What a remarkable thing to have found someone like you after all these years, looking at and writing about the same things.
I was beginning to think that I was the only one that was coming to the same conclusions in the anglosphere, and I pretty much stopped writing about them because I thought I was being too wierd even for my small group of wierd, misfit friends.
I’m really looking forward to your next article, and I thank you very much for all of the excellent work in this post and your other articles.
Books could be written on this subject. I have oft wondered about the explosion of fiction, especially in the English language, that took place in the 19th century. What motivated it, and what forces were at work making it happen? Being lost in fiction is bad for one's mind, and it seems as if many of the most fantastical ideas people hold sancrocanct today originated with fiction, particularly with the fiction of the 19th century. Ideas about space, dinosaurs and the like. Fiction, much like pop music, is intended to be a mind worm, altering our collective morphic resonance in ways we wouldn't consent to if we understood what was being done up front. For this reason, I haven't subscribed to television in years (trying to protect my children mostly), and I have pretty much stopped listening to the rock and roll of my youth.
In the book, Black Boy, an autobiography by Richard Wright, his grandmother asks him why he's reading fiction, if it isn't true? Because if it isn't true, then it's a lie, and he should be reading his Bible instead. There's some wisdom there...
On an unrelated note, Substack app on the phone includes a voice to text feature. So I used it to listen to this on a long ride. But the voice to text obviously can't read screen capped text quotes. It does, however, read repeated underscores as "underscore underscore underscore underscore underscore underscore". Just an FYI.
This is Pope Head's magnum opus as far as I'm concerned. But what you have here is a great question and observation. I think I can offer some elucidation: the first major shift that occurs in English language literary works is between epics and medieval romances, sometime shortly after 1066 (invasion of Normandy). With the French language comes "romantic" literature, in the traditional sense. The pre-French Anglo-Saxon epic era consists essentially of Beowulf. I differ from most Beowulf scholars in that I a) essentially take the events described in the poem to be true and b) believe that the Danes in the story have a kind of "invincible ignorance" in that they have put aside Germanic paganism for a pre-Christian Old Testament style monotheism. This means that the text is essentially presented by the Anglo-Saxons "as-it-was" and there are no added Christian elements (and in fact, if one reads carefully, they'll see that there in fact aren't any -- all religious elements presented are Old Testament). Ironically, once the Christianization of the Anglo-Saxons is complete, the attack on reality in literature comes full force with the promulgation and further development of the "romance" genre. Beowulf may have its fantastical elements, but these are grounded in a (albeit sometimes unconfirmed) reality: actual people with actual genealogies in actual places doing extraordinary things. The romances are not like this at all. They are fantastical unrealities completely ungrounded in any kind of reality. There is no care for consistency or accuracy. Pure fiction, in other words. They lack gravitas (with the possible exception of Malory), seriousness, or any moral conviction other than what might exist on the shallowest plane. And they were wildly popular. Even a young St. Teresa of Avila was captured by them (eventually decrying their negative influence in her autobiography). The romance as a genre was killed by the devoutly Catholic Miguel Cervantes with his Don Quixote (a complicated work that deserves its own post). But it really just moved to the theatre with Shakespeare and his ilk (as we saw above). The vacuum left by the the disappearance of the romance in prose was filled by works of ever-increasing nihilism in the intellectual sphere. The romance made a comeback in the works you described ("ideas about space, dinosaurs and the like"), culminating in pulp fiction and mass market genre fiction. As to the "why", I've been thinking about the problem for many years and I'll get back to you when I have it figured out!
You should certainly read both of Joy Hancox's books. The other is Kingdom for a Stage. She came into possession of a large cache of very extraordinary geometric drawings. They turned out to be original plans for the Globe and other theatres. Connected to Dee, Bacon and much more. Highly recommended. As for Baconian material. The definitive work is The Bacon Shakespeare Question: the Baconian Theory Made Sane. By: Cockburn, N B. but it is almost unobtainable and not cheap. It is also 700 pages + but it is the last word on it. The entire subject is an insane minefield beware though.
The one on Phoenix and Turtle touches on some very original elements of Elizabethan textual playfulness. I hesitate to recommend any modern Baconian authors. The best ones were in the middle of the twentieth century. Melsome. Alfred Dodd. Smedley. Parker Woodward. They're all on archive.org. The modern Shakespeare authorship debate has gone completely off the rails with the insane Oxford theory in one corner, the Baconians gone bonkers with nutty rubbish in another, and the academics completely clueless in the other place. To be fair, the Bacon story is completely off-scale so it is little wonder that the time has not yet come that it can be digested. Frankly I had to walk away because the space is so highly contested. But the story starts here: Bacon was the unacknowledged secret son of Elizabeth by Leicester. I mean, "virgin queen", come on, it was a publicity angle but not how she lived, of course, fiery tempestuous redhead that she was. Francis should have been the King but had to get used to the fact it was never going to happen, so he devoted himself to something else instead. History has not been kind to him, but history does not know the story.
Extraordinary writing, research and thinking. Thank you.
There is a twist to the Elizabethan story you have so brilliantly described. If you will entertain the idea, Francis Bacon played a role of immense significance: he was not only the author of the Shakespeare works, beyond question, but he was also the secret eldest son of Elizabeth. His output was almost inconceivable, under a variety of masks. One of these was Edmund Spenser. Under others, including Marlowe, and with the unseen assistance of his brother Anthony Bacon, he was the source of much of the Elizabethan drama. And he was a pupil of Dee. The books of Joy Hancox, especially The Byrom Collection, on the intersection of the theatres, Dee, Bacon and geometry is unmissable, the key to the Elizabethan mystery, where Frances Yates leads to but never quite arrives at. Thanks again for this essay I look forward to rereading it.
i have been meaning to explore the Bacon stuff forever now. I stumbled on one of the forums a couple weeks ago and was really into it. What book would you reccomend to start with? Thanks again for reading
The last three years (or maybe the last 10 years) have been pretty apocalyptical in the sense of pulling aside the curtain. Too many mini-apocalypses to count. This pulls a lot of them together.
With respect, the Lord of Spirits hosts engage in all kinds of nonsense (regarding Nephilim, astrology, giants, etc.) which is at odds with the Church Fathers. A better source for this kind of material is Fr. Seraphim Rose.
Excellent piece and I will have to re-read! A thought occurred to me as I got towards the end of the article...when theatres re-opened here in the UK (after the events of 2020), only those who took the injections were allowed in. I would think a majority of them believed, when they took them, that they were doing the right thing and that indeed the injections were ‘safe and effective’. Hearing these messages of course being repeated over and over and over again on television and radio.
Very interesting. The 'Deus ex Machina' is used to describe AI becoming conscious but was also originally a stage term from Greek theatre. I do think the Renaissance had to revive the natural mythologies and the theatre. These things can be evil but they are also man's natural striving for meaning and so can be good. Once the Church had established the primacy of history in Jesus Christ it was possible to reject these things as historically false but mythically true. There is a dialogue still to be had with pagans on myth in which we will not only teach Christianity but learn from what is natural. I think Jonathan Pageau is someone who is doing this incredibly well.
I'm looking for an article that I believe you wrote (if you didn't but know where to find it, please let me know). The article was about Catholic Churches being built on high places and how there's been a movement to desecrate the holy sites and rededicate them to demonic entities.
What a remarkable thing to have found someone like you after all these years, looking at and writing about the same things.
I was beginning to think that I was the only one that was coming to the same conclusions in the anglosphere, and I pretty much stopped writing about them because I thought I was being too wierd even for my small group of wierd, misfit friends.
I’m really looking forward to your next article, and I thank you very much for all of the excellent work in this post and your other articles.
You are too kind sir. Great minds think alike!
Books could be written on this subject. I have oft wondered about the explosion of fiction, especially in the English language, that took place in the 19th century. What motivated it, and what forces were at work making it happen? Being lost in fiction is bad for one's mind, and it seems as if many of the most fantastical ideas people hold sancrocanct today originated with fiction, particularly with the fiction of the 19th century. Ideas about space, dinosaurs and the like. Fiction, much like pop music, is intended to be a mind worm, altering our collective morphic resonance in ways we wouldn't consent to if we understood what was being done up front. For this reason, I haven't subscribed to television in years (trying to protect my children mostly), and I have pretty much stopped listening to the rock and roll of my youth.
In the book, Black Boy, an autobiography by Richard Wright, his grandmother asks him why he's reading fiction, if it isn't true? Because if it isn't true, then it's a lie, and he should be reading his Bible instead. There's some wisdom there...
On an unrelated note, Substack app on the phone includes a voice to text feature. So I used it to listen to this on a long ride. But the voice to text obviously can't read screen capped text quotes. It does, however, read repeated underscores as "underscore underscore underscore underscore underscore underscore". Just an FYI.
Completely agree with everything you just stated. I have lately found myself almost completely avoiding all forms of fictions.
Thanks for letting me know about the voice to text feature, I will make sure to stop using screencaps for quotes and copy pasting.
Thanks for reading!
This is Pope Head's magnum opus as far as I'm concerned. But what you have here is a great question and observation. I think I can offer some elucidation: the first major shift that occurs in English language literary works is between epics and medieval romances, sometime shortly after 1066 (invasion of Normandy). With the French language comes "romantic" literature, in the traditional sense. The pre-French Anglo-Saxon epic era consists essentially of Beowulf. I differ from most Beowulf scholars in that I a) essentially take the events described in the poem to be true and b) believe that the Danes in the story have a kind of "invincible ignorance" in that they have put aside Germanic paganism for a pre-Christian Old Testament style monotheism. This means that the text is essentially presented by the Anglo-Saxons "as-it-was" and there are no added Christian elements (and in fact, if one reads carefully, they'll see that there in fact aren't any -- all religious elements presented are Old Testament). Ironically, once the Christianization of the Anglo-Saxons is complete, the attack on reality in literature comes full force with the promulgation and further development of the "romance" genre. Beowulf may have its fantastical elements, but these are grounded in a (albeit sometimes unconfirmed) reality: actual people with actual genealogies in actual places doing extraordinary things. The romances are not like this at all. They are fantastical unrealities completely ungrounded in any kind of reality. There is no care for consistency or accuracy. Pure fiction, in other words. They lack gravitas (with the possible exception of Malory), seriousness, or any moral conviction other than what might exist on the shallowest plane. And they were wildly popular. Even a young St. Teresa of Avila was captured by them (eventually decrying their negative influence in her autobiography). The romance as a genre was killed by the devoutly Catholic Miguel Cervantes with his Don Quixote (a complicated work that deserves its own post). But it really just moved to the theatre with Shakespeare and his ilk (as we saw above). The vacuum left by the the disappearance of the romance in prose was filled by works of ever-increasing nihilism in the intellectual sphere. The romance made a comeback in the works you described ("ideas about space, dinosaurs and the like"), culminating in pulp fiction and mass market genre fiction. As to the "why", I've been thinking about the problem for many years and I'll get back to you when I have it figured out!
Astonishing piece. Thank you.
You should certainly read both of Joy Hancox's books. The other is Kingdom for a Stage. She came into possession of a large cache of very extraordinary geometric drawings. They turned out to be original plans for the Globe and other theatres. Connected to Dee, Bacon and much more. Highly recommended. As for Baconian material. The definitive work is The Bacon Shakespeare Question: the Baconian Theory Made Sane. By: Cockburn, N B. but it is almost unobtainable and not cheap. It is also 700 pages + but it is the last word on it. The entire subject is an insane minefield beware though.
ive noticed a lot of cypher heads and puzzle geeks are huge into it. which book would pertain to that the most?
You could do worse than check out some of these videos and presentations:
https://simonmmiles.com/index.php/research/bacon-is-shakespeare
The one on Phoenix and Turtle touches on some very original elements of Elizabethan textual playfulness. I hesitate to recommend any modern Baconian authors. The best ones were in the middle of the twentieth century. Melsome. Alfred Dodd. Smedley. Parker Woodward. They're all on archive.org. The modern Shakespeare authorship debate has gone completely off the rails with the insane Oxford theory in one corner, the Baconians gone bonkers with nutty rubbish in another, and the academics completely clueless in the other place. To be fair, the Bacon story is completely off-scale so it is little wonder that the time has not yet come that it can be digested. Frankly I had to walk away because the space is so highly contested. But the story starts here: Bacon was the unacknowledged secret son of Elizabeth by Leicester. I mean, "virgin queen", come on, it was a publicity angle but not how she lived, of course, fiery tempestuous redhead that she was. Francis should have been the King but had to get used to the fact it was never going to happen, so he devoted himself to something else instead. History has not been kind to him, but history does not know the story.
thank you man, ill check it all out for sure
Extraordinary writing, research and thinking. Thank you.
There is a twist to the Elizabethan story you have so brilliantly described. If you will entertain the idea, Francis Bacon played a role of immense significance: he was not only the author of the Shakespeare works, beyond question, but he was also the secret eldest son of Elizabeth. His output was almost inconceivable, under a variety of masks. One of these was Edmund Spenser. Under others, including Marlowe, and with the unseen assistance of his brother Anthony Bacon, he was the source of much of the Elizabethan drama. And he was a pupil of Dee. The books of Joy Hancox, especially The Byrom Collection, on the intersection of the theatres, Dee, Bacon and geometry is unmissable, the key to the Elizabethan mystery, where Frances Yates leads to but never quite arrives at. Thanks again for this essay I look forward to rereading it.
i have been meaning to explore the Bacon stuff forever now. I stumbled on one of the forums a couple weeks ago and was really into it. What book would you reccomend to start with? Thanks again for reading
The last three years (or maybe the last 10 years) have been pretty apocalyptical in the sense of pulling aside the curtain. Too many mini-apocalypses to count. This pulls a lot of them together.
I haven’t been able to read the whole thing yet, but the story of St. Genesius has been a great resource for homilies and talks the last week or so.
Awesome!
With respect, the Lord of Spirits hosts engage in all kinds of nonsense (regarding Nephilim, astrology, giants, etc.) which is at odds with the Church Fathers. A better source for this kind of material is Fr. Seraphim Rose.
i disagree with some of the Lord of Spirits guys stuff for sure, but when it comes to the quote I used on sacred geography, i agree with
For sure, and it’s certainly relevant to the argument you build here.
You probably have read these, but I recommend Neil Postman's books. Great article, by the way!
banger post
Excellent piece and I will have to re-read! A thought occurred to me as I got towards the end of the article...when theatres re-opened here in the UK (after the events of 2020), only those who took the injections were allowed in. I would think a majority of them believed, when they took them, that they were doing the right thing and that indeed the injections were ‘safe and effective’. Hearing these messages of course being repeated over and over and over again on television and radio.
Very interesting. The 'Deus ex Machina' is used to describe AI becoming conscious but was also originally a stage term from Greek theatre. I do think the Renaissance had to revive the natural mythologies and the theatre. These things can be evil but they are also man's natural striving for meaning and so can be good. Once the Church had established the primacy of history in Jesus Christ it was possible to reject these things as historically false but mythically true. There is a dialogue still to be had with pagans on myth in which we will not only teach Christianity but learn from what is natural. I think Jonathan Pageau is someone who is doing this incredibly well.
I'm looking for an article that I believe you wrote (if you didn't but know where to find it, please let me know). The article was about Catholic Churches being built on high places and how there's been a movement to desecrate the holy sites and rededicate them to demonic entities.