The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0919 Tuesday, 17 October 2006
[1] From: Bruce Young <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Monday, 16 Oct 2006 10:48:57 -0600
Subj: RE: SHK 17.0911 Sonnet 125
[2] From: Nigel Davies <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Monday, 16 Oct 2006 18:25:58 +0100
Subj: RE: SHK 17.0911 Sonnet 125
[3] From: Nigel Davies <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Monday, 16 Oct 2006 19:41:24 +0100
Subj: RE: SHK 17.0911 Sonnet 125
[4] From: David Basch <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Monday, 16 Oct 2006 16:03:47 -0400
Subj: Re: SHK 17.0911 Sonnet 125
[5] From: Ira Zinman <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Monday, 16 Oct 2006 17:24:16 EDT
Subj: Re: SHK 17.0911 Sonnet 125
[6] From: Sid Lubow <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Monday, 16 Oct 2006 18:14:30 EDT
Subj: Before Sonnet 125 and after
[7] From: Jim Carroll <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Monday, 16 Oct 2006 18:47:07 -0400
Subj: Re: SHK 17.0911 Sonnet 125
[8] From: Peter Farey <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Tuesday, 17 Oct 2006 15:01:19 +0100
Subj: Re: SHK 17.0911 Sonnet 125
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bruce Young <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Monday, 16 Oct 2006 10:48:57 -0600
Subject: 17.0911 Sonnet 125
Comment: RE: SHK 17.0911 Sonnet 125
I have followed with interest the discussion of Sonnet 125 and find that
many, including Nigel Davies, make interesting and illuminating points.
But in his latest posting Nigel Davies greatly overstates
Shakespeare's supposed "secular outlook on life, devoid of religious
leanings," and "well clear of religious devotion, practice and
ceremony." Four thoughts in response:
(1) Though we have no window into his heart, isn't it true that, after
retiring to Stratford, Shakespeare served in his parish as a "lay
rector" (one of the laymen who helped run the parish)?
(2) There are many references to and representations of "religious
devotion, practice and ceremony" in the plays and sonnets. So whatever
Shakespeare may have thought of these, his mind was certainly not "well
clear" of them.
(3) His "re-purposing of Biblical and religious phrases" is not
"virtually blasphemous," except perhaps to very strict or oversensitive
minds. Many religiously inclined writers, including in Shakespeare's
time, have used religious phrases and ideas metaphorically,
symbolically, dramatically, or poetically.
(4) The sonnets and plays include plenty of straightforward expressions
of religious feeling and belief. For example (picking just a few among
hundreds):
. . . by the worth of mine eternal soul . . .
. . . the eternal spirit . . .
For them the gracious Duncan have I murther'd,
Put rancors in the vessel of my peace
Only for them, and mine eternal jewel
Given to the common enemy of man . . .
Then is doomsday near.
The quality of mercy is not strained . . . [the whole speech]
By the eternal God, whose name and power
Thou tremblest at, answer that I shall ask . . .
O thou eternal Mover of the heavens,
Look with a gentle eye upon this wretch!
Some say that ever 'gainst that season comes
Wherein our Saviour's birth is celebrated,
This bird of dawning singeth all night long,
. . .
So hallowed, and so gracious, is that time.
I every day expect an embassage
>From my Redeemer to redeem me hence . . .
The precious image of our dear Redeemer . . .
I charge you, as you hope to have redemption
By Christ's dear blood shed for our grievous sins, . . .
. . . those blessed feet
Which fourteen hundred years ago were nail'd
For our advantage on the bitter cross . . .
For this revolt of thine, methinks, is like
Another fall of man.
Why, all the souls that were were forfeit once,
And He that might the vantage best have took
Found out the remedy. How would you be
If He, which is the top of judgment, should
But judge you as you are? O, think on that,
And mercy then will breathe within your lips,
Like man new made.
. . . man, proud man,
Dress'd in a little brief authority,
Most ignorant of what he's most assur'd
His glassy essence, like an angry ape
Plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven
As makes the angels weep; who, with our spleens,
Would all themselves laugh mortal.
Of course, most of these can be explained as fitting particular
characters or dramatics contexts. But so can most of the so-called
secular or transgressive expressions.
And some, as the following, seem to take for granted religious belief in
a way that cannot be explained away as simply "in character":
Sonnet 55: So till the judgment that yourself arise . . . [i.e., until
judgment day when you are resurrected]
And of course there's the will, starting with: "In the name of god Amen
I William Shackspeare, . . . in perfect health and memorie, God be
praysed, doe make and ordayne this my last will and testament in manner
and forme followeing, that ys to saye, ffirst, I comend my soule into
the hands of God my Creator, hoping and assuredlie beleeving, through
thonelie merites, of Jesus Christe my Saviour, to be made partaker of
lyfe everlastinge, and my bodye to the earth whereof yt ys made."
I know great efforts have been made to explain this away as either a
formula or as not of Shakespeare's composition. But it appears to me it
is a formula to which he gave his assent. I believe the burden of proof
is on those who imagine Shakespeare's private thoughts were entirely
different from his official statements or from assumptions (e.g., about
judgment day, resurrection, redemption, and the soul's eternal nature)
woven into the sonnets and many of the plays.
ON THE OTHER HAND--so far I am persuaded that Sonnet 125 makes sense
best if we assume a mainly secular, political context.
Bruce Young
[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Nigel Davies <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Monday, 16 Oct 2006 18:25:58 +0100
Subject: 17.0911 Sonnet 125
Comment: RE: SHK 17.0911 Sonnet 125
Peter Bridgman wrote:
>>Was WS one of the "splendidly dressed" gentlemen who took it
>>in turns to hold up the canopy? Quite possibly.
I have always interpreted the first line of 125 as a question rather
than a statement: "Would it mean anything to me if I bore the canopy?".
WS was certainly present at the event but the mood and tone of the
couplet suggest that he may have been displaced from being one of the
bearers. Perhaps he was one of the gentlemen lined up to do so but was
stood down due to being betrayed by the "suborned informer". Line 13's
"suborned" informer is literally linked to line 1's "bore" the canopy.
Nigel Davies
[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Nigel Davies <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Monday, 16 Oct 2006 19:41:24 +0100
Subject: 17.0911 Sonnet 125
Comment: RE: SHK 17.0911 Sonnet 125
Ben Alexander wrote:
>>The last words of 126 are an anagram of "storie end(s) there."
Interesting. The only difficulty with this is storie is consistently
spelled "story" in the Quarto. Perhaps no matter.
I have always thought that there is more to 126 than has so far been
uncovered. The two main characters, the author and the Young Man, are
present, as are the two abstract forces that drive 1-126, Time and Nature.
In line 6 "Will" is named, that attracts attention and in the following line
"She keeps thee to this purpose: that her skill" there is a
tantalisingly close semi-palindromic anagram to Shakespeare in "She
keeps". In the Quarto it is particularly visibly striking. Furthermore,
there appears to be a straight, incorruptible reference to his surname
in the same line:
"SHE Keeps thee to thiS PURpose: that her skill".
He appears to have positioned his own name via "Will Shekspur" at the
very heart of this final sonnet of the 1-126 series.
With the author, Time and Nature explicitly named I can't help thinking
that the Young Man is likewise named somewhere in this sonnet via
assonance, anagram or alike.
Nigel Davies
[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Basch <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Monday, 16 Oct 2006 16:03:47 -0400
Subject: 17.0911 Sonnet 125
Comment: Re: SHK 17.0911 Sonnet 125
Nigel Davies in discussing Peter Farey's observations of Sonnet 125
(10.6.06) well sums up the conventional opinion that Shakespeare is a
thoroughgoing secularist who uses religious allusions for profane
purposes, like expressing a deep love for his young friend, the "sweet
boy" mentioned in Sonnet 108. Let not anyone fool himself to think that
the poet is not deliberately using religious terminology in his sonnets,
allusions that many illustrious commentators have detected and pointed out.
It can hardly be imagined by Davies and some others that this "sweet
boy" is other than they think he is, namely, one of the alleged young
noblemen that the poet is supposedly in thrall to. To begin to suggest
otherwise, it should be noted that the word "sweet" here is unlike what
today the word is generally regarded as meaning or, otherwise, Horatio
could hardly have referred to Hamlet as "sweet prince." "Sweet" in
Elizabethan terms refers to something high and noble, not to anything
like "sweetheart," which would be a minor, side meaning.
So who could this "sweet boy" be that the poet has met earlier? It is a
complicated matter but evidence in the Sonnets will show that this
"sweet boy" is the personification of the poet's higher angel, depicted
as a beautiful young man, the good angel that visits all young persons
commencing at the age of about puberty, as described in the Bible's
episode in the life of Solomon, who at 12 was visited by such an angel.
This "sweet boy" angel is conceived to have been sent by the Lord to all
young people to call them to a higher life and it is to be distinguished
from the Lord. (This visitation is not dissimilar from that in the
concept of confirmation that occurs in many religions.)
Sonnet 125 happens to be one of those sonnets that is addressed directly
to the Lord, declaring the poet's fealty and devotion to Him rather than
to the idol's of the time that the sonnet's "pitiful thrivers" gaze at
and try to impress. The poet tells that he does not wish for high honors
like "bearing the canopy" for the installation of a monarch. That this
"holding" is not something that the poet experienced is further told by
the sonnet's third line, which parallels it-"Or layd great bases for
eternity." The poet did not wish to do this nor did he do that either.
A suggestion that this is indeed the message of Sonnet 125 can be
brought from Psalm 125, which it parallels in its discussion of real,
eternally enduring things, opening as follows:
1 They that trust in the LORD shall be as mount Zion,
which cannot be removed, but abideth for ever.
Could I be wrong? Of course I could be, even in the face of the abundant
evidence in the Sonnets that I actually bring to my assertions. These
ideas will often not even be countenanced in order to dare take on and
defeat their arguments. Leaving these ideas unexplored runs the chance
of reducing the poet's vision and slighting the unmatched wisdom and
deep sensitivity he brings to his readers.
David Basch
[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ira Zinman <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Monday, 16 Oct 2006 17:24:16 EDT
Subject: 17.0911 Sonnet 125
Comment: Re: SHK 17.0911 Sonnet 125
Nigel Davis brings up an important point when he says :"I think it
important to recognise that 123, 124 & 125 comprise a triad of sonnets.
He wrote pairs of sonnets and this is the important triad that ends the
1-126 series." Many of the Sonnets may best be interpreted by looking at
them in groups with a related theme. As I see the related triad, Sonnet
123,124 and 125, they appear open to the following interpretation:
In Sonnet 123, the Poet reaffirms a Avow@ to Abe true@ despite any
change wrought by Time and no matter what events or changes come upon
the world's landscape. This I do vow, and this shall ever be; I will be
true, despite thy scythe and thee.@ (Sonnet 123.13-14).
In Sonnet 124, Shakespeare compares his "dear love" to that of others
which are "subject to Time's love, or to Time's hate". Shakespeare's
love is not like that of hypocritical courtiers which rise and fall by
the changing whims of circumstance. "No, it was builded far from
accident; it suffers not in smiling pomp, nor falls under the blow of
thralled discontent". In contrast, Shakespeare's "dear love" is "hugely
politic". Politic can mean wisely directed, or like the poles of the
earth, are fixed in their place and direction, never altering or
changing.
Ben Alexander makes the comment that "Sonnet 125 is simply saying that
kudos comes at a cost and that cost can lead to ruin. The poet has loved
him in a simple way but time has moved on and even the most faithful
person must look to their own."
In that regard, one might look at Sonnet in the following manner:
Sonnet 125 echoes the sentiments of Sonnets 66 and 91. In Sonnet 66,
our poet asserts that he "tired" with all the hypocrisy and "folly" he
sees in society. "From these would I be gone". In Sonnet 91,
Shakespeare states that "glory in birth ... wealth ...garments" (Sonnet
91.1-3) and every other kind of "adjunt pleasure"(Sonnet 91.5) are not
his "measure"(Sonnet 91.7). "Thy Love is better than high birth to me,
richer than wealth, pronder than garments' cost .. and having Thee, of
all men's pride I boast". (Sonnet 91.9,10,12)
It is no surprise then that Shakespeare in his constancy would shun the
temptations of a superficial life "which prove[s] more short than waste
or ruining" (Sonnet 125.4) Shakespeare is not interested in external
honors, but offers his "oblation, poor but free, which is not mix'd with
seconds, knows no art ,but mutual render, only me for thee". One cannot
ignore the fact, however, that Shakespeare injects the possibility of a
religious thread on one level of interpretation by mentioning "a true
soul." Looking at it in this manner of interpretation, it is the
worldly-enthralled ego then which he calls the "suborn'd informer" that
tries to ensnare the soul. But "a true soul" , when assailed by
temptation, remains fixed and aloof, out of the reach of egoistic
temptations. "A true soul when most impeach'd stands least in thy
control" This is the soul of Sonnet 124 which "all alone stands hugely
politic"(Sonnet 124.11). The poet's soul was made "better" and learned
from "wretched errors". (Sonnet 119). In Sonnet 125, our poet stands
firmly out of reach of the "frailties" (Sonnet 121.7) that previously
assailed him. His soul is "true" and perhaps surrendered to a more
spiritual outlook on life....as opposed to one who is enamored with
"outward honouring" by bearing " the canopy."
As always with Shakespeare, he is open to various levels of
interpretation, which make interest in his works ever new and exciting.
With best wishes to all,
Ira Zinman
[6]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sid Lubow <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Monday, 16 Oct 2006 18:14:30 EDT
Subject: Before Sonnet 125 and after
Friends, we have been attempting to parse sonnet 125 and only succeeded
to admit to a disagreement. What in blazes is the Bard talking about at
this late stage in these sonnets that have baffled the world for almost
exactly four-hundred years? (400) And more differences to come where
our finest scholars find it "convincing" that the Bard might have
written an even later sonnet, 145.13, while wooing Anne "hate away", his
future wife, supposedly written when the Bard was eighteen. (How old
must the Bard have been when he started way back on number one, which,
by the way, was correctly parsed, but not pursued, by Jonathan Bate,
saying that it referred to "the self-regarding eye" of Narcissus in
Golding's Metamorphoses, "my plentie makes me poore", and in sonnet
1.5-8, and sonnet 5.10, the "liquid prisoner prisoner pent in walls of
glass)
In these sonnets, based on the fable of Narcissus, the Bard, in my
opinion, has played out a love affair with himself, the lad with the
"sweet and lovely lips," "the lovely neck" that Echo "longed" for, the
"son" created in his own "Image". S. 20's, "Mafter Miftris" {the
"lovely Boy" of whom he speaks in sonnet 126 who has been "wooed" away
by the "fickle maid" of A Lover's Complaint. (The prologue, the real
back-story of the Sonnets)
The woman, not the mute Echo, but the one who could speak so eloquently
while crying bitterly over her lost lover, a young Bard himself. The
Muse of tragedy, who inspired her "grace" into his "spongy lung" and
who, insultingly, thought of her, anagramatically, as a "hower" in a few
sonnets. At the end of sonnet 125, the Bard in 126 has already reached
the climax of his play, wherein by changing his rhyme scheme and,
cleverly, by losing the last of the seven couplets, he has alerted
scholars that "Nature...will pluck thee backe".
She has called for "Her Audit" which must be "answer'd". Note how the
Bard calls attention to this climactical sonnet, following which he will
see, strangely, the aforementioned "Image", "a false borrowed face" on
the Muse's neck, the re-appearance of the dark lady herself, "one on
another's neck" in sonnet 131.
In sonnet 125, the Bard has lost all respect for his "louely Boy". He
calls him a "subbornd Informer", instigated by the fickle Muse, "the
carcass of a beauty spent and done", the "reconciled Maide" of ALC.
SONNET 126
O Thou my louely Boy, who in thy power
Dost hould times fickle glaffe, his fickle, hower:
Who hast by wayning grown, and therein fhou'ft
Thy louers withering, as thy fweet felfe grow'ft
If Nature (foueraigne misteres ouer wrack)
As thou goeft onwards ftill will plucke thee backe,
She keepes thee to this purpofe, that her skill
May time difgrace, and wretched mynuit kill.
Yet feare her O thou minnion of her pleafure,
She may detaine but not ftill keepe her trefure!
Her Audite (though delayd) anfwer'd must be,
And her Quietus is to render thee.
( )
( )
Respectfully,
Sid Lubow
[7]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim Carroll <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Monday, 16 Oct 2006 18:47:07 -0400
Subject: 17.0911 Sonnet 125
Comment: Re: SHK 17.0911 Sonnet 125
Peter Bridgman <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>wrote on Thursday, 12 Oct
2006 19:13:04 +0100
Subject: 17.0900 Sonnet 125
Comment: Re: SHK 17.0900 Sonnet 125
>I also think it unlikely that WS, with his Catholic upbringing,
>would have considered the processional honouring of the
>Eucharist to be pomp and spin.
Thus sabotaging a fine exegesis of Sonnet 125 with a wild surmise.
Jim Carroll
[8]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Peter Farey <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Tuesday, 17 Oct 2006 15:01:19 +0100
Subject: 17.0911 Sonnet 125
Comment: Re: SHK 17.0911 Sonnet 125
Peter Bridgman rehearses the main arguments for the 'Coronation'
interpretation of "canopy", with which those of us who have copies of
Duncan-Jones's "Sonnets" and Michael Wood's "In Search of W.S.", from
which he quotes at length, are of course already familiar. What he still
does not do, however, is to address the main point of my original post,
which is that - whilst this *could* have been what was meant - the
finding of various hitherto unnoticed connections with the Eucharist
means that several other lines in the Sonnet can now be explained in a
far more satisfying way than was possible before.
For example, as I point out in my response to Nigel, "Or layd great
bases for eternity" is an almost perfect conversion into iambic
pentameter of the quotation from the Book of Common Prayer (Holy
Communion) "laying up in store for them selves a good foundacion,
against the time to come, that they may attayne eternal lyfe". So it
just as perfectly explains precisely what the line means - something
that commentators have had to simply guess at before - and also explains
why line four says "MORE short then wast or ruining", which most are
compelled either to paraphrase as "lasts no longer than...", which is
not what it says, or to ignore it altogether.
Similarly, "Noe,let me be obsequious in thy heart" really has most
commentators puzzled. The link with respect for the dead is often
mentioned, but nobody really has a clue why this might be relevant or
why "in thy heart". Think of it as coming from "...take and eate this in
remembraunce that Christ died for thee, feede on him in thine heart...",
however, and it makes perfect sense, as does his use in the next line of
the word "oblation", which the OED actually defines as "2. The action of
offering or presenting the elements of bread and wine to God in the
Eucharist; also, the whole office of the Eucharist".
It hardly needs saying either, of course, that "not mixed with seconds"
makes real sense only in this context, and that (at least as far as I
know) nobody really had a clue as to why a "suborned informer" should
suddenly appear out of nowhere in this way before I reminded people of
Judas's role at the Last Supper?
According to Peter Bridgman, "Peter Farey suggests that Sonnet 125 is
not autobiographical and has nothing to do with James's City Progress.
Peter suggests that WS was writing about long-banned Eucharistic
processions he had never witnessed, and that the "I" of Sonnet 125 was a
fictional character. I think this can only be wild conjecture."
I don't see it this way. What I do see is that he has experienced the
effects upon real people of being passionately Catholic, and of working
for a return to Catholic forms of worship. Whether he had experienced
the ceremonies himself or not is irrelevant. He knows about them, as
anyone who knew of the Babington or Gunpowder plots (or any of the
executions between them) would have done, and is using it as a *symbol*
of the difference between the two forms.
As his finale, Peter thinks it unlikely that someone brought up in a
certain faith by their parents - and with Shakespeare's intellect and
imagination - would ever depart from it. Forgive my laughter!
Meanwhile, Joe Egert asks: "But Peter, why must the choice be "either
or" rather than "both and"?".
The poem is, of course, mainly about his love for his friend, but he
uses another image to illustrate this, which may be that he is either:
1) using the 'Coronation' image or the 'Eucharist' one, but not both,
or
2) using one of them, but with just a side-glance at the other.
What he is certainly *not* doing is to give equal weight to both of
them, which would (in my opinion) have totally wrecked the poem.
Peter Farey
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm
_______________________________________________________________
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.
|
