Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2005 :: July ::
Help with the Sonnets
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.11647  Friday, 1 July 2005

[1]     From:   John Briggs <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 30 Jun 2005 14:50:22 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.11638 Help with the Sonnets

[2]     From:   Markus Marti <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 30 Jun 2005 15:58:42 +0200
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.11638 Help with the Sonnets

[3]     From:   Victor Reed <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 30 Jun 2005 10:32:38 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.11638 Help with the Sonnets

[4]     From:   William Sutton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 30 Jun 2005 08:01:02 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.11638 Help with the Sonnets

[5]     From:   Martin Green <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 30 Jun 2005 15:12:08 +0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.11638 Help with the Sonnets


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Briggs <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 30 Jun 2005 14:50:22 +0100
Subject: 16.11638 Help with the Sonnets
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.11638 Help with the Sonnets

Larry Weiss wrote:

 >Certainly?  I have never considered or read that anyone else
 >considered this sonnet as having such a specific referent.  Rather,
 >isn't it an extended treatment of the phenomenon Horace noted more
 >pithily in his famous epigram:  Omne animal post coitum triste est,
 >praeter galumque et mulierem.  Since WS did not write the sonnets
 >from the standpoint of women or roosters, only the first part is
 >illustrated in the poem.

It's not Horace: Laurence Sterne (Tristram Shandy, Vol V, Chap. XXXVI)
blames it on Aristotle, others give it to Galen.  The more cautious say
"usually attributed to Galen"!

John Briggs

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Markus Marti <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 30 Jun 2005 15:58:42 +0200
Subject: 16.11638 Help with the Sonnets
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.11638 Help with the Sonnets

"Omne animal post coitum triste" is, of course, an obvious reading of
sonnet 129. Equally obvious, I think, is "post masturbationem" (which
then could be regarded as unfaithfulness) - in such a reading, the
"waste of shame" is  the semen spilled on the ground (Genesis 38) and
not a female "waist" and pudendum.

Markus

Neu: Shakespeares Sonette (mit Anwendungstipps)
http://pages.unibas.ch/shine/sonetteMM.html

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Victor Reed <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 30 Jun 2005 10:32:38 -0400
Subject: 16.11638 Help with the Sonnets
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.11638 Help with the Sonnets

 >>Certainly infidelity to Anne Shakespeare
 >>is implied by Sonnet 129 ("Th'expense of spirit in a waste of shame").
 >
 >Certainly?  I have never considered or read that anyone else considered
 >this sonnet as having such a specific referent.

No one may have mentioned it, but it seems clear enough. "Th'expense of
spirit" in marriage has traditionally been considered divinely
sanctified, not a matter of shame.

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           William Sutton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 30 Jun 2005 08:01:02 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 16.11638 Help with the Sonnets
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.11638 Help with the Sonnets

Hi All,

So far nobody has mentioned sonnet 145 where the name Hathaway is
supposedly hidden.

Yours,
William Sutton
www.iloveshakespeare.com

[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Martin Green <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 30 Jun 2005 15:12:08 +0000
Subject: 16.11638 Help with the Sonnets
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.11638 Help with the Sonnets

H. Rick Smith asks, "Isn't it possible that Sonnet 98 alludes to
alternative dalliances figured by its inadequate spring flowers."  No
and Yes:  Sonnet 98 sets up the cast of characters; it is Sonnet 99,
which, in floral terms,  tells of their dalliances - -   the same story
told by Sonnet 144 ( "Two loves I have," etc.).

I have long maintained that Wriothesley (Rosely) was the Rose (the red
and white rose) of the Sonnets, most recently in "The Pronunciation of
Wriothesley," in the April 2005 issue of English Studies.

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.