[SOLVED] 2nd Sonnet by E. Barrett Browning - what is it exactly about?

Thank you for your contribution.

Fortunately, I got some other inspirations as well. So, using everything, I would like to compose my own view of this sonnet, and I invite everybody to correct me.

- this sonnet is autobiographical, the author's biography could be found in Wikipedia
- this is the 2nd sonnet out of more than 40, it was written at the very beginning of the author's love story, the author was shocked by the fact of suddenly appearing love and had tried to refuse it instinctively
- the author had a lot of experience in poetry before writing this sonnet, so the author skilfully used epitaphs in this sonnet

But only three in all God’s universe
Have heard this word thou hast said,—Himself, beside
Thee speaking, and me listening! and replied
One of us . . . that was God,

(of course, it is an epitaph: in fact, that was the author, who replied)

. . . and laid the curse

So darkly on my eyelids, as to amerce
My sight from seeing thee,—that if I had died,
The death-weights, placed there, would have signified
Less absolute exclusion.

(again: it is only an epitaph: the author, being shocked, tries to refuse instinctively)

“Nay” is worse

From God

(of course, it was not from God, but from the author herself)

(and then a long growing row of "noes" is following - ALL the others)

than from all(!) others, O my friend!
Men could not (would not be able to) part us with their worldly jars,
Nor the seas (would not be able to) change us, nor the tempests (would not be able to) bend (us);

Our hands would touch for all the mountain-bars:

(at this point, all of the possible "noes" all over the Earth are already tried, already used -
it could go only higher into the universe further)

And, heaven being rolled between us at the end

(at the end of the growing row of - remember here! - ALL the other "noes",
but not exclusively by death, only hypothetically, imaginary,
as at the top of the growing row of all the previous epitaphs:
first men, people, then seas, then tempests, then mountains, all over the Earth
and - finally, at last - the universe, the stars -
as epitaphs, but no death as it is - it would be too prosaic in this case -
simply seas-mountains-stars as one raw)

We should but vow the faster for the stars.

(we would vow each other in our love earlier,
faster than the stars would roll between us,
would be able to broke our hands)

(interesting: Our hands would touch for all the mountain-bars:
for the stars - for the mountains!)

---

Short to say: The veto of God is absolute,
our love story have no chance to continue from the very beginning,
"take the papers and go home"!

Mercy Buckets seems to have given the essential stuff. But I wonder if in the last line 'faster' doesn't mean 'firmer' (as in held fast or stuck fast etc.), and 'for the stars' means 'despite the stars' (as in 'for all the mountain-bars'), thus: Even if heaven (containing the stars) intervenes between us finally (or even at the end of the world?), we should only restate our vows of love even more firmly than before.
Rootling around, I found Rilke's translation, and he has 'Wir hielten uns noch fester zwischen Sternen'. (A German has less trouble with the Victorian 'faster' than a modern English speaker!)

Sorry: you beat me to it. I found RMR as an afterthought, but, as I said, I think a German would catch on to a Victorian use of 'faster' more readily (and faster) than a modern English-speaker!

I might have another request for you, a big request:
would you not be able to rewrite this sonnet in prose in such a way
that it is as understandable as possible to every modern reader?

Doch, ich würde Sie sehr darum bitten, wenn nur möglich, seien Sie so lieb!

Since you insist, Valentin ...! But you will find that the following is essentially the same as Mercy Buckets' version, except for the last two lines:

Only three people in God’s universe have heard what you’ve just said: God himself, you who said it and me listening. And only one replied: that was God, when he laid a curse on my eyes so that I can’t see you. It’s a curse so strong that, even if I were in my coffin, the coins put on my dead eyes would not be so absolute in shutting out the sight of you.

When God says No, the denial is worse than from any other quarter. Oh friend, humans could not separate us with their trivial quarrels, the seas couldn’t change us or the tempests bow us down. Despite all the obstacles, even mountains, our hands would still touch. And even if the sky itself were put there between us, it would only make our vows stronger, in defiance of its stars.

thanks!

I think that, in this case, it is very important to be informed that the option "firmer" exists. You can choose between these two options according to the meaning then. And, according to the general meaning of the sonnet, the option "firmer" seems to be optimal.

thanks!

Thanks for asking ...

1. The latter (as in Valentin's reply #14).

2. This usage is not so common these days, though it certainly was in my parents' generation (I was born 1954; they often said it). This instance is disconcerting at first because the familiar form is 'for ALL' (meaning despite), which dictates an unmistakeable tone and emphasis, absent here. Examples:
For all his courage, he couldn't bring himself to do it.
For all the obstacles, she still managed it.
For all you say (for all your warnings), I'm still going ahead.
For all that, you're still wrong.
Literary: OxfordEngDict gives it as definition 23, 'in spite of, notwithstanding' (the 'F's were compiled 1893-97), 'Rare except in "for all"':
Burns, 1794: 'A man's a man, for a' that'.
Keats, 1820: 'The owl, for all his feathers, was a-cold'.
Rossetti, 1871: 'I was a moody comrade to her then, for all the love I bore her'.
(The EBB sonnets were mid-1840s.)
So?: rare (as OED says), but why complicate matters by having it mean something else?

3. Neither: the metaphor isn't commonly applied to the heavens, so this is an interpretation. Given the context, however, I think it's not a difficult or strained one. Perhaps she's thinking of heaven as a boulder rolling downhill? Odd, but I think that's how it works.

4. Yes, where 'fast' means firm or solid or steadfast (as in discussions in previous comments).
Hope all this is clear.

Thanks, Paul.
I still disagree on 3. I think it's way too weird for her to imagine heaven as a boulder or anything that can roll ( as opposed of the commonly used metaphor of falling skies). but who knows maybe she did imagine that. BTW, she says "being rolled" not "rolling" - and who can roll the heaven? God, of course. That made me look for a biblical allusion.

Regarding 2 and 4 it's interesting how in both cases dropping "all" from familiar and clear expressions "for all" and "all the" very unclear and confusing.

A pleasure, Valentin. I'm glad you found the comments helpful.

>>But then it's not everyone who can be 'natural' within the strict form, or who even wants to be
Oh, I agree with that. In the case of these EBB sonnets not only that she didn't want to be natural but she probably thought that she didn't need to be as she never intended those for publication. At least that's what historians tell us.

did you mean to say that EBB didn't want to be poetically unnatural?

So Browning's stars can roll, even if they can't roll in the rest of the English-speaking world.