Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2004 :: September ::
Sonnet 89
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.1622  Wednesday, 1 September 2004

[1]     From:   Sally Drumm <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 31 Aug 2004 15:39:27 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.1613 Sonnet 89

[2]     From:   Hardy M. Cook <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, September 01, 2004
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.1613 Sonnet 89

[3]     From:   Robin Hamilton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 31 Aug 2004 22:24:59 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.1608 Sonnet 89


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sally Drumm <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 31 Aug 2004 15:39:27 -0400
Subject: 15.1613 Sonnet 89
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1613 Sonnet 89

 From Bill Arnold--

 >If you think of Rimbaud and how he barely survived his lyricism, then you
 >might think of Shakespeare's lyric production as separate from his drama
 >production.

An excellent suggestion.  Yes, "unlikely" would be appropriate.  Your
post caused me to realize the poetry I like best is always
autobiographical, but only that with a voice of authenticity, solid, the
intentionally autobiographical sonnet--not the whimsical sort.  Perhaps
that is why Will's sonnets are particularly moving for me.  Are there
any historical accounts in which William Shakespeare refers to himself
as associated with a particular genre? As poet, or dramatist?  Even as
to being a writer?

Could you explain more about Shakespeare's sonnet form--theories as to
why it is as it is?    Would you?   Who would you say are the major
carriers of the form into the 21st century; a genealogy of sorts?  Have
there only been diluters and adjuncts, or has something new come from
inheritors of the form?

I'm sure it is obvious I have many questions and only a small foundation
from which to begin a dialogue.

Sincerely,
Sally Drumm

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Hardy M. Cook <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, September 01, 2004
Subject: 15.1613 Sonnet 89
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1613 Sonnet 89

 >OK: in any event, you are on a slippery slope here.  Meres' comment and
 >list and date of when it was published implies the *sonnets* were early
 >production.  And that fits lyricism.  As a lyric poet myself and
 >interested in the American bard Emily Dickinson I can assure you that
 >*I-form* lyric poetry is generally autobiographical.  Test the waters,
 >and you will find that to be the case.  Plath?  Sexton?  However, not
 >all lyric poets move from lyricism in their early years, such as
 >Wordsworth, or Dickinson, or Plath and Sexton, even Frost, and then
 >become great dramatists of circa three dozen plays.  That is an
 >incomparable feat.  Will S. was an autobiographical lyric poet, and then
 >great dramatist.  Do *not* forget that Will S. identified himself as
 >"Will" in several poems and punned on the word in so many others as to
 >leave little doubt about my inference as being true and certain.
 >Perhaps, in hindsight, he might have burned his lyric production as
 >Emily Dickinson allegedly asked her sister to do with hers.  If you
 >think of Rimbaud and how he barely survived his lyricism, then you might
 >think of Shakespeare's lyric production as separate from his drama
 >production.  I do.

All of the poets cited here are Post-Romantic. The English Romantic
poets invented the modern sense of subjectivity through their radical
transformation of the "I-form" of lyric poetry. The point is, therefore
invalid.

Some of John Donne poems are suggested by his life but would anyone
seriously argue that all of them, such as "The Flea," are
autobiographical just because they are in the first person?

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Robin Hamilton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 31 Aug 2004 22:24:59 +0100
Subject: 15.1608 Sonnet 89
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1608 Sonnet 89

Alan Dessen <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >

 >As to historical evidence for condoms in the Renaissance, way way back
 >(in 1960) I was told by a learned 18th century specialist (with
 >reference to a project on *Antony and Cleopatra*) that "armor" was the
 >slang term for our "condom."  However, that usage is not listed in
 >either the OED or Frankie Rubinsteins's book.

Partridge's _Slang_ (8th Ed., Beale) has:

ARMOUR
...
2. In "fight in armour", to use a condom: ca. 1780-1840.

Robin Hamilton

_______________________________________________________________
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.