leonardcohenforum.com

The Knave

I am not satisfied
My mind ill at ease
Moving to and fro
Like a ship on a sea

I know the settled harbor
I have been there before
I't's time to turn the rudder
To the stillness near the shore

Enough of being battered
By the winds and by the waves
By moody mother nature
And my own mind, the knave

daka

daka wrote:The Knave

I am not satisfied
My mind is not at ease
daka

and fortunately it will never be at ease as long as you keep calling it a knave.

and fortunately it will never be at ease as long as you keep calling it a knave.

Hi Jack

I suspected that I might be taken to task on the word 'knave' so, although it felt right, I checked the dictionary and it to my understanding it gave two interesting definitions:

1) a young faithful servant
2) a tricky rogue, villain etc.

My mind manifests both definitions. Of late, I have noticed the rogue with a disconcerting frequency, and the poem was basically taking myself to task for this. So I was playing with the 'double entendre'.

I accept your point, that it is fortunate that my my mind is not at ease when it's non-virtuous potential is manifesting.

And I accept your point that one day it will be 'at ease' and I won't have to call it a 'knave'.
(Would that simply not-calling-it-a- knave could produce that effect!!!!!!!!)... (sorry for the exclamation points Manna)

I dispute your point that I should not be wrathfully taking my mind to task (If my understanding of your point is correct).

Thanks for the prompt and challenging feedback, Jack!

daka

Here is the definition!

Knave
Knave Knave (n[=a]v), n. [OE., boy, servant, knave, AS. cnafa
boy, youth; cf. AS. cnapa boy, youth, D. knaap, G. knabe boy,
knappe esquire, Icel. knapi, Sw. knape esquire, kn[aum]fvel
knave.]
1. A boy; especially, a boy servant. [Obs.] --Wyclif.
Chaucer.
[1913 Webster]

O murderous slumber,
Lay'st thou thy leaden mace upon my boy
That plays thee music ? Gentle knave, good night.
--Shak.
[1913 Webster]

2. Any male servant; a menial. [Obs.] --Chaucer.
[1913 Webster]

He's but Fortune's knave,
A minister of her will. --Shak.
[1913 Webster]

3. A tricky, deceitful fellow; a dishonest person; a rogue; a
villain. "A pair of crafty knaves." --Shak.
[1913 Webster]

In defiance of demonstration, knaves will continue
to proselyte fools. --Ames.
[1913 Webster]

Note: "How many serving lads must have been unfaithful and
dishonest before knave -- which meant at first no more
than boy -- acquired the meaning which it has now !"
--Trench.
[1913 Webster]

4. A playing card marked with the figure of a servant or
soldier; a jack; as, the knave of hearts.
[1913 Webster]

Knave child, male child. [Obs.] --Chaucer.

Syn: Villain; cheat; rascal; rogue; scoundrel; miscreant.
[1913 Webster]

-- From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48

Varlet Var"let, n. [OF. varlet, vaslet, vallet, servant, young
man, young noble, dim. of vassal. See Vassal, and cf.
Valet.]
[1913 Webster]
1. A servant, especially to a knight; an attendant; a valet;
a footman. [Obs.] --Spenser. Tusser.
[1913 Webster]

2. Hence, a low fellow; a scoundrel; a rascal; as, an
impudent varlet.
[1913 Webster]

What a brazen-faced varlet art thou ! --Shak.
[1913 Webster]

3. In a pack of playing cards, the court card now called the
knave, or jack. [Obs.]
[1913 Webster]

-- From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48

pretty one sided, wouldn't you say?

daka wrote:I accept your point, that it is fortunate that my my mind is not at ease when it's non-virtuous potential is manifesting.

And I accept your point that one day it will be 'at ease' and I won't have to call it a 'knave'.

Those are your points, not mine

Hi Daka,

Generally speaking, the mind does take well (cooperate with) to being taken
"wrathfully" "to task." It's easier to be at peace with an ally than it is with
a target of wrath. -- An observation, not an attempt at any individual counsel
to anyone, though.

From the definition:

Note: "How many serving lads must have been unfaithful and
dishonest before knave -- which meant at first no more
than boy -- acquired the meaning which it has now !"
--Trench.

As if the masters they served were not knavish!

(Jack: I think I may have finally figured out your 'profession'.... perhaps you are a retired brain surgeon?)

I agree it has become one-sided in it's modern day application of the eventually realized non-virtuous nature of the previously presumed pious young fellows.

No wonder English is almost impossible for foreigners to master!

Point accepted, I took too much poetic license paraphrasing your point.

(Where the hell is my port!)

daka

Hi Steven

It's easier to be at peace with an ally than it is with
a target of wrath

I learned an important distinction between anger and wrath. Whereas anger is never supportable, beneficial, and generally distances people, wrath can be a forceful, beneficial state of mind i.e. if a child tries to put a fork in an electric socket the mother will scream and become forceful enough to prevent the potential suffering, so her motivation is virtuous. Although her reaction looks like anger, it is more correctly called 'wrath'. With anger the motivation is usually to cause suffering, mental, physical etc. If I apply this to self-chastisement, a wrathful attitude is as necessary a response to some of my non-virtuous minds, as a mother's wrathful response to the child in danger. If I simply become angry with myself there is no benefit, I agree.

cheers

daka

Hi Daka,

A difficulty with these kinds of communications, is that people do attach different
meanings to words. But, strictly speaking, even "anger" can be "beneficial,"
at least in the short term, for e.g. when it compels or propels an appropriately
powerful response to wrongdoing. I think of "wrath," as the kind of emotion
manifested in the instance where, "Hell has no fury like..." Again, different
definitions. The kid in danger of electrocutiion can elicit an outpouring
of love, though... powerful also. I know of a guy that lifted a car off of
a child that he didn't even know. Maybe that was an example of love that
he didn't even know that he had for strangers.

Steven

It's a wonder that we can communicate at all, especially using the English language. There are loads of 'cracks' in the English language. I recently watched some people communicating in sign language, with a little envy. But where would we all be if Leonard could only sign?

daka

daka wrote:Steven

But where would we all be if Leonard could only sign?
daka

always check your typing before you post.

obviously you meant to write "where would we all be if only Leonard could sing"

and my answer to your strange question depends whether you meant w w w a b if Leonard was the only person able to sing, answer we would think that his singing was brilliant, or if you meant w w w a b if he could sing as well as he writes songs, then I think he would be in some super-group with Britney Spears, Madonna, Posh Spice, and Robert Page, and others like them and we would be attending their concerts and screaming lots.

Thanks, Mickey
for the
best belly-laugh
I have had in weeks
It blew away the blues


daka

Am I in the minority here or do others agree that Cohen is actually a damn good singer? I adore his voice. Its got better and better over the years in my opinion, from thin and weedy to that gravelly, sexual growl hes developed from years of cigarette smoking. Out of the many hundreds of songs hes written and sung, I can only think of 2 that are done better by someone else. Apart from those two, I prefer his voice for his songs.

The two songs if you're interested are Hallelujah (better covered by Buckley) and If It Be Your Will (done incredibly beautifully by Antony)

He's as good a singer as he was a monk!

In my opinion he was quite the monk, although he spoke of his "secret life", or maybe because he spoke of it, and although he self-deprecatingly admitted, that when he was a monk, he "hated everyone but acted generously", skilfully giving true pretenders like myself permission to 'fess up.
I don't believe the humble 'spin' of holy beings.

I'm in your group of people who are very happy with Leonard's voice. I can't imagine having it any different at all!
daka

daka wrote:Steven

It's a wonder that we can communicate at all, especially using the English language. There are loads of 'cracks' in the English language. I recently watched some people communicating in sign language, with a little envy. But where would we all be if Leonard could only sign?

daka

Hi Daka,

Now, if his signing were in ASL (American Sign Language), there might be some of
the same communications difficulty. As for the sniping, re: singing, lots of
people here hear him as having a "golden voice." Were he to sign, we'd still
likely "hear" the voice coming through by those means.