"The rentboy theory of Shakespeare."
This whole blog seems to have become a big troll meant to piss me off. Not only do you hate the US Constitution (the point on which I used to agree to some extent but now vehemently disagree though some changes could be useful), but then you come out and support Putin. Then, to top it all off, you engage in the most refuted slander of all time and support Oxfordianism.
Only an idiot would let someone else take credit for those masterworks. And, indeed, we see Shakespeare doing things like pandering to Elizabeth's ancestors and excoriating the Yorkists and heaping lavish praise on the Lancastrians, avoiding the obvious and highly dramatic plot points in his Henry the Eighth (such as Henry's many marriages and executions) and adding fulsome praise of Elizabeth to the same, that would make no damn sense if he was a fall boy: Why have a fall boy if you aren't willing to risk a fall? Why not take the credit for your compliments to the queen? Shakespeare, despite his genius, is one of the biggest ass-kissers in all of history; you don't kiss ass with a pseudonym.
We see Shakespeare's development as a poet---and Oxford never even came close to him. Any verse in Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus, far and away his worst play and an early work, beats to living hell anything produced by Oxford. Or take Two Gentlemen of Verona, the other candidate for worst play and probably Shakespeare's very first, it too beats out Oxford's known production.
Not to mention, we know the men who were involved in printing the First Folio---and we have a rather detailed publishing history of some of the Quartos: Interesting how none of the diverse publishers of Shakespeare's work ever showed signs of suspecting Oxford. Certainly one of them might have tried to confuse the ownership issue when Shakespeare sought redress for an unauthorized publishing, as he did from Jaggard, by saying someone else was the author. But none did.
Furthermore, we have reason to suspect Shakespeare collaborated with a number of different authors: Titus Andronicus was a collaboration with Peale, and Edward III seems to have been a large collaboration of authors including Shakespeare. Pericles, Prince of Tyre, is a collaboration with Wilkins. Timon of Athens is obviously a collaboration with Middleton (if you desire a followup post on my blog making the case for these coauthorships, please say so in the comments). How could so many artists have collaborated with Oxford unknowingly? Or why would so many have held onto the secret?
As for Shakespeare's education being insufficient, we know what Shakespeare's sources were: Basically, Holinshed's chronicles, various popular works, and classics that any schoolboy studying Latin at the time would have had. What we don't see, at all, is the influence of Greek works---which makes sense as Shakespeare did not know Greek. I can, in fact, say that Oxford's work would have shown a much richer source material than what is known to have inspired Shakespeare.
Lastly, the fact that Oxford stopped writing must imply that I am secretly Kazio Ishiguro, because I produced a fair number of competent literary works when I was young and have done little with my life since, while he continued to publish and win Booker prizes. Seriously, man, an educated, rich guy stopped writing and didn't do any serious work so he must be the greatest literary genius of his time? That is your argument?
Indeed, the Oxfordian theory involves so many people keeping the secret that it begins to smack of Alex Jones. What am I saying, it is slander to accuse Alex of being an Oxfordian.
Seriously man, you want to debate this crap: Any time, any place. I eat Oxfordians for breakfast, son. Same way I eat Marxists, baby.
"We live in an oligarchy of prestigious institutions that is full of super-smart people." Dude, we have to disabuse you of elite-worship. Our oligarchy is full of imbecilic cliche-ridden screeching harpies and intellectually limited goblins capable of nothing but quoting Robin Diangelo. Yes, under Wilson and perhaps FDR we had real Brahmins, now we have vicious ghouls who all share one brain between them.
That's a really smart article. Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised. I'm having difficulty envisioning the actually mechanics of the collapse. Will it cascade from something banal? Like when a confused Günter Schabowski said "As far as I know, it takes effect immediately, without delay", and then a few hours later the Berlin Wall was being dismantled with hand tools.
But then the East Germans had a better understanding of where they were than most of us do. We will see I suppose.
"His signatures are those of a semi-literate man from the lower middle class, to which he belonged. (His daughter Judith signed her name with a mark.)"
That Shakespeare's/Shaksper's signature is "semi-literate" is disputable. The known examples are in what is called a "secretary" hand - the written equivalent of "Gothic" or blackletter type. Such handwriting was common in 16th century England. Ronald McKerrow writes in <i>An Introduction to Bibliography for Literary Students<i/> (Oxford, 1927: Clarendon Press) that:
"When we come to the sixteenth century, and especially to the later years of the century, we find a much larger number of literary documents which, not being the work of professional scribes, ae in cursive has of various degrees of informality and carelessness, and some of these are by no means easy to read. The only way in which the student can learn to make them out is by practice..." (p. 342)
McKerrow illustrates minuscules in Fig. 22, p. 343; and capitals in Fig. 23, p. 349. This writing looks very like the few known examples of Shakespeare's/Shaksper's signature.
In about the 1580s an Italian (Italic) handwriting began to be fashionable in England, and of this McKerrow writes:
"About the Italian hand there is no difficulty whatever, except such as may be due to the carelessness of the writer, for the formation of the letters is practically that of the 'copybook hand of to-day."
It will not do to dismiss Shakespeare's/Shaksper's handwriting as semi-literate because it reflects a now obsolete style that is difficult for modern readers, as compared to a later one that is easier for us to read. People tend to learn a style of handwriting earlier in life and to use it for the rest of their lives, regardless of changes in fashion. I have seen examples of very old-fashioned handwriting in use at a period when it was long outmoded; among them letters written late in life by an ancestress born in very early 19th-century Virginia, still using the long initial and medial ſ (s, like an f without the cross-stroke). It is reasonable to believe that in similar manner, Shakespeare/Shaksper learnt to use the secretary hand as a schoolboy, and persisted in so doing long after the italic hand became fashionable.
As for Judith Shakepeare/Shaksper signing documents with a mark, it was common for women of her time to know how to read but not how to write. A lady's education at the time revolved around religious devotion and the management of a household. The ability to read was necessary to both, while the ability to write write was essential to neither. Elizabeth I was famously literate in six languages, and she wrote in a fine italic hand - but hers was the education of a prince, whose concerns would transcend the merely domestic. Her example was far from usual.
“Thomas Carlyle once said of the British Foreign Office that there was no remedy for it but to set a live coal under it.”
We call it the State Department in these here parts.
So it’s don’t save the Merlot drinkers today, back to regime change?
This inconstancy , and thy art no woman...
Well. Save the regime or change it.... with...who? What?
Ends, means, ways.
Ends must be adjusted to means.
Ways: This regime excels at poppy cropping to the very 4th grade classroom, coincidentally that’s when they start grooming rentboys. But it does work.
It works to make sure nothing exists to supplant it, although as Jan 6 and Uvalde teach us nothing exists to defend it, or anyone else either. So the means are castrated, now literally at age 7.
Really people just want to survive gay Beria, there’s no fight in them.
So you see all that exists are atomized masses of people, nothing more is possible. As it happens I was in my humble way part of regime changes, you might call me “means.”
Like a breakfast taco, but more dangerous. Probably. But we did move, we did defend or offend, but we did move.
Moving for or against the regime is impossible now.
Its over now except for a paycheck. You’ll only have so many mutinous Border Patrol agents (disobeyed orders) to storm the gunman (their careers are toast).
There’s no organization to organize the means, the ways are well known , the ends delusional because the means do not exist.
The means are there, but the ways of the regime teach DO NOTHING or else.
So collect the last paychecks and wait for the lights to go out.
Our regime doesn’t change, it just will sit in the dark.
Frankly you should stock up on Merlot - and candles - and enjoy the decline.
I can’t imagine what Merlot goes with canned food or sawdust bread, but I am rather rustic I suppose. I do wonder if rat meat, or cat, dog, bugs is red wine or white?
those verses don't seem like they are in the style of Shakespeare but more in the style of the time, which to us reads as "Shakespearean" generally
"It seems unlikely that a climber would write"
Hard disagree. Climbers are always the most vocal defenders of established order. There is no point in climbing if the status to which you aspire becomes meaningless before you reach it. It is not strange for someone to miss the irony of attempting to succeed through ability and defending the "natural order" of aristocracy.
On a second, minor note, I just don't buy the snobbishness that is supposed to make Shakespeare ludicrous. You know what's more ridiculous than some bumpkin being the champion of English lit? Some teenage bumpkin barging into a king's court, declaring that they'll lead his army to victory, getting to carry the banner of that army, then getting captured and dodging leading questions set up by established clergy meant to lead them to blaspheme. But no one doubts (I'm sure some doubt, there is always a fringe) the existence of Joan of Arc.
The notion that middle class bourgeois in 16th century England like the Stratford Shakespeare couldn’t be literate or have educated background knowledge is I think very historically inaccurate. For what it’s worth Shakespeare has never read like an aristocrat to me, there’s no “de haut en bas” or affected quality to his writing at all
Maybe. But in 2019 my daughter took me to Stratford and we visited the Grammar School where Will allegedly went to school from age 8.
It was all verbal, with the elder kids teaching the younger kids, because you had to pay extra for pen and ink. Of course, the kids learned Latin. That was the whole point of a Grammar School. And the kids put on plays about classical subjects.
Oh. See, that has been the big sticking point for me. How would Shakespeare have known about the Julius Caesars and Anthonys and Cleopatras? Maybe it was the Latin classes. And the plays.
Also, Shakespeare's dad was a glovemaker. Sending him to the grammar school in an age when kids went to work at age 8 suggests that Shakespeare's father was a bit of a snob and was trying to push his kid upwards. as Mayor Vincy wa trying to do with Fred Vincy in "Middlemarch."
Still, I get your point. Shakespeare was not out of the top drawer, old chap. So how could he have written plays and poetry as though he was?
I see that your blog has become quite unpopular recently. But i think that is normal when you go mainstream. Suddenly a lot of people that never agreed with you are starting to read and guess what? They hate it. Big suprise! I for once continue to enjoy these posts, i just wish you had a bigger literary output and a faster pace of posting. We had like what? 6 posts in the last 3 months?
There is actually (at least one) whole field of study that collapsed overnight. Herb Terrace popped a big hole in the balloon of animal sign language experiments, the teaching of gorillas/chimps to talk to humans. There's a fascinating video on it if you have 50 minutes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7wFotDKEF4
Not sure if that disproves Yarvin's point about "you can't reform (from within) your way out of an existing scholarly consensus" or if it's the exception that proves the rule. But at least this one exception exists.
Literary Piltdown cracked me up.
Time travel typo: 1876 for 1576
A great reading for those who subscribe to the theory that Edward De Vere wrote the plays: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015010324559&view=1up&seq=22
>The market for ideas is what machine-learning nerds
Did anybody try running AI on the writings of various suspects to compare how close they are to Shakespeare's work? Like they did to McCartney/Lennon - https://hdsr.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/xcq8a1v1/release/7 ?
Here is a good Shakespearean play: Curtis’s dream comes true. The Gray Prince emerges and he is a direct descendant of the Earl of Oxford. The true and only king as has been proved by the bloodline creating works that shadow over us like Mufasa looking over the pride land from the heavens. Growing up the Prince has read all of Curtis’s work and is schooled by him and other great elites receiving the greatest modern education anyone has received. Eventually he is proclaimed King and cleans up Washcorp. However, Curtis’s son does not like the new government and starts writing against the new king and the nobles and is eventually murdered by the new regime. Curtis dramatically stabs the Gray Prince in retribution.