|
Comment 8 of 8, added on October 20th, 2009 at 9:15 AM.
Oh it's more than a hint, Ian. Scones and stones are hardly likely to be an eye rhyme here! By drawing attention to the way she rhymes it with stones, he hilariously paints the non-U lily and brings the poem to a final crescendo. I think it's the funniest bit of all!
BTW it has been explained that a U scone would rhyme with 'gone', but that won't do either! U people pronounced that 'gawn'. (You can still hear elderly U people do that today.) In which as so often they were in agreement with Cockneys. It was the parvenus who thought old pronunciations like this were uncouth, and set about "refaining" them!
Michael Lamb from United Kingdom
Comment 7 of 8, added on October 19th, 2009 at 2:48 PM.
Presumably Betjeman is hinting that the correct (or at least U) pronunciation for 'scone' is with with a short 'o' given that he is is rhyming it with 'stone'in the voice of his parvenu (and definitively non-U) mistress of houshold.
Ian Riley from United Kingdom
Comment 6 of 8, added on October 19th, 2009 at 7:21 AM.
I meant to point out that you have got a serious typo in this poem: "I know that I wanted to ask you-" should be "I know what I wanted to ask you-". It's serious because Betjeman obviously meant to draw attention to what he perceived (and what I still perceive) as a non-U turn of phrase to introduce a question!
Michael Lamb from United Kingdom
Comment 5 of 8, added on October 18th, 2009 at 1:12 PM.
Why does ari gogakis understand the fish knives to be rented rather than bought? The parvenus in this joyous poem are obviously not short of a bob or two. Surely the point was that they were SO parvenu that they hadnt even got round to buying fish knives yet, but could afford to have them delivered!
Ann says "the tradition stands that you properly eat fish with two forks. Has anyone else been told the same?" Yes I have. But the idea that steel tarnished the taste of the fish has always sounded like a bit of a (suburban) myth to me. My own guess is that because people at first ate fish with their fingers, as it never did need a knife, and the fork was invented in the first place to replace fingers, the obvious thing from the start was to use two forks for two sets of fingers! And since the Lower Orders still did eat fish with their fingers, the parvenus could have been expected to do the same, but were simply ignorant of such a practice, and some 'sharp' operator invented 'frilly' silver knives to sell them, telling them they were the business.
I have never come across any corroboration of this. I should think it would take quite a bit of research!
Michael Lamb from United Kingdom
Comment 4 of 8, added on October 13th, 2009 at 4:06 PM.
Fish knives are a Victorian innovation, and the stigma against them comes from the fact that if your service contained fish knives it meant that your family acquired its silver (and consequently its money and position) in the last two-thirds of the 19th century. If your silver did not include fish knives, it meant that your family acquired it during the Regency or the Georgian period, and consequently you were longer-established than the johnny-come-latelys who got their silver after 1837.
Alex from United States
Comment 3 of 8, added on March 1st, 2009 at 8:33 PM.
I always thought that fish knives were thought of in poor regard because prior to the invention of stainless steel, knives were often silver handled but of steel blades for sharpening. The steel tarnished the taste of the fish and thus, two silver forks were used to eat fish. And hence, the tradition stands that you properly eat fish with two forks. Has anyone else been told the same?
Ann
Comment 2 of 8, added on October 27th, 2008 at 5:08 PM.
What a delightful poem! I am enthralled by the way the British (particularly the English in this case)view others - i.e. - they a propensity to poke fun at the classes; especially evident among the 'gentry', who they themselves often comment (and usually rather disparagingly)about 'certain people' - e.g. - those who try so very hard to impress, but sadly appear as nothing more than genteel, when doing so and carrying on in an OTT pretentious way... BUT the poem itself is BRILLIANT regardless of all that! It would be nice to recite it one day (perhaps during a pre-prandial drink with people) except that I fear it might just offend someone.
*A small comment on Mr. Griffiths obsrervation (1st and only comment of this poem); it is my understanding that 'fish knives' were infact to be rented and not purchased - *Also: fish knives (mentinoed in the first verse) actually do date back a wee further than the late 19th century(I have a close friend who is in possession of such knives; he claims the knives, those passed on to him by his family/acestors; they originally date back to the Mid 19th century). You do often see them displayed at antique shows.
ari gogakis from United States
Comment 1 of 8, added on April 21st, 2005 at 12:29 PM.
A wonderful poem. Incidentally, the reference to "fish-knives" is an interesting historical novelty. Fish knives were only invented in the latter part of the 19th century and so to have them showed that you had (horror of horrors) bought you cutlery, rather than having inherited it.
David Griffiths from United Kingdom
|
Oh it's more than a hint, Ian. Scones and stones are hardly likely to be an eye rhyme here! By drawing attention to the way she rhymes it with stones, he hilariously paints the non-U lily and brings the poem to a final crescendo. I think it's the funniest bit of all!
BTW it has been explained that a U scone would rhyme with 'gone', but that won't do either! U people pronounced that 'gawn'. (You can still hear elderly U people do that today.) In which as so often they were in agreement with Cockneys. It was the parvenus who thought old pronunciations like this were uncouth, and set about "refaining" them!
Michael Lamb from United Kingdom