Shakespeare Apocrypha: Arden of Faversham

I've just finished reading Arden of Faversham. To be fair this is a play that was attributed to Shakespeare after the 17th century, so I can't really complain about its non-inclusion. However, it does fit quite neatly with some of the other apocrypha plays - it's set in England (based on a true story), it's quite earthy, bawdy and common, and it doesn't quite have the flowery loftiness we normally associate with Shakespeare. However, it was quite an enjoyable little read.

There was also a little bit of swearing :)

It comes when the character Black Will is stating that he'll quite happily murder the main character Arden.

Will. Plat me no platformes, give me the money, And Ile stab him as he stands pissing against a wall, But Ile kill him.

Actually, the character named Black Will is partnered by another murderous rogue named Shakebag. So the phrase Will & Shakebag pops up, which seems like a parodic reference to the dude himself.

I thought this picture looked quite cool too ;-

Sea-Christ and Mary Mermaid

A while back I posted about how the name Mary Magdalene could be rendered as Mermaid - Mer/Mary meaning sea, and Magdalene being a variant of Maiden/Madeleine. Anyway I've been thinking about this some more and I think I've came a little further.

I was thinking along the lines of Mary equals Marry. Today a marriage is a ceremonial coupling of two people, however I think originally to marry someone would've simply meant to have sex with them. In days of yore people would've no doubt simply had sex, bore children and settled down together. I'm sure a marriage is just a formalised celebration of this.

If marry meant sex then that would explain the meaning of the term marred or mar - spoiled, impure. It would also make sense in regards the term getting merry. It would likewise explain why in Tudor times (and no doubt earlier than that) the term mermaid was used as a euphemism for prostitute - Mary Queen of Scots famously being described as such. Mermaid (marry-maid) would simply translate as sex-maid or alternatively mar(red)-maid. This brings us back full circle to Mary Magdalene - her name would be rendered likewise, and this'll be why she's universally decried as a prostitute or fallen woman.

Incidentally, merrymaids was an old English name for mermaids.

When applying this translation of Mary to the Virgin Mary things make equal sense. Virgin Mary simply becomes Married Virgin or a Virgin who's had sex. Hence, Jesus being born of a virgin simply means he was born as a product of sex, like everyone else. Maybe with the added interpretation that he was born of an honourable, married or chaste woman.

In other posts I've argued that Jesus was simply a symbolic everyman - not a real historical figure. In this light the Virgin Mary is likewise simply an idealised personification of motherhood.

On a slightly different topic, mermaids often appear in the paintings of Saint Christopher carrying Christ across the waters in Medieval churches. I've been trying to work out where that would fit into things, but it eludes me at the moment. There were more wall paintings in English churches of Saint Christopher than of any other saint. His name means 'Christ-bearer', but I wonder if maybe Chris equals cross - like the term criss-cross. Having just looked up the etymology of crisscross I'm told it's from the term Christ's-cross. It just looks like the same word repeated to me though.

Is Christ someone who crosses water? Is there some sort of birth symbolism there? Crossing the threshold into this world, via birth? I should remember that the symbol for Christ was the fish. Again it seems to tie in, but I'm not quite sure how. The fish symbol correlates with the Vesica Piscis - the shape created when two circles intersect. In medieval art Christ was often depicted within a Vesica Piscis - which some people say was a symbolic representation of the female genitals.

I think the whole Christ story is a symbolic tale about man's place in the universe.

Tuning A Guitar To 432Hz

Of late I've been interested in scales and tuning, and have been reading a lot about the virtues of tuning to 432Hz. The modern convention is to tune A (A4) to 440Hz, but apparently 432Hz has a more natural (or supernatural) feel to it. There are plenty of theories and conspiracy theories out there in Internet-land explaining why this is so. It's the X-Files of tuning.

(The Lute Player - Caravaggio)

Anyway, I was wanting to tune my guitar to 432Hz, but wasn't quite sure how to do it. I think I've cracked it now though (however, if anyone knows better and can put me straight I'd appreciate it). I've done it using this frequencies table I found online;

[You can actually buy tuners that allow you to tune to 432hz, for example the Korg CA-1, which is what I currently use - much easier than all this faffing about :) ~~ Neil, 2018 ]

http://www.phy.mtu.edu/~suits/notefreq432.html

Normally a guitar would be tuned thusly;

E - 82.4Hz

A - 110.0Hz

D - 146.8Hz

G - 196.0Hz

B - 246.9Hz

High E - 329.6Hz

However, for 432Hz those strings would be tuned like this;

E - 80.9Hz

A - 108.0Hz

D - 144.2Hz

G - 192.4Hz

B - 242.5Hz

High E - 323.6Hz

Obviously, you'll need a tuner that can show Hertz to do this. I've been using this free gStrings App on my phone;

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.cohortor.gstrings&hl=en_GB

I should also point out that even though this tuning is 432Hz, it still uses Equal Temperament spacing. There's a whole other argument out there about Equal Temperament vs Just tuning, etc.

See here - http://www.phy.mtu.edu/~suits/scales.html

Anomalous Dating on Francis Bacon Image

I was recently perusing a book that was in part written by Francis Bacon. The book was published in the 17th Century - it can be viewed on Google Books here.

In the opening pages there's an image of Bacon, underneath which is written the date of his death - 9th April 1626. However, the first numeral of 1626 is written as a dotted 'j' instead of a 1. Normally I wouldn't have even noticed this, but I've recently finished Volume 1 of Fomenko's New Chronology and in it he states that at one point it was common for j to be the first value in such dates. He reasons that this value, instead of signifying 1000, actually stands for Jesus - so in effect j626 would read, not 1626, but Jesus 626 i.e. 626 years since the birth/death of Christ. This ties in with his contention that Jesus was born just a thousand years ago. He provides countless examples of the date being written in this manner in his book.

I guess I've found a little more evidence for him.

A New History of England - William Blennerhassett

I've finally finished reading A New History of England by William Blennerhassett, published 1751. I found and read the first half of it (volumes I and II) a good while back and reviewed it here. I managed to find the rest on Google Books (although I still think I'm missing some, as in the title it says it's a history of England up to the reign of King George I, but it finished at the reign of William and Mary lol).

Anyways, ...it was well worth reading and there was plenty worth sharing.

For a start he mentions the travails of Elizabeth I and Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex. Telling the much relayed story of how Essex drew his sword upon the Queen;

"The Queen asking Advice of the Earl of Essex, and the Admiral, concerning a fit person to be sent over Lieutenant of Ireland, discovered an Inclination for Sir William Knowles: But the Earl of Essex, tho' his Nephew, opposed it stoutly, with a View of having that Dignity conferred on Sir George Carew, whom he had a-mind to have removed from Court. But seeing the Queen immovable in her sentiments, he turned his Back upon her with such an Air of Contempt, that she gave him a Box on the Ear. He immediately laid his Hand on his Sword, and being prevented from drawing it by the Admiral, he swore, that he neither could nor would put up so great an Indignity; nor would he have taken it from Henry VIII. himself, were he alive; and directly withdrew from Court[.]"

Essex also found himself in trouble for knighting people whilst in Ireland without the Queen's permission and was later executed for leading a rebellion which would've placed himself on the English throne. When I first read the story of him drawing his sword on the Queen a few years back I immediately thought it seemed like the behaviour of an unruly child challenging his mother. As it turned out there were already numerous theories out there stating just that - that Essex was the Queen's son, his father being her supposed beau Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester. It would certainly explain his pretensions to the throne. [For more on all this see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Tudor_theory].

Probably my favourite part of the book was Blennerhassett's coverage of the Stuart period. He essentially paints all four Stuart kings as duplicitous would-be tyrants. This chimes with my general view of the period so I was more than happy reading it.

James I is often viewed by historians as a moderate enlightened King, and more to the point a Protestant King, but Blennerhassett dispels this notion. He gives countless examples of him acting in an absolute way. In fact the troubles of the reign of Charles I according to this clearly began in the James period. I'll give one example of the sort of stuff that was going on (in my Kindle notes I labelled this; 'more evidence that James I was an arse').

"The King not having Patience with the Parliament's Procedure in these things, dissolved them, after they had sit two Months; and afterwards sent several of the Members, who had spoken the most freely, to Prison, without admitting them to Bail. This (says Coke) was the greatest Violation of the Privilege of Parliament that ever was done by any King of England before."

When we finally get to the Civil War of Charles' reign it gets really interesting. I've always felt that the war was about much, much more than religion, and I've always harboured ideas about Cromwell & Co. using religion as a front for a more enlightened sort of change. Blennerhassett puts this in black and white;

"The Presbyterian Party having gained Ground upon the Exclusion of the Bishops and Popish Lords, diligently applied themselves to cherish the Dissention between King and Parliament. There was in the Presbyterian Party another Party, who concealed themselves, and were afterwards known by the Name of Independents. This Party, as they could not accomplish their secret Designs, but amidst Disorder and Confusion, affected a rigid Presbyterianism, and strove to carry Things to Extremities, under colour of maintaining Presbyterianism; tho', in truth, their Intention was, to destroy it as well as the Church of England."

Incidentally, I also discovered that Oliver Cromwell's sister Robina was married to John Wilkins, one of the founding members of the Royal Society. He also wrote works that covered topics such as secret codes and the possibility of life on the Moon. Blennerhassett also mentions that at the time of Cromwell's death there were rumours that he had been poisoned.

Now on to the reign of Charles II - again he's often portrayed as an enlightened King, albeit one with a bit of a reputation for being a playboy. However, in this the impression given is of a King constantly trying to rule by diktat and Divine Right. At times he seems to be at war with the City of London (in fact, the entire Stuart period seems to me to be a constant war between London Capitalists and Catholic Stuarts). The following passage about banking and money lending will have particular resonance for anyone with a conspiratorial mindset. At the time the King was scouting around for new ways to raise capital;

"Sir Thomas Clifford's Invention proved the most lucky; he went to the King, and told him, that by shutting up the Exchequer he would easily raise that and a larger Sum. The King readily understood this Advice; and resolving to make use of it, made good his Promise, and advanced Clifford to the Post of Lord-High-Treasurer. I shall explain the meaning of this. Several monied Men in London, not caring to keep too large Sums in their Houses, put their Money in to the Hands of Bankers and Goldsmiths without Interest. The Bankers and Goldsmiths usually lent this Money to the King at a large Interest, upon the Parliament's Funds; so that, in shutting up the Exchequer, the King received all the Money that came into it without paying it to the Bankers and Goldsmiths; who, having advanced upon this Security to the King already, were deprived of receiving the Money for Repayment as it came into the Exchequer.
By this Usage the Persons who had put Money into Bankers and Goldsmiths Hands were entirely ruined; since it was not in their Power to dispose of their Capital: and their Ruin was the more inevitable, as the Bankers refused even to pay any Notes drawn dayly upon them; on pretence that they received nothing out of the Exchequer. This caused an extreme Consternation in London: But the King and Ministers pursued their own Measures, and, deaf to the Complaints of so many ruined Families, kept the Exchequer shut up one Year; and then, by a new Order, some Months longer: But the Hopes that the Cabal then had, to make the King absolute, made them very easy under the Complaints and Reproaches of the People."

Here's another example of The King vs The City;

"The King brought a Quo Warranto against the City of London, to give an Account how it became a Corporation, and by what Warrant it enjoy'd it's Privileges ...the King wanted a Pretence, from some Violation of the Charter, to seize the Liberties of that great City into his Hands"

Finally I'll end this piece with a little bit of Forteana. The book mentions two accounts of people living to an incredible age.

This Year (1636) was brought to the King one Par, an old Man, of 150 Years, and in perfect Health.

This Year (1671) died Henry Jenkins, a poor Fisherman of Yorkshire, who lived in the Reigns of eight Kings and Queens of England, aged 169 Years: exceeding the famous Thomas Parr 17 Years.

Cool :D

Recently Read: Music And Its Secret Influence

I've recently finished reading Music and Its Secret Influence: Throughout the Ages by the composer Cyril Scott. Great book, first published in 1933 and then re-published in updated form in 1958 (Scott was born in 1879 and died in 1970). The basic premise of it is that throughout history cultures have been esoterically shaped by music - or perhaps more accurately that a nations culture is a reflection of the music it is previously exposed to, rather than its music simply being a reflection of its current culture.

So, for example, he states that the mathematical beauty of Bach paved the way for a more reasoned age, whereas the emotional tones of Beethoven inspired an age where man had the ability to feel sympathy for others - eventually leading to Psychoanalysis among other things. In particular he states that England's Victorian values were directly inspired by the English obsession with Handel. The effects of Wagner on Germanic nationalism is likewise elucidated.

All this influence has a semi-supernatural undertone and is amplified by Scott's belief in the hidden masters that have secretly been guiding, and continue to guide humanity's development. In fact, Scott himself claims that he has been in contact with one of these masters, named Koot Hoomi, and that it was this master that suggested to him that he write this very book. The Theosophical influence is quite apparent throughout.

Although some of his beliefs seem quite out-there Scott is very erudite throughout the book and his commentary on the creative process is quite accurate;

One may even measure the greatness of a composer by his capacity for being dissatisfied, for example, with the familiar. Mediocre composers are satisfied with second-hand ideas, great composers are only satisfied with first-hand ideas, and their consistent greatness is partly dependent on their patience in striving to obtain those ideas. To say that genius is the infinite capacity for taking pains is therefore to state only the second half of the truth, the first half being that genius is the infinite capacity for feeling dissatisfied.

I liked this. It reminded me of John Lennon's statement that once you find the formula you've got to rip it up and start again. Or as I would put it - smart people get bored quickly.

I've never been a massive fan of classical music so I had no idea about Cyril Scott's music. However, when I started reading the book I thought I'd check it out and was pretty impressed. It sounds very modern and otherworldly, you can tell he's on the cusp of a new age - maybe he did help bring in the modern musical tide.

In fact, I ended up using the book as a crash course on classical music, listening to the various composers as I went through the chapters. It probably says something about me that I can only listen to classical music if it's washed down with a healthy dose of the esoteric and supernatural. On a side note, I listened to all the music on YouTube - the juxtaposition of YouTube with classical music buffs creates quite a strange world. One I never thought I'd ever enter. Needless to say the comments sections were quite amusing.

I'll just mention a few bits n pieces from the book that caught my attention now. For one thing he mentions that pins and needles is essentially an out-of-body experience for the body part affected - if your arm goes to sleep, the sensation/spirit has been squeezed out and the pins and needles feeling comes when it's reabsorbed. Think about that next time you have pins and needles. He also states that it was music (used to destructive effect) that wrecked Atlantis. Also, as the book was written a good many years ago the word 'gay' is frequently used in its old fashioned sense. Whenever it popped up it made me laugh a little bit - because I'm an idiot.

Free Schools for Free People Please

There's recently been more calls for the school day to be lengthened in the media. I can't tell you how much I hate this idea. A while back I wrote a series of pieces stating the opposite - namely that children should spend less time at school (see abolish-education).

My arguments for this at the time were mainly principled and idealistic and they didn't really address the practical problems that most parents would experience if the school week was just suddenly reduced - the main problem being how working parents would find the time to look after their children during those hours they weren't in school.

Anyway, I've been thinking about this problem and now I think I have the answer.

At the moment we have a situation where parents only really have two options;

Option 1: Send your child to a school and hand complete control of their entire education over to said school

Option 2: Take your child out of the education system completely and home-school them yourself

Two quite extreme options, both with their problems. I would change the entire system so that parents would have the choice to send their children to school as much or as little as they wanted. If you want your child at school 2 days-a-week, 3 days, 4 days-a-week, 2 hours-a-day, 4 hours-a-day, whatever, it would be your choice.

After all, they're your schools, paid for by you - shouldn't you be able to use them for your children as you see fit.

In fact, I would solve two problems in one swoop and merge schools with childcare - schools could be opened for even longer hours and parents would then have a truly flexible place where they could send their children at times that suited them and that worked around their employment.

This system would be so much better for everyone. At the moment there are increasing numbers of people dissatisfied with the current system. Some are choosing to home-school their children, but many simply don't have the option because of work and financial constraints ...and those that do often worry that by taking their child completely out the school system they're denying their child the opportunity to develop socially by spending time with other children. A more flexible way of providing education would give parents the genuine freedom to educate their children according to their own design.

We hear the term free school bandied about quite a lot at the moment. To me a truly free school is a school that can be freely used by parents and children. Freedom is choice.