Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2002 :: February ::
Re: Sonnet 116
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.0421  Thursday, 14 February 2002

[1]     From:   W. L. Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 12 Feb 2002 17:40:49 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0410 Re: Sonnet 116

[2]     From:   Paul E. Doniger <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 12 Feb 2002 19:51:32 -0500
        Subj:   Fw: SHK 13.0410 Re: Sonnet 116


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           W. L. Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 12 Feb 2002 17:40:49 -0500
Subject: 13.0410 Re: Sonnet 116
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0410 Re: Sonnet 116

Clifford Stetner writes regarding Sonnet 116.14:

>The verb [loved] could be transitive with the subject I.  For that matter "ever"
>could be read as either at one time or forever.

Good point.

I wonder if Shakespeare's piling up of negatives -- never, nor, no man
-- tends to obscure the ambiguity of the line for a late modern reader.
Abbott, A Shakespearian Grammer, item 406, cites several examples, and
comments: "This idiom is a very natural one, and quite common" in Early
Modern English.

Yours, Bill Godshalk

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Paul E. Doniger <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 12 Feb 2002 19:51:32 -0500
Subject: 13.0410 Re: Sonnet 116
Comment:        Fw: SHK 13.0410 Re: Sonnet 116

Cliford Stetner is right that the verb, 'loved', could be used
transitively, but in the last line of Sonnet #116 it is used
intransitively -- there is no direct object in that clause. The word,
'ever', is used here as an adverb of time, which I would take to mean
'at any time' ('forever' or 'one time' make little sense in this
context).

Paul E. Doniger

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, 
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.