Or a typewriter

>>23891873
I wish I could believe he was a common everyman like me. Once you go down the Oxfordian rabbithole there’s no coming back.

File: Margaret Hamilton and the(...).jpg (3.17 MB, 2294x2853)

3.17 MB JPG

Here's a photo of Margaret Hamilton, the lead engineer on the software part of the lunar-mission project, and the stack of source code (mostly assembly, given the time) that controlled the computers' functions. The premise of the moon-landing deniers is simply ignorant.

>>23892784
>stack a bunch of binders
>see guys its reeeeeaaaaaaal!!!

>>23892784
thanks reddit front page. new talking point downloaded

>>23892784
All that source code probably occupies less storage memory than a floppy disc from 1995

>>23891873
Marlowe is basically a less good Shakespeare and he did have the classical education, mastered Latin, studied at Cambridge, etc. But then we have this Shakespeare fellow, who surpasses Marlowe in all respects, but who has nothing of that education or background. It's just hard to believe. The myth of "the genius hiding in the brain of the peasant" is a strong Romantic one, it's just not very realistic in the actual world.

>>23892784
By highlighting woman's involvement, you're making the whole affair doubly dubious.

>>23892833
>but who has nothing of that education or background.
But Shakespeare did have an education in classics. He borrowed heavily from Plutarch when he wrote his Roman plays like Titus, Coriolanus, Caesar, Cleopatra etc.

This board is very into mysticism when it's convenient, but the moment a "peasant", which Shakespeare was not, establishes a strong connection with a muse, then it's too much.

>>23892846
Yeah, shoddy English translations of those

>>23892853
Yeah, what language do you think modern French and Italian people study Shakespeare in? English? Lol.

>>23892858
..yes?

>>23892863
Wrong, lol.

File: 1705740691068843.jpg (123 KB, 1024x512)

123 KB JPG

>it's going to be another thread full of retards who have misconceptions about how bad education in shakespeare's time was

>>23892865
I'm from Belgium, I speak French, and I read Shakespeare (and Marlowe) in English

>>23892868
Belgim is a mess in terms of languages anyway. You people speak Flemish, French and whatnot. I have corresponded with multiple French people, have been in an exhange program with an Italian college, and I stand by my statement.

Considering Shakespeare was in reality Edward de Vere the 17th Earl of Oxford, he almost certainly had a good education. I guess modern academics are so useless that they can’t imagine that someone who doesn’t get a PhD from Oxford can know what they’re doing (they really do think this way).

>>23892886
I was wondering how soon someone would mention Edward de Cope. Now all we need is someone to bring up Sir Francis Bacon or the Illuminati or suchlike.

>>23892784
I don't believe the moon landing happened based on the videos of the astronauts acting like clowns on the moon bouncing and falling all over the place without a care in the world when puncturing their suits would have been a death sentence, also there cannot be any drop off in light on the moon while there are in the photos taken by Armstrong which indicates the use of spotlights.

>>23892820
It probably does. We went to the moon with about as much computing power as an Apple //e.

Actually I wrote all the works attributed to William Shakespeare
AMA

>>23892886
But Ben Johnson personally met Shakespeare the poet, you mean Shakespeare was in on the ruse along with De Vere? Like they had an agreement where Shakespeare would pretend to be a poet while De Vere wrote the material?

>>23892833
>nothing of that background
Very typical of this board to enter into discussion without having read a single thing about the topic at hand before. https://www.shakespeare.org.uk/explore-shakespeare/shakespedia/william-shakespeare/shakespeares-school/

>>23892835
>rant rant women
no wonder you can't get laid

>>23892892
So do you have any counterargument or what?

File: the real Shakespeare.jpg (80 KB, 513x597)

80 KB JPG

>>23892886

>>23892910
Yes? That’s part of the theory. The merchant Shaksper was a cover guy. He was also involved in the process and logistics

>>23892923
WE

>>23892900
>astronauts acting like clowns
Have you ever met military flyboys? They're all like that. "Top Gun" was toned down compared to what I experienced in the service.

>>23892928
Moon Landing deniers don't have any real-life experiences, please understand

File: 1698041417212867.jpg (159 KB, 708x800)

159 KB JPG

>... he (Ben Jonson) did not receive a university education, making his welcome at Oxford all the more striking—and at Cambridge too, apparently, as he told William Drummond that he had been made “Master of Arts in both the universities, by their favour, not his study.”

>>23892933
Well, obviously. Many of them are flat-Earthers too. But you can literally disprove that these days with a balloon and a GoPro camera. https://www.indy100.com/science-tech/man-balloon-gopro-space-2669212352

File: 1718284132447827.jpg (855 KB, 2732x2147)

855 KB JPG

>I don't believe a "Lunch Atop a Skyscraper" actually took place based on the fact that it was quite reckless; I mean, these ironworkers could've fallen at any moment.

>>23892784
>>23892916
Margaret Hamilton, awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom for “[leading] the team that created the on-board flight software” for the Apollo missions, wasn’t even hired until after the completed software had already flown to the moon in Apollo 8

A team of 400 men worked for years to create the software for the two Apollo AGCs. Sometime around the release date, Hamilton is hired and promoted *by her husband* from a beginner role to be in charge of command module software, on which her name does not appear until 1969.

The exact date of Hamilton’s ’68 entry level hire, and hasty promotion to software lead (both times by the man she married in ’69) isn’t known, but we know the first revision with her name is March 1969, months after the delivered product had gone to the moon.

The software is finalized and delivered in 1968, and flies to the moon in Apollo 8. The first release with Margaret Hamilton in charge is at the end.

1968: Apollo software is done, transitions to bug fix mode, shrinks headcount, and is no longer a prestige project. The boss, Dan Likely, hires his soon-to-be wife, Margaret Hamilton, to take his place as he quits to start his own company.
Not only did Hamilton not lead Apollo software as implied, but her entire tenure in the program is suspect because 100% of it was arranged by her husband, who hired her, mentored her as she was given a small team, then promoted her immediately before their marriage.

Both LM and CM software were completed and flew to the moon before Hamilton was put in charge of them. There are no grounds to say that she lead the development (Obama admin), or that it was “her code” (Vox article, various tweets).
The whole Apollo software project is suspect – from the use of “rope memory” (tech never deployed again in history) to a programming language called “LOL”.
The Smithsonian pieces links to Wired, which says “In 1965, Hamilton became responsible for the onboard flight software on the Apollo computers,” which is unambiguously false. She had only just learned of Apollo that year.
If we look at her own words from 1972, in 1965, she had only just learned Apollo existed, and was assigned to a small team.

See also the note on page 342 of Dan Eyles book Sunburst and Luminary, where he laments that she was honored for “originating” the priority scheduling software that in reality was written by Hal Laning.
Here’s that quote from the memoir of Don Eyles, and the org chart copy he provides. He points out that Hamilton herself exaggerated her role.

>>23892957
Femsisters... our lies are exposed once again...

>>23892915
Lol so this says he went to school until 14 years of age and that his mother read him bedtime stories. Yeah that's exactly like Marlowe's education at Cambridge

File: 1720470173634302.png (297 KB, 960x547)

297 KB PNG

>>23892964
Another /lit/bro who can't read.

>>23892961
my truth tho so like soooo......

>>23892967
Yeah so he read Ovid when he was 13. Here in Belgium we do the exact same, it's not impressive, it's not demanding, and it's not enough to turn you into the greatest playwright in the English language.

>>23892928
They are on the moon lol, on one side they'd boil alive on another side becoming an instant popsicle, that's not even talking about the depressurization they'd experience. If they were actually on the moon they would move and act extremely cautiously because all that separates them from a horrible death is their suit. Also the moon is illuminated by only 1 source of light (the sun) and the light levels are uniform along the surfaces while on Armstrong photos the areas in the background have drop offs in light meaning they were using spotlights in a studio.

>>23892910
>Ben Johnson
Never heard of ‘em

>Shakespeare was actually highly educated, you see, he went to school until the ripe old age of 14

I have more respect for the people who say Shakespeare really was just a rare 180 IQ genius who was denied his just education by the system of the time, rather than the dumb Americans who think translating some Horace constitutes a "high education" when millions of children in Europe still do so regularly as a matter of course

>>23892976
>comma splice
Maybe if you had studied as hard as Shakespeare, then you would've got something out of your education.

Approaching Shakespeare without an appreciation of the contemporary playwrights and poets directly prior to, contemporary with and proceeding Shakespeare is largely a fool’s errand, because you enter into delusions about generic qualities of the period and style which you falsely are led to believe are sui generis, the court fixation for example is not Shakespearean but far common in the time, the blank verse of Middleton and middle under the guise of Cyril Tourneur is every bit as striking, consistent, metrically experimental and dominant as Shakespeare is in every period, for which they did collaborate, the humanity of Shakespeare and range is likewise there in Middleton, in Ben Jonson you’ll find finer “art” insofar as art means pretty conceit and wellness in exact construction, John ford though a college drop-out well exceeds the philosophical depth of a given Shakespeare play, whereas an actual erudite scholar like Robert Burton so far exceeds Shakespeare in learning that it isn’t really even worth comparing, someone like Samuel Daniel has all of the same abilities of control of verse, of pretty conceit, of layering spiraling metaphor and of producing striking images of human dignity and vice un a multitude of voice, he with Heywood are so often and were in their time often confused with Shakespeare by the educated public, because the similarities of high quality within a given aesthetic plane are approximate except a few peculiar qualities or given idiosyncrasies, of which, the reading public may not even like (see the mixed reaction towards Shakespeare’s Cymbeline, which is a very pure example of Shakespearean idiosyncrasy and a sort of delighting in his own pomps.)

In his own time, Shakespeare was a great but a great among greats, he was not reckoned in his time so far exceeding over his friend-rivals, Jonson and drayton were both loved in great amounts in that time at points exceeding him, if anything we can see Dryden and d’avenant in their prologue to tempest conjuring the spirit of Shakespeare, as a sort of rebuke of the Shakespearean style in the name of a blended style cultivated by the tribe of Ben (those dedicated to Jonson’s art theories and writing, led chiefly by Thomas Randolph his protege) with the advances of Shakespeare’s style by his bastard son (so claimed) the aforementioned d’avenant, this rebuke being largely against allegory and metaphor in favor of the “plain” style of heavy lush descriptions, dignity and Witt, in opposition to Shakespeare’s protege the famous fletcher (of fletcher & Beaumont) who continued the style of Shakespeare but with a more raunchy, lively, lyrical fiction, a more carnivalesque style interacting more with the culture of masque plays as Jonson did.


when you isolate Shakespeare, you delude yourself into thinking he’s made everything, but when put into context, he’s just a great talent among great talents in similar stylings and subject matter and executions.

>>23892976
Metamorphoses by Ovid was his favourite book retard.

>>23892981
The man who was a fellow playwright and friend of Shakespeare his life. He wrote two poems for Shakespeare in the first folio. Makes no sense for him to lie about him after his death.

>>23892983
thing is you dont have specialized knowledge on law and medicine unless you were actually trained in it in those days. you couldnt just be a pseud with a smartphone.

>>23892900
>the videos of the astronauts acting like clowns on the moon bouncing and falling all over the place without a care

First, how would they do something like this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVfhztmK9zI

And second, you realize the suits are designed to not be fragile and they tested the suits, plus this was past the first two or so missions so they had more confidence in their engineering and such.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVNTNeNMH8Q
>there cannot be any drop off in light on the moon.
Why not?

>>23892993
It's anaphora.

>>23892996
>Metamorphoses by Ovid was his favourite book retard.
What the fuck is that supposed to prove?

>>23892994
The thing is people who deny Shakespeare his authorship are actually praising him, since they cannot even comprehend how a "common person" could create such high art.

>shakespeare studies latin for seven years, speaking it the while
>but I tried (and failed) to translate horace when i was younger. that's the exact same thing
>americans
Bravo. You're probably a Moroccan.

File: 1716126279155548.jpg (108 KB, 1100x619)

108 KB JPG

>>23893009
It appears the Moroccan doesn't know what an independent clause is.

>>23893014
It's quite common in Belgium for "smart kids" to study Latin and Greek for 6 years at high school. It's a remnant from the past when children started learning Latin and Greek even earlier, like Shakespeare. The point is, it's not impressive at all. It's a normal state of affairs that only looks impressive because our current times are so stupid by comparison. By itself, and in the context of the time, it's really not the mark of a high education, especially since *even in that time already* the actual smart people went to Oxford and Cambridge.
Your childish insults are not helping your case btw

>>23893012
Totally I agree, but (ignoring the scholars, speaking of people I’ve spoken to) more often than not the people claiming this extreme alien status to Shakespeare are people who don’t really approach anything else in the time, so they’re just left in this weird vacuum, where they somehow believe Shakespeare invented the sonnet, that he was the first to give a character enjoyable humanity or dignity, the first to do wordplay, to be courtly or the like, even someone like Nabokov has a poem on Shakespeare saying these odd things about him being a god of iambic thunder who chose to make a retard publish him so he can remain anonymous, but again you don’t really see Nabokov interacting with anyone else from the period. I can’t help but suspect these fixations would die out if they had broader study, I think of men like Charles lamb and Swinburne who, while still on bardolatry, are forced to admit various authors match or exceed him when writing upon their other studies.

>>23893014
Do you realize that Latin is not a difficult language and if you start teaching it to children from age 4, they understand it quite quickly because that's how early language acquisition works?

>>23893006
Because the moon has 1 source of light, the sun, so the surface of the moon should be uniformly illuminated everywhere with the same intensity, if you look at the pics taken by the chinese rover on the moon you see no drop off in light in the distance, but you see that in the pics supposedly taken on the moon by Apollo astronauts, that can only be explained by the use of spotlights in a studio.

If you want a more thorough explanation watch this video (time-stamped), by the way notice of all the famous professional photographers the guy interviews in the documentary who have no opinion whatsoever about the moon landing being faked all agree that the photos were obviously taken in a studio with spotlights: https://youtu.be/KpuKu3F0BvY?si=nebIHeTsErhE6MWN&t=9434

>Altera, quae ex superiore illa pendet, ut conscientiae non quasi Legis necessitate coactae, Legi obsequantur: sed Legis ipsius iugo liberae, voluntati Dei ultro obediant. Quoniam enim in perpetuis terroribus versantur quandiu sub Legis dominio sunt, alacri promptitudine in obedientiam Dei nunquam compositae erunt nisi huiusmodi prius libertate donatae. Exemplo et brevius et magis perspicue assequemur quo haec pertineant. Legis praeceptum est ut diligamus Deum nostrum ex toto corde, ex tota anima, ex totis viribus. Id ut fiat, anima prius omni alio sensu et cogitatione est evacuanda, cor omnibus desideriis expurgandum, vires in hoc unum colligendae et contrahendae. Qui prae aliis multum progressi sunt in via Domini, longissime absunt ab hac meta. Nam etsi Deum ex animo diligunt, et syncero cordis affectu: multam tamen adhuc cordis et animae partem occupatam habent carnis cupiditatibus, quibus retrahuntur et sistuntur quominus citato ad Deum cursu pergant. Multo quidem conatu contendunt: sed caro partim eorum vires debilitat, partim ad sese applicat. Quid hic faciant, dum sentiunt nihil se minus quam Legem praestare? Volunt, aspirant, conantur: sed nihil ea qua decet perfectione. Si Legem intuentur, quicquid tentant aut meditantur operis, maledictum esse vident. Nec est quod se quisque fallat, colligens opus eo ipso non omnino malum esse quia imperfectum, et ideo quod in eo boni est Deo nihilominus acceptum esse. Nam Lex perfectam dilectionem exigens, omnem imperfectionem damnat, nisi rigore mitigato. Opus igitur suum consideret, quod pro parte bonum videri volebat: et eo ipso transgressionem Legis esse inveniet, quia imperfectum est.

File: 1583787252651.png (79 KB, 730x980)

79 KB PNG

>Moon landing was totally real, look at this picture of overlooked woman genius, who actually wasn't just fucking the men in charge, with a stack of absolutely legit files

>>23892784
>>23892957
>>23893077
>w*men

>>23892994
I agree with you on the importance of evaluating Shakespeare in his context, and on the greatness of his contemporaries, but you go too far by trying to strip Shakespeare of all uniqueness, until the theatrical pomp of Cymbeline is all that's left. Just think of what Jonson says. That Shakespeare was an author in his own time, competing with other authors on an even playing field, does nothing to negate the possibility of him being infinitely greater. That's almost always how the lives of the greatest artists plays out, with their divinity only triumphing over their mortality after death. There was a time in Germany when Goethe was just another good poet.

I simply cannot agree with you on equating Shakespeare's verse and Middleton's verse in value. To declare Jonson's art to be finer than Shakespeare's seems to miss the entire point of poetry. And although I haven't read Ford, I have not discovered anything more philosophically profound than Shakespeare, even the very smallest elements of his plays, which makes be guess that you're simply confusing a more open treatment of themes with profundity. Whoever says Shakespeare knew everything, from an academic perspective? Unless they're Anti-Stratfordians, they only emphasise his knowledge of nature and humanity, which are not academic observations. And Daniel has certainly never said a single word as profound as Shakespeare, which calls into question the entire worth of his prettiness, which personally I do not think comes close to the prettiest words of Shakespeare. I do not mean to be all this critical, but I really think you've underrating Shakespeare.

>>23892996
Do you mean Ben Jonson?

>>23893094
>I have not discovered anything more philosophically profound than Shakespeare
You haven't even read that much fiction or poetry if you unironically think this, let alone actual philosophy. Shakespeare's plays and sonnets wouldn't even be famous if he was Italian or Polish rather than English, there were better playwriters than him everywhere in Europe while he was alive

>>23893110
>there were better playwriters than him everywhere in Europe while he was alive
Name 10.

>>23893094
But in reality if you do compare the common Shakespeare play to the common Middleton or ford or what have you, Shakespeare is not the atomic-like masterworker whose individual lines or even bulk of lines astound because they were largely in utility to his dramatic effects of which is his best quality, and his dramatic effects are not atone in a vacuum either.

Middleton’s is similar enough to Shakespeare that there is unending debates on where they contributed to each other, where they added to each other and who did what both in their known collaborations and otherwise, how can this possibly be if not similarity? And why would they so frequently work together if not Shakespeare himself thinking “the quality is close enough”

As for the entire point of poetry, there are many points, fineness in elegance and exact mannerism is one of the most beloved points in the period and Jonson adherence to classical Unities and so forth definitely does fit “art” more so than the more spontaneous structures of Shakespeare. If you want an example of ford’s philosophical depth matching Shakespeare, you need only look at the speech long attributed to Shakespeare now rightfully recognized as being written by ford https://shakespeare.mit.edu/Poetry/elegy.html

As for Daniel not being as profound as Shakespeare, be truthful, compare their sonnets, compare their cleopatra,

See the poetic fire in Samuel Daniel

YET doe I liue, and yet doth breath possesse
This hatefull prison of a loathsome soule:
Can no calamitie, nor no distresse
Breake hart and all, and end a life so soule?
Can Cleopatra liue, and with these eyes
Behold the deerest of her life bereft her?
Ah, can shee entertaine the least surmise
Of any hope, that hath but horror left her?
Why should I linger longer griefes to try?
These eyes that sawe what honor earth could giue mee,
Doe now behold the worst of misery:

Vs Shakespeare

O well-divided disposition!—Note him,
Note him, good Charmian, ’tis the man; but note him:
He was not sad, for he would shine on those
That make their looks by his; he was not merry,
Which seemed to tell them his remembrance lay
In Egypt with his joy; but between both.
O heavenly mingle!—Be’st thou sad or merry,
The violence of either thee becomes,
So does it no man else.—Met’st thou my posts?

In truth, I could mingle the prosaic of both plays and most would be unable to tell them apart, and I could mingle the purple of both, and most would be unable to tell them apart.

And I do not think that profoundness equals prettiness, but even so, Shakespeare has taken figures from Daniel for their quality, surely Shakespeare acknowledged Daniel, but to show that by no means does Shakespeare have a monopoly on the profound, here’s an excerpt from fulke Grevile.

The speach of a Ghost, one of the old Kings of Ormus.

HOV Monster horrible! vnder whose vgly doome,

Cont

>>23893151
Downe in Eternities perpe∣tuall night,
Mans temporall sinnes beare torments infinite:
For change of desolation, must I come
To tempt the earth, and to prophane the light;
From mournefull silence, where paine dares not rore
With libertie; to multiplie it more,
Nor from the lothsome puddle Acheron,
Made foule with common sinnes, whose filthie dampes
Feed Lethes sinke, forgetting all but mone:

Nor from that fowle infernall shaddowed Lampe,
Which lighteth Sisiphus to rowle his stone:
These be but bodies plagues, the skirts of hell;
I come from whence deathes seate doth death excell.
A place there is vpon no centre placed,
Deepe vnder depthes, as farre as is the skie
Aboue the earth; darke, infinitely spaced:
Pluto the King, the Kingdome, miserie.
The Chrystall may Gods glorious seate resemble;
Horror it selfe these horrors but dissemble.
Priuation would raigne there, by God not made;
But creature of vncreated sinne,
Whose being is all beings to inuade,
To haue no ending though it did beginne:
And so of past, things present, and to come,
To giue depriuing, not tormenting doome,
But horror, in the vnderstanding mixt;
And memorie, by Eternities seale wrought;
Vnto the bodies of the euill fixt,
And into reason by our passion brought,
Here rackt, torne, and exil'd from vnitie;
Though come from nothing, must for euer be.
The sinnes that enter here are capitall:
Atheisme, where creatures their Creator lose;
Vnthankfull Pride, nature, and graces fall;
Mate of Mankinde, in Man vnnaturall;
Hypocrites, which bodies leaue, and shadowes chose.
The persons, either Kings by fortune blest,
Or men by nature made Kings of the rest.
Here Tyrants that corrupt authoritie,
Councell'd out of the feares of wickednesse,
Cunning in mischiefe, prowd in crueltie,
Are furies made, to plague the weaker ghosts,
Whose soules, entising pleasure only lost.
The weaker Kings, whose more vnconstant vice
Their States vnto their humors made a prey;
For suffering more then Kings to Tyrannise,
Are damn'd; though here to be, yet not to stay:
For backe they goe, to tempt with euery sinne,
As easiest it the world may enter in.
My selfe sometimes was such; Ormus my state.
I bare the name; yet did my Basshas raigne:
Trusts to few windowes are vnfortunate;
For Subiects growing full is Princes wane.
Loe; all misdeeds procure their owne misfate;
For by my trusted Basshas was I slaine:
Now sent to teare downe my posteritie,
That haue their sinnes inheritance from me.
My first charge is, the ruine of mine owne,
Hell keeping knowledge still of earthlinesse,
None coming there but spirits ouergrowne,
And more embodied into wickednesse:
The bodie by the spirit liuing euer;
The spirit in the body ioying neuer:
In heauen perchance no such affections be;
Those Angell-soules in flesh imprisoned,
Like strangers liuing in Mortalitie,
Still more, and more, themselues enspirited,

File: IMG_0521.jpg (404 KB, 1000x1000)

404 KB JPG

>>23892977
If it was faked, why was the apollo landing gear seen from a low orbitting moon satalite?

>>23893129
I am not going to indulge in your masturbatory indulging debates and shitting 10 names to cause a stupid debate. You have great play writers in most of western Europe like Andreini,Scala, Calderon, Lope de Vega or Molina.
If anything mediterranean playwriters were a lot more prestigious and well read throughout Europe in the XVII and posterior playwriters like Moliere based most of his dramas on Spanish or Italian dramas as they were seen as higher works of literature than the English reinassance. Even Goethe claimed Calderon was a superior writer to Shakespeare and dedicated Faust prologue to him.

>>23893154
Refining Nature to Eternity;
By being maids in earths adulterous bed:
And idly forget all here below,
Where we our parents, but to plague them, know.
My next charge is, from this darke Regiment
With wiles to scourge this age effeminate;
Not open force, or humors violent:
Time fashions mindes, mindes manners, manners fate.
Here rage giues place, wit must rule ill intent.
Proud honor being an ill for this State
Too strong; sleight, must misleade the innocent;
Craft, the corrupt. For though none dare be iust,
Yet coward ill, with care, grow wicked must.
This present King, weake both in good, and ill;
Louing his trust, and trusting but his ghesse,
Shall perish in his owne faiths wantonnesse;
Betray'd by Alaham, whom he know'th ill,
Yet to beware lackes actiue constantnesse,
A destinie of well-beleeuing wit,
That hath not strength of iudgement ioyn'd with it.
Alaham his sonne; fond of the fathers Throne,
Desire his idoll; libertie his might,
As ouerborne with error infinite,
Shall finde that fate all secret faults can hit:
For he, that for himselfe would ruine all,
Shall perish in his craft vnnaturall.
Hala his wife; diuerse, and strong in lust,
Liberall out of selfe-loue, of error proud;
When shamelesse craft, and rage haue seru'd her turne,
In prides vainglorious martyrdome shall burne.
Zophi the eldest Sonne; whose reason is
With frailty drown'd, and sillinesse consus'd;
Borne but to liue, and yet denied this,
(So well knowes power what spirits may be abus'd)
Becomes the prey of factious craftie wit,
Which stirres that ruine vp, which ruines it.
Caine Bassha (like the clouds, who liue in ayre,
Th'orbe of natures constant inconstancie)
Now fame, now shame shall in his fortune beare;
His vice, and vertue still in infancy:
Change for his wisdome; and chance for his ends;
Harm'd by his hopes, and ruin'd by his friends.
Mahomet, with honor faine would change the tide
Of times corrupt; here stopping violence,
There contermining craft, and pleading right;
But reason sworne in generall to sense
Makes honor, bondage; iustice, an offence:
Till liberty, that faire deceiuing light,
Turnes mischiefe to an humor popular,
Where good men catch'd in nets of dutie are.
Caelica (because in flesh no seedes are sowne
Of heauenly grace, but they must bring vp weedes)
Death in her fathers murther she affects,
Seduc'd by glory; whose excesse still feedes
It selfe, vpon the barren steepes of mone.
For humane wit wants power to diuide,
Wherby affections into error slide.
Heli the priest; who teaching from without,
Corrupted faith, bound vnder lawes of might;
Not feeling God, yet blowing him about,
In euery shape, and likenesse, but the right;
Seeking the world; finds change there ioyn'd with chance,
To ruine those whom error would advance.
Now marke your charge! Each fury worke his part,
In senselesse webs of mischiefe ouerthwart.
You are not now to worke on priuate thoughts,

Cont

>>23893173
>Even Goethe claimed Calderon was a superior writer to Shakespeare
Not trying to get into this debate but this isn't true. He said Calderon was a better *theatre* writer. Meaning, his plays are more well suited to the theatre than Shakespeare's, but Shakespeare is the better poet in general.

>"In Calderon," said Goethe, "you find the same perfect adaptation to the theater. His pieces are throughout fit for the boards; there is not a touch in them which is not directed towards the required effect. Calderon is a genius who had also the finest understanding."

>"It is singular," said I, "that the dramas of Shakespeare are not theatrical pieces, properly so called, since he wrote them all for his theater."

>"Shakespeare," replied Goethe, "wrote those pieces direct from his own nature. Then, too, his age, and the existing arrangements of the stage, made no demands upon him; people were forced to put up with whatever he gave them. But if Shakespeare had written for the court of Madrid, or, for the theater of Louis XIV, he would probably have adapted himself to a severer theatrical form. This, however, is by no means to be regretted, for what Shakespeare has lost as a theatrical poet he has gained as a poet in general. Shakespeare is a great psychologist, and we learn from his pieces the secrets of human nature."

>>23893178
One instant is your time to alter all;
Corruption vniuersall must be wrought:
Impossible to you is naturall.
Plots, and effects together must be brought;
Mischiefe, and shame, at once must spring, and fall.
Vse more than power of man to bring forth that,
Which (it is meant) all men shall wonder at.

Craft! Go thou forth, worke honor into lust.
Malice! Sow in selfe-loue vnworthinesse.
Feare! Make it safe for no man to be iust.
Wrong! Be thou clothed in powers comelinesse.
Wit! Play with faith; take glory in mistrust;
Let duty, and Religion goe by ghesse.
Furies! Stirre you vp warre; which follow must,
When all things are corrupt with doublenesse.
From vice to vice let error multiply.
With vncouth sinnes, murthers, adulteries,
Incorporate all kindes of iniquity.
Translate the State to forraigne Tyrannies.
Keepe downe the best, and let the worst haue power,
That warre, and hell may all at once deuoure.


>>23893094
And as for Goethe, while I love him, we have to be realistic and say the truth, that Jean Paul, Schiller and Hoffman are all contemporaries with Goethe and all of similar qualities, at times exceeding Goethe at times below, with similar consistencies. For such, Goethe has said himself.

>>23893173
The French and Spanish and Italian questions are honestly too huge, and yeah by no means were these playwrights isolated from each others influences, translation and adaption of French plays was always a big thing in Elizabethan and restoration theater.

File: 1715680850267537.jpg (218 KB, 800x1013)

218 KB JPG

>Samuel Daniel
A good poet, but certainly not an important one. His sonnets are good and have an Everly Brothers feel to them, but the Complaint of Rosamond is a minor masterpiece. I'd much rather spend my time with the Spanish maestros baroques.

>>23893158
You can't see shit in those photos. And even if there is gear on the moon it would've been trivially easy to dump it there with unmanned missions

>>23893151
Anon, your interpretation of poetry reads as if it were chained to a set of categories, necessarily equalising every attribute's worth since there is nothing beyond them with which to interpret. It's what leads you to say something as ridiculous as describing 'dramatic effects' as Shakespeare's 'best quality'. It's almost a parody of myopic 18th century criticism. If we compare Shakespeare and Jonson in 'art' alone, there is really only a difference in type rather than in quality, and the conflation of Jonson's academicism with all artistry is a fatal flaw. Now the manifold superiorities which Shakespeare has over Jonson, intimately belonging to the nature of his poetic 'art', will especially settle how pointless it is to champion Jonson's art over Shakespeare's. The significance of Middleton's collaborations with Shakespeare you stretch too far. Mind you, I never denied Shakespeare's similarities with his contemporaries. But no two poets have ever written exactly the same, and when you have a one in a billion genius like Shakespeare that is all the more true. And it does not mean Shakespeare thought Middleton wrote at about equal worth to himself; it could mean any number of things, such as some uniqueness of imagination which Shakespeare liked, a personal affinity, or simply a suitable level of quality for specific sections, which Shakespeare might even have revised. But I've never read any play by Middleton that can compare with Shakespeare's, never read any confirmed excerpt from his own poetry equal to the greatest of Shakespeare's. And this gets to the crux: It's not hard to pass off your own writing as some great authors. I could insert a line into War and Peace, or Faust, or Shakespeare, and people would probably gobble it up. But I'm not the creative genius behind it. Its value will still be largely created by the drama, by the characters, by the progression of plot, by every invention which is not my own. And everything in Shakespeare comes through the characters, it grants every line the sublimest psychological insight, and from the least words we already have a complete character appear before us. So I very much do think Shakespeare is an atomic-like masterworker whose individual and bulk of lines astound. It is an organic unity. The vision of a poet is demonstrated in their characters, and to reduce that to 'dramatic effects', as if it's some French Classical play is just ridiculous. It's as if you have systematically cultivated a blindness to the value of Shakespeare because, almost as a learning exercise, you forced yourself to see a generic typology of Elizabethan attributes, missing the forest of Shakespeare's genius for the trees.

That Funeral Elegy I really could never imagine Shakespeare to have written; it simply doesn't read like him, and it has considerable less insight in it than Shakespeare's sonnets. Certainly it does not compare with the most profound insights in Shakespeare's plays.

>>23893364
>your interpretation of poetry reads as if it were chained to a set of categories,

Yes, these qualities being questions of dignity, musicality, spontaneousness, the spritely, sublime, etc, there are aesthetic categories and types and modes and manners of which are comprehensible aesthetic experiences, of which Shakespeare and others have worked to produce, of which we may judge their efficacy in exacting their modes and desires.

>since there is nothing beyond them with which to interpret.

Why judge an aesthetic experience in any way other than the aesthetic experience itself, by the categories and senses it has sought to indulge in?

>ridiculous as describing 'dramatic effects' as Shakespeare's 'best quality'. It's almost a parody of myopic 18th century criticism.

I don’t think so, because what people call psychology and emotion and soul is simply dramatic controls and effects, this is abundantly clear when we see how little of the characters are actually given in any given play, of course the arrangement of circumstance and context to produce the best contours of emotion and impact are the special power of Shakespeare, with only certain portions per play having distinct power that you could isolate from their contexts and still remain with power, but the same can be said of any play of any playwright.


>and the conflation of Jonson's academicism with all artistry is a fatal flaw.

Not really, if we again define to be artful with the well-mannered artifice of the period which they, the people Shakespeare wrote for would have, I use the term artful because Ben Jonson in his talks with Drummond precisely claims that Shakespeare’s problem is his lack of “art” wherein art is implicitly, the proper manners and dealing properly with classical forms and modes and so forth, his back handed compliment of him not being very studied in Latin or Greek applying, you may dislike it but it’s simply a consideration of value that the people of the time, himself and his fellows would have considered a question and a value, Shakespeare even apologies for it in winter’s tale.


>Now the manifold superiorities which Shakespeare has over Jonson, intimately belonging to the nature of his poetic 'art',

Quality in other domains can be argued, but in dedicated mannerism not really.


>a one in a billion genius like Shakespeare that is all the more true.

But it’s not true that he was a one in a billion, my Greville and cleopatra excerpts show is comparability.
>And it does not mean Shakespeare thought Middleton wrote at about equal worth to himself;


Again, you’re ignoring how often scholars confuse and struggle with dividing the authors and have done so historically, if Shakespeare was this literary alien, then it should be so immediately easy to divide.

Cont

>>23893655
>its value will still be largely created by the drama, by the characters, by the progression of plot, by every invention which is not my own.


All you’ve said here is that you think the job of technical writing in quality is not so difficult which I disagree with, but also that the dramatic effect of Shakespeare and these others is what sets them apart.

>And everything in Shakespeare comes through the characters, it grants every line the sublimest psychological insight,


In the land of hyperbole and fantasizing, not in reality. Demonstration;

“DROMIO OF EPHESUS.
To me, sir? why, you gave no gold to me!”

Nope, no earth shattering sublime experience,

“ADRIANA.Neither my husband nor the slave return’dThat in such haste I sent to seek his master?Sure, Luciana, it is two o’clock.
LUCIANA.Perhaps some merchant hath invited him,And from the mart he’s somewhere gone to dinner.”

Are you rocked by his psychological insight or reality? I’m not, neither are you. I’m not nitpicking mind you, I’m just demonstrating, Shakespeare like many others of his time mixed the prosaic with the poetic to good effect, which necessarily means many parts of him are prosaic and comparable to the prosaic lines of others, I’d go as far as to say the bulk of the lines in most plays are of a prosaic sort as a platform for the higher, and those higher ones are not so alien either, the speeches in Aureng-zebe by Dryden surely compare to hamlet and Lear well. But say you want to see him in his most profound, in hamlet or Lear, and compare the common lines.

“You, you, sirrah, where’s my daughter?
OSWALD.So please you,—
[Exit.]
LEAR.What says the fellow there? Call the clotpoll back.
[Exit a Knight.]
“Where’s my fool? Ho, I think the world’s asleep.
Re-enter Knight.
How now! where’s that mongrel?
KNIGHT.He says, my lord, your daughter is not well.
LEAR.Why came not the slave back to me when I called him?
KNIGHT.Sir, he answered me in the roundest manner, he would not.
LEAR.He would not?”

Were you rocked by craftsmanship? Did any of these essential lines rock you? No they’re for a purpose, they have utility for the greater sections.


> Shakespeare is an atomic-like masterworker whose individual and bulk of lines astound.

I am not astounded because I can go to say, Webster

“Bos. I do haunt you still.
Card. So.
Bos. I have done you better service than to be slighted thus. Miserable age, where only the reward of doing well is the doing of it!
Card. You enforce your merit too much.
Bos. I fell into the galleys in your service; where, for two years together, I wore two towels instead of a shirt, with a knot on the shoulder, after the fashion of a Roman mantle. Slighted thus! I will thrive some way: blackbirds fatten best in hard weather; why not I in these dog-days?
Card. Would you could become honest!”

Cont

>>23893656
And on the atomic level, I am very pleased with each line as much, more or in some cases slightly less, and if taken in whole, any of these men will have great dramatic effect, at times exceeding at times falling beneath Shakespeare, do you enjoy the white devil less than king John? Do you enjoy the revenger’s tragedy less than Pericles? It’s just not realistic.

>The vision of a poet is demonstrated in their characters, and to reduce that to 'dramatic effects', as if it's some French Classical play is just ridiculous.

Why? It’s not some French classical play, it’s some often classical inspired English play, these things should not be idolized but dealt with as they are.

>It's as if you have systematically cultivated a blindness to the value of Shakespeare because, almost as a learning exercise, you forced yourself to see a generic typology of Elizabethan attributes, missing the forest of Shakespeare's genius for the trees.


No not really, again he’s a great, I have annotated many lines in my Shakespeare, marked down which metrical patterns are rare, which constructs valuable, when rhetoric has reached higher fever pitch than the average scene, but I am honest because I recall his humanity and recall him one among many.


>That Funeral Elegy I really could never imagine Shakespeare to have written;

You benefit from having known it’s not, Harold bloom surely has studied Shakespeare deeper than I, you and anyone else in this thread, and he went his life believing it was by Shakespeare and praising it, if it’s good enough to fool Harold bloom, it’s good enough to pass in quality as Shakespeare.


>,and it has considerable less insight in it than Shakespeare's sonnets.

With no offense meant, you’re being full of it, if I take the worst sonnets I won’t find any insight, if you want to, compare that elegy to

“Those lips that Love’s own hand did make
Breath’d forth the sound that said “I hate,”
To me that languish’d for her sake:
But when she saw my woeful state,
Straight in her heart did mercy come,
Chiding that tongue that ever sweet
Was used in giving gentle doom;
And taught it thus anew to greet;
“I hate” she alter’d with an end,
That follow’d it as gentle day
Doth follow night, who, like a fiend,
From heaven to hell is flown away;
“I hate” from hate away she threw,
And sav’d my life, saying “not you.””

But this is because the sonnets aren’t meant to be isolated, but read as basically one large poem/narrative, of course you’ll find a couple of the sonnets are Mid. Should I pretend that sonnet is better than this from Jonson?

BREAK, Fantasy, from thy cave of cloud,
And spread thy purple wings,
Now all thy figures are allowed,
And various shapes of things;
Create of airy forms a stream,
It must have blood, and naught of phlegm;
And though it be a waking dream,
Yet let it like an odor rise
To all the senses here,
And fall like sleep upon their eyes,
Or music in their ear.

>>23891873
no clue if they landed on the moon or not but the footage of it is fake

File: roast-beef.jpg (574 KB, 1270x952)

574 KB JPG

>>23892916
>b-but sex vagina cum

>>23893658
Nta but I prefer Shakespeare's sonnet what are the esoteric meanings in Jonson's other than giving the audience the feeling of making fantasy becoming reality and predicting the future. Like I can explain both poems but Jonson's seems harder to grasp and anyone uninitiated would find it almost impossible to make sense of it. Whereas Shakespeare writes for a general audience. Shakespeare's sonnet can impact society much greater than giving all five senses new sensations by an undescribed quality such as fantasy. I'm curious why you like the other poem so much better.

>>23892784
She was the wife of someone high up on the project, and was assigned to work on the project late in the project's life cycle. All that paper she's posing next to? She manned the printer.

File: 7gcd7hidimm50egoknalcsrng(...).jpg (28 KB, 450x450)

28 KB JPG

>>23893043
>>23893006
Does based Dyer say anything about the moon landing in his works?

>>23893987
I misspoke the fantasy is the new shapes and figures in writing and reality but in my current situation I find the metaphors love's own hand, gentle doom, taught it thus anew for teaching is a new process. the process of ending speech, the fiend that invades heaven are all important and what's more is that Shakespeare makes you feel something at the end of the poem. Sorry for bothering you but I understand your point but just wanted to flex jk.

>>23893987
I don’t think it’s so much you have to be initiated into it so much as, it’s just obvious from English and lit at the time, that excerpt is from a “masque” called the masque of delight, masques were basically state funded public entertainments, akin to very high brow parades, that particular excerpt is a very famous one which has been anthologized continuously even into the 1900s, as for what do I prefer in it, well let’s look into that feeling you said, that aesthetic sensation of fantasy becoming reality, that visionary experience of the vision of fantasy taking bodily shape, why is that experience not enough? You say that the image of some man being told by a woman he isn’t hated by her is universal, but I think all men take part in dream, fantasy and the faculties of interior vision, and the mental vision of these things are far more universal, now to go deeper, the key of musicality is a spontaneous smooth lightness, we can find only very minor to argue about in Jonson, whereas in that Shakespeare “did mercy come” itself is bad enough, “I hate” ending in not you is tortured, despite the fact that yes that may be modeled on the intentionally sprawling statements of a Cicero or an Ovid, it just doesn’t operate very smoothly, it just isn’t very musical, it isn’t very rhetorically striking, whereas the commanding conjuration of fantasy does sound powerful, does sound clear, does sound both mannered and natural (which is to say, elegant.) and if we do examine it, do we not find the image striking? A Cave of cloud, to utilize an image so commonly subterranean, but make it to describe the depth and secret place of the high and ethereal, while also alliterating it as well? The purple wing itself, whether one visualize a purple winged beast, or call him an image of the wine purple sea of Homer as the origin of the western fantasy, or simply as the color of sovereignty? You must admit a subtly of connotation, a mysteriousness by the demand for it to like an odor arise upon the faculties of man, once more, it need not be better than Shakespeare, only comparable, lets say it is true though that other poets may be harder knots to untangle, do you think there is nothing worthwhile in any English poet which would be less universal, do you think there’s no knots worth untying? As you are another anon, don’t you find something delightful in grevile’s descriptions of existences which are non-god-created, of the very invasion of being, of an extreme abstract of horror in itself, and of the corruption of vice of the virtuous? Surely those are knots worth playing with.

>>23892957
Good morning

>>23892853
What do you need to be fluent in Latin & Greek to write well? Retard

>>23894033
But I felt Jonson throughout, and again by no means is that sonnet an isolated poem, it’s full of conceit and manipulation and so forth as much as anything else, the calling of love a wanted bad thing is not new or fresh nor particularly different, not that it should be, but it’s not particularly striking the mind there, drayton’s sonnets strike the image of love as horrible demon and ghost and demon much more so, example,

Sonnet XX: An Evil Spirit by Michael Drayton

An evil spirit, your beauty haunts me still,
Wherewith, alas, I have been long possest,
Which ceaseth not to tempt me to each ill,
Nor gives me once but one poor minute's rest;
In me it speaks, whether I sleep or wake,
And when by means to drive it out I try,
With greater torments then it me doth take,
And tortures me in most extremity;
Before my face it lays down my despairs,
And hastes me on unto a sudden death,
Now tempting me to drown myself in tears,
And then in sighing to give up my breath.
Thus am I still provok'd to every evil
By this good wicked spirit, sweet angel-devil.


And is this really not comparable to various of the dark lady sonnets? Why is drayton saying he’s been possessed (taken) by her beauty (possessed by the spirit ) less of a well crafted wordplay?

Why is it better than a sonnet of Daniel?

Unto the boundless ocean of thy beauty
Runs this poor river, charged with streams of zeal,
Returning thee the tribute of my duty,
Which here my love, my youth, my plaints reveal.
Here I unclasp the book of my charged soul,
Where I have cast th' accounts of all my care;
Here have I summed my sighs. Here I enrol
How they were spent for thee. Look, what they are.
Look on the dear expenses of my youth,
And see how just I reckon with thine eyes.
Examine well thy beauty with my truth,
And cross my cares ere greater sums arise.
Read it, sweet maid, though it be done but slightly;
Who can show all his love, doth love but lightly.


Or any number of others? Fundamentally I am not saying that Shakespeare is not a top tier, is not in the highest echelon, but that he was, he was not however alone in those echelons, he was not always in that echelon, and there are periods and points and sections where others exceed that echelon briefly, even as he in some small time exceeded his best.

>>23894036
I'm dumb and so I wish you knowledge to do what I cannot comprehend but fantasy I feel as a concept is evil and corrupts the mind, turning reality into fantasy is fine but thinking about it all day is a sickness. We don't really know if fantasy inclinations are brought from 20th century childrearing, and if we train the imagination differently the products would be different. Imagination is great, but fantasy is not imagination and to get the both confused is bad for we should dedicate life to real life.

>>23894086
A moral argument and one that can be applied to both, the Jonson is simply more honest, Shakespeare speaking against the love poems speaks great on this
My mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun;
Coral is far more red than her lips' red;
If snow be white, why then her breasts are dun;
If hairs be wires, black wires grow on her head.
I have seen roses damasked, red and white,
But no such roses see I in her cheeks;
And in some perfumes is there more delight
Than in the breath that from my mistress reeks.
I love to hear her speak, yet well I know
That music hath a far more pleasing sound;
I grant I never saw a goddess go;
My mistress, when she walks, treads on the ground.
And yet, by heaven, I think my love as rare
As any she belied with false compare.


Which is a commentary upon how the sonnet and poem is really just using the woman as a utility towards images of beauty and manufacture, not actually true by any means, which is a theme doubled down in the long poem which caps the sonnets, where we hear the woman speaking, and she explains a smooth talking man (the sonnet speaker) fucked her and left her with a broken hymen.

The only difference between them, is that Jonson is open about this being fiction, though the common structure of the sonnets Petrarch onwards is to weave this gossamer of a romantic autumnal love fantasy, then at the final poem/s crush it and rebuke the whole cycle. The mannerism of the sonnet is precisely about obsession in fantasy, then a mystic rebuke of it.

>>23894075
I prefer draytons I'm not arguing about quality of the authors I find renaissance work all of the same quality these knots are great however I have such an aversion of rereading books since I find it dreadfully boring that the easily graspable but not fatuous poems are the ones I prefer.

>>23894051
You're stupid

>>23894125
Plenty are graspable though, if we look at say John Dryden for example, look how immediate, musical and forceful his praise of Congreve is.

ell, then, the promised hour is come at last,
The present age of wit obscures the past:
Strong were our sires, and as they fought they writ,
Conquering with force of arms, and dint of wit:
Theirs was the giant race, before the flood;
And thus, when Charles returned, our empire stood.
Like Janus, he the stubborn soil manured,
With rules of husbandry the rankness cured;
Tamed us to manners when the stage was rude,
And boisterous English wit with art endued.
Our age was cultivated thus at length;
But what we gained in skill we lost in strength.
Our builders were with want of genius curst;
The second temple was not like the first;
Till you, the best Vitruvius, come at length,
Our beauties equal, but excel our strength.
}
Firm Doric pillars found your solid base;
The fair Corinthian crowns the higher space:
Thus all below is strength, and all above is grace.
In easy dialogue is Fletcher's praise;
He moved the mind, but had not power to raise:
Great Jonson did by strength of judgment please;
Yet, doubling Fletcher's force, he wants his ease.
In differing talents both adorned their age;
One for the study, t'other for the stage.
[60]
One for the study, t'other for the stage.
But both to Congreve justly shall submit,
One matched in judgment, both o'ermatched in wit.
}
In him all beauties of this age we see,
Etherege his courtship, Southerne's purity,
The satire, wit, and strength, of manly Wycherly.
All this in blooming youth you have atchieved;
Nor are your foiled contemporaries grieved.
(It continues )

>>23894140
I know I know sorry but I'm very dumb and I cannot read large quantities of books so I'll just give a cool idea from Wladyslaw's Reymont's peasants. Which is words are sweeter than pie, honey or any other food and especially a good word from someone is something to strive for. Sorry I couldn't talk literary science but you know you know its hard to articulate over the internet

>>23892957
>after the completed software had already flown to the moon in Apollo 8
so...you admit we went to the moon
checkmate

>>23893043
The moon would also be lit by sunlight reflecting off the Earth and its oceans, just as the Earth is lit by sunlight reflecting off the moon. Pwned!

>>23893330
So, you admit we went to the moon.

>>23894007
>She manned the printer
Don't you mean she womaned the printer?

>>23894568
She probably nagged it for no reason.

>>23893151
Shakespeare's better.
Daniel's sound like something a high school Chicago nigger can come up on a recess, high on DXM. It's just standard, run of the mill, poetry.
Your post proves why Shakespeare is GOAT and other poets evaporated into obscurity.
And no.
Esoteric symbolism doesn't not good poetry make.
It's extremely masturbatory, limited to a certain niche of people and limited in expiration time because esotericism and occultism are\slop: they are fad based, and once a fad is out, the metaphors and symbols and metaphors become incomprehensible without door-stoppers of exegesis.
Everyone can open Shakespeare and understand Shakespeare.
>>23893656
You don't know how to argue and prove your point.
>takes one line out of Shakespeare
>see, he isn't profound

>I'm not nitpicking
Yes. You are.

>Were you rocked by craftsmanship?
The effect is in the whole. It's cumulative.
By focusing line by line you're missing the cumulative effect, that is, a low IQ understanding of text.
You should stick to the occult. Everything above is is beyond your intellectual abilities.

If you are a denier you are stupid, plain and simple. The physics is out there in accessbile to anyone

>>23893655
>there are aesthetic categories and types and modes and manners of which are comprehensible aesthetic experiences
The nature of the artwork determines the aesthetical modes with which we interpret it, and the categories you are using I find insufficient, on their own, in understanding Shakespeare.

>by the categories and senses it has sought to indulge in
I do not think Shakespeare, as an aesthetic experience, is constructed along the lines of your categories.

>what people call psychology and emotion and soul is simply dramatic controls and effects
Except you simply cannot get that, the incomparable realism (exalted realism might be a better phrase) of Shakespeare, in a form of creation which works through these categories and conception of effects. The result of that is French Classicism, whose intentional artificiality can not be more obvious when compared with Shakespeare.

>Ben Jonson in his talks with Drummond precisely claims that Shakespeare’s problem is his lack of “art”
Exactly, Ben Jonson was an academic in his orientation, but in the higher sense of the word 'art', as a consummate unity which includes technique but is not limited to it, Shakespeare soars far beyond Jonson. Just refer back to how Jonson praises Shakespeare above himself, despite deprivileging his 'art' in making up that genius. Even if you define 'art' as technique, rather than something more, it all shows the pointlessness of praising Jonson's 'art' above Shakespeare's, since it will always be in the context of Shakespeare towering over Jonson.

>All you’ve said here is that you think the job of technical writing in quality is not so difficult which I disagree with, but also that the dramatic effect of Shakespeare and these others is what sets them apart.
I did not say the prior, obviously the larger the portion the harder it will be to maintain the appearance of quality, but I simply described a fact, which is that the unity of the work of art is most important. It is not 'dramatic effect', that sets Shakespeare apart, it is the organic unity of every quality which works towards the drama, and it is foolish to conflate 'drama' with 'dramatic effect' alone. 'Dramatic effect' is suitable only for describing the Classical, the highly-stylised drama, which has its reversal of fate almost by mechanical motion.

>Nope, no earth shattering sublime experience,
It is perfectly fitting for the context, and as this is a play and not a poem, it must be judged for how it expresses the character. It strikes me that you really have no care for the smallest elements of a play, the significance and effect of which are moulded by everything else.

>>23893655
>it’s some often classical inspired English play
Which is extremely different from a French classical play, and within the context of English theatre there is a wide degree of variety in how the Classical drama was used as inspiration. We can easily look at what most readily defined their drama: the audience. The intelligibility, the creative concern, the simple purpose of the drama, was more than anything defined by nature and instinct, a desire to entertain, not aesthetic categories.

>Harold bloom surely has studied Shakespeare deeper than I, you and anyone else in this thread, and he went his life believing it was by Shakespeare and praising it
Harold Bloom is a moron whose criticism I have never found one interesting thing in. A total fraud.

>of course you’ll find a couple of the sonnets are Mid
More or less I agree, but the stylistic genius of the Shakespearian sonnet shines through in each, and I really think the cumulative effect of the sonnet you posted is better than a great deal of the Funeral Elegy, and this Jonson excerpt. Of course the latter is great, I love it, but its fantastical pomp does not have the real knowledge of humanity in the Shakespeare knowledge, and the unaffected language ultimately does more than Jonson's art.

Haha, good point!

Shakespeare deniers are hilarious

The CIA hired Kubrick to fake the moon landing, but he was such a perfectionist that he demanded they film on location

>>23895670
must have heard this one a dozen times

>>23891880
Never underestimate how fortunate he was by circumstance. He was never a peasant at any point.

>>23894649
You know how I know you don’t really have an opinion on this? Just repeating the line according to a dogma?

“Daniel's sound like something a high school Chicago nigger can come up on a recess, high on DXM. It's just standard, run of the mill, poetry.”

Shakespeare was a fan of Daniel, your taste is not better than Shakespeare’s, if you can can write better than that sonnet, show us it, it’s normal poetry because you don’t have a fetishized idolized view of it, which you wouldn’t yave with Shakespeare’s verse if not for historical trends.


>Esoteric symbolism doesn't not good poetry make.

What esoteric symbolism? One of the most popular anthologized poems from the period, which was originally made for what amounts to a public parade, talking immediately in a very theatrical showy direct way, in what way is that esoteric symbolism? If anything the long winding gruesome “not you” would be the harder to appreciate.

>It's extremely masturbatory

How so? How is it more niche to speak of images of clouds and caves and winds and commonly shared imagination, than the specific love relationship of a character which can only be understood in the context of interlocking sonnets?

>expiration time because esotericism and occultism are\slop: they are fad based,

Since when has Ben Jonson been the occultist’s choice?

>Everyone can open Shakespeare and understand Shakespeare.

The language of the Jonson poem is literally more easily comprehensible to modern English and with some slight modifications could have been written today. Why lie ?


“ You don't know how to argue and prove your point.
>takes one line out of Shakespeare
>see, he isn't profound

>I'm not nitpicking
Yes. You are.”

Cont

>>23896130
If the question is about him as an atomic masterworker whose every single individual line has the seal of masterly quality in it, then yes you should be able to look at individual lines and say whether this is true, or if he, like everyone else, mixed prosaic with higher poetic strain, it is not a nit pick to dispel this delusion by going to his common lines and seeing how common place they will be phrased, will be in rhythm, and how non striking or profound they are, if you want to go deeper we can, we can easily argue about how various characters genuinely just aren’t that deep and the whole of their dialogue doesn’t have any real sublime profound revelation for us, can you show me anything in all of the dialogue of Kent from king Lear which demonstrates a profound psychology which isn’t just basically a stock character of a good folksy loyal man? Rough but moral? What has Kent ever said which is profound to him? Again I say already that Shakespeare’s good is in his dramatic effect and that the prosaic is a basis for the higher, so we can compare his prosaic and higher qualities with the prosaic and higher of others.

>By focusing line by line you're missing the cumulative effect, that is, a low IQ understanding of text.

No because the question is on the atoms, but again the bulk of Kent’s character is no deeper than any number of other Elizabethan characters, nor is there any real depth in Pisano, or a multitude of others that is not comparable to his contemporaries, not every character has depth, not every line is extraordinary, and even in his best, he is comparable to the best of his rivals and friends. Even the famous to be or not to be speech has prototype’s in his friend Robert parry’s work, similar speeches existing in heywood and himself reworking it in Cymbeline.

>>23894665
Dividing aesthetic pleasure from general entertainment, for what purpose? Shakespeare is not the most lively nor the most wild playwright, not the most carnivalesque nor the most bawdy or mundane, he simply wasn’t.

>>23894664
> the categories you are using I find insufficient, on their own, in understanding Shakespeare.

What are my categories? Elegance, daintiness, manners, lyricism, sublime, fantastical, depth of image, depth of emotional contour, which of these did Shakespeare not care about and not actively try ? He cared and did operate with them.

> the incomparable realism (exalted realism might be a better phrase) of Shakespeare,

There is no such thing, there is no great realism or realism of any sort or even much depth in midsummer’s night dream, the bulk of the tempest has no character depth, the witch filled Macbeth has no realism and the witches no depth, the realism of Macbeth does not overwhelm the realism of his contemporaries, lady Macbeth does not have any more depth to her character nor realism than the witch of Edmonton, and why would artifice be a bad thing if it still entertains and reaches various rhetorical and aesthetic extremes that are desired? No less will it be in terms of profoundness if it is more mannered, something like Dante is very mannered and clearly fantastical, Blake is very much not realism, are any of these not profound? Or if we will speak French, Racine, Corneille and Quinault have works of extreme quality which nonetheless are clearly pure fantasy, like Psyche.

> Just refer back to how Jonson praises Shakespeare above himself

In the context of a poem, what poet wouldn’t? It is in his honesty to drummond in normal conversation that his actual opinion is found.

> r how it expresses the character. It strikes me that you really have no care for the smallest elements of a play


Again, pisano has no great depth, Kent may as well be a stock character, the witches are stock characters, even many main characters in Shakespeare, in reality, don’t have much depth, they are simply done well by virtue of context and verse ability, by all means, Shakespeare is comparable to his contemporaries.

Everyone in this thread would enjoy the plays of JB Priestley, Lord Dunsany, John Masefield, JM Barrie, Stephen Philips, Charles Williams, Graham Greene, and John Galsworthy over any of the 1600s plays. They literally are about the same things, but have modernized the language while still maintaining the literary illusion. By not viewing Shakespeare as archaic like the rest of his contemporaries, you're making him into a modernist by contrast-- unreadable piffle written by an ignoramus meant to symbolize status. Rather, he is OF the times and the Fletcher/Beaumont folio posits them as the bigger men also of the time. The Bardoltry doesn't begin until Shakespeare, and even then Garrick, Charles Johnson, and Dibdin on a pure enjoyment level are probably better if we're being honest.

>>23894649
>Daniel's sound like something a high school Chicago nigger can come up on a recess, high on DXM. It's just standard, run of the mill, poetry.

Ah yes, a true opinion of one of the literary minds of our time. Does it satisfy to write such crassly on what is to be elegant. You are basically a trucker screeching about what his favorite thong is.

>>23896756
>begin until Shakespeare
Samuel Johnson*

>>23894086
Fantasy doesn't exist until Tolkien, refer to Ford Madox Ford's March of Literature. Dunsany was a realist, insofar as dreams are real.

>>23892853
He was writing in english, not latin or greek

>>23896756
>They literally are about the same things, but have modernized the language while still maintaining the literary illusion.
Half the appeal of Shakespeare is the language dumbass. You think his comedies are considered masterpieces for their original plots and detailed characters?

>>23891873
Same with Homer deniers desu

>>23896888
The language is more polished of the writers I said, his is archaic much like the language of Massinger and James Shirley and Davenant. They’re all linguistically close enough, as are Davies of Hereford and Daniel and Greville and Heywood. Bacon would agree with me.

>>23896888
Many would still argue for the characters even as I wouldn’t, though look at that excerpt from Dryden who is from the generation of poets directly after Shakespeare, they believed that Shakespeare is full of strength but lacking in skill in comparison to their best efforts, this is the sort of polish and modernizing spoken of, up to standards of smoothness and elegance. Notice Dryden doesn’t drop believe Shakespeare in poetic Strain but is very clearly more quickly graspable by the common person, by all means, being more crisp.

>>23896249
>Dividing aesthetic pleasure from general entertainment, for what purpose?
I didn't do that. You're misunderstanding.

>Shakespeare is not the most lively nor the most wild playwright, not the most carnivalesque nor the most bawdy or mundane, he simply wasn’t.
If you insist on such superficially defined categories, certainly Shakespeare is not 'lively'. But in a much deeper, and more significant sense, Shakespeare is the most animated and energetic of playwrights. Because every element of his characters is always alive, and an odd word can throw light on the whole delineation of the behaviour of a character. Everything is of the utmost force and reality, but transfigured by art.

>Elegance, daintiness, manners, lyricism, sublime, fantastical, depth of image, depth of emotional contour, which of these did Shakespeare not care about and not actively try ? He cared and did operate with them.
Not as the principals of his creations. They are the results of his dramatic inspiration. He did not start with these categories and then try to build a drama out of them. Tell me, when a novelist creates a character, do you think this is their thought process also? Since your understanding of literary creation, as a technical aggregate, is extraordinarily limited. Perhaps you think this is something only specifically true for the culture of the Elizabethan period, and like cultures, but you do a great disservice to genuine writers by thinking so.

>there is no great realism or realism of any sort or even much depth in midsummer’s night dream
An early work mind you, and according to the Bloom who you revere, Shakespeare slowly developed more and more towards characters with realistic psychology. So do you now know more than Bloom? At any rate, The Tempest, like many of Shakespeare's mature comedies, prefers to hint at the depth of its characters rather than gorge on it as the main subject a la his tragedies. But unmistakably every character is utterly unique and three-dimensional, even from the smallest suggestions. I don't see how you can think Macbeth, the work of murderous guilt par excellence, has absolutely no realism. None at all? It's like you didn't even read it. The witches have a pass for their being mystical creatures, but even they have a reliable psychology that gives you the sense that they're really thinking, living beings.

CONT

>>23896249
>something like Dante is very mannered and clearly fantastical, Blake is very much not realism, are any of these not profound?
Firstly, they are writing poems and not plays, and do not belong to the Elizabethan theatre, the natural realism of which was brought to a peak by Shakespeare. Of course they are different cases. Secondly, their visions were not artificial, which is to say that they justify themselves as an organic whole and are not justified by their fulfilment of arbitrary aesthetic categories. And though not rooted in the reality of an actor's performance, it nonetheless has the most truthful portrayal of humane existence, at least in Dante's case.

>In the context of a poem, what poet wouldn’t? It is in his honesty to drummond in normal conversation that his actual opinion is found.
Oh yes, I'm sure he describes all the poets he writes poems about as the greatest poet in England's history and a rival to Aeschylus. I'm sure that's normal... Nowhere in his conversations with Drummond does he contradict this view.

>Kent may as well be a stock character, the witches are stock characters,
I cannot vouch for Cymbeline, and I could see how someone could fail to see the personalities of the witches, but Kent? He's a very unique character and I could never think of him outside of the play King Lear. Shakespeare's characters are incomparable, and his verse has the genius to express this; his characters do not become great as some incidental byproduct of his verse lending them charm or interest. That's just silly.

Bump

>>23895670
kino

>>23891873
An old Jewish lady told me Shakespeare is so famous because he was Jesuit affiliated and Jesuits control the world

Bump

File: William Hazlitt_ “If we w(...).png (95 KB, 1120x239)

95 KB PNG

There's literally a guy, Francis Meres, who lived during Shakespeare's time and kept a record of his plays until 1598 and attributed them all to him.
Shakespeare and his works were also referenced by other contemporary playwrights, from Robert Greene early in his career, to Ben Jonson and John Fletcher in his later years. He was also involved in various recorded controversies of the time, as when the original name for Falstaff, John Oldcastle, offended the contemporary descendant of the Oldcastle noble family and forced Shakespeare to rename the character to Falstaff.
There are many more historical evidences that can attest to both his existence and his ownership of the plays we associate with him today, though some (but not all) are still contested by scholars (like Henry VIII, believed to be a collaboration between Shakespeare and John Fletcher).

>>23897083
apologies for the long delay in reply, my only excuse is that I have been too busy with irl concerns, even as desiring to continue our conversation. I hope you reply as well.

>certainly Shakespeare is not 'lively'. But in a much deeper, and more significant sense, Shakespeare is the most animated and energetic of playwrights.

But he’s not, he doesn’t get to that animal carnivalesque of so many masques, someone like fletcher is directly more “vital” but I know you are saying that his verse feels more lived-in because the characters feel more real, but against this I say, i don’t actually agree, if I look at someone like Ophelia there’s really nothing there but an image or female vanity and frailty, if I look at polonius what do I see but an image of parodied pretentiousness, if I look at Iachimo I see a one in a million Italian suave talking gallant pervert character, if I look at caliban I see a spiteful little goblin Among spiteful goblins, he doesn’t really rise past Jonson’s robin good fellow or Randolph’s fairy knight.


>and an odd word can throw light on the whole delineation of the behaviour of a character. Everything is of the utmost force and reality, but transfigured by art.

This is blind worship not analysis, take one of the most successful rhetorical displays his Caesar, and we can find multitudes of lines lacking reality, lacking force and being utterly prosaic and also comparable in strength to his contemporaries, the truth is his writing genuinely waxes and wanes to realism and also in power, that’s just the reality, if you want I will supply numerous lines from Caesar to demonstrate my meaning.

>Not as the principals of his creations.

So Shakespeare didn’t see in historical examples images of dignity, dramatic tragedy, comedy, elegance, images of Witt and examples of power and harmony and so forth? Don’t be silly of course he did, he had these ideals in mind when scouring his sources and he had the ideals of dignity elegance etc as his purpose cohabiting the mental space of his will towards entertainment, political statement, etc, pervading his will and informing his process throughout.

>They are the results of his dramatic inspiration.

Cont

>>23900794
As if inspiration is such a wild and random thing without control, as if Shakespeare couldn’t churn out a dialogue of dogs shitting into something of quality, now you mix bardolatry with a romantic genius muse cult to subject Shakespeare, his inspiration was simply a raw material, of course an Olympian talent such as his looks to how to succeed in making material his highest ideals, isn’t it ridiculous to say he didn’t?

>when a novelist creates a character, do you think this is their thought process also?

Is he a good novelist in historical lineage or not? If he is, then yes he has some knowledge of the abstract ideals he wishes to express realize and works towards their materializing.

>disservice to writers


My understanding of this is from no less, the aesthetic writings of the Romans, the Elizabethans, the major restoration era poetic manifestos such as Roscommon’s, various romantic and symbolist and decadent writers as well, likewise a multitude of Indian and Chinese aestheticians, German as well. Do you want quotes from abhinavagupta, Schiller, Hegel, Samuel Daniel, Sidney, Roscommon, Blake, tolkien or who? You’ll find that the demiurgic approach of beginning with aesthetic ideals and manners, uniting these with sensations and skillfully manifesting your aesthetic though pre-organized rasas, modes, forms, is basically a universal idea, and one that was basically king in Shakespeare’s Time, I do agree with the identification of him with prospero, he is a wizard with words who wills creation of his ideas through speech, these are golem and illusions cast, you just buy into them more due to his cult.

Cont

>>23892918
did you present an argument in favour

>>23892909
where do you get your ideas from?

>>23894657
where? have you looked at it yourself? and you understood it all

>>23897083
>An early work mind you, and according to the Bloom who you revere,


Not who I revere, a man who is clearly deep into the cult of Shakespeare and even he fooled, I have many disagreements with his writing, doesn’t mean we can’t admit he knew Shakespeare.


>shakespeare slowly developed more and more towards characters with realistic psychology. So do you now know more than Bloom?

Ackshusally bloom says in his late period that Shakespeare is utterly bored with humans and psychology and is more interested in self parody and stretching the mannerism of forms like soliloquy, with few exceptions (Lear)


>At any rate, The Tempest, like many of Shakespeare's mature comedies, prefers to hint at the depth of its characters rather than gorge on it as the main subject a la his tragedies.


Lmao, they’re comedy characters not esoteric zen metaphors showing their depth by subtle shifting like some kabuki ultra-yugenism, Ariel is not that deep, caliban is not that deep, cloten is just an arrogant pervert whose purpose is to be a butt of jokes and a plot device,

>But unmistakably every character is utterly unique and three-dimensional,

Except everyone one I’ve named in the thread and many more that would flood the thread.

>even from the smallest suggestions. I don't see how you can think Macbeth, the work of murderous guilt par excellence, has absolutely no realism. None at all?

What depth do the witches have? What psychological contours do the witches have? What nuances are we privy to in the queen’s character? No rather some characters are given dramatic importance and some aren’t, some are given depth and some are cardboard cut outs, some have emotional reactions and some are just devices, that’s just literally true.

>It's like you didn't even read it. The witches have a pass for their being mystical creatures,

What scapegoat is this, because the characters are extreme they get no depth ? Is cloten a Satyr then if that’s the bar?

>but even they have a reliable psychology that gives you the sense that they're really thinking, living beings.

You mean character, they have a character which acts as the trope of said

Cont

>>23900861
witch is thought to act, they are no more alive than anything in Middleton, not a drop more depth than the side characters in a given massinger play.

>Firstly, they are writing poems and not plays,

Shakespeare has poems as well apart from his sonnets, they’re not meaningfully different from his plays, his plays also have plenty of intentional artifice, think about his ornamenting with unnecessary songs, whether hey ho, the thunderstone, cloten’s waking song or any such, they’re clearly written as unneeded artificial people pleasers, for which his plays were gradually adapted into the first musicals precisely due to this element.

>and do not belong to the Elizabethan theatre, the natural realism of which was brought to a peak by Shakespeare.

Yeah because they weren’t filled to the brim with pastiche of the medieval moral plays, reworking of mystery plays or the like, lmao whether it’s the immensely popular Greene or Shakespeare himself, fairies, elves, personifications and deities abound, as do unneeded musical numbers, songs, intentionally artificial speeches, bawdy farce likewise everywhere, they were not realists, they were exuberant and often fantastical.


>, their visions were not artificial, which is to say that they justify themselves as an organic whole and are not justified by their fulfilment of arbitrary aesthetic categories.

Cont

>>23900877
Bullshit, they simply succeed in good aesthetic production which necessarily in their Roman dedicate state requires rhetorical efficacy, you just buy the rhetoric of the English.

>I'm sure he describes all the poets he writes poems about as the greatest poet in England's history and a rival to Aeschylus. I'm sure that's normal.

I mean it basically is, you’re demonstrating ignorance because the entire game of skill with elegy, panegyric, dedication, etc is to show how skillfully you can over praise and gas up the target, comparing to kings, gods, major poets, etc, without producing bathos, what, do you really think a poem which calls Milton the superior of Virgil and Homer believes thus truly, or that every mourning poem saying he was Shakespeare 2 truly meant it? It’s just part of the academic formal game.


>but Kent? He's a very unique character a

How, the trope character of an aristocratic dignity pretending to be a commoner is one of the most universal, of which we do not even delve deeply into, rather what we do go into is him playing the role of the noble lowlife, whose well meaning roughness serves the king more so than the smooth talking turncoats, other than my description in this post, can you really divide Kent deeper? Do you have greater nuances or cores to his psychology? What political intrigue plot could he not be injected to? The fact is, the characters have the charm of authenticity to you because of the historical cult telling you to find worlds in them, and when analyzed the bulk of their depth is just his skill in verse, no great psychology do the bulk of side characters possess, and many of the central characters can be honestly called one note or two note, what is Edmund but a scorned Machiavellian bastard, Edmund has no superior depth to dio from JoJo part 1.

Bump

Space is fake and Fakespeare was an anonymous black trans lesbian.

is this the autism thread?

>>23900794
I am enjoying this conversation anon, as I think it is always rewarding to see the opinions of someone completely different to one's own, who has at the same time systematically and thoughtfully worked them out. It seems we have both put effort into developing our thoughts in opposite directions.

>if I look at someone like Ophelia there’s really nothing there but an image or female vanity and frailty, if I look at polonius what do I see but an image of parodied pretentiousness
I think we need to establish exactly what we disagree on here: It's not that these characters are not originally generic, or that they don't fulfill generic roles, it's that Shakespeare's handling of them gives them an inimitable personality. You say, if you do indeed agree there is anything unique about their handling, that they're not really unique, and I'm just, presumably, confusing the effect of the poetry with the characters. But that is precisely the effect the poetry is supposed to achieve, and when the poetry achieves above all else in representing a coherent personality, with a poetry consistent with the character, then it is no illusion of character, but the character themself that we are appreciating. It is inevitable for almost any writer to give unique contours to characters, if they or their character-type have been handled by other writers, and this is all the more true for a great writer. But you outright deny this. And I also disagree with your descriptions of the characters. Take Ophelia, whose vanity should really be the last quality to be identified in her, where her love, for Hamlet, her brother or father, is so much more important. What a dull description you give of this interesting character, because you insist she is as complex as can be expressed by a short sentence of a stock-character type. Again, I think it is just willful blindness.

>the truth is his writing genuinely waxes and wanes to realism and also in power
Shakespeare never betrays the definitions of a character, and if he really did wane in realism then this would be a necessity. As we can see in all subpar writers, their characters are uninteresting, or they are inconsistent, and to go from Shakespeare's brilliant characters to such uninteresting inconsistency would be all too obvious a change. And the actor would try to salvage its unity and interest anyway. The words you think are expressive of waning realism and power are in fact not so, but merely words which have little effect when taken out of their context, but are perfectly suitable for the context, and granted all the realism and power of Shakespeare's characters by that perfect suitableness.

CONT

>>23902842
>>23900794
>So Shakespeare didn’t see in historical examples images of dignity, dramatic tragedy, [etc.]
I think you've created a hodgepodge of aesthetic criticism and appreciation. It is of the utmost importance how different Classical tragedy is from Elizabethan tragedy, and so forth. And likewise the difference in the cultural origins of aesthetic categories. Shakespeare himself parodies such categorical-criticism in the character of Polonius, which is clearly meant to be incapable of fathoming Shakespeare's own naturalistic drama. I do not mean to deny the practical craftmanship of poetry and drama, or the relevance of these categories, but I do believe realism takes precedence over any exact fulfilment of these categories, in Shakespeare. We can see how quickly Shakespeare swerves between and blends so many of these categories, that it has really become a staple of Shakespearian criticism to identify his closeness to 'nature'.

>My understanding of this is from no less, the aesthetic writings of the [etc.]
From Alexander Pope, to Johnson, to Goethe and Carlyle, and so many others, it has been a consistent point to identify in Shakespeare the utmost objectivity in the portrayal of nature and personalities. One thing that individuals have found it hard to identify in Shakespeare, is the exact method of production, because his understanding seems to be so much larger than the understanding of almost every other poet, and by expectation, there is an inexplicability of the accompanying creative process.

>Lmao, they’re comedy characters not esoteric zen metaphors
I don't see how them being comedy characters precludes them from greater depth. In As You Like It, the banished Duke does not get all that much attention, but from his opening words, and occasional remarks, he becomes a very interesting character, inhabiting a kind of perfect life. But he's clearly not the main focus of the play.

>What depth do the witches have?
But what about Macbeth himself? You said the play had no realism. There are countless nuances to the Queen's character. Her attempt to blur the line between masculine and feminine duty a la Clytemnestra, her inability to kill the King because he reminded her of her father, so many, as would be expected from Shakespeare. I also think of the two murderers, who are not simple villains, but are given even some sympathy and justification for their resorting to murder. There is no character who is just a cardboard cut out, who are without dramatic value, because the characters are ends in themselves. But obviously some characters are more valuable and interesting than others.

CONT

>>23902844
>Shakespeare has poems as well apart from his sonnets, they’re not meaningfully different from his plays
They're completely different. Not in their poetry, but in their conception and portrayal of human character, and the nature of the topics, they are completely different. Shakespeare would never have endeavored to portray a character as harsh and direct as King Lear in poem-form. I don't consider his use of songs unnecessary or merely ornamental. The many songs in As You Like It perfectly fit the romantic attitude, and indeed add more to the world, especially given their dramatic function for various characters, as Jaques indulging his melancholy. I find them beautiful. The high art used in Shakespeare's speeches is never at the expense of a naturality of speech, and a reality of motive.

>I mean it basically is
Well, what other Johnson poems praise someone as the greatest English poet?

>How, the trope character of an aristocratic dignity pretending to be a commoner is one of the most universal
Exactly, all you see is a trope, and not the poetic and dramatic incarnation. Look at Kent's conversation with the gentleman, in scene 3 of act 4, and we are there alone entranced by the drama, by the characters speaking and being spoken of. He is admirable because he is real, and if he were just a trope then there would be nothing to find admirable or inspiring. You cannot give such simple definitions to these great characters. That is my belief anyway.

END

>>23902424
Every thread is an autism thread

>>23893190
>be Giambattista Marino
>>The Cambridge History of Italian Literature thought him to be "one of the greatest Italian poets of all time"
>>enjoyed immense success in his time, comparable to that of Petrarch before him.
>>He was widely imitated in Italy, France (where he was the idol of members of the précieux school, such as Georges Scudéry, and the so-called libertins such as Tristan l'Hermite), Spain (where his greatest admirer was Lope de Vega) and other Catholic countries, including Portugal and Poland, as well as Germany, where his closest follower was Christian Hoffmann von Hoffmannswaldau and Holland where Constantijn Huygens was a great admirer. In England he was admired by John Milton and translated by Richard Crashaw.
>>(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giambattista_Marino)
>2024
>I am forgotten

>>23894007
It's unlikely she could heft even one of those binders. Keep in mind how heavy paper is. Look at those puny arms.

>>23902424
Why are you complaining about actual literary discussion on the literature board?

>>23902847
>Well, what other Johnson poems praise someone as the greatest English poet?

NTA, but Not Jonson, but James Shirley says the exact same sentiment before the Fletcher/Beaumont folio

Be it then remembred to the Glory of our owne, that all these are Demonstrative and met in BEAUMONT & FLETCHER, whom but to mention is to throw a cloude upon all former names and benight Posterity; This Book being, without flattery, the greatest Monument of the Scene that Time and Humanity have produced, and must Live, not only the Crowne and sole Reputation of our owne, but the stayne of all other Nations and Languages, for it may be boldly averred, not one indiscretion hath branded this Paper in all the Lines, this being the Authen∣tick witt that made Blackfriers an Academy, where the three howers spectacle while Beaumont and Fletcher were presented, were usually of more advantage to the hopefull young Heire, then a costly, dangerous, forraigne Travell, with the assistance of a governing Mounsieur, or Signior to boot;

https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo2/A27177.0001.001/1:4?rgn=div1;view=fulltext

So if Jonson opens the folio and that sentiment is repeated in Fletcher/Beaumont's folio

>>23902847
>>23903823

He belonged to the great period of English dramatic literature, but, in Charles Lamb's words, he "claims a place among the worthies of this period, not so much for any transcendent genius in himself, as that he was the last of a great race, all of whom spoke nearly the same language and had a set of moral feelings and notions in common."

Charles Lamb here is admitting they all sound the same as well. Shakespeare, Fletcher/Beaumont, Massinger, and Shirley

Shirley was born to great dramatic wealth, and he handled it freely. He constructed his own plots out of the abundance of materials that had been accumulated during thirty years of unexampled dramatic activity. He did not strain after novelty of situation or character, but worked with confident ease and buoyant copiousness on the familiar lines, contriving situations and exhibiting characters after types whose effectiveness on the stage had been proved by ample experience. He spoke the same language with the great dramatists, it is true, but this grand style is sometimes employed for the artificial elevation of commonplace thought. "Clear as day" becomes in this manner "day is not more conspicuous than this cunning"; while the proverb "Still waters run deep" is ennobled into—

"The shallow rivers glide away with noise—
The deep are silent".

The violence and exaggeration of many of his contemporaries left him untouched. His scenes are ingeniously conceived, his characters boldly and clearly drawn; and he never falls beneath a high level of stage effect.[1]

The complaint against Shirley is a complaint against originality, not a complaint against language, against characters. He is functionally Shakespeare 20-40 years later, before the style evolves with Dryden.

Shirley, Jonson, Shakespeare, Chapman, Greville, Fletcher/Beaumont, Massinger, Heywood, Daniel, Middleton, Brome, Brome, Dekker, Markham, Marston, Marlowe, Davenant, Ford, Rowley, Killigrew, W. Killigrew, Pordage, Shadwell, Dryden, &c... All roughly the same quality, a wealth of great plays, no reason to limit oneself to just Shakespeare. My personal favorite is Charles Johnson.

File: valkyrie PFP.jpg (230 KB, 600x805)

230 KB JPG

>ITT we have Frater spazzing out typing thousands of words and other anons willingly arguing with him
>Moon-landing was fake anons
>And people who don't really read or care about or read any literary criticism
Yeah that's a /lit/ thread alright

File: star.png (386 KB, 596x599)

386 KB PNG

>>23893364
I wish I saved some of Fraters poetry (although I'm sure he'll be incensed enough to post some in this thread), but you are arguing with somebody who thinks the only thing that matters in poetry is how "epic,and sublime" it sounds, and reads garbage (see: >>23893154) just for a couple good lines per dozen. He just wants to read Fantasy books but is afraid to, so he reads an endless amount of epic and choral poetry to fill the void. This "person" willingly reads and spouts horseshit that makes him sound like a retarded 19th century grade-school teacher.

DO NOT ENGAGE

>>23904142
The school teacher actually taught less than Wodehouse, Bennett, Galsworthy, Jack London, and Kipling. Please refer to the end of William Clissold Book 3 chapter 7 by Hg wells or Thomas Hughes’ school days for more in depth on the topic.
There is nothing wrong with Sweetness and Light.

the moon landing was real, but the footage was fake. the film was just to boost morale and dab on the soviets since the actual landing footage is so poor quality to as make it worthless

>>23904201
> Please refer to the end of William Clissold Book 3 chapter 7 by Hg wells or Thomas Hughes’ school days for more in depth on the topic.
Be honest, why in a million fucking years would I ever?

>>23900354
Nobody is negating that Shakespeare published them. The discussion is who wrote them

>>23904260
Why wouldn’t anyone reveal the truth eventually? Shakespeare didn’t have the stature back then that he does now. It’s a totally pointless conspiracy

>>23891873
>how could he write all those plays 400 years ago, he didn't even have a decent education
Education in language has, if anything, degraded badly over the last four centuries. In Shakespeare's day study of the humanities was the primary focus of university. Students were expected to learn Latin, Greek, and other languages besides simply to be able to even read the materials they would be studying.

By comparison our own institutions of learning today put so little emphasis on mastery of language that most university graduates barely write in one language fluently.

>>23904243
>why would I ever read two good books?
I forgot I’m on 4chan and am speaking to people who parrot best books lists but never actually read anything they enjoy.

>>23904283
The only things I read are what I enjoy. I don't care about Wells, and I don't have a particular interest in the work itself.

>>23892784
>lead engineer
Did you mean the HR manager of the computer science division?

>>23904117
You haven't really had the Frater experience if a completely unrelated unhinged conversation isn't playing as background noise

Bump.

>>23892954
This is so fucked up though, why would you do this?
Can you imagine you're eating your lunch then the guy next to you just fucking falls off?

>fucked and impregnated Anne Hathaway before his 18th birthday
Shakespeare's works weren't written by a "commoner", they were written by an alpha male.

>>23905169
He was literally a gangster writing with pimps

>>23902847
> there is anything unique about their handling,

Even this I can’t admit because, by virtue of my seeing him on a level playing field with other playwrights, I can also judge him against other fiction, and if I compare the dialogue of a given Shakespeare play, to a given twilight zone episode (of which I’ve meticulously done for both mind you, measuring how long syllabic length wise characters will say lines before the other speaker gets a say, analyzing how they use the stage, marking speech rhythms and so forth.) not only is Shakespeare highly comparable in his given characters speech and context to others of his period and the following period, he’s also roughly comparable to the good twilight zone or Star Trek episode, if I pull upon the Christmas toy episode, surely there is more psychological depth and realism in their dialogue with so many less lines, if I compare the episode with the magical piano to Pericles I will find an abundance of merits in the twilight zone rough sketch over the play length characters, so even this I can’t say.
> when the poetry achieves above all else in representing a coherent personality, with a poetry consistent with the character


It is not so much consistency and depth of character you enjoy but quality in rhetoric and Music, I will again refer to Cymbeline (because it’s one of my favorite of his.) the two hunter-prince’s have no depth of character beyond that they are noble savages who continuously act as their secret princedom would merit, the exact identical characters are written by Cervantes in the same year, and many similar before and after, the hidden royal whose virtue proves them is all they have, yet, despite their hollow natures their rhetorical context with lines like this


“Bel. Great greefes I see med'cine the lesse: For Cloten
Is quite forgot. He was a Queenes Sonne, Boyes,
And though he came our Enemy, remember
He was paid for that: though meane, and mighty rotting
Together haue one dust, yet Reuerence
(That Angell of the world) doth make distinction
Of place 'tweene high, and low. Our Foe was Princely,
And though you tooke his life, as being our Foe,
Yet bury him, as a Prince”


Their archetypal silhouette appears brilliant magnified by the sheer dignity of the sentiment, I neither grasp the boys or their father deeper, but they operate as an effective vehicle for this ideal.
>Take Ophelia, whose vanity should really be the last quality to be identified in her, where her love, for Hamlet, her brother or father, is so much more important.

Confusing self importance with vanity, Ophelia is a common type in the love poetry of the period of the, “sweet-talked betrayed” to name it, whose obsession with transient youthful relationships destroys their lives and minds,
Cont

>>23906559
the writers of the phoenix nest anthology are filled with the character and Shakespeare’s lover’s complaint is of the identical mold, her vain (passing) fancies having destroyed her.
>What a dull description you give of this interesting character,

For she is not very intensely studied or given breath to have as many nuances as you wish, her character first is nothing but a daughter and a lover, who is thrown aside and then wounded, and wounded, goes crazy with mourning and loss, what could be simpler? There is nothing beyond the surface description I give.

>Shakespeare never betrays the definitions of a character,


A character acting as itself is not a proof of a one in a billion skill, it is a basic parameter.

>and if he really did wane in realism then this would be a necessity.


Realism is not the measure of his power, rhetorical efficacy is, a scene I love for example is in Lear where they’re stopped after the rain, Lear, fool and Edgar, and just basically shooting the shit and being rowdy, it’s pretty realistic, it’s flavorful, and the critics hated it because it detracted from the rhetoric, it was scorned by Samuel Johnson and removed by various rewriters like Nahum tate, these rewrites being drastically more popular and more critically acclaimed until basically a romanticism inspired fever of bardolatry, such a scene may be realistic, may be enjoyable, but according to the taste of men as prestigious as Nahum Tate, it is ineffective for the sheer dramatic power question.
>but merely words which have little effect when taken out of their context,

There are entire acts of Shakespeare plays which yield little pleasure.

> but I do believe realism takes precedence over any exact fulfilment of these categories, in Shakespeare.

You’re overlooking into polonius, he’s not a pastiche of classical tragedies so much as pastiche of the other big style definer of the period, Lily and his Euphuism, which was a consciously parallel and ornament and overblown style modeled somewhat on Cicero and somewhat on the ancient asiatic style, but chiefly is still on lily’s characters, which you know, is English! And very popular at the time!

> that it has really become a staple of Shakespearian criticism to identify his closeness to 'nature'.

A staple of his worship, there is almost no point to the song

“
Come, thou monarch of the vine,
Plumpy Bacchus with pink eyne!
In thy vats our cares be drowned,
With thy grapes our hairs be crowned.
Cup us till the world go round,
Cup us till the world go round!”

Cont

But crowd work, and I’ll go as far as to say the world famous “full fathom five thy father lies “ doesn’t truly have rhetorical, dramatic or logical just cause to be sung in the tempest, it is a people pleaser, and with it its singer Ariel is a hollow nothing, a generic sprite with no even implied contour deeper than what a d’urfey or settle would do in a masque, certainly not deeper than the public masques of Jonson.

>in Shakespeare the utmost objectivity in the portrayal of nature and personalities

while I like them, Goethe and Carlyle are cultists, Goethe would praise Spinoza without even reading him, and Jonson is full of complaints against the lack of sense of characters in his work on Shakespeare and inconsistencies, a proof that pope is not who to go to for criticism is his history with shadwell, when he and shadwell were friends, he said that shadwell produced the best comedy in the English language above all others, a few years later after shadwell mocks him, he says shadwell is the king of all dull and bad writers in English, and again, immediately Dryden and d’avenant constantly compared themselves and Congreve to Shakespeare, claiming they equal him but exceed him in style and skill, to which criticism of the Times largely agreed. Replication of Shakespeare’s voice can be found in mustapha, it can be found throughout the Dryden tempest rewrite, it can be found throughout the poems of d’avenant, and the people who these plays were written for agree with that sentiment of skill of replication, again, to the point they preferred these rewrites.


>what of the main characters

The one feels guilt for being pushed to Machiavellianism the other is a powerful evil queen, big whoop, it’s not as dense as you frame it, some characters are just utilitarian.

> but in their conception and portrayal of human character, and the nature of the topics, they are completely different
Mang it really depends, Swinburne’s criticism is correct on early and mid Shakespeare that you find a direct loss in ability in Shakespeare’s character depth and Apollonian unity whenever he rhymes within a play even outside the context of a song, and Shakespeare’s Poem poems have surely a range enough, having rapists, having extreme loss and so forth, if anything if you aggregate the entire sonnets as a long poem which is what is historical of such sequences, you find more depth in the sonnets psychology than any of the plays.


>Well, what other Johnson poems praise someone as the greatest English poet?

Ode attached to love’s martyrs in which he simultaneously praises the object of Robert Chester’s poem and also his poem (for it is in a slew of dedications to his poem.)

“SPlendor! O more then mortall,”

Cont

>>23906564
Should I believe Jonson thought the splendid of Chester exceeded all other poets? It’s just the standard of the time.

>scene 3 act 4

It’s consistent with his character and relevant to plot, it doesn’t really show any extreme depth or take me into his nuances like hamlet talking to himself or othello, it’s just not that deep, there’s no way you can say anything in the act gives you more than

“As lightly burden'd with the weight of crimes,
As spotless infants or poor harmless lambs,
Thus I ascend my heaven. This first step lower
Mounts to this next; this thus and thus[185] hath brought
My body's frame unto its highest throne:
Here doth her office end, and hence my soul
With golden wings of thought shall mount the sky,
And reach a palace[186] of pure sanctity.
Farewell, my sovereign! Madam, within your thoughts
Make me a tomb, and love my memory.
Brother, farewell; nay, do not mourn my death,
It is not I that die to spot our house,
Or make you live in after-obloquy.
Then weep no more, but take my last adieu:
My virtues, not my faults, preserve with you.
Lastly, to you that are my last of hope--
Nay, do not hide your eyes, I love them still,
To part friends now is greatest charity.
O, be thy days as fruitful in delights,
As Eden in choice flowers: thine honours such
As all the world may strive to imitate.
Be master of thy wishes: only this,
When the sad nurse, to still the wrangling babe,
Shall sing the careful story of my death,
Give me a sigh from thy heart's purest breath:
And so farewell”


And with that, that is the key to their seeming poetic fantasy of a character, it is their embodiment of ideal in their rhetoric and phrasing even as it really doesn’t speak of their interior that so obsesses us, can you deny “Eden in choice flowers “ rings with a vigor and excellency and sharpness which matches and many places exceeds Shakespeare’s phrasing? The dignity of such a sentence is an illusion on the character.


I genuinely believe if one were to go earnest to the plays of Middleton, dunsany, Tennyson or Dryden, one would find in many places equals and exceeders of Shakespeare.

>I don't know anything about rocket science or space
BUT ALSO
>it is incomprehensible that a government department full of people who know infinitely more than me about space could accomplish anything
Hmmmmmm

>>23904142
I’m happy to oblige, with musical accompaniment as well!

Song: the substantial bodily soul against the turning of the wind (nephesh and gilgul, a Farewell to H. And A.)

https://vocaroo.com/1oTaPRCJijNr

In autumn sere, disappear,
Merely a word that the wind blew,
Gone in a snap like a branch, twisted through,
Lost in a blosmy brere,
Tossed like a crystal-clear, in a crystal-weir,
Gone like a word no one could hear.


What shared parlance has Eagle with lintwhite?
Compare darkness and subtlest dimlight,
The oppression that hides you but blinds you,
The reflection that lights you unbinds you,
Consider the sea and the thick-ice,
Which continues to Be, and which dies soon.


The first shall be last and the last shall be first,
The world that has passed will at last be returned,
The shell is to shatter and after it bursts,
The dwelling of man will give to man birth,
In man it’s the same for his self is an earth,
The flower it yields, the invisible church.

Song: a song of eve


https://vocaroo.com/13yg3qUW82nN

a song of eve

No less,
these hills and valleys,
As God,
robed in undying light,
Did walk,
among their bounties,
Now, that he finds me hiding,
No less,
These hills and valleys,

And now leaves,
Of sanguine haunt the forest,
And Dawson taints his sky,
Once pure August,
Strange-streaked cascading light,
The eye half closed,
Daylight doubtful,
As though,
The sun was drowsy,

No less,
these hills and valleys,
As God,
robed in undying light,
Did walk,
among their bounties,
Now, that he finds me hiding,
No less,
These hills and valleys,

Cont

>>23906578
Frigid and howling,
Distant and haunting,
Crystals of ice,
Given in parting,
And these are tears,
Mirrored in dying,
The frost of his crying,

No less,
these hills and valleys,
As God,
robed in undying light,
Did walk,
among their bounties,
Now, that he finds me hiding,
No less,
These hills and valleys,


Eerie, dreary, searing fairy light,
Seen so far away,
Veiling the eyes,
In days long forgotten,
Pink-pale fields fell with fallen petals,
Meadows dark-dewed,
Promises of youth,
Power and knowledge,
Forever, self renewing,
And soon, I die, in delusion.


No less,
these hills and valleys,
As God,
robed in undying light,
Did walk,
among their bounties,
Now, that he finds me hiding,
No less,
These hills and valleys.


Song: glass saphireth

https://vocaroo.com/1kzpyOHsczFW

Seen through a glass saph-er-eth,
Shard shattered light lab-uh-rints,
False-ornament palmettes gold-leaved,
Cat’s eye gouache stripes the maze-walls,
Star rubied rose-ink to mark words,
Star-burnt but, faint-shaded bronze
Fleshed fruit in flush’d ardor,
Fed full from dark arbors.

Hair growing grey,
No time to change,
Feet ache with pain,
Well, maybe if yesterday,

And here, Of course, I’ve come, to find you!
Unsure, of who, you lied too!
Once more, my love, goodbye to
All that you say gone in a day lost in the pain fallen away,
Forced out the way,

Hair growing grey,
No time to change,
Feet ache with pain,
Well, maybe if yesterday,


I, trifle with images in, indiff-er-ence
Agility, SKILLED ability, still, a million things,
Twisting me, in me, into it, so intricate,
Syllabic, I sit, in the middle with,
The infinite, symbols shift, still within,
Shifting wind, I live, shifting wind,
Intricate, in this is, the infinite,
Shifting wind, I live, shifting wind,
Syllabic shimmereth, I live,
Infinite.


Hair growing grey,
No time to change,
Feet ache with pain,
Well, maybe if yesterday,

And here, Of course, I’ve come, to find you!
Unsure, of who, you lied too!
Once more, my love, goodbye to
All that you say gone in a day lost in the pain fallen away,
Forced out the way.

>>23892784
How short is she like 4'10?

>>23904142
But no, I have no shame in fantasy, I love my dunsany, I will willingly compare Shakespeare to the best Star Trek, I would have no problem shilling modern contemporary fantasy if it was written well, why mock the fantasist when Ovid Shakespeare’s favorite was the father of the fantasists? But yes I absolutely do scour through poetry to find the best lines, which is why you’ll find the highlighted lines in my Shakespeare, and the highlighted lines in my Edward pollock, and the highlighted lines in my Keats, every poet has dross, every poem good and bad parts, your complaint is I want the lines to be interesting and fabulous, so what? If that’s the trade so be it, you can have the mundane and boring parts, I’ll keep the epic and sublime parts. I’m sure I’d enjoy whatever it is we’re dividing along those lines more than you.

>>23906564
>pope and shadwell
Sorry, wrote a tad too fast, not shadwell, confused him with cibber, I often do this mistake since I categorize them the same. But yeah, king of dunces, best comedy ever.

>>23892784
I think I'm in love

>>23892784
We wanna fuck her because she’s petite and the stack of books looks like a big dick

>>23906574
Damn

>>23904238
You have it backwards. The moon landing was fake, but the footage was real.

>>23906582
5’4

>>23906559
I'm sorry anon, I respect you, but the comparison with tv show episodes made me want to flip my table. Of that I'll only say, if a tv show can have such realism, it is only so because the actor and the impression he will make is of first importance, and the words function as a sort of frame. I believe the same is true in Shakespeare, and that we could only expect such a thing with what we know about Shakespeare being an actor and how important performance is for the execution of his plays. The actor has a consistent psychology when playing the part, and when Shakespeare is writing for a performance, it would almost be difficult for him to not delineate a consistent psychology. Only Shakespeare characters have the far profounder design and insights of a poet. But I know we disagree on that, I just thought I'd clarify one last element of my views.

Of Ophelia, I still disagree. Since I don't think her fancies were shown to be either vain or passing, and that lifeline running throughout the play, of Hamlet's and Ophelia's love, seems to have been given too much importance for just that. True, the inner life of her character is more hinted at than fully displayed, but I don't believe hints are any less valid for bearing interest.

>A character acting as itself is not a proof of a one in a billion skill, it is a basic parameter.
Then Shakespeare cannot wax in realism.

>Realism is not the measure of his power, rhetorical efficacy is
>a scene I love for example is in Lear where they’re stopped after the rain [...] and the critics hated it because it detracted from the rhetoric
Don't you see the contradiction here, and that it only proves my point? In an age concerned with classical refinement and rhetoric, a scene of great realism was scorned. But realism is really the heart of Shakespeare. I'm saying the critics, here, were fools with no understanding of Shakespeare's drama. There is a great deal of difference between the beginning and ending of the 17th century, and I agree with the view that the truly native spirit of English poetry was smothered variously by Roundhead Puritanism and Cavalier Latinism.

>There are entire acts of Shakespeare plays which yield little pleasure.
Such as? I wonder why Shakespeare would write them then...

>pastiche of the other big style definer of the period, Lily and his Euphuism
I think it's fair to say he's a pastiche of academicism at large, which was dominated by Latinism, and a chief expression being Lily.

CONT

>>23908364
>there is almost no point to the song [...] But crowd work
I don't see how that, if true, interrupts realism.

>while I like them, Goethe and Carlyle are cultists, Goethe would praise Spinoza without even reading him
I think one should at least presume that they saw something objective. Goethe's first experience with Shakespeare, likely before he ever read any criticism of him, cemented his opinions. And praising a philosophy without having read him is a little different, as one can still learn the philosophy. Johnson, if I remember correctly, esteemed Shakespeare above any of his contemporaries, and nonetheless did praise the reality in some of his characters. Pope may be a superficial judge, but these cumulative opinions of the greats cannot simply be chucked out as cultic. Goethe read Marlowe's Faustus, and as much as he praised it, he did not find in Marlowe as great a poet or dramatist as Shakespeare.

>The one feels guilt for being pushed to Machiavellianism the other is a powerful evil queen
Really, you don't think this is even a little reductive, for all that the characters undergo, their multiple reversals of purpose and feeling, the intensity which this all carries along with it, even without the marvelous psychology imbued by the poetry?

>“SPlendor! O more then mortall,”
If this is the extant of the praise, then it really doesn't match what Jonson says about Shakespeare. Johnson does not merely praise Shakespeare, he goes out of his way to declare his world-historical importance for European and English culture.


I don't think we're going to get much further than this in conversation, anon. I will of course read and appreciate what you have to say, and respond, but at this rate we're just saying the opposite to each other.

END

>>23908364
bumping so I’ll have time to post later, don’t be so harsh against the good of television, there’s a direct stream of transmission between the Elizabethan theater, the restoration theater, romanticism, the pulps and early television, the writers of the best twilight zone episodes were surely heavily studied in Shakespeare and realistically as you hint at, the mode of consumption of something like that or a Star Trek episode is genuinely more close to what Shakespeare imagined he’d be consumed through, a live actors performance utilizing the visual medium. What’s pleasurable is pleasurable.

I’ll argue my points later when I have an excess of time.

>>23908768
>famous Shakespeare experts Rod Serling and Gene Roddenberry
Sorry friendo I respected you, BUT I don't know if I want to hear the rest now

File: APU_SHAKES_.png (277 KB, 780x438)

277 KB PNG

>>23891873
If you were literate, you were engaged in 'occult' learning. There are ciphers in the first folios with explicit and intentional steganographic communication signalling, and none of it is surprising or out of character with the standards and expectation of the time-- Sharkespeare is intrinsically political and was received as such in its day.


>>23892784
Backstory's more nepotistic and for propagandistic clout than taken at fist glance-- Hidden Figures is a fictional film with tenuous relation to the reality of the persons in question, and Hamilton's as if not more egregiously misrepresented.

>>23892886
A clique is just as likely, including him (and his hosting of productions).

>>23892934
Most of the canon didn't. The dearth of contemporary schmoozing socialite accounts for such a prolific and infamous playwright itself is a red flag.

File: BEHEAD_COSMONAUT.png (213 KB, 394x398)

213 KB PNG

>>23893012
>shakes speare
>piss take

Confederate - or De Vere - authorship with deep steganographic typology hidden in plain sight is, predictably, a narcisssitic injury to proles past and present. God forbid anyone being required to study arcane spiritual traditions interfacing with the politics of the day to this point deliberately occulted beyond credulity in this mass information age. It is not that "it's not for (you)", you're inveterately unwilling - and incapable - of speculating in the direction required to open the door.

>>23893364
>Anon, your interpretation of poetry reads as if it were chained to a set of categories, necessarily equalising every attribute's worth since there is nothing beyond them with which to interpret

The cold reading we dare say the Oxfordians are unwarrantedly engaging with with 'schizononsense' ciphers-- LIKE JOHN DEE'S ANGEL LANGUAGE JABBERWOCKY

>>23896756
>By not viewing Shakespeare as archaic like the rest of his contemporaries, you're making him into a modernist by contrast-- unreadable piffle written by an ignoramus meant to symbolize status.

Bingo.

>>23904117
No one reads here much less understands or composes that's the pub brawl cachet.

I have no stake in this, I don't care who authored something as long as it's enjoyable.
But holy shit namefags are such fucking pretentious midwits, especially on /lit/. This thread might be the finest case ever made against allowing namefaggotry. Just give the OP a trip and nothing else. They only post such drivel for attention, and without names they would quickly return to where they belong - plebbit.

File: basura anglosajona.jpg (121 KB, 1280x720)

121 KB JPG

>shakespeare