Who is Frances William Shakespeare?
a question often ignored.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Sunday, May 9, 2010
McShakespeare a book review of Contested Will by James Shapiro
On reading the prologue of Will Contested I prepared myself for truly researched history of the Shakespeare controversy. The last paragraph is a statement about the proper treatment of this tough subject but between the prologue and the last paragraph something else happened,
James Shapiro succeeded in writing an interesting book, informative in many ways, though lacking thoroughness. Only Dr Shapiro knows why he left out information but it is not hard to guess. I will describe later.
The dominant motive behind Will Contested was to make a stunning argument for the Shakespeare authorship and delivering it with shock and awe. Literary or military shock and awe is neither without fire power. The Stratford on Avon Shakespeare man regardless the colorful scenario Dr Shapiro places him is as flat an Ayn Rand character (Ayn Rand is a great writer).
One cannot create a three-dimensional character when the aim is a factual biography of a fictional character as its basis. A biography can be fictionalized but not the other way around.
Creating a fictional character who breaths and bleeds could be wonderful read but then old school scholars would have to give up the fantasy. However, a good fictional story would be better than what we have now. Stephen Greenblatt tried to find Shakespeares character in the plays in Will in the World.
After exhaustive research and painstaking analysis, and with clear devotion Dr Shapiro is apparently still perplexed by the doubters. I think he wonders why everyone isn't as passionate about his opinion as he is. This kind of fervor is effective in the classroom and with loyal followers but not for those who want the complete commonsense story. The doubters, for him, are like pesky mosquitoes for which one merely puts up netting to keep them out.
Dr Shapiro must be perplexed by the non-scholars who examine the same material as he and then arrive at the opposite conclusion. This is because the theories formulated in isolation without the vigor of testing and open examination makes them seem right. "Our Shakespeare" is a phrase that suggests the plays are mine and not yours. It seems that much more is possible in the ivory towers than the real world.
Who of those near him is going to tell him there are other conclusions.
There is a rather nasty innuendo going about that the doubters discriminate against the possibility that a poor commoner could be a creative genius. To be sure the author was a genius. The innuendo is a self gratifying smoke screen intended to put the doubters on the defensive and conceal the bigotry or self serving interests about a genius that really existed. The Shakespeare myth is a belief in miracles, not genius. Common sense, not Santa Clause.
Dr Shapiro believes that good fiction does not have to be autobiographical. I think he reads to much Steven King because the Shakespeare author would be as exceptional in a good way as Kings monsters are in a bad way.
Keep in mind that England's class system is rock solid and protecting ones fiefdom was often a class struggle. The history of dogma is history itself and Dr Shapiro by being so very sure of his thinking allies himself with the history of the powerful (who write the histories). The only winner here is confusion.
Prior to the internet Shakespeareans fought successfully to keep their story pure simply by ignoring information. Now they wage a strange war. It is a war against information so that the only safe haven for the Shakespeare myth is in the disinterest of the public, the bias of Shakespeare fans , the big cottage industry and financial interest of book producers.
I don't want to put anyone out of a job. I only want the truth. When the truth is accepted there will be tons of money to be made by some people.
Contested Will is condescending to some great thinkers in literature and psychology. Can one can claim to be a better judge of human nature than for example. Mark Twain and Sigmund Freud but not without risking the appearance of arrogance. Dr Shapiro arrogantly capitalizes on and attacks apparent character flaws that, to him, represents the flaw in the reasoning behind doubting.
Dr Shapiro treads on thin ice in highlighting the Della Bacon story considering the prejudices against women and the use of psychiatry in the suppression of desenters. The most troubling comment Dr Shapiro generalizes his comments about Freud in that Freud's claims, "like those of many others, it reveals more about the skeptic than it does about the authorship of Shakespeare's plays." Dr Shapiro applies this sentiment to every example.
It is an odd conclusion that since main stream publishers still accept and publish the same Shakespeare story decade after decade despite the information to the contrary the story must be true. The real story behind the Shakespeare is about power and influence.
Please don't tell me that publishers are guided by a vision of the truth and the education of their readership. I didn't fall of a turnip truck. I need not press this point.
Dr Shapiro's laughter at the deification of Shakespeare is interesting because deification is exactly what he does by adhering dogmatically to one conclusion. He finds the flaws in others that is guilty of. It's obvious that Shakspur is the author if you ignore and dismiss
If Dr Shapiro writes a novel equal to Huckleberry Finn I will listen to him intently or if he makes a contribution to psychology that shapes a century of self-knowledge I will be his disciple. Or if he goes head to head with Frederick Nietzsche I will wear the Shakespeare mask.
In the book I learned that Shakespeare had reached deity status in England as Stratford-on-Avon became a sell-able item. Here-in is the cause of the controversy. Religion and profit make for ruthless and blind bed fellows.
Here is a fun tid-bit. Go get your King James Bible and turn to Psalms 46 and count 46 words down and then go to the last word and count up 46 words. I will wait while you do that. .... Interesting, huh. There have been no claims that Shakespur wrote the Bible. Why?
Contested Will is a good title because a contest of wills is exactly what we have. Old school Shakspeareans are not logical. If the literary critics through the years were also our scientists we would still be living in caves.
I was surprised to read that Dr Shapiro felt compelled to bring up intellectual suppression in universities. He claims to be unaware of academic suppression but it has been a reality ever since there were teachers and students. Suppression can be overt or subtle and Dr Shapiro would be unaware of it maybe because he was cooperative without question or he is part of the problem.
In fact Contested Will gives a nice history of academic suppression by examining the Shakespeare controversy.
More than in other Shakespeare promotion books, Contested Will seems to heavily emphasize the enormous number of candidates for authorship with more flocking in daily. Why stress that idea except to suggest "Our Shakespeare" is distinctly separate from all the wannabes and don't mess with my stuff. Avoidance of common sense.
If reading Contested Will was my introduction to the controversy, I w0uld have wanted to know that the Stratford on Avon man died in 1616 and the 1623 folio was published in 1623(I know). Do you see a problem with the math? Case closed? Not. Shakespeare's friends saved the plays for publication posthumously? Really? Why? Were the English at that time in history any were different from norm? Those friends would have had the market and become rich by selling the portfolio. Human nature has not changed since Cro Magnon. Common sense says the author was still alive in 1623.
In addition, how is it that information about an event that happened after 1616 appeared in the 1623 plays? What does common sense say? Answer: The author was alive and writing in 1623 and Shakespeare is a myth.
How is it that the Oxford people think that even though DeVere, who had no friends and died in 1612 wrote the plays: Answer: DeVere is more of myth than Shakspur.
At least the Marlow people claim he didn't die but continued to write somewhere else. The Stratfordians just ignore everyone but themselves. It is moot what the Oxfordians say because De Vere died
He makes an incredable reference to Homer which I think is: If you reject Shakespeare you have to give up Homer too? Or was it that if you accept Pete Rose into the hall of fame you must accept Shoeless Joe Jackson? Dr Shapiro confuses me on this point.
Did Dr Shapiro mention the Promus? The Promus was Francis Bacon's notebook that contain references to the plays and actual lines from the plays? Not a peep from the Stratfordian but he is not alone. Of the three recent Stratfordian books I have reviewed none mentioned the Promus.
Why? Answer: Shakespeare is a pen name.
Did Dr Shapiro mention the Northumberland manuscript, a possession of Francis Bacon that has the name, Mr Francis William Shakespeare written on the front? No. Of the three recent Stratfordian books I have reviewed one mentioned the Northumberland Manuscript but failed to mention Bacon. A rather glaring omission.
Why? Answer: Shakespeare is a pen name.
Does it matter that Ben Jonson was equally glowing with Shakespeare and Bacon but wrote to Bacon about the good times together: "And oh, the men," he said. Ben knew both men, right? Shakespeare was gay.Why wouldn't Ben talk about the men with Shakespeare?
I'm not going to answer that one for you.
I could offer you many concrete examples of Shakespeare existing through Francis Bacon. The information is available on the internet and doesn't take much digging.
I do not aim to squash the pleasures of "mystery" because by recognizing the author we would be catapulted into literary blissful shock and awe.
I was interested to read a quote from Sigmond Freud although Freud believed in DeVere. "No single intelligence could have encompased such a literary and philosophical range; if Bacon had written the plays along with his great philosophical works, he, would have been the most powerful brain the world has ever produced." Well, it looks like that's what we have here. What a story.
Critics like James Shapiro find the old school packaged Shakespeare story charming because they find their own spin about the plays charming. The story they have fed the public for centuries is no different than the prepackaged assembly line stereotyped selling of name brands.
Stratfordian means McShakespeare.
James Shapiro succeeded in writing an interesting book, informative in many ways, though lacking thoroughness. Only Dr Shapiro knows why he left out information but it is not hard to guess. I will describe later.
The dominant motive behind Will Contested was to make a stunning argument for the Shakespeare authorship and delivering it with shock and awe. Literary or military shock and awe is neither without fire power. The Stratford on Avon Shakespeare man regardless the colorful scenario Dr Shapiro places him is as flat an Ayn Rand character (Ayn Rand is a great writer).
One cannot create a three-dimensional character when the aim is a factual biography of a fictional character as its basis. A biography can be fictionalized but not the other way around.
Creating a fictional character who breaths and bleeds could be wonderful read but then old school scholars would have to give up the fantasy. However, a good fictional story would be better than what we have now. Stephen Greenblatt tried to find Shakespeares character in the plays in Will in the World.
After exhaustive research and painstaking analysis, and with clear devotion Dr Shapiro is apparently still perplexed by the doubters. I think he wonders why everyone isn't as passionate about his opinion as he is. This kind of fervor is effective in the classroom and with loyal followers but not for those who want the complete commonsense story. The doubters, for him, are like pesky mosquitoes for which one merely puts up netting to keep them out.
Dr Shapiro must be perplexed by the non-scholars who examine the same material as he and then arrive at the opposite conclusion. This is because the theories formulated in isolation without the vigor of testing and open examination makes them seem right. "Our Shakespeare" is a phrase that suggests the plays are mine and not yours. It seems that much more is possible in the ivory towers than the real world.
Who of those near him is going to tell him there are other conclusions.
There is a rather nasty innuendo going about that the doubters discriminate against the possibility that a poor commoner could be a creative genius. To be sure the author was a genius. The innuendo is a self gratifying smoke screen intended to put the doubters on the defensive and conceal the bigotry or self serving interests about a genius that really existed. The Shakespeare myth is a belief in miracles, not genius. Common sense, not Santa Clause.
Dr Shapiro believes that good fiction does not have to be autobiographical. I think he reads to much Steven King because the Shakespeare author would be as exceptional in a good way as Kings monsters are in a bad way.
Keep in mind that England's class system is rock solid and protecting ones fiefdom was often a class struggle. The history of dogma is history itself and Dr Shapiro by being so very sure of his thinking allies himself with the history of the powerful (who write the histories). The only winner here is confusion.
Prior to the internet Shakespeareans fought successfully to keep their story pure simply by ignoring information. Now they wage a strange war. It is a war against information so that the only safe haven for the Shakespeare myth is in the disinterest of the public, the bias of Shakespeare fans , the big cottage industry and financial interest of book producers.
I don't want to put anyone out of a job. I only want the truth. When the truth is accepted there will be tons of money to be made by some people.
Contested Will is condescending to some great thinkers in literature and psychology. Can one can claim to be a better judge of human nature than for example. Mark Twain and Sigmund Freud but not without risking the appearance of arrogance. Dr Shapiro arrogantly capitalizes on and attacks apparent character flaws that, to him, represents the flaw in the reasoning behind doubting.
Dr Shapiro treads on thin ice in highlighting the Della Bacon story considering the prejudices against women and the use of psychiatry in the suppression of desenters. The most troubling comment Dr Shapiro generalizes his comments about Freud in that Freud's claims, "like those of many others, it reveals more about the skeptic than it does about the authorship of Shakespeare's plays." Dr Shapiro applies this sentiment to every example.
It is an odd conclusion that since main stream publishers still accept and publish the same Shakespeare story decade after decade despite the information to the contrary the story must be true. The real story behind the Shakespeare is about power and influence.
Please don't tell me that publishers are guided by a vision of the truth and the education of their readership. I didn't fall of a turnip truck. I need not press this point.
Dr Shapiro's laughter at the deification of Shakespeare is interesting because deification is exactly what he does by adhering dogmatically to one conclusion. He finds the flaws in others that is guilty of. It's obvious that Shakspur is the author if you ignore and dismiss
If Dr Shapiro writes a novel equal to Huckleberry Finn I will listen to him intently or if he makes a contribution to psychology that shapes a century of self-knowledge I will be his disciple. Or if he goes head to head with Frederick Nietzsche I will wear the Shakespeare mask.
In the book I learned that Shakespeare had reached deity status in England as Stratford-on-Avon became a sell-able item. Here-in is the cause of the controversy. Religion and profit make for ruthless and blind bed fellows.
Here is a fun tid-bit. Go get your King James Bible and turn to Psalms 46 and count 46 words down and then go to the last word and count up 46 words. I will wait while you do that. .... Interesting, huh. There have been no claims that Shakespur wrote the Bible. Why?
Contested Will is a good title because a contest of wills is exactly what we have. Old school Shakspeareans are not logical. If the literary critics through the years were also our scientists we would still be living in caves.
I was surprised to read that Dr Shapiro felt compelled to bring up intellectual suppression in universities. He claims to be unaware of academic suppression but it has been a reality ever since there were teachers and students. Suppression can be overt or subtle and Dr Shapiro would be unaware of it maybe because he was cooperative without question or he is part of the problem.
In fact Contested Will gives a nice history of academic suppression by examining the Shakespeare controversy.
More than in other Shakespeare promotion books, Contested Will seems to heavily emphasize the enormous number of candidates for authorship with more flocking in daily. Why stress that idea except to suggest "Our Shakespeare" is distinctly separate from all the wannabes and don't mess with my stuff. Avoidance of common sense.
If reading Contested Will was my introduction to the controversy, I w0uld have wanted to know that the Stratford on Avon man died in 1616 and the 1623 folio was published in 1623(I know). Do you see a problem with the math? Case closed? Not. Shakespeare's friends saved the plays for publication posthumously? Really? Why? Were the English at that time in history any were different from norm? Those friends would have had the market and become rich by selling the portfolio. Human nature has not changed since Cro Magnon. Common sense says the author was still alive in 1623.
In addition, how is it that information about an event that happened after 1616 appeared in the 1623 plays? What does common sense say? Answer: The author was alive and writing in 1623 and Shakespeare is a myth.
How is it that the Oxford people think that even though DeVere, who had no friends and died in 1612 wrote the plays: Answer: DeVere is more of myth than Shakspur.
At least the Marlow people claim he didn't die but continued to write somewhere else. The Stratfordians just ignore everyone but themselves. It is moot what the Oxfordians say because De Vere died
He makes an incredable reference to Homer which I think is: If you reject Shakespeare you have to give up Homer too? Or was it that if you accept Pete Rose into the hall of fame you must accept Shoeless Joe Jackson? Dr Shapiro confuses me on this point.
Did Dr Shapiro mention the Promus? The Promus was Francis Bacon's notebook that contain references to the plays and actual lines from the plays? Not a peep from the Stratfordian but he is not alone. Of the three recent Stratfordian books I have reviewed none mentioned the Promus.
Why? Answer: Shakespeare is a pen name.
Did Dr Shapiro mention the Northumberland manuscript, a possession of Francis Bacon that has the name, Mr Francis William Shakespeare written on the front? No. Of the three recent Stratfordian books I have reviewed one mentioned the Northumberland Manuscript but failed to mention Bacon. A rather glaring omission.
Why? Answer: Shakespeare is a pen name.
Does it matter that Ben Jonson was equally glowing with Shakespeare and Bacon but wrote to Bacon about the good times together: "And oh, the men," he said. Ben knew both men, right? Shakespeare was gay.Why wouldn't Ben talk about the men with Shakespeare?
I'm not going to answer that one for you.
I could offer you many concrete examples of Shakespeare existing through Francis Bacon. The information is available on the internet and doesn't take much digging.
I do not aim to squash the pleasures of "mystery" because by recognizing the author we would be catapulted into literary blissful shock and awe.
I was interested to read a quote from Sigmond Freud although Freud believed in DeVere. "No single intelligence could have encompased such a literary and philosophical range; if Bacon had written the plays along with his great philosophical works, he, would have been the most powerful brain the world has ever produced." Well, it looks like that's what we have here. What a story.
Critics like James Shapiro find the old school packaged Shakespeare story charming because they find their own spin about the plays charming. The story they have fed the public for centuries is no different than the prepackaged assembly line stereotyped selling of name brands.
Stratfordian means McShakespeare.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
William Harvey second to Will Shakespeare
Shakespeare to the Limit: William Harvey second to Will Shakespeare
Filed under: Writing — Edwin @ 3:16 am Edit This
If you think you’ve heard everything listen to this.
That amazing Shakespeare the poor glove maker, poacher, playwright of secrecy, actor unseen, purveyor of small claims and practicing illiterate anticipated William Harvey’s discovery of the circulation of the blood.
Since I have been told by learned scholars that William Shagspur – who never read a book – wrote the plays and sonnets (which is a miracle unto itself).must have also discovered the circulation of the blood before Harvey but he couldn’t share the spotlight with Harvey’ because Shagspur/Shakespeare died in 1616. Shagspur/Shakespeare’s biographers have said that he ceased writing in 1612.
William Harvey discovered the circulation of the blood in 1616; announced the discovery in 1619; and published it in the 1628. William Shagspur/Shakespeare wrote in Coriolanus “… rivers of your blood…” and “…even to the court the heart to the seat of the brain…” and “…the strongest nerves and small inferior veins from me…”
In Romeo and Juliet Shagspur/Shakespeare said “…when, presently, through all thy vein shall run a cold for no pulse shall keep this native progress…”
And in Henry IV he says, “… muster me all to bear Captain, the heart….”
Incidentally, Francis Bacon was a patient of William Harvey.
Since we have no record that Shagspur/Shakespeare was never ill (except when he died) Shakespur/Shakespeare and William Harvey would not have met. Thus his discovery of the circulation before Harvey goes to Shagspur/Shakespeare.
Filed under: Writing — Edwin @ 3:16 am Edit This
If you think you’ve heard everything listen to this.
That amazing Shakespeare the poor glove maker, poacher, playwright of secrecy, actor unseen, purveyor of small claims and practicing illiterate anticipated William Harvey’s discovery of the circulation of the blood.
Since I have been told by learned scholars that William Shagspur – who never read a book – wrote the plays and sonnets (which is a miracle unto itself).must have also discovered the circulation of the blood before Harvey but he couldn’t share the spotlight with Harvey’ because Shagspur/Shakespeare died in 1616. Shagspur/Shakespeare’s biographers have said that he ceased writing in 1612.
William Harvey discovered the circulation of the blood in 1616; announced the discovery in 1619; and published it in the 1628. William Shagspur/Shakespeare wrote in Coriolanus “… rivers of your blood…” and “…even to the court the heart to the seat of the brain…” and “…the strongest nerves and small inferior veins from me…”
In Romeo and Juliet Shagspur/Shakespeare said “…when, presently, through all thy vein shall run a cold for no pulse shall keep this native progress…”
And in Henry IV he says, “… muster me all to bear Captain, the heart….”
Incidentally, Francis Bacon was a patient of William Harvey.
Since we have no record that Shagspur/Shakespeare was never ill (except when he died) Shakespur/Shakespeare and William Harvey would not have met. Thus his discovery of the circulation before Harvey goes to Shagspur/Shakespeare.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
The following is the playbill for the first performance of Richard II.
How many names of Elizabethan authors can you find in this announcement from the title page of Richard II?
Not many, right? Not even Shakespeare.
There is a great story behind Richard II. Keep in mind that Queen Elizabeth I was the daughter of Henry the 8th who killed a LOT of people who challenged his sovereign authority. The play Richard II was a challenge to the divine right of kings which angered her highness and wanted the authors hide to be tortured on the rack before execution for treason. The author was not generally known and she called Francis Bacon on the carpet for it because a man named Haywood had copied part of the play to distribute as an anti monarchy pamphlet. Since she didn't know the author she grabbed Haywood and threw him in the Tower to torture and execute depending on what Francis Bacon had to say. Francis talked her into a felony charge for Haywood which got him at least a year.
Francis Bacon was no dummy. The next year Richard II was played again but this time he made Shakespeare the author. Clever huh? Let ole' Shakespeare take the heat. Needless to say she couldn't find Shakespeare anywhere. Otherwise two feet would have been added to Shakespeare's height before he lost his head. So you see? Shakespeare not only didn't exist - he wouldn't have been allowed to exist.
OK then. Lets take another look at the Title page that doesn't seem to have an author.
If you restrict your search to the first letter or the first four letters per line as it was printed ...
It says Lord Bacon, doesn't it.
Is Shakespeare’s name in the first to the fourth letters? You tell me.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
About My FlyingBlog
There's not much to say about me but a lot to say about what I think about because what I think about is pretty cool. I hope you think so.
I am older but not old and in great health. I am a card carrying introvert who can talk (listen) to extroverts. My political information comes from books at least 20 years old. I do not read the newspaper nor watch TV except baseball and now there is a year round baseball channel for guys like me. I also watch HGTV because my wife does and Ellen show each morning before wok because my wife does. I have seen some pretty good chick flicks thanks to Linda. I do not watch fictional violence and I love comedies.
I have made a multitude of relationship mistakes in my life mainly because ... well... ignorance. So I feel well qualified to tell you what not to do and why you shouldn't do it.
Actually I think people suffer due to ignorance -- the ignorance of not knowing how not to suffer. And some think that if i hurt, ignore, or manipulate others then happiness will follow. Wishing to be free of suffering is our prime motivator and makes us equal. Also, that we came from mother makes us equal. The obstacle to changing how we try to be happy is not appreciating basic cause and effect and not understanding the real situation.
Luckily my major career goal since adolescence was to do exactly what I do now. In college I majored in Biology and chemistry. Chemistry was a waste of energy when compared to the literature, sociology history and especially philosophy courses that I could put to practical use. Anyway, my professors encouraged me to stay in biology but I have not left that science because I work with the most advanced animal species (some would argue with "most advanced").
I want to leave this world better than I found it and as a psychiatrist I have a wonderful opportunity to make a difference. I don't do much but my patients do the doing and that is very gratifying.
I believe in the power of now but it keeps slipping into the no longer happening. I believe the buck doesn't stop because no one is excluded. I have have been told that death and taxes are unavoidable. Now that I am no longer an atheist I believe that only taxes are unavoidable. I believe we should prepare for death as though are preparing for a vacation. I believe that the study of death will cause us to lead better lives.
My craving to understand life and why people do what they do grows each day. With no effort at all except for staying alive I have joined a large group of people that science know little about. Therefore, I am a pioneer explorer of my own psychology. There are no books to tell me how I am to view life.
This morning seems like yesterday though time is streaking by and this morning should seem like 5 minutes ago. I am finding out that time never moves - only things.
The stuff that ran my life is trying to catch up now but is no longer gaining because the stuff needs me more than I need the stuff.
I want to travel lighter with less baggage. In other words the all important details to me a decade ago are merely annoying irritants today.
I call dementia, the letting-go of trivia, I always find my glasses when I lose them so why worry about it. Where is the wisdom that's supposed to replace youth? The only wisdom thing I can think of is - beentheredonethat. To worry just doesn't make sense over 60 years old.
If I start writing about politics or entertainment in a serious vein you have my permission to take me away because it means I have become senile.
There are many reasons I like blogging. One reason is that I can start every sentence with I if I want to.
Stay tuned. This site will change as I do.
I am older but not old and in great health. I am a card carrying introvert who can talk (listen) to extroverts. My political information comes from books at least 20 years old. I do not read the newspaper nor watch TV except baseball and now there is a year round baseball channel for guys like me. I also watch HGTV because my wife does and Ellen show each morning before wok because my wife does. I have seen some pretty good chick flicks thanks to Linda. I do not watch fictional violence and I love comedies.
I have made a multitude of relationship mistakes in my life mainly because ... well... ignorance. So I feel well qualified to tell you what not to do and why you shouldn't do it.
Actually I think people suffer due to ignorance -- the ignorance of not knowing how not to suffer. And some think that if i hurt, ignore, or manipulate others then happiness will follow. Wishing to be free of suffering is our prime motivator and makes us equal. Also, that we came from mother makes us equal. The obstacle to changing how we try to be happy is not appreciating basic cause and effect and not understanding the real situation.
Luckily my major career goal since adolescence was to do exactly what I do now. In college I majored in Biology and chemistry. Chemistry was a waste of energy when compared to the literature, sociology history and especially philosophy courses that I could put to practical use. Anyway, my professors encouraged me to stay in biology but I have not left that science because I work with the most advanced animal species (some would argue with "most advanced").
I want to leave this world better than I found it and as a psychiatrist I have a wonderful opportunity to make a difference. I don't do much but my patients do the doing and that is very gratifying.
I believe in the power of now but it keeps slipping into the no longer happening. I believe the buck doesn't stop because no one is excluded. I have have been told that death and taxes are unavoidable. Now that I am no longer an atheist I believe that only taxes are unavoidable. I believe we should prepare for death as though are preparing for a vacation. I believe that the study of death will cause us to lead better lives.
My craving to understand life and why people do what they do grows each day. With no effort at all except for staying alive I have joined a large group of people that science know little about. Therefore, I am a pioneer explorer of my own psychology. There are no books to tell me how I am to view life.
This morning seems like yesterday though time is streaking by and this morning should seem like 5 minutes ago. I am finding out that time never moves - only things.
The stuff that ran my life is trying to catch up now but is no longer gaining because the stuff needs me more than I need the stuff.
I want to travel lighter with less baggage. In other words the all important details to me a decade ago are merely annoying irritants today.
I call dementia, the letting-go of trivia, I always find my glasses when I lose them so why worry about it. Where is the wisdom that's supposed to replace youth? The only wisdom thing I can think of is - beentheredonethat. To worry just doesn't make sense over 60 years old.
If I start writing about politics or entertainment in a serious vein you have my permission to take me away because it means I have become senile.
There are many reasons I like blogging. One reason is that I can start every sentence with I if I want to.
Stay tuned. This site will change as I do.
Shakespeare and Bacon were gay
The great thing about the scientific spirit and the scientific method is that spirit and method fosters the search for information here to fore unknown to the scientist and average citizen - information that increases our knowledge thus bringing us closer to a point of truth for the betterment of people. With understanding, solutions become obvious.
Case in point: The official rumor held that Shakespeare was probably gay and because Shakespeare scholars still believe in the Shakespeare-Santa Clause I hadn't accepted anything they had to say on face value until my quest for understanding Francis Bacon finally led me to Sonnet 20. Please refer to Honest Sonnet 20.
The author of the sonnets --Shakespeare/Bacon-- reveals the kind of dramatic struggle true for anyone torn between duty to be straight and pleasure of being gay. Believing that Francis Bacon was straight I posted an piece about Francis Bacon's women. All things considered I don't think he pursued women except for social position. Excluding his mother and excluding the women who were satisfying to him or satisfied them the number of women who were the target of his affections was zero.
To paraphrase, the sonnet explains that women are part of the natural order but the poet questions the nature of his passions regarding is male and female desires. He recognizes his compassion but the emotions that shift like women's fashions are unknown to him. The poet claims to be a better judge of the object of his attention, apparently men, than women. He asserts that as a man he has better control of his appearance that women ( I am assuming he means his ability to conceal his sexual orientation) and knows how to appear beautiful to both genders. The poet finishes the sonnet with the observation about himself that I believe is common to people who are coming to grips with their homosexuality. He recognizes that he was built for loving women but allows that nature has furnished him a fondness for men. There is a tragedy here, of sorts, because in other sonnets he expresses a clear obligation or need to produce children that would carry on his work. He adds that by adding the love of men to his life's purpose nature has removed him from women's pleasure. Then, I think he recognizes that he can love only one gender.
To confirm my interpretation a Ben Johnson quote in my popularity contest a few weeks ago left me very puzzled since I thought Francis Bacon was heterosexual at that time. Specifically, Ben Johnson wrote to Francis Bacon about the good times they had had by saying, "and oh the men."-- A clue wouldn't you say?
So the question becomes, who were Bacon's men? Well, we can begin with Ben Johnson and proceed to name his Good Pens-- a group of authors with whom he collaborated to write most all of the Elizabethan literature.
According to the Peter Dawkins in the "Shakespeare Enigma" Francis Bacon's collaborators were George Peele, Robert Green, Christopher Marlowe, Thomas Heywood, Thomas Middleton, John Day, George Wilkins, John Fletcher, Philip Massinger. He had influences from Sir Philip Sidney, Edmund Spenser, John Lyly, Thomas Lodge, Thomas Watson, Thomas Nashe, Thomas Kyd, Samuel Daniel, Francis Beaumont. There is more. He had association with Thomas Sackville, Gabriel Harvey, Edward Dyer,Fulke Grevlle, Mary Sidney, Nicolas Breton, Edward de Vere, Sir John Davies, Henry Chettle, Thomas Dekker, Michael Drayton, George Chapman, Anthony Munday, Ben Johnson, John Davies of Hereford, John Ford, George Wither, and William Brown.
I am not suggesting that any one of these men, besides Ben Johnson, were gay and he could have had no more relations with them than he did with his women. Francis Bacon was in fact very gregarious and charming to both men and women but apparenly had the inclination to agree with Ben's, "Oh the men."
Case in point: The official rumor held that Shakespeare was probably gay and because Shakespeare scholars still believe in the Shakespeare-Santa Clause I hadn't accepted anything they had to say on face value until my quest for understanding Francis Bacon finally led me to Sonnet 20. Please refer to Honest Sonnet 20.
The author of the sonnets --Shakespeare/Bacon-- reveals the kind of dramatic struggle true for anyone torn between duty to be straight and pleasure of being gay. Believing that Francis Bacon was straight I posted an piece about Francis Bacon's women. All things considered I don't think he pursued women except for social position. Excluding his mother and excluding the women who were satisfying to him or satisfied them the number of women who were the target of his affections was zero.
To paraphrase, the sonnet explains that women are part of the natural order but the poet questions the nature of his passions regarding is male and female desires. He recognizes his compassion but the emotions that shift like women's fashions are unknown to him. The poet claims to be a better judge of the object of his attention, apparently men, than women. He asserts that as a man he has better control of his appearance that women ( I am assuming he means his ability to conceal his sexual orientation) and knows how to appear beautiful to both genders. The poet finishes the sonnet with the observation about himself that I believe is common to people who are coming to grips with their homosexuality. He recognizes that he was built for loving women but allows that nature has furnished him a fondness for men. There is a tragedy here, of sorts, because in other sonnets he expresses a clear obligation or need to produce children that would carry on his work. He adds that by adding the love of men to his life's purpose nature has removed him from women's pleasure. Then, I think he recognizes that he can love only one gender.
To confirm my interpretation a Ben Johnson quote in my popularity contest a few weeks ago left me very puzzled since I thought Francis Bacon was heterosexual at that time. Specifically, Ben Johnson wrote to Francis Bacon about the good times they had had by saying, "and oh the men."-- A clue wouldn't you say?
So the question becomes, who were Bacon's men? Well, we can begin with Ben Johnson and proceed to name his Good Pens-- a group of authors with whom he collaborated to write most all of the Elizabethan literature.
According to the Peter Dawkins in the "Shakespeare Enigma" Francis Bacon's collaborators were George Peele, Robert Green, Christopher Marlowe, Thomas Heywood, Thomas Middleton, John Day, George Wilkins, John Fletcher, Philip Massinger. He had influences from Sir Philip Sidney, Edmund Spenser, John Lyly, Thomas Lodge, Thomas Watson, Thomas Nashe, Thomas Kyd, Samuel Daniel, Francis Beaumont. There is more. He had association with Thomas Sackville, Gabriel Harvey, Edward Dyer,Fulke Grevlle, Mary Sidney, Nicolas Breton, Edward de Vere, Sir John Davies, Henry Chettle, Thomas Dekker, Michael Drayton, George Chapman, Anthony Munday, Ben Johnson, John Davies of Hereford, John Ford, George Wither, and William Brown.
I am not suggesting that any one of these men, besides Ben Johnson, were gay and he could have had no more relations with them than he did with his women. Francis Bacon was in fact very gregarious and charming to both men and women but apparenly had the inclination to agree with Ben's, "Oh the men."
Sunday, March 14, 2010
HONEST SONNET#20 GAY SHAKESPEARE AND LOVING IT
HONEST SONNET#20 GAY AND LOVING IT
First I will show you the standard old school view of the sonnet which is squirrely if not totally flaky.
- according to a website called: “Sonnet 20 and Sonnet 130″
The old school meaning goes like this …..
You were created by Nature as a woman but more beautiful than any woman, for you do not have their faults. But Nature changed her mind as she made you, and turned you into a man, for she herself adored you, and, perhaps desiring congress, gave you male parts. Therefore I cannot love you with the fulness that I would love a woman. But let me have your real love, while women enjoy the physical manifestation of it, which I know to be merely superficies’.(“Shakespeare’s Sonnets” by Kerrigan).
Squirrely right? There is no psychology anywhere in any culture past present or future that would account for the above description of human motivation. Now exchange the reference to the “young man” for the poet himself and you have a very intimate glimpse into the poets realistic struggle with his homosexuality.
– according to Larson:
WOMEN ARE NATURALLY WOMEN
BUT DO I HAVE THE PASSION OF MALE AND FEMALE
WITH A KIND HEART, BUT NOT ACQUAINTED
WITH PASSIONS THAT SHIFT LIKE WOMENS FASHION
AND I HAVE A BETTER EYE THAN WOMEN WHICH IS LESS FICKLE
IN BEAUTIFYING THE OBJECT (MEN?) OF MY ATTENTION?
MAN CONTROLS THE HUE OF HIS APPEARANCE (GAY OR NOT)
IN WAYS THAT MEN FAVOR AND WOMEN ADMIRE
AND WAS FIRST CREATED FOR A WOMEN
UNTIL NATURE AS SHE ALLOWED ME TO BE VERY FOND (OF MEN OR ME)
AND BY ADDITION OF THAT NATURE DEFEATED MY CHANCEs FOR (CHILDREN)
BY ADDING MEN TO MY PURPOSE BUT SINCE SHE REMOVED ME FOR WOMEN PLEASURE,
MY LOVE IS MINE AND AND MY LOVE IS THEIRS (MEN’S) TREASURE (AND NOT WOMEN’S)
Doesn’t that make sense? Below is the original sonnet.
-- by William Shakespeare:
A woman’s face with Nature’s own hand painted
Hast though, the master/mistress of my passion;
A woman’s gentle heart, but not acquainted
With shifting change, as is false women’s fashion;
An eye more bright than theirs, less false in rolling,
Gilding the object whereupon it gazeth;
A man in hue, all hues in his controlling,
Which steals men’s eyes and womne’s souls amazeth.
And for a woman wert thou first created,
Till Nature as she wrought thee fell a-doting,
And by addition me of thee defeated,
By adding one thing to my purpose nothing.
But since she pricked thee out for women’s pleasure,
Mine be thy love, and thy love’s use their treasure.
Helen Vendler (of the traditionalists) states that the readers should not make the base assumption that Shakespeare’s writings interpret their own feelings.
I’ll drink to that.
First I will show you the standard old school view of the sonnet which is squirrely if not totally flaky.
- according to a website called: “Sonnet 20 and Sonnet 130″
The old school meaning goes like this …..
You were created by Nature as a woman but more beautiful than any woman, for you do not have their faults. But Nature changed her mind as she made you, and turned you into a man, for she herself adored you, and, perhaps desiring congress, gave you male parts. Therefore I cannot love you with the fulness that I would love a woman. But let me have your real love, while women enjoy the physical manifestation of it, which I know to be merely superficies’.(“Shakespeare’s Sonnets” by Kerrigan).
Squirrely right? There is no psychology anywhere in any culture past present or future that would account for the above description of human motivation. Now exchange the reference to the “young man” for the poet himself and you have a very intimate glimpse into the poets realistic struggle with his homosexuality.
– according to Larson:
WOMEN ARE NATURALLY WOMEN
BUT DO I HAVE THE PASSION OF MALE AND FEMALE
WITH A KIND HEART, BUT NOT ACQUAINTED
WITH PASSIONS THAT SHIFT LIKE WOMENS FASHION
AND I HAVE A BETTER EYE THAN WOMEN WHICH IS LESS FICKLE
IN BEAUTIFYING THE OBJECT (MEN?) OF MY ATTENTION?
MAN CONTROLS THE HUE OF HIS APPEARANCE (GAY OR NOT)
IN WAYS THAT MEN FAVOR AND WOMEN ADMIRE
AND WAS FIRST CREATED FOR A WOMEN
UNTIL NATURE AS SHE ALLOWED ME TO BE VERY FOND (OF MEN OR ME)
AND BY ADDITION OF THAT NATURE DEFEATED MY CHANCEs FOR (CHILDREN)
BY ADDING MEN TO MY PURPOSE BUT SINCE SHE REMOVED ME FOR WOMEN PLEASURE,
MY LOVE IS MINE AND AND MY LOVE IS THEIRS (MEN’S) TREASURE (AND NOT WOMEN’S)
Doesn’t that make sense? Below is the original sonnet.
-- by William Shakespeare:
A woman’s face with Nature’s own hand painted
Hast though, the master/mistress of my passion;
A woman’s gentle heart, but not acquainted
With shifting change, as is false women’s fashion;
An eye more bright than theirs, less false in rolling,
Gilding the object whereupon it gazeth;
A man in hue, all hues in his controlling,
Which steals men’s eyes and womne’s souls amazeth.
And for a woman wert thou first created,
Till Nature as she wrought thee fell a-doting,
And by addition me of thee defeated,
By adding one thing to my purpose nothing.
But since she pricked thee out for women’s pleasure,
Mine be thy love, and thy love’s use their treasure.
Helen Vendler (of the traditionalists) states that the readers should not make the base assumption that Shakespeare’s writings interpret their own feelings.
I’ll drink to that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)