...thoughts and expressions on and about LOVE... cont'd
The etymology of the word "love" in our language is of interest. How did we get this word? How has the spelling change? How has the meaning changed? What would I find? How might an old "love" definition be seen in light of love poetry?
The Oxford English Dictionary contains no less than 10 sets of definitions for the word "love", and it is impossible for me to follow through on all of these in this setting; however, making use of "e-resources at home" through the York Library, we are able to peruse the OED in its entirety. One that interested me was archaic English. This was because, interestingly, while the noun was the word "fere", in Middle English, the verb was "give", whereas, we use the same word "love" as both a noun and a verb. I have added here something of the etymology (I realize this is not of interest to many, but I wanted to show how these two words, "fere" and "give" were once connected). Skip the following two paragraphs if this is not of interest.
"Fere" from Old Northumbian, fœra, aphetic f. Old English ġeféra (y-fere): - pre-Engl. gifôjon-, f.gi-(y-) together + fôrâ going, way, f. ablaut-root of faran had three definitions listed: the oldest, from c975, "A companion, comrade, mate, partner; whether male or female, and rarely in combination with a n., as meat-,play-,school-,sucking-fere. In phrases: to choose, have, love, take to or unto (one's) fere."
By c1175 it was as well to mean "a consort; spouse; a husband or wife, and rarely nuptial, wedded fere". It was used in phrases by c1200 to mean: "to give, have, marry, take, wed to one's fere".
By c1340 it meant "an equal - a)of a person: peer; also in phrase, without (peer or) fere, and b) of a thing: in phrase, fere for fere, every way equal."
"Give", "A Common Teutonic str. Vb.: Old English ġiefan (ġeaf, géafon, giefen) = Ofris. geva, jeva, OS. geban, gaf, gœbum, gebono-. By some the root is identified with that of Lith. gabénti to bring, OIrish gabim take. This verb "give" has greater connection with "fere" (love), in meaning in our ancestral English language than it appears to have in modern meaning, or at least to me, it seems that some of the bond of word and intent is not as significant today.
The OED had 65 entrances for the verb "give". The Inflexional Forms of this verb alone, were shown in examples from as far back as c831 in Beowulf, and then c950 in the Lindisfarne Gospels (Matt.).
What is of interest to me is the Signification that is listed in the OED with regard to this verb. "General sense: To make another the recipient of (something that is in the possession or at the disposal, of the subject). The verb seems, from the evidence of Goth., OHG, and OS, to have primarily denoted the placing of a material object in the hands of another person. This application, however, does not occur in OE [old english], and is not very frequent in ON; the usual sense (which is found in all the Teut. Langs.) is that of freely and gratuitously conferring on a person the ownership of a thing, as an act of bounty."
It is, I think of significance, that in these 'older' uses of this verb, the oldest I could find that was used was a855 O.E. Chron an. 853, and this was under the meaning: "Of a parent or guardian: To sanction the marriage of (a daughter or female ward). Now only more explicitly to give in marriage; formerly also to give in hand. Cf. Give away [A prominent Com. Teut. Sense: cf. OE. Gifta pl., marriage: see gift.]"
Besides the meaning just given, there are a few others that I believe are of significance in thinking of love poetry, because the essence of "care" and "trust" and "commitment" come to bear in these: "to bestow on or accord to another (one's affection, confidence. Etc.) to give one's heart";
"of a higher power, esp. of the Deity: To bestow (a faculty), quality, a physical or mental endowment, a blessing or advantage";
"to commit, consign, entrust. Often more fully in fig. Phrase to give into the hands of, also to give to keep, to give into the care or custody of, to give in charge";
"to hand over as a pledge. Also to pledge one's word, honour, etc."
Following this discovery of love being "fere" and "give", I thought it might be interesting to take some poetry that contained the word "love" and see what might happen if I exchanged the word "give", as in meaning "give of oneself". I wondered if it would have a lesser or greater impact significance upon reading, than to see the word "love" and perhaps run past it too quickly without considering the significance of the word. When a word is used as a common symbol or icon, I think perhaps over time, the beauty of it may become less.
Elizabeth Barrett Browning, in 1850, wrote a Sonnet numbered 43 that is well known. It is in The Norton Anthology of Poetry (p.856). I would like to have been able to place Browning's original Sonnet beside the 'experimental' one; however, I cannot because of the way these postings are limited in width. I have therefore, put the 'experiment' below the original. It uses "give to" in place of "love" with the exception of line 11, where the word "love" was left to stand as the embodiment of love that cannot be contained, but which is "lost" when the giver can no longer give.
43
How do I love thee? Let me count the ways.
I love thee to the depth and breadth and height
My soul can reach, when feeling out of sight
For the ends of Being and ideal Grace.
I love thee to the level of everyday's
Most quiet need, by sun and candle-light.
I love thee freely, as men strive for Right;
I love thee purely, as they turn from Praise.
I love thee with the passion put to use
In my old griefs, and with my childhood's faith.
I love thee with a love I seemed to lose
With my lost saints--I love thee with the breath,
Smiles, tears, of all my life!--and, if God choose,
I shall but love thee better after death.
Elizabeth Barrett Browning
How do I give to thee? Let me count the ways.
I give to thee to the depth and breadth and height
My soul can reach, when feeling out of sight
For the ends of Being and ideal Grace.
I give to thee to the level of everyday's
Most quiet need, by sun and candle-light.
I give to thee freely, as men strive for Right;
I give to thee purely, as they turn from Praise.
I give to thee with the passion put to use
In my old griefs, and with my childhood's faith.
I give to thee with a love I seemed to lose
With my lost saints--I give to thee with the breath,
Smiles, tears, of all my life!--and, if God choose,
I shall but give to thee better after death.
Sir Philip Sidney's Sonnet 31, (The Norton Anthology of Poetry, p.194) is another that I 'played' with. This Sonnet, for me, carries a felt melancholy in the speaker, as he wonders about the arrows that come with love - whether in a place removed from his experience of it on earth it can possibly be different.
31
With how sad steps, Oh Moon, thou climb'st the skies,
How silently, and with how wan a face!
What, may it be that even in heav'nly place
That busy archer his sharp arrows tries?
Sure, if that long-with-love-acquainted eyes
Can judge of love, though feel'st a lover's case;
I read it in thy looks: thy languished grace,
To me that feel the like, thy state descries.
Then even of fellowship, Oh Moon, tell me,
Is constant love deemed there but want of wit?
Are beauties there as proud as here they be?
Do they above love to be loved, and yet
Those lovers seem whom that love doth possess?
Do they call virtue there ungratefulnes?
Sir Philip Sidney
With how sad steps, Oh Moon, thou climb'st the skies,
How silently, and with how wan a face!
What, may it be that even in heav'nly place
That busy archer his sharp arrows tries?
Sure, if that long-with-love-acquainted eyes
Can judge of giving, though feel'st a lover's case;
I read it in thy looks: thy languished grace,
To me that feel the like, thy state descries.
Then even of fellowship, Oh Moon, tell me,
Is constant giving deemed there but want of wit?
Are beauties there as proud as here they be?
Do they above give to be given, and yet
Those givers seem whom that 'to give' doth possess?
Do they call virtue there ungratefulnes?
What I have written in these last two postings were for me, a way to write about some thoughts I have had in the past few days about "love" in poetry, and perhaps "love" in a bit of the poetry of life. It is good to have been able to use some time in this way.
The Oxford English Dictionary contains no less than 10 sets of definitions for the word "love", and it is impossible for me to follow through on all of these in this setting; however, making use of "e-resources at home" through the York Library, we are able to peruse the OED in its entirety. One that interested me was archaic English. This was because, interestingly, while the noun was the word "fere", in Middle English, the verb was "give", whereas, we use the same word "love" as both a noun and a verb. I have added here something of the etymology (I realize this is not of interest to many, but I wanted to show how these two words, "fere" and "give" were once connected). Skip the following two paragraphs if this is not of interest.
"Fere" from Old Northumbian, fœra, aphetic f. Old English ġeféra (y-fere): - pre-Engl. gifôjon-, f.gi-(y-) together + fôrâ going, way, f. ablaut-root of faran had three definitions listed: the oldest, from c975, "A companion, comrade, mate, partner; whether male or female, and rarely in combination with a n., as meat-,play-,school-,sucking-fere. In phrases: to choose, have, love, take to or unto (one's) fere."
By c1175 it was as well to mean "a consort; spouse; a husband or wife, and rarely nuptial, wedded fere". It was used in phrases by c1200 to mean: "to give, have, marry, take, wed to one's fere".
By c1340 it meant "an equal - a)of a person: peer; also in phrase, without (peer or) fere, and b) of a thing: in phrase, fere for fere, every way equal."
"Give", "A Common Teutonic str. Vb.: Old English ġiefan (ġeaf, géafon, giefen) = Ofris. geva, jeva, OS. geban, gaf, gœbum, gebono-. By some the root is identified with that of Lith. gabénti to bring, OIrish gabim take. This verb "give" has greater connection with "fere" (love), in meaning in our ancestral English language than it appears to have in modern meaning, or at least to me, it seems that some of the bond of word and intent is not as significant today.
The OED had 65 entrances for the verb "give". The Inflexional Forms of this verb alone, were shown in examples from as far back as c831 in Beowulf, and then c950 in the Lindisfarne Gospels (Matt.).
What is of interest to me is the Signification that is listed in the OED with regard to this verb. "General sense: To make another the recipient of (something that is in the possession or at the disposal, of the subject). The verb seems, from the evidence of Goth., OHG, and OS, to have primarily denoted the placing of a material object in the hands of another person. This application, however, does not occur in OE [old english], and is not very frequent in ON; the usual sense (which is found in all the Teut. Langs.) is that of freely and gratuitously conferring on a person the ownership of a thing, as an act of bounty."
It is, I think of significance, that in these 'older' uses of this verb, the oldest I could find that was used was a855 O.E. Chron an. 853, and this was under the meaning: "Of a parent or guardian: To sanction the marriage of (a daughter or female ward). Now only more explicitly to give in marriage; formerly also to give in hand. Cf. Give away [A prominent Com. Teut. Sense: cf. OE. Gifta pl., marriage: see gift.]"
Besides the meaning just given, there are a few others that I believe are of significance in thinking of love poetry, because the essence of "care" and "trust" and "commitment" come to bear in these: "to bestow on or accord to another (one's affection, confidence. Etc.) to give one's heart";
"of a higher power, esp. of the Deity: To bestow (a faculty), quality, a physical or mental endowment, a blessing or advantage";
"to commit, consign, entrust. Often more fully in fig. Phrase to give into the hands of, also to give to keep, to give into the care or custody of, to give in charge";
"to hand over as a pledge. Also to pledge one's word, honour, etc."
Following this discovery of love being "fere" and "give", I thought it might be interesting to take some poetry that contained the word "love" and see what might happen if I exchanged the word "give", as in meaning "give of oneself". I wondered if it would have a lesser or greater impact significance upon reading, than to see the word "love" and perhaps run past it too quickly without considering the significance of the word. When a word is used as a common symbol or icon, I think perhaps over time, the beauty of it may become less.
Elizabeth Barrett Browning, in 1850, wrote a Sonnet numbered 43 that is well known. It is in The Norton Anthology of Poetry (p.856). I would like to have been able to place Browning's original Sonnet beside the 'experimental' one; however, I cannot because of the way these postings are limited in width. I have therefore, put the 'experiment' below the original. It uses "give to" in place of "love" with the exception of line 11, where the word "love" was left to stand as the embodiment of love that cannot be contained, but which is "lost" when the giver can no longer give.
43
How do I love thee? Let me count the ways.
I love thee to the depth and breadth and height
My soul can reach, when feeling out of sight
For the ends of Being and ideal Grace.
I love thee to the level of everyday's
Most quiet need, by sun and candle-light.
I love thee freely, as men strive for Right;
I love thee purely, as they turn from Praise.
I love thee with the passion put to use
In my old griefs, and with my childhood's faith.
I love thee with a love I seemed to lose
With my lost saints--I love thee with the breath,
Smiles, tears, of all my life!--and, if God choose,
I shall but love thee better after death.
Elizabeth Barrett Browning
How do I give to thee? Let me count the ways.
I give to thee to the depth and breadth and height
My soul can reach, when feeling out of sight
For the ends of Being and ideal Grace.
I give to thee to the level of everyday's
Most quiet need, by sun and candle-light.
I give to thee freely, as men strive for Right;
I give to thee purely, as they turn from Praise.
I give to thee with the passion put to use
In my old griefs, and with my childhood's faith.
I give to thee with a love I seemed to lose
With my lost saints--I give to thee with the breath,
Smiles, tears, of all my life!--and, if God choose,
I shall but give to thee better after death.
Sir Philip Sidney's Sonnet 31, (The Norton Anthology of Poetry, p.194) is another that I 'played' with. This Sonnet, for me, carries a felt melancholy in the speaker, as he wonders about the arrows that come with love - whether in a place removed from his experience of it on earth it can possibly be different.
31
With how sad steps, Oh Moon, thou climb'st the skies,
How silently, and with how wan a face!
What, may it be that even in heav'nly place
That busy archer his sharp arrows tries?
Sure, if that long-with-love-acquainted eyes
Can judge of love, though feel'st a lover's case;
I read it in thy looks: thy languished grace,
To me that feel the like, thy state descries.
Then even of fellowship, Oh Moon, tell me,
Is constant love deemed there but want of wit?
Are beauties there as proud as here they be?
Do they above love to be loved, and yet
Those lovers seem whom that love doth possess?
Do they call virtue there ungratefulnes?
Sir Philip Sidney
With how sad steps, Oh Moon, thou climb'st the skies,
How silently, and with how wan a face!
What, may it be that even in heav'nly place
That busy archer his sharp arrows tries?
Sure, if that long-with-love-acquainted eyes
Can judge of giving, though feel'st a lover's case;
I read it in thy looks: thy languished grace,
To me that feel the like, thy state descries.
Then even of fellowship, Oh Moon, tell me,
Is constant giving deemed there but want of wit?
Are beauties there as proud as here they be?
Do they above give to be given, and yet
Those givers seem whom that 'to give' doth possess?
Do they call virtue there ungratefulnes?
What I have written in these last two postings were for me, a way to write about some thoughts I have had in the past few days about "love" in poetry, and perhaps "love" in a bit of the poetry of life. It is good to have been able to use some time in this way.
posted by maggiesong at 7:10 PM
2 Comments:
Maggie:
a truly interesting idea that you had that was very well informed and researched! You will put us all to shame with your good work =)
At the start of your post I was a bit skeptical about the link that you could make between "love" and "give". But as I continued to follow your train of thought and the facts that you put forth I began to see that parallels truly exist between the two words. That got me to thinking about one of the facets love...the idea that when in love with someone you are constantly giving. Whether it be emotionally in terms of support, physically by providing a helping hand, or finanically by lending money, someone is always giving something to the other person.
sv
btw: the "playing" with the poems was a fantastic way to fully convey your meaning! Plus they were enjoyable!
Ladies....thank you for your comments on this post. I do appreciate your feedback and your ideas too. I hope you don't mind if I put one comment here rather than two. My computer fan(s)(don't know which one) is dying here on me and my machine is making an awful noise at the moment. I don't want to overheat it and so I have to shut down.
This posting did appear to be wandering in the door from who knows where at the beginning, I know. I didn't know how else to write it, but I knew what information I wanted it to explore. It was just an idea that came into my mind, and so I decided to follow through on it and see if I could learn something, as well as perhaps have some fun.
There is little doubt if the poets knew what I was playing around with in these poems, they would roll over in their graves. The "give" worked better with Browning than with Sidney I think, and yet, there is something to be said about the "give" in this also.
I think often in life, we tend to see a binary world....give and receive, stop and go, in and out, but in these binaries, there needs to be movement that flows in the midst of these, and when I thought about "love" and followed this old old word that it came from, I could see the movement.
We use "love" so often as an idea that everyone is supposed to understand, or at least have some knowledge of what is being conveyed. The "give" perhaps leaves more room for an action that is, for me, a large part, if not all of "love". And it is in the giving, especially if that comes without strings attached, or conditions attached, but only to be a blessing to another, that a fuller love is realized.
Love, for me, is probably the most difficult work humans can do, because love doesn't have any expectation of reward of any type from another, and often, without reward, what is called "love" is withdrawn - the give disappears.
I know I'm rambling on here, but I was just trying to write something about some of the thoughts that I had surrounding this blog. Thanks again for your comments.
Post a Comment
<< Home