Could you, plz,

[Void]

explain the meaning of a construction (emphasized part) like

... and then but in the spring when i was wont to greet...

does it mean all other time besides the spring or smth else?

[lexico]

only, solely

[Void]

thank you.

[Mycernius]

Originally Posted by Void

explain the meaning of a construction (emphasized part) like

... and then but in the spring when i was wont to greet...

does it mean all other time besides the spring or smth else?

What is this quote from? Just wondering, because its grammar doesn't read correctly. What would help would be commas before and after the emphazied part so:

... and then but in the spring when i was wont to greet...

would become

... and then, but in the spring, when i was wont to greet...

In that way it would make more sense and would clear up any confusion.
(Don't know if this helps)

[Silverpoint]

It's an extract from a modern transcription of a Shakespeare's sonnet number 102. The full text being:

My love is strengthened though more weak in seeming,
I love not less, though less the show appear,
That love is merchandized, whose rich esteeming,
The owner's tongue doth publish every where.
Our love was new, and then but in the spring,
When I was wont to greet it with my lays,
As Philomel in summer's front doth sing,
And stops her pipe in growth of riper days:
Not that the summer is less pleasant now
Than when her mournful hymns did hush the night,
But that wild music burthens every bough,
And sweets grown common lose their dear delight.
Therefore like her, I sometime hold my tongue:
Because I would not dull you with my song.

What this does mean however is that the rules of grammar don't apply in quite the same way as in modern prose. Furthermore it is written in iambic pentameter.

The meaning is actually pretty difficult to decipher, but it is believed that Shakespeare is equating the idea of spring with love. Personally I believe that Shakespeare may be using spring in a metaphorical sense. That is to say, spring is a traditionally a time of new birth and creation of new life, and he is using this symbolism to reinforce the idea of new love for another.

[Void]

then, maybe, you can suggest why he has chosen the image of Philomel instead of simple nightingale?

iambic pentameter it is a traditional verse for sonnets of those times, ne? Besides, very often verse has more to do with the mood and atmosphere than with meaning of words and symbols. As far as i know, usually Shakespear unlike his contemporaries liked to unveil the meaning in last two lines, instead of stating the idea at the first and elaborating ith through the rest

[lexico]

Originally Posted by Silverpoint

Shakespeare's sonnet number 102...written in iambic pentameter.

Dinosaur Comics


Whose Shoes Would You Choose ?
A Comparison of Shakespeare and John Mayer
by Carolyn Kendzia

[Void]

thanks, Lexico. Very interesting piece of reading.

-----------------

But poems are not only differently interpreted when translated by different people (same target language), the speakers of the same language can also have different opinions.
Anyway two translations i found keep me disagreeing with some point of the article... but, on the other hand we all russians

[Silverpoint]

Originally Posted by Void

then, maybe, you can suggest why he has chosen the image of Philomel instead of simple nightingale?

I'm not entirely sure myself, but according to a number of other commentaries, it doesn't appear to be significant. Perhaps, since he continued the nightingale theme later, he just wanted to avoid using the same word twice for artistic reasons

Originally Posted by Void

But poems are not only differently interpreted when translated by different people (same target language), the speakers of the same language can also have different opinions

Absolutely. This was the reason why I was careful to say "Personally I believe..." in my earlier analysis. I had an interesting discussion with some Japanese friends a few days ago about the subject of translating Shakespeare into Japanese. A number of them had studied Shakespeare in translated form at high school. My argument was pretty much "what's the point?" When taken out of its original English you are purely reading the subjective interpretation of the translator, and indeed losing a great deal of the beauty of the mother tongue. Sure, you may get a gist of the story, but 90% of what makes it Shakespeare is lost. I'd be interested to hear if anyone fundamentally disagrees with me.

[Void]

Originally Posted by Silverpoint

I'm not entirely sure myself, but according to a number of other commentaries, it doesn't appear to be significant. Perhaps, since he continued the nightingale theme later, he just wanted to avoid using the same word twice for artistic reasons
(...) Sure, you may get a gist of the story, but 90% of what makes it Shakespeare is lost. I'd be interested to hear if anyone fundamentally disagrees with me.

Maybe, to keep the pattern of the verse. Anyway, we will never know and will draw images of our own
(...)
i doubt that anyone sane will argue about this =)

[Void]

Originally Posted by Silverpoint

Sure, you may get a gist of the story, but 90% of what makes it Shakespeare is lost. I'd be interested to hear if anyone fundamentally disagrees with me.

But the %-age is considerable whether it translation or not.
1) it depends on the tradition of translation. In russian school of translation it is considered a good tone try to keep reasonable balance between the verse and source imagery. If cultural difference in paticular piece of poetry is not big (or non-essential) very close translation can be done

2) many of modern english readers might not understand what makes Shakespear as well. If in case of translation we are communicated through both - time and culture, then here people have to cover time distance. It is not always posible without some knowledge. So, in many cases we just deal with emotional images of our own rised by poet`s words. But, probably, this is one of major poetic goals

[Silverpoint]

I think that's a good point about modern day native English readers. Crikey, I have trouble understanding the Bard at the best of times and I'm painfully aware that probably a lot of what I understand from his writing may not be what he intended. But maybe that's one of the marks of a great writer - that we can each take something different away from his work.

[Mycernius]

Ahh! It is so much better when read in the original Klingon

[Void]

Originally Posted by Mycernius

Ahh! It is so much better when read in the original Klingon

Che cosa e? sorry, i`m to lazy for googling today

[Mycernius]

Star Trek reference from the sixth film.

[Void]

anyway, doesn`t tell me much, too little of ST left in memory
but, still, thnx for explanation