The professor in Wit stresses how Helen Gardner was a scholar and her use of the original comma is extremely significant in understanding the true meaning of the poem. However, I found it to be crucial to understand that her point of the comma was in comparison to the version Emma Thompson’s character used that ended the line with an exclamation point. When analyzing the original Donne version of the poem, to the Sir Herbert Grierson version offered in the anthology, I found myself wondering how that professor would judge this punctuation change. She explains how Helen Gardner is a academic scholar and that she maintained the integrity and true meaning of the poem by keeping the comma. When I researched Gardner’s version, it is clear that Gardner may have kept the comma, however, she did choose to capitalize the second “death” in the last line. This realization led me to analyze the anthology’s version in a different light. Yes, perhaps the comma was changed to a semi-colon, however the addition of the comma after the second “Death” allows for the same experience that the professor was explaining in the Gardner version. “And death shall be no more; Death, thou shalt die.” The addition of the comma following the second death serves as that pause, that breath, that the professor was stressing in the video clip.
The point I’m trying to make is that after watching the clip I think many of us were inclined to read the Grierson version from our anthology and assume that it was flawed just as the version Emma Thompson’s character had used was, however I do not believe this to be the case. Many have called attention to the change in capitalization of the word death in the last line, however in the Gardner version this capitalization was also changed. If we are to take the professor’s speech as making a profound point, and highlighting a certain truth about the intended meaning of Donne’s poem, I do not see critiquing the anthology’s version as proving we’ve understood what she had meant. I believe that the professor would attest that the Grierson version was an accurate and adequate version of Donne’s original poem.
I believe the professor would agree that the semi-colon does not change the way this line is read, nor does the capitalization of the second “Death,” because there is the addition of the comma after the second death. The main contention she had with punctuation was the exclamation point added to the version Emma Thompson used. From this understanding I think it is important to see that the changes in punctuation we see in the Grierson version offered in the anthology do not inauthenticate the sonnet, nor change the intended meaning Donne had for the words. The professor in Wit allowed us to focus on the importance that the chosen punctuation has on the words of this sonnet, however I do not believe that the changes in punctuation that we see in the anthology’s version change the meaning or integrity of Donne’s original work.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Sidenote for Samuel Daniel's Delia
I was just reading through all of the ruminations posted for this week and I noticed that only one person decided to ruminate about Samuel Daniel's Delia, and she only discussed sonnet #45(Still an excellent rumination Natalie!) I was really hoping more people were going to write about this poem because I was so incredibly intrigued by it, but kept feeling like I was not fully grasping the exactly what was trying to be said. Well anyway, since my uncertainty was not cleared up through one of your analyses I decided to research the meaning and interpretation of these particular sonnets online. I found this website that features an essay that seems to have been published by Berkley, however I cannot be certain of that. This is a well crafted, and seemingly well researched, explanation of several sonnets from Daniel's Delia. It really helped me better understand where the speaker was coming from, and what exactly he was trying to say. I hope you guys enjoy it!
"Frequently the Elizabethans went straight to Petrarch's own poems, and while subsequent imitations may have had some effect, the original idea was nevertheless often of chief importance to them. Such was undoubtedly the case with Daniel.
He uses the themes of the master over and again-praising his lady's charms, lamenting her cruelty, feeling his own unworthiness to sing her beauty, yet stressing the power of the poet to eternize her perfections of mind and body, looking forward to the day when age shall have faded that beauty and when her heart may soften to his pleading--such are some of the subjects which Petrarch's followers of the sixteenth century, and Daniel especially, found worthy of poetic treatment. His sweet tenderness flows so softly through the sonnets that it is difficult to refrain from calling attention to the poems which give it happiest expression. No wonder Shakespeare read them again and again, and, like a bee, sucked their honey. Sonnets 33, 34, 36, 37, 39, 45, and 46 deal gently, understandingly with the Petrarchan fancy of the loved one grown old and faded. There is not even a hint of Wyatt's natural and stern resentment against the once unrelenting mistress; with Daniel all is loyal, faithful affection, for
I that have loved thee thus before thou fadest,
My faith shall wax, when thou art in thy waning.
And so, since he was not creative by nature, or born a master of passion, Daniel gathered unto himself the ideas of others, and quietly, gently, slowly, with the ease of infinite labor, wrought them into his own thought and feeling. His sonnets are ever placid and smooth, and in his thought are shown the sweet, familiar graces of human relationships, charming the soul and lulling it into gentle repose. There is no sharp cry of protest, no appeal to the turbulent depths of the heart."
http://freessays.0catch.com/danielpearson.html This is the website if you are interested in reading more about Daniel, and the rest of Delia.
"Frequently the Elizabethans went straight to Petrarch's own poems, and while subsequent imitations may have had some effect, the original idea was nevertheless often of chief importance to them. Such was undoubtedly the case with Daniel.
He uses the themes of the master over and again-praising his lady's charms, lamenting her cruelty, feeling his own unworthiness to sing her beauty, yet stressing the power of the poet to eternize her perfections of mind and body, looking forward to the day when age shall have faded that beauty and when her heart may soften to his pleading--such are some of the subjects which Petrarch's followers of the sixteenth century, and Daniel especially, found worthy of poetic treatment. His sweet tenderness flows so softly through the sonnets that it is difficult to refrain from calling attention to the poems which give it happiest expression. No wonder Shakespeare read them again and again, and, like a bee, sucked their honey. Sonnets 33, 34, 36, 37, 39, 45, and 46 deal gently, understandingly with the Petrarchan fancy of the loved one grown old and faded. There is not even a hint of Wyatt's natural and stern resentment against the once unrelenting mistress; with Daniel all is loyal, faithful affection, for
I that have loved thee thus before thou fadest,
My faith shall wax, when thou art in thy waning.
And so, since he was not creative by nature, or born a master of passion, Daniel gathered unto himself the ideas of others, and quietly, gently, slowly, with the ease of infinite labor, wrought them into his own thought and feeling. His sonnets are ever placid and smooth, and in his thought are shown the sweet, familiar graces of human relationships, charming the soul and lulling it into gentle repose. There is no sharp cry of protest, no appeal to the turbulent depths of the heart."
http://freessays.0catch.com/danielpearson.html This is the website if you are interested in reading more about Daniel, and the rest of Delia.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Creative Engagement: Sidney Thinks Astrophil is a Sap FOSHO
Is it possible that Sidney thinks that Astrophil is a sap?
I am so glad this question happened to be posed as a creative engagement idea because this was a strong contender for the direction I was going to take my rumination. When reading this sonnet sequence, I found myself pausing and rereading every sonnet that spoke, not of Astrophil's infatuation with Stella, but of his disappointment or disgust with himself for being so weak to his emotions of love. If Sidney spent just one, or possibly two, sonnets addressing Astrophil's turmoil with being controlled by his love for Stella, I wouldn't think too much into it. However, Sidney makes it such a prevalent force in this sequence that it emerges as a very apparent secondary theme.
What makes me believe that Sidney thinks Astrophil is a sap, and not just a man struggling in love, is the way he has Astrophil make very clear of his preference of reason to love, and the negative way he views himself because he cannot find the will to ignore what his heart feels. It is significant to notice that he does not have Astrophil just reflect on his turmoil as "poor me," or "how unfortunate is it that I feel this way." Instead he has Astrophil continually take personal responsibility for being driven by love and not acting on reason, and expresses shame for it. Sidney's choice to have Astrophil deal with these emotions of guilt and shame for his love reflect his own views on how a man should handle emotions of this nature.
In sonnet 18 Astrophil says "With what sharp checks I in myself am shent,/ When into Reason's audit I do go,/ And by just counts myself a bankrout know/ Of all those goods, which heaven to me have lent;/ Unable quite to pay even Nature's rent,/ Which unto it by birthright I do owe;/ And which is worse, no good excuse can show,/ But that my wealth I have most idly spent." By having Astrophil not only feel shame in himself for being consumed with Love, but also to express being in love as such a petty waste of time, clearly shows Sidney's opinion of men who are overtly emotional like Astrophil.
If that wasn't enough to make his opinion of Astrophil clear, Sidney uses sonnet 21 to completely demean writings of personal love and his ability to implement reason, "Your words, my friend (right healthful caustics), blame/ My young mind marred, whom Love doth windlass so,/ That mine own writings like bad servants show/ My wits quick in vain thoughts, in virtue lame;/ That Plato I read for nought, but if he tame/ Such coltish gyres, that to my birth I owe/ Nobler desires, least else that friendly foe,/ Great Expectation, wear a train of shame." I believe that Sidney sees Astrophil as a weak man. When he references Astrophil's friends, which I would assume to be men also, he addresses them as though they have been able to avoid getting caught up with Love, therefore Astrophil feels the need to try to explain himself to them. Including this element of other men being able to implement reason to "reign in the horses of passion," reveals Sidney's belief that a man should be able to do this; and if he cannot, then he should feel great shame.
So to answer the original question posed, yes. I believe it is very possible that Sidney thinks of Astrophil as a sap. I do not think it is any coincidence that Sidney spent so many sonnets reflecting Astrophil's torment with being so easily comprised by love and unable to actively employ reason. Now this is not to say that Sidney may not secretly be a sap himself. He very well could be using Astrophil as a means of working through his inner demons. However I strongly believe that he thinks Astrophil, and men who are like him(possibly Sidney himself,) are saps.
I am so glad this question happened to be posed as a creative engagement idea because this was a strong contender for the direction I was going to take my rumination. When reading this sonnet sequence, I found myself pausing and rereading every sonnet that spoke, not of Astrophil's infatuation with Stella, but of his disappointment or disgust with himself for being so weak to his emotions of love. If Sidney spent just one, or possibly two, sonnets addressing Astrophil's turmoil with being controlled by his love for Stella, I wouldn't think too much into it. However, Sidney makes it such a prevalent force in this sequence that it emerges as a very apparent secondary theme.
What makes me believe that Sidney thinks Astrophil is a sap, and not just a man struggling in love, is the way he has Astrophil make very clear of his preference of reason to love, and the negative way he views himself because he cannot find the will to ignore what his heart feels. It is significant to notice that he does not have Astrophil just reflect on his turmoil as "poor me," or "how unfortunate is it that I feel this way." Instead he has Astrophil continually take personal responsibility for being driven by love and not acting on reason, and expresses shame for it. Sidney's choice to have Astrophil deal with these emotions of guilt and shame for his love reflect his own views on how a man should handle emotions of this nature.
In sonnet 18 Astrophil says "With what sharp checks I in myself am shent,/ When into Reason's audit I do go,/ And by just counts myself a bankrout know/ Of all those goods, which heaven to me have lent;/ Unable quite to pay even Nature's rent,/ Which unto it by birthright I do owe;/ And which is worse, no good excuse can show,/ But that my wealth I have most idly spent." By having Astrophil not only feel shame in himself for being consumed with Love, but also to express being in love as such a petty waste of time, clearly shows Sidney's opinion of men who are overtly emotional like Astrophil.
If that wasn't enough to make his opinion of Astrophil clear, Sidney uses sonnet 21 to completely demean writings of personal love and his ability to implement reason, "Your words, my friend (right healthful caustics), blame/ My young mind marred, whom Love doth windlass so,/ That mine own writings like bad servants show/ My wits quick in vain thoughts, in virtue lame;/ That Plato I read for nought, but if he tame/ Such coltish gyres, that to my birth I owe/ Nobler desires, least else that friendly foe,/ Great Expectation, wear a train of shame." I believe that Sidney sees Astrophil as a weak man. When he references Astrophil's friends, which I would assume to be men also, he addresses them as though they have been able to avoid getting caught up with Love, therefore Astrophil feels the need to try to explain himself to them. Including this element of other men being able to implement reason to "reign in the horses of passion," reveals Sidney's belief that a man should be able to do this; and if he cannot, then he should feel great shame.
So to answer the original question posed, yes. I believe it is very possible that Sidney thinks of Astrophil as a sap. I do not think it is any coincidence that Sidney spent so many sonnets reflecting Astrophil's torment with being so easily comprised by love and unable to actively employ reason. Now this is not to say that Sidney may not secretly be a sap himself. He very well could be using Astrophil as a means of working through his inner demons. However I strongly believe that he thinks Astrophil, and men who are like him(possibly Sidney himself,) are saps.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Rumination 1: Sacrificing Reason for Love, or Love for Reason?
The battle of love and virtue is ever present in the readings we've done this week, especially in Sidney's Astrophil and Stella. I initially read this sonnet sequence as simply Astrophil's struggle with his love for Stella. I was so entranced by his passionate and unguarded descriptions of his love for her, that I had completely overlooked the very apparent theme that was also at work: sacrificing reason for love...or love for reason. As seen through Astrophil's actions, he surrendered his reason for his love of Stella. In sonnet 21 Astrophil shows that although he cannot help but choose love, he holds reason and virtue to a much higher standard. “Your words, my friend (right healthful caustics), blame,/ My young mind marred, whom Love doth windlass so,/ That mine own writings like bad servants show/ My wits quick in vain thoughts, in virtue lame;"
Okay, so where am I going with this?
Well it is seen throughout the poem that Stella denying Astrophil actually makes him happy because it proves that he is right for loving her because she possesses "virtue." What I took from this poem is that men and women are not so different today when it comes to possibly embarking on a romantic relationship. It is very common for men to become intoxicated with a women's beauty and lore, and as a result are willing to do anything to possess her. Women, on the other hand, are very aware of how the desires of men usually work, and therefore women very often must deny or turn down men in order to remain "lady-like,"or virtuous. Astrophil may hold virtue and reason to a higher standard in theory, but he acts on his feelings of love.
Stella sort of symbolized virtue to Astrophil, therefore her repeated denial of him as her lover was not internalized as acts of malice or rejection, but rather triumphs of a deeper spiritual love she possessed. This realization for Astrophil can be seen in sonnet #87, "And nothing than the cause more sweet could be,/ I had been vexed, if vexed I had not been." Here you see that her denial of him only made him love her and desire her more. This is also something men ad women deal with today. If a woman denies a man, or plays "hard to get," he wants her that much more. It is not entirely clear if Stella is denying him due to her virtuosity, or perhaps she just doesn't have romantic feelings toward him. However, what is clear then, as it is now, is that there's a certain standard or high ideal that men and women have for women when it comes to romantic love. Astrophil loves her even more because of the virtue she seems to possess by denying him, but does not hold himself to that same standard of willpower.
I believe this poem reveals much more than just a man struggling with his love for a woman. I see it as reflecting a very common occurrence between some men and women then and now, a man willing to sacrifice reason for love, and a woman willing to sacrifice love for reason. It certainly can happen in opposite fashions, however my point is that many men, including Astrophil, love a woman more if she is virtuous, and this virtuosity is achieved by applying reason to love and, in doing so, rejecting or denying love.
Well it is seen throughout the poem that Stella denying Astrophil actually makes him happy because it proves that he is right for loving her because she possesses "virtue." What I took from this poem is that men and women are not so different today when it comes to possibly embarking on a romantic relationship. It is very common for men to become intoxicated with a women's beauty and lore, and as a result are willing to do anything to possess her. Women, on the other hand, are very aware of how the desires of men usually work, and therefore women very often must deny or turn down men in order to remain "lady-like,"or virtuous. Astrophil may hold virtue and reason to a higher standard in theory, but he acts on his feelings of love.
Stella sort of symbolized virtue to Astrophil, therefore her repeated denial of him as her lover was not internalized as acts of malice or rejection, but rather triumphs of a deeper spiritual love she possessed. This realization for Astrophil can be seen in sonnet #87, "And nothing than the cause more sweet could be,/ I had been vexed, if vexed I had not been." Here you see that her denial of him only made him love her and desire her more. This is also something men ad women deal with today. If a woman denies a man, or plays "hard to get," he wants her that much more. It is not entirely clear if Stella is denying him due to her virtuosity, or perhaps she just doesn't have romantic feelings toward him. However, what is clear then, as it is now, is that there's a certain standard or high ideal that men and women have for women when it comes to romantic love. Astrophil loves her even more because of the virtue she seems to possess by denying him, but does not hold himself to that same standard of willpower.
I believe this poem reveals much more than just a man struggling with his love for a woman. I see it as reflecting a very common occurrence between some men and women then and now, a man willing to sacrifice reason for love, and a woman willing to sacrifice love for reason. It certainly can happen in opposite fashions, however my point is that many men, including Astrophil, love a woman more if she is virtuous, and this virtuosity is achieved by applying reason to love and, in doing so, rejecting or denying love.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)