These are the numerous possibilities in the line if the original punctuation is kept. But in the revised punctuation it has only one narrow sense, and this not precisely Shakespeare’s intention. By the semicolon placed after _so_ of the preceding line, it is cut off from close co-operation both with the line before and the other preceding lines. By the shifting of the comma not only is a pause removed where Shakespeare put one and the rhythm thus changed, but the line itself loses its point and really does not pull its weight in the poem. In this punctuation the _whole_ line ought to be put into parentheses, as being a mere repetition. The _to have_ linked with _in quest_ is superfluous; _extreme_ set off by itself like this is merely a descriptive adjective already used. Moreover, when the line is thus isolated between two semicolons (after _so_, after _extreme_) _Had_, _having_, etc., instead of effecting a harmony between the various senses given to _lust_ (taker, bait, lust in the abstract), disjoint them and become ungrammatical. _Mad in pursuit, and in possession so_; only refers to _the taker mad_. _A bliss in proof, and proved, a very woe_; can only refer to lust in the abstract. Thus this intervening line is just a pompous confusion. The next line (_A blisse in proofe and provd and very wo_,) should explain _to have extreame_; it is not merely another parenthetical line as in the revised version. To fulfil the paradox implied in _extreame_ it should mean that lust is a bliss during the proof and after the proof, and also _very wo_ (real woe) during and after the proof. The altered line only means that lust is a bliss during the proof but a woe after the proof, denying what Shakespeare has been at pains to show all along, that lust is all things at all times. Once the editors tried to repunctuate the line they had to tamper with words themselves in the text. A comma after _proof_ demanded a comma after _proved_. A comma after _proved_ made it necessary to change _and very wo_ to apply to _provd_ only. Another semicolon at the end of this line again detaches a line and further breaks the continuity of the poem. Specifically, by cutting off the following line from itself, it in turn does to the following line what the preceding line did to it: makes it only another antithesis or rhetorical balance (‘a joy in prospect, as against a dream in retrospect’, to repeat the sense of a bliss during proof as against a woe after proof) instead of permitting it to carry on the intricate and careful argument that runs without a stop through the whole sestet. The important thing about this line is that it takes all the meanings in the poem one stage further. Lust in the extreme goes beyond both bliss and woe; it goes beyond reality. It is no longer lust _Had, having and in quest_, it is lust face to face with _love_. Even when consummated, lust still stands before an unconsummated joy, a proposed joy, and proposed not as a joy