It traditionally tends to be assumed that these are one and the same, but of course the Gospel does not say so - and in fact Jesus appears to dismiss the latter at the end of their conversation, there's no suggestion that she joins his entourage. Are there any good reasons for believing that they are the same person?
Solemn and slow, solemn and slow
The oak that stirs by the old thorn tree
The river runs, the wind does blow -
When will my love come back to me?
*
The geese fly north, the martens south
Age grapples with the stricken year
When will my name be in my love's mouth
Her low tender laugh in my ear?
*
As the sad gales sweep in from the misty sea
And the old brown hills lashed with rain
Dead leaves are as like to go back on the tree
As I to see my sweet love again
Solemn and slow, solemn and slow
The oak that stirs by the old thorn tree
The river runs, the wind does blow -
When will my love come back to me?
*
The geese fly north, the martens south
Age grapples with the stricken year
When will my name be in my love's mouth
Her tender laugh sound in my ear?
*
As the sad gales sweep in from the sea
And the old brown hills are lashed with rain
Dead leaves are as like to go back on the tree
As I to see my sweet love again
When the sky is like a shaded lamp
And glows white all around
To the shining mountains I must tramp
For that's where I am bound, people,
That's where I am bound
That's where I am bound, Lord,
That's where I am bound
*
Though the road is weary and hard to tread
And the end hard to be found
And you struggle to come by your daily bread
that's where I am bound, people,
That's where I am bound
That's where I am bound, Lord,
That's where I am bound
*
And early one fine morning
Maybe what's lost may be found
And I'll see the full light dawning
For that's where I am bound, people,
That's where I am bound
That's where I am bound, Lord,
That's where I am bound
Hello folks, thanks again to those who helped persuade me to give this another go. I've started it and am enjoying it, it is better than I remembered; it's not as solemn as I thought, there's a subtle current of fun running through it that I somehow missed the first time. But, I think crucially, I first watched the 1999 telly version which has enabled me to stay across the convoluted story and large number of characters without losing patience; I can attend to the details because I'm clear about the main lines. I'm not a fan of multiple story lines, I think it's something writers do when the central idea isn't strong enough - not, at least, for the length of book they wanted to write. Dickens did here have 2 pretty good ideas, albeit one of them very contrived, but neither of them would have made a long book so he combined them and threw in the totally superfluous Silas Wegg, Venus, etc.
I believe in the Unities, and I still think the mark of his best books - Pickwick, Chuzzlewit, DC, Great Expectations - is that they're both more focused and more fun. In DC, for example, Copperfield is in every single scene (naturally, as it's first-person); in Pickwick, either Pickwick himself is, or some deputy of his. Admittedly OMF does represent a step up in realism, particularly in his portrayal of the heroines whom he had always tended to idealise. But really - is realism what we want from him? Tolstoy said that the purpose of the novelist is to make the reader love life. No writer has more of that power than Dickens, and it's at least partly because he sometimes sees with rose-tinted glasses.
Just thought I'd share my experience - don't expect to convince anyone who thinks differently!
Somewhere in a tree at the top of the woods
The spider's presenting his suit
Hoping for a chance to deliver the goods
To a spider-girl that's kinda cute
*
For the chance of romance in the leggy embrace
Of his poised and expectant cherie
He is willing to end as a dry sucked-out case...
So why expect different of me?
Google says it is the oldest book of the Bible, my commentary says it is postexilic. Any light on this? More generally I'm interested in the claim that 'the oldest strata of the Bible are entirely poetic' - what do we think about that?
Edit: if you don't have anything to contribute yourself, please do not downvote the comments of those who have. Don't be such a dick...
Edit2: having looked again at my commentary (NJBC), actually it says that while 'it is widely regarded as postexilic...the date remains an open question'. And in view of the diversity of ideas on here, it seems it still is. Thanks for all answers - but somebody is still downvoting, please stop that.
...are they literally holy scholars, or is it just a polite title of respect?
..I want it to be authentic but still well-written. And not too dear.
...or are we still gonna keep taking our city breaks in Europe, wasting water, saying things were worse in 1976, and 'drill, baby, drill'?
An underrated composer imo. He taught Mozart at one stage, and the latter had a great respect for him; in fact I'm much mistaken if Mozart did not take JCB's piano concertos as the main model for his own. They have the same combination of stateliness with lightness, playfulness and wit, without unnecessary virtuosity.
If you've heard Mozart and thought 'what else is like this?', JC Bach should be top of the list.
Enough is enough, it's ridiculous that massive resources keep having to be used, huge areas devastated, and people's lives put at risk, because of the irresponsible actions of morons.
Disposable barbecues should be banned right away. They shouldn't even exist - charcoal barbecues are in fact illegal anyway, because they are polluting and a fire risk. Duh.
National parks and similar areas should have fire marshals patrolling them. They would have a good chance of stopping fires before they get out of hand or, failing that, getting the fire brigade there earlier.
It would cost a little money but, the way things are going, it would save a lot.
What else?
Edit: I realise barbecues are a sacred cow to a lot of Brits. Sorry, they are both illegal and anti-social - if you have them you are a fucking nuisance.
..they're not even really highlights, they're more like an extended news roundup, too thinly spread - nothing is dwelt on long enough to get a feel of it. And the voiceover is terrible, sounds like a bot of Caroline Hawley.
What was the Games thinking of, taking it off the BBC? Is it a case of take the money and run? They may get a few more quid right now, but they have surely given an event that was already struggling its death blow.
It's a shame cos it always used to be an enjoyable Olympics Lite.
A woman reached out to me on here, and I don't even really know why. She's amazing, and before we knew it we were deeply involved - a lot deeper than we ever meant to be. She's just about perfect, everything I always wanted in a woman but never thought I'd find. And she really saw me, like I've never been seen.
But there are reasons why it couldn't work out, so today we called it quits. Back to being lonely I guess. But if I had to give up the rest of my life, I would still live those last 2 months.