posted October 07, 2005 11:39 AM              

Hmmm...2Beeing Or Knot 2Beeing...that is tha Quest..i..On.

Quote:
"One of my Poetic Hero`s is William Blake...however this year i`ve got quite heavily William Shakespeare(a Mid-summer Nights Dream&Twelfth Night...Or Billy Shakin his Spear as i prefer 2call him.: )

Actually serendiptously i heard this morning on tha news that academics are now Siriusly putting 4ward tha idea that Shakespeare did`nt write all tha works under his name, this is not a new idea, there has been mention of Francis Bacon and a woman author called Elizabeth(who`s sirname escapes me at tha mo), but 2day tha academics have put 4ward a new name that i`d not heard of, a One....Sir Henry Neville apparently.I`ll google tha name when i have more time." -OptiMystic-

Well, i did indeed Google tha name & i thought Sum of tha folk hear...might be innterested inn what i managed 2 Digital*Up!.
What follows i found absolutley fascinating 4many reasons,sum i can`t go inn2rite now...but4One...i live very close 2Strafford & have been serendiptuously this year led 2sum very interesting things concerning tha Bard of Nova...D`oh!...Avon.
And finding this gives new blood2my "Terra Nova" research,that was sparked by a passage from `Billy Shakin his Spear`s` play Twelfth Night...aswell as a few `clues` that Linda Goodmanherself gave from her books.

Anyways, i`ll just paste&cut 2tha Skill...

Quote:

Was it Sir Henry?
That is the question New evidence suggests Tudor diplomat wrote Shakespeare's plays.

LONDON -- He was a relative of William Shakespeare, he practised the thespian's signature and was best of friends with his patron and mentor. Now two British scholars are suggesting that Sir Henry Neville, an English courtier and diplomat who lived from 1562 to 1615, is the real author of all of the bard's plays. They argue that Shakespeare directed the plays, acted in them and part-owned the company performing them but did not write a single one.

The revelations, based on five years of detailed archival research by Shakespeare scholar Brenda James and additional work by historian William Rubinstein of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth, will be published later this month in a book to be launched at Shakespeare's Globe theatre in London.

"We correlated the chronology of the plays with Neville's life and found that they match perfectly in a way that illuminates the evolution of the plays," Prof. Rubinstein said.

The political content and geographical location of the plays currently attributed to Shakespeare accurately reflect the known travels and adventures of Sir Henry, a highly educated diplomat and politician who lived from 1562 to 1615 and came from Berkshire.

There are also striking similarities of style and vocabulary between Sir Henry's private and diplomatic letters and Shakespeare's plays and poems.

"The beauty and eloquence demonstrated in Neville's diplomatic and personal letters display a linguistic liveliness and inventiveness that is echoed boldly in the works attributed to Shakespeare," Ms. James added. "Examining his letters I have found examples of particular unusual words and constructions not normally found outside Shakespearean literature."

Word frequency analysis reveals a statistical correlation, and there is direct, long-ignored evidence in a document discovered in 1867 that Sir Henry practised faking Shakespeare's signature. The document, in Sir Henry's handwriting and with his name at the top, features 17 attempts at practising various forms of Shakespeare's signature.

Academics have always been puzzled as to how Shakespeare wrote plays requiring detailed geographical and political knowledge and advanced skills in reading Latin, Greek, French, Spanish and Italian textual sources despite ceasing formal education at age 12.

Over the past 130 years, many have courted controversy by suggesting someone other than Shakespeare was the true playwright. Some contended they were written by the lawyer and scientist Francis Bacon, by the Tudor playboy and courtier Edward de Vere or even by the playwright Christopher Marlow, but most scholars believed that the evidence never stacked up.

Now the new proposal that Sir Henry -- never before mentioned in connection with Shakespeare -- is the real bard will have to be analyzed in detail by Renaissance scholars worldwide.

"It must certainly be a major piece in the puzzle of the creation of the Shakespeare work and potentially a central piece which will unblock many other pieces," Mark Rylance, actor and artistic director of the Globe theatre, writes in the book's foreward.

The scholars, however, haven't yet provided a smoking quill that unequivocally identifies Sir Henry as the author and not Shakespeare. Scholars will be quick to point out that some of the theory relies on the same circumstantial evidence used by other Shakespeare authorship critics.

In The Truth Will Out: Unmasking the Real Shakespeare, the two scholars propose that Shakespeare was Sir Henry's front man because he could not afford to be seen as the author of the plays as some of them were politically too sensitive and controversial. Indeed, if the Elizabethan authorities had known that Sir Henry was the author of Richard II, he would probably have been executed rather than merely imprisoned for his involvement in the Earl of Essex's revolt in 1601.

Sir Henry's fundamental political problem was that he was a member of a rival dynasty to that of the Tudors. He was descended from the Plantagenets. His own grandfather and great uncle had been executed by Henry VIII. With such politically controversial ancestry, he couldn't afford to be seen writing politically controversial plays. Richard II, a play that deals with the forcible deposition of a monarch, was performed in London 40 times immediately before Essex's revolt and was regarded by the authorities as a seditious theatrical production. Shakespeare and his colleagues were questioned by government investigators, but were not arrested.

One of the few documents officially attributing the plays to Shakespeare was the First Folio edition, published in 1623. The writer Ben Jonson was involved in putting Shakespeare's name on that first edition and at the time he was employed by a college in London associated with the Neville family. Ms. James and Prof. Rubinstein believe that Jonson knew about the front-man arrangement and helped promote the fiction of Shakespeare's authorship at the behest of the Neville family, presumably out of respect for Sir Henry's wishes.

They also suggest that the character Falstaff, who appears in four plays, is actually based on Sir Henry himself. Falstaff was initially going to be called Oldcastle, an antonymic pun on the Neville name, derived from the French for "new town."

Significantly, Shakespeare's patron was the Earl of Southampton who was one of Sir Henry's closest associates. What's more, Shakespeare was related to Sir Henry through his mother. It is through these two connections that Ms. James and Prof. Rubinstein suggest Sir Henry met Shakespeare and proposed that Shakespeare become his front man.

After Sir Henry was imprisoned in the Tower of London, the tone of the plays changed abruptly from being mainly historical or comic to being predominantly sombre.

The plays also portray many of Sir Henry's royal and other ancestors -- John of Gaunt in Richard II, Warwick the King Maker in Henry VI part II and King Duncan of Scotland in Macbeth -- in a particularly favourable light.

Who dunnit?

The trouble with William Shakespeare is that no one seems able to definitively prove that he wrote the works attributed to him. And so in the vacuum of uncertainty, no fewer than 58 different people have been put forth as the true authors of all or some of his 37 plays, 154 sonnets and various other works. Until now, these were the most plausible:

Francis Bacon

Supporters of the Baconian argument contend that the wisdom of the works is so profound they could only have been written by a great philosopher, and Bacon was the greatest English philosopher of the age.

Edward de Vere

Those who finger the 17th Earl of Oxford as the bard say the works were clearly written by a learned man with intimate knowledge of Elizabethan high politics. Shakespeare was not such a man, but the Earl was and he's said to have stopped writing his own poems and started writing Shakespeare's.

Christopher Marlowe

Supposedly killed in a drunken brawl in 1593, the dramatist's death is said to have been faked to avoid charges of espionage against the Crown and he is said to have continued to write as Shakespeare.
*
By DAVID KEYS

Wednesday, October 5, 2005, Page A3

Special to The Globe and Mail
*
Unquote
*
*
*
i look4ward2reading tha book!, becouse what now follows is from a chapter inn one of my own works in progress called...

...The Twelfth Knights Seacret`s...
*

"...Seek2Understand1st...b4 they seek2b Understood...4that which is truly earned is indeed, thought&feeling gained thru learning,&remembering...re-membering...re-ringing
ringing
&singing
&dancing...in a ring dance...of Love&Life.

A marriage maid Wholy...in The Lord of The Dance...The Lords&Ladies of The Ring...Yes!, its time...Now...2Spring in2SPIRIT!&SpringClean Our `Temples`...2clean Up!...That which we Messed-Up!...So lets take this Mess Higher...In2 a Higher Office (The Officers Mess)
But...sssSSSH...quite...O...So...quietly...&Softly...softly...softly...4we are a `Mess`, Yes,...taken Higher thru Grace...We become Mess Higher`s...O But be not the Messiah`s of Ole... that ole paradigm...we have always been secret...we have been lied 2,beaten up&enslaved...from childhood, we have made of ourselves a Mess.

But Come Sweet Child of LOVE&LIGHT...Let us take the Mess of This World...&Make of it a Message in this Mess-Age.
This ain`t no joke...but many will See it So...So B it...but We shall have the last Laugh.
4there are CHILDREN NOW as I speak...around the world...who`s screams I Hear...
*
(Commposed Thru The Opti,a.k.a.N.A.Simpson,)
(Taken from The 12th Knights Seacrets:copyright2005)

The above was/is inspired in part by `Billy Shakin His Spear`s` Play...Twelfth Night.
Along with tha Astrologer*Mystic Linda Goodmans book... Twelfth Night`s Secrets

There is a particular passage in Billy`s Twelfth Night...that 2me was/is particularly Spiraling& inspiring...&seems deeply magical&esoteric 2my Heart&Mind...
Its well known that Shakespeare liked 2 inject/weave/seed various astrological&esoteric laws/principle`s in2 his work...which i Feel he consistently sucseeds 2do with the Subtley of a Serpent...Sir.Pen.

Anyways here`s tha passage that i find exquisitly mystical...

Taken from Billy Shakespears TwELFth Night

( Scene 6 )

Re-enter MARIA.

OLI. Give me my Veil, come throw it o`er my face ;
We`ll once more hear Orsino`s embassy.

Enter VIOLA.

VIO. The honourable lady of the house, which is she ?
OLI. Speak to me ; I shall answer for her. Your will?
VIO. Most radient exquisite, and unmatchable beauty- I pray you
Tell me if this be the lady of the house, for I never saw her. I
Would be loath to cast away my speech ; for, besides that it is
Excellently well penn`d, I have taken great pains to con it. Good
Beauties, let me sustain no scorn ; I am very compatible, even to
the least sinister usage.
OLI. Whence came you sir ?
VIO. I can say little more than I have studied, and that question`s
Out of my part. Good gentle one, give me modest assurance if
you be the lady of the house, that I may proceed with my speech.
OLI. Are you a comedian ?
VIO. No, my profound heart ; and yet, by the very fangs of malice
I swear, I am not that I play. Are you the lady of the house ?
OLI. If I do not usurp myself, I am.
VIO. Most certain, if you are she, you do usurp yourself ; for what
is yours to bestow is not yours to reserve. But this is from my
commission. I will on with my speech in your praise, and then
show you the heart of my message.
OLI. Come to what is important in`t. I forgive you the praise.
VIO. Alas, I took great pain s to study it, and `tis poetical.
OLI. It is the more like to be feigned ; I pray you keep it in. I
Heard you were saucy at my gates, and allow`d your approach
Rather than to wonder at you than to hear you. If you be not mad,
Be gone ; if you have reason, be brief ; `tis not that time of
moon with me to make one in so skipping a dialogue.
MAR. Will you hoist sail, sir ? Here lies your way.
VIO. No, good swabber, I am to hull here a little longer. Some
Mollification for your giant, sweet lady.
OLI. Tell me your mind.
VIO. I am messenger.
OLI. Sure, you have some hideous matter to deliver, when courtesy
of it is so fearful. Speak your office.
VIO. It alone concerns your ear. I bring no overture of war, no
Taxation of homage : I hold the olive in my hand ; my words
are as full of peace as matter.
OLI. Yet you began rudely. What are you ? what would you ?
VIO. The rudeness that hath appear`d in me have I learn`d from my
entertainment. What I am and what I are as secret as
maidenhead, to your ears, divinity ; to any other`s, profanation.
OLI. Give us the place alone ; we will here this divinity.

[Exit
MARIA and ATTENDENTS.]

OLI.Now, sir, what is your text ?
VIO. Most sweet lady ?
OLI. A comfortable doctrine, and much may be said of it. Where
Lies your text ?
VIO.In Orsino`s bosom.
OLI. In his bosom ! In what chapter of his bosom ?
VIO. To answer by the method : in the first of his heart.
OLI. O, I have read it ; it is heresy. Have you no more to say ?
VIO. Good madam, let me see your face.
OLI. Have you any commission from your lord to negotiate with my
face ? You are now out of your text ; but we will draw the
curtain and show you the picture. [unveiling.] Look you, sir,
such a one I was this present. Is`t well done ?
VIO. Excellently done, if God did all.
OLI. `Tis in grain, sir ; `twill endure wind and weather.
VIO. `Tis beauty truly blent, whose red and white
Natures own sweet and cunning hand laid on.
Lady, you are cruell`st she alive,
If you will lead these graces to the grave,
And leave the world no copy.
OLI. O, sir, I will not be so hard-hearted ; I will give out divers
schedules of my beauty. It shall be inventoried, and every
particle and utensil labell`d to my will : as-item, two lips
indifferent red ; item, two grey eyes with lids to them ; item
one neck, one chin, and so forth. Where you sent hither to
praise me ?
VIO. I see what you are : you are too proud ;
But, if you were the devil, you are fair.
My lord and master loves you ? O, such love
Could be but recompens`d though you were crown`d
The nonpareil of beauty !
OLI. How does he love me ?
VIO. With adorations, fertile tears,
With groans that thunder love, with sighs of fire.
OLI. Your lord does know my mind ; I cannot love him.
Yet I suppose him virtuous, know him nobel,
Of great estate, of fresh and stainless youth ;
In voice well divulg`d, free, learn`d, and valiant,
And in dimension and shape of nature
A gracious person ; but yet I cannot love him.
He might have took his answer long ago.
VIO. If I did love you in my master`s flame
With such a suff`ring, such a deadly life,.
In your denial I would find no sense ;
I would not understand it.
OLI. Why, what would you ?
VIO. Make me a willow cabin at your gate,
And call upon my soul within the house ;
Write Loyal cantons of contemned love
And sing them loud even in the dead of night ;
Hallow your name to reverberate the hills,
And make the babbling gossip of the air
Cry out ? Olivia ! ? O, you should not rest
Between the elements of air and earth
But you should pity me !
OLI. What might do much.
What is your parentage ?
VIO. Above my fortunes, yet my state is well :
I am a gentleman.
OLI. Get you to your lord.
I cannot love him ; let him send no more ?
Unless perchance you come to me again
To tell me how he takes it. Fare you well.
I thank you for your pains ; spend this for me.
VIO. I am no fee`d post, lady ; keep your purse ;
My master, not my self, lacks recompense.
Love make his heart of flint that you shall love ;
And let your fervour, like my masters, be
Plac`d in contempt ! Farewell, fair cruelty.
OLI. ` What is your parentage ? `
`Above my fortunes, yet my state is well :
I am a gentleman.` I`ll be sworn thou art ;
Thy tongue, thy face, thy limbs, actions, and spirit,
Do give thee five-fold blazon. Not too fast ! soft, soft !
Unless thy master were a man. How now !
Even so quickly may one catch the plague ?
Methinks I feel this youth`s perfections
With an invisible and subtle stealth
To creep in at mine eyes. Well, let it be.
What ho, Malvolio !

Re-enter MALVOLIO

MAL.Here, madam, at your service.
OLI. Run after that same peevish messenger,
The Country`s man. He left this ring behind him,
Would I or not. Tell him I`ll none of it
Desire him not to flatter with his lord,
Nor hold him up with hopes ; I am not for him.
If that the youth will come this way to-morow,
I`ll give him reasons for`t. Hie thee, Malvolio
MAL. Madam, I will.
OLI. I do I know not what, and fear to find
Mine eyes too great a flatterer for my mind.
Fate, show thy force : ourselves we do not owe ;
What is decreed must be : and so be this so !

BILLY SHAKESPEARE`S TWELFTH NIGHT
*
*
*
Every time i re-read this i find a deeper depth/layer/inspiration 2it...a line of Genie-Us, like this one 4example...
"VIO.What I am and what I are as secret as
maidenhead, to your ears, divinity ; to any other`s, profanation"

I recently found out that tha "maidenhead", aswell, as beeing an esoteric/code/symbol...is also a term 4The female genital/vagina. Go figure...

Opti
*HEART*

posted October 08, 2005 10:53 AM              

this is so hard
but soft

posted September 11, 2008 01:50 PM              

life is but a dream...
row row row your boat
gently down the stream