Sonnet Book We have a run of 750 sonnetbooks. Each book signed by William S
Read more... |
The Authorship Question is rearing its ugly beautiful head in 2007. (yes even uglier more beautiful than the Droeshout portrait). The Washington Post ran an article questioning yet again a belief system that is absolutely unfalsifiable. It is an article of faith.
If, and there is muuuch mileage in your if, you start down this path of dalliance, you are doomed to ever more smug slotting of the final final piece into place on this historically perpetuated conundrum. Sh was a liar and x is the true author because of a similarity to one or more of his greatest characters.
‘Kind is my love to day, tomorrow kind,
still constant in a wondrous excellence,
therefore my verse to one thing confined
one thing expressing, leaves out difference.
Fair, kind, and true is all my argument,…’ Q105.
My shakespeare has a provenance in the theatre as an actor and author, also as a commercial poet. he is known to his peers in theatre, patronage and printing. His patron is distantly related to his mother’s family, the Ardens, ardent Catholics.
The preposterous claims of the authorship grave-diggers are eating away at the base of the Stratty-boy with few Orthodoxers rushing to his rickety defense. I’m making a stand here.
The cacophony of the Oxfordians and now Sir Henry Neville exclaiming: it’s obvious, swallow these fantasies, believe this preposterousness, galls me through seven shades of humours and biles. The reductionism of viewing the Elizabethan age solely through the one true prism: Bacon, Oxford, Derby, Eliza, poor soul.
‘When I have seen by time’s fell hand defaced,
the rich proud cost of outworn buried age.
and sometime lofty towers down-rased,
and brass eternal, slave to mortal rage.’
The author, as stated in the historical record, is William Sh. BTW the historical record is generally agreed upon by everyone and not owned exclusively by orthodox scholars, subverting any open expression of alternative views on the identity of SHhhhhhh.
he didn’t want to be found, imho.
A lifelong friend and fellow poet Michael Drayton is there throughout sh’s career. both working the aristocracy for a buck. or perhaps rather, poaching the buck after getting paid from the nobleman’s accounts guy.
The behaviour of the aristocracy at Elizabeth’s Court and outside of it, must have been a source of much humour for the players, writers and other associated gossips. The reality is they lived in different worlds.
Their worlds intersected only on formal occasions with a gulf dividing them in intimacy. They were after all his lord’s servants. This world, exemplified so mellifluously in his plays with words in the mouths of kings and queens and noble families’ traditions.
Oxford for example could never have maintained the day to day hustle and flow of the working theatre world. Besides he had his own group of players and he let them play others works, depriving them of his genius, in favour of giving a rival company the profits and fame which his plays produced, a company to which his shill belonged.
Where on earth is the motive in this? What did Oxford or Bacon or whomever, get out of this? This happened too with the two narrative poems that went through 11 editions in Shaxberd’s lifetime. Who profits from this? Why do it for anonymous posthumous fame? Especially when that fame is due to arrive, finally if ever, when someone figures out the wittily placed cryptographic clue obvious to several individuals some 225 years later. Oxenforde lived out his last years in penury. Why?
‘Lean penury within that pen doth dwell,
that to his subject lends not some small glory,
but he that writes of you if he can tell,
that you are you, so dignifies his story.’
now if you think that’s bull, follow me around with a shovel. This year is shaping up shakey wise. The Globe workshop kicked butt due to 30 mins onstage to close it off. Granted tour groups kept on interrupting us, but hey everybody wants a piece of the magic.
Here’s a little piece on eloquence by Ralph Waldo Emerson:
Eloquence.…
shows the power and possibility of man…
The orator is the physician…
There is no true orator who is not a hero…
No act indicates more universal health than eloquence.
The special ingredients of this force are clear perceptions, memory, power of statement, logic, imagination or the skill to clothe your thought in natural images, passion which is the heat, and then a grand will…
But this power which so fascinates and astonishes and commands, is only the exaggeration of a talent which is universal.
All men are competitors in this art.
Eloquence is as natural as swimming,
– an art which all men might learn, though so few do.
The orator must command the whole scale of language, from the most elegant to the most low and vile.
Everyone has felt how superior in force is the language of the street to that of the academy.
The street must be one of his tools.
Ought not the scholar to be able to convey his meaning in terms as short and strong as the porter or truckman uses to convey his?
The speech of the man in the street is invariably strong, nor can you mend it by making it what you call parliamentary.
The power of his speech is, that it is understood by all… but we must come to the main matter, of power of statement,
– know your fact; hug your fact.
For the essential thing is heat, and heat comes of sincerity.
Speak what you know and believe.
Eloquence is the power to translate a truth into language perfectly intelligible to the person to whom you speak
-Ralph Waldo Emerson.
…friday the 23rd february, the American Book Centre, Spui, Amsterdam. 8pm.
yours truly will be reciting a smattering of sonnets for your delectation. A 10 minute performance in order to promote the new sonnetbook. But also to recite for recitings sake. can’t help it. must, no, must! the truth is no-one is waiting for this performance. people don’t talk about it in newspapers or online, except me. it’s a discovery of self.
hold on better check the email, or google myself, or see myself on You-Tube , which in Scotland is an insult!
Immediately after i go towards the comedy cafe to continue a career, which again no-one is talking about, except me. see my other comedy blog here.
oh the internet is fun for being so self-reflexive. damn it’s tiring to be to be such a tireless self-promoter.
‘To me fair friend you never can be old,
for as you were when first your eye i eye’d,‘ Q104.
* Homosexuality has always been a threat to straight procreative society and religion; as it still is in many (read the majority of) societies. Some say it comes to exist through genetics, others say learned behaviour. It does exist in every society worldwide, but is not necessarily accepted. Elizabethan London was no exception and the Renaissance did infect the dissolute and godless young men and women of fashion with a certain neo-paganism. I do not wish to imply all homosexuals are pagan, there are and were many Conservative homosexuals.
*The idea that Sh. was full-on homosexual i.e. that he preferred male love and sex above and beyond heterosexuality and the husbandry of procreation, is to my mind unlikely.
The idea that he was bisexual doesn’t seem that far-fetched, but then it could be projection.
The idea that he was heterosexual with latent desire to be a homosexual by strength of love not lust seems to me an option. His works show a man’s man with a gentle heart and when he talks of sex in the plays it is mostly of country matters.
*Effeminate males in Sh. work are dealt with kindly but contemptuously; witness Hotspur`s speech in Henry 4th: act1: sc.3. And of course that old camp Queen, Thersites, in Troilus and Cressida. And mind you the Merchant of Venice is certainly willing to bend over backwards to help out his friend.
*In fact Sh. brother Gilbert is more often portrayed as the homosexual in the Shakespeare family. He left Stratford not long after Will and set up as a haberdasher in London, where he lived and worked until he died. Good connection by the way for an actor having your own costume maker!
*I think it obvious Sh. knew and worked with homosexuals because darling what’s the thea-tuh without them?
*By 1609 it was common at the Court of James 1st because the king himself was rumoured to be gay. He, like Sh, had a wife and family!
*Fletcher and Beaumont are both labelled homosexual. Sh. collaborated with them in the first decade of Jame’s reign. I think like Rembrandt he had his apprentices, as they took over his writer position for the King’s men when Sh retired.
*The idea that the Sonnets prove Sh. to be a homosexual was started by Oscar Wilde in 1889 with a story he wrote called `The Portrait of Mr.W.H.`. An excellent read! Wilde inconclusively postulates in this work of fiction that the Mr. W.H. of the Dedication to the Sonnets, is a boy actor who played the most famous female roles.
*The Sonnets do seem to indicate homosexuality:
I mean they are addressed with love to a beautiful young man…
`the master-mistress of my passion`.Q20.
But if you read further it becomes quite clear that his sex is not the reason for the poet’s love..
` since she prick`d thee out for women`s pleasure,
mine be thy love and thy love`s use their treasure`. Q20.
*Ten years after Wilde, Samuel Butler wrote his theory on the queer content of the Sonnets. Butler insisted the Mr.W.H. of Thorpe`s dedication was the inspirer of the S. and his name was Willie Hughes, a sea-cook who sold the Sonnet manuscript to Thorpe in 1609 for a few shillings because he had money problems. How Butler came to know this is perhaps more of a mystery than the Sonnets themselves!
*The idea for the name Hughes derives from the fact that in the original Sonnet Quarto prints several words in italics; one such being Hews in Q20. There are other such italicised words: rose, alchemy, orient, phoenix, ocean, rhetoric, informer, will, epitaph, cherubims. All very gay words when italicised!
*The punishment for Homosexuality in Sh. time was death, but the threat of punishment never stopped a determined lover, ever. It makes no sense however for Sh to call attention to a capital offence in verse; as Wilde found out in the 19th C. no-one is above the law.
*The church and the performing arts, in particular the theatre, have long served as a camouflage and relatively safe haven for homosexuality. This does not mean they are rampant sex clubs, but rather places of tolerance and acceptance.
*Another commentator Gillet, found Butler`s identification of W.H. ridiculous but thought the case for homo-erotic content proven…
˜This dangerous being (the FYM) had all that was necessary to seduce a poet of delicate sensibility, of aristocratic spirit and perhaps a little snobbishness…The simple phenomena of his youth and beauty were a great attraction to the ageing man…Shakespeare was lost. Throughout the S. one can see the sort of disquieting young dog that the FYM was: nonchalant, despotic, insolent, probably malicious, falsehood incarnated in the form of an angel…such was the poet`s terrible experience…my master-mistress…what man ever addressed another man with such self-abasement and such adoration?`
…Gillet concludes by finding the whole cycle…
`the most tragic of human documents, the eternal story of mature age seeking to retain youth, of the superior man seized by a creature of luxury that betrays and martyrs him, and that, under its brilliant plumage, is a soulless nature, a vulgar bird`…
*None of the above takes into account the Triangle affair of the poet`s mistress, the so-called by commentators, Dark Lady, the Fair Young Man and the Poet himself….
`Two loves I have, of comfort and despair,
Which like two spirits do suggest me still` Q144.
and its earlier-published counterpart….
`When my love swears that she is made of truth
I do believe her though I know she lies…
…Therefore I lie with her, and she with me,
And in our faults by lies we flattered be.`. Q138.
A sensitive duo of sonnets to whet a gossip’s lips at the fin de siecle Court of Elizabeth. The implied heterosexuality of these lines is never questioned. Of course there is one other possibility:
* Bisexuality. Benedict Friedlander a German commentator first discussed this in 1908. He finds his evidence in the Triangle affair dealt with in Q40-42.
*The ancient religions of the Near East and Asia recognized and accepted other sexual practices, as did the Dorian Greeks. The Samurai of Japan also accepted male love and it was commonly commended for warriors. It is Christian history that created the taboo. Then again any form of sex in Christian society is taboo, tied up as it is with morality, leading to sinful, criminal and pathological behaviour.
*Now Sh. certainly had enough examples of homosexuals in art history: Socrates and Plato from the Greek philosophers to Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci in the Renaissance.
*His own time too with near and actual contemporaries like Nicholas Udall, who wrote Ralph Roister Doister, had to quit his post as headmaster of Eton after certain accusations.
*Shakespeare’s greatest poetic rival Christopher Marlowe was accused at trial of atheism and homosexuality. He was killed in a bar fight by some have it a jealous lover, some by espionage agents, some an argument about the receipt or reckoning (see dutch word: rekening). Some say Marlowe used this opportunity to escape away to France and Italy, to undergo primitive plastic surgery and then return to become the immortal Bard in secret under the pseudonym of some schmuck from Stratford called Shagsbirds.
*Other presumably gay writers of his time include Fletcher and Beaumont and the poet Richard Barnfield. No one says the life long friends of Shakespeare of Stratford upon Avon, his fellow players, his musician friends, his business relations and fellow speculators were gay. Though who knows? Science tells us nowadays that 50% of the population is definitely heterosexual, 5%-10% is homosexual, which leaves 40% unaccounted for. Who cares?
*I think if you read the Sonnets and Plays with an understanding of the use of bawdy word-play you will find much heterosexual nudge-nudge wink-wink innuendo and not much more. The basic thing to remember is that love is not just sex.
*Sex can lead to disease if practised wantonly. In Shakespeare’s age it could cost you your complexion and in our Age it may cost you your life. The wondrous being that is the FYM had all that was necessary to seduce a poet of delicate sensibility, of aristocratic bent where morality is concerned, leading to sinful, criminal and pathological behaviour. Because even if the FYM was gay, he did sleep with the poet’s mistress!
Yet this shall I ne’er know but live in doubt,
Till my bad angel fire my good one out.
Q144.
If you want you can find the Muse in sonnets
21,
32,
38,
78,
79,
82,
85,
100,
101,
103.
Yes that makes 10 Muse sonnets, as Shakespeare offers the fair young man the role of tenth muse in sonnet 38!
The 9 Muses:
are the protectors of the arts and sciences and are often called upon by poets for inspiration. If Shakespeare can conclusively to have believed in any supernatural spirits, it was these nine, who could only be attended, not commanded.
Mnemosyne, the mother of the Muses was a female Titan.
Her daughters were conceived over 9 nights with Zeus:
Calliope, the chiefest Muse and muse of epic poetry. Her emblem is the writing tablet.
Euterpe, the Muse of music. Her emblem is the flute.
Clio, the Muse of history. Her emblem is a scroll and books.
Erato, the Muse of lyric poetry and hymns. Her emblem is the lyre and a crown of roses.
Melpomene, the Muse of tragedy. Her emblem is the tragic mask.
Polyhymnia, the Muse of the art of mime and sacred poetry. Her emblem is a pensive expression.
Terpsichore, the Muse of dance. Her emblem is dancing with a lyre.
Thalia, the Muse of comedy. Her emblem is the comic mask.
Urania, the Muse of astronomy. Her emblem is the staff and celestial globe.
A mnemonic phrase for remembering the Muses is:
Carol Eats Crumpets, Even More Plump Teas Than Usual.
Here are the naughty spirits named.
The 9 bad spirits:
First are the false gods of the gentiles with idols and oracles, e.g. Delphi whose prince is Beelzebub.
Second are liars and equivocators like Apollo Pythius and the like;
the third are those vessels of anger, inventors of all mischief and whose prince is Belial;
the fourth are malicious revenging devils whose prince is Asmodeus;
the fifth sort are cozeners such as belong to magicians and witches and their prince is Satan.
The sixth rank are devils of the air and corrupt the air and cause plagues, thunders and fires etc as spoken of in the Apocalypse, their prince is Meresin.
The seventh is a destroyer, captain of the furies, causing wars, tumults, combustions, uproars, also mentioned in the Apocalypse and called Abaddon.
The eighth is that accusing or calumniating devil that drives men to despair.
The ninth are those tempters in several kinds, and their prince is Mammon.
* Shakespeare wrote fast.
Ben Jonson wrote
‘His mind and hand went together and what he thought, he uttered with that easiness, that we have scarce received from him a blot in his papers’.
Ben also wrote
‘Ease and relaxation are profitable to all studies. The mind is like a bow, the stronger by being unbent. But the temper in spirits is all, when to command a man’s wit, when to favour it. I have known a man vehement on both sides; that knew no mean either to intermit his studies or call upon them again. When he hath set himself to writing, he would join night to day; press upon himself without release, not minding it till he fainted: and when he left off, resolve himself into all sports and looseness again; that it was almost despair to draw him to his book: but once he got to it, he grew stronger and more earnest by the ease’.
Some suppose Ben’s acquaintance to have been Shakespeare.
* Phonetics does make you wonder if voiceless bilabial plosives and fricatives are really the most satisfactory expression of emotional release.
*Aubrey’s anecdote on De Vere who on farting in front of Elizabeth was so embarassed he travelled the continent for seven years. When he returned Elizabeth said ‘ Welcome my Lord, I had forgott the farte!’
*Elizabeth loved to swear. ‘ S’wounds ‘ was her favourite. Swearing and poetry are similar. They are both highly charged and metaphorical ( you stupid plonker ), both are extreme with pointed effects created by alliteration ( fuckfuck fuckfuck FUCK), both play off different registers in the word-hoard ( you slimy pillock), and lastly both are dependent on rhythm, ( Don’t you slag me off, you plummy old pudding ).
*The use of the word ‘hours’ in the S. can be almost exclusively taken as bawdy with a play on whores.
*Numerology:
0 represents all and nothing. It too can be bawdy. The Circle.
1 poet
2 loves of comfort and despair.
3 years of truth, beauty and kindness versus lies, ugliness and cruelty. The Triangle.
4 seasons, humours, and elements. The Square.
5 senses and wits.
7 deadly sins and virtues.
9 muses.
10 percent and ten times profit.
*The difference between Thou and you. Elizabeth once said to a forward courtier, Essex I think,
‘Don’t thou thou me, thou dog!’
* Patronage was linked to Espionage. Organized Crime was linked to the Theatres and Bull and Bear fighting places. The Acting Companies were emblems and conceits for the Noble patrons. But they outgrew their idealist masters to start their own practical ideal in the realm of entertainment.
* Sh. as a writer/director vs. the jack of all trades theatreman.
* Sh. was a doggerel spewing heretic and deer-hunter.
* Sh. was an uneducated misogynist hick with a ready wit, a huge talent for words and a smile that wouldn’t quit.
* He had a bad memory. Q23.
* He was a gimp. Q89.
* He was a bisexual. Q90.
* He was a homosexual. Q20.
* He was an adulterer. Q130.
* He was a jerk-off. Q62.
* He was a bad thinker. Q85.
* He had a lisp. Q116.
* He was a heterosexual. Q138.
* He was a drinker. Q43.
* He was a drug user. Q118.
* He was a blusher. Q128.
* His birth and death dates are the same.
* His dad married up-market.
* His marriage parallels his parents. Both father in laws died a year before the wedding took place.
* His dad loaned money to his future father in law, Richard Hathawey. Probably met his older future wife at this time.
*He likely sat around a fireside with Raphael Holinshed, who was steward of Packwood Manor some 15 miles from Stratford..
* Almost all his teachers were Jesuits i.e. first class knee benders to the Holy Church of Rome.
* He was distantly related to his young Patron Henry Wriothesley, 3rd Earl of Southampton.
* His brother Gilbert was a haberdasher and for some reason credited with being a homosexual.
* His other brother Richard was a stay-at-homer reputed by some to have been in love with Anne Hathwey on the sly. Presumably he was in-loco-parentis while Will was in London. May have poisoned Sh. son Hamnet. This being the reason for Sh. Madness! Lol.
* His baby brother Edmund, probably much to Sh. Embarrassment, became an actor in London. Edmund died a year after his baby son in 1603. Edmund is buried in Southwark Cathedral under a gravestone bearing the family name Shakespeare. Note the spelling, done in the 19thC! William arranged the funeral no doubt and the Cathedral bells were rung at additional cost.
* Sh. dad was probably a Catholic. His father’s Borromeo-styled Last Will and Testament was found hidden in the attic roof of the Henley street residence a century after their deaths.
* Sir William Davenant, Poet Laureate, used to claim when he was drunk that he was the bastard son of Sh. Davenant was also Poet Laureate as well as an actor. Davenat’s mum ran a pub/inn in Oxford, halfway to Stratford.
* No letters, diaries, notes, direct anecdotes or anything of a personal nature about the living breathing man Sh. are extant!
*An Elizabethan printer would have desired his apprentices to be fully versant in syllables from Ancient Greek and Latin; both Roman i.e. all poets, philosophers and playwrights of the Empire and Rome and Liturgical, i.e. Those living words of Latin through the CHURCH and all practitioners of RELIGION. The common word and the holy word mingle together and synthesize the intentions made possible by the transmission of sound. A humming apprentice of my caliber would not last.
* Two young men of Stretteford super mare, sorry, supra Avonne, spelling being quite capricious back then, names being spelt as they sounded: Richard Field and William Sh. arrived in London.
They probably did not share a bus ride to London, or a nice country barge ride, though they might have, but most likely being young men out to seek fame and fortune away from the dreary hometown, very likely had horses and rode them or rented them.
There would have been no transport cafes, either, perhaps fewer traffic jams though the road would inevitably provide nourishment and refreshment areas and its more dangerous parts and paths.
*Some conjectures circumstantial can lead to lies directly and you would never read Sh again. A half a page is sometimes food for hours of thought. I always wanted to feel the man through the words and read his emotions through seeing his body contorted and twisted as inevitably as those players of his texts spoken and stirred on the stage, from his age til now.
*You want me to accept this is all a great conceit. That Sh. was not Sh. but eyes meet eyes, one cries for real and the other for pity, but which one is the actor?
I love when the wind blows and storms become just a part of the wind. wind becomes a weapon and gusts at wicked speeds. Then you can lose the certainty of trees remaining rooted in the ground and branches snapping, not swaying in the breeze.
Rain can hit your cheeks like needles, or hail like stones your head, bowing your feeble attempts to cover up as you rush to find shelter from Nature’s knocking. Woe betide you scream to warn a friend. Snatched away as easy as medicine from a febrile baby’s clutched hand.
Danger and beauty co-exist. the relative safety net is removed and you are perhaps for a time, as vulnerable as snail horns. The storm passes and your normalcy and height returns. A handful of lives lost, the unlucky few crushed and outworn by roof tiles or vehicle turnovers or trunks and branches.
Nature is all our master and mistress. Despite Nature, Civilisations have risen and fallen under all of Nature’s conditions, whether cold or wet or dry or hot. Other species know nothing of our vain attempts to leave our mark on this earth.
Earth, Water, Air, Fire. So basic; so destructive in extremis, so positive with the right balance. Seek balance seems to be the sum of the wisdom in the world, the rest is inevitable and unpredictable anyway. Is this where God comes into the equation?
Our Will avoids or rather limits his textual discourse in his sonnets to the natural and secular world, and the imagined mythic world of the Muses, where Adonis and Helen, like Brangelina or Becksnposh, can be invoked as bit players in his argument, for his sweet love’s beauty.
‘Nor can I fortune to brief minutes tell;
Pointing to each his thunder, rain and wind,
Or say with Princes if it shall go well,
By oft predict that I in heaven find.’ Q14.
Shakespeare wasn’t a somebody; he was a nobody. Except naturally to his direct environment and its reach. Richard Burbage, he was a somebody. But an actor nonetheless.
‘As an unperfect actor on the stage’ (go find it)
And the wind chimes on!
The first insight of the year happened today. it’d been brewing for a few days as i tried once again to create another memory system for the sonnets. Seeing as I think the closest thing to knowing Shakespeare we have is the actual quarto of 1609, that is the starting point.
The idea is to follow the way they are on these pages in the quarto. b1 is the first page and holds the Title-Page and sonnet 1 up to sonnet 2.12. b2 is page two and starts with 2.13 up to 7.9, b3 is page 3 and starts with 7.10-12.6. The next b4 is the final page as the sheet of paper these pages are on will be folded into four, hence quarto.
the next sheet of paper is labelled c1 which starts with 17.3 up to sonnet 21 which is the first whole sonnet and ends the page. naturally the beginning of the next page will also have a complete sonnet which is 22 which goes up to 26.1.
The pattern now emerges that every 21st sonnet will be a pair of whole sonnets alternately ending one page and starting another.
d2 and d3 hold 45 and 46.
e3 and e4 hold 69 and 70. while f4 ends the sheet of paper with 93.
The g sheet starts with 94 and the pattern is repeated.
h1 and h2 hold 117 and 118.
i2 and i3 hold 141 and 142. and skipping j we move to
the final sheet with k1 starting with 151.3 and logically ending with 154 along with another Title-Page and Dedication on its verso side.
Now i decided for the lark why not see if the word that starts these whole sonnets if they start the page and the last word of these whole sonnets if they ended the page make any sense. just for a laugh!
Imagine my surprise when these 14 words came out.
From sell My sad Mine.
grow That show.
They love Like pain.
Love love
Rotflmao. The bold and punctuation is obviously mine but the capitalisations are his, not that that matters in vocalisation anyway.
Half-remembered physics lessons with Mr Timperley at BRGS. Somewhere Boyle’s law was mentioned. here is an animated version if you’re interested by NASA. Today’s post is a big endorsement.
James Boyle sent me an email asking me to alert my readership to his new book The Shakespeare Chronicles, (downloadable for a buck fifty for you skint ones or cheap ones). So who is he and why should I endorse his efforts?
Well in my eyes he’s worth endorsing for taking part in the Supreme Court debates on the Authorship question. Look here as the young pup takes on the old hang dog. Jimmy boy kicks butt and is as cute as a button too with his moptop and ‘wherever the hell he’s from’ accent.
But not only is his heart in the right place where Shakes is concerned, he’s also shaking his fist at Fair Use Copyright Laws, a subject the digital domain and wide use of multimedia is making relevant to now. You can download a comic book explaining the whole damn thing right here at the Duke’s place. And that’s for free pardner!
And of course if you’re an Oxfordian or Baconian reading this I’d like you to remember these words from the Sonnets.
‘All men make faults, and even I in this,
Authorising thy trespass with compare,
Myself corrupting salving thy amiss,
Excusing thy sins more then thy sins are:
For to thy sensual fault I bring in sense,
Thy adverse party is thy Advocate,‘ Q35
time’s have changed. always have always will. but i mean this, this interweb thingie. i stand in awe. it’s like flight. the moon station right now is a dream, but 20 years from now if public policy and fantasy will it; it will happen.
of course if it is the americans will a franchise is not far away. give me a smoky belgian pub any time. what are the effects of zero-gravity on drunkenness anyway? let’s face it, if there are humans on the moon it’s gonna happen. especially if they are there for a while.
In the end, say like 100 years from now, it’ll be common behaviour anyway, if humans survive up there that long. Videos on You-tube of peoples well wellied in zero gravity!
idealism is cute: that striving for how it should be. lol. actually rotflmao. what do you get when 2 idealists meet? perfection; if only the other could see it. enlightenment is free but how many pillow huggers are paying for it?
Fake gurus and smarmy be yourself merchants, i loathe. Catholic saints and martyrs took beatings as bad as a Scorsese movie and these guys sell spirituality. Balsam for imaginary wounds. Hilarious!
I’ve always belonged to the theatre.
‘in so profound abysm i throw all care of others’ voices,’ Q112.
|
Look and Listen to Others
Online Works of Shakespeare
Play School
Renaissance School
Scholarly Renaissance-related blogs
Shakespeare Blogs
Shakespeare Institutions
Shakespeare or SOMEONE ELSE?
Sonnet School
|
