Obviously the first thing to wonder about the historical accuracy of shakespeare's literature is whether people really talked like that. I don't believe so, I believe some did, but even the lower class in shakespeare's plays would speak with silver tongues and I'm fairly confident its a similar deal to what we see in "dawson's creek" today; drug addict hand bag snatchers speaking as eloquently as the uppety college students. Who, in dawsons creek, speak like the lame writers of dawson's creek wish they could speak in real life if they weren't crippled with insecurity. I think similarly shakespeare would have made all his characters speak like masters of the english language to show off his own prowess with the pen rather than accurately portray the people of his society. Some of whom, I'm sure, were as classy as the cow fucker on jerry springer. But thats not even the point of this thread, I mean the societal structure. Which I guess probably was a fairly accurate representation of the times. I find it interesting because as fancy as the people were, unlike today's society the society of the 16th century was very obviously animal like. With a rigid heirarchial structure that no one complained against but rather strived to climb in. A person would hold down a territory and new comers would need to attempt to mesh into that persons extended "pack", and then climb the ladder. I actually admire it, and see it as much more natural than what we have now. There are many animals with very similar setups. I know you could almost look at todays society in the same way but there are very apparent differences. There is something less interesting about what we have now. As an animal behaviour buff I just feel we were a much cooler animal up untill very recently. When did this change? When did all the duke, count, etc stuff lose its signifigance and why?
Poetry is not like accurate document. If Shakespeare did not put his elegancy in the characters' tongue we would not talk about Shakespeare. I have no idea of what you are getting at. I think, with the arrival of Industrial revolution, feudal to capitalist transformation of the society, French & Russian revolutions, WW I & II etc and subsequent shrinking of the empire. As the democracy and modernity gained strength, mass, modern literatures could do away with dukes and counts.
Where did i indicate that.? Shakespeare lived very much in a hierarchial, monarchial and feudal society.! Also to note, most of his works were about periods earlier than his own. May i ask you to put what exactly is your question in a less elequent and simple sentence.?!
You said "modern literatures could do away with...", that just seemed like you were indicating they only ever existed in literature, perhaps I read too much into it. I was just asking when and why this kind of society was lost, I guess you kind of answered it in your last post. It seems like such a drastic change to me, like going from being a normal animal(all be it with elaborate and complex behaviour) into something else. Also, are shakespeares plays considered poetry? I thought they were plays, in which case some kind of realism would be expected, at least today. You know, rough lower class types speaking in a "common" dialect. You never see that in shakespeare, the commoners might be a little less elegant than the noblemen in his plays but still far above even the most elegant people today with their word usage.
Though the industrial revolution brought in some drastic changes in society the kind of change you mention was infact slightly faster in Britain and Western Europe but gradual, spanning few centuries. The human behaviour is as complex as it was earlier if not more, IMO. During the period of Shakespeare even the plays were not supposed to reflect realism in linguistic sense. They were enjoyed for their literary elequence also. May be there were plays by other poets that reflect the contemporary dialect but they are not as popular and cherished as Shakespeare's.
Oh it definately is. But not in a way that makes it more interesting to me. Its just harder to define and study. Its like humans became untamed in the eyes of nature, and are now just running riot. I had always assumed it happened much earlier than the 16th century but after being forced to study shakespeare in literature class it seems it really wasn't that long ago when we were, at our essence, still very much animals. Its ironic because when we think of people behaving like animals we think of them being savages, which is the opposite impression we get when we think of shakespearean times, but when you understand the social structures of other social animals there are many more similarities with 16th century europe than there are with the modern societies of today. Shakespeare was almost certainly glossing over the grime, but there is still something more admirable and interesting IMO about 16th century man than modern man. Not sure exactly what, it was just a more controlled honest society, comparable to the societies of other animals(which I also happen to admire) while todays in contrast seems like a disaster.
Actually, i feel the other way. At that time the education was not wide spread and most of the society was controlled, yes, by hierarchial order as well as Church. The other extreme was the smaller elite educated society of that time. When you think of the competition for the lesser resources, postions and options that life could offer them than now, you would wonder what sort of intrigues, intricacies and tragedies took place to get them. Besides, the field of modern medicine was at its infancy and imagine the survival from the epidemics and natural disasters is also part of life. Certainly there could be people who were content with what they had, free from rest of restivity that is common to past and present. I would agree with you on nature commanding the human that time. They could not tamper with nature that time as we did and live in mess of environment and discontent. And probably, Shakespeare was enchanted by the way of life in the periods earlier to his times as you are enchanted by 16th century society. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Anyone ever watched ‘Yes Minister’? reminds me quite a bit of the structure of old Shaky…or even ‘Footballers wives’…well my point is that these are TV shows about the elite…hmmm…I can imagine Dogville as Shakespeare…Its also pointed to note that his plays weren’t written down when he was alive, or being performed from written manuscripts and that they were not just performed for the elite, but for the common Londoner –and hence understandable to them. As for all his characters speaking the same way regardless of their class –how are we sure about that? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Even today, there are enormously different dialects across Britain, very often big differences even with the same city. There is no one "common" dialect and wouldn't have been in Shakespeare's time either. He'd have had to go with Queen's English, the standard, in the same way that English is (necessarily) the common language in India. I'm not so sure. Maybe you should think about modern day Thailand, for instance, where there are strict and well-recognised heirarchies, pretty much based on property and contacts, and thus influence, in much the same way as in Shakespeare's time, just with different titles than "dukes and counts." Whether or not 16th Century life (or modern day life in Thailand, say, could be considered "more interesting and admirable" would perhaps depend on your own particular status, your ability to protect it or to change it.
By common I mean lower class. No one speaks in a lower class manner in shakespeares literature. There are apparently lower class characters, but you can't tell from their dialogue. It is ofcourse a matter of opinion if it is a more admirable societal structure or not. What I like is how structured it was. Thailand does not have this structure they may have it attempted to be set out like that but there are too many people so it doesn't work. I like how in the 16th century someone would govern an estate and have a clan that lived in their estate and performed different tasks. It was like organised and ordered, which is what I like about the social structures of other animals. Today we just have a big jumble of crap that seems tacky or something. Its like instead of making a themed pizza with toppings that compliment eachother we are just throwing anything we can find on the pizza and thinking the more diverse the better... hard to explain. It does come down to a matter of preference i suppose. I wish the areas populated by humans were divided into large self sufficient estates inhabitted by clans of humans, and those estates didn't hinder wildlife in anyway. Basically instead of cities scattering the earth suffocating nature I wish there was just the odd mansion here and there. The societal structure of the 16th century seems to have been close to this concept(and ofcourse with the odd town, but I think we could do without them), and I think we just went downhill from there.
I couldn't agree more Lou. There is a very good book out there called From Dawn to Decadence : 500 Years of Western Cultural Life 1500 to the Present. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...f=sr_1_3/002-8431818-6504817?v=glance&s=books It basically explains how Western society went from ettiquette, high morality, and culture to the disparity it is in now. Following WWII, the West started cutting corners and engaging in convenient nihilism.
This is really weird, because I've had the same vision. It seems to me that there should be larger expanses of wilderness (afterall, we are animals) dotted here and there with cities. In my vision there are large fortress cities, much like the type you would find in the ancient times or in Lord of the Rings, but they are highly futuristic. There is a sort of aristocracy that makes decisions and everyone does their part to maintain the earth's beauty. These cities could make up a global community, but they are seperated by culture. For example: there are Asian-like fortresses, German fortresses, etc. Businesses are within walking distance of the home and are confined to a business district, keeping with the compacted style of old Europe. There are no advertisements anywhere, and television only broadcasts high art, education, and news. This is a weird vision I've had since I was a child actually, but it all makes sense in my head since you keep the tribal-communal aspects of man together with the technological progress of man.
Wow we do think alike, I've had that exact same thought. I don't like how now cities can have buildings of all different kinds, it seems like a big mess. Regions should have architectural themes, like you implied. Although I don't think 'cities' should be where people live. If we must have them I think they should just be places people travel to to trade or perhaps have social events like festivals and entertainment. These cities could have all the things like doctors etc (but I'd prefer it if doctors let natural diseases and virus's do what they got to do, only stitching up wounds from battle). Perhaps a king and his clan or something could live in a 'city' of sorts, like a fortress, and the people from surrounding estates would travel there on weekends sometimes if you know what i mean. And yeah the kings fortress should be a theme and all "his" people in the surrounding estates should have smaller fortresses that are similarly themed to the kings. And neighbouring kings should be a little different but not much where as a king from china should have very different architecture to a king from scotland. I'm happy with the current borders for countries in europe and africa, and the states in america. Those are good sizes. IMO each should have 1 king/queen and one city. The borders containing that king or queens people. Other than the one city it should be natural wilderness dotted with mansions or fortresses. Each mansion inhabited by a clan owning a certain amount of land that they guard from intruders and poachers. I know this is all fantasy but it would be so cool for so many reasons. For starters there's just the aesthetic reason. Earth would just be a cool looking place. It would be so much more dignified and classy than what we have now. What we have now is just tacky and lame. Also there would be no such thing as environmental problems. We wouldn't have to work to fix the environment we'd just naturally be in harmony with it. I really can't see the problem. This is what i would call striving for greatness. More so than wanting 'world peace' or whatever. There are obviously way too many people now for the world to be set up like this. But I see that as something to be fixed rather than something to try and work with. The structure I propose would naturally keep populations down. Anyone that doesn't fit in doesn't survive, it would be that simple. So we would also be evolving if this structure were in place. I almost feel like this is how humans were supposed to be. Its not 'behaving like animals' in the way people abhor(for whatever reason), its behaving like animals in the sense that we would be working with the planet instead of against it. All the admirable things about humans would still be in tact and in fact more pronounced. Something went wrong in history. Not sure how to pinpoint it exactly.
I can see where Dr lounatic is coming from, and i sympathise a bit. Its a natural reaction to a situation where things have grown massively. We have a larger population than we used to, with better communications and more stuff, objects, and lines of inquiry. There isnt anything we can do about it immediately, what it needs is various experiments on stable and more settled societies that are yet somewhat progressive and flexible in various ways. However, I have issue with at least one part: "With a rigid heirarchial structure that no one complained against but rather strived to climb in." Aye, right! There was plenty of complaining. Various peasant rebellions. Eventually, there was also a civil war. And of course people strived to climb in it. Its actually no different from today. If you cant see that todays society is essentially the same, but slightly looser, then you really have been brainwashed. UUmmm, etiquette, high morality and culture? we still have them. Whats happened is that the restrictions of society have been somewhat loosened, in the interests of a better life for more people. Would you like to be at risk of a beating if you didnt get out of the way of a Lord? As for high morality, forget it, I've seen nothing that says that, for example, there were significantly less births out of wedlock than there have been during much of the 20th century. (the past 20 years, well, societies been damaged so much in many western countries that i dont think the situation is comparable) Or consider violence and how the UK is significantly less actively violent than it was in the 16th or 19th centuries. Gentlemen in Victorian london used to carry pistols or sticks or suchlike, just in case. Queen elizabeth the first passed an edict banning all rapiers over a certain length, because that made it easier for people duelling to kill each other. As for culture, theres always been culture about, but the tendency has been to elitise it, say "opera is the only cultural singing" and to ignore what everyone else did.
Posted by Dr lounatic: "its behaving like animals in the sense that we would be working with the planet instead of against it" Can you show how animals work with the planet? I mean, I like the Gaia hypothesis as much as anyone else, but saying work with the planet is going a bit far. I dont even like reductionist freaks who use reductionism and self interest to claim that humans should rule the world and fuck all the other species, but I still think your going a bit far here.
They are in considerable decline and if you don't see that I think you should re-read your history books. Yes, there has always been violence and social decay in history, but today it is more the product of nihilism than a coherent issue. Societies with a unified cultural goal are more healthy: the community-based virtues of Japan should be evident. As for art, I need only remind you of how Wagnerism was sweeping Europe by storm a few decades ago. Now his name would be an enigma to most. As for your comment about authoritarianism, it seems cruel and alien to most because they have been raised in such loose molds where respect, honor, and discipline are looked upon with suspicion. I would admit that the laws of Middle Age-to-Elizibethian times were over the top, but that is an issue more rooted in the vengeful Christian psyche than rational discipline. Most people are not bothered by city architecture because it is the only thing they know. This is clearly reflected in the anti-art they consider entertainment. I know this because I lived in the city most of my life. It was only when I moved out to the country that my tastes became more refined and my eyes were opened to the beauty and complexity of the world. Returning to buildings each day becomes a depressing and unnatural phase for me because they are so artistically deprived.
Not that great a decline. Whats happened is that they empty posturing has gone. Many people will still say thanks if you hold a door open. And remember, ultimately, theres more to history and society than the doings of the aristocracy. Sometimes, yes, but your going to have to try and prove it to me with figures. Crime is abundant in many periods of history, even the ones with something going on. How many people did Britain export to Australia and the USA etc when it was undergoing it early imperial expansions? The answer was many shiploads. They were'nt trying to overthrow the gvt, just live. Different healths, different aims. The healthy of Japan in the Edo period is overstated because it was also rotting internally, as all things have periods, cycles etc. But yes, community stuff is important, but I think we are probably talking at cross purposes here. Indeed. But the very problem here lies in sweeping. Sweeping is a craze, a short lived shallow thing, not real appreciation. And how many of the population actually cared for Wagner? not that many I think, and your still falling into the "if its opera its culture" trap. No, honor and respect and discipline are just as important now as they always have been, its just that the means of getting them by harming others have been reduced somewhat. Of course, theres ceratinly room for improvement in todays children for the discipline bit, but I regard that as a temporary swing of the pendulum, and will be wanting it to not swing back as far. And not all Christian psyches are vengeful, many these days are the opposite.
It seems to me like you are making a whole lot of assumptions about customs. You assume everything has a hollow center and that respect was simply given to people out of 'posturing' rather than a genuine understanding. I hold doors open for people because it is for their general welfare and provides the satisfaction I get out of that duty. All customs have purpose, even if they are largely forgotten. The same goes about your comment on honor. Honor hurts other people? Only those without signifigance I would supposed. I'll refrain from further comment because I can't prove it. As for opera being culture, I do indeed consider it a superior form of art. Most people don't have the attention span to listen to anything besides Lil Jon and the Eastside Boyz because it is easy to make and easy to get into.
Pick an animal and then yes, I will show you how it works with the planet. I always find this bizarre, when people call me out on saying that(and it happens all the time). Its not like I invented the concept or its a zany theory. Its agreed across the board of naturalists and ecologists(and everyone other than a few sciforums regulars). Infact I can only assume these people think ecology is a pseudoscience. If they don't see how animals make eco-systems function, because thats the whole point of the science. I concede to that. Don't even really know why i said that just kind of a rushed statement. Obviously you are correct here. In fact those aspects are part of what I'm talking about. I think the problem today largely revolves around the over the top nature of human rights. I think there needs to be some level of competition within the species and occassionally it must be violent and combative. It needs to be a cycle of shifting power, an arms race. Clans need to be competing with eachother, occassionally cooperating for wars with other regions but in day to day life they need to have set territories that they need to earn and that others can take with force if they have the ability. It would ensure clan fitness, and thus make us a more streamlined and refined species as a whole. I don't think it would even mean more violence than today necessarrily it would just be honest violence that occurred for reasons strategically timed to make a sort of order of the societal structure. Akin to that seen in other social species. We have violence today but its like its a byproduct of trying to hold it in. Rebelling against authority, like violence is wrong? I'll do it just to be wrong then! If we just followed and instincts and were violent when we saw fit there would naturally be a structure. Because thats just how it works. We are animals and have behavioural tendencies to make ensure our social structures function adequately. Slightly looser does not come close to adequately describing the difference. Its fundamentally different at its essence from an ecological perspective. I see what you mean how its kind of basically the same with people divying up land and so on with someone 'governing' a region but all the important things are left out. The things that were the reason the structure developed in the first place so what we have now is kind of like a pointless joke. A parody of our meaningful animal social structure which is now obsolete. And yes there is also the issue of artistic value and aesthetics running seperate but parallel. Which is more hard to explain. But definately very apparent when looking back through history, even old buildings, some buildings are timeless, while the ones we build today inevitably become outdated and tacky in a few years. Every culture on earth had some defining style in the beginning, and each was awesome in its own unique way. Classy and artistic and timeless. Now every culture is throwing up lame architecture, jumbled glass and steal and plastic and tacky colours. It can all be linked to the deterioration of our social structure. And unfortunately I think this can be linked to the evolution of religion, which to be fair was the inspiration in the beginning for the great architecture. But early religion was simple, basically just worshipping the world and nature, the sun and the moon and the ocean and the animals, but it evolved into all lame things and equally had an after shock of cultural deterioration.
