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.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
HONEST SONNET#19 — wrinkles on my face but not in my poetry
I feel that I should apologize to the intelligent teachers and authors who earnestly try to negotiate and arrive at a sensible and literary understanding of the sonnets from the bizarre assumptions of very old critiques but I won’t because they should know better. They blindly do what they’re told.
A vital work of art has been graffiti-ed, stained, and perverted for centuries. I talk to average people most of whom grimace or go blank when I mention Shakespeare’s Sonnets – some of the most beautiful poetry in the English language. Some people do remember only the most famous sonnets that are straight forward love poems.
The issue for me is not love between man and man but with the old school assumptions that the poet wants the beautiful young man to get a woman pregnant to have a child that is also beautiful.
Where the knock-her-up-handsome-for-the-child came from is a mystery to me but I haven’t researched the history of this interpretation yet. Some day.
The paragraph below is a common example of blind obedience to the teachers of the teachers who were, at best, also gullible. In the paragraph below I extracted from Shakespeare Online.
I have substituted “himself” for “male lover,” “himself” for “his lover,” “mother” for “dark Lady” and “narcissism” for “lust.”
SHAKESPEARE ONLINE modified by me says:
The theme of Sonnet 19, as with so many of the early sonnets, is the ravages of time. The poet expresses his intense fear of time primarily in the sonnets that involve himself and his worries seem to disappear in the later sonnets that are dedicated to his mother. Specifically, the poet is mortified by the thought himself showing physical signs of aging. There is no doubt that his relationship with himself is one built upon narcissism- more so than his relationship with his mother which is based on love and mutual understanding.
There. Doesn’t that feel better? Only six words were changed and suddenly the sonnets become clear and do not make one uncomfortable. I believe my discomfort of the perverted interpretation is shared by most people.
SONNET 19 by Shakespeare ………………..SONNET 19 interpreted by Larson
Devouring Time, blunt thou the lion’s paws, …………all-consuming time you dull the Lions claws
And make the earth devour her own sweet brood; …and make the earth take me back
Pluck the keen teeth from the fierce tiger’s jaws,…….pullout sharp teeth from the fears Tiger
And burn the long-lived phoenix in her blood; ………and destroy my ability to revive my youth
Make glad and sorry seasons as thou fleets, …………..you rejoice over my season to be fleeting
And do whate’er thou wilt, swift-footed Time,…………be swift and do what you have to do
To the wide world and all her fading sweets; ………….to the wide world and fading youth
But I forbid thee one most heinous crime:………………but I forbid you to do your worst
O, carve not with thy hours my love’s fair brow, ……..oh do not slice away the time of my youth
Nor draw no lines there with thine antique pen;……..do not make wrinkles on my face
Him in thy course untainted; ……………………………….. allow me time and an untainted face
For beauty’s pattern to succeeding men.;………………..so I can always be beautiful to others.
Yet, do thy worst, old Time: despite thy wrong;………..go ahead old time hit me with your best shot
My love shall in my verse ever live young………………….my love in my poetry will remain young.
I feel that I should apologize to the intelligent teachers and authors who earnestly try to negotiate and arrive at a sensible and literary understanding of the sonnets from the bizarre assumptions of very old critiques but I won’t because they should know better. They blindly do what they’re told.
A vital work of art has been graffiti-ed, stained, and perverted for centuries. I talk to average people most of whom grimace or go blank when I mention Shakespeare’s Sonnets – some of the most beautiful poetry in the English language. Some people do remember only the most famous sonnets that are straight forward love poems.
The issue for me is not love between man and man but with the old school assumptions that the poet wants the beautiful young man to get a woman pregnant to have a child that is also beautiful.
Where the knock-her-up-handsome-for-the-child came from is a mystery to me but I haven’t researched the history of this interpretation yet. Some day.
The paragraph below is a common example of blind obedience to the teachers of the teachers who were, at best, also gullible. In the paragraph below I extracted from Shakespeare Online.
I have substituted “himself” for “male lover,” “himself” for “his lover,” “mother” for “dark Lady” and “narcissism” for “lust.”
SHAKESPEARE ONLINE modified by me says:
The theme of Sonnet 19, as with so many of the early sonnets, is the ravages of time. The poet expresses his intense fear of time primarily in the sonnets that involve himself and his worries seem to disappear in the later sonnets that are dedicated to his mother. Specifically, the poet is mortified by the thought himself showing physical signs of aging. There is no doubt that his relationship with himself is one built upon narcissism- more so than his relationship with his mother which is based on love and mutual understanding.
There. Doesn’t that feel better? Only six words were changed and suddenly the sonnets become clear and do not make one uncomfortable. I believe my discomfort of the perverted interpretation is shared by most people.
SONNET 19 by Shakespeare ………………..SONNET 19 interpreted by Larson
Devouring Time, blunt thou the lion’s paws, …………all-consuming time you dull the Lions claws
And make the earth devour her own sweet brood; …and make the earth take me back
Pluck the keen teeth from the fierce tiger’s jaws,…….pullout sharp teeth from the fears Tiger
And burn the long-lived phoenix in her blood; ………and destroy my ability to revive my youth
Make glad and sorry seasons as thou fleets, …………..you rejoice over my season to be fleeting
And do whate’er thou wilt, swift-footed Time,…………be swift and do what you have to do
To the wide world and all her fading sweets; ………….to the wide world and fading youth
But I forbid thee one most heinous crime:………………but I forbid you to do your worst
O, carve not with thy hours my love’s fair brow, ……..oh do not slice away the time of my youth
Nor draw no lines there with thine antique pen;……..do not make wrinkles on my face
Him in thy course untainted; ……………………………….. allow me time and an untainted face
For beauty’s pattern to succeeding men.;………………..so I can always be beautiful to others.
Yet, do thy worst, old Time: despite thy wrong;………..go ahead old time hit me with your best shot
My love shall in my verse ever live young………………….my love in my poetry will remain young.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Dear Shakespeare lovers, Why is it easier to "believe" the miracle of a marginally literate man in 16th century England writing the plays and sonnets instead of "believing" that a well educated genius, an Englishman of royal lineage (Sir Francis Bacon), was responsible for the Elizabethan literary renaissance?
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
CD Ocean of Space
Filed under: Writing — Edwin @ 11:15 pm Edit This
This blog page is about Dan Henning. a musician, family man, minister, piano man at supper clubs, owner and operator of Get Reel Studio, specialist with the key-tar, practical joker, tall and a true mensch.
He lives in a small town in Ohio called Felicity near the Ohion River with his loving wife Tammy having raised two grown children there, though he could be working under the big lights in the big city but for his loyalty to his family and congregation.
There is not much to say about Felicity except it was once the refuge for a french nobleman who was in trouble with other french noblemen. He picked a good place to hide. Dan learned to play music real early from his father who lives not far away and who still gets out to entertain his fans.
I met Dan around 2005 through Lee Moran to collaborate on Shine Goddess Shine, a darn good CD, musically, which you can hear and read about on the other page. We… he and Lee composed the music that go with the words (songs) I bring them. Lee usually arranges and I watch and listen in amazement as those two went about putting Shine together while 99% went over my head.
I would like to write more and better songs but my time has is gone to writing a BS Novel and this RollingLogBlog. There are not enough hours in the day.
Dan has traveled all over the country many times for many years playing for churches and has volume of stories to tell which I like to hear. We talk a lot about spirituality and Music. Its a natural.
Dan is a big man with big heart though he talks about his wild years away from the church. He must have been one tough hombre having gone toe to toe with The Devil and God.
All the music on this blog was produced by Dan at Get Reel Studies though I have chosen to Oceans of Space to feature him since Oceans of Space is all Dan’s work. Oceans was originally commissioned to be heard in dentists office waiting room and was called A Compressed History of Everything Ever Recorded, a pretty good name in that it plays smooth but stumulating is simple yet complex and relaxing yet compelling. You get my drift. You could meditate to it, concentrate better, and relax to it after a hard day. Dan let me re-label A Compressed History .so it could have a wider audience.
Filed under: Writing — Edwin @ 11:15 pm Edit This
This blog page is about Dan Henning. a musician, family man, minister, piano man at supper clubs, owner and operator of Get Reel Studio, specialist with the key-tar, practical joker, tall and a true mensch.
He lives in a small town in Ohio called Felicity near the Ohion River with his loving wife Tammy having raised two grown children there, though he could be working under the big lights in the big city but for his loyalty to his family and congregation.
There is not much to say about Felicity except it was once the refuge for a french nobleman who was in trouble with other french noblemen. He picked a good place to hide. Dan learned to play music real early from his father who lives not far away and who still gets out to entertain his fans.
I met Dan around 2005 through Lee Moran to collaborate on Shine Goddess Shine, a darn good CD, musically, which you can hear and read about on the other page. We… he and Lee composed the music that go with the words (songs) I bring them. Lee usually arranges and I watch and listen in amazement as those two went about putting Shine together while 99% went over my head.
I would like to write more and better songs but my time has is gone to writing a BS Novel and this RollingLogBlog. There are not enough hours in the day.
Dan has traveled all over the country many times for many years playing for churches and has volume of stories to tell which I like to hear. We talk a lot about spirituality and Music. Its a natural.
Dan is a big man with big heart though he talks about his wild years away from the church. He must have been one tough hombre having gone toe to toe with The Devil and God.
All the music on this blog was produced by Dan at Get Reel Studies though I have chosen to Oceans of Space to feature him since Oceans of Space is all Dan’s work. Oceans was originally commissioned to be heard in dentists office waiting room and was called A Compressed History of Everything Ever Recorded, a pretty good name in that it plays smooth but stumulating is simple yet complex and relaxing yet compelling. You get my drift. You could meditate to it, concentrate better, and relax to it after a hard day. Dan let me re-label A Compressed History .so it could have a wider audience.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Using Bacon's Essay's to explain The Taming of the Shrew
Taming of the Shrew has been a startling suprise. On the surface, it is the epitome example, of woman's subjugation and reeks of male domination and congratulational chauvinism which must be the position of the playwright.
Not so fast.
Harold Blooms entirely too brief critique of Taming the Shrew furnished my first clue to the author's intent for the play which isn't the justification of the subjugation of women. Professor Bloom, recognized the essential assumptions that loving couples normally have that fuel arguments and maintain them. I think that couples married for a long time are more likely get to understand the plays deeper meaning. After all, Mark Twain said that we cannot know true love until we have been married for 25 years.
Then, I went to the source and was shocked: according to The Essays by Francis Bacon the plot line or subject of the play, through which Bacon makes his point, is obvious but his major intention is more pertinent: the many vicissitudes of basic bullshit we use to justify to ourselves in relation to our spouse: wife and husband alike.
Remember, Bacon wrote the plays to show us how we are, how we live, how we think, how we feel and how stupid and funny we can be. I believe he wrote the essays as a companion to the plays.Where as the plays define the problem the Essays are the directions to help solve the problems.
Subjugation of women is an obvious problem throughout history but the early part of Taming of the Shrew in which Sly is easily fooled into believing he is someone who he is not, shows how badly men Bullshit themselves and each other with regard to women and social status.
In addition, the reference to hunting dogs in the opening may reflect the male attitude about women at that time. And, I think that the scene between Sly and the Hostess is an example of a kind of battle between the sexes that needs better defining.
Bacon points out to us that relationships and love relationships, in particular, are endlessly conducted by intentionally and inadvertently bullshiting each other. The essay's Simulation and Dissimulation, Of Love, Of Lying, Of Parents and Children, Of Marriage and Single Life, Of Truth and Of Envy are my references for this The Author Speaks - The Taming of the Shrew.
Bacon defined three types of disimulation that people use to create illusions about themselves. The first is a secrecy and occurs when a persons true self is unobserved or unknown and APPEARS to be someone he/she is not.
The second is defined from the negative point of view and occurs when a person uses signs and arguments to create the idea that he IS NOT what he really is, ie., Sly and the Hostess.
The third level Bacon called simulation and is like a model, an imitation, a mock-up, a reproduction, a replication, a recreation, or an imitation. It is a vice rising from a defect, a natural falseness or a fearfulness in the person. It is a disguise which is used in other things. Simulation is more purposeful and culpable than dissimulation and is used less in politics.
1)Shakespeare
2)Bacon
3)Larson
SCENE I.
1) SLY: Ye are a baggage: the Slys are no rogues; look in
the chronicles; we came in with Richard Conqueror.
Therefore paucas pallabris; let the world slide: sessa!
2) Bacon - dissimulation, in the negative; when a man lets fall signs and arguments, that he IS NOT, that he appears to be. -- Of Simulation and Desimulation
2) Bacon -- But it is not only the difficulty and labor, which men take in finding out of truth, nor again, that when it is found, it imposeth upon men's thoughts, that doth bring lies in favor; but a natural though corrupt love, of the lie itself. -- Of Truth
3) Larson – Sly insists that he is descendent of Richard the Conqueror but is a drunkard. ................................................................................................................
Lord: Huntsman, I charge thee, tender well my hounds:
Brach Merriman, the poor cur is emboss'd;
And couple Clowder with the deep--mouth'd brach.
Saw'st thou not, boy, how Silver made it good
At the hedge-corner, in the coldest fault?
I would not lose the dog for twenty pound.
First Huntsman: Why, Belman is as good as he, my lord;
He cried upon it at the merest loss
And twice to-day pick'd out the dullest scent:
Trust me, I take him for the better dog.
Lord: Thou art a fool: if Echo were as fleet,
I would esteem him worth a dozen such.
But sup them well and look unto them all:
To-morrow I intend to hunt again.
Bacon -- A mixture of a lie doth ever add pleasure. Doth any man doubt, that if there were taken out of men's minds, vain opinions, flattering hopes, false valuations, imaginations as one would, and the like, but it would leave the minds, of a number of men, poor shrunken things, full of melancholy and indisposition, and unpleasing to themselves? – Of Truth.
Larson – Men will be bragging to each other forever. This doesn't seem to be dissimulation because there is no evasion.
……………………………………………………………………………………………
Lord: O monstrous beast! how like a swine he lies!
Grim death, how foul and loathsome is thine image!
Sirs, I will practise on this drunken man.
What think you, if he were convey'd to bed,
Wrapp'd in sweet clothes, rings put upon his fingers,
A most delicious banquet by his bed,
And brave attendants near him when he wakes,
Would not the beggar then forget himself?
First Huntsman: My lord, I warrant you we will play our part,
As he shall think by our true diligence
He is no less than what we say he is.
Bacon -- when a man industriously and expressly feigns and PRETENDS TO BE, that he is not, simulation, and false profession; that I hold more culpable, and less politic; except it be in great and rare matters. And therefore a general custom of simulation (which is this last degree) is a vice, rising either of a natural falseness or fearfulness, or of a mind that hath some main faults, which because a man must needs disguise, it maketh him practise simulation in other things, lest his hand should be out of use.
But for the 3rd degree, which is simulation, and false profession; that I hold more culpable, and less politic; except it be in great and rare matters. And therefore a general custom of simulation (which is this last degree) is a vice, rising either of a natural falseness or fearfulness, or of a mind that hath some main faults, which because a man must needs disguise, it maketh him practise simulation in other things, lest his hand should be out of use. The great advantages of simulation and dissimulation are three. 1st , to lay asleep opposition, and to surprise. For where a man's intentions are published, it is an alarum, to call up all that are against them.
Larson – The Lord will lie to Sly thus inducing Sly to become a simulator and every aspect of his life would be a disimulaton. I wonder what he means by "practice."
…………………………………………………………………………….
Page: Here, noble lord: what is thy will with her?
SLY: Are you my wife and will not call me husband? My men should call me 'lord:' I am your goodman.
Page: My husband and my lord, my lord and husband;
I am your wife in all obedience.
Bacon -- And the 3rd, simulation, in the affirmative; when a man industriously and expressly feigns and PRETENDS TO BE, that he is not. -- Simulation and Dissimulation.
Larson -- The page is a simulator.
……………………………………………………………………………………..
Page: For your physicians have expressly charged,
In peril to incur your former malady,
That I should yet absent me from your bed:
I hope this reason stands for my excuse (for not sleeping with Sly).
Bacon -- Besides (to say truth) nakedness is uncomely, as well in mind as body; and it addeth no small reverence, to men's manners and actions, if they be not altogether open. -- Of Simulation and Dissimulation
Larson -- This appears to be a lie but the truth is an assumption the page doesn't directly deny. Classic BS.
……………………………………………..
Page: It is a kind of history.
SLY: Well, well see't. Come, madam wife, sit by my side
and let the world slip: we shall ne'er be younger.
Bacon -- The 2nd, dissimulation, in the negative; when a man lets fall signs and arguments, that he IS NOT, that he is.-- Simulation and Dissimulation.
Larson: Basking in his BS world.
……………………………………………………………………
BAPTISTA: Gentlemen, importune me no farther,
For how I firmly am resolved you know;
That is, not bestow my youngest daughter
Before I have a husband for the elder:
If either of you both love Katharina,
Because I know you well and love you well,
Leave shall you have to court her at your pleasure.
Bacon -- They(parents) cannot utter the one; nor they will not utter the other. -- OF PARENTS AND CHILDREN.
Larson – Parents must think of all the children all the time.
…………………………………………………………………………………
BAPTISTA: Gentlemen, that I may soon make good
What I have said, Bianca, get you in:
And let it not displease thee, good Bianca,
For I will love thee ne'er the less, my girl.
Bacon -- They that are the first raisers of their houses, are most indulgent towards their children; beholding them as the continuance, not only of their kind, but of their work; and so both children and creatures. -- Of Parents and Children.
Larson –Playing favorites could explain Kates attitude. With two children the parents job is evenly divided.
…………………………………………………………………………….
KATHARINA: A pretty peat! it is best
Put finger in the eye, an she knew why.
Bacon -- The illiberality of parents, in allowance towards their children, is an harmful error; makes them base; acquaints them with shifts; makes them sort with mean company; and makes them surfeit more when they come to plenty. … And therefore the proof is best, when men keep their authority towards the children, but not their purse. – Of Parents and Children.
Larson -- Baptista's indulgence with Bianca may be the cause of the family dysfunction. Children will often seek opposite poles of personality to develope identity.
………………………………………………………………………………..
BAPTISTA: Gentlemen, content ye; I am resolved:
Go in, Bianca:
Exit BIANCA
And for I know she taketh most delight
In music, instruments and poetry,
Schoolmasters will I keep within my house,
Fit to instruct her youth. If you, Hortensio,
Or Signior Gremio, you, know any such,
Prefer them hither; for to cunning men
I will be very kind, and liberal
To mine own children in good bringing up:
And so farewell. Katharina, you may stay;
For I have more to commune with Bianca.
Bacon -- one or two of the eldest respected, and the youngest made wantons; but in the midst, some that are as it were forgotten, who many times, nevertheless, prove the best. Of Parents and Children.
Bacon -- Men have a foolish manner (both parents and schoolmasters and servants) in creating and breeding an emulation between brothers, during childhood, which many times sorteth to discord when they are men, and disturbeth famils. --Of Parents and Children.
Larson -- Bianca is clearly the favorite which feeds Kates anger. Baptista needs a wife more tan the children need a husband.
……………………………………………………………….
KATHARINA: Why, and I trust I may go too, may I not? What,
shall I be appointed hours; as though, belike, I
knew not what to take and what to leave,
Bacon -- There be none of the affections, which have been noted to fascinate or bewitch, but love and envy. They both have vehement wishes; they frame themselves readily into imaginations and suggestions; and they come easily into the eye, especially upon the present of the objects; which are the points that conduce to fascination, if any such thing there be. see likewise, the Scripture calleth envy an evil eye; and the astrologers, call the evil influences of the stars, evil aspects; so that still there seemeth to be acknowledged, in the act of envy, an ejaculation or irradiation. -- OF Envy
Larson -- Sibling rivalry can easily become envy in a family where favoritism is concerned.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………….
TRANIO: Master, you look'd so longly on the maid,
Perhaps you mark'd not what's the pith of all.
Bacon -- That it is impossible to love, and to be wise. -- Of Love
Larson – Any disagreement?
………………………………………………………………………………..
LUCENTIO: O yes, I saw sweet beauty in her face,
Such as the daughter of Agenor had,
That made great Jove to humble him to her hand.
When with his knees he kiss'd the Cretan strand.
TRANIO: Saw you no more? mark'd you not how her sister
Began to scold and raise up such a storm
That mortal ears might hardly endure the din?
LUCENTIO: Tranio, I saw her coral lips to move
And with her breath she did perfume the air:
Sacred and sweet was all I saw in her.
Bacon -- It is a strange thing, to note the excess of this passion, and how it braves the nature, and value of things, by this; that the speaking in a perpetual hyperbole, is comely in nothing but in love. -- Parents and Children.
Larson –The love poems will soon begin.
……………………………………………………………………………………………
TRANIO: Nay, then, 'tis time to stir him from his trance.
LUCENTIO: Sirrah, come hither: 'tis no time to jest,
And therefore frame your manners to the time.
Your fellow Tranio here, to save my life,
Puts my apparel and my countenance on,
And I for my escape have put on his;
For in a quarrel since I came ashore
I kill'd a man and fear I was descried:
Wait you on him, I charge you, as becomes,
While I make way from hence to save my life:
Bacon -- And the 3rd, simulation, in the affirmative; when a man industriously and expressly feigns and pretends to be. -- Of Simulation and Dissimulation.
Larson – Would Lucentio be disguising himself as a simulator or be lying or hiding his true self like a disimulator? I'm not sure.
……………………………………………………………………………..
There is much more of the play and I WILL BE ADDING.Sunday, January 3, 2010
Sonnet 14
Honest Sonnet#14 I hate deadlines too
3 01 2010As far as I can tell Francis Bacon had an enormous intellectual capacity and had a great many projects going on all the time. One of his first goals, as a teenager, was to take all knowledge as his providence. He apparently did that.
He also had an off and on love life but he was also in love with his major project of bringing England out of the dark ages through education mostly through writing and also plays performed in theaters. His project for mankind was called the Great Instaturation.
Hitler and others tried world domination through bombs and bullets. Francis tried for world domination through education. Francis has had some success for many reasons which included anominity.
He probably figured that the plays and other works would have more empact on peoples lives if they were freer to derive their own meaning from them rather than be tempted to scramble to find out what was on his mindwhen he wrote the plays. He promoted the educational style of dialogue and conversation that he was taught from very early.
He believed that if people were encouraged to think for themselves they would arrive at the right answers.
In sonnet 14 he was having trouble trusting his judgement or his mother the Queen’s judgement. For most of his adult life he pressured her to give him a special rank in government with a good stipend so he could have an open road to promote and and administer his Great Instaturation. The Queen never said no to him but she never said yes, either so he was a roller coaster of hope and uncertainty or outright depression: Will she or will she not?
It is my geuss that he wrote sonnet 14 while waiting for an event that may influence her opinion or was preparing for the outcome of his own dead line for her. As you can read he tries to remain hopeful but it is hard to do that.
Francis is in red with numbered lines Edwin is in green.
1. Not from the stars do I my judgment pluck;
I don’t depend on astrology or fate to guide my decisions
2. And yet methinks I have astronomy,
and yet I think I am directed by the fate
3. But not to tell of good or evil luck,
and not able to predict good or evil luck
4. Of plagues, of dearths, or seasons’ quality;
of plagues, od deaths or the seasons weather
5. Nor can I fortune to brief minutes tell,
nor can I tell what will happen from minure to minute
6. Pointing to each his thunder, rain and wind,
wondering about his/my stormy mood
7. Or say with princes if it shall go well,
or predict if all will go well with the Queen
8. By oft predict that I in heaven find:
by often predicting that she will find me heavenly
9. But from thine eyes my knowledge I derive,
But by looking in my eyes I see and know
10.And, constant stars, in them I read such art
and I read my gaze like the astrologers art
11.As truth and beauty shall together thrive,
as truth is beauty and beauty is truth
12.If from thyself to store thou wouldst convert;
If I hold that as my belief I/she would change
13.Or else of thee this I prognosticate:
or I’m only going to prognosticate
14.Thy end is truth’s and beauty’s doom and date.
That my truth will end and beauty is doomed by a certain time and I can’t do anything about it now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)