?

Log in

No account? Create an account
bear by san

March 2017

S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031 

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
bear by san

By the way, can anybody prove the existence of the--

Valentine's heart (IE, the phallic/yonic heart-and-arrow) as a symbol of sexual love before 1750 or so? Please note: I know what the symbolism is. I know it's derived (among other sources) from the myth of Psyche and Eros. What I need to know is if, definitively, it was in use in the 16th century.

I think I'm stuck with a true-love's knot. Which sadly, isn't nearly so phallic.

***
Very nice limeade may be made with crushed fresh mint, Rose's lime juice, simple syrup, and water.
***



I'm currently amused by the axis of idiots who not only insist that Marlowe wrote Shakespeare's plays, but that there is evidence that Kit was Elizabeth's bastard. (With all the pups the old bitch was dropping, if you take all the rumors into account, it's no wonder she didn't keep her figure.)

It's just another level of snobbery. Not only could an uneducated peasant like Will not have written some of the crowning glories of English literature, but a peasant like Marlowe never could have made it into university on a scholarship on his own merits. In fact, it perhaps combines the worst form of snobbery of both the Marlovians (only a man with a university education could have written this work) and the Oxfordians (only a nobleman could have yadda yadda.)

And rather, I think robs from the crowning achievements of both men.

I suspect this nonsense is provoked overall by reading too damned much Generic European Fantasy, and thus being led to look for Significant Birthmarks in all circumstances. As an uneducated peasant myself--and let us not forget, Albert Einstein started off an uneducated peasant, as did Abraham Lincoln, as did Samuel Clemens, and Frederick Douglass, and, and, and--I find this whole thing the biggest pile of cackheaded nonsense the world has ever seen.

Genius is not constrained by social rank or education. And in a society with something approaching accessible literacy for a significant portion of the population, it doesn't even bear discussion.

Modern English literature owes its existence to the Elizabethan system of patronage, the Protestant church, the printing press in private hands, and a double handful of brilliant, witty, casually cruel, amazingly generous, drunken, bawdy, lowerclass, hot-tempered young men who spent easily as much time writting nasty broadsides about each other as they did producing art, who refused to be bound by convention, who saw a glory in language no-one in our tongue had quite approximated before, and whom you would probably cross the street to avoid if you saw them coming on a Sunday afternoon.

It makes their achievement greater, not less, to acknowledge it.

Live with it.



***
Love is not ful of pittie (as men say)
But deaffe and cruell, where he meanes to pray.


--Christopher Marlowe, Hero and Leander (II, l. 287-288)

Comments

I can't answer that question myself, but I have a couple of suggestions for places to start looking. Erwin Panofsky: Renaissance and Renascences in Western Art, Meaning in the Visual Arts. Also Edgar Wind's book, Pagan Mysteries in the Renaissance might well be helpful. (These are books I've been told I ought to read, but never has, which is why I can't answer the question out of my own head.)

Also, if this helps, when Britomart finds Amoret in the House of Busirane (Faerie Queene Book III, canto xii, stanza 30-31), Amoret is ... well, let me just quote it:
Ne liuing wight she saw in all that roome,
Saue that same woefull Ladie, both whose hands
Were bounden fast, that did her ill become,
And her small wast girt round with yron bands,
Vnto a brasen pillour, by the which she stands.

And her before the vile Enchaunter sate,
Figuring straunge characters of his art,
With liuing bloud he those characters wrate,
Dreadfully dropping from her dying hart,
Seeming transfixed with a cruell dart,
And all perforce to make her him to loue.
(FQ 3.12.30.5-31.6)

So clearly the idea of the pierced heart was associated with love in the sixteenth century. I have the feeling it may actually come out of Petrarch (as so many conventions of Renaissance love poetry do), but my Petrarch is in a box in the attic, so I can't exactly go check, and that doesn't help a whole lot with the visual part anyway. But if poets were writing it, artists were probably drawing it.
Christ I cannot type tonight. Sorry.

Bah


You are my hero. *g*

(Anonymous)

Shakepeare - From John B.

Marlowe couldn't have wrote Bill's plays because everyone knows that Shakespeare was really an alien..or was that a man from the future...or was that Sir Francis Bacon. Here's a site for you from a quick google.
http://www.shakespeare-oxford.com/guide.htm

Re: Shakepeare - From John B.


Ah, the Oxfordians.

Yes, I'm familiar with the Oxfordians, thank you. And probably with anything the web can turn up on Shakespeare with "a quick Google." It's websites like that one that set me off, actually.

They're in particular the people who offend me most. Worse than the Marlovians, who in general are less snobbish and at least have chosen a target for their affections who had a little verified genius to work with. And was less of a bottom crawler than Edward de Vere. (Also occasionally acused of being a bastard child of QEI. One wonders when she got any governing done.)

*g*

(Anonymous)

Rhonda

Yes I was wondering about that governing thing myself ::grin::

On a serious note, did they ever actually prove that she had kids, or at least raise a reasonable facsimilie of it? I'm asking out of interest and (obviously) ignorance. Text books don't tells us the steamy parts, I fear ::GRIN::

Re: Rhonda

Prove?

What is this prove?

History these days is all about making stuff up....