Posted on 04/19/2009 10:06:12 PM PDT by zaphod3000
Who cares. I just want them to render an opinion on obama’s citizenship and birth.
The idea/image that angles are beautiful, fluffy, well, 'angelic', guardian-angle creatures is pure Victorianism.
Before the 19th century, and all the more so the further back you went, angles were no nonsense, somewhat/sometimes vaguely human looking creatures, the though of whom struck dread into the hearts of mortal men. The appearance of an angel was like a firm knock on your front door at 2:30 in the morning -- maybe it's good, but chances are it's bad. That's why on that first Christmas the shepard's were "sore afraid" when the angle(s) appeared with the news.
Angles were, in essence, the Almighty's "enforcers"....with the Almighty himself being a sort of divine Attila the Hun..
While this is possible, I’m unclear why Dick would want to do it.
One word. HALIBURTON.
Keep in mind that while being an idiot, Dick is a very cunning individual, as seen by his use of the puppet Bush.
It's obvious now that subliminal Rovian messages were embroidered into the script of General Hospital to warp the minds of susceptible female viewers. /s
Our Government is filled with ASS CLOWNS....at EVERY LEVEL!!!!
I could see Barney Frank writing them. ;~))
Really?
Well, just who gives a big rat’s @$$ about that!!!!!
His time might be better served to consider our Constitution’s requirement for the potus to be a natural born American!!!!!
Btw, that issue seems to have gone away lately, what with all the brouhaha on the Tea Parties/Veterans, etc.!!!!!
Has anyone noticed—Never let a distraction get by w/o taking max advatage of it!!!!!
Good job, rats!!!!!
I know I am going to get stomped on this one like I was a few years back.
I do believe that the earl of Oxford, Edward de Vere, wrote the plays.
Why?
1. He was a member of the court and it was unseemly for these folks to get involved with theater. It just wasn’t done.
2. deVere was very well traveled while Shakespeare was not. De Vere showed a lot of knowledge about places on the continent throughout the plays.
3. If one has spent years getting one’s degree on Shakespeare and someone states that de Vere wrote the plays rather than some small actor called Shakespeare, that would be one big blow to those who had spent all their lives studying and teaching that the actor, Shakespeare, did not write those wonderful plays. All those years down the drain.
4. This is the first time and no doubt the last time I agree with Stevens.
“Over the years, various candidates have attracted prominent supporters. Mark Twain is said to have favored Sir Francis Bacon.”
I disagree with Mark Twain. Bacon had a totally different writing style. They do not even come close.
“You are exactly right, although he was very popular with the masses. Shakespeare became quite rich from his investment in the Globe theatre.”
I may have to disagree with you about his becoming quite rich.
In his will, he willed his wife his bed. Period.
I need to research this when I have time. But that is what I learned in my Shakespeare classes.
“De Vere showed a lot of knowledge about places on the continent throughout the plays.”
Before I am stomped on, admittedly de Vere used his imagination sometimes to describe a place to where he had not been.
It’s called poetic license.
This is from the introduction of a copy of the Folger Shakespeare Library edition of "Shakespeare's Sonnets and Poems":
Shakespeare wrote very little after 1612, the year in which he probably wrote King Henry VIII...Some time between 1610 and 1613 he seems to have returned to live in Stratford-upon-Avon, where he owned a large house and considerable property, and where his wife and his two daughters and their husbands lived...During his professional years in London, Shakespeare had presumably derived income from the acting company's profits as well as from this own career as an actor, from the sale of his play manuscripts to the acting company, and, after 1599, from his hsars as an owner of the Globe [theatre]. It was presumably that income, carefully invested in land and other property, which made him the wealthy man that surviving documents show him to have become.The Folger Shakespeare Library in Washington, D.C., has the worlds largest collection of materials on Shakespeare.
I need to research this when I have time. But that is what I learned in my Shakespeare classes.
Be very careful about anything you learned in a modern college class room about Shakespeare and his plays and poems.
Go here. I will study it more carefully when I have time.
“http://www.william-shakespeare.info/william-shakespeare-the-will.htm";
He didn’t leave his wife his bed. He left her his “second” best bed. (Gads)
Anyway, he didn’t appear to be passing the hat at some street corner. Other than his “second” best bed, he didn’t leave his wife with anything. Maybe she ended up with a tin can at some corner.
As you will see if you read the link you posted, it says:
It is, however, understood that it would have been her right, through English Common Law, to one-third of his estate as well as residence for life at New PlaceHis wife would have gotten a considerable amount of property. And a very comfortable end to her life living at the house New Place.
The motivation question is central to this.
And the motivation of the educated elite English has been to deny that a lowlife commoner like William Shakespeare could have written the definitive works of the English language.
The website you linked to does not mention who the property went to, but it shows Shakespeare gave away around £500 in cash. The average house today costs $250,000.00, but Shakespeare bought the best place in town, rather upscale. So let's say that £60 purchase would be equivalent to $350,000.00. So a British pound back then would be worth around $5800.00 in today's dollars. So the equivalent of £500 would a little under $3 million. And that is just the cash. It does not take into account of the property which is not mentioned in the will, but would have been distributed according to English common law.
So, we have established that Shakespeare died a very wealthy man. And his wife would have been spent her last days in great material comfort.
Quite true. So what was the nobleman's reason for doing so?
Plays, at the time, weren't even considered art. In fact, Shakespeare himself was apparently embarassed by his plays, while he was quite proud of his sonnets.
So De Vere endangered his social and political status to produce writings that weren't even considered fine art. These types of distinctions don't really exist anymore, but the closest might be a famous statesman secretly writing soap operas or sit-coms.
Why would he do this? What would be his motivation?
“Why would he do this? What would be his motivation?”
Some folks are just born with unusual callings. Today I suppose we would call it, in this particular case, “talent.” And they just have to pursue whatever it is.
I take it de Veres had money. He traveled a lot and most of all he liked to write. Certainly he had a great imagination and had to apply pen to paper.
Some callings/motivations are rather unusual. I once worked with a woman who had always wanted to be an undertaker (yeck). I don’t know if she ever achieved her goal. She was raising a family at the time. Why would any one want to become an undertaker? To use your words, what was her motivation?
The undertaker at Gorgas Hospital (Canal Zone) had always wanted to be an undertaker. He used to dress up dolls a corps. Talk about a weird motivation.
I couldn’t make any judgement until I could get an idea of the rate of exchange about which you gave me some idea. Thank you.
I hope she enjoyed William’s second best bed. (I had to throw that in. I laugh everytime I think about it.)
My best regards.
Yes, you are right about the depiction of angels. Somehow they lost their sense of overwhelming presence and power.
The same could be said about the popular conception of elves. To most moderns, an elf is a small mischievous creature. But to earlier ages an elf was a tall, elegant, beautiful creature with majestic power, dreadful but more so awe-inspiring. We see the corrective to this modern conception in Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. He gives the elves in his story the older appearance and characteristics.
Shakespeare's second best bed was probably much more elegant and valuable than your current best bed. The best would have gone to one of his children. In those days most of the money and property would have gone to the children, and most of that to the oldest son if there was one. Shakespeare's son had died many years before. It was understood that the children would take care of their mother.
One of the problems with the interpretation of old documents is that we interpret them with all our modern ideas. To get a sense of how things would have been viewed in times past, you need to make a mental adjustment to the past. You need to imagine that the thoughts and sentiments of the past are your thoughts and sentiments.
That mental adjustment is even more important when reading literature of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. A modern, taking all his modern ideas to the past, makes many errors of misapprehension. And that is usually the approach of the modern English department when they teach Shakespeare. He becomes a mirror in which the modern instructor can project and celebrate all of this modern political and social prejudices. So why did your instructor want to teach you that Shakespeare died poor and consigned his wife to poverty?
As you can see, it was extremely easy to disprove that nonsense. The documentation is quite ample to the contrary.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.