To Be Or Not To Be Shakespeare
September 28, 2006 2:58 PM Subscribe
Shakespeare Apocrypha including such classics as 'The Birth of Merlin', 'The
Merry Devil of Edmonton' and 'The Life and Death of the Lord Cromwell'.
AWESOME! Performing Shakespeare inaugurated my love of theatre, performance, and scholarship.
posted by jrb223 at 3:36 PM on September 28, 2006
posted by jrb223 at 3:36 PM on September 28, 2006
Thanks for this.
posted by interrobang at 3:45 PM on September 28, 2006
posted by interrobang at 3:45 PM on September 28, 2006
http://www.shaksper.net/archives/1996/0564.html
My text, published of Edward III, in which I make the case for dual authorship of the play.
Wikipedia has decent article which lists some of the plays cited in this post but not all of them since many of those listed seldom taken with any seriousness.
posted by Postroad at 3:50 PM on September 28, 2006
My text, published of Edward III, in which I make the case for dual authorship of the play.
Wikipedia has decent article which lists some of the plays cited in this post but not all of them since many of those listed seldom taken with any seriousness.
posted by Postroad at 3:50 PM on September 28, 2006
SCENE IV
Enter Cador and Edwin.
CADOR. Bright victory her self fights on our part,
And, buckled in a golden beaver, rides
Triumphantly before us.
posted by sgt.serenity at 4:19 PM on September 28, 2006
Where's that angry letter he wrote to Shelley's father?
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 6:45 PM on September 28, 2006
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 6:45 PM on September 28, 2006
Faux Bard. I love this stuff. My favorite on the list is Loves Labors Won. Back in college we actually performed Loves Labors Lost. It every bit does justice to the modern concept of creating a movie solely for the purpose of a sequel. If only more modern films quit while they were ahead. LLL though? If you never seen it you ain't missing much. Not one of Bill's better works. I don't care what Kenneth Branagh thinks.
Almost as fascinating as the list of works sometimes posthumously awarded to Shakespeare but never proven, is the theory that Shakespeare never existed at all, but was actually invented by Francis Bacon or Christopher Marlowe.
See, back in those days some of the plays on Shakespeare's repertoire could have been sufficient cause for treason. It's believed by some that Marlowe and/or Bacon would come up with an idea and then claim a stableboy named William Shakespeare actually wrote it, just in case the critics were a little too critical.
I adore Shakespeare, but at best (assuming he actually lived) he was a hack. Much of what he wrote sounds a lot like his peers and predecessors. Plenty of the works were not original. He'd adapt books and well known stories and old talltales heard around bars. He stole ideas from other writers. He stole anything that wasn't tied down securely. If he had an original thought in his head, he rarely put it to paper. However, it can be argued that Stephen Spielberg is a hack too, and look how much he's worth today.
These apocryphal works were either other places where he stole ideas (and the original authors are lost to obscurity) or they're failed works from him that never actually got produced which is why they never ended up in portfolios.
Or maybe in some rare instances they're the first examples of "fanfic." *smirk*
posted by ZachsMind at 7:22 PM on September 28, 2006
Almost as fascinating as the list of works sometimes posthumously awarded to Shakespeare but never proven, is the theory that Shakespeare never existed at all, but was actually invented by Francis Bacon or Christopher Marlowe.
See, back in those days some of the plays on Shakespeare's repertoire could have been sufficient cause for treason. It's believed by some that Marlowe and/or Bacon would come up with an idea and then claim a stableboy named William Shakespeare actually wrote it, just in case the critics were a little too critical.
I adore Shakespeare, but at best (assuming he actually lived) he was a hack. Much of what he wrote sounds a lot like his peers and predecessors. Plenty of the works were not original. He'd adapt books and well known stories and old talltales heard around bars. He stole ideas from other writers. He stole anything that wasn't tied down securely. If he had an original thought in his head, he rarely put it to paper. However, it can be argued that Stephen Spielberg is a hack too, and look how much he's worth today.
These apocryphal works were either other places where he stole ideas (and the original authors are lost to obscurity) or they're failed works from him that never actually got produced which is why they never ended up in portfolios.
Or maybe in some rare instances they're the first examples of "fanfic." *smirk*
posted by ZachsMind at 7:22 PM on September 28, 2006
Brilliant post - lots of fascinating stuff to go through. Thanks.
posted by greycap at 10:48 PM on September 28, 2006
posted by greycap at 10:48 PM on September 28, 2006
ZachsMind...
I could swear we've already gone into the authorship debate here many times, but I'm too lazy to find the threads. I will recommend that you go here, because it will hopefully clear things up for you. I do want to go over a few points though...
The Bacon & Marlowe claims have been abandoned by the majority of anti-stratfordians, as far as I know (the Marlowe one being extremely ridiculous because of his death in 1593). Most of the cranks have moved on to nominate the Earl of Oxford and others as potential authors. These claims are largely based on Da Vinci Code style pseudo-detective work and gross misunderstandings of early modern English culture. One thing is certain, there is no doubt that there was an actor and playwright named William Shakespeare, born in Stratford, lived in London, and died in Stratford.
Also, the only really controversial play that he wrote was Richard II (at least, I can't recall any record of controversy over his other plays; Elizabeth I didn't like that one too much because it included the execution of a monarch). There were other playwrights who wrote far more dangerous works, and under their real names. Ben Jonson was imprisoned for his play Sejanus, and Middleton's A Game at Chess was one of the most politically dangerous plays of the early 17th century; it played for 9 days straight (an unheard of practice) and was then banned and not performed again. Why didn't these guys have their very own early modern Alan Smithee? So, the whole "the plays were so dangerous that others merely attributed them to him to escape censure" argument doesn't really hold water; it wouldn't be much of a good deal for poor Will, now would it?
As for the "he was a hack" claim... well, everyone stole. One of the fundamental precepts of early modern literature was "imitate the greats." Originality and creativity in the modern sense were not only not valued, they were suspect. Pretty much everything written or performed in the period was based on historical events, taken from classical mythology, stolen from another playwright, adapted from continental sources, or thinly veiled allegory of current events. Spenser, Shakespeare, Marlowe, Jonson, Milton... they all stole their material from somewhere. All but 2 of Shakespeare's plays (the exceptions being Midsummer Night's Dream and The Tempest) fall into these categories; the two exceptions are basically "original" stories based on a variety of other material.
Something to realize also is that modern concepts of authorship don't really work in the 16th & 17th centuries, especially in the theater. These are works that are being performed by numerous companies, with no one person holding ownership of them. They are likely being changed in performance, as well as being edited and changed when they are finally printed. They are works of collaboration, between different writers, writers and performers, and writers and editors/publishers.
Finally, I'd just point out that the authorship "debate" didn't become an issue until, I believe, the 19th century. We have no record from Shakespeare's time that anyone questioned whether or not he wrote it.
posted by papakwanz at 11:16 PM on September 28, 2006
I could swear we've already gone into the authorship debate here many times, but I'm too lazy to find the threads. I will recommend that you go here, because it will hopefully clear things up for you. I do want to go over a few points though...
The Bacon & Marlowe claims have been abandoned by the majority of anti-stratfordians, as far as I know (the Marlowe one being extremely ridiculous because of his death in 1593). Most of the cranks have moved on to nominate the Earl of Oxford and others as potential authors. These claims are largely based on Da Vinci Code style pseudo-detective work and gross misunderstandings of early modern English culture. One thing is certain, there is no doubt that there was an actor and playwright named William Shakespeare, born in Stratford, lived in London, and died in Stratford.
Also, the only really controversial play that he wrote was Richard II (at least, I can't recall any record of controversy over his other plays; Elizabeth I didn't like that one too much because it included the execution of a monarch). There were other playwrights who wrote far more dangerous works, and under their real names. Ben Jonson was imprisoned for his play Sejanus, and Middleton's A Game at Chess was one of the most politically dangerous plays of the early 17th century; it played for 9 days straight (an unheard of practice) and was then banned and not performed again. Why didn't these guys have their very own early modern Alan Smithee? So, the whole "the plays were so dangerous that others merely attributed them to him to escape censure" argument doesn't really hold water; it wouldn't be much of a good deal for poor Will, now would it?
As for the "he was a hack" claim... well, everyone stole. One of the fundamental precepts of early modern literature was "imitate the greats." Originality and creativity in the modern sense were not only not valued, they were suspect. Pretty much everything written or performed in the period was based on historical events, taken from classical mythology, stolen from another playwright, adapted from continental sources, or thinly veiled allegory of current events. Spenser, Shakespeare, Marlowe, Jonson, Milton... they all stole their material from somewhere. All but 2 of Shakespeare's plays (the exceptions being Midsummer Night's Dream and The Tempest) fall into these categories; the two exceptions are basically "original" stories based on a variety of other material.
Something to realize also is that modern concepts of authorship don't really work in the 16th & 17th centuries, especially in the theater. These are works that are being performed by numerous companies, with no one person holding ownership of them. They are likely being changed in performance, as well as being edited and changed when they are finally printed. They are works of collaboration, between different writers, writers and performers, and writers and editors/publishers.
Finally, I'd just point out that the authorship "debate" didn't become an issue until, I believe, the 19th century. We have no record from Shakespeare's time that anyone questioned whether or not he wrote it.
posted by papakwanz at 11:16 PM on September 28, 2006
er...
whether or not he wrote the plays attributed to him.
posted by papakwanz at 11:27 PM on September 28, 2006
whether or not he wrote the plays attributed to him.
posted by papakwanz at 11:27 PM on September 28, 2006
Personally, I don't think there is any serious doubt that Shakespeare had a hand in "Edward III"; the debate seems to be the extent. And I spent a great deal of time hashing this out, research, glossing and discussing it back in the late 90's, so I'm not unfamiliar with the issue.
As for "Cardenio", no one believe's Hamilton's conclusion. Dave Kathman (the good friend who runs the splendid site papakwanz links to) wrote the sad tale of its Fate accepted by most:
"There was a play called "Cardenio" which was performed at Court by the King's Men in 1612 and 1613, and which was attributed to Shakespeare and Fletcher later in the 17th century. It has now been lost, but most scholars today accept that it probably was written by Shakespeare and Fletcher and based on the story of Cardenio in *Don Quixote*, which had just been translated into English by John Shelton in 1612. In 1727 Lewis Theobald claimed to have three manuscript copies of the play, but instead of publishing it as is, he "improved" it (as was the style at the time) by adapting it into a play called *Double Falsehood*, which was performed and published that same year. The manuscripts Theobald claimed to have have never been found. While some people think he just made up the story about the manuscripts and actually wrote *Double Falsehood* himself, others (including me) think there's a strong possibility that he really did have a manuscript, and that *Double Falsehood* contains parts of Shakespeare and Fletcher's original play. "
In other words ... that bastard Theobald most likely cannabalized it.
As for the so-called authorship issue -- it's only an issue in the minds of the tin-foil hat crowd. I've argued with them for years. Every time you pin them down, they merely widen the circle of conspirators. There comes a point where the only people in England not in on the fraud was 2nd cousin of the Queen's stable-boy.
posted by RavinDave at 1:05 AM on September 29, 2006
As for "Cardenio", no one believe's Hamilton's conclusion. Dave Kathman (the good friend who runs the splendid site papakwanz links to) wrote the sad tale of its Fate accepted by most:
"There was a play called "Cardenio" which was performed at Court by the King's Men in 1612 and 1613, and which was attributed to Shakespeare and Fletcher later in the 17th century. It has now been lost, but most scholars today accept that it probably was written by Shakespeare and Fletcher and based on the story of Cardenio in *Don Quixote*, which had just been translated into English by John Shelton in 1612. In 1727 Lewis Theobald claimed to have three manuscript copies of the play, but instead of publishing it as is, he "improved" it (as was the style at the time) by adapting it into a play called *Double Falsehood*, which was performed and published that same year. The manuscripts Theobald claimed to have have never been found. While some people think he just made up the story about the manuscripts and actually wrote *Double Falsehood* himself, others (including me) think there's a strong possibility that he really did have a manuscript, and that *Double Falsehood* contains parts of Shakespeare and Fletcher's original play. "
In other words ... that bastard Theobald most likely cannabalized it.
As for the so-called authorship issue -- it's only an issue in the minds of the tin-foil hat crowd. I've argued with them for years. Every time you pin them down, they merely widen the circle of conspirators. There comes a point where the only people in England not in on the fraud was 2nd cousin of the Queen's stable-boy.
posted by RavinDave at 1:05 AM on September 29, 2006
Postroad: My text, published of Edward III, in which I make the case for dual authorship of the play.
Heh -- so you are that Fred Lapides, Postroad. I used your Garland edition of E3 in my Master's thesis on the play's authorship.
RavinDave: yeah, I think there's little doubt that Theobald had some kind of Elizabethan (or more likely Jacobean) play in a later scribal transcript, and used this as the basis for his Double Falshood. Jonathan Hope in 1994 demonstrated that there exists in the 1728 version remnants of an early seventeenth-century style, and the arguments that Theobald forged the thing have always seemed to me to be weak (and totally out of character for Theobald).
The question then is: why did he not include the original version in his 1733 edition of the Complete Works, as he had promised to do in 1728? Perhaps he no longer believed the play to be Shakespeare's. Then again, Pope had mocked him, and the Double Falshood, in the Dunciad, and it could well be that that cowed Theobald to the point where he no longer trusted his critical judgment on the issue of authorship. After all, Theobald seems to have wanted to include the apocrypha in the 1733 edition as well (Pope had excluded them from his 1723-5 ed.), and wussed out on that as well.
As for Theobald's lost manuscript play—the putative Cardenio—Brean Hammond has turned up a late eighteenth-century reference to it as being 'treasured up' in the Covent Garden playhouse, which burned to the ground in 1808 ... so that may explain what happened to it. Fascinating story, anyway—thanks for posting this, feelinglistless.
posted by Sonny Jim at 2:26 AM on September 29, 2006
Heh -- so you are that Fred Lapides, Postroad. I used your Garland edition of E3 in my Master's thesis on the play's authorship.
RavinDave: yeah, I think there's little doubt that Theobald had some kind of Elizabethan (or more likely Jacobean) play in a later scribal transcript, and used this as the basis for his Double Falshood. Jonathan Hope in 1994 demonstrated that there exists in the 1728 version remnants of an early seventeenth-century style, and the arguments that Theobald forged the thing have always seemed to me to be weak (and totally out of character for Theobald).
The question then is: why did he not include the original version in his 1733 edition of the Complete Works, as he had promised to do in 1728? Perhaps he no longer believed the play to be Shakespeare's. Then again, Pope had mocked him, and the Double Falshood, in the Dunciad, and it could well be that that cowed Theobald to the point where he no longer trusted his critical judgment on the issue of authorship. After all, Theobald seems to have wanted to include the apocrypha in the 1733 edition as well (Pope had excluded them from his 1723-5 ed.), and wussed out on that as well.
As for Theobald's lost manuscript play—the putative Cardenio—Brean Hammond has turned up a late eighteenth-century reference to it as being 'treasured up' in the Covent Garden playhouse, which burned to the ground in 1808 ... so that may explain what happened to it. Fascinating story, anyway—thanks for posting this, feelinglistless.
posted by Sonny Jim at 2:26 AM on September 29, 2006
Its all great stuff isn't it? I once had a conversation with Clare Asquith regarding authorship, agreeing that Shakespeare had to have written the plays and also that we're all so 'disappointed' that the canon is 'so small' that we're desperate for anything else to be listed as authored by him. I think scholars are often just looking for something else to write about now that Hamlet et al have had such a good turning over.
I have rather a soft spot for Edmund Ironside.
posted by feelinglistless at 4:06 AM on September 29, 2006
I have rather a soft spot for Edmund Ironside.
posted by feelinglistless at 4:06 AM on September 29, 2006
feelinglistless ... let me sum up the fundamental flaw of the "authorship" debate. The most common formulation contains the seeds of its own refutation. Consider:
—For whatever reason, person X needs to divert attention from himself and conceal his true identity by hiding behind "Will Shakespeare".
—"Will Shakespeare" (according to them) was a coarse and low-class rube who lacked the proper education, courtly contacts (and whatever else) for anyone to seriously believe he was capable of crafting these lofty works of genius.
Do you see the problem? If "person X" were truly forced to conceal his identity, why would he choose a persona guaranteed to draw attention and scrutiny?
posted by RavinDave at 4:37 AM on September 29, 2006
—For whatever reason, person X needs to divert attention from himself and conceal his true identity by hiding behind "Will Shakespeare".
—"Will Shakespeare" (according to them) was a coarse and low-class rube who lacked the proper education, courtly contacts (and whatever else) for anyone to seriously believe he was capable of crafting these lofty works of genius.
Do you see the problem? If "person X" were truly forced to conceal his identity, why would he choose a persona guaranteed to draw attention and scrutiny?
posted by RavinDave at 4:37 AM on September 29, 2006
Regarding what ZachsMind said, I have to speak up on behalf of Love's Labour's Lost, an elegant, joyful, intelligent-verging-on-manic comedy of language. I personally think it rocks.
posted by Pallas Athena at 5:36 AM on September 29, 2006
posted by Pallas Athena at 5:36 AM on September 29, 2006
RavinDave -- I think you misread my wording -- I believe that Shakespeare must have written the plays -- everything else is over complex and has no real basis in the real world. He had a very good education in Stratford and the time on his hands when not working in his dad's glovemaking shop to catch up on the then great works of lit and source material and build his vocabulary -- he was far from the schlub than people suspect.
posted by feelinglistless at 8:12 AM on September 29, 2006
posted by feelinglistless at 8:12 AM on September 29, 2006
at best (assuming he actually lived) he was a hack. Much of what he wrote sounds a lot like his peers and predecessors. Plenty of the works were not original. He'd adapt books and well known stories and old talltales heard around bars. He stole ideas from other writers. He stole anything that wasn't tied down securely. If he had an original thought in his head, he rarely put it to paper.
I don't know where to begin.
Shakespeare was one of the most original writers who ever lived. Maybe most original. Claiming otherwise is like saying Da Vinci wasn't original because he painted Bible scenes, like the Last Supper. Surely originality is not about whether or not you use source material -- it's about what you make out of that source material.
Even if there was an earlier play or story with the exact same plot as "King Lear" (there wasn't), the play would still be wildly original. If you think otherwise, you're probably focusing on the fact that there WERE earlier works about a King named Lear who divided his kingdom up amongst his daughters.
Yes, Shakespeare adapted that plot. Yes, he did make LARGE changes to it. But even if he didn't, it wouldn't matter. His originality lies much less in his plotting than in his word choices (his poetry) and in his "modern" and deep understanding of human psychology. NO ONE has ever created a Lear that is complex as Shakes pear's king. And no other Lears have ever spoken like Shakespeare's. THAT is his originality.
But who cares? Yes, he was original, but it doesn't matter. What matters -- to those of us who adore the plays -- is how they make us FEEL. They make us feel more deeply, and with more complex feelings, than most (perhaps any) other works of fiction.
That's a subjective response, of course, but it's a pretty universal one amongst people who really get the plays.
(To "really get" the plays, you need to first acknowledge that Shakespeare doesn't speak your language. You're not going to get a German play if you don't speak German. You're not going to get Shakespeare if you don't speak Elizabethan English.
You may enjoy the play without knowing it's language, because Elizabethan is close enough to modern English that you can get the general idea and follow the plot. But to really be deeply affected -- and to really understand how Shakespeare was original -- you need to be able to understand all the nuances of the language.
You can do this by studying one play in depth. Get a few editions of Lear, Hamlet, Othello or Midsummer and go through it word-by-word. Look up all the words you don't understand, preferably in an OED, and read all the textual notes in the various editions.
Once you've really delved into one play, the next play will be much easier.
As a theatre director, I love live performance, but there's only so much you can get when the play is speeding by in real time -- especially if it's in a language that's foreign to you.)
posted by grumblebee at 10:39 AM on September 29, 2006
I don't know where to begin.
Shakespeare was one of the most original writers who ever lived. Maybe most original. Claiming otherwise is like saying Da Vinci wasn't original because he painted Bible scenes, like the Last Supper. Surely originality is not about whether or not you use source material -- it's about what you make out of that source material.
Even if there was an earlier play or story with the exact same plot as "King Lear" (there wasn't), the play would still be wildly original. If you think otherwise, you're probably focusing on the fact that there WERE earlier works about a King named Lear who divided his kingdom up amongst his daughters.
Yes, Shakespeare adapted that plot. Yes, he did make LARGE changes to it. But even if he didn't, it wouldn't matter. His originality lies much less in his plotting than in his word choices (his poetry) and in his "modern" and deep understanding of human psychology. NO ONE has ever created a Lear that is complex as Shakes pear's king. And no other Lears have ever spoken like Shakespeare's. THAT is his originality.
But who cares? Yes, he was original, but it doesn't matter. What matters -- to those of us who adore the plays -- is how they make us FEEL. They make us feel more deeply, and with more complex feelings, than most (perhaps any) other works of fiction.
That's a subjective response, of course, but it's a pretty universal one amongst people who really get the plays.
(To "really get" the plays, you need to first acknowledge that Shakespeare doesn't speak your language. You're not going to get a German play if you don't speak German. You're not going to get Shakespeare if you don't speak Elizabethan English.
You may enjoy the play without knowing it's language, because Elizabethan is close enough to modern English that you can get the general idea and follow the plot. But to really be deeply affected -- and to really understand how Shakespeare was original -- you need to be able to understand all the nuances of the language.
You can do this by studying one play in depth. Get a few editions of Lear, Hamlet, Othello or Midsummer and go through it word-by-word. Look up all the words you don't understand, preferably in an OED, and read all the textual notes in the various editions.
Once you've really delved into one play, the next play will be much easier.
As a theatre director, I love live performance, but there's only so much you can get when the play is speeding by in real time -- especially if it's in a language that's foreign to you.)
posted by grumblebee at 10:39 AM on September 29, 2006
If you never seen it you ain't missing much. Not one of Bill's better works.
I beg to differ, and offer this as evidence:
But love, first learnèd in a lady's eyes,
Lives not alone immurèd in the brain,
But, with the motion of all elements,
Courses as swift as thought in every power,
And gives to every power a double power,
Above their functions and their offices.
It adds a precious seeing to the eye;
A lover's eyes will gaze an eagle blind;
A lover's ears will hear the lowest sound,
When the suspicious head of theft is stopped:
Love's feeling is more soft and sensible
Than are the tender horns of cockled snails:
Love's tongue proves dainty Baccus gross in taste.
For valour, is not love a Hercules,
Still climbing trees in the Hesperides?
Subtle as Sphinx; as sweet and musical
As bright Apollo's lute, strung with his hair;
And when Love speaks, the voice of all the gods
Makes heaven drowsy with the harmony.
Never durst poet touch a pen to write
Until his ink were tempered with Love's sighs.
Here's some help, if you find the language a little opaque:
But love, first learnèd in a lady's eyes,
Lives not alone immurèd in the brain,
"immured" means confined/trapped. So the first couple of lines are saying, "Love -- though it may first occur in the eye -- doesn't stay trapped in the brain.
But, with the motion of all elements,
Courses as swift as thought in every power,
And gives to every power a double power,
Above their functions and their offices.
I think "with the motion of all elements..." basically means that "as everything moves, love leaves the brain and flows "as fast as thought" to every part of the body. But "elements" can also refer to the motion of planets, so there's a metaphor in there liking the course of love to the motion of celestial bodies.
In any case, love zooms from the brain to all the other parts, and "gives to every power a double power, Above their functions and offices." So love turns a leg into a super-leg. Or, to use Shapespear's much better examples...
It adds a precious seeing to the eye;
A lover's eyes will gaze an eagle blind;
A lover's ears will hear the lowest sound,
When the suspicious head of theft is stopped:
Love's feeling is more soft and sensible
Than are the tender horns of cockled snails:
Love's tongue proves dainty Baccus gross in taste.
For valour, is not love a Hercules,
Still climbing trees in the Hesperides?
Subtle as Sphinx; as sweet and musical
As bright Apollo's lute, strung with his hair;
And when Love speaks, the voice of all the gods
Makes heaven drowsy with the harmony.
Never durst poet touch a pen to write
Until his ink were tempered with Love's sighs.
I'd save the play from the fire, just for "A lover's eyes will gaze an eagle blind"
posted by grumblebee at 11:03 AM on September 29, 2006
I beg to differ, and offer this as evidence:
But love, first learnèd in a lady's eyes,
Lives not alone immurèd in the brain,
But, with the motion of all elements,
Courses as swift as thought in every power,
And gives to every power a double power,
Above their functions and their offices.
It adds a precious seeing to the eye;
A lover's eyes will gaze an eagle blind;
A lover's ears will hear the lowest sound,
When the suspicious head of theft is stopped:
Love's feeling is more soft and sensible
Than are the tender horns of cockled snails:
Love's tongue proves dainty Baccus gross in taste.
For valour, is not love a Hercules,
Still climbing trees in the Hesperides?
Subtle as Sphinx; as sweet and musical
As bright Apollo's lute, strung with his hair;
And when Love speaks, the voice of all the gods
Makes heaven drowsy with the harmony.
Never durst poet touch a pen to write
Until his ink were tempered with Love's sighs.
Here's some help, if you find the language a little opaque:
But love, first learnèd in a lady's eyes,
Lives not alone immurèd in the brain,
"immured" means confined/trapped. So the first couple of lines are saying, "Love -- though it may first occur in the eye -- doesn't stay trapped in the brain.
But, with the motion of all elements,
Courses as swift as thought in every power,
And gives to every power a double power,
Above their functions and their offices.
I think "with the motion of all elements..." basically means that "as everything moves, love leaves the brain and flows "as fast as thought" to every part of the body. But "elements" can also refer to the motion of planets, so there's a metaphor in there liking the course of love to the motion of celestial bodies.
In any case, love zooms from the brain to all the other parts, and "gives to every power a double power, Above their functions and offices." So love turns a leg into a super-leg. Or, to use Shapespear's much better examples...
It adds a precious seeing to the eye;
A lover's eyes will gaze an eagle blind;
A lover's ears will hear the lowest sound,
When the suspicious head of theft is stopped:
Love's feeling is more soft and sensible
Than are the tender horns of cockled snails:
Love's tongue proves dainty Baccus gross in taste.
For valour, is not love a Hercules,
Still climbing trees in the Hesperides?
Subtle as Sphinx; as sweet and musical
As bright Apollo's lute, strung with his hair;
And when Love speaks, the voice of all the gods
Makes heaven drowsy with the harmony.
Never durst poet touch a pen to write
Until his ink were tempered with Love's sighs.
I'd save the play from the fire, just for "A lover's eyes will gaze an eagle blind"
posted by grumblebee at 11:03 AM on September 29, 2006
grumblebee: Damn right! I've also got to add mad props for Don Armado, whose text is some of the most difficult in Shakespeare, and also some of the funniest.
posted by Pallas Athena at 11:31 AM on September 29, 2006
posted by Pallas Athena at 11:31 AM on September 29, 2006
Thanks for finding this. I'd like to see Two Noble Kinsmen - some lovely bits, such as the description of Palamon:
"He daunces very finely, very comely,
And for a Iigge, come cut and long taile to him,
He turnes ye like a Top."
Jasper Fforde's Lost in a Good Book is based around a finding of Cardenio, and there are several Golden Age detective stories where similarly lost plays are found - Crispin's Love Lies Bleeding, for instance, where you get an extract from Loves Labours Won.
posted by paduasoy at 2:38 AM on October 1, 2006
"He daunces very finely, very comely,
And for a Iigge, come cut and long taile to him,
He turnes ye like a Top."
Jasper Fforde's Lost in a Good Book is based around a finding of Cardenio, and there are several Golden Age detective stories where similarly lost plays are found - Crispin's Love Lies Bleeding, for instance, where you get an extract from Loves Labours Won.
posted by paduasoy at 2:38 AM on October 1, 2006
« Older I've never thought about it that way... | This really hertz Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Anyhow, fascinating links. Thank you!
posted by Joey Michaels at 3:24 PM on September 28, 2006