SUBJECT>Re: The whole conceit is a send-up of the patriarc POSTER>David Halitsky EMAIL>dhalitsky@cumulativeinquiry.com DATE>1112282720 IP_ADDRESS>proxy2.west.saic.com PASSWORD>aa2CpqTRwrBWA PREVIOUS>85694 NEXT> 85701 IMAGE> LINKNAME> LINKURL>

VSP -

I personally know a number of Americans whose formal IQs would have to be far in excess of mine, if actually measured; of course, scientists and mathematicians don't usually count in these discussions.

With regard to the genitor/geniture issue, here's my take, for what it's worth.

All of the original Sonnets 1-17 (by WS) try to convince the addressee to procreate bu "sugared" appeals to the addressee's ego, i.e. to produce a copy of himself to prolong the existence of his marvelous qualities in the world through a copy of himself.

But we all know from our knowledge of Elizabethan times how important stability of succession was back then (due to the indelible mark of the War of the Roses on sociopolitical consciousness, not to mention the issues surrounding Elizabeth herself),

So all of the original sonnets 1-17 were simply, in my opinion, disgusing the real issue, which was the orderly passing down of wealth and property through heirs.

This is why 8.1 deliberately relegates the addressee to a position NOT IN the major triad of the chord - he is simply the second, whose job it is to produce the third, who will then produce a son who will be relegated to the task of producing the fifth.

And 8.1, on the other hand, is a sonnet which says, OK - let's riff on the musical conceit of the original #8 but do so to "talk turkey", i.e. to get serious about the real issue - the orderly transfer of property and wealth.

Hope that clarifies the POV in the sonnet, and why "geniture" is an appropriate noun, IMO. But maybe you're right - I don't know.

BTW - where are you from or located now? Not in the US, I gather.

Best regards
David Halitsky