Talk:To His Coy Mistress

Gripes

No evidence presented that within the poem the "writer" was older than the "mistress". Other comentators elsewhere regard the "writer" as a young man. So commentary here might need editting. JDN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.31.202.145 (talk) 12:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

To His Coy Mistress survived vfd. See: talk:To His Coy Mistress/Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:15, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

Alright, that's looking a whole lot better. Can't we delete that childish summary though?--[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo (Talk)]] 14:24, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)

Great work by everyone who's worked to rescue this from VFD-dom. A couple of comments:

- I removed the line numbers from the poem box. Do we need to the number the lines? If so, can we do it somehow with a bit more subtlety? (I'm not sure about the "glossary" entry at the bottom, either: was that just a leftover from the cut&paste?)

- "Times Winged Chariot" and "Vaster than empires, and more slow" have also been used as book (or story) titles. Could a reference be dragged in?

Drag away! Dpbsmith

- With this, and Ozymandias, and Chapman's Homer, it's about time we started a "Poems" category.

–Hajor 15:11, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

And Casabianca, don't forget Casabianca. :-) Dpbsmith 15:35, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Also: the final reference to "The Garden" -- is that Marvell's own "The Garden"? –Hajor 15:20, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

I really like the inclusion of the whole poem, and the visual appearance is very nice. (I was afraid to suggest this for fear some official busybody would want to transwiki it to WikiQuotes or WIkiSource).

In The Lesson of the Moth, Don Marquis has the moth say

  it is better to be happy
  for a moment
  and be burned up with beauty
  than to live a long time
  and be bored all the while
  so we wad all our life up
  into one little roll
  and then we shoot the roll
  that is what life is for

I'm trying to decide whether this is arguably a reference to "Let us roll all our strength and all/Our sweetness up into one ball". Dpbsmith 15:35, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC) i personally think this might be a reference to money in the usage of the word wad i may be wrong but thats the general effect i get from this poem.

---

Great stuff, Geogre! Thanks, oh 18th century Brit Lit person! Dpbsmith 19:03, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

Done. B00P (talk) 11:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

SEX????

How do you think it is about sex? I have to write an analyses paper about this poem and another poem called "To the virgins, to make much of time" i think it is all too confusing for me.. Can you anyone help? e.mail me at MotaSpider@NetZero.com Thank you to anyone who e.mails me i appreciate your time.

• We're not going to do your homework for you. Try reading the article, which explains this point clearly. Then try reading the poem, which is fairly clear, too, once you get past the dated language. If you want a real answer, try asking some specific question that shows you've actually tried to tackle your assignment. For starters, why don't you read the poem and try to "translate" it into straightforward, non-poetic, modern, colloquial English? First phrase:
  "If we had all the time in the world" Dpbsmith (talk) 13:40, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This one still needs quite a bit of work

The author of this piece makes quite a few assumptions, that really should not be included in an informational piece. In an essay on the work those would be fine, but it's best these articles stick to the facts.

One thing I find grating is the use of the term "lovers" when they are not. They are only "lovers", when the act of lovemaking has been concluded. "Lovers" implies that you have actually made love. While I can agree that different terms vary in the time frame that they are used, "lovers" still implies a relationship, wether actual intercourse has happened or not. This women wants no part of this gentleman and there is no relationship of any kind implied or stated, other than they might, and I say might, know who each other are, a little bit, maybe. You can not be said to be "lovers" with someone just because they are in love with you. Hence the "s" on the end of the word. If I am in love with Brad Pitt (then or now) that does not make us "lovers." That is taking a definition way out of control and way away from proper usage. The word should not be used here, period.

The reference to "The Garden" is a poem by Andrew Marvell which is pretty clear in the article, I don't quite understand how one could confuse the statement.

The reference to Vegetable Love has nothing whatsoever to do with where fruits come from. It is a reference to the idea that vegetables have the power to grow, but lack consciousness.

I don't see that the speaker is "arguing" with his mistress either. (Unless you mean in the alternate use of the word arguement, meaning his defense of his posistion. Even so, to avoid confusion that word should not be used here.) He is begging his mistress to have sex with him before they grow old, lose the desire to make love and die where her honour and his desire will mean nothing and the chance to enjoy each other is past and gone. Nothing new that what some men do everyday, beg, plead and make ridiculous arguments to women about why they should give up their virginity to this specific man.

There should indeed be line numbers present. They serve several functions. The least of which include easily locating a specific line referenced in your defense of the piece without the reader having to count them all to find the line you mean. (You should always referenece the line of a poem when making an explication).

I could go on, but since a valiant effort was made, and not by myself, I will say this is a pretty good overall piece and would be great with a bit more effort.

Done. B00P (talk) 11:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Boop, I appreciate all your care with this article, you've put a lot in. But I do need to say that it is contradictory of you to say that the article makes presumptions and meanwhile to claim with total authority in your comment here that "vegetable love" is "a reference to the idea that vegetables have the power to grow, but lack consciousness." "Vegetable love" is one of the most talked about and uncertain lines in all poetry, critics with degrees and decades of expertise disagree vehemently on its implications and even its basic meaning. But meh. I'm still very glad the article was cleaned up so thoroughly, and glad for your quality checking in the discussions. Thanks sir. Chicopac (talk) 17:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Coyness exemplified

I don't like this euphemism The speaker of the poem is arguing with his mistress and attempting to persuade her to make love with him. For one thing it's an americanism in an article about a British poem (so British conventions usually apply). For another thing why can't it just say ...attempting to persuade her to have sex with him. Make love is not only euphemistic it's also ambiguous, for example it states here that it can mean To engage in amorous caressing or To have sexual intercourse, British people would understand the first meaning (especially those of the older generation). The last time I checked a dictionary sex was not considered a rude word, it's used by biologists all the time. If no one objects then I'm going to change it in a week or so. Alun 18:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• No objection on my part. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. B00P (talk) 11:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Centre Justified?

Why is the poem in thsi artical centre justified. The origional poem was ragged-right. Was this done intentionally to comply with some random (and wrong) style guide, or did someone just think it looked pretty? Mark 193.63.135.120

If thats whats you think, and with good reason, change it!Jnb 01:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

He did.^[1] Ruakh 02:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. B00P (talk) 11:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

This article needs an objective overview.

The body of this article is not objective what-so-ever. I have read many scholarly articles regarding this particular poem, and the statement that it is purely sexual is only one angle of interpretation. The article should represent all angles of interepretation. For example, please refer to Robert W Halli, Jr.'s essay, "The persuasion of the Coy Mistress". He gives reasonable evidence that the narrator's motives are purely procreational; and that his desire is not necessarily to just make love for pleasure, but to bear children. This desire is coupled with his longing to potentially marry the coy mistress. To simply cast it off as a desire to have sex would not represent this possibility. The author should revise it to meet this criteria. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.74.62.162 (talk • contribs).

Done. B00P (talk) 11:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Some Disagreements

I always took "vegetable love" to mean as opposed to "animal love."

Why the the quibbling over sex as opposed to sex for procreation? It's still sex. And why the potential marriage stuff? It is irrelevant to the poem and represents a relatively new proclivity to have to sugar-coat everything involving sex. This is almost as silly as saying that the Song of Songs was really about love for God, and in that case we have records of actual arguments over whether it should be included. It's about sex. Epepke 05:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Umm... I thought Song of Songs was partly to do with love of God. "I am my beloved's and He is mine and His banner over me is Love" appears in several hymns.

Given the pun on 'quaint/queinte' I'd have thought the sexual meaning was fairly clear for a reader of the time! pharm (talk) 20:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

"Vegetable love" has always been a hugely contentious issue in criticism. To me, though, it seems clearly to mean that he would have enough time to truly cultivate a more permanent love, which is vaster than empires but which more patiently spreads its wings and so does not collapse as quickly as empires. But that's just my two and a half cents. Chicopac (talk) 21:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. B00P (talk) 11:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Puritan

We have here a statement that Andrew Marvell was a Puritan. The article on him says he wasn't. Which is true?

It says he sympathized with Puritans, right? That seems accurate since I remember that he apparently had some sort of association with Cromwell and saved Milton from execution (or something like that.) --Gwern (contribs) 18:10 6 September 2007 (GMT)

I think the article on Marvell suggests that although he did defend the Puritan dissenters, he did not actually associate himself with them. —-eniarrol- 15:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Not a fallacious argument

Someone snuck the claim into parenthesis that this poem, as a logical argument, is fallacious. This is wrong. It's true that the format follows an "if, but, therefore" format, but the argument is a valid form of denying the antecedent, if we're going to delve into logic. Denying the antecedent works if the "If" statement is an "if and only if" statement. Excuse this Marvell guy, this poet, for being rhetorical and not actually stating "If and only if."

Let's outline the argument, so we can see that it's an "if and only if" usage of denying the antecedent:

- If and only if we had enough time, then I would be able to love you thoroughly enough.

- We do not have enough time.

- Therefore, I am unable to love you thoroughly enough. (and we must choose the alternative of having sex immediately)

Chicopac (talk) 21:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. B00P (talk) 11:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

No parody

The claim that the poem is a parody and Marvell would not have wanted the woman to whom the poem is addressed to have agreed to "sport us while we may" is wild speculation. There does not appear to be any internal evidence that the poem is a parody. If some reliable secondary source has found such evidence, it would be OK to cite it, but if other secondary sources contradict that position then both positions need to be noted.

One might as well write that the Constitution of the United Sates is a parody of republican government intended to show how ridiculous it would be. In any event, any presentation of the author's state of mind needs a clear citation to a letter or other document in which the author himself reports his interpretation of the poem. Furthermore, under Wikipedia's rules, such a primary source should then be interpreted by a secondary source to mean that Marvell intended the poem as a parody.

Furthermore, the synopsis asserts that the poem is an expression of an idea put forth by Horace. This assertion is an interpretation and therefore requires the citation of a secondary source. No evidence is presented that Marvell himself read Horace or had Horace in mind when he wrote "To His Coy Mistress." The connection appears to be one made by the writer of the article. Such connections are not appropriate in writing for an encyclopedia. --Rmrwiki (talk) 05:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Excision

Although the vast majority of those writing here were easily able to read the poem and understand its meaning, a small minority (possibly just one person) has somehow managed to conclude that it was intended to convey the exact opposite sentiment. The following was inserted in the Introductiom:

However, it should be remembered that Andrew Marvell was highly educated and Christian—whether Puritan or not—and is more likely mocking the concept of 'carpe diem' that other poets extolled. The poem might even be aimed specifically against Robert Herrick's To the Virgins, to Make Much of Time. It is doubtful that Marvell would be in favor of the girl, the listener, agreeing to the speaker's proposition.

Other editors have attempted to solicit valid citations for such an idea, but to no avail. Agreeing with Marvell that tempus fugit, and as there is not the slightest hint of such an attitude within the verse, I have excized this notion from the text. B00P (talk) 11:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Synopsis

The current synopsis does not summarize the poem but instead argues that it is an illustration of a concept, "carpe diem," that is not found explicitly in the poem's text. This article is generally weak and this interpretative synopsis does not help. One might think that the poem is so clear that it needs no summary, but readers unfamiliar with poetry of this period may have some difficulty and might turn to Wikipedia for help (such as the desperate student above who couldn't figure out what the poem has to do with sex.) I propose the following simpler, more direct summary:

---

The speaker of the poem addresses a woman who has been slow to respond to his sexual advances. In the first stanza he describes how he would he love her if they had an unlimited amount of time. He could spend centuries admiring each part of her body and her refusal to comply would not faze him. In the second stanza, he remembers how short human life is. Once it is over, the opportunity to enjoy each other is gone because no one embraces in the grave. In the last stanza, the speaker urges the woman to comply, arguing that in loving each other with fervor they will make the most of the short time they have to live.

---

If no one objects, in about a week, I'll replace the current synopsis with this. --Rmrwiki (talk) 06:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Replaced synopsis. --Rmrwiki (talk) 04:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Another allusion

"My vegetable love should grow..." is a likely source for Pound's "Go against this vegetable bondage of the blood" in his poem Commission, line 34. Is this OK for inclusion?

There's another one about a ball rolled across a table but I can't find/remember it just now - will add when it comes to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.51.142 (talk) 16:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)86.179.51.142 (talk) 16:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC) I thought that was for: Till the conversion of the Jews. My vegetable love should grow. I thought that it was a pun. Wait until the love was there. or like prepare for when the vegetable love was ripe and grown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.155.236.121 (talk) 07:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Synopsis redux

Apparently, the synopsis was vandalized and then restored with a minor alternation. The change from 'short' to 'brief' in the last sentence is an improvement, because it avoids the repetition of the word 'short', but the added parenthetical comment --(Back then, life was often short) -- is gratuitous, irrelevant (life may be considered brief even today), and not part of the summary. It is removed.

I do not mean to offend the anonymous user who added that comment. Wikipedia is collaborative effort and all contributions are encouraged. Please consider that explanatory comments on Wikipedia should not be necessary. If the text is unclear, make it clearer. In this case, the text seems clear as it was.

Rmrwiki (talk) 04:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The sex thing

The explicit mention of "virginity" indicates that the poem is indeed about persuading the coy mistress to have sex. This in no way precludes other goals that are often associated with sex (love, marriage, procreation), but the poem's focus on the mistress' physical "part{s}" to be adored, on "sport[ing]" like "amorous" birds of prey, on "tear[ing] pleasure with rough strife," etc, make it difficult to deny that sex is the central theme. Again, this doesn't preclude sex additionally serving as a figure (via metonymy) for something related, but sex is the central, primary end of the persuasion.

Irony

This poem has an ironic tone, a shared mock-epic joke of ironic hyperbole, which, if one had to explain it, goes something like, "We both know that I'm exaggerating the epic aspects of our relationship, but it's fun to engage in the pretense." It's a way of demonstrating that the speaker is capable of eloquent romanticizing while avoiding both the risk of making an overly sincere fool of himself on one hand and a firm commitment on the other. Wrapped up in a demonstration of wit and sophistication (which itself can be part of the seduction) is the point about seizing the moment, which can gain some force in virtue of the distraction. In other words, a further level of irony is plausible, along the lines of, "I'm joking about the epic portrayal, but I still want to have sex."

The poem doesn't work unless the audience is in on the mock-epic joke, and it doesn't work well unless the coy mistress is in on it, too. If she were so unsophisticated as to take the speaker's claims literally, the poem would end up being positively predatory. But within the mock-epic joke, no excesses are inappropriate, from the outlandishly romantic subjunctives of the first stanza to the second stanza's exaggerated consequences of continued refusal.

Irony can be tough to pin down and analyze, and perhaps the most efficient way to get to the gist of this poem is to suggest that one read a few New Yorker cartoons and perhaps Pope's "The Rape of the Lock," and then follow one's intuition. Sometimes, even within the context of an encyclopedia, it isn't inappropriate to point out the limitations of straightforward, literal explanation.

'Through' vs 'Thorough'

Every edition I've seen says "Thorough the iron gates of life", not "Through the iron gates of life". Is there some good scholarly reason for revising it, or is that just a mistake? Iglew (talk) 05:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Well spotted, its an old error introduced as "cleanup" [2] William M. Connolley (talk) 07:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Some allusions are better than others?

I edited this page a few days ago (from a different IP) adding an allusion to the poem's first line. The newest album from Canadian band Rush has a song called "The Anarchist," the first line of which is "Will there be world enough and time for me to sing that song?" I added this allusion because there is already a good-sized paragraph of other works which incorporate the phrase "world enough and time."

Within 24 hours, however, my addition had been reverted with the comment "Let's not fill this section up with trivia." Why is this allusion any less significant than the others that are mentioned? Are songs inferior to written works? I just don't understand why my change was removed when I was only trying to contribute to the article. I ended up at this Wikipedia page because I knew that that opening line was familiar, so I Googled the phrase "world enough and time" and was brought here. I don't see the problem with making the "Allusions" section as complete as possible.

William — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.43.129 (talk) 22:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Two GHOSTS in a graveyard?

I love ths poem and enjoyed reading the article. I do hope, thought, that someone will correct the reference to Peter S. Beagle's wonderful book. The main characters are both very much alive! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.172.152.95 (talk) 22:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Accent correct ?

   But at my back I always hear
Time's wingèd chariot hurrying near;

What does this accent in wingèd mean? Or is it just a tYpo? --Murma174 (talk) 16:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

It means that the "e" is pronounced rather than silent, giving two syllables -- "wing-ed" rather than "wingd". Looie496 (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

thou vs. you

Can anyone explain why the mistress is sometimes adressed with the pronoun thou (2nd person singular), and sometimes with the more polite you (2nd person plural)? -- Orthographicus (talk) 02:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Source in Catullus?

I always learned that this poem was an elaborate translation of Catullus 5. One of the poets who made that point was Louis Zukofsky. Shouldn't we include that? --Nbauman (talk) 02:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Cavalier poem?

On what basis? Marvell was about as far from a cavalier as one could possibly be. He was a committed follower of Cromwell, certainly not a devotee of Charles II. Aldiboront (talk) 14:41, 30 October 2020 (UTC)