Second scene from "Flatus"

The following fragment of the play, which is generally thought to have been a work in progress by William Shakespeare, The Passing of Flatus, appeared only yesterday in the Camelot Omelet. In this scene, Slappy is trying to make Flatus interested in love and romance, but why he is doing this cannot be determined by the material that has surfaced so far. The dialogue is interesting in that obviously they are both talking mostly to themselves. What a Clever-Dick that Shakespeare was!

As for the objections over the name "Slappy", Matthew Ferherdermer, of Cambridge University, has published an interesting article in the Hamlet Amulet which brings to light the fact that Slappy was actually a popular name in Rome around the time of Christ, a familiar form of Slaphicus, as well as in Medieval England, where it was an extremely common nickname for Euoweyr or Bertrand. It was also commonplace for people in both time periods to refer to their subordinates as "Slappy", because of the instant and stinging humiliation that appellation caused.

***

Act two. Scene three. A field.


SLAPPY:
In sober celebration of the flesh,
In frequent venting of conscupiscence,
Make sportive tricks, lascivious caperings;
To truncate suffering, to kill desire,
To turn the cold valves of hard chastity,
To flush the chilled-fast vein with amorous fever,
Fill eyes with ardor, lips with wantonness;
To linger kissing at the coronet
That crowns with pink the sweet unsettled fat
Soft-covered in white silk: to lift, to weigh
The supple globes, to bring an agitation,
To set them dancing, pendulously bellied;
To brace the rider as she sits a' saddle
Rocking moist in fever, eyes full-lustered
As if made bright with wine: but ne'er have spirits
Kindled those orbs to blaze with such wild fire,
Nay, but thy johnson, Flatus, doth the trick,
That tickler of a lady's nether parts,
That prickling rogue, that bold up-popping jack,
That meddling serpent: he it is that maketh
Etnas of those soft-tufted mounds of Venus.


FLATUS:
Of all the fancies which a god constructs
And plants within the gardens of men's brains
Can any be less sensible than love?
Pernicious little elf! No viler cherub
Did from Olympus like foul weather come!


SLAPPY:
Equestrienne, she vaunts her cloven haunches
And ruts upon the rigid post: she slides
And tugs and urges with her slippery cleft.
Her lips she bites, and through hard-clenched teeth
Makes a licentious and unsyllabled moan.
A moment's pause: her opulent rump she rests,
Now richly radiant with damp scented musk.
Anon she chomps the bit, is fain to ride.
Cry "tally-ho!" and beat the bushes, liege; but whither
Goest Raynard? He hast hied him to that furrow,
That steeped cravase, that gorge of living blood,
And butts his nose in darkness, like a mole,
And tunnels further in the teeming trench.


FLATUS:
Of all the mad dreams which a man invents
And sows among the pastures of his heart
There can be none of greater detriment
Than that obnoxious malady called 'Love'.
'Tis a disease which thrives upon his blood
And rages in his veins like potent drink.
It makes a man a fool with tongue unloosed
Who in the street cries nightly like an owl,
"Tu-whit! To-whoo!", who in full wretchedness
Leans under ladies' windows, eyes uprolled,
His hands upon a full wide-bottomed lute,
Who with rude breath, wrought of the stench of love,
Sings some cracked tune to win him but a kiss!


SLAPPY:
Our rider, perched high in her wonted seat,
She gallops on apace, now all unkempt
And covered with a sheen of salty sweats;
Her breasts, like fruits grown soft and over-ripe,
Tumescent, turgid with excess of juice,
Depend and sway. Now in thy fetching fingers
Gather good harvest, hold, palpate, and press;
Stretch toes to the horizon. Hot purgation
Cleanseth the vein: froth of the seeded spate,
Spat foam of expiation, pulsed expulsion
Of lecherous lust. From such brief violence
Is wrung a season of tranquility,
Of tender-taken breath, of mellowed blood,
That tempers now the chambers of the heart.
Now johnson nods his head; he curleth up
And slips into the coverlet of sleep.


FLATUS:
I say love doth engender silliness
And drives a man to ponder strange designs;
Makes him to lie supine upon a hill
And then discern wild creatures in the clouds.
Love makes a man a coward: he will leave
His sword upon his hip and bends him low
To pluck a rose, and there he stands and grins,
Comparing leaves to lips, and dreams a sonnet!


SLAPPY:
Nay, but thou wilt not hear me, liege. Wilt hear?
Nay, but thou wilt not. Liege, if it so please thee,
I'll take my leave. There is some trouble yonder,
Some noise or other.


FLATUS:
I hear nothing. Wither?


SLAPPY:
(points distractedly) Thither. (runs off, rubbing hands together)

The Passing of Flatus

In England recently, fragments of an Elizabethan-period drama have been discovered which many scholars believe to be the work of William Shakespeare. I would say that this is a fair guess, though no one can possibly be sure at this point. Some scholars have scoffed at the suggestion that the work could possibly have been authored by Stratford-on-Avon's beloved Bard, pointing to the many anacronisms and glaring mix-ups which appear in the fragments, such as the co-existence of Roman soldiers and a feudal king, the mention of Valhalla, etc.

Most accredited scholars have pooh-poohed these pooh-poohers, reminding them that Shakespeare's works often contain inaccurate historical or geographical references. Only a handful of pages have turned up so far and since there are no markings other than neatly written text these fragments are thought to be by the hand of a copyist; and the pages themselves were found among documents which are known to be copied texts.

These fragments have been tentatively titled The Passing Of Flatus. So far only the following fragment has been released for public perusal. It appeared in the Oxford Oxcart January, 2005. Spelling has been modernized and pasteurized.


****

Act one. Scene one. A field.

TREMENS:
He is most foul. Behind our noxious general
Have I in battle marched, in discipline
Unmatched, in loyalty uncompromised;
Most honored of our Roman soldiery;
Yet would I spill my blood upon a sword hilt
Than stand as his lieutenant in Valhalla.

SLAPPY:
We like two paddles wielded by an oarsmen
In sweet concordance jointly wend one way.
Here in these shadows let us like two thieves
Concur in means by which to dispossess
Our legion of this windy general.
Tremens, we must incite some mutiny,
And it be lawless and unmilitant:
Some crafty and satanic subterfuge
Wherewith to weaken Flatus and to change
Him from his armor to the less applauded
Costume of a rude civilian.
Let's have a blacksmith's apron round his paunch,
Or sullied vestment of a scullery knave.
He is too noisome and malodorous
To don the raiment of a general.

TREMENS:
Your words have weight to make the burden light
That like a stone hath lain upon my heart
Since first these machinations of revolt
Were whispered here betwixt thy lips and mine.
Slappy, let none have wisdom of our words
Lest our ignoble and unkind designs
Bring disarray or disrepute to Rome.
For we are Rome. Our lips and tongues are Rome;
Our hearts flush with the civil blood of Rome;
Our swords are honed upon the plinths of Rome.
Flatus, albeit of prolific scents,
Of sickly smells and sour obnoxious stinks,
I say, this fuming, this effusive Flatus,
Is also Rome; his bairns, his wife, are Rome.
Therefore let Caution join us. We are Roman...

SLAPPY:
Tremens, the horse you beat unmercifully
Now runs upon the sunny plains of Heaven.
Drive not thy boot against the dormant flesh
That lifeless draws the fly into the ditch.
Caution shall be our sole conspirator.
Upon this point we stand in such accord
As needs no poetry to give it strength.
In darkness like two devils in Abaddon
We whisper, making shadows lisp demonic.
The night has sympathy and brings soft winds
To mute our sibilant serpentine connivings. (Rubs hands together)


****


I will post more fragments when and if they become available.

Denial

Do atheists actually deny God?

It's difficult to imagine being able to deny something which has never been sufficiently defined with any degree of consistency, especially when the multitudes of widely varying definitions up for offer are all clearly lacking in any connection to reality as it is perceived and experienced by human beings.

In regard to atheism, many religionists are motivated by one simple prejudice, which is that the non-believer is actually acting against his deeper conscience, that he is guilty of some sort of insidious self-deception. But only according to the believer's views is non-belief an outright denial of God. Such a term only makes sense to him and his particular beliefs. I would suggest that the atheist should in no way whatsoever feel compelled to consider the proposition that he is denying God: he is only denying particular beliefs which have precious little acquaintance with the world around him or life as it is lived from day to day.

No Christian would admit to denying Brahma, hating Brahma, wanting to be Brahma, or claiming to be greater than Brahma. He would simply say that Brahma is not the definition of God which he accepts. To say that he denies Brahma would be giving credit to the idea that Brahma is in a position to be denied or accepted, when he obviously doesn't believe that to be the case; and yet the same Christian can't seem to grasp that when an atheist claims that he doesn't believe in the Biblical Jehovah he is not therefore denying Jehovah any more than the Christian is denying Brahma; the atheist doesn't hate Jehovah any more than the Christian hates Brahma; the atheist doesn't want to be Jehovah anymore than the Christian wants to be Brahma, and so on.

In regard to the god-concept, a good deal of atheists, myself included, are merely stating a lack of belief in any definition of God up for offer. Should one be presented that seems plausible, I am perfectly willing to consider altering my views.** This is why I call myself a weak atheist. Some would prefer the term agnostic, but I choose atheist because I know how offensive it is to certain Christians, or radical theists of all stripes, who quite frankly deserve to be offended.

What really bothers the Christian isn't that the atheist denies Jehovah, it's that he denies any and all god-concepts. The Christian disbelieves 99% of all proposed gods, but because he accepts one God out of thousands he is relieved of having to feel any guilt over waving away all the others, even though the theist holds the atheist in suspicion for rejecting those other 99% as well as the one in which the theist has faith. To believe in a god of any kind is the priority, not believing in the right one.


****


I was inspired to write this, as usual, as a response to a particular poster at Internet Infidels who is a member of AA and who admits that his conception of God merely borrows what it finds acceptable from the Christian belief system and rejects the rest, so that he winds up with a God he can live with. He readily admits to finding fundamentalism unacceptable, and wishes atheists wouldn't focus so much on the Old Testament. He claims that naturally a person will formulate a concept of a tyrannical, oppressive God if they focus on the OT. Meanwhile he visits thread after thread and essentially treats everyone as if they were sitting in a chair across the room from him having a cup of coffee and a donut. He offers nothing but the AA party line, as if atheism were a disease itself and not just a common characteristic among practicing alcoholics. It isn't the rejection of any particular God which this person finds offensive, it's the rejection of the god-idea itself.

This is fairly common with religious people in general, from what I've observed. The simple and rational rejection of the god-idea is seen as some extreme form of egotism. Rather than simply being the absence of belief in a supernatural god-like entity, atheism is regarded as an effort to hold one's self as God, or at the very least an obstinate refusal to acknowledge a "higher power" than one's self. This view is absurdly incorrect and does not follow at all from atheism in and of itself. Atheism is, by definition, passive and negative, in that it merely rejects a positive claim made by someone else. The actual beliefs that atheists hold are widely varied and sometimes vastly disparate: take for instance the difference between an Objectivist and a nihilist. Both are (usually) atheistic and yet their worldviews are polar opposites.

I think it's fair to say (though it won't seem so at all) that in general the arguments that take place between atheists and theists are abortive from the start due to prejudice on the part of the theist in regard to the atheist. For instance, theists seem to think that any argument against materialism, Darwinism, Objectivism, naturalism, or communism is equal to an argument against atheism. For instance: If you can find holes in the theory of evolution, you have found holes in atheism; if you can undermine the epistemological and metaphysical foundations of Objectivism, you have undermined atheism; if you can point to the atrocities of Stalin and Soviet Russia, you have dealt a deathblow to the credibility of atheism.

Religionists either forget or don't realize that one can be an atheist without subscribing to any of those abovementioned systems of thought. One might agree with certain aspects of each of them without embracing any of them, or one might simply reject all of them and feel more closely aligned to something like deep ecology, utilitarianism, pragmatism, or libertarianism; or something else entirely with no "ism" attached and with no formal or systematic structure.

But isn't the atheist prejudiced against the theist? Sure, sometimes, but not nearly as often. Taking just Christians, since they are the only religionists I typically engage with, it's never in doubt as to what positive beliefs these people hold since their beliefs are the subject of the debate and as such are right on the table. The only thing the atheist brings to the table necessarily is his absence of belief in what the theist is proposing. What the atheist's beliefs, his worldview, his philosophical orientations actually are need not be disclosed in order for the discussion to get underway.

I don't need my own concept of God to compete with the theist's concept, and this "if you don't believe in God it's because you want to become God" is the result of the refusal to accept this fact. "It isn't that you don't believe in God, it's that you want to be God!" is a statement of pure stupidity, and I'm tired of hearing it. A corollary to this is the common accusation that the atheist hates God. People are standing up in the audience at academic debates and asking atheists why they hate God so much. And these are college students.

Apologists, mainly the hardcore Calvinistic presuppositionalists, make the same ludicrous claim: It isn't that the atheist doesn't believe God exists, it's just that he refuses to acknowledge it because of his inherently sinful, defiant nature. The atheist ignores the truth of God written on his heart out of pride and self-love, and he is not much more than a liar. Other presuppers have taken a slightly different tack: they just say that if a person can't see the truth of Scripture when it's so damned obvious then that person must be a moron.

What I love about this is how these two approaches to atheism contradict one another, even though they come from the same ultra-fundy Calvinist cuckoo-clutch. On one hand they claim the atheist knows that the Bible is true and that Jehovah is real but refuses to acknowledge it due to his insolent nature as a sinner, and on the other hand he's an atheist simply because he's a moron.

Notice these crackpots don't call orthodox Jews morons, or Hindus morons, or Muslims morons, even though these people must obviously be dense since they can't see the blatantly obvious truth of the Christian faith. It's only the atheist who gets labeled a moron, because, again, it isn't the rejection of any particular God which is offensive, it's the rejection of the god-idea itself.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


** I'm thinking about coining a new term: Waitheist, being someone who is waiting for a believable concept of God to be brought to the table, a concept which might actually do some sort of justice to such a magnificent Entity.