Shakespeare Fans discussion
Group Readings
>
The Tempest, Act 1, June 13-19,
message 51:
by
Candy
(new)
Jun 28, 2018 02:32PM
Mod
reply
|
flag
Mod
Also from the AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC 1977 issue...
https://nature.berkeley.edu/er100/rea...
Candy wrote: "“It is inevitable and unavoidable in thinking of Prospero to bring in the name of John Dee, the great mathematical magus of whom Shakespeare must have known, the teacher of Philip Sidney, and deepl..."Thanks Candy! Awesome information! Dee was a really interesting person and completely ahead of his time.
I think it is true that Dee in his later life had financial troubles. This may have come from a lot of his research, which was considered really 'out there' and is even out there by today's standards! King James I definitely did not support Dee's endeavors -- it seems he was too superstitious and a bit close minded.
It occurs to me that just as Prospero had the dukedom stolen from him, so Dee had his status and respect stolen, both due to practicing the occult. Dee died sometime around 1608 so presumably he would have been able to see The Tempest and know Shakespeare's tribute to him...
Candy wrote: "Hi Christine,Yes, England wa aware of its dangerous deforestations. England had to try to coal because they had damaged their forests so severely.
I often mention during these discussions...how ..."
In The Hidden Life of Trees: What They Feel, How They Communicate – Discoveries from a Secret World the author (who is German if I remember correctly) bemoans the deforestation of Europe, and how difficult it has been trying to create a welcome and healthy environment for any forest to grow again. I had no idea it was that severe, I take our National Parks and wood and forest lands for granted, I'm afraid. I need to remember how lucky we are.
Janice (JG) wrote: " I take our National Parks and wood and forest lands for granted, I'm afraid. I need to remember how lucky we are. ..."We are indeed! Our National Parks are our national treasures! I wonder what inspiration Shakespeare could have drawn from them?
My library -'the sluggards!' - only two days ago finally got hold of a copy of 'The Tempest' for me. Annoying. I've looked through the discussion. Fascinating, as ever.I so agree about deforestation - begun by the Romans in the UK, I believe; well, might as well blame them, they are to blame for nettles and those big snails, after all - and fossil fuel dependency and its catastrophic consequences.
I've no very profound additions to make on the discussion.
Prospero is certainly morally ambiguous. He doesn't seem inclined to admit that his neglect of his secular duties did encourage his brother's treachery. Candy's remark on him as a version of Dr Dee is intiguing.
Miranda seems a little too good to be true, with that comment about what a trouble her baby self must have been to her father.
While Caliban at first aroused my sympathy as a colonised victim, he certainly undermined that by Prospero's saying he had tried to rape Miranda (one wonders at what tender age). Or was this more of a clumsy seduction attempt with no force involved? Is this a clever move of Shakespeare's in withdrawing an audience's natural symapathy for him as an underdog?
I rather liked the love-at-first-sight theme in the meeting of Ferdinand and Miranda.
Mod
I definitely want to read the book on the secret life of trees!!1 I'm ordering it from library shortly!
Glad you got caught up Lucinda!!!
I'd like to to put something in context about trees in Great Britain. 1/ After the recent Great Storm of 1987 it was estimated that 15 million trees were blown down. 2/ A recent census of trees in Britain estimates that there are 3 Billion trees growing in Great Britain. 3/ There is an Ancient Tree Registry in Britain that has more ancient trees listed in it than any other country.I think the main point about the wood carrying and stacking in the Tempest is that it is Caliban's main duty and it is a most lowly job; the most lowly job, and that is the point - making Caliban the lowest of the low, a slave that is only good for carrying wood and attending the fire.
Lucinda wrote: "My library -'the sluggards!' - only two days ago finally got hold of a copy of 'The Tempest' for me. Annoying. I've looked through the discussion. Fascinating, as ever.I so agree about deforestat..."
Lucinda, my sympathy for Caliban is relentless. To me Prospero is a nasty piece of work. He disrespects Caliban whenever he can, he tortures him, he teaches Caliban his own language but does not learn Caliban's; and only enough so that Caliban is of use to him, Prospero. There is no place for Caliban at the table with Prospero and Miranda because Prospero doesn't want a Caliban as an equal; he wants a slave. Prospero manipulates his daughter and is cruel to his faithful angel/servant Ariel. You know who I think Prospero resembles most? The christian god of the time. Hmm. Maybe not so far off God as we know him today.
I think there is no question to me that Caliban is a human. He may be a monster in that he is large and strong but he is not an inhuman 'monster' . All he needs(ed) is a nice haircut and a clean shirt and a some Love. Oh but he is so naive - but then so is Miranda though she has a memory of having been raised in educated company as a child so she's a jump ahead of him.
By the way Candy, thanks for kickstarting us. The discussion stopped for a while, maybe due to Summer life. There's much yet to discuss in The Tempest. I'm about to ride my hobby horse about St Elmo's Fire.
JamesD - I remember that storm and the aftermath. Aagh! Though probably, nothing like as bad as some of the storms you have in the US. But everyone was amazed at how quickly trees grew back in the ancient woodlands. Still, there were ancient ones that were lost. There is a plaque in Kew Gardens commemmerating it, made out of a variety of all the woods of the trees that were destroyed there. I agree that Caliban appears to have been treated very badly by Prospero. Yet, if he really did try and revenge himself on Prospero by using sexual violence on his daughter, no amount of abusive treatment excuses that - if he is human. But is he perhaps half human, as we know his moher was, but was his father meant to be a demon or something if his mother was meant to be a witch in line with Jacobean beliefs?
Sadly, that form of revenge is horribly typical of the revenge of some oppressed men - not on the men who oppress them, but on 'their' women. And that is so unfair, when the women are also oppressed, though in a different way. Prospero is an authoritarian and sometimes harsh patriarchal father to Miranda.
- Yet it seems ambiguous, as I said above, if Caliban indeed tries to force her?
Lucinda wrote: "JamesD - I remember that storm and the aftermath. Aagh! Though probably, nothing like as bad as some of the storms you have in the US. But everyone was amazed at how quickly trees grew back in the ..."The Nazis labelled jews as 'monsters' and half human. And people saw the label and didn't see the human. Prospero has made Caliban into a monster in order to continue hating and exploiting him. Can we even believe what Prospero says? How can Prospero's treatment of Caliban be sanctioned, ever?
The whole misogynist 'witch' thing with Sycorax is confusing. Who is the father?
That is an interesting point, James. Does Prospero tell the truth about the attempt? Is he an 'unreliable narrator'? Certainly, by an authority dismissing humans as not truly being so, is the way to alienate sympathy from them. Whther or not Caliban is meant to be human or half human or truly a monster seems ambiguous from the text.
It is arguable that both of these males - Prospero and Caliaban - are meant to have acted in inexcusable ways - but if so, then the play becomes singuarly dark for a comedy.
Perhaps an interpretation which we must be careful not to neglect is that of Miranda - oppressed by both? It seems she was prepared to teach Caliban until this happened. According to my Penguin edition, it is supposed to be she who teaches Caliban about the moon.
Unfortunately, of course, it is a commonplace that brutality can lead to the oppressed behaving brutally in turn. On Nazi's, when I was young I remember a very old Greek woman who had survived Auschwitz telling me how, after they had been liberated by the Russians, she stopped her sister stoning the guards, saying, 'If you do that then the Nazi's have won after all; we become inhumane,' or words to that effect.
I think one of the complications is always that we modern readers bring to these plays the perspective of post colonial and post Holocaust understanding. This leads to Caliban, who has a small part in the play, being elevated into a central figure in later works by writers who are working to expose the iniquities of colonialism and racism.
But what, as a (remarkably advanced) Jacobean in the age of British expanding colonisalism, was Shakespeare's intention in his depiction of the relations of Caliban, Prospero, Miranda and all the others? He was all for a bit of nationalism in Henry V.
I have often noted how Shakespeare, who was so high minded generally, was less than generous in his depiction of Shylock (who certainly has been turned into a monsterous version of himself by the prejudice he must endure every day); and then his St Joan is an imposter and a caricature whom most modern audiences can't find amusing.
Many Jacobeans did truly believe that witches - who often may have been herbalists and the old wise women - had sexual relations with the Devil himself. Did they also believe that these unions could be fruitful? Shakespeare himself in 'King Lear' jeers at much of the ideas in current demonology; but maybe he used them for dramatic effect here, as he did in Macbeth?
Mod
Meet with discussion and others the play expands.
I see think "both" perspectives are correct from James and Lucinda. We become less human and less wise when we polarize anything.
The truth is that it is "all of the above" and that is why compassion is so critical in reading but Shakespeare writes...so we can have compassion.
He lived in violent terrorist times....and his peers knew what a holocaust was long before we knew what the holocaust for us was in our recent history.
I consider Caliban not only "human", but with mind and feelings. I think Caliban is created to reflect a sentient being....whether one would define that as human, animal, plant.
For lack of a better definition I use sentient being from the Buddhist concept. From wiki....
"In Buddhism, sentient beings are beings with consciousness, sentience, or in some contexts life itself. Sentient beings are composed of the five aggregates, or skandhas: matter, sensation, perception, mental formations and consciousness. In the Samyutta Nikaya, the Buddha is recorded as saying that "just as the word 'chariot' exists on the basis of the aggregation of parts, even so the concept of 'being' exists when the five aggregates are available." While distinctions in usage and potential subdivisions or classes of sentient beings vary from one school, teacher, or thinker to another, it principally refers to beings in contrast with buddhahood. That is, sentient beings are characteristically not enlightened, and are thus confined to the death, rebirth, and dukkha (suffering) characteristic of saṃsāra. (the cycle of death and rebirth to which life in the material world is bound.)
However, Mahayana Buddhism simultaneously teaches that sentient beings also contain Buddha-nature—the intrinsic potential to transcend the conditions of saṃsāra and attain enlightenment, thereby obtaining Buddhahood.
"Those who greatly enlighten illusion are Buddhas; those who are greatly deluded about enlightenment are sentient beings."
—Dōgen
In Mahayana Buddhism, it is to sentient beings that the Bodhisattva vow of compassion is pledged. Furthermore, and particularly in Tibetan Buddhism and Japanese Buddhism, all beings (including plant life and even inanimate objects or entities considered "spiritual" or "metaphysical" by conventional Western thought) are or may be considered sentient beings."
In this way....I believe we are watching Caliban through some phases of coming into contact with another philosophy/economy/culture and I think that is a brilliant idea for Shakespeare to have tried to add to this story. Is he a main character? No, but he is enough for us to get a glimmer of what life might look like when one does not "fit into" the dominant order of the societies.
Mod
Christianity has a belief system that anything not human is "less"....the religion taught its followers to "name" animals and sheppard them and the world. That perspective is not in other world religions...it is very strongly programmed into Christianity.
To those of us not raised Christian we don't think of the world as something that needs "saving" or something that needs "shepherding". Humans are part of nature not in a sort of pyramid ladder of upper life forms and lower life forms.
During Shakespeare's society and times...that dominant programming of humans being "better" or "superior" t other lifeforms...especially christians as being superior would have been a strong idea....that Shakespeare at all explored "the other" is fascinating.
Mod
From wiki again (I'm too lazy to find another source right now sorry)
"In phenomenology, the terms the Other and the Constitutive Other identify the other human being, in their differences from the Self, as being a cumulative, constituting factor in the self-image of a person; as their acknowledgement of being real; hence, the Other is dissimilar to and the opposite of the Self, of Us, and of the Same. The Constitutive Other is the relation between the personality (essential nature) and the person (body) of a human being; it is the relation of essential and superficial characteristics of personal identity that corresponds to the relationship between opposite but correlative characteristics of the Self, because the difference is inner-difference, within the Self.
The condition and quality of Otherness, the characteristics of the Other, is the state of being different from and alien to the social identity of a person and to the identity of the Self.[5] In the discourse of philosophy, the term Otherness identifies and refers to the characteristics of Who? and What? of the Other, which are distinct and separate from the Symbolic order of things; from the Real (the authentic and unchangeable); from the æsthetic (art, beauty, taste); from political philosophy; from social norms and social identity; and from the Self. Therefore, the condition of Otherness is a person's non-conformity to and with the social norms of society; and Otherness is the condition of disenfranchisement (political exclusion), effected either by the State or by the social institutions (e.g. the professions) invested with the corresponding socio-political power. Therefore, the imposition of Otherness alienates the labelled person from the centre of society, and places him or her at the margins of society, for being the Other"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Other_(...
or this...
https://othersociologist.com/othernes...
Interesting, Candy. I have always thought of animals, myself, as parallel rather than inferior life forms. Yet their consciences must be different. They say that man is the only creature with a conscience (usually defective), but I don't believe that. But if Caliban is not human, certainly he is sentient,but also, wouldn't it be unfair to apply human rules of behaviour to him?
Candy wrote: "These are the questions about character that make reading this play so wonderful. I expected to feel I've read this so many times or seen it performed how can it offer me something new now?Meet w..."
Holocaust in shakespeare's time? What do you mean by that? The Plague?
Anyway I couldn't disagree with you more on your point about Caliban as an add-in to the story of The Tempest. He is absolutely essential and thus is a main if not the main character. In fact you could call the play Caliban's Isle.
The Prospero - Caliban pairing to me encapsulates the class system in England at the time. Prospero represents the ruling class, micro managing and controlling the denizens of lowly uneducated (but necessary for things to function) Calibans/groundlings of the Globe.
I'll take my argument a step further and back to the very beginning of the play; 'boatswain' and all that.
The ship caught in a magical storm. All the individuals aboard what I will call The Good Ship England are thinking they might die. And what is their conversation about? It's about class. The capable seamen are telling the 'usless' lords to go to their cabins and not get in the way while they attempt to sort things out. The lord agreeing (though not liking being told what to do by underlings) to this but at the same time planning to punish the seamen for overstepping themselves if they should all survive.
Interesting interpretation, James. Well, I'm always open to class interpretations of anything, being a socialist! I would love to think that Shakespeare was a potential revolutionary thinker . I have to say I find it hard to believe, sadly, due to the lack of the material means to have social equality in the manufacturing capitalism, and so no means of having anything but utopian notions of social equlity - etc etc. And then he seems to have such a belief in kingship as the means to maintain 'degree' as social order - though I suppose it would have been Tyburn for him had he said anything else. Maybe he said it covertly, though; perhaps overtly, though, he was arguing for the island as a terrible example of anarchism when the under class rebel?
Shakespeare was an observer of what was happening in England at the time, and revolution was in the air. By 1640 the revolution or what some call civil war began which ended after 6 long years with the beheading of the king and the formation of a republic under Cromwell.Shakespeare could see it all coming I think.But of course there was more: the opening up of new vistas of opportunity for all classes by the discovery, exploration and colonisation of the 'New World'.
There is so much observation by Shakespeare about the social order in England. I see it in every play and there is more to come in The Tempest.
Lucinda wrote: "Interesting interpretation, James. Well, I'm always open to class interpretations of anything, being a socialist! I would love to think that Shakespeare was a potential revolutionary thinker . I ha..."Are you saying Lucinda that all the dialogue between the seamen and the lords in scene one has little intent; a bit of verbiage to go with the magical storm?
I am sure that none of Shakespeaere's dialogue has no intent, James! But I don't know if he meant the audience to draw any general political inferences from the workmanship of the sailors, and the otiosity of the courtiers; that is, general, rather than particular, inferences.But who knows, maybe you are right, and he caught a whiff of the politial upheaval to come a few decades later?
Certainly, during the 'civil war' of 1842-1851, the views of the Levellers were subversive to the status quo - Cromwell, of course, was no democrat, making sure that their views were finally smothered and the goals for which they fought the war, which did include a challange to the idea that a political voice should only be granted to those with property, remained unfulfilled.
It would be a delightful thing to me if you were right, and Shakespeare was a covert socialist.
Candy: what you say of a holocaust in Shakespeare's own age interests me; do you mean the witch hunt?
Lucinda wrote: "I am sure that none of Shakespeaere's dialogue has no intent, James! But I don't know if he meant the audience to draw any general political inferences from the workmanship of the sailors, and the ..."Otiosity? Well done! I had to look that one up. But no it was not the obvious evidence of otiosity within upper class types on board the fancifully floundering ship that I was noting. What struck me was how vigorously they worked to maintain the social order, to the point where they would allow themselves to be saved by the competence of the sailors and then punish afterwards (to the point of hanging) those who had showed an insolent attitude.
The Gunpowder plot of of 1605 is evidence of social upheaval in Shakespeare's time as is the rise of alternative and anti Church of England christIan movements such as the Quakers. Plans were adrift so to speak, in Shakespeare's time to get ships and go of to the New World and live there the way they wanted to and not be constrained by English laws and conventions- the Mayflower Pilgrims for example.
I'd say that Shakespeare was an overt humanist and this is what comes through in he shows human interactions. I certainly that that he believed in meritocrasy and not in the 'divine right' of the upper classes to lord it over everyone.
Mod
1) I did not mean to say Caliban was inconsequential or a minor character.
2) I am of the camp that there isn't any word or event or plot that is inconsequential in classic literature especially Shakespeare. I think analyzing and puzzle-solving is exactly why I love reading his plays.
3) the discussion and concern with social order is of importance in this play....so much in my opinion....that I quoted from Trollus and Crssida....the bit about why Trojans could defeat a much more powerful enemy to them.
4) I use the word terrorism...and holocaust on purpose. Not as melodrama. Over 300 people were killed by Catholic and political agents....with people burning in the streets. ( and much of them died by being burned which is a text-book definition of holocaust) Then the protests burned people in public, hung their heads on stakes. Shakespeare's times are so relevant to us because he lived in a terrorist state....and had heard and witnessed and followed anecdotes of terrible politic/state sanctioned killings. People at risk, were hidden and assisted in much the way we think of people hiding Jewish people in recent holocaust accounts. Secret rooms, back ways to hide priests....and families lost their property because of terrorism applied within the economy.
I define beyond mass burning or war to include other terrorist behaviors....and to kill off a population....when I speak of holocausts. ...some of the deaths beyond the hundreds that were publicly performed as terrorist and fear propagating...right down to suppressing the rituals and customs of some people speaking Latin. Taking away a societies language is one powerful way to gain political status and assimilate another society. The squalor of peoples unable to make a living is another way of starving them and weakening them so they can not rebel or practice their own beliefs. The treatment of England to Ireland and Scotland is also terrorist to the point of creating destitution...which plays into why people from those three different societies wanted to move to a country and create systems and freedoms (USA) (hahaha how funny that sounds now where freedom is censored though art, and twitter campaigns and fake news)
5) I see Shakespeare as not only a humanist writer but also a compassionate observer of class struggle. One can find any number of studies how Shakespeare has been embraced by countries within communist and socialist structures. For both its humanist, and equalitarian potential for dialogue.
6) Kings. There are at least two types of Kings/Queens in shakespeare. One is the ideal...and its critical to know the mythological and spiritual history of monarchy. The philosopher and benevolent king/queen...took feudalism and its economy....as workers did need to pay taxes however....the king/queen was seen as rising from the land. Whatever state the land was in was dead responsible from the monarchy. A corrupt monarchy meant a corrupt environment. So many of the "leaders" in shakespeare are made to explore the corruption of monarchy. Benevolent leaders versus ones who have been corrupted by capitalism and self centered goals.
Fascinating comments, James and Candy. It was indeed a brutal age. What is interesting too on the use of language, Candy, is that there was a language division between the populace and the upper class from the Norman Conquest in 1066 until as late as the reign of Edward III in 1327 , by which time Anglo Saxon and Norman French had merged to create English. A complete communication barrier, though as you say,the use of Latin later was bad enough.
It seems that the authoritarian nature of the Elizabethan/Jacobean state was such, that actually people had to be quite brave to write plays, and no wonder they were cautious. I have mentioned before on here the torture of Thomas Kyd who had 'aestheistical literature' left in his lodgings by Christopher Marlowe...
I have always been horriied reading about the discovery of the Gunpowder Plot, and seeing the change in Guy Fawkes' signature under torture. I don't know how people can celebrate that day. And while I may have regarded it cynically as an attempt to replace a protestant absolute monarch by a catholic one - maybe it did have a subversive element.
James: Ha, Ha, about 'otiosity'. I found that in a piece of literary critcisim of Jane Austen and noted it.
Candy wrote: "Oossshhhh...a lot of things to catch up on in this recent conversation.1) I did not mean to say Caliban was inconsequential or a minor character.
2) I am of the camp that there isn't any word or..."
Hi Candy. Thanks for all that. I concur with most of what you said except for 'terrorist state' and 'holocaust'. Yes there were 284 protestant heretics burned at the stake during Queen mary's short reign that preceded Elizabeth. During Elizabeth's reign
of 45 years, 4 Roman catholic people were burned at the stake as heretics. Elizabeth was a moderate but was fighting against Roman Catholic dominated states on the continent that wanted to take over Britain and force it to be Roman Catholic.
Something else I just noted regarding the suppression of the use of Latin. I don't know much about this in Elizabethan times but I do know it was one the main spurs to the Protestant Reformation of the christian churches, as priests customarily used Latin to speak to God and priests were to be accepted as go betweens with God for regular people. The protestants protested that people could speak to god directly in their own language and not Latin. Elizabeth supported this.
Lucinda wrote: "Fascinating comments, James and Candy. It was indeed a brutal age. What is interesting too on the use of language, Candy, is that there was a language division between the populace and the upper c..."
Re Guy Fawkes night, people are meant to be celebrating the failure of the plot to destroy not only the King but the parliament as well. On the other hand people could also be celebrating that 'he had a go!' and good on him. I think that bonfire night is so close to Samhain, a celtic bonfire night that had been celebrated for centuries in the UK and that is why that date, just a few days after official samhain, was chosen for Guy Fawkes night.
For a fascinating modern take on Bonfire Night, the best place to go I think, is Lewes, Sussex, just outside of Brighton. This where the last witch burning in England was done in the 18th century I believe.
Now, at the Lewes Bonfire night a number of fires are set by a different competing clubs that have prepared effigies of contemporary contentious political figures, and there are appropriate songs and poems included. They compete to have the best effigies and the best songs and thus the largest crowds at their fires.
The evening begin with a parade through the town with the clubs displaying their effigies. People follow the club they are most interested in seeing (i.e. the effigies they moist want to see burned) and join them at their bonfire for the party.
Mod
Where I sit....it isn't the numbers of dead bodies.
I think when we saw Daniel Pearl executed a few years ago...none of us had to see thousands of other people executed. Horror is horror. One person dying in that manner was enough. Like the famous Vietnam photo of a little girl, Kim Phuc, crying in the street after being bombed....one child was enough. Creating fear does not just rest on body count....but removing language, customs, travel, employment, social life...are all highly efficient ways to terrorize other humans.
I think seeing even one head on a stake would be sufficient to frighten most people into submission.
I have only been mugged once....but it was enough to completely change the way I travel and live. I wasn't touched or hurt....but the attempt at creating fear was utterly successful.
I was taught in a Renaissance Humanities class that people lived in terror during Shakespeare's life...and that was partly why his plays resound so powerfully because they influence all future generations who experience terrorism.
If my renaissance history study didn't convince me of the oppression, including political, social and religious during shakespeare’s life was total....reading GODS TRAITORS by Jesse Childs helped seal that impression.
One can read the introduction to get a sense of how oppressive the terrorism was between dealing political/religious factions....below at this link...
https://www.amazon.com/Gods-Traitors-...
Fascinating discussion threads for this play. I tend to lean toward the private and subjective interpretation of the characters Prospero & Caliban, and who they are to each other. It occurs to me that they both represent Shakespeare, as he sees himself at this late date of his career. Prospero, his power aging and waning, relying on magic to continue his "reign," usurped by his "brother" Antonio (who is Antonio really, JimF?), another playwright, or poet?And Caliban, enslaved by Prospero, serves Prospero at threat of magical punishment... Wikipedia's short introduction of Caliban is amazing,
"His character is one of the few Shakespearean figures to take on a life of its own ’outside’ Shakespeare’s own work: as Russell Hoban put it, 'Caliban is one of the hungry ideas, he’s always looking for someone to word him into being...Caliban is a necessary idea.' "Caliban is Prospero's evil genius, drawn from his subconscious. I think S might have been exorcising these two characters from his life for once and for all, before going home to his family.
Janice (JG) wrote: "(who is Antonio really, JimF?)"Anthonio is Edward de Vere. To prove this needs many lines. They all follow word’s logic (a habit of Wilton poets), but not all related to The Tempest. He was the origin of Shakespeare project until he betrayed Mary Sidney. Oxfordians are not totally wrong.
Janice (JG) wrote: "Fascinating discussion threads for this play. I tend to lean toward the private and subjective interpretation of the characters Prospero & Caliban, and who they are to each other. It occurs to me t..."I don't see Caliban as evil. Prospero is far more evil in my books, the way he controls and manipulates people and is cruel without remorse to humans and non humans. Caliban chops wood and carries it and dreams of a better life. Maybe Prospero is Caliban's 'evil genius' side.
JimF wrote: "Anthonio is Edward de Vere. To prove this needs many lines. They all follow word’s logic (a habit of Wilton poets), but not all related to The Tempest. He was the origin of Shakespeare project until he betrayed Mary Sidney. Oxfordians are not totally wrong. ..."Ooh, I'd love an elaboration on this, JimF! Even a small one would do. I find it fascinating -- even now, many Oxfordians will not let go of the idea of De Vere being Shakespeare. Was he a peer of Mary Sidney?
Christine wrote: "Even a small one would do. I find it fascinating -- even now, many Oxfordians will not let go of the idea of De Vere being Shakespeare. Was he a peer of Mary Sidney?"Yes, he was. A small one cannot prove it logically, but I’ll break it to small ones.
Robert Greene (1558–92) died poorly. His Greene’s Groats-Worth of Wit tells why and the origin of Shakespeare. Greene, like all Wilton poets, sealed names at the beginning (e.g., Ship-master and Boteswain):
In an Island bounded with the Ocean there was sometime a City situated, made rich by Merchandise, and populous by long peace: the name is not mentioned in the Antiquary . . .“Island bounded with” can spell Wilton House, a city in the English literature island.
“Merchandise” can spell Mary Sidney; she made rich the city. One word to spell Mary Sidney is rare. This also explains sonnet 102’s “That love is merchandized”; that love of writing is merchandised by Mary Sidney. The love in sonnets often talks about love of writing (as poets often do).
Arcadia can be spelt by “made rich.” The Countess of Pembroke’s Arcadia is the dream land (island) of Sidneys. Philip Sidney created Areopagus; Mary Sidney and Edward de Vere created Shakespeare. Areopagus is close to sarcophagus, the reason it appears in the paintings of Et in Arcadia Ego.
“The name” is not mentioned in the traditional way, but a new way requested by Mary Sidney to Wilton poets. The first paragraph of the Pembroke’s Arcadia has the same design (using anagrams to seal real names).
This method can see what Greene really tried to say in Greene’s Groats-Worth of Wit, especially the Lamilia’s Fable where we can find Edward de Vere.
Arcadia = made rich. Where's the e and the h?
JamesD wrote: "Arcadia = made rich. Where's the e and the h?"And the "m" for that matter. Or is it The Countess of Pembroke’s Arcadia, in which case we have all letters, but then it seems a bit of a stretch...
Christine wrote: "JamesD wrote: "Arcadia = made rich. Where's the e and the h?"And the "m" for that matter. Or is it The Countess of Pembroke’s Arcadia, in which case we have all letters, but then it seems a bit of..."
In “made rich by Merchandise,” I wrote,
“Merchandise” can spell Mary Sidney . . . Arcadia can be spelt by “made rich.”I reverse the source and target here. It’s the same as “made rich” can spell Arcadia. The term says, made rich Arcadia (a dream land) by Mary Sidney’s merchandise.
Robert Greene knew Wilton poets can read what he really wanted to say, but his publisher cannot. In my view, Lamilia’s fable is the most important riddle in the world. It tells the origin of Shakespeare (“there is an upstart Crow”).
Lamilia’s Fable
The Fox on a time came to visit the Gray, partly for kindred, chiefly for craft, and finding the hole empty of all other company, saving only one Badger enquiring the cause of his solitariness: he described the sudden death of his dam and sire with the rest of his consorts.
The Fox made a Friday face, counterfeiting sorrow: but concluding that death’s stroke was inevitable persuaded him to seek some fit mate wherewith to match. The badger soon agreed, so forth they went, and in their way met with a wanton ewe straggling from the fould: the Fox bade the Badger play the tall stripling, and strut on his tiptoes: “for” (quoth he) “this ewe is lady of all these lands and her brother chief bell-wether of sundry flocks.”
To be short, by the Fox’s persuasion there would be a perpetual league, between her harmless kindred and all other devouring beasts, for that the Badger was to them all allied: seduced she yielded: and the Fox conducted them to the Badger’s habitation. Where drawing her aside under colour of exhortation, pulled out her throat to satisfy his greedy thirst.
Here I should note, a young whelp that viewed their walk, informed the shepherds of what happened. They followed, and trained the Fox and Badger to the hole: the Fox afore had craftily conveyed himself away: the shepherds found the Badger raving for the ewe’s murder: his lamentation being held for counterfeit, was by the shepherds’ dog worried. The Fox escaped: the Ewe was spoiled: and ever since, between the Badgers and the dogs hath continued a mortal enmity.
JimF wrote: " In my view, Lamilia’s fable is the most important riddle in the world. It tells the origin of Shakespeare (“there is an upstart Crow”)...."There was a void in the literary world which De Vere (the Fox -- "vox" or "voice") hoped to fill. Mary Sidney, (the ewe) being a woman, was silenced as a potential poet -- "pulled out her throat to satisfy his greedy thirst".
The whelp shepherd is obviously William Shakespeare. He observes things and apparently it is a loose anagram. Later he becomes a crow -- because his voice got louder and he was an ominous threat to those around him. The "dog" perhaps is "god", as poets are reporters of Truth. The Badger is the industry and censorship, which tend to badger the poets. De Vere the Fox escapes, thus taking no responsibility for the publications and implications, although he was the first to initiate the unrest. (De Vere was probably influential. I don't think he wrote the plays.)
That would be my interpretation. Fascinating stuff!
Christine wrote: "JimF wrote: " In my view, Lamilia’s fable is the most important riddle in the world. It tells the origin of Shakespeare (“there is an upstart Crow”)...."There was a void in the literary world whi..."
Wow. And I just read the plays for their meaningful context and think that's complex.
Janice (JG) wrote: "Wow. And I just read the plays for their meaningful context and think that's complex....."Haha Janice, this is all complex to me! That is the beauty and the intrigue of Shakespeare -- and Tudor England. I write my analysis as just ideas, but considering that:
1) The Elizabethans were obsessed with word puzzles, clues and "hidden meanings". Everything was symbolic and folks talked in riddles. Even Queen Bess was a master at this.
2) It was a time of treachery and terrorism. The country was a basic police state. Speaking openly about ANYTHING could get you killed -- or in the case of a poet/ pamphleteer, you might get your hand chopped off... So it would not surprise me if they had a secret language among themselves.
3) None of it would diminish the value or meaning of the plays themselves -- which remain layered and ambiguous as well.
I read indeed with fascination these possibilities. It enriches my context for the plays, layers within layers; and makes me want to do still more reading of the history and the literary tapestry of the period.
Christine wrote: "De Vere (the Fox -- "vox" or "voice") hoped to fill. Mary Sidney, (the ewe) being a woman, ..."Yes, the Fox (Earl of Oxford) betrays the “wanton ewe” (Mary Sidney). Wilton poets always used anagrams to seal real names. Robert Greene was one of them. This fable can only be solved by anagrams logically.
Back to The Tempest. Anthonio is Prospero’s brother beloved by him next to Miranda. Anthonio betrays Prospero.
PROSPERO.Here “next thyself of all the world I loved” can spell Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford fully. Description of a character (with a common name) is often used to hide a real name. Prospero-Miranda can spell Mary Sidney.
My brother and thy uncle, called Anthonio:
I pray thee mark me, that a brother should
Be so perfidious: he, whom next thyself
Of all the world I loved, and to him put
The manage of my state, . . .
One Shakespeare anagram may use up to ten words. This is specified in sonnet 6’s “ten for one.” Sonnet 5, 6 and 76 talk about this art.
Edward de Vere also appears as one of the six sinners (flowers) to Mary Sidney in sonnet 99; “forward violet” can spell Edward de Vere. We can confirm the addressee (Mary Sidney) by solving the three different Roses there.
There are some nice videos here that are worth checking out.Cheers.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHN7...
Christine wrote: "JimF wrote: " In my view, Lamilia’s fable is the most important riddle in the world. It tells the origin of Shakespeare (“there is an upstart Crow”)...."There was a void in the literary world whi..."
A very nice condensed anagram explication of the sonnets title page
here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljM11...
Janice (JG) wrote: "Fascinating discussion threads for this play. I tend to lean toward the private and subjective interpretation of the characters Prospero & Caliban, and who they are to each other. It occurs to me t..."If you accept Edward de Vere as the primary author of the plays, then Antonio would be a match for Robert Cecil, de Vere's brother in law and usurper of his political power. Caliban would be Willm Shaxper the man who is left to identify with the creation of the poems & plays. The Island would represent the body of work which everyone was magically transported to live upon; the so-called canonical works of Shakespeare. The shipwreck signifies the death of Queen Elizabeth, and denotes the time frame immediately after her death. This is very fascinating stuff. It's been a great to see so many insightful comments.
Jake wrote: "If you accept Edward de Vere as the primary author of the plays, then Antonio would be a match for Robert Cecil, de Vere's brother in law and usurper of his political power. Caliban would be Willm Shaxper the man who is left to identify with the creation of the poems & plays. The Island would represent the body of work which everyone was magically transported to live upon; the so-called canonical works of Shakespeare. The shipwreck signifies the death of Queen Elizabeth, and denotes the time frame immediately after her death..."Interesting indeed! I had never thought of it that way.
Jake wrote: "There are some nice videos here that are worth checking out."Thanks for the link, Jake! I am skeptical of Oxford, but this looks like a really interesting channel. Looking forward to perusing more!
Jake wrote: "A very nice condensed anagram explication of the sonnets title page here. ..."Jake, that video is too complex. Names are always sealed via anagrams in Shakespeare’s works, simple and direct.
Only one letter “Y” exists in the middle of the dedication. In the 1632 Second Folio, John Milton’s “starre-ypointing Pyramid” tells us how to read it. The “Y” is pointing to the authorship. (https://i.imgur.com/RvwF0I0.jpg)
Names of her family members and lover are sealed in the upper triangle; Wilton House and major members in the lower triangle. Sonnet 24, 72 and 122 describe how it works. (https://i.imgur.com/Gq5yQaB.jpg)
What need my Shakespeare for his honoured bones,
The labour of an Age, in piled stones
Or that his hallowed Reliques should be hid
Under a starre-ypointing Pyramid
Dear Son of Memory, great Heir of Fame,
What need'st thou such dull witness of thy Name?
Thou in our wonder and astonishment
Hast built thyself a lasting Monument:
Pyramid and Mary Sidney
Pyramid contains the backward Mary. This can be seen from the text pyramid by Joshua Sylvester(1563–1618): (i.imgur.com/sXMbQBI.jpg; Mary Sidney (SYDNEY) is in the middle.
William Herbert's emblem in Henry Peacham's Minerva Britanna does the same (i.imgur.com/EiEDbST.jpg).
Hi Jim,I believe Mary Sydney was absolutely involved in the works of Shakespeare. I feel it's important to follow all the cryptographic clues being uncovered recently (there are several very significant ones). There's also evidence Francis Bacon helped in safeguarding the manuscripts until they could be properly published in the first folio as well. I've read each play and poem closely and much of the material points to de Vere working with creative input from others, I believe the names in the cipher you showed are the main people involved.
Warm regards-
J.
Shakespeare Fans
Books mentioned in this topic
The Hidden Life of Trees: What They Feel, How They Communicate: Discoveries from a Secret World (other topics)Romeo and Juliet (other topics)
A Midsummer Night’s Dream (other topics)
A Midsummer Night’s Dream (other topics)
