Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2005 :: August ::
Roses
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1286  Wednesday, 3 August 2005

[1]     From:   Bill Lloyd <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 2 Aug 2005 11:05:10 EDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.1281 Roses

[2]     From:   D Bloom <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 2 Aug 2005 11:50:56 -0500
        Subj:   RE: SHK 16.1281 Roses

[3]     From:   Larry Weiss <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 02 Aug 2005 13:49:14 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.1281 Roses

[4]     From:   Rainbow Saari <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 3 Aug 2005 11:01:39 +1200
        Subj:   RE; SHK 16.1281 Roses

[5]     From:   Richard Kennedy <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 2 Aug 2005 22:05:51 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.1281 Roses


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Bill Lloyd <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 2 Aug 2005 11:05:10 EDT
Subject: 16.1281 Roses
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.1281 Roses

I thought William Herbert (future) Earl of Pembroke (not Henry Royzly)
was the current favored candidate for the Fair Youth of the
Shakespeare's Sonnets.

Of course that's "Paym-brrook" and "Shike-spurr", right?

Bill Lloyd

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           D Bloom <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 2 Aug 2005 11:50:56 -0500
Subject: 16.1281 Roses
Comment:        RE: SHK 16.1281 Roses

If I can review the bidding here:

We have several variant spellings of surname of the earls of Southampton
(often Wriothesley).

We have the fact of generally inconsistent spelling in Elizabethan England

We have the fact of variant pronunciations of the same vowels, usually
reflective of geographical (and sometimes class) differences.

We thus cannot know, but only guess, that a given spelling reflects a
given pronunciation.

We then have speculation to the effect that IF the name were pronounced
Rosely rather than Risly or Riseley, it MIGHT indicate the subject of
many of Shakespeare's love sonnets was the same Henry Wriothesley to
whom the two long poems were dedicated, since there COULD BE picked out
in them many punning references to his name through Shakespeare's use of
the word "rose."

I see nothing wrong with such a speculation-as long as we remember that
it IS speculation. All that iffi-ness about spelling and pronunciation
indicates to me that there is no more reason to accept Rosely than Risly
or Risely.

As a point of comparison, we know fairly certainly that first half of
Shakespeare's surname was pronounced like modern "shake." Both Greene
(or whoever) and Jonson use the word in reference to WS. But how many
modern variants are there in pronouncing "shake"? And the second half
could have been pronounced to rhyme with PURR, PEAR or PAR as well as
PEER. What would be the correct form? The way Shakespeare pronounced it?
  Was that a standard Warwickshire accent? And what if it changed from
the accent of his childhood to a London stage accent of his professional
life?

What is the correct pronunciation of ANYTHING?

In the immortal (though probably apocryphal) words of Casey Stengel, we
seem to be chasing Willy the Wisp here.

Cheers,
don

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Larry Weiss <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 02 Aug 2005 13:49:14 -0400
Subject: 16.1281 Roses
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.1281 Roses

 >Martin Green says Rosely, and I say Risley

Lets call the whole thing off.

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Rainbow Saari <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 3 Aug 2005 11:01:39 +1200
Subject: 16.1281 Roses
Comment:        RE; SHK 16.1281 Roses

Mr. Kennedy, re:  pt. 2 of your posting on Roses; you write

 >The whole theme of the first 17 is that the beauty of the "fair youth"
 >will not last forever, therefore the "tender churl" must get married
 >before age and ugliness set in, and have a baby, otherwise all
 >remembrance of that "fair form" and "sweet self" will be lost forever.
 >If there is more, Delius couldn't find it, nor can I. What, these first
 >17 sonnets to a teenage boy?

Please explain how the final line of Sonnet 13 applies to a woman? It
reads  " You had a father, let your son say so."  You say in closing:

 >However anyone might want to
 >pronounce Wriothesley is of small matter unless it forces upon us the
 >outrageous proposition that Shakespeare had access to the strings of
 >young Henry's codpiece, and left us the proof of it in the Sonnets.

The pronunciation of Wriothesley matters because many of us desire to
know who the people were, if anyone, who were the inspirations for such
phenomenal poetry. Certainly the poems are magnificent whether we know
this or not, but to know something of the situation that sparked their
creation, I believe, enriches them further.

If Shakespeare wrote about his love of Southampton in these poems, as I
think he does, it does not automatically mean he "had access to the
strings of young Henry's codpiece". You (and Delius ?) seem to have
applied only modern  sexual meanings to the word "love"  as it is used
to describe an emotional bond between men. The term had far greater
breadth of meaning   in the context of the time Shakespeare was writing,
and was commonly employed between friends who shared no sexual
relations. However, I believe the Sonnets  do suggest at least the
desire by the poet for a closer, sexual friendship with his male "fair
friend"; whether or not that ever eventuated, they do not unequivocally
tell us.

  That this "friend" was Henry Wriothesley, his name played upon by
Shakespeare as the Sonnets' "Rose", is strongly evidenced by Green's
recent research but this is not the only evidence that Green has brought
to light on the subject. You note correctly that "Martin Green is also
the author of "Wriothesley's Roses,' which book is featured and sold at
several gay and lesbian web sites." The book is undoubtedly available
elsewhere on the Net (if you are squeamish about ordering a copy from
such sites, as this last remark leads me to suppose) and it is well
worth the read. Green's scholarship is impressive.

You made the valid point in an earlier post ( SHK 16.1191 Help with the
Sonnets) that:

 >If the name of Wriothesley was somewhere put in close proximity with a
 >rose, maybe an expression such as "The Rose of Wriothesley," that would
 >be a strong suggestion that the name began with a rose, but such a pun
 >has not been found.

It is outside the scope of Green's current article so it gets no mention
there, but in his book >Wriothesley's Roses In Shakespeare's Sonnets,
Poems and Plays< Green describes his search for an association of the
Wriothesley family with roses ( Chpt II, pp. 15-37). He found several
highly persuasive links. Among them are  the startling facts that Thomas
Wriothesley added Heraldic  shields bearing red and white roses in the
new stonework of his additions to Titchfield ( also known as Place
House), and that as late as 1737 the house still contained 9 heraldic
shields, some in stained glass, many depicting the Tudor Rose of  his
master, Henry VIII. ( pp.280-288). I believe he is correct in his theory
that Thomas Wriothesley decorated his home with Heraldic emblems that
bore canting/punning reference to his family name, and that if and when
Shakespeare vistited his patron at Place House, he would have seen many
representations of roses in the building's decorations.

It is regrettable that we cannot ask Shakespeare what he meant by that
Rose. In the absence of  such direct proof, the combination of the
linguistic evidence that Green has amassed  as to the pronunciation of
the name, with the association of Heraldic Roses with the Wriothesley
family form the most  compelling evidence I have encountered as to the
exsistence of  Rose wordplay on Henry's surname.

Rainbow Saari

[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Richard Kennedy <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 2 Aug 2005 22:05:51 -0700
Subject: 16.1281 Roses
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.1281 Roses

However Wriothesley was pronounced, Martin Green can't go anywhere
except by wheeling the surmise that young Henry is the object of
Shakespeare's affection. The consequence can't be suffered. Aside from
some romantic, poetic fancy laid to the first 17, for example, Martin
would have to get Shakespeare close to the boy, under some sheets, or a
bush maybe.  But that's not the worse of it.

If it's a lust thing, why should Shakespeare want this kid to set up as
a husband? Hell, I'd keep the diddling to myself, why bring a wife into
it unless she was into a little strange?  I'd tell the kid to skip
marriage for a few seasons.  I'd tell him he'd be cute when he was
forty, give him a pinch, you know, "Get married, are you kidding? Forget
it, I been there.  Hey, what, I'm not enough for you, you rosey little
son of a gun!"

No, that doesn't work. A woman got these poems. If Shakespeare had said
something like he was taking a trip "South to Hampton", I might be more
lenient.

_______________________________________________________________
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.