| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
 |
|
| Shakespeare and the gunpowder plot. |
Now that's one I've to look up!
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
Shakespeare and the gunpowder plot.
Now that's one I've to look up! |
Shakespeare wrote more plays under the Stuart than the Elizabethan regime; apparently between 1603 and 1613 he and his players performed no less than 138 times at court. His main interest would have been to keep the playhouses open and his actors (and himself) in work. Patronage was essential. And there was competition, a very creative era.
[Tom Stoppard, arguably the greatest living playwright in the UK, who got an Oscar for his screenplay of 'Shakespeare in Love', watches the cast performing his work and if necessary re-writes sections; as with all performing arts, a play is a collaboration between actors and playwright, then and now.]
Shakespeare's plays weren't written down, the texts that have been passed down were written posthumously, the First Folio was only published in 1623 (there's one little-known play which he was drafted in to co-write which he's corrected, crossed lines out, like any writer would do and still does.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
|
But Mick has claimed (if I recall) -- and I am warm to his claim -- that the plays were never intended to be performed.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
That must be my evil twin you're thinking about. I have never said (or thought) any such thing.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | That must be my evil twin you're thinking about. I have never said (or thought) any such thing. |
Well...I must have misread one of your more cryptic posts...but I admit, the idea immediately appealed to me! I encourage you to consider its merits and implications.
You see...I can't help but see a continuum between Shakespeare, Homer and Socrates -- these emblematic cultural heroes who represent some artistic high-point in the history of their respective peoples that occurs right at the birth of their people's national identity -- right in that twilight zone between history and legend.
In my zeal to re-write history, I've even wondered if Shakespeare's plays might be older than Shakespeare -- that they might be something that emerged from more distant temporal mist -- but that's just a playful idea I do not take much seriously.
On the subject at hand however...I have wondered -- since reading your phantom posting -- if Shakespeare performed does not after all seem somewhat artificial? Is this not just poetry merely in the form of a play?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Ah, yes, 'the first is the best'. That's something that Applied Epistemologists like to get their teeth into from time to time. The generally approved model of development is that prototypes are rough and ready and technical apogee comes later, even by definition at the very end. But there is this other factor -- that during the Act of Creation is the only time when the human mind can be truly free. After that everybody is constrained by having it, as it were, already in their brain.
But a coupla points arising directly out of your posting:
We must be careful not to accord too much technical excellence to things which are merely objects of antique reverence. I occasionally challenge Christians to come up with just one thing that Jesus said (or the Bible says) that is 'any good'. So then they say, "Love thy neighbour" or "Blessed are the cheesemakers for they shall inherit the earth" or something which, in the harsh light of Applied Epistemological day, is obviously just routine bollocks. How would you critique the Song of Solomon if it was written on the lavatory door?
In my own case, I am frequently challenged with the question, "Well, if Beowulf is a forgery, how come it's a masterpiece?" To which my response. "Would anyone think it was a masterpiece if they knew it was a forgery" is necessarily somewhat lame. Though actually the situation is not that simple because of "First is best" considerations. In other words if you, a Tudor poet of some competence, were to sit down and compose the very first Anglo-Saxon epic might you actually be quite likely to turn out a masterpiece?
This question arose in Australia some years ago when a drunken Aussie journalist wrote some "aboriginal" poetry which was then widely admired as works of genius. Of course everybody was deeply mortified when the truth came out but I can't help thinking that such a situation might indeed produce works of genius.
One point about Shakespeare that needs making. Everybody proceeds on the basis that in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, Shakespeare's plays were a popular art form. I don't believe this. They seem then, as they do now, to be rather self-consciously high brow ie they're bleedin' difficult. And perhaps one should bear in mind, then as now, that being difficult is not the same thing as being profound. Quite often the emperor's clothes are just fashionably threadbare.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | We must be careful not to accord too much technical excellence to things which are merely objects of antique reverence. I occasionally challenge Christians to come up with just one thing that Jesus said (or the Bible says) that is 'any good'. So then they say, "Love thy neighbour" or "Blessed are the cheesemakers for they shall inherit the earth" or something which, in the harsh light of Applied Epistemological day, is obviously just routine bollocks. |
I think you need higher quality aquaintances.
But before I attempt any sort of rebuttal, I should remind you that you are a self-confessed hater of poetry (surprising for someone so skilled with words) -- so your capacity to appreciate some of the more beautiful passages from scripture may be somewhat impaired. I'll leave that between you and your god.
Now, in my judgement, the Bible has a great many passages that are certainly beautiful -- and other passages which contain imagery that is certainly powerful and intrinsically archetypal. I also maintain that Christ's moral injunction of "Love your enemy" is unique in religious literature.
THAT SAID... considering the total amount of words contained in the Old and New Testaments, the ratio of "wheat to chaff" is hardly better than what might be expected of chance -- that is, an assembly of 66 books grabbed at random from the shelves of the local bookstore.
| "Would anyone think it was a masterpiece if they knew it was a forgery" is necessarily somewhat lame. |
My answer is Yes.
The Lord of the Rings also makes pretensions to being true -- though these pretensions are not expected to be taken seriously (and Tolkien expressed horror that some deranged readers did so). Yet, Tolkien's work is part of a long tradition in literature of, what I will term, "feigned forgery."
This tradition, I suspect, may have emerged from an older practice of unfeigned forgery -- actual forgery. In earliest forms, forgery might have been no reason for shame. Rather, the cleverness of the author in disguising fiction as fact was one marker of the writer's skill. It's all part of the suspension of disbelief and a better writer makes it easier to suspend disbelief -- and it's easiest for me to suspend my disbelief if I am convinced that what I read is true.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Don't leave it to me and god (God), Ishmael. Here's a challenge: list five things said by Jesus (or any other divine source in the Bible) and we can judge whether they are routine bollocks or not. You won't do this because as soon as you write them down in this context, they will speedily become routine bollocks, even to you.
Your point about the beauty of certain Biblical passages is of course quite different. If you've got several hundred years of a literate nation's output, then certainly you're going to come up with lots and lots of passages of great beauty. The Oxford Anthology of Eighteenth Century English Poetry does so with no sweat, and no claim that we should worship it, or indeed accord it any more importance than what it is -- pretty good poetry, even pretty damned good poetry. Even genius level poetry for all I know. As you say, I've got a tin air for these things.
Your Lord of the Rings argument is different again, and quite wrong again. Tolkien is a genius (if he is a genius) simply as a matter of selection. In other words, of the literary output of England during the twentieth century certain works have turned out to be bad, some good, some very very good, and a few at the genius level. Lord of the Rings is presumably one of the latter.
However it is true that Tolkien was able to take advantage of the 'First is best' factor. Everybody trying to write this sort of fiction ever since has had Tolkien ringing in his head like a nasty case of tinnitus. This is, by the way, why I keep urging you dudes to be the first on the block with ouevres. However I should warn you that any time you do (for instance, the treasure hunts) you have to spend the rest of your lifetime getting orthodoxy even to read the damned things. My telly programmes will doubtless go the same way.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | Don't leave it to me and god (God), Ishmael. Here's a challenge: list five things said by Jesus (or any other divine source in the Bible) and we can judge whether they are routine bollocks or not. |
The problem with this challenge is that I sincerely do not understand what you mean by "routine bollocks."
Perhaps this sounds like the "clarification dodge"? Perhaps it is but I don't think so. Because, as you acknowledge...
| Your point about the beauty of certain Biblical passages is of course quite different. If you've got several hundred years of a literate nation's output, then certainly you're going to come up with lots and lots of passages of great beauty. |
...and I understood beauty to be what separated some exceptional writing from the "routine bullocks." You seem to be wanting something more. What?
And you certainly can't number me among those who would claim the Bible is worthy of "worship!" My only argument was that, in so far as it does excel in parts, it does so rather like "The Oxford Anthology of Eighteenth Century English Poetry." Seems we agree then.
But if you are looking for exceptional statements, claims or ideas contained exclusively in the Bible, I maintain that "love your enemies" will forever set it apart. No competing scripture contains any statement like this. "Love your neighbor as yourself" you can find anywhere but "do good to those who persecute you" -- that you'll find some trouble matching with a similar sentiment from an earlier work.
This notion is not expressed in only one part of the Christian Scripture either. It is a constant theme. From Christ crucified, praying for the forgiveness of his own killers, to St. Stephen, doing the same while being stoned by the friends of St. Paul: There's nothing like that anywhere else.
But there are other unique concepts as well. The equation of God with Love I believe is specific to the New Testament, as is the doctrine of equality. Unlike Plato, for instance, who would still divide humanity into three spiritual classes (Gold, Silver and Bronze souls), St. Paul writes, "In Christ, there is neither Greek nor Jew, nor slave nor free, nor male nor female."
The entire topsy-turvy nature of the "Christian ethic" (what Nietcshe called "Slave Morality"), though perhaps foreshadowed or vaguely echoed in other works, is nowhere more forcefully or clearly expressed. St. Paul, in his most famous passage from Corinthians, enumerates the potential achievements of man and denigrates them all as worthless if the man who does them has not love. And of everything that a man can do in this life, Paul says only three are lasting: Faith, hope and love -- and the greatest of these, he says, is love.
Where else have we seen such a complete inversion of the normative system of value whereby some men rise to fame, wealth and power? No. Christ says that only by making oneself a slave to others can a man find real power.
All this seems to me unique. It could not be called routine.
| However it is true that Tolkien was able to take advantage of the 'First is best' factor. Everybody trying to write this sort of fiction ever since has had Tolkien ringing in his head like a nasty case of tinnitus. |
Absolutely! In fact, his were the last works of fantasy I ever read. I knew nothing after him would ever live up to him so I stopped reading it all.
| This is, by the way, why I keep urging you dudes to be the first on the block with ouevres. However I should warn you that any time you do (for instance, the treasure hunts) you have to spend the rest of your lifetime getting orthodoxy even to read the damned things. My telly programmes will doubtless go the same way. |
Hmmm.....I see now (finally) what you mean!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Very well, I will accept your claims that Christianity offers certain unique concepts of value. Though of course I reserve the right to personally disagree with any of them. Of the three you mention:
"Love your enemies" seems a dippy programme, though "love your enemies after you've kicked the shit out of them" is often good statecraft -- a policy I believe first introduced by the Persians and later adopted by the Romans (and the British Empire).
"Do good to those who persecute you" can sometimes work (it's the Ghandian principle...was he a Christian?...I forget) but only when your persecutors have already gone soft, suffer from guilt complexes and so forth.
"Only three are lasting: Faith, hope and love -- and the greatest of these is love." I think Wireloop has taught us that "love" is something of a mistranslation but why these three things are singled out for special attention is not at all clear to me. Does Paulie tell us?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| "Very well, I will accept your claims that Christianity offers certain unique concepts of value. Though of course I reserve the right to personally disagree with any of them. |
Of course. All of them are problematic. But then, if these ideas were obviously true, they would indeed be "routine bullocks." They are not so only because they were and remain so counter-intuitive. And yet...they do persist...so they can't be complete rubbish either. Even if these principles make for bad advice, they must in some sense inspire.
| Only three are lasting: Faith, hope and love -- and the greatest of these is love." I think Wireloop has taught us that "love" is something of a mistranslation but why these three things are singled out for special attention is not at all clear to me. Does Paulie tell us? |
The KJV is "Charity" -- which I take to mean indiscriminate love.
One thing about all three of these virtues is that they are common virtues -- attainable by everyone regardless of intelligence, wealth, talent or beauty. Where once what was common was thought of as mean, Christianity (like Plato) says that that which is common more closely approaches the ideal.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
Ah...Plato. Let's not forget Paul was steeped in Plato but never met Jesus.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | Ah...Plato. Let's not forget Paul was steeped in Plato but never met Jesus. |
Paul was indeed steeped in Plato. But Paul -- like John of Patmos -- routinely met with Jesus in his visions -- and that was the only Jesus anyone ever met.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DPCrisp
In: Bedfordshire
|
|
|
|
| "do good to those who persecute you" -- that you'll find some trouble matching with a similar sentiment from an earlier work. |
Do you say this in the knowledge that Plato, Euclid and the rest are holy scripture, too?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| DPCrisp wrote: | | "do good to those who persecute you" -- that you'll find some trouble matching with a similar sentiment from an earlier work. |
Do you say this in the knowledge that Plato, Euclid and the rest are holy scripture, too? |
Well...holiness is in the eye of the believer but, if you allege that Plato urged his readers to "love their enemies", I invite you to quote chapter and verse.
I do so from a sincere desire to learn -- not because I think it impossible. To my knowledge it simply isn't the case.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
