🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mar 17, 3:02 am, Franz Gnaedinger <f...@bluemail.ch> wrote:
> > > > If there is a subtext in the play The Two Gentlemen
> > > > of Verona, it may concern the relation between art
> > > > and power, Julia symbolizing art, Silvia power,
> > > > Proteus the poet and playwright, and Valentine
> > > > the one destined by virtue to exert power, Latin
> > > > valere meaning 'to be worthy, having value, virtue'
> > > > being present in the name Valentine. Proteus would
> > > > then symbolize de Vere. Homer tells us about
> > > > Proteus in book 4 of the Odyssey: an old man
> > > > (de Vere began writing tragedies at a relatively high
> > > > age), honest (the bard's motto pronounced in
> > > > sonnet 105 is "Fair, kind, and true," being true an
> > > > equivalent of being honest), of infallible lips (the
> > > > bards claims the same in the sonnets), he sees
> > > > and knows everything (and so does the playwright
> > > > in his god-like position as the creator of his plays),
> > > > he metamorphs into everything that walks on earth,
> > > > but also into water and divine blazing fire, becomes
> > > > a lion with a mane, a snake, a panther, liquid water,
> > > > a tree of a towering crown (while the playwright
> > > > can assume every guise in his plays), he knows
> > > > the depths of all seas (he knows the depths of the
> > > > human nature), his daughter is Eidothea, literally
> > > > the goddess of pictures (and the bard creates
> > > > living pictures on the illuminated stage), he knows
> > > > what happens in the palace (and de Vere knew
> > > > the court, having been raised in the care of the
> > > > queen),  good or bad (the achievements and
> > > > crimes of five-hundred years of history of the
> > > > empire). De Vere matches Valentine with Silvia,
> > > > and Proteus with Julia, not without pointing out
> > > > a temporary aberration of Proteus who was
> > > > seduced by power. De Vere elevates William
> > > >Shakespearein the guise of valiant Paris into
> > > > the rank of a count. And the opening lines of
> > > > the gory first play Titus Andronicus pose the
> > > > question of who acceeds the throne directly.
> > > > Saturninus
>
> > > >   Plead my successive title with your swords
> > > >   I am his (the late emperor's) first-born son
>
> > > > Whereupon Bassianus
>
> > > >   And suffer not dishonour to approach
> > > >   Th' imperial seat, to virtue consecrate
>
> > > > My claim: Titus Andronicus might be an allegory
> > > > on five hundred years of British history, naming
> > > > injustices that were the consequence of unworthy
> > > > rulers who climbed the throne either by birth-right
> > > > or by the help of protection. In later plays de Vere
> > > > learned to convey his message in subtler and more
> > > > pleasing ways, but he could only do so after he had
> > > > made his point in all clarity.
>
> > > Titus Andronicus might be a surrealist play avant la lettre,
> > > a tragic satire, methodical insanity used in describing
> > > a mad time, the natural order of the human cosmos
> > > dissolving, held together for appearances by a stern
> > > logic of violence, five hundred years ending in doom
>
> > > 1086 Domesday Book or Doomsday Book
> > > 1588 ? Titus Andronicus "This is our doom"
>
> > > Titus Andronicus --- 'builder' of the English empire,
> > > William the Conquerer and others including Henry VIII
> > > as military leader
>
> > > Bassianus --- Henry VIII as humanist
>
> > > Saturninus --- Henry VIII as king
>
> > > Lavinia --- Anne Boleyn
>
> > > Lucius --- Elizabeth
>
> > > Young Lucius --- Edward de Vere
>
> > > Marcus Andronicus --- Arthur Golding / Lord Burghley
>
> > > Tamoria, queen of Goths --- Mathilde, widow of the German
> > > Keiser Heinrich V, imposed as queen of England by her father,
> > > Saxon king Henry I, in 1127, her arrival in England in 1139
> > > the begin of the age of anarchy (civil wars) / Mary Tudor
> > > "Bloody Mary" supporting the German Keiser Karl V and
> > > marrying Philipp II of Spain
>
> > > Aaron the Moor --- Black Prince, waged war on France in
> > > 1369 / Philipp II of Spain, prosecutor of the Moriscos 'Moors'
> > > and Maranos 'pigs' Jews, turned into a Moor of a Jewish
> > > name in the fiction of the play, perhaps wearing a sign of
> > > the Spanish king on the stage
>
> > > The play, an allegory condensing five hundred years of
> > > English history and focusing on then recent events, was real
> > > enough to ban the audience and unreal enough to avoid
> > > censorship. In all the mess of lost reality and upturned human
> > > relations one thing becomes apparent: Edward de Vere's
> > > political position. He welcomes the collapse of Karl's Reich,
> > > indicated by the initial speech of Young Lucius demanding
> > > the sacrifice of a Goth who must be dismembered before
> > > being placed on the pyre, symbolizing the breaking apart
> > > of Karl's empire. He supported the English empire,
> > > indicated by the final speech of Young Lucius honoring
> > > Titus Andronicus. And he welcomed the breaking up of
> > > the Spanish hegemony, indicated by Lucius condemning
> > > the Moor of a Jewish name, Philipp II as one of his own
> > > victims ... What appeared to be racism before is now
> > > a sharp satire used as weapon in defending the Moors
> > > and Jews against the 'Christian' monster Philipp II,
> > > bow and arrow of his biting wit, indicated by the two lines
> > > of Horace written down in Act 4 Scene 2
>
> > >   Integer vitae, scelerisque purus,
> > >   Non eget Mauri jaculis, nec arcu.
>
> > > by Young Lucius and handed over as weapon. A literary
> > > weapon, the play itself. The promise of a new  order is
> > > made in the two last lines of the play, delivered by
> > > Queen Elizabeth in the guise of Lucius
>
> > >   Then, afterwards, to order well the state,
> > >   That like events never it ruinate.
>
> > What about Shylock? Isn't he evidence for a latent
> > antisemitism in the bard?
>
> > Bassianus in the play Titus Andronicus represented
> > Henry VIII as humanist, while we have the Italian
> > version of Bassianus, namely Bassiano, in the play
> > The Merchant of Venice, and accordingly Bassiano
> > proposes a humanist view, for example when he
> > speaks about the law and religion in Act 3 Scene 2
>
> >   In law, what plea so tainted and corrupt,
> >   But, being season'd with a gracious voice,
> >   Obscures the show of evil? In religion,
> >   What damned error, but some sober brow
> >   Will bless it, and approve it with a beat,
> >   Hiding the grossness with fair ornament?
>
> > When I read the convoluted second sentence I was
> > baffled by a grammatical pun
>
> >   religion, what damned error
>
> > If the sentence is parsed correctly it contains a humanist
> > view, so I believe that 'Christian' in the play, when used
> > in a positive sense, means Humanist. Jessica, daughter
> > of Shylock, converts to Christianism, but really she
> > remains a Jew, a humanist one. Shylock is sentenced
> > to loose all his money, but he keeps it and reinstalls
> > Jessica as his heir; he is also sentenced to become
> > a Christ, but, we may infer, he remains a Jew, now
> > a humane one, a humanist ... In the bard's opinion
> > a truly humanist society has to give equal rights to
> > women. In the play a woman, Portia, wife of Bassiano
> > - the two married on their word, no priest and church
> > involved - turns the play around and solves the dire
> > conflict by telling Shylock that he is not allowed to shed
> > one single drop of Christian blood. Now Christian blood
> > is a nonsense term, Christians and Jews having the
> > very same blood, human blood, so the word Christian
> > has the meaning of human, humane, humanist ...
> > I see a variety of humanist messages enfolded in
> > the play, in the dialectical way this bard loved so much.
>
> Correction: Latin Bassianus and Italian Bassanio
> are not exactly the same name but close enough.
>
> I wanted to confine myself to one single thread,
> but Melanie Sands opened two more threads,
> and now I conclude my contribution in all of them.
>
> The Stratfordians of the orthodox orthodox bulwark
> and Oxfordians of the orthodox heretic stronghold
> are ashamed of Titus Andronicus, while I, a free
> heretic, not wearing anybody's blinders, rehabilitate
> the play. It was grossly misunderstood until now,
> the atrocities taken 1:1 and not recognized as the
> bard's allegory on the then political situation.
>
> Edward de Vere was neither a racist (Moor Aaron)
> nor an antisemite (Shylock), he defended every
> religion as long as it was humane, and opposed
> to every religion that became inhumane.
>
> I am already used to the name Edward de Vere
> going along with the new interpretations of the plays
> and poems, and think I demonstrated the proper way
> of proceeding: by reading the plays and daring fresh
> interpretations in a wider space gained within a couple
> of weeks only.
>
> I won't be able to publish my interpretations on paper,
> neither with the Bulwark nor the Stronghold, so it is
> the electronic publication in the Usenet, a further step
> toward a free global university ... Once again a big
> Thank You to the Google company.
>
> Goethe called reading a highly demanding art.
> I can read. If somewone wants me to go for yet
> another play, he or she may tell me.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Taking the subject heading for this thread at face value, be
advised that David Roper, author of Proving Shakespeare: In
Ben Jonson's Own Words (2008), presents several proofs
that Edward de Vere wrote the sonnets and plays attributed
to William Shakespeare. Two of these proofs from the book
are available in revised form on the WWW:

1. Henry Peacham's Chronogram: The Dating of Shakespeare's
Titus Andronicus:
<http://www.dlroper.shakespearians.com/henry_peacham.htm>
wherein it is shown that the play was first written in 1574, the
year before de Vere went to Italy, when the Stratford fellow was
only eleven years old or so.

2. Ben Jonson's inscription on the Stratford Monument contains
a cryptogram in the form of a Cardano Grille revealing de Vere
as the author of the works ascribed to William Shakespeare.
<http://www.dlroper.shakespearians.com/Cryptology%2021.10.htm>
This solution shown by Roper is unique and meets the requirements
of a valid Shakespearean cipher set forth by the Friedmans in the
1950s, as Roper discusses.

These two proofs are scientific, whose discipline tends to be
alien to so many Stratfordians who defend the Stratford fellow
in terms of scholasticism. They should be reminded, however,
that "Galileo established forever the principles of exact science
against the Aristotleians, when he wrote that one necessary
reason, once found, destroys utterly a thousand merely probable
reasons..." (from Santillana, Georgio De. "On Forgotten Sources
in the History of Science", in Crombie, A.C. (ed.), Scienfitic
Change: Historical studies in the intellectual, social and technical
conditions for scientific discovery and technical invention, from
antiquity to the present. New York 1963. p. 823.)

Another essay that might interest readers is to be found on the
University of Kansas Scholar Works webpage:
Albert W. Burgstahler, "Encrypted Testimony of Ben Jonson and
His Contemporaries for Who 'William Shakespeare' Really Was"
<http://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/dspace/bitstream/1808/5891/3/
BurgstahlerCentennial%20ENCRYPTED%20TESTIMONY.pdf>
This paper, summarizing Roper's work and extending it, has been
presented at many conferences in recent years.

C. Leroy Ellenberger
St. Louis, Missouri