Shakespeare and "negative capability"

[book...@yahoo.com]

Wikipedia identifies negative capability in the following way, at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_capability

(quote)
In a letter to his brothers, George and Thomas Keats, on December 21,
1817, Keats used the phrase negative capability for the first and only
time.[2] He did so in criticism of Coleridge, who he thought sought
knowledge over beauty:

I had not a dispute but a disquisition with Dilke, upon various
subjects; several things dove-tailed in my mind, and at once it struck
me what quality went to form a Man of Achievement, especially in
Literature, and which Shakespeare possessed so enormously - I mean
Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in
uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after
fact and reason - Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine
isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from
being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. This pursued
through volumes would perhaps take us no further than this, that with
a great poet the sense of Beauty overcomes every other consideration,
or rather obliterates all consideration.[3]
(unquote)

I wonder what Keats had in mind that defines the real Shakespeare? He
doesn't quite say that Shakespeare was a Renaissance Man, or that he
was unique in a certain way as a "man of achievement." Wikipedia goes
on to suggest Keats was mostly distinguishing between a contemporary
tendency of poets to assert a philosophy that "lacked objectivity and
universality in their view of the human condition and the natural
world"; and "the central and indispensable qualities requisite for
flexibility and openness to the world, or what he referred to as
negative capability."

BTW, nice corollary to the above in the Dr Who segment I just saw,
where Vincent van Gogh is visited and found to have an
exception ability to see nature, while haunted by ESP visions.

I suppose at bottom Keats might be expressing his personal health
dilemma, yet also youth, ability, and optimism. This would be
understandable as a characterization of many who carry on despite the
knowledge they are going down. But I can't say Shakespeare fits into
that category. Yes, S did go through his "dark period" and probably
had depression and self-doubts; possibly had health problems, his leg,
etc.; and why did he retire early and stop writing?

And how do we know that Shakespeare was so unlike the contemporary
poets Keats describes as not being "capable of being in uncertainties,
mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and
reason"? Doesn't S show us central characters who fail by being
uncertain? Seems like that's a main failing of S's central
characters. So which central characters show us this "negative
capability" successfully? Does this help define the real Shakespeare,
and what he's about?

So I can think about where in the canon S expresses sentiments about
negative capability that seem to come close to his definition of it.
Or I can look into what Keats means by Coleridge's "Penetralium of
mystery." bookburn

[marco]

Interesting,
although I don't like the "negative" connotation!
How about positive capability?

This negative capability, sounds something like creativity,
like what artists do - musicians, writers, actors, painters, etc.
Certainly not all artists are creative, of course.
Some are just average, like most of us.

Shakespeare certainly was unique.

marc

[John W Kennedy]

You lead yourself astray. Keats is a poet, speaking as a poet, about a
poet. He is writing about taking arms against a sea, of the complete
disorganization, almost pointillism, of Shakespeare's descriptive
passages, of gleefully accepted paradox and madness pregnant with
sanity. I don't know whether Shakespeare saw this consciously, or
whether it was merely his uncanny comprehension of how men and women
think that causes his words to drill to the center of the brain -- but,
after all, that is what poetry is supposed to do.

--
John W Kennedy
"Zathras good at doings, not understandings."

[book...@yahoo.com]

My inquest reveals
1) Shakespeare has several well-known passages, sonnets, and long
poems that especially connect truth and beauty.

a) The Phoenix and the Turtle, Threnos:
Truth may seem, but cannot be:
Beauty brag, but 'tis not she;
Truth and beauty buried be.

b) sonnet 14:
"That I see truth and beauty"

c)sonnet 54: "O, how much more doth beauty beauteous seem
By that sweet ornament which truth doth give!"

d) sonnet 101:
thy neglect of truth in beauty dyde?
Both truth and beauty on my love depends;

Keats famous Ode on a Grecian Urn, with the controversial final lines:
"Beauty is truth, truth beauty,"
that is all Ye know on earth, and
all ye need to know.

(http://englishhistory.net/keats/poetry/odeonagrecianurn.html
TS Eliot considered them a blight upon an otherwise beautiful
poem.)


I can see a line of descent, coming from truth and beauty, and going
toward "negative capability," I suppose; Keats objecting to knowledge
over beauty. Plenty of classical associations with Greek notions of
"sweetness and light," as bees collect honey; beauty and truth through
nature? If negative capability means being flexible and open to the
world, content with half-knowledge, the Penetralium of mystery, and
Greek sense of beauty, I might retire with that. Now all I have to do
is find out what "Penetralium of mystery" is.

[John W Kennedy]

But what of that? To mention Truth and to mention Beauty is not to
mention Truth and Beauty. And what have Truth and Beauty to do with
"Negative Capacity" to begin with, save that Keats mentions both?

> (http://englishhistory.net/keats/poetry/odeonagrecianurn.html
> TS Eliot considered them a blight upon an otherwise beautiful
> poem.)
>
>
> I can see a line of descent, coming from truth and beauty, and going
> toward "negative capability," I suppose; Keats objecting to knowledge
> over beauty. Plenty of classical associations with Greek notions of
> "sweetness and light," as bees collect honey; beauty and truth through
> nature? If negative capability means being flexible and open to the
> world, content with half-knowledge, the Penetralium of mystery, and
> Greek sense of beauty, I might retire with that. Now all I have to do
> is find out what "Penetralium of mystery" is.

It means Keats didn't know as much Latin as he thought he did. He knew
the plural, "penetralia", and assumed that the singular was
"penetralium", though it is actually "penetralis". In any case, the
dictionary definition is "innermost, secret place".

--
John W Kennedy
"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and
Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes.
The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being
corrected."
-- G. K. Chesterton

[book...@yahoo.com]

On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 19:44:22 -0400, John W Kennedy

Keats leaves out Shakespeare's love function, it seems. Quite
authentic for love to be in the alchemy. Come to think of it, Keats
seems bereft of love. Sociologists say that with love children can
survive anything, even concentration camps; without love, children
don't make it.

>> (http://englishhistory.net/keats/poetry/odeonagrecianurn.html
>> TS Eliot considered them a blight upon an otherwise beautiful
>> poem.)
>>
>>
>> I can see a line of descent, coming from truth and beauty, and going
>> toward "negative capability," I suppose; Keats objecting to knowledge
>> over beauty. Plenty of classical associations with Greek notions of
>> "sweetness and light," as bees collect honey; beauty and truth through
>> nature? If negative capability means being flexible and open to the
>> world, content with half-knowledge, the Penetralium of mystery, and
>> Greek sense of beauty, I might retire with that. Now all I have to do
>> is find out what "Penetralium of mystery" is.
>
>It means Keats didn't know as much Latin as he thought he did. He knew
>the plural, "penetralia", and assumed that the singular was
>"penetralium", though it is actually "penetralis". In any case, the
>dictionary definition is "innermost, secret place".

Far out. Sense of the mysterious approachable by poetry. Sounds
worth learning about in Shakespeare, then. Because these ideas about
negative capability are so well known, discussed for centuries, some
of it may be forgotten by now.

[book...@yahoo.com]

On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 19:44:22 -0400, John W Kennedy

OED just says penetralium is the interior of a building. No entry for
penetralis.

[John W Kennedy]

You are looking at the 1st or 2nd edition. I am looking at the 3rd.

> No entry for
> penetralis.

It is a Latin word. "Penetralium", however wrongly, is an English word.


--
John W Kennedy
"You can, if you wish, class all science-fiction together; but it is
about as perceptive as classing the works of Ballantyne, Conrad and W.
W. Jacobs together as the 'sea-story' and then criticizing _that_."
-- C. S. Lewis. "An Experiment in Criticism"

[Paul Crowley]

On 19/04/2013 23:37, book...@yahoo.com wrote:

> My inquest reveals
> 1) Shakespeare has several well-known passages, sonnets, and long
> poems that especially connect truth and beauty.
>
> a) The Phoenix and the Turtle, Threnos:
> Truth may seem, but cannot be:
> Beauty brag, but 'tis not she;
> Truth and beauty buried be.
>
> b) sonnet 14:
> "That I see truth and beauty"
>
> c)sonnet 54: "O, how much more doth beauty beauteous seem
> By that sweet ornament which truth doth give!"
>
> d) sonnet 101:
> thy neglect of truth in beauty dyde?
> Both truth and beauty on my love depends;

While the poet might have been talking -- in
some remote way -- about those abstract
virtues, or, let's say, he knew that his poems
would be read (by some) as though those
abstract virtues were all he had in mind, any
such intentions were a long way from his
main purpose.

To him, and to his principal addressee, these
terms had much more precise meanings.

'Truth' is, of course, "De Vere" -- playing on the
family motto "Vero, nihil verius". � "nothing
truer than truth". And 'beauty' is, of course,
Queen Elizabeth. He also used this term for
the House of Tudor, and for the monarchy generally.
To him, nothing could be more beautiful than the
peace, harmony, wealth culture and civilisation that
its existence ensured.

Do you want to check this?

Easy -- find a instance where the poet links
'Truth' and 'Beauty' in a context where
associations with De Vere and Elizabeth I
simply don't work.

Bear in mind that Elizabeth had been aware of
Oxford's genius since he was a young child, and
had nurtured, encouraged, allowed and tolerated
it in a manner that all of her ministers must have
found highly dangerous as well as close to insane,

>>> And how do we know that Shakespeare was so unlike the contemporary
>>> poets Keats describes as not being "capable of being in uncertainties,
>>> mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and
>>> reason"?

Shakespeare's "negative capability" was IMHO
essentially to avoid the pitfalls created by the
belief that human groups are capable of rational
thought. If he had been born five or ten years
later, or if he was slightly less of an aristocrat,
or fractionally less intelligent, then he could well
have fallen for neo-Aristotelian nonsense so
favoured by Philip Sidney, Harvey and Spenser
in their http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Areopagus_%28poetry%29.
That alone would have been enough to stifle
genuine art.


Paul.

[jaelsheargold]

On Apr 20, 8:22 pm, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:

> family motto "Vero, nihil verius". "nothing

> truer than truth". And 'beauty' is, of course,
> Queen Elizabeth. He also used this term for
> the House of Tudor, and for the monarchy generally.
> To him, nothing could be more beautiful than the
> peace, harmony, wealth culture and civilisation that
> its existence ensured.
>
> Do you want to check this?
>
> Easy -- find a instance where the poet links
> 'Truth' and 'Beauty' in a context where
> associations with De Vere and Elizabeth I
> simply don't work.
>
> Bear in mind that Elizabeth had been aware of
> Oxford's genius since he was a young child, and
> had nurtured, encouraged, allowed and tolerated
> it in a manner that all of her ministers must have
> found highly dangerous as well as close to insane,

More total fabrication by Crowley as all wise folk here know.


SB.

>
> >>> And how do we know that Shakespeare was so unlike the contemporary
> >>> poets Keats describes as not being "capable of being in uncertainties,
> >>> mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and
> >>> reason"?
>
> Shakespeare's "negative capability" was IMHO
> essentially to avoid the pitfalls created by the
> belief that human groups are capable of rational
> thought. If he had been born five or ten years
> later, or if he was slightly less of an aristocrat,
> or fractionally less intelligent, then he could well
> have fallen for neo-Aristotelian nonsense so
> favoured by Philip Sidney, Harvey and Spenser

> in theirhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Areopagus_%28poetry%29.

> That alone would have been enough to stifle
> genuine art.
>

> Paul.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Paul Crowley]

Janice doesn't want to check it.

(Nor does any Strat, nor any anti-Oxfordian
of any kind.)


Paul.

[jaelsheargold]

Well, she wasn't a beauty,was she? But never mind that just now,
instead a word in your shell-like. Have you ever submitted an article
to 'Notes and Queries', Crowley, whether it was accepted or rejected?
I'd like to, but I'm not a scholar or academic nor do I belong to any
institution - which probably lower one's chances.

What I have to say is independent of the authorship question, but
might impinge on it for some. What do you think? Should I try?


SB.

>
> Janice doesn't want to check it.
>
> (Nor does any Strat, nor any anti-Oxfordian
> of any kind.)
>

[book...@yahoo.com]

>family motto "Vero, nihil verius". — "nothing

>truer than truth". And 'beauty' is, of course,
>Queen Elizabeth. He also used this term for
>the House of Tudor, and for the monarchy generally.
>To him, nothing could be more beautiful than the
>peace, harmony, wealth culture and civilisation that
>its existence ensured.

One kind of garden imagery that recurs and seems arbitrary and perhaps
idiosyncratic of courtly values that I notice is that of the garden.
Of course, there is the whole history series that distinguishes
between the red and white rose factions and probably other flowers
that are emblematic. But also there seems to be allusion to the
difference between flowers cultivated in a formal garden, as opposed
to wild flower.

While there may be some preference assigned to cultivated flows that
are cared for and weeded regularly, I personally find this preference
to be feigned and that Shakespeare is inclined toward the abundance of
wild flowers that grow. Can't probably make the case that
Shakespeare's lines are like rows in his garden.

Neo-Aristotelian, neo-Platonism, neo-classicism--seem to be standards
that could figure into poetics, I suppose. Jonson and Shakespeare are
supposed to have been at odds over this. Over-all, they say
Shakespeare can be summed up as 1) orthodox Christian faith, 2)
supporter of the monarchy, 3) values the individual over the group, 4)
nationalistic.

But to me the difference between Stratman and Oxford intentions
(allowing that "intention" is allowed) is that Shakespeare seems to
come between the older style of Marlowe and the University Wits, and
the later style of domestic comedy by the likes of Beaumont and
Fletcher, Heywood, Sheridan, etc..

In terms of direction of development, it seems Shakespeare was going
to write domestic comedies, like The Taming of the Shrew, featuring
ordinary people and marriage plots in what's called a Citizen Comedy
genre.

So is Oxford and his supposed inspiration by Tudor ambiance likely to
write domestic comedies for the popular theatre, or does he identify
with the private theatre, such as Blackfriar's? Unfortunately for
Strats, an argument that Shakespeare preferred the domestic comedy of
ordinary people doesn't seem supported by all the evidence. Oxfordians
might even point to Shakespeare's failure to concur with popular taste
in domestic comedy, plus his early retirement, as proofs of
aristocratic tastes? bookburn




>
>
>Paul.

[neonprose @ gmail.com]

> family motto "Vero, nihil verius". "nothing

>
> truer than truth". And 'beauty' is, of course,
>
> Queen Elizabeth. He also used this term for
>
> the House of Tudor, and for the monarchy generally.
>
> To him, nothing could be more beautiful than the
>
> peace, harmony, wealth culture and civilisation that
>
> its existence ensured.
>

> Probably due to his extremely difficult birth (I read
>
> some of the rulings of the High Tribunal which looked
>
> into the matter of a fourteen year old Elizabeth giving
>
> birth to a very small male infant) Oxford never thrived.
>
> He was always high strung (see the Thomas Bryncknell
>
> episode) impulsive, even violent, and the godawful
>
> environment at the blood and gore laden floors of
>
> Hedingham (In this era specializing in post-wedding dinners)
>
> but in the 16th century a haven for murderers of pilgrims
>
> along the road to Rome to get dispensations from the Pope.
>
> The murderers would finally wander in toward dawn and
>
> John De Vere would give them some breakfast. Also in
>
> this era, in the 1920s, the graceful French Arches have
>
> been restored in the interior of the keep (well actually there
>
> is no castle, only the keep has survived) to their original
>
> beauty. You can find photos of the interior of the keep
>
> ca 1920s online, it's really lovely, too bad it wasn't lovely
>
> when Oxford was there, he might have grown up to be
>
> an architect.
>
>
>FURTHERMORE:
>
>
> Elizabeth writes: I hate it when the Oedipal thing
>
> is introduced. it's so stale.
>
> In my view Oxford was quite independent
>
> from his mother, I don't see his eyes being torn out
>
> by eagles re the original Greek version.
>
> Paul, I suppose wrote: Do you want to check this?
>
> I reply "not yet."

>
> Easy -- find a instance where the poet links
>
> 'Truth' and 'Beauty' in a context where
>
> associations with De Vere and Elizabeth I
>
> simply don't work.
>

> That isn't conservation of energy, it's pointless
>
> because there's no way to validate that they were
>
> (pass the Ipecac) lovers, I've never read that they
>
> were, royal incest is particularly nasty, I am not
>
> buying into this scenario.

>
> Bear in mind that Elizabeth had been aware of
>
> Oxford's genius since he was a young child, and
>
> had nurtured, encouraged, allowed and tolerated
>
> it in a manner that all of her ministers must have
>
> found highly dangerous as well as close to insane,
>

> EXCUSE ME? Elizabeth was pregnant with Oxford
>
> whose father, the Lord Admiral, had lately been
>
> sent to the block re: the Signature of the Queene
>
> Herself. I have to say, this young woman had guts,
>
> she had to do what she had to do and she did it with
>
> Christian grace.
>
> The description of Seymour's beheading is horrible to
>
> read. He decided to fight his executioners, bad call.

>
>
>
>
>
> >>> And how do we know that Shakespeare was so unlike the contemporary
>
> >>> poets Keats describes as not being "capable of being in uncertainties,
>
> >>> mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and
>
> >>> reason"?
>

> >>> It is PATHETICALLY EASY to get the wrong guy. Think about it.
>
> >>> There is one illiterate HUSTLER from Stratford and there's
>
> >>> Bacon, his brother Oxford, the Sidney Circle (Bacon's first cousins)
>
> >>> I mean even the youngest Sidney, Robert, was far more
>
> >>> capable of writing verse, of producing a First Folio, all these
>
> >>>> centuries later, his poetry survived in an old desk found
>
> >>>> at an auction, revealing that ROBERT SIDNEY WAS A FINE POET.
>
>>>>> CAN'T WE FIGURE OUT SOME BETTER FORMATTING? I sqweezd in:
>
> >>> I love Nabokov's reading of Shappere (anciently the family name) go
>
> > > >take a look at it (I was smitten with Nabokov when very young,
>
> > > >traditionally read him under the covers with a flashlight.

>
> > > > Paul, I assume, writes:
>
> Shakespeare's "negative capability" was IMHO
>
> essentially to avoid the pitfalls created by the
>
> belief that human groups are capable of rational
>
> thought. If he had been born five or ten years
>
> later, or if he was slightly less of an aristocrat,
>

> WHO IS WRITING THIS? Shappere of Stratford
>
> was just some hustler who escaped the boredom
>
> of Stratford to profit enormously off the theatre
>
> scene (and it's attendant litany of sinnes), I just
>
> found one of the Blackfriar's maps (intact all these
>
> centuries) where Shappere made a fortune from
>
> profiting from prostitution.
>
> Who's this, Paul? It would be good if we stuck to
>
> paragraphs, maybe double spaced at the last line,
>
> it otherwise gets confusing . . .Paul continues . . .

>
> or fractionally less intelligent, then he could well
>
> have fallen for neo-Aristotelian nonsense so
>
> favoured by Philip Sidney, Harvey and Spenser
>
> in their http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Areopagus_%28poetry%29.
>
> That alone would have been enough to stifle
>
> genuine art.
>

> Coast to Coast is discussing pot tonight, I've never smoked
>
> except on one occasion when I took one drag and nearly
>
> coughed up a lung. Haven't had a cigarette since.
>
> Thank you for your patience, Elizabeth.
>
>
>
> Paul.

[marco]

>You lead yourself astray.
>John K

you are most likely right
this is a little over my head
just trying to participate

for a consummate analysis,
you will have to consult Paul, or Elizabeth

marc