Portland Oregon USA
Posts: 633
Post

[quote]Originally posted by Nigel Holt:
A semiological interpretation of a text always throws up what I tell my students - namely that the text reads the person - not the other way around. This thread is a demonstration of that axiom.Being an atheist I don't think my opinions about the sonnets "read" me. The sonnets were written in Shakespeare's time, not ours. Alls I am doing is trying to read them as a contemporary of Shakespeare would have read them---with a knowledge of the social issues of the times---the relationship between people of different classes---the literary conventions of the times---the public morality of the times, etc...What you are reading (in what I write) are the conclusion I have drawn about what Shakespeare and his society were actually like. Shakespeare was a man of his times. His writing may have transcended his times but the man never did. Shakespeare was a product of his times. That is the way I read him.

To read the mind of a living person through their work or interview is an almost impossible task - to do it to a man whose remains are ossified more than the reputations of the literary and critical theorists who endlessly discuss these very issues, is pointless if one is attempting to come up with a certainty. It is mere opinion. There are good opinions and bad opinions. There are also commonsense and loopy nonsense. When a person discusses religion, it is quite possible to tell what religion he is by the opinions he holds. Listening to what he says is almost as good as actually seeing what church he attends on Sunday. Is that premise unreasonable?


ewrgall[/color]





[This message has been edited by ewrgall (edited June 05, 2001).]
  #10  
Unread 06-05-2001, 12:02 PM
Nigel Holt Nigel Holt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The United Arab Emirates
Posts: 983
Post

This is my last word on this, as it now seems to be headed more for a topic suited to general talk.

The quote, "wisest is he...", comes from Socrates, who decided that the entire corpus of his knowledge was intrinsically worthless as he couldn't, in the last analysis, be sure of its validity. I agree wholeheartedly with this: certainty about anything is the drug of extremism whether philosophical or religious. I too, believe somethings to be right or wrong, (for example, I to am an atheist) but in the final instance, they remain just that - beliefs - ontological methods to divine one thing or another merely uncover the researcher's prejudices. As long as we accept that, I don't see a problem.

I agree with you that I will never discover these things, but by engendering a spirit of inquisitiveness in the young, to be as open-minded as possible so that no doors are closed, I hope that they will.

Regards

Nigel
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



Forum Right Top
Forum Left Bottom Forum Right Bottom
 
Right Left
Member Login
Forgot password?
Forum LeftForum Right


Forum Statistics:
Forum Members: 8,399
Total Threads: 21,839
Total Posts: 270,784
There are 2341 users
currently browsing forums.
Forum LeftForum Right


Forum Sponsor:
Donate & Support Able Muse / Eratosphere
Forum LeftForum Right
Right Right
Right Bottom Left Right Bottom Right

Hosted by ApplauZ Online