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 15.1635  Thursday, 2 September 2004

[1] From:       Bill Arnold <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 1 Sep 2004 05:46:53 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 15.1622 Sonnet 89
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1622 Sonnet 89

[2] From:       Stephen Dobbin <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 1 Sep 2004 15:16:23 +0100 (BST)
Subject:        Sonnet 89.

[3] From:       Colin Cox <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 01 Sep 2004 07:51:44 -0700
Subject: 15.1622 Sonnet 89
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1622 Sonnet 89

[4] From:       Martin Green <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 01 Sep 2004 22:59:09 -0400
Subject: 15.1608 Sonnet 89
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1608 Sonnet 89


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Bill Arnold <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 1 Sep 2004 05:46:53 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 15.1622 Sonnet 89
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1622 Sonnet 89

Sally Drumm writes, "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?"

OK: for a full discussion of the *forms* of sonnets, there are many
scholarly studies, but I would point you to a marvelous work: *The New
Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics*, edited by Alex Preminger
and T.V.F. Brogan, et al., 1993.  As I recall, from memory, Shakespeare
*created* a new form, with three stanzas, and two couplets, rhyme
schemes specific.

OK: prior to that, the Petrachan dominated, with two stanzas, eight and
six, rhyme schemes specific.  Also, the breaks in stanzaic form in a
good poet dictated a break, or shift, if you will [pun intended!] of
thought.

OK: as to Hardy Cook's well-thought out response about the Romantic
Poets, who I also taught, indeed, we agree: the *I* form does not
dictate same treatments over the ages.  I concur with his point, with a
slight qualification of my own, at least when it concerns Shakespeare's
sonnets: Will S.  *invoked* his own name in his sonnets.  For me, that
is telling!  What it tells me probably does not *tell* the same thing to
others.  Isn't diversity of opinion *marvelous*?

Bill Arnold
http://www.cwru.edu/affil/edis/scholars/arnold.htm

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Stephen Dobbin <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 1 Sep 2004 15:16:23 +0100 (BST)
Subject:        Sonnet 89.

"The point is, therefore, invalid."

I glanced up at the by-line to see who was pronouncing with such
Olympian certainty. I won't tell you whose name I expected to find (we
will all have our list of the usual suspects) but was surprised to find
it was our very own moderator who was being so immoderate.

Let me editorialise some much needed uncertainty into Hardy's preceding
sentence.

The English Romantic poets (it has been argued) invented the modern
sense of subjectivity through (what has been posited as) their radical
transformation of the "I-form" of lyric poetry.

This argument always reminds me of the argument that "only humans
possess consciousness." Contemplating it is a stimulating and
challenging intellectual exercise, but deep down everyone who has ever
owned a dog, a cat or a parrot knows it is complete bollocks.  Either
that or there is a very special, obscure and narrow sense of the word
'consciousness' being used here.

Similarly anyone who has read Villon, Wyatt, Sappho, Horace, Archilocus,
Shakespeare, etc., etc. (I could go on - and frequently do) knows that,
in terms of a sense of self, self pity and self absorption you can't
slide a Rizzla between them and those Johnny-come-lately Lakeland wusses
like Wordsworth, Coleridge and Byron. Either that or there is a very
special obscure and narrow sense of the word 'subjectivity' being used here.

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Colin Cox <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 01 Sep 2004 07:51:44 -0700
Subject: 15.1622 Sonnet 89
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1622 Sonnet 89

 >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?

In Sonnet 110 he refers to himself as an actor.

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Martin Green <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 01 Sep 2004 22:59:09 -0400
Subject: 15.1608 Sonnet 89
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1608 Sonnet 89

With respect to my finding an allusion to a condom in Troilus and
Cressida, Jack Kamen writes, "The OED, however, gives the year 1708 for
the first recorded use of 'condom.' "But that doesn't mean that the
object did not exist well before 1708.  I believe the passage I cited
clearly shows that it did.

Martin Green

_______________________________________________________________
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.