OT (Off-Topic) Chatroom: "The Boar's Head Tavern"

[Everyman]

Perhaps I do not want to understand them very well.

---

Laurel wrote:

Perhaps you would not understand them very well.

---

Everyman wrote:

And we wonder why children don't understand history.  I suppose the French equivalents of these comics have Napoleon conquering Russia and winning the Battle of Waterloo.

---

Choisya wrote:
This popular comic book series on Asterix the Gaul shows how fond British and European children still are of tales about the Romans.  Another popular comic (which my grandsons take) is The Beano which used to feature Julius Sneezer and the Roman Legions.  Of course we Brits (and Europeans other than the Italians always beat the Romans. 

---

---

---

[friery]

---

Choisya wrote:

It is sad to see the loss of any Shakespearean actor particularly as the signs are that they are not being replaced.  In the UK many youngsters going into RADA and similar teaching institutions now have such appalling diction that they are quite unsuitable for Shakespearean parts without a great deal of retraining.  Indeed they are often unsuitable for many theatrical works and many producers here are complaining about this.  'Estuary English' is fast taking over 'Oxford English'. 

---

But wasn't the pronunciation on the stage during Shakespeare's time closer to the Eastender's accent than the cut glass English than we'd like to think?

[Everyman]

You're right, I do not assume that every member of Shakespeare's audience knew how the Romans organized their feast days.  Therefore, trying to base an understanding of the play on whether or not they knew that is an excercise I'm not interested in pursuing. 

---

Choisya wrote:

Putting out decorations on a holiday is not bribing people to come out; if it were so, you would have to call every Christmas decoration in every store window a bribe, every flag hung out on the Fourth of July a bribe, every banner or sign any politician puts up at the site of any speech or rally a bribe, etc. 

This assumes that none of us, and particularly the Elizabethans watching the play,  understand how the politicians of Rome organised their feast days and what propaganda value they had.  That is what the whole 'bread and circus' politics were about and Caesar was a master of propaganda in this regard. The feast of Lupercalia was another way to propagandise himself.  And yes propaganda can be a bribe (dictionary: 'something that serves to induce or influence') ; it can turn the senses, which is why I mentioned the Nuremberg rallies, which were a high art form of propaganda.  If these were harmless 'decorations' why did Marcus and Flavellus go around 'pulling scarfs off Caesar's images' and why did Caesar 'put them to silence' (kill) them for doing so?  (BTW it was not a holiday - Caesar's actions made it into one. Flavellus Act 1: 'Is this a holiday? what! know you not/Being mechanical you ought not to walk/Upon a labouring day without the sign/of your profession...)

And every shop window decked with Xmas decorations or other goods is an invitation or bribe to the onlooker to come into the shop.  This is what advertising is all about - if not why spend money on it?  Caesar knew how to advertise and how to attract and bribe a crowd to cheer in his favour, just as many a politician does today.

In this country we recognise that political propaganda can unduly influence an electorate and there are strict limits on its use during elections and on the amount of money which can be spent on it.   In France there are even stricter limitations, like a 'blackout' on all political advertising so many days before an election. 

NB:  I do not describe your posts as 'nonsense' or suggest that you are 'desperate to win a point'. Please do me the courtesy of avoiding such slurs.

---

Everyman wrote:

There is absolutely nothing to suggest that the workmen were "bribed to come out on a workday."  Putting out decorations on a holiday is not bribing people to come out; if it were so, you would have to call every Christmas decoration in every store window a bribe, every flag hung out on the Fourth of July a bribe, every banner or sign any politician puts up at the site of any speech or rally a bribe, etc.  Nonsense.

BTW, thanks for supporting another argument I had made with this quote.  

When Flavius says:

I'll about,
And drive away the vulgar from the streets:
So do you too, where you perceive them thick.
These growing feathers pluck'd from Caesar's wing
Will make him fly an ordinary pitch,

he's clearly saying that he public are all for Caesar, and we have to drive them away to bring him down to earth.  Certainly supports my point about Caesar being the  popular leader; Flavius and Marullus don't care that the workmen aren't at work because it's bad for the business of the city; they care because the workmen are cheering Caesar.  

To suggest what?  The feast for Lupercalia was arranged by Caesar and the streets were decked with his trophies (which he/Anthony later retrieved):-

FLAVIUS 

This way will I
disrobe the images,
If you do find them deck'd with ceremonies.

MARULLUS
May we do so?
You know it is the feast of Lupercal.

FLAVIUS
It is no matter; let no images
Be hung with Caesar's trophies. I'll about,
And drive away the vulgar from the streets:
So do you too, where you perceive them thick.
These growing feathers pluck'd from Caesar's wing
Will make him fly an ordinary pitch,
Who else would soar above the view of men
And keep us all in servile fearfulness.

---

Everyman wrote:

Oh, please.  Surely you're not THAT desperate to win a point.  There is not a shred of evidence anywhere in the play to suggest that. 

---

Choisya wrote:

We do not know that the workmen were not bribed to come out on a workday.  We know (and Elizabethans would know) that 'bread and circuses' were part of Rome's political life and bribes (like wine) were often given to persuade them to come out in support of 'triumphs'.  Caesar had a long history of offering 'bread and circuses'.  We do not know that they came out contrary to the edicts of the tribunes - just that those who did not support Caesar did not approve of it and sought to disperse them.

There are a number of references to the nobility of Brutus and to Brutus' good character and popularity throughout the play.  I cannot be bothered to quote them for you as you can look them up for yourself if you use a good search engine.  Anthony deliberately whipped up the people for his own ends and Brutus and his supporters had to flee the city or be killed.  It was the sensible thing to do and what most people would have done, including Anthony if the shoe has been on the other foot.  Before his inflammatory speech Brutus had been well regarded by the crowd. Anthony's speech was a skilful piece of crowd oratory calculated to produce mass hysteria (cf the Nuremberg rallies). There are far fewer references to Caesar's nobility and he was killed in Act 3 - hardly what usually happens to a noble hero beloved by the populace.

I think we are reading the same play but there are a number of interpretations which can be made, as is usual with Shakespeare, indeed as is usual with any good author.  Mine cerrtainly is just an 'English view'. Hence these discussions.  It would be rather boring if we all agreed n'est-ce pas?

---

Everyman wrote:

Choisya wrote:  Shakespeare (and Plutarch) make it clear that it is Brutus who is supported by the people, not Caesar, who had lost their trust because of his ambition to be king. 

Shakespeare makes this clear exactly how?  Having the people cry out for his death makes clear that the people support Brutus?  Having him flee from Rome to escape the wrath of the people makes clear that the people suport Brutus?  Having the workmen come out on a workday, contrary to the edicts of the tribunes, to cheer Caesar shows that he is not supported by the people?  Having the crowd three times cheer Caesar shows that the people don't support him?  Having Brutus run after the assassination while the crowd are stunned and in shock shows that he and not Caesar is supported by the people?  The only time I see in the play where the people cheer Brutus is right after his speech, but that is the effect of oratory and quickly fades when the crowd hears the facts of Caesar's will.  

I think you and I are reading totally different plays here.  

---

Message Edited by Choisya on 09-10-2008 06:42 PM

---

[Choisya]

So be it but perhaps you forget from your schooldays here how much English children are taught about the Romans and about Julius Caesar and Hadrian in particular.  Even if they did not go to school the tales are in all the children's story books.  And Roman history was/is all around them to be seen. Every decent road an Elizabethan travelled on, for instance, was a Roman road. The subjects which Shakespeare chose to write about were subjects which were familiar to the people, hence his success.   His work did not 'come out of thin air'; it had provenance, as antique dealers say.  

---

Everyman wrote:

You're right, I do not assume that every member of Shakespeare's audience knew how the Romans organized their feast days.  Therefore, trying to base an understanding of the play on whether or not they knew that is an excercise I'm not interested in pursuing. 

Message Edited by Choisya on 09-10-2008 08:01 PM

Message Edited by Choisya on 09-10-2008 08:04 PM

[Everyman]

If you can provide information about an authoritative textbook, commonplace book, teaching syllabus, or other book which would show specifically what English students in the 1570s and 80s (the time when much of S's audience would have been in school) were taught about Roman history, I will be glad to consider it.   I have no reason to think that what I learned about Roman history in school in England 400 years later was identical or even closely similar to what they learned.  Therefore, I am unwilling to assume that they knew the same things that modern students, even those who went entirely through the English school system, were taught. There was a lot of scholarship about and reinterpretation of Roman history in those 400 years. 

It is very tempting to assume that we have the same understanding of the provenance of the plays as Shakespeare did, but it is an assumption I am unwilling to make without clear justification.

---

Choisya wrote:

So be it but perhaps you forget from your schooldays here how much English children are taught about the Romans and about Julius Caesar and Hadrian in particular.  Even if they did not go to school the tales are in all the children's story books.  And Roman history was/is all around them to be seen. Every decent road an Elizabethan travelled on, for instance, was a Roman road. The subjects which Shakespeare chose to write about were subjects which were familiar to the people, hence his success.   His work did not 'come out of thin air'; it had provenance, as antique dealers say.  

---

Everyman wrote:

You're right, I do not assume that every member of Shakespeare's audience knew how the Romans organized their feast days.  Therefore, trying to base an understanding of the play on whether or not they knew that is an excercise I'm not interested in pursuing. 

Message Edited by Choisya on 09-10-2008 08:01 PM

Message Edited by Choisya on 09-10-2008 08:04 PM

---

[Choisya]

I have no doubt that there are such books but I cannot be bothered to look them out for you.  There is certainly a great deal of literary scholarship which goes into the history surrounding Shakespeare's plays and what Elizabethans knew, ate, wore, etc etc etc.  It is a positive industry in the UK.  I find it enriching to know some of these things, you do not. So be it.

The history that Shakespeare uses in JC is Plutarch's and it is very basic.  I doubt that stories based on it have changed much, histories maybe.  Even now, despite the scholarship, I can pick up a story book with the basic history of the Romans, including the part we are looking at now, which does not differ much from Plutarch.  Scholarship may change but story books do not.  The Chinese story of Cinderella dates back to 850-60CE  but it has changed little in the intervening years.  Once stories, like Julius Caesar and Richard III, enter the popular imagination and are written down they become folk lore and very little changes.  If that were not so we wouldn't still have books published which gave such a bad name to poor old Richard III!

Surely there are stories of your founding Fathers, like George Washington, that have appeared in Americanstory books for a couple of centuries but are not based on modern historical facts, just as we have stories of Julius Caesar and William the Conqueror?   

But we are severely off topic here so must discontinue this conversation. 

---

Everyman wrote:

If you can provide information about an authoritative textbook, commonplace book, teaching syllabus, or other book which would show specifically what English students in the 1570s and 80s (the time when much of S's audience would have been in school) were taught about Roman history, I will be glad to consider it.   I have no reason to think that what I learned about Roman history in school in England 400 years later was identical or even closely similar to what they learned.  Therefore, I am unwilling to assume that they knew the same things that modern students, even those who went entirely through the English school system, were taught. There was a lot of scholarship about and reinterpretation of Roman history in those 400 years. 

It is very tempting to assume that we have the same understanding of the provenance of the plays as Shakespeare did, but it is an assumption I am unwilling to make without clear justification.

---

Choisya wrote:

So be it but perhaps you forget from your schooldays here how much English children are taught about the Romans and about Julius Caesar and Hadrian in particular.  Even if they did not go to school the tales are in all the children's story books.  And Roman history was/is all around them to be seen. Every decent road an Elizabethan travelled on, for instance, was a Roman road. The subjects which Shakespeare chose to write about were subjects which were familiar to the people, hence his success.   His work did not 'come out of thin air'; it had provenance, as antique dealers say.  

---

Everyman wrote:

You're right, I do not assume that every member of Shakespeare's audience knew how the Romans organized their feast days.  Therefore, trying to base an understanding of the play on whether or not they knew that is an excercise I'm not interested in pursuing. 

Message Edited by Choisya on 09-10-2008 08:01 PM

Message Edited by Choisya on 09-10-2008 08:04 PM

---

---

[Choisya]

I  disagree with many people on these boards Everyman and so do you.  But for some unknown reason you object to my posts more than others. C'est la vie.  We are all in a discussion: a 'conversation'; an 'examination by argument'. Disagreements are bound to occur as often as 'Apollo [drives] his sun chariot over the sky every morning'.  C'est la vie. 

Everyman wrote:

No, I didn't expect you to see it, since I was the one who raised the point.   I think the last time you agreed with anything I said was back in about 2002. We are all used by now to your disputing any post I make.  It's as reliable as Apollo driving his sun chariot over the sky every morning. 

[Choisya]

We are not computers, and there is a divinity that shapes our ends, that is for certain. 

Really??

---

Benedict wrote:
The pre-frontal lobe does not mature until the age of 22 or 25 or something like that.  The decision making process is different before this period.  It is perfect to hear that a teenager sees things the same way that Romeo and Juliet saw them, and that all of us ‘adults’ see these decisions as crazy and/or foolish.

We are not computers, and there is a divinity that shapes our ends, that is for certain.

---

[Everyman]

Yes, really.

---

Choisya wrote:

We are not computers, and there is a divinity that shapes our ends, that is for certain. 

Really??

---

Benedict wrote:
The pre-frontal lobe does not mature until the age of 22 or 25 or something like that.  The decision making process is different before this period.  It is perfect to hear that a teenager sees things the same way that Romeo and Juliet saw them, and that all of us ‘adults’ see these decisions as crazy and/or foolish.

We are not computers, and there is a divinity that shapes our ends, that is for certain.

---

---

[Laurel]

Amen.

---

Everyman wrote:

Yes, really.

---

Choisya wrote:

We are not computers, and there is a divinity that shapes our ends, that is for certain. 

Really??

---

Benedict wrote:
The pre-frontal lobe does not mature until the age of 22 or 25 or something like that.  The decision making process is different before this period.  It is perfect to hear that a teenager sees things the same way that Romeo and Juliet saw them, and that all of us ‘adults’ see these decisions as crazy and/or foolish.

We are not computers, and there is a divinity that shapes our ends, that is for certain.

---

---

---

[Choisya]

LOL.  Your ends maybe but not mine and certainly not certainly.

---

Laurel wrote:

Amen.

---

Everyman wrote:

Yes, really.

---

Choisya wrote:

We are not computers, and there is a divinity that shapes our ends, that is for certain. 

Really??

---

Benedict wrote:
The pre-frontal lobe does not mature until the age of 22 or 25 or something like that.  The decision making process is different before this period.  It is perfect to hear that a teenager sees things the same way that Romeo and Juliet saw them, and that all of us ‘adults’ see these decisions as crazy and/or foolish.

We are not computers, and there is a divinity that shapes our ends, that is for certain.

---

---

---

---

[Everyman]

Denying truth does not make it false.  But we'll all find out eventually. 

---

Choisya wrote:

LOL.  Your ends maybe but not mine and certainly not certainly.

---

Laurel wrote:

Amen.

---

Everyman wrote:

Yes, really.

---

Choisya wrote:

We are not computers, and there is a divinity that shapes our ends, that is for certain. 

Really??

---

Benedict wrote:
The pre-frontal lobe does not mature until the age of 22 or 25 or something like that.  The decision making process is different before this period.  It is perfect to hear that a teenager sees things the same way that Romeo and Juliet saw them, and that all of us ‘adults’ see these decisions as crazy and/or foolish.

We are not computers, and there is a divinity that shapes our ends, that is for certain.

---

---

---

---

---

[Choisya]

Ah but what is truth?   As Marcus Aurelius supposedly said 'Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.'    

---

Everyman wrote:

Denying truth does not make it false.  But we'll all find out eventually. 

---

Choisya wrote:

LOL.  Your ends maybe but not mine and certainly not certainly.

---

Laurel wrote:

Amen.

---

Everyman wrote:

Yes, really.

---

Choisya wrote:

We are not computers, and there is a divinity that shapes our ends, that is for certain. 

Really??

---

Benedict wrote:
The pre-frontal lobe does not mature until the age of 22 or 25 or something like that.  The decision making process is different before this period.  It is perfect to hear that a teenager sees things the same way that Romeo and Juliet saw them, and that all of us ‘adults’ see these decisions as crazy and/or foolish.

We are not computers, and there is a divinity that shapes our ends, that is for certain.

---

---

---

---

---

---

[Everyman]

Yes, I do recall your posting in the past " I don't believe there is any such thing as truth."

And yet as to certain other issues we have discussed, such as certain happenings in Germany a few decades ago, you seemed quite adamant that there were certain things that were true and not just opinion.

So you do confuse me about this.  Seems when you have a strong belief you want to call it truth, but when others want to speak of truth you deny that there is any such thing.

---

Choisya wrote:

Ah but what is truth?   As Marcus Aurelius supposedly said 'Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.'    

---

Everyman wrote:

Denying truth does not make it false.  But we'll all find out eventually. 

---

Choisya wrote:

LOL.  Your ends maybe but not mine and certainly not certainly.

---

Laurel wrote:

Amen.

---

Everyman wrote:

Yes, really.

---

Choisya wrote:

We are not computers, and there is a divinity that shapes our ends, that is for certain. 

Really??

---

Benedict wrote:
The pre-frontal lobe does not mature until the age of 22 or 25 or something like that.  The decision making process is different before this period.  It is perfect to hear that a teenager sees things the same way that Romeo and Juliet saw them, and that all of us ‘adults’ see these decisions as crazy and/or foolish.

We are not computers, and there is a divinity that shapes our ends, that is for certain.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

[Bolognaking]

Come on, folks.  This particular argument always ends up going around and around in circles because it is based on a confusion.  The ontological question of whether there is an objective reality is not the same as the epistemological question of whether, and to what extent, we can know what that reality is.  When people like Everyman say "we'll all find out eventually" he is affirming that there is a truth even if we don't know it.  When people like Choisya say "Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact" she is affirming that we don't know the truth even if there is one.

So, I'm sure that Everyman will agree that although he is convinced that there is an ultimate reality, anyone who is not God may be mistaken about what it is.  And I'm sure that Choisya will agree that although our ability to know what's going on in the universe is very limited, there is something going on that we can have opinions about.

Which means that you don't really disagree.

---

Everyman wrote:

Yes, I do recall your posting in the past " I don't believe there is any such thing as truth."

And yet as to certain other issues we have discussed, such as certain happenings in Germany a few decades ago, you seemed quite adamant that there were certain things that were true and not just opinion.

So you do confuse me about this.  Seems when you have a strong belief you want to call it truth, but when others want to speak of truth you deny that there is any such thing.

---

Choisya wrote:
Ah but what is truth?   As Marcus Aurelius supposedly said 'Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.'    

---

Everyman wrote:

Denying truth does not make it false.  But we'll all find out eventually. 

---

[Timbuktu1]

Anyone near Chicago interested in seeing "Dashiell Hamlet"?  It's a film-noir version of Hamlet.  Just seeing it advertised gave me a chuckle.

[RTA]

---

Bolognaking wrote:

Come on, folks.  This particular argument always ends up going around and around in circles because it is based on a confusion.  The ontological question of whether there is an objective reality is not the same as the epistemological question of whether, and to what extent, we can know what that reality is.  When people like Everyman say "we'll all find out eventually" he is affirming that there is a truth even if we don't know it.  When people like Choisya say "Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact" she is affirming that we don't know the truth even if there is one.

So, I'm sure that Everyman will agree that although he is convinced that there is an ultimate reality, anyone who is not God may be mistaken about what it is.  And I'm sure that Choisya will agree that although our ability to know what's going on in the universe is very limited, there is something going on that we can have opinions about.

Which means that you don't really disagree.

---

Though, to begin with, Choiysa only questioned the all-inclusive certainty asserted in the original claim.  A certainty that is clearly erroneous.   

[Bolognaking]

---

RTA wrote:

---

Bolognaking wrote:

Come on, folks.  This particular argument always ends up going around and around in circles because it is based on a confusion.  The ontological question of whether there is an objective reality is not the same as the epistemological question of whether, and to what extent, we can know what that reality is.  When people like Everyman say "we'll all find out eventually" he is affirming that there is a truth even if we don't know it.  When people like Choisya say "Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact" she is affirming that we don't know the truth even if there is one.

So, I'm sure that Everyman will agree that although he is convinced that there is an ultimate reality, anyone who is not God may be mistaken about what it is.  And I'm sure that Choisya will agree that although our ability to know what's going on in the universe is very limited, there is something going on that we can have opinions about.

Which means that you don't really disagree.

---

Though, to begin with, Choiysa only questioned the all-inclusive certainty asserted in the original claim.  A certainty that is clearly erroneous.   

---

It may have started out like that but that wasn't where it was headed.

[Choisya]

There is philosophical 'truth' and there is verifiable fact.  Most of what happened in Germany is verifiable fact.  The original statement was 'and there is a divinity that shapes our ends, that is for certain'. 'Divinity' is not a verifiable fact.

---

Everyman wrote:

Yes, I do recall your posting in the past " I don't believe there is any such thing as truth."

And yet as to certain other issues we have discussed, such as certain happenings in Germany a few decades ago, you seemed quite adamant that there were certain things that were true and not just opinion.

So you do confuse me about this.  Seems when you have a strong belief you want to call it truth, but when others want to speak of truth you deny that there is any such thing.

---

Choisya wrote:

Ah but what is truth?   As Marcus Aurelius supposedly said 'Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.'    

---

Everyman wrote:

Denying truth does not make it false.  But we'll all find out eventually. 

---

Choisya wrote:

LOL.  Your ends maybe but not mine and certainly not certainly.

---

Laurel wrote:

Amen.

---

Everyman wrote:

Yes, really.

---

Choisya wrote:

We are not computers, and there is a divinity that shapes our ends, that is for certain. 

Really??

---

Benedict wrote:
The pre-frontal lobe does not mature until the age of 22 or 25 or something like that.  The decision making process is different before this period.  It is perfect to hear that a teenager sees things the same way that Romeo and Juliet saw them, and that all of us ‘adults’ see these decisions as crazy and/or foolish.

We are not computers, and there is a divinity that shapes our ends, that is for certain.

Message Edited by Choisya on 09-12-2008 06:33 PM

Message Edited by Choisya on 09-12-2008 06:36 PM

[Everyman]

But if you believe your Marcus Aurelius truth, what we think we know about what went on in Germany is merely opinion or perspective.  You seem to change your belief about truth depending on whether it's something you belive (truth) or something others believe (only opinion of perspective).

---

Choisya wrote:

There is philosophical 'truth' and there is verifiable fact.  Most of what happened in Germany is verifiable fact.  The original statement was 'and there is a divinity that shapes our ends, that is for certain'. 'Divinity' is not a verifiable fact.

---

Everyman wrote:

Yes, I do recall your posting in the past " I don't believe there is any such thing as truth."

And yet as to certain other issues we have discussed, such as certain happenings in Germany a few decades ago, you seemed quite adamant that there were certain things that were true and not just opinion.

So you do confuse me about this.  Seems when you have a strong belief you want to call it truth, but when others want to speak of truth you deny that there is any such thing.

---

Choisya wrote:

Ah but what is truth?   As Marcus Aurelius supposedly said 'Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.'    

---