hola MA,

I like your reasoning re Time as the "which also"... and I would concur except that I think one other interpretation (which is more of an adjunct or corollary in meaning, not so much an alternate one) is also possible. (Note that I also intend to steer clear of "all of the above," but I'm fudging more than you bravely did):

If it were a comma instead of a semicolon, i'd just agree with you, period. [:-)] ... However (while not at all sure that semicolons were used so distinctively from commas in his day), the semicolon by our current grammar standards, would mean a parallel and meaning-connected main clause, and the semicolon could stand in (for rhythm's sake) for repetition of the sentence's initial syntax and the "which" following it could refer back then to "flesh" and "(hour)glass" - which at this point have been equated. In sum, the flesh is a glass holding the seeping dust - but the flesh itself becomes ("crumbles into") dust as well.

Just a moment ago, I commented on the "Mark, here below..." line of this same concluding stanza - in the thread by Josh_F (I think i'm remembering the name correctly)

And I'd also note another provocative wording snuck in the poem's final address to his flesh that might complicate your concluding ¶ here, MA:

Dear flesh, while I do pray, learn here thy stem
And true descent,

It would be helpful to have Herbert's own Tuesday-PF recording of his voice reading the poem with the intonation he intended :-) ... because how he would accent the word "true" or not could make a difference. My initial reading is to hear "true" accented - and, if so, it suggests that what his "I" is doing - praying - looking to the heavens for supplication or hope or transcendence -- is not, what he realizes at the gravesite (be it inside or outside the church), the "true" lesson ... that the true lesson to be learned is this gravesite one about "descent" rather than "heaven" ... That would be a rather bold and heretical stance for an ordained priest in the Church of England.... I would think. So maybe that's not what he meant?

It was only a secondary reading in my head where I considered a de-emphasis on the word "true" - and I then decided to check RP's reading and indeed he opts for the less accented reading of "true" ... But who knows what Herbert's own intonation would have been? "True" to suggest that what the soul in prayer is doing is not "as true" (or even "true" at all?) ??? compared to what the descent of the flesh into grave, which is where he instructs his flesh to turn?

AH... but then perhaps he's only instructing his flesh here (more postmodernism on his part) and NOT reducing himself to his flesh (in keeping with other dualisms we've collectively noted) ... Perhaps he's addressing his flesh to learn one lesson - as to where it's headed - while his soul in prayer is working on the lesson his priesthood has focused him on in the more foregrounded way? ... Maybe that brings me back round to your "joint endeavor" - although in more of a "split endeavor" sort of way ...

p.s. I note that Church Memorials was not included in the original Norton Anthology selection of his poems, and I wonder what year this poem was written - where in his life's contemplation vis-a-vis being ordained (which i've seen cited as being in 1630 one place and 1626 in another) after apparent disillusion with a life in politics ...

p.s. 2: I do think it's worth noting that his 1633 collection of poems was called "The Temple: Sacred Poems and Private Ejaculations." That suggests to me he could be 'having his way with us' at the same time he's a "religious poet" - not the title of a religious poetry volume that would pass muster, say, with today's 21st version brand of devout worshippers, i would say ... ???