Shakespeare Fans discussion
Sonnets
>
#136 If thy soul check thee that I come so near
date
newest »
newest »
For some reason, I thought we had already covered this sonnet--at the same time we covered the other naughty 'Will' sonnet. But perhaps we just alluded to this sonnet without looking at it closely.I seem to recall that in both Sonnet 135 and 136, some readers think there is possibility there's more than one lover named Will, but I don't recall what the reasoning is. Anyone?
I've also long been a little confused by the idea that one is not a number (line 8 here, and repeated in other sonnets, if memory serves). A little Googling brought up this explanation: "Since numbers were plurals, the number one could not be considered to be a number. Alternatively, where large numbers were concerned, adding one to a great heap made effectively no difference. The idea is ultimately traceable back to Aristotle." The writer then went on to quote not Aristotle but Marlowe's Hero and Leander:
One is no number, maids are nothing then,
Without the sweet society of men. Marlowe, H&L.255-6.
Overall, I enjoy both of the Will sonnets--mainly, I think, because they don't take themselves very seriously. I'm not sure any modern-day poem could say the same thing without being smutty or in-your-face. Shakespeare's attitude toward what we call 'sex' (and he called 'passion') deserves closer attention--on its own terms.
Perhaps each of us should attempt a paraphrase.David, the note on 1 not being a number is very useful (again, a link with the Phoenix and Turtle)
But "don't take themselves very seriously": I must say, I see this sonnet differently. To me it seems so obscure as to be an endless puzzle, and if there is a line of interpretation that is simply sexual, perhaps that is there as a false trail to distract us.
The last four words are surely significant. They are a signature, like an artist's signature in the bottom right corner of a painting, and this is (I guess) the only time S names himself anywhere in his works.
I'm reminded of other great artists who've signed themselves once and only once, Michaelangelo, on the Pieta, and Bach in the unfinished Contrapunctus 14 of die Kunst der Fuge,
This last is very famous, and yet there is little about it on the internet. But see
http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/mu...
which says,
"Bach was playing these otherworldy games when fate stepped in: He went blind and soon died. (On his deathbed, he dictated a haunting organ prelude called Before Thy Throne I Stand, as his calling card to God.) The unfinished last fugue in the AOF was intended to weave together four different subjects. He only got to the third one, which happened to be his own name. In German notation, B means B-flat and H means B-natural, so he could spell out B-A-C-H in notes."
The legend is that the final fugue of his final work was left unfinished when he wrote the four "signature" notes. Another theory is that he deliberately left it unfinished as a way of adding yet more puzzle to AOF.
I too don't know of any other place where Shakespeare names himself in a poem or play, though given his fondness for the word "will" and its various meanings, I would not be surprised if he didn't name himself elsewhere--but in language so obscure I've never caught it. Didn't know about Michelangelo and Bach naming themselves once and only once.
As for how serious (or not) the sonnet is, I wholeheartedly agree that it's an endless puzzle, but puzzles are surely a form of play and it's the playfulness of the sonnet that dominates. I'll readily concede I have not teased out all possible meanings, and it could be that beneath all the playful puns Shakespeare is saying something very serious (to a private audience, maybe?). Got any theories?
I started to paraphrase the poem but got stuck on the second line! How does one paraphrase lines that have multiple meanings?? Still, I think the exercise is a good idea, and I'm going to give it another go .
OK, here's my feeble paraphrase. As you'll see, I chose cutesy over bawdy. Accuracy fell by the wayside! (Apologies to Molly Bloom)Should you think I grow too bold,
Remember I've always been your one true Love,
And Love, you know full well, is evermore.
Say yes, my sweet, say yes yes yes,
And I will fulfill the (ahem!) treasure of your love.
Yes, fill it full of yeses, with my yes one.
In matters of Love we see with ease
That one will never do,
So heed not this little one,
Even as he counts and counts.
No, take me for nothing if you please,
But know my nothing is evermore your something sweet.
Make but my name your love, and love that always,
And then you love me, for my name is Love.
That is a really nice bit of work, David. Thanks, and well done. I have been wondering what one would make of this poem if taken completely "out of context". At first it exhibits a Dylan Thomas like obscurity. Then you ask what "Will" means. A will is a statement of your bequest to posterity. For a poet that might stand for the collected works. From that you might be led to think that the poem is addressed to its reader, and is about the poetry of the poet. If you read it with "poetry" substituted for "will", except for the second "will" in line 5,
Poetry will fulfil etc
- you can make sense of the result:
If I come to mean too much to you, tell your soul that I was you poet, and your soul knows how you accept poetry. The poems are a love-suit; take them for love, because "poetry will fulfil the treasure of thy love". Read my poems together with everyone elses, even if that makes mine seem nothing. I will be lost in the crowd, seem nothing, but still be one to you. Love and always love my name, and then you'll be loving me, because my name is poetry.
Not what S intended, but it does resonate. You do get people who only read one book. The Bible or Shakespeare or Dante . . . To general readers this is to read nothing, 1 = 0. Line 1 might suggest the trap of only reading S, reading S among others will diminish S if we equate them all, like the theme of S lost among a crowd of "rival poets".
I like your reading, Martin. It adds a layer I hadn't thought about, but one that Shakespeare might well have had in mind, given his uncanny ability to keep so many different meanings of the same simple word in his mind at once. Plus, there are not a few of the sonnets which emphasize that poetry itself is the great monument being built in these pages (ie, the Sonnets). We also know, from Sonnet 86 ("Was It the Proud Full Sail of HIS Great Verse") if nothing else, that he was all too aware of rival poets. I might add that if one does indeed read through the sonnet substituting the word "Poetry" for "will" (save for the second instance in line 5), the sonnet reads very nicely (aloud, I mean).
My mind keeps going back to line 7 ("In things of great receipt with ease we prove") because I wonder if I'm missing something. Here's an annotation Goog brought up:things of great receipt = matters of great moment, stores of great quantity, sexual organs of great capacity. The bawdy innuendo continues, leading to the play on something and nothing in the third quatrain.
we prove = we demonstrate mathematically, we know by experience.
But might there be something else? That word "receipt" piques my curiosity, but (very sadly) the local library has ended its subscription to the OED.
"prove" also carried the meaning of "test" in S's time, but I don't think that's so important here, the surface meaning, surely, is that when we receive things in abundance, a single item among them counts as almost nothing. The bawdy meaning is then that S's mistress has so many additional lovers, S is reduced to zero. So yes, she finds by experience (the 2nd meaning of "prove") and she works out mathematically that 1 = 0, (the first meaning).It all seems to form a pattern. In this sonnet 1 = 0. In the phoenix & turtle 2 = 1, see message 19 of https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
There is no doubt in modern mathematics that 2, 1 and 0 are all numbers, and all distinct numbers. In Loves Labours Lost there seems to be further effort to confuse mathematical certainties. Why is S so anti-maths? I bet Candy has a view on this ;-)
I really like how both of you (Martin & David) have paraphrased this sonnet.Clearly he is messing around with wordplay, so it does seem playful. It also seems like another private poem to some particular person.
I'm struck by the first line, which is not playful,
"If thy soul check thee that I come so near,"
... this person's soul is holding back, restraining them, from getting closer to S (or allowing S to get closer). This seems to be a clue for reading the rest of the poem.
Also, in England, "prove" and "proving" is the language used for when bread dough rises.
Yes! I remember now my wife using "prove" when she was taking me through the processes of breadmaking. Thanks for that reminder.The word "sweet" which appears twice I've seen some editors put in commas:
Thus far for love my love-suit, sweet, fulfil
"Sweet" is either the person addressed or an adjective ("my sweet love-suit").
Another paraphrase!For a long time I've wondered how S's language difficulties get translated, and how much is lost. I found an Italian translation of this sonnet (on facebook), and as an exercise, did a literal translation back into English. I've translated "il voglio" as "will" and "Will" as "William":
Se la tua anima ti frena perché così ti incalzo, giura alla tua anima cieca che io ero il tuo Will, e la voglia, la tua anima lo sa, lì dentro è ammessa; fin in fondo, per amor mio, dolcemente soddisfa l'amorosa mia richiesta. Will soddisferà il forziere del tuo amore, sì, lo colmerà di voglie, e la mia una sola voglia. In cose di grandi entrate agevolmente riscontriamo che nel gran numero uno è contato nessuno. In quel numero dunque lasciami passare inosservato, pur se nel conto delle tue scorte sarò per forza uno; tienimi per un nulla, purché ti piaccia tenere quel nulla, me, come un qualcosa di dolce per te. Fa' del mio nome il tuo amore, e amalo sempre, e allora ami me, perché il mio nome è Will, la voglia.
If your soul curbs me because I pursue you,
swear to your blind soul that I was your William,
and will, your soul knows, is admitted there;
completely, for my love, sweetly satisfy my loving plea.
Will will satisfy the strong-box of your love,
yes, fill it with wills, and my single will.
In things of great entrance we easily find
that in a great number one is counted zero.
In that great number therefore, let me pass unobserved,
yet if, in the reckoning of your stock, I will push in as one,
hold me for nothing, provided you want to hold
that nothing, me, as something sweet for you.
Make my name your love, and love it ever,
and then love me because my name is William, the will.
"still" on line 13 comes back as "ever", which is correct. "Thus far" becomes "fin in fondo" in Italian, which means "until the very end", which is interesting.
The Italian translation brings out the idea of the woman's lovers being like coins in a strong box or safe, which I think is in the English, and which I missed. It had never occurred to me before that you could learn about a text by reading good translations of it.
An excellent idea, Martin. My Italian is too rudimentary to grapple with the original, but I might look around for a French translation. I've always found translations of poems a most curious venture. The same poem--in Greek, say--can and does come out vastly different in English translation by different translators/poets. I thought it might also be worth having a look-see at what computer translation can do nowadays with our Will. Here's how Google Translate translates the Italian in your post:
If your soul is restraining you, so that I may swear to you, swear to your blind soul that I was your Will, and the will, your soul knows, there is in it; To the bottom, for my sake, gently fulfills my loving request. Will will satisfy the chest of your love, yes, it will fill you with cravings, and my only will. In things of great income we find that nobody is counted in large numbers. In that number let me go unnoticed, even if in the account of your stock you will be one; Hold me for nothing, as long as you like to keep that nothing, me, like something sweet for you. Make my name your love, and love him always, and then love me, because my name is Will, the will.
And here's what Bing Translator did with the same Italian:
If your soul brakes you because so you incalzo, swear to your blind soul that I was your Will, and the desire, your soul knows it, in there is permissible; To the end, for my sake, it gently satisfies the loving my request. Will satisfy the treasure chest of thy love, yes, fill him with cravings, and my only one desire. In things of great revenue we easily find that in large number one is counted no one. In that issue, so let me go unnoticed, even if in the account of your stocks I will be one; Keep me for nothing, as long as you like to keep that nothing, me, like something sweet for you. Make my Name your love, and I always Amal, and then you love me, because my name is Will, the desire.
Google Translate has gotten noticeably better just in the last year or two (Bing may have, too, but I don't use it very often). It's even gotten a lot better with languages far removed from English, like Japanese and Korean (though it's not nearly as good with such languages as it is with, say, French or Spanish.) On a lark, I plugged this sonnet into Google Translate to see what would happen. Would it modernize the English? No--not a single change. If there's some website that offers such a service, I'm unaware of it.
(I also tried plugging in some Middle English, from Chaucer, and Google left it the same as well.)
David wrote: "'ve also long been a little confused by the idea that one is not a number..."Strangely enough, I came across this again last night, while reading an essay by Hans Hahn, Infinity, where he discusses whether infinities are numbers:
. . . a single meaningfuL question remains: "Since they differ so greatly from ordinary numbers is it perhaps not inappropriate to designate transfinites as numbers?" Like many so-called philosophical problems, we are free to consider this one as turning on a simple issue of terminology; though it was for the very purpose of avoiding such purely terminological controversies that Cantor gave his transfinite cardinals the neutral and relatively non-committal name of "powers." The controversy, however, intrigues us in much the same way as the once celebrated dispute over whether "one" is a number, or numbers only begin with "two."
end quote.
Hahn is this guy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Ha...
Increasingly, I get the feeling that S was really very interested in maths.
Well, it had never occurred to me that one was not a number, but at the same time I recall being surprised that the concept of zero was not as old as the concept of numbers (starting at one or two!). I find myself wondering at what point the idea of one not being a number disappeared from common perception (at least among poets? ).
And as for Shakespeare's interest in math, what other evidence do you see, Martin?
Oh, just from the references to numbers in LLL, the phoenix & turtle and this sonnet, and the idea of specially numbered sonnets. And then he will make a metaphor out of doing arithmetic,Go hence in debt: and therefore, like a cipher,
Yet standing in rich place, I multiply
With one 'We thank you' many thousands moe
That go before it.
"Cipher" is digit 0, and S seems fond of the word. The need for 0 came in with Arab numerals, there is no zero in Roman numerals. In the 16th century it must have seemed very up-to-date. The idea here is that adding 0 multiplies the digits before it, as in 121 12100, 12100000000 etc.
Mod
Proof also has a textual or publishing meaning. And it can also come from testing the printing of a coin or manusciript...which seems to relate to post#14.
these have been fantastic posts to catch up reading!!!
A fascinating subject, but the article does not satisfy my curiosity about why the concept of zero (the mathematical concept of zero) came into being so long after the numbers. Here's the author's take:
"The development of zero as a mathematical concept may have been inspired by the region’s long philosophical tradition of contemplating the void and may explain why the concept took so long to catch on in Europe, which lacked the same cultural reference points."
Hmmm.
Mod
Math is a amor part of this sensed obscurity that is mentioned in many discussions here on our group.
The obscurity isn't on Shakespeare's end...it's on the education and rather lack of education in the arts.
Let's say we are watching a neurosurgeon...okay?
We might say "I don't know how she does this so precisely....and isn't she afraid of making a mistake? "isn't she afraid of taking a part of the brain and hurting it?" "I do not understand how she is able to do this work"
I happen to have a Italian acquaintance who is staying at a property I am managing...and she is doing a residency here in Chicago.
And when we were at the jazz fest a couple weeks ago the half dozen women we were with....were deeply impressed she was a neurosurgeon...and deeply curious about her work, her study, her practice and how she did it.
But...her work would not be a mystery at all to anyone else who had studied brain surgery...medicine...or was also a neurosurgeon.
I have a strong sense that no matter how much I read or studied or researched or even observed....her job would always arouse a sense of wonder in me because it is so different than the profession I have studied.
And that is okay. I still benefit from her work. I still enjoy hearing about her work. I am still in awe f her work.
Is her work obscure?
Well..yes to me. Because she has put in 15 years. What she knows and does is 15 years. And she has very good eyesight, likes working with a high-tech microscope (I'm sure its not called a microscope LOL)
So where does this work in relation to Shakespeare?
He is writing from the place of mathematical zero. We can understand him by putting ourselves into a place of mathematical zero....maybe?
The trouble is...like knowing anything one has to do a sort of apprenticeship and initiation.
What is good about this kind of reading group is the distributed cognition...and...Shakespeare is working within the structure of distributed cognition.
Martin the article from the Slate about Bach is excellent. And it is the discussion about fugue that is a secret!!!
To understand Shakespeare...one could use the fugue as a metaphor. The fugue is another form of distributed cognition. Here is what the article says....
"A fugue generally begins with a bit of tune called the subject, played alone in one voice (in counterpoint every part is called a "voice," whether it's sung or played). Then another "voice" strikes up the fugue subject while the original voice continues in counterpoint, sometimes establishing an also-recurring tune called the countersubject. The fugue carries on, in two to five or more voices, with entries of the subject plus new melodies woven freely around it. Sections featuring the subject alternate with episodes of free counterpoint where the subject gets a rest. So in a fugue, the subject is like a character who keeps turning up in a conversation, perhaps with spouse along (the countersubject). Except that in a contrapuntal conversation, everybody is talking at once, yet, magically, it all makes sense."
My post #12 under the sonnet topic...Sonnet 25 responds to the repeated quest in that topic about obscurity.
Shakespeare is not obscure...it's just to understand how his form of "fugue" functions one has to have probably apprenticed on that sort of subject and the technical part of art or story making.
However...I know lots of writers and artists who did not et apprenticed in this tradition of art-making. Contemporary art has been influenced by the enlightenment movement and by industrial culture....with the suspicions of religions and mythology as something "not real".
My experience has been that it is almost impossible to explain the meaning of Shakespeare's work and the tradition he works within....on it's multiple levels. I have not found a successful metaphor or found away to share the tradition in a way that people who have not been "educated" or "initiated" can understand. The structure is so lost and foreign to anyone educated in industrial countries and schools....it's as if people have been brainwashed to not understand the meaning of literature and art.
It is not unlike us watching a neurosurgeon...we are in awe and we are grateful...but we have no idea how they can do the work....and it is obscure to us since we did not do the same work...
Until we rescue the technical distributed cognition within mythology....I think Shakespeare will remain obscure and ambiguous to the uninitiated.
If thy soul check thee that I come so near,
Swear to thy blind soul that I was thy Will,
And will, thy soul knows, is admitted there:
Thus far for love my love-suit sweet fulfil.
Will will fulfil the treasure of thy love,
Ay, fill it full with wills, and my will one.
In things of great receipt with ease we prove
Among a number one is reckoned none;
Then in the number let me pass untold,
Though in thy store's account I one must be;
For nothing hold me, so it please thee hold
That nothing me, a something sweet to thee.
Make but my name thy love, and love that still,
And then thou lovest me for my name is Will.
as originally published: