John Donne: Holy Sonnet 10

W

water

the sea
Registered Senior Member
I have just seen "Wit" with Emma Thompson. There, John Donnes' Holy Sonnet 10 -- "Death, be not proud" played a great part.

I am unable to find the proper version of it online. In the film, it has been said that the one with the ; in the last verse is not the proper version, as the punctuation is not right. Yet online, I found only those with the ; -- like this:


Death, be not proud (Holy Sonnet 10)
John Donne


Death, be not proud, though some have called thee
Mighty and dreadful, for thou are not so;
For those whom thou think'st thou dost overthrow
Die not, poor Death, nor yet canst thou kill me.
From rest and sleep, which but thy pictures be,
Much pleasure; then from thee much more must flow,
And soonest our best men with thee do go,
Rest of their bones, and soul's delivery.
Thou'art slave to fate, chance, kings, and desperate men,
And dost with poison, war, and sickness dwell,
And poppy'or charms can make us sleep as well
And better than thy stroke; why swell'st thou then?
One short sleep past, we wake eternally,
And death shall be no more; Death, thou shalt die.
Click to expand...


I am unable to come to a library for a while, but I would really appreciate it if someone has the other version of this sonnet and would post it here.


Thank you.
 
In my Norton Critical Edition of John Donne's Poetry the sonnet appears as you've written it. We studied the movie and play in class a while back and if I remember correctly, noone could find a printing with the "correct" version.
 
Both the Peguin complete poems and the Oxford Standard Authors editions have a comma in the last line. Both proudly say that they have altered the punctuation as little as possible, so it is probably the original.
It is worth remembering that Elizabethan punctuation was rather like musical notation and signified lengths of pauses or the way phrases should be spoken, so the interpretation in the film need not be correct.
 
The semicolon certainly makes sense. I can't see how omitting it would change the sense much.
 
But the semicolon is so cold, so "scientific".

Look at this, from Yeats' "He wishes for the Cloths of Heaven":

But I, being poor, have only my dreams;
I have spread my dreams under your feet;
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.

Dreadful, those semicolons. -- But this is so from the modern perspective, where the semicolon is regarded as something that simply doesn't fit into poetry. The semicolon is something to use in clear rational thought, not in pouring your heart out.
I can understand that in earlier times, the semicolon had a completely different meaning though.
 
Emily Dickinson used dashes almost exclusively to denote all kinds of punctuation. It was simply up to the reader to interpret them.

I think since poetry originally intended to be read out loud, semicolons didn't interfere as much with the reading - they were more for expression than impression. In Cloths of Heaven they look dreadful - I would never have used them. But in Holy Sonnet 10 it looks more systematic, denoting a logical "conclusion", more subtle than a colon but more forceful than a comma.

What do you think their function was in either poem, from a more informed linguistic perspective? Here's what my source says:
Semicolon
...to punctuate two or more main clauses that are closely related and could have been joined by a coordinating conjuction - such as and, or, nor, for, or but - or treated as separate sentences;

The semicolon can also join clauses that complement or parallel each other

Where clauses are linked by a conjunctionm use a semicolon to impart a greater emphasis to the subsequent clause than either a comma or the conjunction would have done [my conclusion, above]

In a sentence that is already subdivided by commas, use a semicolon instead of a comma to indicate a stronger division [which seems to have been the reasoning behind Sonnet 10]

- The Oxford Manual of Style, 2002​
I think they just seem so out of place and "cold" because they represent a rational device to clarify romantic (in the the literary sense) expression. It intrudes on the senses :).
 
RosaMagika said:
on my dreams.

Dreadful, those semicolons. -- But this is so from the modern perspective, where the semicolon is regarded as something that simply doesn't fit into poetry. The semicolon is something to use in clear rational thought, not in pouring your heart out.
I can understand that in earlier times, the semicolon had a completely different meaning though.
Click to expand...
Come on! Poetry can be clear and rational- look at Donne himself in some of his poems.
Can't remember the title, but there's a book on punctuation in Elizabethan literature.
 
That's what I'd do:

One short sleep past, we wake eternally,
And death shall be no more: Death, thou shalt die.

A colon.
 
Maybe that was a bit too strong, considering the whole poem is addressed to death. Maybe Donne wanted to make it just another statement, matter-of-factly.
 
I think that colon fits. Of course, the whole poem is addressed to death. But that colon makes a nice argument structure:


Death, be not proud, though some have called thee
Mighty and dreadful, for thou are not so;
For those whom thou think'st thou dost overthrow
Die not, poor Death, nor yet canst thou kill me.
From rest and sleep, which but thy pictures be,
Much pleasure; then from thee much more must flow,
And soonest our best men with thee do go,
Rest of their bones, and soul's delivery.
Thou'art slave to fate, chance, kings, and desperate men,
And dost with poison, war, and sickness dwell,
And poppy'or charms can make us sleep as well
And better than thy stroke; why swell'st thou then?
One short sleep past, we wake eternally,
And death shall be no more:
------------------------------------------------------
Death, thou shalt die.


I.e.:
Death thinks it will kill people; it thinks people will die.
But people ultimately don't die, for they have eternal life.
-----------------------------------
Death will die.


I like this kind of rationality with the colon better than the one with the semicolon. The semicolon seems ... coward somehow in that position.

For the use of the colon to signify a summing up, see for example these poems by Rainer Maria Rilke: Die Fensterrose (The Rose-window), Die Engel (The Angels; the one beginning "Sie haben alle müde Münde ..."), Schwarze Katze (The Black Cat).
Also the amazing Sainte (The Saint) by Stephane Mallarme.
 
Well, now that you put it that way I think I agree. But from the many punctuation marks I'd think that Donne had speech in mind - and you can't really voice the difference between a colon and semicolon. Or can you? Would you recite it differently?
 
If we go back to what Donne had in mind: it has been said before that Elizabethan punctuation "was rather like musical notation and signified lengths of pauses or the way phrases should be spoken". The way they saw the punctuation marks is somewhat different from the way we see them today.

As for voicing the difference between a colon and a semicolon: yes, I would recite it differently. Maybe I am under the influence of Rilke's poetry, as there are often such colons that "clarify the argument structure".

If there would be a semicolon, I'd go down with the voice, similar as with a point; or, keep the intonation flat.

I like what the colon does to the melody though -- for if there is a colon, you can clearly emphasize the no more:

One short sleep past, we wake eternally,
And death shall be *no more*: Death, thou shalt die.

This:
One short sleep past, we wake eternally,
And death shall be *no more*; Death, thou shalt die.

just doesn't work for me.
 
You know, this discussion might make me paranoid about my use of punctuation in poetry. I never gave it such *subtle* thought before! It's a good thing...
 
As I see that poem, its not about death, but about dying, and maybe fear of death if i had to add
something.

One short sleep past, we wake eternally,
And death shall be no more:
Click to expand...
The last 2 lines sums it up, you death and moving on, death is no more.

Well thats just how i see it anyway
 
No, I think it bears too much resemblence with "Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?" (1 Cor. 15, on the resurrection) in theme and content to be coincidence. He's addressing Death itself; dying is circumstantial, besides the point. The whole poem is in fearless, almost casual defiance of Death: dying is nothing worse than sleep ('From rest and sleep, which but thy pictures be,'). He almost feels sorry for Death! (line 4). And to judge by such poems as A hymn to God the Father, he considers fear as been dealt with:
I have a sin of fear, that when I have spun
My last thread, I shall perish on the shore;
But swear by thyself, that at my death thy Son
Shall shine as he shines now, and heretofore;
And, having done that, thou hast done;
I fear no more.​
Note the semicolon again, instead of a colon. As if he wishes to force us to admit a natural progression - he doesn't want to set the conlcusion too much apart from the rest of the poem. Everything stays on one level.
 
Last edited:
Jenyar said:
You know, this discussion might make me paranoid about my use of punctuation in poetry. I never gave it such *subtle* thought before! It's a good thing...
Click to expand...

Make you paranoid? Oh no. Please, don't let a silly woman like me corrupt you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top