Auden: his negative inversion

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Joe Fineman - 23 Jul 2009 23:20 GMT

As long as are worrying Auden here, let me mention a crux that has
irritated me for some years, at the beginning of "Petition":

Sir, no man's enemy, forgiving all,
But will his negative inversion, be prodigal.

That's the way it is in _The English Auden_ & most anthologies. But
it defies parsing. There is no possible antecedent for "his"; the
only masculine being in sight is the Person (I'm assuming He's God)
addressed, and that would require "Thy" or "Your" -- besides creating
the perplexity of how & why God could will his own negative
inversion.

However, I once saw the line printed (or misprinted, or emended) with
"its" in place of "his"; and that, with a little strain, can be
understood: The antecedent of "its" is "forgiving all"; being
prodigal is the negative inversion of forgiving all. The grammar is
still rather murky in that "forgiving" must first be taken as a
participle modifying the understood "You", and then as a gerund to
stand as the antecedent of "its"; Fowler (see MEU s.v. fused
participle) would surely disapprove. But I am inclined to grant Auden
poetic license, and recent linguists (who are impatient with the
distinction between participle & gerund in English) would probably
grant him grammatical license.

Perhaps Auden, who after all relegated this poem to his apocrypha, did
mean to write "its", but couldn't be bothered to correct the mistake.

Signature

--- Joe Fineman joe_f@verizon.net

||: You can accomplish plenty if you don't care who gets the :||
||: credit. :||

Reply to this Message

John Dean - 24 Jul 2009 00:23 GMT

> As long as are worrying Auden here, let me mention a crux that has
> irritated me for some years, at the beginning of "Petition":
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> distinction between participle & gerund in English) would probably
> grant him grammatical license.

This poem was referenced in a discussion here some years ago about the
genitive form "John his post" in lieu of "John's post"

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.usage.english/msg/aadd52c0309a5eff?dmode=source

The poster says:

"The use of 'his' after a noun instead of the normal genitive inflection
['s] is something you find here and there in Shakespeare.
In *1 Henry VI* there are other examples. "Mars his true moving, even as
in the heavens/ So in the earth, to this day is not known" is one. "The
Regent hath with Talbot broke his word,/ And left us to the rage of
France his sword" is another. The Arden edition footnote refers to this
as a "mistaken form...formerly quite common, and generally used after
nouns ending in *s*, where the inflexional genitive would have been
awkward."
In *Hamlet* the Folio reads "On Mars his Armours..." where the Quartos
read "Marses Armor" which seems to show a kind of flexibility about the
printed use during the period of Shakespeare's own writing.
*Twelfth Night* has "Once in a sea-fight 'gainst the Count his galleys"
at 3.3.26 -- an example where there isn't a preceding s.
I guess the best and most powerful example is in *Sonnet 55*: "...Nor
Mars his sword nor war's quick fire shall burn/ The living record of
your memory..."
WH Auden revived it an an early sonnet (1929) in the lines: "Sir, no
man's enemy, forgiving all/ But will his negative inversion, be
prodigal..." The use of "will his" instead of "will's" led to many
misreadings, and Auden subsequently wrote, "I bitterly regret the day I
was snobbish enough to use an archaic genitive (=will's). I've been
asked what the line means ever since." "

I can't find any reference on-line for Auden's alleged statement but it
sounds sensible. So the sense is that the 'Sir' being petitioned is
addressed as someone who will forgive all but the negative inversion of
will.

Signature

John Dean
Oxford

Reply to this Message

CDB - 24 Jul 2009 17:03 GMT

>> As long as are worrying Auden here, let me mention a crux that has
>> irritated me for some years, at the beginning of "Petition":
[quoted text clipped - 58 lines]
> petitioned is addressed as someone who will forgive all but the
> negative inversion of will.

Here's a reference that says it was an inscription in a friend's copy
of _Poems_.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=TovHHlg84_cC&pg=PA170&lpg=PA170&dq=%22snobbish+e
nough+to+use+an+archaic+genitive%22&source=bl&ots=FmzChfiW0C&sig=I7eks0_cjybT7le
gjgke5QVJO6Q&hl=en&ei
=QdhpSpW_KZXYNuzB4M8M&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1
http://tinyurl.com/mudjc5

Reply to this Message

Joe Fineman - 24 Jul 2009 23:18 GMT

>> I can't find any reference on-line for Auden's alleged statement
>> but it sounds sensible. So the sense is that the 'Sir' being
>> petitioned is addressed as someone who will forgive all but the
>> negative inversion of will.

Very sensible. But

> Here's a reference that says it was an inscription in a friend's
>copy of _Poems_.
>http://tinyurl.com/mudjc5

instead explicates it as "forgiv[e] all [except the human] will [which
is your] negative inversion" (brackets his), which is impossible. The
negative inversion, on the reading with his = 's, has be that of will,
not of God.

As to what the negative inversion of will (or of anything) *means*, I
haven't a clue.

Signature

--- Joe Fineman joe_f@verizon.net

||: Hypocrisy is the homage vice renders to virtue. :||

Reply to this Message

CDB - 25 Jul 2009 05:47 GMT

>>> I can't find any reference on-line for Auden's alleged statement
>>> but it sounds sensible. So the sense is that the 'Sir' being
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> As to what the negative inversion of will (or of anything) *means*,
> I haven't a clue.

I didn't think it worked very well myself. Supposing that story is
untrue, I have a parsing of the original that would work pretty well,
with only the addition of one tiny comma after "will":

Sir, no man's enemy, forgiving all,
But will[,] his negative inversion, be prodigal.

Sir, [there is] no man's enemy [who], forgiving all,
[will not], [being] his (an enemy's) negative inversion, be prodigal.

The inserted "who...will not", replaces "but will".

The reference would be to the at-one-ment of Christ's sacrifice, which
restored the loving relationship between God and man, and justifies a
petition for generous treatment.

Reply to this Message

CDB - 25 Jul 2009 06:10 GMT

>>>> I can't find any reference on-line for Auden's alleged statement
>>>> but it sounds sensible. So the sense is that the 'Sir' being
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>> As to what the negative inversion of will (or of anything) *means*,
>> I haven't a clue.

Had another thought right after sending: supposing the story is true,
the negative inversion of will may be indifference. Consider
Revelation, chapter 3:

13He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the
churches.

14And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These
things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of
the creation of God;

15I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou
wert cold or hot.

16So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will
spue thee out of my mouth.

Reply to this Message

Joe Fineman - 24 Jul 2009 23:05 GMT

> This poem was referenced in a discussion here some years ago about
> the genitive form "John his post" in lieu of "John's post"
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> generally used after nouns ending in *s*, where the inflexional
> genitive would have been awkward."

The mistake, or so I have read, consisted in the notion that the
genitive "s" was an abbreviation of "his". That is historically
incorrect, and is also absurd on the face of it, for the suffix is
also used with feminine nouns; but it has left a fossil in modern
English spelling, in the use of the apostrophe for possessives.

> WH Auden revived it an an early sonnet (1929) in the lines: "Sir, no
> man's enemy, forgiving all/ But will his negative inversion, be
> prodigal..." The use of "will his" instead of "will's" led to many
> misreadings, and Auden subsequently wrote, "I bitterly regret the
> day I was snobbish enough to use an archaic genitive (=will's). I've
> been asked what the line means ever since." "

That, at any rate, reveals the authentic parsing. Thank you.

Signature

--- Joe Fineman joe_f@verizon.net

||: If I were a cassowary on the sands of Timbuctoo, :||
||: I would eat a missionary, coat and bands and hymnbook, too. :||

Reply to this Message

Discussion Groups / English Usage / July 2009

Auden: his negative inversion