dramaturgy or meme-base

An aspiring thespian and student of Aristotle named Theophrastus devised a list of archetypal and stock-characters. While it may not be predictive of every aspect of human nature—as their ought to be as well a generic Misogynist, the Fan-Boy and the Xenophobe—and alternately, many positive qualities that probably are not very exciting are absent, it seems to be pretty complete, same-otherwise, and you could certainly apply the same template to a lot of modern means of expression, though the Greek makes the caricatures sound especially harsh:

The Insincere One (Eironeia, irony)	The Flatterer (Kolakeia, the shit-sayer)	The Garrulous One (Adoleschia, the Sophomoric One)

The Boor (Agroikia, the Skeptic)	The Complacent One (Areskeia, the Inactive One)	The One without Moral Feeling (Aponoia, the Psychopath)

The Talkative One (Lalia, Chatty-Cathy)	The Fabricator (Logopoiia, the Wordsmith)	The Shamelessly Greedy One (Anaischuntia, shunning society)

The Pennypincher (Mikrologia, Scrooge)	The Offensive One (Bdeluria, who sides towards delusion)	The Hapless One (Akairia, the Unlucky One)

The Officious Man (Periergia, just like a Boss)	The Absent-Minded One (Anaisthesia, the Selective One)	The Unsociable One (Authadeia, the Loner)

The Superstitious One (Deisidaimonia, the staunch conventionalist)	The Faultfinder (Mempsimoiria, the vulnernable one with something to prove)	The Suspicious One (Apistia, the conspiracy theorist)

The Repulsive One (Duschereia, poor hygiene)	The Unpleasant One (Aedia, the jaded, the scapegoat)	The One with Petty Ambition (Mikrophilotimia, the vain)

The Stingy One (Aneleutheria, the ungrateful child)	The Show-Off (Alazoneia, the dare-devil)	The Arrogant One (Huperephania, the by-stander)

The Coward (Deilia, the nostalgic soul)	The Oligarchical One (Oligarchia, the Untouchable)	The Late Learner (Opsimathia)

The Slanderer (Kakologia)	The Lover of Bad Company (Philoponeria)	The Basely Covetous Man (Aischrokerdeia)

manager of mirth or as you like it

The Bard, William Shakespeare, had such a circumspect command of English grammar (and other languages besides) as to be able to depart significantly from convention and intersperse his plays with what is regarded now as natural and essential parts of speech but created or rather committed to paper transformations of verbs in to noun counterparts and vice-versa and coined the antithesis for many words. The action to manage was in common parlance but not so a manager; there was hearten but no dishearten, the same for inaudible—not to mention inventive and intuitive words for the nonce, like swagger and belongings. One convention Shakespeare was unable to buck, however, was the Elizabethan proscription again having women on the stage and all roles were played by male actors. Often in the stage directions, one can find the abbreviation, “Dr.A.G.,” dressed as a girl, in other words, when these characters were cued. It was not until the latter half of the nineteenth century that the term drag (and the counterpart for a cross-dressing female, drab—dressed as a boy) appeared again in print, but maybe the idea can be traced by to the playwright as well.

bardolatry

In recognition of the upcoming anniversary of the birth (extrapolated, guessed, from his documented baptism) and death some fifty-one years later of William Shakespeare, I would like to point readers to the excellent series of postings, recently concluded, from the Big Think, that not only keep the debate of authorship alive, as well as other aspects of the cult of personality, but go further to explore how prodigy and poetry challenge and strengthen one's own mental capacities and how the timing of the playwright came as the English language was still malleable and under development. These two grammars, Elizabethan and complex, grew together and the body of work culturally crystallized English literary tradition more so than king, country and might. No one wants to entertain that those plays and sonnets germinated as some unsourced leavings and improvisation of the age and the focus on the historical identity of William Shakespeare has never taken away from the genius and richness of his drama, no matter if revised and polished over the years--idealized like the author--or were gifted complete like some religious acheiropoieta, but it strikes me as perfect that Shakespeare identity is really only knowable through his works, just like his characters, who no matter how real or contrived, are fleshed out with just a few lines and stage-directions but each one is much more than some playful but scant vocabulary.