Sunday, October 25, 2015

Oxford/Shakespeare: ANAPHORA

                                                    PART 2:
                                                   APPENDIX FOR ANAPHORA

 Interestingly, as to anaphora, and its unique usage by Shakespeare, de Vere, and Ignoto—all being the same—it’s apparent everywhere the subject of the “style” of Shakespeare comes to us. Below, as the writer can see, I “broke the lines” not thinking at all about “anaphora” but just to give a “natural” Shakespeare feel to it. I did not change anything. Here is what I produced, before I was really even acquainted with the word “anaphora.”

 
                                                       **************
APPENDIX
STYLE:  According to Ignoto AEP
Versified by E.L.M. –
(only a few dashes have been added, along with line breaks)

Showing That Text Written By The Author Of AEP Is So Inately Poetic That, By Merely Breaking The “Breathing” Line At The Right Place, It Begins To Sing --- The Prose Of A “Singer”

Chapter V – The Arte of English Posie, 1589

Style is constant—
continual phrase or tenour
of speaking and writing,
extending to the whole tale
of process of the poem or history—
and not properly to any piece
or member of a tale
but is of words, speeches,
and sentences together,
 a certain contrived form and quality,
many times natural to the writer,
many times his peculiar by election and art,
and such as either he keepth by skill,
or holdeth on by ignorance,
and will—or peradventure cannot—
easily alter into any other.
So we say that Cicero’s  style, and Salusts
Were not one, nor Ceasars and Livies, nor Homers
And Hesiodus, nor Herodutus and Theucidides
Nor Euripides, Aristophanes nor Erasmus
and Bideis styles—
and because this continual course
and manner of writing speech sheweth
the matter and disposition of the writer’s mind,
more than one or a few words
or sentences can show,
therefore, there be that have called Style:

the image of man for a man is but his mind,
and as his mind is tempered and qualified
so are his speeches and language at large,
and in his inward conceits be the metal
of his mind
and the manner of his utterance,
the very warp and woof of his conceits—
more plain, or busy and intricate,
or otherwise affected after the rate.

 Most men say that not any one point
In all Physiognomy is so certain, as to judge
Man’s manner by his eye; but more assuredly
In mine opinion, by his daily manner
Of speech and ordinary writing.

***************

More versified prose from “The Arte of English Poise”—showing that poetry was his, “style” his many times natural” self in speech and “ordinary writing” and his “language at large.”

Instruction To Performers

Excerpted From Arte of Englishe Poesie, 1589

 To refresh the mind with the ear’s delight,
That is the art of excellent poetry.
Therefore, before all else, let true concords,
Clear and audible, no less delight
Than the strained note in a musician mouth.
Therefore, be not impatient with thy speech;
Not by the dark, wrench’d by wrong writing
(As all they do who serve as meter-patchers)
Who follow not their art, neither rule
Reason nor rime; but this I’ll say
That every verse is as ‘twere a kind of clause
Unto itself—whatsoever the sense o’it.
This, then, above all, a natural eloquence
Not by gross use be toy’d indiscreetly,
Or overmuch affected (though all dissemble)
But, even as Nature’s own self working,
By proper virtue’s instinct and example,
So, be not as those other Poets are,
Or false orators upon the stage
Who would more be by more commanded,
All for the artificial.

(sources all from AEP, to be provided)


                                                      *********************

                                                                  APPENDIX


See Oxford’s Letter to Cecil/Poetry of Shakespeare?
From volume 11, Ignoto: Complete Poems and Analytical Commentary
  

Upon Queen Elizabeth’s death, Lord Oxford was sad not only for the Queen but for himself. Certainly he knew, in the depth of his being, that he was Elizabeth’s true poet laureate. To himself alone he lived anonymously in that entitlement. Indeed, his own words ring loudly over the scene, words taken right from his own pen at the time of her death. In his letter to his brother-in-law at the time of the Queen’s death he wrote of himself under his own signature that he was an Robert Cecil’s  “unfortunate brother-in-law.” In his own speech, in the speech that is, of Edward de Vere, and as  preserved in his letter, he says that in the “common shipwreck” (of the Queen’s death) he ranks “above all the rest,” in that he was “least regarded though often comforted.”

 Edward, he tells us, in his letter to Robert Cecil, below, had been left to fend for himself, with little help from the Queen herself. Certainly, those are circumstances enough to occasion his unhappy and unfortunate state. She had, in fact, and at last “left [me] to try my fortune among the alterations of time and chance, either without sail. Whereby to take advantage of any prosperous gale, or with anchor to ride till the storm be overpast.” Certainly a plaintiff note of his treatment by Queen Elizabeth is heard in his self-described “Ignoto” roles, Ignoto, Edward de Vere, and for singular relationship with the Queen. Above every one, he said, he was least regarded and more personally related to the Queen than anyone else. Who could that be other than Edward de Vere?

At the time of the death of Queen Elizabeth, Edward de Vere was so moved that he wrote to his brother-in-law, Robert Cecil as follows:

“I cannot but find a great grief in myself to remember the mistress which we have lost, under whom both you and myself from our greenest years have been in a manner brought up; and although it hath pleased God after an earthly kingdom to take her up into a more permanent and heavenly state (wherein I do not doubt she is crowned with glory) to give us a prince wise, learned, and enriched with all virtues, yet the long time which we spend in her service, we cannot look for so much time which we spent in her service we cannot look for so much left of our days as to bestow upon another. Neither the long acquaintances and kind familiarities wherewith she did use us, we are not ever to expect from another prince, as denied by the infirmity of age and common cause of reason. In this common shipwreck mine is above all the rest, who least regarded , though often comforted, of all her followers, she hath left me to try my fortune among the alterations of time and chance, either without sail whereby to take the advantage of any prosperous gale or, with anchor to ride till the storm be passed.

There is nothing therefore left to my comfort but the excellent virtues and deep wisdom wherewith God had endued our new Master and Sovereign Lord , who doth not come amongst us as a stranger but as a natural prince, succeeding by right of blood and inheritance , not as a conqueror but as the true Shepherd of Christ’s flock to cherish and comfort them.

Below is, in versified form, the near identical copy of Edward’s remarks,
with line breaks utilized by this writer.

 Oxford:

I cannot but find but a great grief in myself
To remember the mistress which we have lost,
Under whom both you and myself have been,
In a manner
From greenest years, been brought up.
And although it hath pleased God,
(After an earthly kingdom),
To take her up into a more permanent
And heavenly state
(Wherein I do not doubt she’s crowned with glory)
To give us a prince–wise, learned,
Enriched with all virtues).
Yet the long time which we spent in her service,
We cannot look for so much left of our days
As to bestow upon another.
Neither the long acquaintance
And kind familiarities.
Wherewith she did use us,
We are not ever to expect from another prince— 
As denied by the infirmity of age
And common cause of reason.
In this common shipwreck,
Mine is above all the rest,
Who, least regarded, though often comforted
(Of all her followers),
She hath left to try my fortune
Among the alterations of time and chance— 
Either without sail
Whereby to take the advantage
Of any prosperous gale,
Or with anchor, to ride till the storm be passed.
There is nothing therefore left to my comfort
But the excellent virtues and deep wisdom
Wherewith God had endued
Our new Master and Sovereign Lord,
Who doth not come amongst us as a stranger,
But as a natural prince,
Succeeding by right of blood and inheritance—
Not as a conqueror,
But as the true Shepherd of Christ’s flock
To cherish and comfort them.

finish

                                                          APPENDIX

                                     Examples of  the red of anaphora in
                                         “In Prison Pent by “Anomos”

ODE 11.

The more favor he obtains, the more
he desires.

 As soon may water Wipe me dry,
And fire my heat allay,
As you with favor of your eye,
Make hot desire decay:
The more I have,
The more I crave;
The more I crave, the more desire,
As piles of wood increase the fire. 

The greater favor you bestow,
The sweeter my delight;
And by delight Desire doth grow,
And growing gathers might.
The less remains,
The more my pains,
To see my self so near the brink,
And yet my fill I cannot drink.

[76] Love the only price of Love

Such is the price my loving heart would pay,
Such is the pay thy Love doth claim as due.
Thy due is Love, which I (poor I) assay,
In vain assay to quite with friendship true:
True is my love and true shall ever be,
And truest love is far too base for thee.

[Lord Oxford’s Motto above True. . .]

[79] PHALEVCIAKS.  1

Time nor place did I want, what held me tongue-tied?
What charms, what magical abuse’d Altars?
Wherefore wished  I so oft that hour unhappy,
When with freedom I might recount my torments,
And plead for remedy by true lamenting?
Dumb, nay dead in a trance I stood amazed,
When those looks I beheld that late I longed for;
No speech, no memory, no life remained,
Now speech prateth apace, my grief betraying,
Now bootless memory my plaints remembereth,
Now life moves again, but all avails not.
Speech, life and memory die altogether,
With speech, life, memory, Love only dies not.

[80]  Deadly Sweetness.

Sweet thoughts, the food on which I feeding sterve,
Sweet tears, the drink that more augments my thirst
Sweet eyes, the stars by which my course swerve
Sweet hope, my death, which wast my life at first.
Sweet thoughts, sweet tears, sweet hope, sweet eyes,
How chance that death in sweetness lies ?

 [83] Loves Contrarieties.

 I Smile sometimes amidst my greatest grief,
Not for delight, for that long since is fled,
Despair did shut the gate against relief,
When love, at first, of death the sentence read.
But yet I smile sometimes in midst of pain,
To think what toys do toss my troubled head.
How most I wish, that most I should refrain,
And seek the thing that least I long to find,
And find the wound by which my heart is slain,

Yet want both skill and will to ease my mind.
Against my will I burn with free consent,
I live in pain, and in my pain delight,
I cry for death, yet am to live content,
I hate the day, yet never wish for night;
I freeze for cold, and yet refrain the fire;
I long to see, and yet I shun her sight,
I scald in sun, and yet no shade desire,
I live by death, and yet I wish to die,
I feel no hurt, and yet for help enquire,
I die by life, and yet my life desire.

Heu, cogor voti nescius esse mei.


 [86]

 Smooth are thy looks, so is the deepest stream:
Soft are thy lips, so is the swallowing Sand.
Faire is thy light, but like unto a dream;
Sweet is thy promise, but it will not stand.
Smooth, soft, fair, sweet, to them that lightly touch,
Rough, hard, foul, fowre to them that take too much.
Thy look so smooth have drawn away my sight.
Who would have thought that hooks could so be hid ?
Thy lips so sort have fretted my delight,
Before I once suspected what they did.
Thy face so fair hath burnt me with desire)
Thy words so sweet were bellows for the fire. 
And yet I love the looks that made me blind,
And like to kiss the lips that fret my life,

 [90]  That he is unchangeable.

 The love of change hath change the world throughout
And nought is counted good, but what is strange;
New things wax old, old new, all turn about,
And all things change except the love of change.
Yet feel I not this love of change in me,
But as I am, so will I always be.

Mine eyes confess they have their wished fight,
My heart affirms it feels the love it fought.
Mine inward thoughts are fed with true delight,
Which full conlent of con'ant joy hath wrought.
And full Content defters no Change to see,
Then, as I am, so will I always be.

 Reft then (my Heart) and keep thine old delight,
Which like the Phoenix waOeth yong each day:
Each hour prevents new pleasure to my fight,
More cause of joy increases every way.

 What gained fair Cressid by her faithless change,
But loss of fame, of beauty, health, and life?
Mark Jason’s hap, that ever loved to range,
That loft his children, and his princely wife.
Then Change farewell, thou art no Mate for me,
But, as I am, so will I always be.

                Iamais aultre.


[94]  ODE V.

Petition to have her leave to die.

When will the fountain of my Tears be dry?
When will my fights be spent?
When will Desire agree to let me die?
When will thy hart relent?
It is not for my life I plead,
Since death the way to reech doth lead,
But decay for thy consent, Leec thou be discontent.

 [95] 

The frozen Snake opprepr with heaped snow,
By struggling hard gets out her tender head:
And spies far off from where she lies below,
The winter Sun that from the North is fled:
But all in vain she looks upon the light,
Where heat is wanting to restore her might.
And yet I feel the thing might yield relief,
And yet the fight doth breed my greater grief.

So this be saw her lover through the wall,
And law thereby, she wanted that she law:
And so I flee, and fleeing want with all,
And wanting so, unto my death I draw:
And so my death were twenty times my friend,
If with this Verse my hated life might end.

[96] ODE VI.

If my decay be your increase,
If my decrease be your delight,
If war me procure your peace,
If wrong to me, to you be right,
I would decay, decrease, war, wrong,
Might end the life that ends so long.

 Yet, if by my decay you grow,
When I am spent your growth is pail:
If from my grief your Joy do flow,
When my grief ends, your Joy flies fait:
Then for your sake, though to my pain,
I strive to live, to die full sane.
For if I die, my war must cease;
Then can I suffer wrong no more:
My war once done, farewell your peace,
My wrong, your right doth still restore:
Thus, for your right I suffer wrong.
And for your peace, my war prolong.

But since no thing can long endure,
That sometime hath not needful rest,
What can my life your joy assure.
If still I wail with grief oppressed?
The strongest stomach faints at last,
For want of ease and due repast..

Let my Decay be your increase,
Let my distress be your delight:
Let war in me procure your peace,
Let wrong in me to you be right;
That by my grief your joy may live,
Vouchfafe rome little repr to glue.

[99] A Paraphrapcicall translation of Petrarck’s Sonnet, beginning,
    S'Amour non e, che dunque e quel ch’io fento.

 If Love be nothing but an idle name,
A vain devise of foolish~ Poets skill:
A fanned fire, devoid of smoke and flame;
Then what is that which me torments still?
If such a thing as Love indeed there be,
What kind of thing, or which, or where is be?

[I00]

Fayre is thy face, and that thou knowest too well,
Hard is thy Heart, and that thou wilt not know:
Thou hearst and fmil'pr, when I thy prayles tell,
But Propst thine ears when I my grief would show:
Yet though in vain, needs mutt I speak,
Or else my swelling heart would break.

 Alas, to what parte shall I then appeal?
Thy face so faire disdains to look on me:
Thy tongue commands my heart his grief conceal,
Thy nimble feet from me do always flee:
Thine Eyes cast fire to burn my heart,
And thou rejoices in my smart.

Then, since thou sees the life I lead in pain,
And that for thee I suffer all this grief,
O let my Heart this small request obtain,
That thou agree it pine without relief!
I ask not Love for my good will,
But leave, that I may love thee still.

Quid minus optari per mea vota potest.


[102] An Invective against Love.

 All is not Gold that shineth bright in show,
Nor ev'ry flower so good, as fair, to fight,
The deepest streams, above do calmeth flow,
And Strongeft Poyfons oft the taste delight,
The pleasant bait doth hide the harmful hook,
And false deceit can lend a friendly look.

Love is the stream, whole waves so calmly flow,
As might entice mens minds to wade therein:
Love is the poison mixed with sugar so,
As might by outward sweetness liking win.

Love is the, bait whose taste the fith deceives,
And makes them swallow down the choking hook:
Love is the face whole fairness Judgement reaves,
And makes thee truth a false and fained look:
But as the hook, the foolish fish doth kill,
So flattering looks, the Lovers life do spill.

              Vsque adeo dulce puella malum est.

Upon an Herorical Poem which he had begun
(In imitation of Virgil,) of the first Inhabiting this
Famous ile by Brute, and the Troyans)

My wanton Muse that whilome wont to ting,
Fair beauties praise and senus sweet delight,
Of late had changed the tenor of her string,
To higher tunes then serve for Cupids fight:
(Strong, Shril Trumpets found, sharp Swords & Lances
War, blood, and death, were matter of her song.
The God of Love by chance had heard thereof,
That I was prov’d a Rebel to his Crown,
Fit words for War, quoth he, with angry scoff,
A likely man to write of Mar’s frown:
Well are they spoed in whose praises he shall write,
Whose wanton Pen can nought but Love indite.

Then I that now perceived his needles fear,
With heavy smile began to plead my cause:
In rayne (quoth I) this endless grief I bear,
In vain I ecrive to keep thy grievous Laws,
If after proof so often trusty found,
Vniuec Sufpec!c condemn me as unfound.

Is this the guerdon of my faithful heart?
Is this the hope on which my life is ecaide?
Is this the ease of neverceasing smart?
Is this the price that for my pains is paid?
Yet better serve fierce Mars in bloody field,
Where death, or conquest, end or Joy doth yield.

Long have I feru'd: what is my pay but pain?
Oft have I fude: what gain I but delay ?
My faithful love is quite with disdain,
My grief a game, my pen is made a play:
Yea, Love that doth in other favor find,
In me is counted madness out of kind.


[I l0]

Mine eyes have spent their tears, and now are dry,
My weary hand will guide my pen no more.
My voice is hoarse, and can no longer cry,
My head hath left no new complaints in Prore.
My heart is overburdened so with pain,
That fence of grief doth none therein remain.

The tears you see diprilling from mine eyes,
My gentle Mule doth shed for this my grief.
The plaints you hear are her inceffant cries,
By which she calls in vain for rome relief.
She never parted since my grief begun,
In her I live, the dead, my life were done.

Then (loving Mule) depart, and let me die,
Some braver youth will rue to thee for grace,
That may advance thy glory to the sky,
And make thee scorn blind fortunes frowning face.
My heart and head that did thee entertain,
Desire and Fortune with despite have slain.

My Lady dares not lodge thee in her breast
For fear, uinwares she let in Love with thee.
For well she thinks some part in thee must rest,
Of that which so posses each part of me
Then (good my Muse) fly back to heav’n again,
and let me die, to end this endless pain.

[111]

Break heavy heart, and rid me of this pain,
This pain that ecill increases day by day:
By day with sighs I spend my self in vain,
In rayne by night with tears I waste away:
Away I waste with tears by night in vain,
Tears, sighs, by night, by day increase this pain.

Mine Eyes no Eyes, but fountains of my tears,
My tears no tears, but floods to moist my heart:
My heart no heart, but harbor of my fears,
My fears no fears, but feelings of my smart:
My smart, my fears, my heart, my tears, mine eyes
Are blind, dry despent, past, wasted with my cries.

And yet mine Eyes, though blind, see cause of grief:
And yet my tears, though dried, run down amame:
And yet my heart, though spent, attends relief,
And yet my fears, though pace, increase my pain:
And yet I live, and living, feels more sroart,
And smarting, cry in vain, break heavy heart.

  
[119] ODE   X111

 
Now have I learned with much ado at last,
by true disdain to kill desire:
This was the mark at which I shot so fast,
Unto this height I did aspire:
Proud love, no do thy worst, and spare not,
For thee and all thy shafts I care not.

What haft thou left where with to move my mind,
What life to quicken dead desire?
I count thy words and oaths as light as wind,
I feel no heat in all thy fire.
Go change thy bow and get a stronger,
Go break thy shafts and buy thee longer.

In vain thou baits thy hook with beauties blaze,
In vain they wanted eyes allure.
These are but toys for them that love to gaze,
I know that harm thy looks procure:
Some strange conceit must be devised,
Or thou and all thy skill despised. 


Scilicet afferui iam me, fugique catenas.

 
[124] Ode II.

The bull by nature hath his horns,
The horse his hooves to daunt their foes,
The light-foot hare the hunter scorns,
The lions teeth his strength disclose.

The fish, by swimming, scales the weele,
The bird, by flight, the fowlers net,
With wisdom man is armed as steel,
Poor women none of these can get.

What have they then?  Fair beauties grace,
A two-edged sword, a trusty shield,
No force resists a lovely face,
Both fire and sword to beauty yield.


 [126] Anacreons Second Ode, Otherwise

“Nature in her work doth giue,
To each thing that by her does live:
“A proper gift whereby she may,
“Prevent in time her own decay.
The bull a horn, the horse a hoof,
The light-foot hare to run aloof:
The lion’s strength who may resist,
The birds aloft, fly where they lift.
The fish swims safe in waters deep,
“The silly worm at least can creep:
What is to come, men can forecast,
“And learn more witt, by that is past:
The woman’s gift what might it be,
“The same for which the Ladies three,
Pallas, Iuno, Venus strave,
“When each desired it to have.

[128]

The lowest trees have tops, the Antehergall,
The fly her splene, the little sparks their heat:
The slender hairs cast shadows, though but small,
And bees have stings, although they be not great:
Seas have their course, and so have shallow springs,
And love is love, in beggars, as in kings.

Where rivers smoothest run, deep are the fiords ,
The Daill stirs, yet none perceives it move:
The firmest faith is in the fewest words,
The turtles cannot sing, and yet they love:
True hearts have eyes and ears, no tongues to speak,
They hear, and see, and sigh, and then they break.

Incerto

[135] Others upon the same.

Whom can I first accuse?  Whose fault account I the greatest?
Where kept the Muses, what countries haunted Apollo?
Where loytred bloody Mars?  Where lingered worthy Minerua?
What could three Sisters do more then nine in a combat?

[137]  A Meditation upon the frailty of this Life.

O trifling toys that toss the brains,
While loathsome life doth last!
O wished wealth, O sugred joys,
O life when death is past:
Who loaths exchange of loss with gain?
Yet loath we death as hell.
What woeful wight would wish his woe?
Yet wish we here to dwell.
O fancy frail that feeds on earth,
And stays on slippery oiyes:
O noble mind, O happy man,
That can contemn such toys.

                                                              APPENDIX:

                                                 De Vere"s "Love and Antagonism
                                                  Shakespeare’s  Rape of Lucrece

STYLE: LORD OXFORD’S EARLY, 16 YRS OLD POEM IDENTIFIED
BY LOONEY & FEATURED BY STRITMATTER.
There Are So Many Anaphora in the below two poems, I won't take the time now to do it.
** Featured by Looney/Stritmatter
                                       (De Vere's "Love and Antagonism")  [song lyrics]

17. The trickling tears that fall along my cheeks 

The trickling tears that fall along my cheeks,The secret sighs that show my inward grief,The present pains perforce that Love aye seeks,
Bid me renew my cares without relief;
In woeful song, in dole display,
My pensive heart for to betray.

Betray thy grief, thy woeful heart with speed;
Resign thy voice to her that caused thee woe;
With irksome cries, bewail thy late done deed,
For she thou lov'st is sure thy mortal foe;
And help for thee there is none sure,
But still in pain thou must endure.
The stricken deer hath help to heal his wound,The haggard hawk with toil is made full tame;The strongest tower, the cannon lays on ground,The wisest wit that ever had the fame,
Was thrall to Love by Cupid's slights;
Then weigh my cause with equal wights (weights).
She is my joy, she is my care and woe;She is my pain she is my ease therefore;She is my death, she is my life also,She is my salve, she is my wounded sore:
In fine, she hath the hand and knife,
That may both save and end my life.
And shall I live on earth to be her thrall?And shall I live and serve her all in vain?And kiss the steps that she lets fall,And shall I pray the Gods to keep the pain
From her that is so cruel still?
No, no, on her work all your will.
And let her feel the power of all your might,And let her have her most desire with speed,And let her pine away both day and night,And let her moan, and none lament her need;And let all those that shall her see,
Despise her state and pity me.
                                          Finis. E. O.

Sources: Fuller's #1 [A Lover rejected Complaineth]; JTL #12
Appeared also in Paradyse of Dainty Devices, 1576 and updated in 1596
Note: Another poem with specially interesting connections.



                                                    APPENDIX:
ANAPHORA IN “SHAKESPEARE’S” RAPE OF LUCRECE,                                             EXAMPLES:

 Time's glory is to calm contending kings, 990
To unmask falsehood and bring truth to light,
To stamp the seal of time in aged things,
To wake the morn and sentinel the night,
To wrong the wronger till he render right,
To ruinate proud buildings with thy hours, 995

And smear with dust their glittering golden towers;
'To fill with worm-holes stately monuments,
To feed oblivion with decay of things,
To blot old books and alter their contents,
To pluck the quills from ancient ravens' wings, 1000

To dry the old oak's sap and cherish springs,
To spoil antiquities of hammer'd steel,
And turn the giddy round of Fortune's wheel;
'To show the beldam daughters of her daughter,
To make the child a man, the man a child, 1005

To slay the tiger that doth live by slaughter,
To tame the unicorn and lion wild,
To mock the subtle in themselves beguiled,
To cheer the ploughman with increaseful crops,
And waste huge stones with little water drops.

'Why work'st thou mischief in thy pilgrimage,
Unless thou couldst return to make amends?
One poor retiring minute in an age
Would purchase thee a thousand thousand friends,
Lending him wit that to bad debtors lends: 1015

O, this dread night, wouldst thou one hour come back,
I could prevent this storm and shun thy wrack!
'Thou ceaseless lackey to eternity,
With some mischance cross Tarquin in his flight:
Devise extremes beyond extremity, 1020

To make him curse this cursed crimeful night:
Let ghastly shadows his lewd eyes affright;
And the dire thought of his committed evil
Shape every bush a hideous shapeless devil.
'Disturb his hours of rest with restless trances, 1025

Afflict him in his bed with bedrid groans;
Let there bechance him pitiful mischances,
To make him moan; but pity not his moans:
Stone him with harden'd hearts harder than stones;
And let mild women to him lose their mildness, 1030
Wilder to him than tigers in their wildness.

'Let him have time to tear his curled hair,
Let him have time against himself to rave,
Let him have time of Time's help to despair,
Let him have time to live a loathed slave, 1035
Let him have time a beggar's orts to crave,
And time to see one that by alms doth live
Disdain to him disdained scraps to give.

'Let him have time to see his friends his foes,
And merry fools to mock at him resort; 1040
Let him have time to mark how slow time goe
In time of sorrow, and how swift and short
His time of folly and his time of sport;
And ever let his unrecalling crime
Have time to wail th' abusing of his time.


Anaphora Definition

In writing or speech, the deliberate repetition of the first part of the sentence in order to achieve an artistic effect is known as Anaphora.

Anaphora, possibly the oldest literary device, has its roots in Biblical Psalms used to emphasize certain words or phrases. Gradually, Elizabethan and Romantic writers brought this device into practice.



Tuesday, October 20, 2015

IGNOTO/ANOMOS


Additional Proofs & Evidence for The “Ignoto Thesis”
© Eric L. Miller, 10/2015

Prefatory Note: Historical Context/Preface

For over 15 years, I have advocated, in books, articles, plays, and poems, that Lord Oxford, Edward de Vere, and the pseudonyms “Ignoto” and “Anomos” as well as the name “Shakespeare,” were all names of the same person, the same poet, the same man. I have provided a great deal of research and evidence for my thesis—at the time I made my views public and which I have continued to supplement over these succeeding 15 years. Apparently to no effect to those Oxfordians who appear to follow an historic position, regardless of the evidence, “Edward de Vere, Si; Ignoto, No!”

Indeed, it was at the 1999 Shakespeare Oxford Society Conference in Boston, I made public, by word of mouth and printed materials, and by distributing highly researched articles, that Edward de Vere was, in fact, the poet who wrote the “Elegy and Oration” for Queen Elizabeth’s official funeral proceedings, under the name of Infelice Academico Ignoto (Latin for: The Unhappy Unknown Scholar). I was virtually "turned out" for my unorthodoxy!

I also distributed copies of my full-length, 5 act verse play, "A Labor of Love," (excerpts of which are offered at this website, www.ericmillerworks.com) wherein I establish, I claim, the historicity of Ignoto and Anomos as aliases of de Vere. My work has been highly lauded by highly qualified Shakespeare  scholars. Michael York, one of the greatest Shakespeareans of the 20th Century, and Ruth Miller, one of the most significant Oxfordian scholars and publisher—who, along with her husband, are probably more responsible for the public knowing about Lord Oxford than anyone else)--gave extraordinary praise to my work..

In any case, in Boston I discovered how political the “Oxford” organization really was, at least in those days—for it was made clear to me in a Board Meeting that the “Board” had an “agenda” which did not fit in with my research and findings. I was even threatened, and avoided, as much as possible, by the “king-pins” of the Shakespeare Oxford Conference. All of whose names and roles are a matter of historical record.

And I recall how popular Roger Stritmatter was in those days—the only person who had been allowed to do a dissertation by a major college (Amherst) on Lord Oxford as Shakespeare. He became a kind of “golden boy” to the Oxfordians at the conference. How impressive! To be The First doctorate scheduled to be awarded someone on the Oxford-side of the Shakespeare/Oxford debate concerning the true identity of “Shakespeare.” True, his doctorate was not in Literature, or History, but, of all subjects, Philosophy.

Roger Stritmatter as I clearly recall was very opposed to my work but apparently may, at long last, be more open-minded these days. At the SOS Conference, he was hostile to the idea that “Ignoto” was also another identity of Edward de Vere. That was 15 years ago. It is the view of this paper that Stritmatter can’t maintain (Looney position) with any scholarly integrity at all, by maintaining that the chief characteristic of Shakespeare’s writing and that of Edward de Vere must be of the same hand because of the use of anaphora--and to maintain, at the same time that, Ignoto’s excessive use of that very devise (anaphora), is apparently NOT a unique characteristic. Which is his adopted claim from Looney, that same as he claims is the case for Edward de Vere and Shakespeare. He has not produced on iota of evidence for his position, or lack of one.

A cohort of Stritmatter, however, has recently informed me that, after being appraised of my recent work on Ignoto/Anomos, he only remarked that, as to the work of "In Prison Pent" (ascribed by me to Anomos, another name for Ignoto) that the poems seemed to be in the right time-frame. With all due respect, he only refers to remarks in "A Poetical Rhapsody," 1602, which specifically states the date of the "In Prison Pent" poems, which, of course, I cite. Anyone, in a glance would have seen that in my work.

I shared with Stritmatter’s cohort hundreds of pages of detail original research substantiating my thesis—which he shared with him, apparently to little or no effect. Given the above, a few days ago I was stunned to discover—for the first time in all these years—that (now) Professor Roger Stritmatter believed that as early as 1999, or even earlier, that it is a fundamental fact that a chief feature of Shakespeare’s and de Vere’s poetry is that both make excessive use of anaphora. Anaphora is the repetition of a word or words, two or more consecutive times in a sequence. But, when it comes to Ignoto, contradictorily, he shuts his eyes and ears to the evidence—Why?

PART I -- Anaphora

“. . .anaphora seem to have been a character of de Vere’s style which developed very early, becoming a mental habit which sustained his latter development as a writer during the Shakespeare phase. . . [so that] it may be better to consider the matter not of lexis and diction. . but of style”
R. Stritmatter (The Marginilia of Edward de Vere’s /Providential Discovery/Literary Reasoning/And Historical Consequence, 2001)

In an appendix for his dissertation, Appendix-N, entitled, “A Matter of Style” Roger Stritmatter features his examination one of Thomas Looney’s most audacious claims—featured in his sensationalized book, of 1920, Shakespeare Identified. Upon publication of Looney’s book claiming to have “solved” the “Shakespeare mystery” he was variously widely derided and widely acclaimed. The same is true to this day, nearing a hundred years after Looney’s first publication “outing” Edward de Vere as “Shakespeare.” Why are we still on this?

The remarks of Looney’s, which Stritmatter choses to highlight, are sensational, surely amongst the most sensational of all of Looney’s many unorthodox claims. It was probably for just this kind of statement, which Stritmatter FEATURES, in his “A Matter of Style” which earned Looney—rightly or wrongly—the claim of critics (still heard to this day), that schoolmaster, Thomas Looney was just “Looney” a “Looney-Tunes” type “scholar” with his own Looney-Tunes theory of Shakespeare—“Shakespeare” as a high lord, instead of a commoner, like the rest of us, no less!.
What was the statement Stritmatter highlights and apparently agrees with, which is certainly, at least seemingly, amongst those most “out-landish” claims one can imagine?

Looney simply claimed that he could prove that “Shakespeare” was actually the same as “Lord Oxford” and he could prove it with only a couple short excerpts from two poems. The two poems Looney has in mind were poems variously ascribed to two different hands—i.e., Shakespeare and Edward de Vere.

One of the two fragments identified by Looney is from a whole book of poems, Shakespeare’s Lucrece; and the other fragment—as shown below—of almost equal length as that given from the shorter poem, is by Edward de Vere and entitled “Love’s Revenge.” [sic, it appears Stritmatter got the title wrong, as the name given in the original publication for the poem was "Love and Antagonism). Looney proposed to bring this “unity into focus”, as Looney described it [i.e., the presumed unity of the two fragments quoted below] by placing the poetic juvenilia of de Vere alongside the lyrics of Shakespeare, from Lucrece [also quoted below] in order to judge—as Looney expressed it, “whether or not the former contain the natural seeds and clear promise of the latter.”

“Natural seeds,” “clear promise.”? Stritmatter continues: “An instance of this method used by Looney of comparing de Vere’s juvenile poems with Shakespeare’s later poems was Looney’s comparison of the use of anaphora in Shakespeare’s famous Rape of Lucrece and in de Vere’s “Rejected Lover. . . both [poem examples] involve anaphora extended over several lines of verse, capped by a concluding sententia in rhyming couplet advancing a moral proposition.”

With that Stritmatter then produces the two poems which Looney used for his analytical research comparison. Just so much as Stritmatter produced is shown here:

From Rape of Lucrece by Shakespeare

Let him have time to tear his curled hair
Let him have time against himself to rave,
Let him have Time’s help to despair
Let him have time to live a loathed slave
Let him have time a beggar’s orts to crave
And time to see one that by alms doth live
Disdain to him, disdained scraps to give

From Rejected Lover by de Vere

And let her feel the power of [all] our might
And let her have most desire with speed
And let her pine away both day and night
And let her moan and none lament her need
And let all those that shall her see
Despise her state and pity me.

Looney himself declared (Stritmatter reminds us) that “never” had there been such a resemblance “between two poets”

Did Looney or Stritmatter, for that matter, really mean that from just the fragments he compares, as said or for the whole poems from which the fragments are derived? Of course, only the fragments are offered as shown above. If so, then why not say so; and why not produce the two poems, if not totally (after all Lucrece is a small book of verse), at least, in greater significant part? We ourselves do so for the reader below and produce additional verses in the original context—to see if, in the reader’s mind, they, too, think the two poems continue to “resemble” each other as no two other poems before in history, as claimed by Looney. Absurd. [See my Appendix of “Additional Examples of Anaphoras in Elizabethan Court Poetry]

A Matter of Two Styles: Poetry & Prose

The two poems have the same obvious form or “style” at least in that there is a repetition of the same word (i.e., “words or phrases or clauses in two or more consecutive lines”; in other words, both poems use anaphora) . Here we can say, in fact, at a glance, they have a literary “style” or form in common—with profuse use of anaphora—and another stylistic devise, the sentiliana—(a ryme which advances a moral proposition)—which is itself a rhyming couple in both poems.
This style of “anaphora” and “scentinia” in both poems, Looney declared, revealed alone by his two sample comparisons were demonstrated “proofs” of the fact of the singular identity of de Vere and “Shakespeare” as author.

 As Looney asserted: “If these [the two fragments of poems featured above] are not both from the same pen never were there two poets living at the same time whose mentality and workmanship bore so striking a resemblance.”

To Looney’s claim above, Stritmatter observes, “A skeptic might well reply, however, that in contrast to the mature conception of “Shakespeare,” de Vere’s corresponding lyric sounds primitive. Admittedly it is less varied in vocabulary, imagery, and emotional tenor. It might be compared to a skeleton next to the mature and fully fleshed naturalism of Shakespeare’s verse. And yet it arguably belongs to the same set of DNA.”

“A Skeleton Next To The Mature And Fully Fleshed Naturalism Of Shakespeare’s Verse”—
But With Same DNA?

The “evidence” we are presented, of course is only that in Stritmatter’s “Matter of Style” as said, and it appears that Looney himself made the case, as stated above—which is why I asked: Really, only these few lines to compare and not the entire poem/book, for context? (Note: more context is supplied in my Appendix).

Recall, the text Stritmatter/Looney provides is only 6 lines in the one case, and 7 in the other. So, it appears Looney is perhaps correct if, and only if, we compare these lines of poetry from each poem—a total, combined, of only 13 lines. Is it sensible for anyone to conclude so much can be divined by Looney from 13 lines—that they must have been written by the same poet?
The imperative statement is again, ridiculous.

The statement, as it stands, without further evidence marshaled for the case, is not sufficient for a “proof” of anything other than the number of lines and what they show to anyone with open eyes. It is shocking to imagine anyone providing only what Stritmatter does for evidence, to pretend anything like “truth” could be applied to such statements. Stritmatter’s was for a Ph.d in Philosphy, it is hard to believe. But, of course, Stritmatter produces other poems before presenting the present example we are dealing with—other examples of poetry which show obvious talent from the young de Vere.
But, that is not the statement of the claim—the claim is that the two passages alone establish the fact, and that is ridiculous!

We can nonetheless agree, to some extent, that both poems may, nonetheless, have the same set of DNA, as Stritmatter observes. Indeed, as I shall show, that realization is highly enhanced when one is not merely reading the sample provided—but seeing each excerpt from each poem, in its own right, that is to say in its own specific context.

[Note:** Unfortunately, the copy I have of Stritmatter dissertation (supra) has omitted the word “ all” in the de Vere poem—such that I had to check it because it did not feel like anything that Lord Oxford wrote, from the first line. And, indeed, it was not. The matter would not be mentioned by me, here, save that, as the reader can see above, Stritmatter pronounces of de Vere’s “lyric”, that it “sounds primitive”—like (at best) a skeleton next to the mature and fully fleshed naturalism of Shakespeare’s verse.”]

I have to challenge Stritmatter’s statement. Actually, once I saw that the word “all” had been omitted in the first line from my copy, that the well had been poisoned. For me, the omission of the “all” in the first line, of de Vere’s poem quoted above, made everything that follows part of the stumble—making all those few lines (from a long poem) seem “primitive.” But, the reader will find in the Appendix to these remarks, the entire poem by Lord Oxford.

And de Vere’s poem, of which we speak, was published, as Stritmatter well knows, along with many of the most famous poets of the time, and so lauded. Now, we hear from Stritmatter that it is “primitive.” It is not primitive; it is in many manners superlative—and Edward de Vere at the time was only 15 or 16 (I forget the publication date, 1576). Let the reader judge for themselves. Note: Stritmatter fails to inform the reader that at the publication date of 1576, Lord Oxford would have been 26 years old! If Shakespeare is writing “primitive” poetry at age 26, in Stritmatter’s book, he needs to get into another field of study (maybe Philosophy?).

The fact is, and Stritmatter must have known it, but fudges around on the matter, Lord Oxford was only 15 or 16 when he wrote the cited poem—as everyone knows who has even taken a brief glance at the matter!

Nonetheless, we are dealing here with literary comparisons of literary forms, two, in fact: the anaphor and the sentenia. In the introduced case above, the repetition of the first word (not only) for two or more consecutive verses, sentences, clauses, etc.—the definition of an anaphora, and the couplet at the end “advancing a moral proposition,” as Stritmatter has it sentenia.
 
The Importance of Anaphora: A Matter of Style

As my few readers on Face Book can readily attest, I have posted numerous items regarding the issue of “style” be it in “prose” or poetry”—as it relates to the author of “The Arte of English Poesy” (i.e., “Ignoto”), Shakespeare, and Edward de Vere and Ignoto. Indeed, within the last couple of weeks I have posted “exhibits” which present prose passages from “The Arte of English Poesy” (1589) in versified form—(by myself, merely cutting the line in accordance with its “natural” rhythms, “interior” rhymes, assonance, etc.).

I took from a remark in Shakespeare’s Imagery, (Caroline F. Spurgeon, 1935) which stated that, above all, Shakespeare had the “sensibilities” of the Gardener, and showed, quite remarkably, if I do say so myself, that in a prose passage, by the poet/author of “The Arte”—I reveal “Shakespeare” expressing himself in the exact terms of a “gardener”!

And, indeed, the very passage cited is itself obviously highly poetic (especially when the lines of the versified version are “properly” cut). Thus, in this case, too, I show another example of the presence of “Shakespeare”—in the writing of one, Ignoto, another alias of Edward de Vere and Ignoto—they are the same person.

Also, I have taken other passages from “The Arte” to also show the innate poetic quality of the prose of its putative author, “Ignoto.” And in these previous postings I underscored, time and time, again, that the “situation” depicted by the author of “The Arte” was exactly the same as that contained in In Prison Pent by Anomos—found in, arguably, the most famous book of English poetry ever published, A Poetical Rhapsody (1602). I wrote in my Face Book posting:

“That said, below, I discovered that the exact situation I delineate in great detail in “Ignoto’s Farewell” is recounted here in Oxford’s “The Arte” (which, again, I identified 15 years ago as written by Lord Oxford)—excepts below are quoted from “The Arte of English Posie.” Proof of this fact is my published, copyrighted plays, research/analytical articles wherein I specifically identify Edward de Vere as Ignoto/Shakespeare.

The reader will notice that the particular issues dealt with in “Ignoto’s Farewell” are The Queen’s Cruelty; Lord Oxford’s admission that he spoke of her in a completely discreditable manner (for any Monarch). This is admitted clearly in the poems Lord Oxford wrote “In Prison Pent” (which I have also collected and published). The reader will see there is also the issue of the Queen “letting him die”; Lord Oxford’s “manifest error” in speaking to the Queen so insultingly is clearly delineated in my play, and now I discover ALSO in “The Arte”—the very same situation! Oxford’s fault, was, even by himself, a fault of which he said that he “cannot deny the fault lay’d unto our charge.”
Below the reader will see:

"I spake amysse I cannot it deny
But caused by your great discourtesie:
And if I said that which I now repent,
And said it not, but by misgovernment"

Oxford’s charge of “speaking amiss” is itself an anaphor, and is the exact charge at issue—here and in “In Prison Pent”—published in 1602, “A Poetical Rhapsody.” It will be noted the author of “The Arte” (Lord Oxford) was also author, as he himself states below, of the Partheniades—another early work by Lord Oxford (as I catalog in my Complete Poems of Ignoto). The punishment the Queen put to Lord Oxford was described in all references to it, whatever the work he wrote about.

"When your rigor had ranckled in my brest.
The cruell wound that smarted me so sore,"

BELOW QUOTES FROM THE ARTE OF ENGLISH POSIE: NOTING THE ANAPHORA (IN RED WORDS)

Anaphora merely refers to the fact of use of the devise of repetition of a word, phrase, clause, in consecutive lines of verse, or in the same sentence, clause, etc.Below are mostly fragment quoted to illustrate a point of poesie by the author, below indicated in red (original text)
.
¶3.19.131 And in this other dittie of ours where
the louer complaines of his Ladies crueltie, rendring for
euer surmise a reason, and by telling the cause, seeketh (as
it were) to get credit, thus.

Cruel you be who can say nay,
Since ye delight in others woe:
Unwise am I, ye may well say,
For that I have, honor’d you so.
But I blameless I, who could not choose,
To be enchanted by your eye:
But ye to blame, thus to refuse
My service, and to let me die.

¶3.19.132 Sometimes our error is so manifest, or
we be so hardly prest with our aduersaries, as we cannot
deny the fault layd vnto our charge: in which case it is
good pollicie to excuse it by some allowable pretext, as did
one whom his mistresse burdened with some vnkinde speeches
which he had past of her, thus.

Dichologia,
or the
Figure of
excuse.

 I said it but by lapse of lying tongue,
When furie and iust griefe my heart opprest:
I sayd it: as ye see, both fraile and young,
When your rigor had ranckled in my brest.
The cruell wound that smarted me so sore,
Pardon therefore (sweete sorrow) or at least
Beare with mine youth that neuer fell before,
Least your offence encrease my griefe the more,

¶3.19.133 And againe in these,

 I spake amysse I cannot it deny
But caused by your great discourtesie:
And if I said hat which I now repent,
And said it not, but by misgovernment
Of youthful years, your self that are so young
Pardon for once this error of my tongue,
And think amends can never come to late:
Love may be curst, but love can never hate.

¶3{{Page 196}}
And he further says:
. . as when we sang of our Soueraigne Lady thus, in the twentieth
Partheniade.

As falcon fares to buzzards flight,
As eagles eyes to owlets sight,
As fierce saker to coward kite,
As brightest noon to darkest night:
As summer sun exceedeth far,
The moon and every other star:
So farre my Princess praise doeth pass,
The famoust Queen that ever was.
There is no question that this is relevant evidence of my Ignoto thesis

BY E.L.MILLER, 10/20/2015


TO BE CONTINUED -- STAY TUNED

Monday, June 29, 2015

QUEEN ELIZABETH’S “ECLIPSE” DISEASE
& SONNET 107: John Donne's Disclosure

©Eric Miller, 2015

There was nobody more thoroughly scared of witchcraft [and other forms of superstition and astrology] than Henry’s daughter, Elizabeth. . .so we may regard the Act of 1581, 23 Eliz., Cap. II, as mere finesse and chicane. . . The statue runs as follows:

“That if any person. . during the life of our said Sovereign Lady the Queen’s Majesty that now is, either within her Highness’ dominions or without, shall by setting or erecting any figure or by casting of nativities or by calculation or by any prophesying, witchcraft, conjugations, or other like unlawful means whatsoever, seek to know, and shall set forth by express words, deeds, or writing, how long her Majesty shall live, or who shall reign a king of queen of this realm of England after her Highness’ decease. . . that every such offence shall be a felony, and every offender therein, and also all his aiders (etc.) shall be judged as felons and shall suffer pain of death and forfeit as in the case of felony is used without the benefit of clergy or sanctuary.” 

Malleus Maleficarum, Introduction (from the 1928 edition of 1489 publication, p.xxi)           

Shakespeare so masterfully manipulates the powerful language of his orchestral sonnet, 107, that, like the magic glass in the fairy tale, the more one looks into it the more wonders appear. Take, for instance, the subject of double entendres. We produced a quite possible “whooper” of one with the key ingredient having been brought to our attention by Dr. Renaker regarding John Donne’s disclosure that the QE had had an “eclipse-feinting” disease or malady. 

Queen Elizabeth was her father’s daughter. “It is often forgotten that in the troublous days of Henry VIII the whole country swarmed with astrologers and sorcerers, to whom high and low alike made constant resort. . .the King himself, a prey to the idlest superstitions, ever lent a credulous ear to the most foolish prophecies and old wives’s abracadabra.” (p. xxi)

The phrase in Sonnet 107 that “The mortall Moone hath her eclipse endur’de”, Dr. Renaker proposes related to her feinting fits “to the point of death.” Renaker was apparently entirely unaware of the Great Conjunction of April 28. 1583, and so he found an explanation of a phrase, but did not link it directly to an astrological event—as we have done. But, knowing now, both things to be true (the great “eclipse” and QE’s medical “eclipse” disease) we are instantly aware of the powerful double entendre, involving, as I claim, not only Lord Oxford’s imprisonment and potential death, but, it would seem the death of Queen Elizabeth, as well.

Moreover, those familiar with the biography of QE will be aware that she nursed pathological fears of her life—probably from childhood on. And often experienced signs of PTSD—or related type of psychiatric malady.

Another instance when Shakespeare may well have skilled his use of language so as to allow other levels of meaning—especially, I strongly suspect, the person he was writing to, the addressee, QE. We have interpreted the phrase, “supposede as forfeit to a confin’d doome” to refer to Lord Oxford, who was under house arrest at the time. But, does it have to be Lord Oxford, or only Lord Oxford who is in “confin’d doom,” as obvious as it seems in the light of the salient facts of the situation?

There is no way to prove, as a matter of fact, to whom “my true love” refers in the phrase “Can yet the lease of my true love control/Supposde as forfeit to a confin’d doome.”  Nor can we prove, whether the author means to refer to his own felt “true love” or if he means to refer to the person of whom he is beloved.

I believe it is Lord Oxford speaking of his deep love/affection. But, let us suppose it is not only Lord Oxford that is being spoken of. Of course, there is a branch of Stratfordians/Oxfordians who long have believed that the phrase can only refer to Lord Southampton, who, in 1603 upon the death of QE was confined to the Tower, his life forfeited. The semantic logic of this view has it that “true love” is a person and that person is Southampton. But, of course, we can adopt the same logic and offer a new identity, as we have done in our The Fiery Trigon. Let us here rather say, arguendo, that the poet is referring to QE being the person who is “supposed as forfeit to a confin’d doom.” How can that be?

The first two lines of the first quatrain:

Not mine owne feares, nor the prophetic soul
Of the wide world dreaming on things to come,
Can yet the lease of my true love control,
Supposed as forfeit to a confin’d doom

In the above, if we interpret “lease” as the life “term” of a person (Onions), the author is simply saying that neither he nor the world soul itself can do anything to “control” or influence the lease, or the term or her life, in other words when she will die—as supposed she will die in a “confin’d doome.”

QE, let us not improbably imagine, was indeed (as previously described) beside herself and no doubt had doctors attending her under medications. We know QE had morbid, superstitious fears, of her death—even sometimes to being terrorized by the movement of a cat. The world was predicted to perhaps come to an end, surely she remained confined in her apartments on such a treacherously infamous evil day, which supposed she and other Princes of the world might perish! If that was the will of Heaven, there is nothing that could be done about it, neither he (Lord Oxford) nor the spirits of the world soul have, to this day, been unable to change what destiny have determined.

The first quatrain merely tells QE, his love; that he nor anyone else in the spirit world can influence the real outcome of what has been prophesized. In four lines it states itself with clear simplicity.

The second quatrain immediately makes disappear the burden of the worry over QE and the world’s survival and her worrisome confinement. “The mortal Moone hath her eclipse endured.”

Briefly, below, as a dramatist laying out his stage and scenes, we have:

Act One:

Huge problem, nothing can be done about it;

Poet’s fears for his love, who is supposed to die, he can’t change heaven’s  life term for her or himself, or anyone’s, “lease”. Then, we move to opening of the next scheme:


Act Two:

The queen is not dead, long live the queen.

From the fifth line through the end of the poem, the poem is steeped in Latin scenes, allusions, sounds, and the high pomp of royal dignities. Most every major commentator on Sonnet 107 has commented on the fact that the poems ushers up images of royal tombs, the crests of tyrants, the movements of masses of people, Olives to present Peace, as was the case the Greeks and Romans.

Of interest is the fact that it is immediately after the statement that the mortal moon has survived, we are given the corollary context in the following commentary on the fact, of the astrologers—who by the interpretation above—had “supposed” it to be, perhaps her own death! They, the astrologers, are now in BIG trouble for such false prophesies and they had better “mock” their own work, if they know what’s good for them.

In Act Two the subject is disclosed, to whom we are speaking, who it was that “supposed” that her life was “forfeit” by the stars—that disposed of, we turn to the New World of the Re-Living Queen, where “peace proclaims Olives of endless age” Incertainties are “crowned” (no more “certain” end of the old world-order) assured.

In Act One, the high rhetorical art of the opening quatrain seems to end on a note of despair, “supposed as forfeit to a confin’d doom.” In the second quatrain, Act Two, the stage is cleared, the astrologers driven out of the temple with self-mockery, then there is a fade out, the light begins to come on and brightens as we hear: “Incertainties now (that the Augurs are banished) crown themselves assured (light continues to brighten and the sweet sound of birds in the background as the words are heard) “and peace proclaims Olives of endless age.” (QE is back in business Long Live the Queen).

Act Three:

And all shall live in harmony and peace.

It is now, eight lines after the beginning of the sonnet, that the poet turns to his beloved, for the first time, and addresses her, not the scene of which she is the mythic “moon”, so to speak. He now speaks to his beloved not as a mythic figure, but as his love. Now, as to the subject of “love” personal love between the Monarch and the Earl, the poet speaks in tones so intimate and daring as to outface the most brazen of all claims any could ever make—beyond this side idolatry, we are speaking of the claim that our poet can immortalize his love and in doing so he can also immortalize himself as he lives within his immortal love which he poured into his poem—or so he tells us.

In any case, the point is that we are entitled, at least by virtue of the fact of the way it was written, to regard QE as the one who was supposed as forfeit and that makes much sense, when one thinks about it

Note: We cannot fail to mention that Shakespeare’s Sonnets were published a year before Donne’s piece, Conclave Ignati, and wonder if John Donne indeed knew that his use of “Ignati” was also intended to summon the shades of “Ignoto,” an pseudonym of Lord Oxford’s name.   

                                    ****************
The Entire Text Below Is From Dr. Renaker

SHAKESPEARE’S SONNET 107: A BRIEF NOTE by Professor Renaker (SF State University)

In this sonnet, the reason Shakespeare proposes for general rejoicing as at deliverance from a disaster, is: “The mortall Moone hath her eclipse indur’de” (line 5). No one knows what the near-disaster was, and the vividness of the metaphor coupled with the elusiveness of its meaning has led to a pageant of commentary not unlike that accompanying  the two-handed engine in Milton’s  Lycidas.  Perhaps the Spanish Armada, which sailed into battle in a crescent-shaped formation, is the mortal moon, and its defeat is the eclipse. Perhaps the mortal moon is the crescent banner of Islam and the eclipse is the Battle of Lepanto. Or the mortal moon is Queen Elizabeth (a metaphor employed by Spenser and Ralegh as well as Shakespeare) and the eclipse is the alleged plot by Doctor Lopez against her life, or the alleged plot by Robert Southwell and two others, or threatened war between England and Spain, or “tempests and eclipses toward the end of 1601,” or Elizabeth’s death; or the mortal moon is the Earl of Southampton and the eclipse is his imprisonment in the tower  (all from Furness, ed., A New Variorum Edition of Shakespeare, J. B. Lippincott  Co., Philadelphia, 1944, Vol. I, pp. 263-66)
In John Donne’s Conclave Ignati composed in 1610 and published in 1611, and afterwards translated into English  (T.S. Healy, ed., John Donne: Ignatius His Conclave, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969, p. xi) occurs a passage in which Satan unfolds to his followers, the Jesuits, the likelihood of their conquering England  through the vulnerability of its monarch. First Satan mentions her embarrassing amours with Dudley and Essex, then some seemingly life-threatening seizures; then he praises her wisdom:

 …why should wee doubt of our fortune in this Queene, which is so much subject to alterations, and passions? she languishes often in the absence of the Sunne, and often in Ecclipses falls into swownes, and is at the point of death… nor can I call to minde any woman, which either deceived our hope, or scaped our cunning, but Elizabeth  of  England …(p.85)

Earlier commentators have ignored this passage, perhaps for the very good reason that it was published later than the Sonnets. But, it has the advantage that it mentions the mortall Moone by name (Elizabeth  of England), speaks of a literal eclipse as only one of the other possible sources does, and sets forth a real national calamity (subjugation of England by the Jesuits) from fear of which the whole country, the soul of the wide world, like the individual  (mine owne feares) might awake as to a balmy time.

 Suppose that at some time before Elizabeth’s death in 1603, a rumor spread around Whitehall, then all over London, that she lost consciousness during an eclipse and that her vital signs sank so low that she seemed about to die. Then, the rumor proving false, suppose a second rumor spread to the effect that the first had been created by Jesuits trying to destabilize the government. Shakespeare and Donne might both write about both oral traditions.

For a homely comparison let me recall Y2K, the sudden malfunctioning of every computer on earth which was to precipitate the end of the world at midnight, 31 Dec., 1999. There must have been people so deeply in love that they simply and effortlessly ignored the whole thing and on New Year’s Day enjoyed a richly-deserved laugh on the rest of the population. This supplies a plausible explanation for the euphoric tone of the sonnet.