Discussion:
Astrophil and Stella: Sonnet 2
(too old to reply)
Robert Stonehouse
2004-05-16 06:30:08 UTC
Permalink
2
Not at first sight, nor with a dribbed shot
Love gave the wound, which while I breathe will bleed:
But known worth did in mine of time proceed,
Till by degrees it had full conquest got.
I saw and liked, I liked but loved not,
I loved, but straight did not what Love decreed:
At length to Love’s decrees, I forced, agreed,
Yet with repining at so partial lot.
Now even that footstep of lost liberty
Is gone, and now like slave-born Muscovite,
I call it praise to suffer tyranny;
And now employ the remnant of my wit
To make myself believe that all is well,
While with a feeling skill I paint my hell.

1. It was not love at first sight, nor on the other hand was it an
ineffectual shot with which
2. Cupid wounded me; a wound that will be with me all my life;
3. But my appreciation of her value went on by lengthy underground
excavation
4. Until gradually it had captured me completely.

5. I saw her, and liked her – liked her, but did not love her;
6. Next, I loved her, but did not immediately follow all Cupid’s
commandments;
7. Finally, I surrendered under compulsion to obey Cupid’s laws,
8. But still regretted the one-sidedness of my fate.

9. Now even that toe-hold on my former freedom
10. Has disappeared; now like a Russian born in slavery
11. I look on loyalty to the tyrant as praiseworthy;
12. Now I use what wits I have left
13. To persuade myself that everything is normal
14. And use my sensitivity and expertise to describe the scene of my
degradation and torment.

Rhyme scheme ABBA, ABBA, CDCD, EE.

I have followed Ringler’s indentation without knowing what the MSS do,
and without really understanding it. In the first two quatrains it
follows the rhyming, but line 11 is not indented as it would be
according to the rhyme-scheme. I do not see that it helps us with the
meaning – rather the opposite.

Line 1: “Not at first sight” is a deliberate breach of convention:
compare Marlowe’s “Who ever loved, that loved not at first sight?”
Obeying the injunction of the previous sonnet, “Look in thy heart and
write”, implies treating the conventions with independence.

Ringler treats ‘drib’ as a variant of ‘dribble’. But according to the
Shorter Oxford, ‘drib’ (from ‘drip’) is the root word (so also Onions)
and ‘dribble’ the frequentative form. So examples that imply
scattering arrows about the scene are not relevant. Cupid shoots once;
one shot could have been a bad shot, but his was not. So I take the
first line as setting limits on either side: it was not instant, but
neither was it a miss.

Lines 3-4 involve a siege metaphor: an underground tunnel gradually
approaching the walls until in the end it is the means for capturing
the whole fortress.

Line 6 “what Love decreed”. We are tempted to interpret this in a
physically sexual sense, but that must be wrong. Courtly love was
largely (perhaps essentially?) a way of avoiding such matters. He
means he did not do all the things laid down in The Art of Love, like
undertaking the most dangerous or repellent (or ridiculous) feats in
honour of his lady. “Wou’t drink up eisel? Eat a crocodile?”

Line 8, “partial lot”. The knight, in courtly love, undertook the most
extreme labours and privations, in return for which he might, or might
not, receive a single smile. His glory was in his faith, not in any
reward; hers was in the number and ardency of her admirers, all the
more honourable because unbribed. A court was a hotbed of repressed
sexuality, crowded with people aged 13 to 30, of both sexes in roughly
equal numbers. The convention partly sublimated this and partly (no
doubt) cloaked it.

Line 10, “Muscovite”. The absoluteness of the Tsars, and the universal
acceptance of it, was a surprise to English visitors. “And moreover,
if there be any rich man amongst them, who in his owne person is unfit
for the warres, that thereby many Noble men and warriors might be
maintained, if any of the Courtiers present his name to the Emperour,
the unhappy man is by and by sent for, and in that instant, deprived
of all his riches, which with great paines and travell all his life
time he had gotten together: except perhaps some small portion thereof
be left him, to maintaine his wife, children and familie. But all this
is done of all the people so willingly at the Emperours commandement,
that a man would thinke, they rather make restitution of other men’s
goods, then give that which is their owne to other men. Nowe the
Emperour having taken these goods into his hands, bestoweth them among
his Courtiers, according to their deserts: and oftener that a man is
sent to the warres, the more the favour he thinketh is borne to him by
the Emperour, although he goe upon his owne charge, as I said before.
So great is the obedience of all men generally to their Prince.”
(Hakluyt’s Voyages, Willoughby and Chancellor, 1553. The expedition
was set up by the London merchants; hence a certain slant towards
commercial property and interests.)

Willoughby was lost at `sea and Richard Chancellor did the business.
On the selection of Chancellor as one of the officers: “This man was
brought up by one Master Henry Sidney, a noble young Gentleman and
very much beloved of King Edward, who at this time comming to the
place where the Marchants were gathered together, beganne a very
eloquent speech or Oration …”. This must have been Philip’s father,
later Sir Henry, Lord President of the Marches of Wales and three
times Lord Deputy of Ireland.
--
Robert Stonehouse
To mail me, replace invalid with uk. Inconvenience regretted.
Gary Kosinsky
2004-05-16 23:06:31 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 16 May 2004 06:30:08 GMT, ***@bcs.org.invalid
(Robert Stonehouse) wrote:
SNIP

Nothing much to add, Robert, but I am curious about
something. Are your paraphrases of A&S based on references
made in the texts you've mentioned, or are they pretty much
your own?



- Gary Kosinsky
Robert Stonehouse
2004-05-17 18:11:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary Kosinsky
SNIP
Nothing much to add, Robert, but I am curious about
something. Are your paraphrases of A&S based on references
made in the texts you've mentioned, or are they pretty much
your own?
1. The objective is to understand the poem and then to explain how I
have understood it. So first, I read it without aid of any kind. This
may not succeed, in which case I go first to the Shorter Oxford and
then to a commentary. But copying from a commentary would not achieve
the desired result. Many times, in Shakespeare, after the first half
hour I have almost given up in despair: "This really is it. This time
I'm going to have to admit I haven't the faintest idea what he is
getting at." Sidney (so far) is not so difficult.

2. This process naturally throws up points that need some kind of
note, like the Muscovite. How did Sidney know about Muscovites? From
lessons in 16th century history in the 1950s, Willoughby and
Chancellor are an obvious place to start; they set out to find the
North East Passage but ended up, Willoughby dead with all his crew and
Chancellor discovering the empire of the Tsars. Luckily, I have
Hakluyt on the shelf, in the World's Classics edition of selected
voyages. Even more luckily, it turns up a pearl: Sidney's father put
money into the expedition and made an eloquent speech recommending
Chancellor to the other partners. So Sidney would have heard the
story, probably met Chancellor and more than likely read the official
reports. I don't know if anyone has found this before or not.

3. Next come the commentaries. If they agree with me, no problem. If I
disagree, it needs a note, because the commentators are (or ought to
be) far superior to me in learning and judgment. If anyone is going to
read what I put, that person should be warned: this is unorthodox, the
orthodoxy is as follows, and here is why I differ. On Shakespeare
there are six commentaries now in print and I have those, and can also
occasionally borrow Ingram and Redpath from the Borough Library.
Sidney is not so lucky: I know only of Ringler's commentary, sparse
but sensible. (I got Ringler's Oxford edition as an academic
remainder, 10 GBPounds.)

4. The paraphrase develops during this process. The idea is to set out
how I have understood the words, and the poem as a whole, as clearly
and completely as possible. So it saves making notes on particular
words (for the most part) and commits me to a particular view.

Now, I can paraphrase only in one sense at a time. Some people claim
that each line, or each word, has several meanings and they _all have
equal status_. If that is true, then paraphrase is impossible. If
paraphrase is possible, then that _equal status_ is false (if, if P
then Q, then, if not Q, then not P). Really, of course, it's more
complicated than just that.

This is not an infallible process: there is no such thing in nature.
One must guard against producing "notes where the editor has rendered
Greek nonsense into English nonsense and gone on his way rejoicing"
(A.E. Housman on Tucker's Supplices of Aeschylus, 1890: he exempts
Tucker from this). But if I write nonsense, there it is for you to see
through.

5. This is the key to the whole thing. The idea is to show you
everything without concealment. If I use a source (like Hakluyt) I
want to quote enough for you to see what it is all about and give a
good enough reference to find more if you want it. It seems the best,
perhaps only, way for someone with no authority, position or
credentials to do this kind of thing. For others, the position may be
different. But the Royal Society's motto is 'nullius in verba', 'on no
one's say-so'.

6. Now maybe I have broken these rules. The courtly love stuff is more
or less commonplace: actual conditions at court are out of some
historian (wish I could remember which! J.E. Neale, partly, but also a
broadcast talk). I should get hold of Castiglione's Il Cortigiano, and
perhaps some French stuff (Carte du Tendre?) and see if there is
anything quotable. Malory? All that work!

All this is probably more than you bargained for - certainly more than
I did. 'Specs it growed.
--
Robert Stonehouse
To mail me, replace invalid with uk. Inconvenience regretted.
Gary Kosinsky
2004-05-17 23:22:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Stonehouse
Post by Gary Kosinsky
SNIP
Nothing much to add, Robert, but I am curious about
something. Are your paraphrases of A&S based on references
made in the texts you've mentioned, or are they pretty much
your own?
1. The objective is to understand the poem and then to explain how I
have understood it. So first, I read it without aid of any kind. This
may not succeed, in which case I go first to the Shorter Oxford and
then to a commentary. But copying from a commentary would not achieve
the desired result. Many times, in Shakespeare, after the first half
hour I have almost given up in despair: "This really is it. This time
I'm going to have to admit I haven't the faintest idea what he is
getting at." Sidney (so far) is not so difficult.
After two poems, that's what I've noticed as well.
He reads much more straight-forwardly than does Shakespeare.
Post by Robert Stonehouse
2. This process naturally throws up points that need some kind of
note, like the Muscovite. How did Sidney know about Muscovites? From
lessons in 16th century history in the 1950s, Willoughby and
Chancellor are an obvious place to start; they set out to find the
North East Passage but ended up, Willoughby dead with all his crew and
Chancellor discovering the empire of the Tsars. Luckily, I have
Hakluyt on the shelf, in the World's Classics edition of selected
voyages. Even more luckily, it turns up a pearl: Sidney's father put
money into the expedition and made an eloquent speech recommending
Chancellor to the other partners. So Sidney would have heard the
story, probably met Chancellor and more than likely read the official
reports. I don't know if anyone has found this before or not.
3. Next come the commentaries. If they agree with me, no problem. If I
disagree, it needs a note, because the commentators are (or ought to
be) far superior to me in learning and judgment. If anyone is going to
read what I put, that person should be warned: this is unorthodox, the
orthodoxy is as follows, and here is why I differ. On Shakespeare
there are six commentaries now in print and I have those, and can also
occasionally borrow Ingram and Redpath from the Borough Library.
Sidney is not so lucky: I know only of Ringler's commentary, sparse
but sensible. (I got Ringler's Oxford edition as an academic
remainder, 10 GBPounds.)
This is sort of what I was wondering - whether there
even *was* a commentary on Sidney's poems similar to the
many that exist to 'explain' Shakespeare's sonnets.
Post by Robert Stonehouse
4. The paraphrase develops during this process. The idea is to set out
how I have understood the words, and the poem as a whole, as clearly
and completely as possible. So it saves making notes on particular
words (for the most part) and commits me to a particular view.
Now, I can paraphrase only in one sense at a time. Some people claim
that each line, or each word, has several meanings and they _all have
equal status_.
Yes, *some* people do claim that, don't they? ; )
Post by Robert Stonehouse
If that is true, then paraphrase is impossible. If
paraphrase is possible, then that _equal status_ is false (if, if P
then Q, then, if not Q, then not P). Really, of course, it's more
complicated than just that.
This is not an infallible process: there is no such thing in nature.
One must guard against producing "notes where the editor has rendered
Greek nonsense into English nonsense and gone on his way rejoicing"
(A.E. Housman on Tucker's Supplices of Aeschylus, 1890: he exempts
Tucker from this). But if I write nonsense, there it is for you to see
through.
5. This is the key to the whole thing. The idea is to show you
everything without concealment. If I use a source (like Hakluyt) I
want to quote enough for you to see what it is all about and give a
good enough reference to find more if you want it. It seems the best,
perhaps only, way for someone with no authority, position or
credentials to do this kind of thing. For others, the position may be
different. But the Royal Society's motto is 'nullius in verba', 'on no
one's say-so'.
6. Now maybe I have broken these rules. The courtly love stuff is more
or less commonplace: actual conditions at court are out of some
historian (wish I could remember which! J.E. Neale, partly, but also a
broadcast talk). I should get hold of Castiglione's Il Cortigiano, and
perhaps some French stuff (Carte du Tendre?) and see if there is
anything quotable. Malory? All that work!
All this is probably more than you bargained for - certainly more than
I did. 'Specs it growed.
It is more than I bargained for, but very
interesting. Thank-you.



- Gary Kosinsky

Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...