59 Particulars laid down for the Regulating of things. A selection.

Thursday, 12 September, Year 11 d.Tr. | Author: Mircea Popescu

Forthwith :

5. Let nothing be put in Bills that are more than the thing is, and let nothing be put in Writs more than the thing is, and let nothing be put in Indictments more than the thing is.

6. Let no man speak in an unknown tongue.

19. Let all names of people be thrown down, nick-names that be given for their opinions by men, that all may be gathered into the Name of the Church.

36. Let all this naming of dayes, those Sundayes, and Moonsdayes, Tuisdayes, Wodensdayes, Thorsdayes, Frydayes, Saturdayes, that is after Heathen's manner (and naming) be put out of your Almanacks, which is contrary to the Jewes' naming of days and the true Christian's both.

37. Let all this observing of holidayes, and Saint's days, (which hath been set up by them who were out of the power of God), as Michalmas, and Candlemas, and Christmas, Whitsontide, Easter, and many of the Saint's days which they were killed on, those that sottish people feast on, let this abomination be taken away.

38. Let no man who is a striker or fighter, and a wrestler with flesh and blood, and wrestles with the Creatures, go under the name of a Minister.

45. Let all Images and Pictures be taken away and plucked up, and blotted out of all Signes, Steeple-houses and Gardens, and Houses, and rooted out of the Land.

47. Let all Games, Sports be taken away that please the fleshly mind.

48. Let all the Stage-players, May-Games, Shoffel-boards, Dice, Cards, Nineholes, Foot-balls, and Hand-balls, and Fidlings, and all these vain Musicks be taken away, which stir up the light vain minds of people that doth not know what to eat and drink, nor what to put on. Let these things be taken away that stir up the light minds of those who make no provision for the flesh, or else they will lye upon you.

49. Let all those Bul-baitings, Cock-fightings, and Horse-racings which are destructive to Creatures, and to please people's vain light minds, and are destructive to seriousness; let all these things be taken away.

54. And let all these jangling of Bells cease, which do feed people's pleasures and vain minds.

55. Let all those Ballad-singers, and Ballad-makers, and Jest-bookmakers which stir up people's vain and light minds, be taken away.

The rest's not nearly as interesting.

As you can see, the principal problem with provincial retardation ("Puritanism", or "Protestantism", or whatever other lulzy in-game names they might come up with) is that it requires a lot of dumping ground for all this stuff "taken away". Even leaving aside the major issue of who the fuck's gonna be arsed to do their "taking away" for them -- where the fuck's it gonna go ?!

Sitting on ass and let-this and let-that all day long, how about that for idle idiocy!

« Cum a trait Ivan Evgheenievici.

Successive strata of castlebuilding (spoiler : they decay over time) as part of a narrative on the greatest Italian circus in Romania and teenage sexuality »

Category: Cuvinte Sfiinte

Comments feed : RSS 2.0. Leave your own comment below, or send a trackback.

9 Responses

1
Stanislav Datskovskiy
Thursday, 12 September 2019

I kept waiting for "...and cut yer balls off!" but then remembered, this was the eastern nuttery.
2
Mircea Popescu
Thursday, 12 September 2019

I actually thought your other comment was actually here, hence my response there...

A day of many thoughts!
3
BingoBoingo
Thursday, 12 September 2019

Doesn't look like much changed between these Puritains and the Cracked.com Puritains.
4
Mircea Popescu
Friday, 13 September 2019

Nor could it.
5
Diana Coman
Friday, 13 September 2019

First I thought it was your satire, then (at about 38) I figured out what it was but by point 49 I was doubting myself re year since it's quite... current really, eurgh.

And yeah, I think Stan's comment fits here much better: Ana are mere! Let all Ana's apples be taken away!
6
Mircea Popescu
Friday, 13 September 2019

Actually, it's a mostly unknown bit by Fox, the "Quaker" originator.

I ended up reading it because that indomitable moron Shaw thus leads his Charles 2 play :

In providing a historical play for the Malvern Festival of 1939 I departed from the established practice sufficiently to require a word of explanation. The "histories" of Shakespear are chronicles dramatized; and my own chief historical plays, Caesar and Cleopatra and St Joan, are fully documented chronicle plays of this type. Familiarity with them would get a student safely through examination papers on their periods.

A much commoner theatrical product is the historical romance, mostly fiction with historical names attached to the stock characters of the stage. Many of these plays have introduced their heroines as Nell Gwynn, and Nell's principal lover as Charles II. As Nell was a lively and lovable actress, it was easy to reproduce her by casting a lively and lovable actress for the part; but the stage Charles, though his costume and wig were always unmistakeable, never had any other resemblance to the real Charles, nor to anything else on earth except what he was not: a stage walking gentleman with nothing particular to say for himself.

Now the facts of Charles's reign have been chronicled so often by modern historians of all parties, from the Whig Macaulay to the Jacobite Hilaire Belloc, that there is no novelty left for the chronicler to put on the stage. As to the romance, it is intolerably stale: the spectacle of a Charles sitting with his arm round Nell Gwynn's waist, or with Moll Davis seated on his knee, with the voluptuous termagant Castlemaine raging in the background, has no interest for me, if it ever had for any grown-up person.

But when we turn from the sordid facts [1] of Charles's reign, and from his Solomonic polygamy, to what might have happened to him but did not, the situation becomes interesting and fresh. For instance, Charles might have met that human prodigy Isaac Newton. And Newton might have met that prodigy of another sort, George Fox, the founder of the morally mighty [2] Society of Friends, vulgarly called the Quakers. Better again, all three might have met. Now anyone who considers a hundred and fiftieth edition of Sweet Nell of Old Drury more attractive than Isaac Newton had better avoid my plays: they are not meant for such. And anyone who is more interested in Lady Castlemaine's hips than in Fox's foundation of the great Cult of Friendship should keep away from theatres and frequent worse places. Still, though the interest of my play lies mainly in the clash of Charles, George, and Isaac, there is some fun in the clash between all three and Nelly, Castlemaine, and the Frenchwoman Louise de Kéroualle, whom we called Madame Carwell. So I bring the three on the stage to relieve the intellectual tension.

How the fuck can one that smart be fucked in the head enough to 1, and to 2, and especially 1, except wtf 2 HOLY SHIT OMGWTFBBQ.

That story with the "fairness" weights ever comes to mind, in that the smarter god makes them, the more dumb their "fellows" load them up with, until every single fucking walker's exactly in balance and nothing can ever happen.
7
Stanislav Datskovskiy
Friday, 13 September 2019

@Mircea Popescu :

Shaw's head was a pretty strange place. What difference would it have made if Newton had met Charles II ?

And is Shaw arguing that Charles II ought to have fucked Newton instead of the concubines ?! What "slash fiction" is this.
8
Mircea Popescu
Friday, 13 September 2019

Conceivably they'd have fingertrapped Nell, what the fuck do I know.

This is how literature works though, you start with a premise and then follow it, your way. It's not "Newton", it's "Shaw's Newton", which is conceivably interesting not as a function of his form (ie, Newton) but as a result of its substance (Shaw).

I suppose the fucktarded puritan view is that Charles should've not fucked at all, but spent all day "contenting for the faith" or whatever such argutious crenelation atop obvious if obviously disavowed impotence the retards deem ~~pooper~~ proper.