Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The Marquis of Montferrat
884 views
Skip to first unread message
Sabrina Feldman
Sep 13, 2015, 1:10:15 AM9/13/15
to
In Shakespeare's play The Merchant of Venice, Bassanio travels to Portia's home "in the company of the Marquis of Montferrat." After this single mention, the 'Marquis of Montferrat' plays no role whatsoever in the play. His gratuitous mention in one scene can only be attributed to a private whim of Shakespeare's. The author was obviously indulging in an obscure allusion to Guglielmo Gonzaga, the Duke of Mantua, who held the title of Marquis of Montferrat from 1550 to 1574.
From a Sackvillian perspective, an even more intriguing fact is that on Jan. 23, 1575, Maximilian II, Holy Roman Emperor, raised Montferrat from a marquisate to a duchy. After this time, Guglielmo Gonzaga and his descendants held the title of the Duke of Montferrat. In other words, the title Marquis of Montferrat became obsolete after 1574. Its appearance in The Merchant of Venice establishes that Shakespeare learned of it from a 1574 or earlier source. It also indicates that Shakespeare never made a deliberate attempt to learn the titles of the Italian nobility in the 1590s to add a touch of realism to his play. If he had, he should have caused Bassanio to travel to Portia's home "in the company of the Duke of Montferrat."
The Merchant of Venice's gratuitous and obsolete reference to the Marquis of Montferrat makes excellent sense if Thomas Sackville wrote as Shakespeare, because he traveled in Italy between 1563 and 1564. His status as an elite member of the English aristocracy would have entitled him to attend dinner parties, fêtes, and other events hosted by elite members of the Italian aristocracy. He thus had many opportunities to become familiar with gossip about the Italian nobility, and to become informed about the nobility's titles. It is entirely possible that Sackville met the then-Marquis of Montferrat in person, and perhaps even stayed at his house.
From a Sackvillian perspective, an even more intriguing fact is that on Jan. 23, 1575, Maximilian II, Holy Roman Emperor, raised Montferrat from a marquisate to a duchy. After this time, Guglielmo Gonzaga and his descendants held the title of the Duke of Montferrat. In other words, the title Marquis of Montferrat became obsolete after 1574. Its appearance in The Merchant of Venice establishes that Shakespeare learned of it from a 1574 or earlier source. It also indicates that Shakespeare never made a deliberate attempt to learn the titles of the Italian nobility in the 1590s to add a touch of realism to his play. If he had, he should have caused Bassanio to travel to Portia's home "in the company of the Duke of Montferrat."
The Merchant of Venice's gratuitous and obsolete reference to the Marquis of Montferrat makes excellent sense if Thomas Sackville wrote as Shakespeare, because he traveled in Italy between 1563 and 1564. His status as an elite member of the English aristocracy would have entitled him to attend dinner parties, fêtes, and other events hosted by elite members of the Italian aristocracy. He thus had many opportunities to become familiar with gossip about the Italian nobility, and to become informed about the nobility's titles. It is entirely possible that Sackville met the then-Marquis of Montferrat in person, and perhaps even stayed at his house.
Arthur Neuendorffer
Sep 13, 2015, 10:03:35 AM9/13/15
to
-------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
https://hankwhittemore.wordpress.com/tag/venice/
Hank Whittemore's Shakespeare Blog
<<The reference is made by Nerissa, who asks Portia if she remembers Bassanio's visit to Belmont: "Do you not remember, lady, in your father's time, a Venetian, a scholar and a soldier that came hither in company of the Marquis of Montferrat?"
"Yes, yes, it was Bassanio, as I think, so he was called," Portia says, but totally ignoring Nerissa's recollection of the Marguis of Montferrat, who is neither one of Portia's suitors nor one of the play's characters; in fact, this is the only time he's mentioned. Traditional scholars have never found any good reason for the playwright to make such an allusion, but Dr. Magri, viewing The Merchant as written by Edward de Vere, found the reason -- in the historical record of the visit to Venice in July 1574 by Henry III of France, who traveled with his party up the River Brenta and stopped at Villa Foscari, where he had been invited for dinner.
It turns out that with the French king on that visit was Guglielmo Gonzaga, Duke of Mantua and Marquis of Montferrat!
Just eight months later in March 1575, the twenty-five-year-old Earl of Oxford arrived at the royal court in Paris and met King Henry III, who was fond of expressing his admiration for Villa Foscari and its charming location.>>
--------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
https://hankwhittemore.wordpress.com/tag/venice/
Hank Whittemore's Shakespeare Blog
<<The reference is made by Nerissa, who asks Portia if she remembers Bassanio's visit to Belmont: "Do you not remember, lady, in your father's time, a Venetian, a scholar and a soldier that came hither in company of the Marquis of Montferrat?"
"Yes, yes, it was Bassanio, as I think, so he was called," Portia says, but totally ignoring Nerissa's recollection of the Marguis of Montferrat, who is neither one of Portia's suitors nor one of the play's characters; in fact, this is the only time he's mentioned. Traditional scholars have never found any good reason for the playwright to make such an allusion, but Dr. Magri, viewing The Merchant as written by Edward de Vere, found the reason -- in the historical record of the visit to Venice in July 1574 by Henry III of France, who traveled with his party up the River Brenta and stopped at Villa Foscari, where he had been invited for dinner.
It turns out that with the French king on that visit was Guglielmo Gonzaga, Duke of Mantua and Marquis of Montferrat!
Just eight months later in March 1575, the twenty-five-year-old Earl of Oxford arrived at the royal court in Paris and met King Henry III, who was fond of expressing his admiration for Villa Foscari and its charming location.>>
--------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
graham.a...@btinternet.com
Sep 13, 2015, 2:55:31 PM9/13/15
to
On Sunday, 13 September 2015 06:10:15 UTC+1, Sabrina Feldman wrote:
> In Shakespeare's play The Merchant of Venice, Bassanio...
Of course he could have asked the two Bassanio women playing the main female parts in his plays. I think it might be a bit easier to ask an Italian person about Italy, then someone else remembering what you did when you went there!
There's even a portrait of one of them dressed up as Anne Bolyn if you want proof that they were in the plays.
> In Shakespeare's play The Merchant of Venice, Bassanio...
Of course he could have asked the two Bassanio women playing the main female parts in his plays. I think it might be a bit easier to ask an Italian person about Italy, then someone else remembering what you did when you went there!
There's even a portrait of one of them dressed up as Anne Bolyn if you want proof that they were in the plays.
Jim F.
Sep 13, 2015, 9:55:42 PM9/13/15
to
On Sunday, September 13, 2015 at 1:10:15 PM UTC+8, Sabrina Feldman wrote:
...
The original spelling of "The Marquis of Montferrat" is
"the Marquesse of _Mountferrat_."
Marquis is never used in the First Folio.
Mountferrat plays for mount-ferret (peak-hunt) by sound or anagram.
To ferret is to hunt after, to search about (OED).
Nerrissa is foretelling Bassanio will come to hunt the peak of his life.
"The Marquesse" plays for mar-quest, also by sound or anagram.
Bassanio's quest will be marred by Portia's cheat.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/M0VtETkjqsM
Linking this title to Thomas Sackville or Edward de Vere stretches too far.
The author simply planted a word play when a name can fit.
...
> The Merchant of Venice's gratuitous and obsolete reference to the Marquis of Montferrat makes excellent sense if Thomas Sackville wrote as Shakespeare, because he traveled in Italy between 1563 and 1564.
...
The original spelling of "The Marquis of Montferrat" is
"the Marquesse of _Mountferrat_."
Marquis is never used in the First Folio.
Mountferrat plays for mount-ferret (peak-hunt) by sound or anagram.
To ferret is to hunt after, to search about (OED).
Nerrissa is foretelling Bassanio will come to hunt the peak of his life.
"The Marquesse" plays for mar-quest, also by sound or anagram.
Bassanio's quest will be marred by Portia's cheat.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/M0VtETkjqsM
Linking this title to Thomas Sackville or Edward de Vere stretches too far.
The author simply planted a word play when a name can fit.
Arthur Neuendorffer
Sep 13, 2015, 11:01:33 PM9/13/15
to
Jim F. wrote:
<<The original spelling of "The Marquis of Montferrat" is
"the Marquesse of _Mountferrat_."
Marquis is never used in the First Folio.
Mountferrat plays for mount-ferret (peak-hunt) by sound or anagram.
To ferret is to hunt after, to search about (OED).
Nerrissa is foretelling Bassanio will come to hunt the peak of his life.
"The Marquesse" plays for mar-quest, also by sound or anagram.
Bassanio's quest will be marred by Portia's cheat.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/M0VtETkjqsM
Linking this title to Thomas Sackville or Edward de Vere stretches too far.
The author simply planted a word play when a name can fit.
-------------------------------------------------------
<<The original spelling of "The Marquis of Montferrat" is
"the Marquesse of _Mountferrat_."
Marquis is never used in the First Folio.
Mountferrat plays for mount-ferret (peak-hunt) by sound or anagram.
To ferret is to hunt after, to search about (OED).
Nerrissa is foretelling Bassanio will come to hunt the peak of his life.
"The Marquesse" plays for mar-quest, also by sound or anagram.
Bassanio's quest will be marred by Portia's cheat.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/M0VtETkjqsM
Linking this title to Thomas Sackville or Edward de Vere stretches too far.
The author simply planted a word play when a name can fit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montferrat
<<Montferrat (in Italian, Monferrato) is part of the region of Piedmont in Northern Italy. It comprises roughly (and its extent has varied over time) the modern provinces of Alessandria and Asti. Montferrat is one of the most important wine districts of Italy. It also has a strong literary tradition, including the 18th century Asti-born poet and dramatist Vittorio Alfieri and the Alessandrian Umberto Eco.
There are various interpretations and assumptions concerning the etymology of "Monferrato", but to date none are certain. There are many opinions, like the one advocated by Aldo Ricaldone stating the name was derived from "Mount" and "farro,"--a variety of wheat, and another according to which derives from the Latin "Mons ferax," meaning "mount fertile and rich." Still another refers to the irons left by the Romans in their conquest, "Mons ferratus." Finally, an interpretation derived from a legend according to which Aleramo of Montferrat, the legendary founder of its march, wanting to shoe a horse, and not finding a hammer, used a brick ("mun" in local dialect), and thereby the horse was shod ("fra"), hence the name "Munfra" yielding Monferrato.>>
-------------------------------------------------------
The Merchant of Venice (Quarto 1, 1600) Act 1 scene 2
Nerrissa. Doe you not remember Lady in your Fathers time, a
Venecian a Scholler & a Souldiour that came hether in companie
of the Marquesse of Mountferrat?
Portia. Yes, yes, it was Bassanio, as I thinke so was he calld.
-------------------------------------------------------
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_of_Pembroke
<<On 1 September 1533 King Henry VIII created the original Marquessate of Pembroke for his future queen Anne Boleyn. This honour was in recognition of the king's great-uncle Jasper Tudor, who had been the Earl of Pembroke in the 15th century, and his own father, Henry VII who was born at Pembroke Castle in January 1457.
The Marquessate was granted to Anne and her heirs male, but the patent did not include the usual provision that the said heirs male had to be of legitimate birth, thus enabling the title to pass to any illegitimate son Anne might have had. The attending peers did not fail to notice this unusual omission.
It is not clear how the Marquessate of Pembroke ceased to exist. There are three possibilities:
It may have merged with the Crown on the marriage of the Marquess to the King on 28 May 1533.
It may have been forfeited on 15 May 1536, when Anne was declared guilty of high treason.
It may have become extinct on Anne's death, without male heirs, on 19 May 1536.
The title Earl of Pembroke was revived in favour of Sir William Herbert, whose father, Richard, was an illegitimate son of the 1st Earl of Pembroke of the house of Herbert. He had married Anne Parr, sister of Henry VIII's sixth wife, Catherine Parr, and was created Earl in 1551.
An executor of Henry VIII's will and the recipient of valuable grants of land, Herbert was a prominent and powerful personage during the reign of Edward VI, both the protector Somerset and his rival, John Dudley, afterwards Duke of Northumberland, angling for his support. He threw in his lot with Dudley, and after Somerset's fall obtained some of his lands in Wiltshire and a peerage. It has been asserted that he devised the scheme for settling the English crown on Lady Jane Grey; at all events he was one of her advisers during her short reign, but he declared for Mary when he saw that Lady Jane's cause was lost. By Mary and her friends, Pembroke's loyalty was at times suspected, but he was employed as governor of Calais, as president of Wales and in other ways. He was also to some extent in the confidence of Philip II of Spain. The Earl retained his place at court under Elizabeth until 1569, when he was suspected of favouring the projected marriage between Mary, Queen of Scots, and the Duke of Norfolk. Among the monastic lands granted to Herbert was the estate of Wilton, near Salisbury, still the residence of the Earls of Pembroke.
His elder son Henry (c. 1534 - 1601), who succeeded as 2nd Earl, was president of Wales from 1586 until his death. He married in 1577 Mary Sidney, the famous Countess of Pembroke (c. 1561-1621), third daughter of Sir Henry Sidney and his wife Mary Dudley. Sir Philip Sidney to whom she was deeply attached through life, was her eldest brother. Sir Philip Sidney spent the summer of 1580 with her at Wilton, or at Ivychurch, a favourite retreat of hers in the neighbourhood. Here at her request he began the Countess of Pembroke's Arcadia, which was intended for her pleasure alone, not for publication. The two also worked at a metrical edition of the Psalms.>>
-------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Sabrina Feldman
Sep 14, 2015, 12:52:41 AM9/14/15
to
On Sunday, September 13, 2015 at 6:55:42 PM UTC-7, Jim F. wrote:
> The original spelling of "The Marquis of Montferrat" is
> "the Marquesse of _Mountferrat_."
> Marquis is never used in the First Folio.
Marquess and Marquis are now, and were in Shakespeare's time, interchangeable synonyms. I used 'Marquis' because the term is more familiar to modern readers, and it is found in many editions of The Merchant of Venice.
> The original spelling of "The Marquis of Montferrat" is
> "the Marquesse of _Mountferrat_."
> Marquis is never used in the First Folio.
Arthur Neuendorffer
Sep 14, 2015, 9:10:08 AM9/14/15
to
Sabrina Feldman wrote:
>
> Marquess and Marquis are now, and were in Shakespeare's time, interchangeable synonyms. I used 'Marquis' because the term is more familiar to modern readers, and it is found in many editions of The Merchant of Venice.
The Marquis of Montferrat + Belmont *points specifically*
>
> Marquess and Marquis are now, and were in Shakespeare's time, interchangeable synonyms. I used 'Marquis' because the term is more familiar to modern readers, and it is found in many editions of The Merchant of Venice.
to the visit to Venice in July 1574 by Henry III of France
just eight months before Henry entertained Edward de Vere.
Perhaps Oxford was shown a little French fairy tale "casket" play.
In any event, it all strongly favors Oxford not Sackville.
nordicskiv2
Sep 14, 2015, 12:04:19 PM9/14/15
to
On Monday, September 14, 2015 at 9:10:08 AM UTC-4, Arthur Neuendorffer (aka Noonedafter) wrote:
> Sabrina Feldman wrote:
> >
> > Marquess and Marquis are now, and were in Shakespeare's time,
> > interchangeable synonyms. I used 'Marquis' because the term is more
> > familiar to modern readers, and it is found in many editions of The
> > Merchant of Venice.
> The Marquis of Montferrat + Belmont *points specifically*
> to the visit to Venice in July 1574 by Henry III of France
It doesn't "point specifically" to *any* historical event, Art.
> Sabrina Feldman wrote:
> >
> > Marquess and Marquis are now, and were in Shakespeare's time,
> > interchangeable synonyms. I used 'Marquis' because the term is more
> > familiar to modern readers, and it is found in many editions of The
> > Merchant of Venice.
> The Marquis of Montferrat + Belmont *points specifically*
> to the visit to Venice in July 1574 by Henry III of France
> just eight months before Henry entertained Edward de Vere.
>
> Perhaps Oxford was shown a little French fairy tale "casket" play.
> In any event, it all
> strongly favors Oxford not Sackville.
> --------------------------------------------------
> https://hankwhittemore.wordpress.com/tag/venice/
> Hank Whittemore's Shakespeare Blog
> <<The reference is made by Nerissa, who asks Portia if she remembers
> Bassanio's visit to Belmont: "Do you not remember, lady, in your father's
> time, a Venetian, a scholar and a soldier that came hither in company of
> the Marquis of Montferrat?"
>
> "Yes, yes, it was Bassanio, as I think, so he was called," Portia says, but
"Marguis [sic]"?! All this quibbling (or, if you prefer, "guibbling [sic]") about "Marquess" VERsus "Marquis" is quite (or if you prefer, "guite [sic]") funny in view of *this* rather original variant, Art.
> of Montferrat, who is neither one of Portia's suitors nor one of the play's
> characters; in fact, this is the only time he's mentioned. Traditional
> scholars have never found any good reason for the playwright to make such
> an allusion, but Dr. Magri, viewing The Merchant as written by Edward de
> Vere,
> found the reason -- in the historical record of the visit to Venice in July
> 1574 by Henry III of France, who traveled with his party up the River Brenta
> and stopped at Villa Foscari, where he had been invited for dinner.
>
> It turns out that with the French king on that visit was Guglielmo Gonzaga,
> Duke of Mantua and Marquis of Montferrat!
Besides, if Oxford had Gonzaga in mind, why wouldn't Oxford have referred to him as Duke of Mantua? Why not use the higher ranking title?
Arthur Neuendorffer
Sep 14, 2015, 12:46:58 PM9/14/15
to
> Sabrina Feldman wrote:
>>
>> Marquess and Marquis are now, and were in Shakespeare's time,
>> interchangeable synonyms. I used 'Marquis' because the term is more
>> familiar to modern readers, and it is found in many editions of The
>> Merchant of Venice.
>>
>> Marquess and Marquis are now, and were in Shakespeare's time,
>> interchangeable synonyms. I used 'Marquis' because the term is more
>> familiar to modern readers, and it is found in many editions of The
>> Merchant of Venice.
Neufer wrote:
>
> The Marquis of Montferrat + Belmont *points specifically*
> to the visit to Venice in July 1574 by Henry III of France
>
> The Marquis of Montferrat + Belmont *points specifically*
> to the visit to Venice in July 1574 by Henry III of France
Lea wrote:
>
<<It doesn't "point specifically" to *any* historical event, Art.>>
"Shake-speare" doesn't "point specifically" to *any* historical person, Dave.
>
<<It doesn't "point specifically" to *any* historical event, Art.>>
Neufer wrote:
>
> just eight months before Henry entertained Edward de Vere.
>
> Perhaps Oxford was shown a little French fairy tale "casket" play.
At least, Oxford was headed to Italy and Henry III had just returned.
What else were they likely to have talked about.
Neufer wrote:
>
> In any event, it all
https://hankwhittemore.wordpress.com/tag/venice/
Neufer wrote:
>
> strongly favors Oxford not Sackville.
and that you no longer consider yourself an Oxfordian.>>
Early versions of "Shake-speare" were ofter written for Oxford
if not by Oxford. The final versions were a group effort.
Neufer wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> https://hankwhittemore.wordpress.com/tag/venice/
> Hank Whittemore's Shakespeare Blog
Lea (The David) wrote:
<<You realize that that's a nutcase source, don't you, Art?>>
Hank Whittemore is an intelligent gentleman.
<<You realize that that's a nutcase source, don't you, Art?>>
You are a whitteless Stratford Goon.
> --------------------------------------------------
> https://hankwhittemore.wordpress.com/tag/venice/
>
> <<The reference is made by Nerissa, who asks Portia if she remembers
> Bassanio's visit to Belmont: "Do you not remember, lady, in your father's
> time, a Venetian, a scholar and a soldier that came hither in company of
> the Marquis of Montferrat?"
>
> "Yes, yes, it was Bassanio, as I think, so he was called," Portia says, but
> totally ignoring Nerissa's recollection of the Marquis of Montferrat,
> <<The reference is made by Nerissa, who asks Portia if she remembers
> Bassanio's visit to Belmont: "Do you not remember, lady, in your father's
> time, a Venetian, a scholar and a soldier that came hither in company of
> the Marquis of Montferrat?"
>
> "Yes, yes, it was Bassanio, as I think, so he was called," Portia says, but
> who is neither one of Portia's suitors nor one of the play's characters;
> in fact, this is the only time he's mentioned. Traditional scholars
> have never found any good reason for the playwright to make such an
> allusion, but Dr. Magri, viewing The Merchant
> as written by Edward de Vere,
> in fact, this is the only time he's mentioned. Traditional scholars
> have never found any good reason for the playwright to make such an
> allusion, but Dr. Magri, viewing The Merchant
> as written by Edward de Vere,
Lea wrote:
<<But _The Merchant of Venice_ was *not* written by Edward de Vere, Art.
_The Merchant of Venice_ was *not* written
by the illiterate Stratford boob, Dave.
<<But _The Merchant of Venice_ was *not* written by Edward de Vere, Art.
_The Merchant of Venice_ was *not* written
> --------------------------------------------------
> https://hankwhittemore.wordpress.com/tag/venice/
>
> found the reason -- in the historical record of the visit to Venice in July
> 1574 by Henry III of France, who traveled with his party up the River
> Brenta and stopped at Villa Foscari, where he had been invited for dinner.
>
> It turns out that with the French king on that visit was
> Guglielmo Gonzaga, Duke of Mantua and Marquis of Montferrat!
> found the reason -- in the historical record of the visit to Venice in July
> 1574 by Henry III of France, who traveled with his party up the River
> Brenta and stopped at Villa Foscari, where he had been invited for dinner.
>
> It turns out that with the French king on that visit was
> Guglielmo Gonzaga, Duke of Mantua and Marquis of Montferrat!
Lea wrote:
<<So? It's not as though Oxford was the only person
on the planet who had heard of the Marquis.>>
The issue is: "Who makes the better argument: Feldman or Whittemore?"
<<So? It's not as though Oxford was the only person
on the planet who had heard of the Marquis.>>
IMO, Feldman loses the argument.
Sabrina also loses the argument about Oxford being in Italy while
Sackville attended the 1575 festivities at Kenilworth Castle.
She does, however, make a good argument that the author of
_A Midsummer Night's Dream_ got his information via the Langham letter.
Lea wrote:
<<Besides, if Oxford had Gonzaga in mind, why wouldn't Oxford have
referred to him as Duke of Mantua? Why not use the higher ranking title?>>
> https://hankwhittemore.wordpress.com/tag/venice/
John W Kennedy
Sep 14, 2015, 2:10:10 PM9/14/15
to
"Marquis" to foreign lords.
--
John W Kennedy
"...if you had to fall in love with someone who was evil, I can see why
it was her."
-- "Alias"
graham.a...@btinternet.com
Sep 14, 2015, 3:26:49 PM9/14/15
to
Art you know how your pal Hank goes on about the 20 miles Portia has to travel.
And where the building is:
" He indicates, for example, that the mansion is on a riverbank -- in the scene with Lorenzo and Jessica outside the great house in the evening, gazing at the water, when Lorenzo exclaims: "How sweet the moonlight sleeps upon this bank!""
Well it just so happens that the Thames back then could be described as that, plus guess what Windsor Castle is about 20 miles from London.
He further goes on about Sycamore trees. But Sycamore trees are also found in this country. In fact Sycamores are the weed of trees. They will grow on land anywhere. Most children have played with the helicopter seeds they produce. There was a playing field in the front of our old house. One year the Council were carrying out repairs to the houses. They used the field as a compound for a work site. Within 6 months there were two Sycamore trees popping up inside the compound.
It's been calculated that if a farmer left a field to grow on its own, Sycamore trees and Silver Birch would take it over in 10 years!
As far as the Sycamore story goes, it's even worse than the Mulberry tree story!
Mind you Hank is not as thick as a plank!
He correctly points out that:
"heiress, such as Portia, whose hand was sought by princes far and wide" - just as princes came from far and wide for the hand of Queen Elizabeth."
Yes it would appear he has unknowingly picked up on the fact that Portia is Elizabeth.
And where the building is:
" He indicates, for example, that the mansion is on a riverbank -- in the scene with Lorenzo and Jessica outside the great house in the evening, gazing at the water, when Lorenzo exclaims: "How sweet the moonlight sleeps upon this bank!""
Well it just so happens that the Thames back then could be described as that, plus guess what Windsor Castle is about 20 miles from London.
He further goes on about Sycamore trees. But Sycamore trees are also found in this country. In fact Sycamores are the weed of trees. They will grow on land anywhere. Most children have played with the helicopter seeds they produce. There was a playing field in the front of our old house. One year the Council were carrying out repairs to the houses. They used the field as a compound for a work site. Within 6 months there were two Sycamore trees popping up inside the compound.
It's been calculated that if a farmer left a field to grow on its own, Sycamore trees and Silver Birch would take it over in 10 years!
As far as the Sycamore story goes, it's even worse than the Mulberry tree story!
Mind you Hank is not as thick as a plank!
He correctly points out that:
"heiress, such as Portia, whose hand was sought by princes far and wide" - just as princes came from far and wide for the hand of Queen Elizabeth."
Yes it would appear he has unknowingly picked up on the fact that Portia is Elizabeth.
nordicskiv2
Sep 17, 2015, 10:54:18 AM9/17/15
to
On Monday, September 14, 2015 at 12:46:58 PM UTC-4, Arthur Neuendorffer (aka Noonedafter) wrote:
> > Sabrina Feldman wrote:
> >>
> >> Marquess and Marquis are now, and were in Shakespeare's time,
> >> interchangeable synonyms. I used 'Marquis' because the term is more
> >> familiar to modern readers, and it is found in many editions of The
> >> Merchant of Venice.
> > Sabrina Feldman wrote:
> >>
> >> Marquess and Marquis are now, and were in Shakespeare's time,
> >> interchangeable synonyms. I used 'Marquis' because the term is more
> >> familiar to modern readers, and it is found in many editions of The
> >> Merchant of Venice.
> Neufer (aka Noonedafter) wrote:
> >
> > The Marquis of Montferrat + Belmont *points specifically*
> > to the visit to Venice in July 1574 by Henry III of France
> Lea wrote:
> >
> <<It doesn't "point specifically" to *any* historical event, Art.>>
> "Shake-speare" doesn't "point specifically" to *any* historical person, Dave.
Certainly it does, Art -- William Shakespeare was a middle-class actor and shareholder in the company that performed his plays. His existence is VERy well documented, although most of the pertinent documents are in tongues that you don't read -- e.g., Latin and English.
> >
> > The Marquis of Montferrat + Belmont *points specifically*
> > to the visit to Venice in July 1574 by Henry III of France
> Lea wrote:
> >
> <<It doesn't "point specifically" to *any* historical event, Art.>>
> "Shake-speare" doesn't "point specifically" to *any* historical person, Dave.
> Neufer (aka Noonedafter) wrote:
> >
> > just eight months before Henry entertained Edward de Vere.
> >
> > Perhaps Oxford was shown a little French fairy tale "casket" play.
> Lea wrote: <<"Perhaps"? Perhaps not.>>
> At least, Oxford was headed to Italy and Henry III had just returned.
> What else were they likely to have talked about.
> Neufer (aka Noonedafter) wrote:
> >
> > In any event, it all
> Lea wrote: <<"All"? All *what*, Art?>>
> https://hankwhittemore.wordpress.com/tag/venice/
> Neufer (aka Noonedafter) wrote:
> >
> > strongly favors Oxford not Sackville.
> Lea wrote: <<But Art -- you said that you had changed your mind,
> and that you no longer consider yourself an Oxfordian.>>
Is English your native tongue, Art?
> written for Oxford
"For" Oxford?! By whom, and for what reason, Art?
> if not by Oxford. The final versions were a group effort.
> Neufer (aka Noonedafter) wrote:
> > --------------------------------------------------
> > https://hankwhittemore.wordpress.com/tag/venice/
> > Hank Whittemore's Shakespeare Blog
> Lea (The David) wrote:
>
> <<You realize that that's a nutcase source, don't you, Art?>>
> Hank Whittemore is an intelligent gentleman.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_E._Mack>
> You are a whitteless Stratford Goon.
> > --------------------------------------------------
> > https://hankwhittemore.wordpress.com/tag/venice/
> >
> > <<The reference is made by Nerissa, who asks Portia if she remembers
> > Bassanio's visit to Belmont: "Do you not remember, lady, in your father's
> > time, a Venetian, a scholar and a soldier that came hither in company of
> > the Marquis of Montferrat?"
> >
> > "Yes, yes, it was Bassanio, as I think, so he was called," Portia says, but
> > totally ignoring Nerissa's recollection of the Marquis of Montferrat,
> > who is neither one of Portia's suitors nor one of the play's characters;
> > in fact, this is the only time he's mentioned. Traditional scholars
> > have never found any good reason for the playwright to make such an
> > allusion, but Dr. Magri, viewing The Merchant
> > as written by Edward de Vere,
> Lea wrote:
>
> <<But _The Merchant of Venice_ was *not* written by Edward de Vere, Art.
> _The Merchant of Venice_ was *not* written
> by the illiterate Stratford boob, Dave.
> > --------------------------------------------------
> > https://hankwhittemore.wordpress.com/tag/venice/
> >
> > found the reason -- in the historical record of the visit to Venice in July
> > 1574 by Henry III of France, who traveled with his party up the River
> > Brenta and stopped at Villa Foscari, where he had been invited for dinner.
> >
> > It turns out that with the French king on that visit was
> > Guglielmo Gonzaga, Duke of Mantua and Marquis of Montferrat!
> Lea wrote:
>
> <<So? It's not as though Oxford was the only person
> on the planet who had heard of the Marquis.>>
> The issue is: "Who makes the better argument: Feldman or Whittemore?"
> IMO, Feldman loses the argument.
> Sabrina also loses the argument about Oxford being in Italy while
> Sackville attended the 1575 festivities at Kenilworth Castle.
> She does, however, make a good argument that the author of
> _A Midsummer Night's Dream_ got his information via the Langham letter.
> Lea wrote:
>
> <<Besides, if Oxford had Gonzaga in mind, why wouldn't Oxford have
> referred to him as Duke of Mantua? Why not use the higher ranking title?>>
>
> Because when Henry III met Gonzaga at Villa Foscari he was only a Marquis.
[...]
> > --------------------------------------------------
> Art Neuendorffer
freeru...@gmail.com
Oct 14, 2015, 5:53:03 PM10/14/15
to
Nerrissa. Doe you not remember Lady in your Fathers time, a
Venecian a Scholler & a Souldiour that came hether in companie
of the Marquesse of Mountferrat?
Portia. Yes, yes, it was Bassanio, as I thinke so was he calld.
A Scholler & a Souldiour sounds more like how Marlowe would describe himself rather than either Sackville or De Vere.
Venecian a Scholler & a Souldiour that came hether in companie
of the Marquesse of Mountferrat?
Portia. Yes, yes, it was Bassanio, as I thinke so was he calld.
Jim F.
Oct 16, 2015, 1:48:56 PM10/16/15
to
Doe you not remember Ladie in your Fathers time, a _Venecian_,
a Scholler and a Souldior that came hither in companie of
the Marquesse of _Mountferrat_?
Scholar has the definition of "one who is receiving, or has received,
his instruction or training from a particular master" (OED 1b).
Scholar matches with "Marquesse" (mar-quest).
Bassanio is receiving Portia's instruction as a scholar in his quest.
Soldier matches with "Mountferrat" (mount-ferret).
Bassanio is hunting his fortune as a soldier.
These lines are not for authorship. If the author has the intention
to seal something, he or she must provide clues in a consistent and
logical manner, else we can't prove anything.
freeru...@gmail.com
Oct 16, 2015, 9:03:20 PM10/16/15
to
Some people say because Marquesse Montferrat reference seems sort of stuck in at random it is a biographical reference. Oxfordians say it is Oxford, the handful of Sackvillians say Sackville. I just don't think either of those gentlemen would describe themselves as scholars or soldiers.
Marlowe might, admittedly his soldiering mightn't extend beyond the brief abortive period in the Netherlands. But if he did survive Deptford he might have done more in that line.
Alternatively, it might not be a biographical reference at all. Although I think your interpretation is somewhat contrived. More likely "Shakespeare" just wanted the character Bassanio to be literally a scholar and a soldier who just happened to catch the attention of a wealthy heiress.
Sabrina Feldman
Oct 16, 2015, 10:23:00 PM10/16/15
to
This comment thread seems to have wandered somewhat far away from my original point, which is that VMOV's "Marquis/Marquesse of Montferrat/Mountferrat" is an accurate reference to a real member of the Italian nobility whose title became obsolete in 1574.
My two cents:
I think both Sackville and Oxford are plausible originators of this reference (Sackville more so, because he visited Italy while the title was still valid), but it seems quite unlikely to me that William Shakespeare, Christopher Marlowe, or any other authorship candidate whose Italian knowledge, whether gained at first- or second-hand, was presumably gained after 1590 or so, would have ever had reason to learn about the Marquis of Montferrat.
If I were a Stratfordian or Marlovian, I would counter-argue that the Marquis of Montferrat allusion in TMOV is likely to be a fossil remnant from the 1579 (or earlier) play The Jew, a widely accepted early version of TMOV, rather than argue that it originated with William of Stratford or Christopher Marlowe. Even though this places additional interest on who wrote The Jew, this strikes me as the most plausible explanation from a non-Sackvillian or non-Oxfordian perspective.
My two cents:
I think both Sackville and Oxford are plausible originators of this reference (Sackville more so, because he visited Italy while the title was still valid), but it seems quite unlikely to me that William Shakespeare, Christopher Marlowe, or any other authorship candidate whose Italian knowledge, whether gained at first- or second-hand, was presumably gained after 1590 or so, would have ever had reason to learn about the Marquis of Montferrat.
If I were a Stratfordian or Marlovian, I would counter-argue that the Marquis of Montferrat allusion in TMOV is likely to be a fossil remnant from the 1579 (or earlier) play The Jew, a widely accepted early version of TMOV, rather than argue that it originated with William of Stratford or Christopher Marlowe. Even though this places additional interest on who wrote The Jew, this strikes me as the most plausible explanation from a non-Sackvillian or non-Oxfordian perspective.
Arthur Neuendorffer
Oct 17, 2015, 1:24:37 AM10/17/15
to
Sabrina Feldman wrote:
<<I think both Sackville and Oxford are plausible originators of this reference (Sackville more so, because he visited Italy while the title was still valid), but it seems quite unlikely to me that William Shakespeare, Christopher Marlowe, or any other authorship candidate whose Italian knowledge, whether gained at first- or second-hand, was presumably gained after 1590 or so, would have ever had reason to learn about the Marquis of Montferrat.>>
------------------------------------------------------------
<<I think both Sackville and Oxford are plausible originators of this reference (Sackville more so, because he visited Italy while the title was still valid), but it seems quite unlikely to me that William Shakespeare, Christopher Marlowe, or any other authorship candidate whose Italian knowledge, whether gained at first- or second-hand, was presumably gained after 1590 or so, would have ever had reason to learn about the Marquis of Montferrat.>>
The Marquis of Montferrat + Belmont *points specifically*
to the visit to Venice in July 1574 by Henry III of France
to the visit to Venice in July 1574 by Henry III of France
just eight months before Henry entertained Edward de Vere.
Perhaps Oxford was shown a little French fairy tale "casket" play.
In any event, the timing strongly favors Oxford over Sackville.
Perhaps Oxford was shown a little French fairy tale "casket" play.
------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Jim F.
Oct 17, 2015, 12:55:58 PM10/17/15
to
If Shakespeare is smart enough, more clues shall be planted to support
the word play, to prevent the "More likely" thought.
Before Bassanio, there are six others mentioned by Nerrissa:
1. the Neapolitan Prince
2. the County Palentine
3. the French Lord, Monsieur Le Boune
4. Faulconbridge, the young Baron of England
5. Faulconbridge's neighbor
6. the Duke of Saxony's Nephew
Each person is failed for a reason related to his name or title via word play.
This is why I say those lines are not for Sackville or Oxford.
If you need real challenge, try Fox, Ape and Humble-Bee.
You'll see how hard Shakespeare "contrived" his lines.
Sneaky O. Possum
Oct 19, 2015, 5:14:32 PM10/19/15
to
Sabrina Feldman <sabrinama...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:84ee4014-cc1c-4798...@googlegroups.com:
> This comment thread seems to have wandered somewhat far away from my
> original point, which is that VMOV's "Marquis/Marquesse of
> Montferrat/Mountferrat" is an accurate reference to a real member of
> the Italian nobility whose title became obsolete in 1574.
Not quite accurate. To the Elizabethans, Montferrat and Mountferrat were
entirely different places: the first was in Italy, the second in France.
As it happens, Holinshed mentions both Mountferrat and one of the
Marquesses of Montferrat in the same section of his Chronicles.
In the quarto and folio editions of *Merchant*, the word is spelled
'Mountferrat,' but the allusion is clearly to the Italian nobleman: the
French toponym wasn't associated with a noble title. Of course, we don't
know whether 'Mountferrat' was the way the author spelled the word, but
in any case it's an error rather than a variant spelling.
> My two cents:
>
> I think both Sackville and Oxford are plausible originators of this
> reference (Sackville more so, because he visited Italy while the title
> was still valid), but it seems quite unlikely to me that William
> Shakespeare, Christopher Marlowe, or any other authorship candidate
> whose Italian knowledge, whether gained at first- or second-hand, was
> presumably gained after 1590 or so, would have ever had reason to
> learn about the Marquis of Montferrat.
There was more than one Marquess of Montferrat, of course. One of the
early Marquesses was murdered in the Holy Land, and Richard I of England
was accused of the crime: the accusation was the proximate cause of his
imprisonment by Leopold of Austria, which was a well-known story to the
Elizabethans: it seems reasonable to suppose that many of them would
have had at least a nodding familiarity the title 'Marquess of
Montferrat.'
And, as mentioned above, another Marquess receives a brief mention in
Holinshed's Chronicles: most scholars agree that the author of the
Shakespearean canon knew Holinshed's work quite well.
> If I were a Stratfordian or Marlovian, I would counter-argue that the
> Marquis of Montferrat allusion in TMOV is likely to be a fossil
> remnant from the 1579 (or earlier) play The Jew, a widely accepted
> early version of TMOV, rather than argue that it originated with
> William of Stratford or Christopher Marlowe. Even though this places
> additional interest on who wrote The Jew, this strikes me as the most
> plausible explanation from a non-Sackvillian or non-Oxfordian
> perspective.
I don't believe 'The Jew' is very widely accepted as an early version of
*Merchant*, since no copy of it is known to exist. A few scholars have
convinced themselves that Gosson's contemporary reference to 'The Jew'
suggests some of the plot elements of *Merchant*, but most scholars
consider Gosson's description ambiguous at best, especially since Shylock
is a secondary character in *Merchant*: if 'The Jew' was in fact a
precursor of any extant work, it would more plausibly be Marlowe's *The
Jew of Malta*, in which Barabas is unmistakably the central figure.
--
S.O.P.
news:84ee4014-cc1c-4798...@googlegroups.com:
> This comment thread seems to have wandered somewhat far away from my
> original point, which is that VMOV's "Marquis/Marquesse of
> Montferrat/Mountferrat" is an accurate reference to a real member of
> the Italian nobility whose title became obsolete in 1574.
entirely different places: the first was in Italy, the second in France.
As it happens, Holinshed mentions both Mountferrat and one of the
Marquesses of Montferrat in the same section of his Chronicles.
In the quarto and folio editions of *Merchant*, the word is spelled
'Mountferrat,' but the allusion is clearly to the Italian nobleman: the
French toponym wasn't associated with a noble title. Of course, we don't
know whether 'Mountferrat' was the way the author spelled the word, but
in any case it's an error rather than a variant spelling.
> My two cents:
>
> I think both Sackville and Oxford are plausible originators of this
> reference (Sackville more so, because he visited Italy while the title
> was still valid), but it seems quite unlikely to me that William
> Shakespeare, Christopher Marlowe, or any other authorship candidate
> whose Italian knowledge, whether gained at first- or second-hand, was
> presumably gained after 1590 or so, would have ever had reason to
> learn about the Marquis of Montferrat.
early Marquesses was murdered in the Holy Land, and Richard I of England
was accused of the crime: the accusation was the proximate cause of his
imprisonment by Leopold of Austria, which was a well-known story to the
Elizabethans: it seems reasonable to suppose that many of them would
have had at least a nodding familiarity the title 'Marquess of
Montferrat.'
And, as mentioned above, another Marquess receives a brief mention in
Holinshed's Chronicles: most scholars agree that the author of the
Shakespearean canon knew Holinshed's work quite well.
> If I were a Stratfordian or Marlovian, I would counter-argue that the
> Marquis of Montferrat allusion in TMOV is likely to be a fossil
> remnant from the 1579 (or earlier) play The Jew, a widely accepted
> early version of TMOV, rather than argue that it originated with
> William of Stratford or Christopher Marlowe. Even though this places
> additional interest on who wrote The Jew, this strikes me as the most
> plausible explanation from a non-Sackvillian or non-Oxfordian
> perspective.
*Merchant*, since no copy of it is known to exist. A few scholars have
convinced themselves that Gosson's contemporary reference to 'The Jew'
suggests some of the plot elements of *Merchant*, but most scholars
consider Gosson's description ambiguous at best, especially since Shylock
is a secondary character in *Merchant*: if 'The Jew' was in fact a
precursor of any extant work, it would more plausibly be Marlowe's *The
Jew of Malta*, in which Barabas is unmistakably the central figure.
--
S.O.P.
Jim F.
Oct 20, 2015, 10:11:25 PM10/20/15
to
These six persons represent six villainies Portia distastes,
from simple to complex roughly based on the effort to solve them.
NERRISSA.
First there is the Neapolitan Prince.
PORTIA.
Ay, that's a colt indeed, for he does nothing but talk of his horse, ...
I am much afraid my Lady his mother played false with a Smith.
Neapolitan horse is famous for cross-breeding. Portia distastes prince of
the blood mixed with a commoner.
NERRISSA.
Then is there the County Palentine.
PORTIA.
He does nothing but frown ...
Palentine is an obsolete form of palatine, close to palate-tine.
Tine has the definition of "affliction, trouble, sorrow" (OED n.5), and
Palate of "mental taste or liking" (OED 2b). Portia dislikes pessimists.
...
My "interpretation is somewhat contrived" or the world can't read Shakespeare?
Sabrina Feldman
Oct 20, 2015, 10:58:04 PM10/20/15
to
On Monday, October 19, 2015 at 2:14:32 PM UTC-7, Sneaky O. Possum wrote:
> Sabrina Feldman <sabrinama...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:84ee4014-cc1c-4798...@googlegroups.com:
>
> > This comment thread seems to have wandered somewhat far away from my
> > original point, which is that VMOV's "Marquis/Marquesse of
> > Montferrat/Mountferrat" is an accurate reference to a real member of
> > the Italian nobility whose title became obsolete in 1574.
>
> Not quite accurate. To the Elizabethans, Montferrat and Mountferrat were
> entirely different places: the first was in Italy, the second in France.
> As it happens, Holinshed mentions both Mountferrat and one of the
> Marquesses of Montferrat in the same section of his Chronicles.
>
> In the quarto and folio editions of *Merchant*, the word is spelled
> 'Mountferrat,' but the allusion is clearly to the Italian nobleman: the
> French toponym wasn't associated with a noble title. Of course, we don't
> know whether 'Mountferrat' was the way the author spelled the word, but
> in any case it's an error rather than a variant spelling.
Thank you for correcting my post; I was unaware of this.
> Sabrina Feldman <sabrinama...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:84ee4014-cc1c-4798...@googlegroups.com:
>
> > This comment thread seems to have wandered somewhat far away from my
> > original point, which is that VMOV's "Marquis/Marquesse of
> > Montferrat/Mountferrat" is an accurate reference to a real member of
> > the Italian nobility whose title became obsolete in 1574.
>
> Not quite accurate. To the Elizabethans, Montferrat and Mountferrat were
> entirely different places: the first was in Italy, the second in France.
> As it happens, Holinshed mentions both Mountferrat and one of the
> Marquesses of Montferrat in the same section of his Chronicles.
>
> In the quarto and folio editions of *Merchant*, the word is spelled
> 'Mountferrat,' but the allusion is clearly to the Italian nobleman: the
> French toponym wasn't associated with a noble title. Of course, we don't
> know whether 'Mountferrat' was the way the author spelled the word, but
> in any case it's an error rather than a variant spelling.
> There was more than one Marquess of Montferrat, of course. One of the
> early Marquesses was murdered in the Holy Land, and Richard I of England
> was accused of the crime: the accusation was the proximate cause of his
> imprisonment by Leopold of Austria, which was a well-known story to the
> Elizabethans: it seems reasonable to suppose that many of them would
> have had at least a nodding familiarity the title 'Marquess of
> Montferrat.'
> And, as mentioned above, another Marquess receives a brief mention in
> Holinshed's Chronicles: most scholars agree that the author of the
> Shakespearean canon knew Holinshed's work quite well.
> I don't believe 'The Jew' is very widely accepted as an early version of
> *Merchant*, since no copy of it is known to exist. A few scholars have
> convinced themselves that Gosson's contemporary reference to 'The Jew'
> suggests some of the plot elements of *Merchant*, but most scholars
> consider Gosson's description ambiguous at best, especially since Shylock
> is a secondary character in *Merchant*: if 'The Jew' was in fact a
> precursor of any extant work, it would more plausibly be Marlowe's *The
> Jew of Malta*, in which Barabas is unmistakably the central figure.
> --
> S.O.P.
The Merchant of Venice is closely based on a tale from Ser Giovanni Fiorentino’s Italian story collection Il Pecorone (1558), which had not yet been translated into any other language in Shakespeare’s time. Il Pecorone relates the story of a wealthy woman, the Lady of Belmonte, who marries a fine young gentleman. Finding himself in need of money, her husband asks one of his friends to borrow the required sum from a Jewish money-lender. The money-lender demands a pound of flesh from this friend if he fails to return the money by a certain date. When he proves unable to pay in time, the Jew goes to court to obtain his bloody due. The Lady of Belmonte saves her husband’s friend’s life by speaking out in court of the nature of true justice, thereby convincing the judge to deny the money-lender his claim. All these plot details appear in The Merchant of Venice, leaving no doubt that Il Pecorone was Shakespeare’s source (Attribute 12).
A final point of interest concerning The Merchant of Venice is that according to wide scholarly consensus, it is based on The Jew (Attribute 57), an early Elizabethan play mentioned in Stephen Gosson’s 1579 pamphlet The School of Abuse. Gosson’s main purpose was to attack the public theatres and accuse contemporary plays of degrading societal morals. However, he admitted to finding a few English plays to be “good and sweet.” Gosson particularly commended a play titled The Jew which had been performed at the Bull theatre. Its subject was “the greediness of worldly choosers and the bloody minds of usurers.” The London Stationers’ Register shows that The Merchant of Venice was first titled The Jew of Venice, which can be further shortened to The Jew.
Both the greediness of choosers and the bloody minds of usurers are pivotal to The Merchant of Venice’s plot. Its main plotline (as summarized above) concerns Shylock, a Jew typecast as a bloody-minded usurer who seeks to extract a pound of flesh from Antonio. A second interleaved plotline concerns the greediness of the suitors who seek Portia’s hand. These men must choose whether a gold, silver, or lead casket contains her portrait. Because the Prince of Morocco and the Prince of Aragon seek worldly gain by choosing the gold and silver caskets, they prove themselves unworthy of her love.
It is possible that the poet Edmund Spenser attended a performance of The Jew in the late 1570s. In closing a letter to his friend Gabriel Harvey in 1579, Spenser signed himself, “He that is fast bound unto thee in more obligations than any merchant in Italy to any Jew there.” This further supports the theory that The Jew was an early version of The Merchant of Venice. It establishes that during the very year that Gosson commended The Jew in The School of Abuse, Spenser made a joking allusion to the situation of an Italian merchant who was closely bound by debt to a Jewish money-lender.
The identity of The Jew’s author remains unknown, but he was presumably fluent in Italian, since the most likely source of The Jew (and a definite source for The Merchant of Venice) is Giovanni Fiorentino’s untranslated Italian story Il Pecarone. This in turn indicates that The Jew’s author belonged to the educated elite, and was particularly fond of Italian literature—both true of Thomas Sackville.
***
Thanks again for posting these points,
Sabrina
freeru...@gmail.com
Oct 21, 2015, 4:11:01 AM10/21/15
to
This would be my "novel" concerning the MoV.
Edward de Vere originally writes it in 1578/9 as he tries to weasel out of a large debt for the failed Frobisher voyage to Greenland. At this stage he is trying to ingratiate himself with the Leicester faction, so the portrayal of Portia is unabashedly of Elizabeth and whatever the "Bassano" character was, was Leicester (his 2nd marriage being still a secret).
When it is released to the London stage in the 1590s it is rewritten to obscure Elizabeth and to write Leicester out of it completely. So the character of Bassano is inserted.
An oral tradition recorded by Samuel Johnson via John Dryden relates that Shakespeare had to kill off Mercutio before he killed him. An anecdote that works on two levels. On the top level it is a nod to how successful a character Mercutio is and how he overshadows Romeo when he is present.
On the second level, since I think Mercutio represents Marlowe, it relates to how Edward de Vere was afraid that the interrogation of Marlowe might lead back to a circle of free-thinkers which included Thomas Harriot, Northumberland and Raleigh. In Romeo and Juliet, Mercutio doesn't actually die on stage, rather he carries on like a pork chop and then wanders off stage and it is announced he is dead. While, IIRC, Tybalt dies considerable more decorum and on stage.
But did Marlowe die? Well, it is certainly entertaining to speculate that Edward de Vere and friends didn't believe in wasting talent like that. One solution would be send him to friends in Italy - not for long though (I want him back in London by November 30 1593 to continue intriguing)
There seem to be some connection with the Bassano family and the Shakespeare story. Aemila Lanyer named her daughter Ophelia, Bassanos appear as characters in some plays, Otello apparently has strong links to their home town near Venice, Bassano del Grappa. The Bassanos were awarded a very lucrative calf-skin export monopoly in 1593. Oxford's servant, Orazio Cogno, was friendly with the Bassano family, although that might just be down to the shared Venetian background
Now it is improbable that the Gonzagas would view Marlowe as an equal, but with a letter of introduction he might have been given a position of patronage for a period and may have accompanied him on his travels.
There do seem to be echos of Mantua and the Gonzagas in some of the plays, but the linkage isn't clear. Explanations aren't mutually exclusive.
Thomas Sackville may have visited Mantua because of his keenness for the Romeo and Juliet story. As someone with a similar political and factional alignment to de Vere, he may have recommended de Vere to friends he made in Italy. In the romantic and speculative theory that Marlowe scarpered off to Italy, he would have profited from the recommendations of his patron.
Of course, it is one thing to have speculations. If Sackville or de Vere did have ties with the Gonzaga family, you would expect some trace of this to be found in Italian archives.
graham.a...@btinternet.com
Oct 21, 2015, 8:48:44 AM10/21/15
to
"There seem to be some connection with the Bassano family and the Shakespeare story. Aemila Lanyer named her daughter Ophelia, Bassanos appear as characters in some plays, Otello apparently has strong links to their home town near Venice, Bassano del Grappa. The Bassanos were awarded a very lucrative calf-skin export monopoly in 1593. Oxford's servant, Orazio Cogno, was friendly with the Bassano family, although that might just be down to the shared Venetian background"
Amelia played the part of Ophelia on stage, also she was the 14 year old Juliet her age precisely when the play was first aired in 1583. She played Anne Bolyn and was even painted in that role. She and Angela Holland were granted permission to act on the stage by Elizabeth. In fact the only way any of these plays could have got any showing was entirely down to the fact SHE liked them!
There's only one way a person would get the details accurate about being a Jew in the plays of William Shakespeare and that's if the person that played it was Jewish.
It would have been impossible in Elizabethan England for any of the Earls to have a full working knowledge of Italian Jewish customs and beliefs even if they had visited Italy. The only way they could have got such details is by talking to a Jewish person and that would have been unthinkable and why would they want to get the details as correct as that in the first place! That goes for Shakespeare too.
freeru...@gmail.com
Oct 21, 2015, 10:18:28 AM10/21/15
to
graham.a...@btinternet.com
Oct 21, 2015, 10:29:49 AM10/21/15
to
>
> My understanding is that current scholarship thinks it very unlikely the Bassanos were Jewish.
That remains a mystery who it was. But it was played by a Jewish man.
"Current Scholarship" on the subject of Shakespeare is the biggest load of crap going anyway.
marco
Oct 21, 2015, 2:58:01 PM10/21/15
to
> "Current Scholarship" on the subject of Shakespeare is the biggest load of crap going anyway.
Thou art a scholar; speak to it, horatio. Hamlet: I, i
Thou'rt a scholar; let us therefore eat and drink. Twelfth Night: II, iii
Sir, I hear you are a scholar,--i will be brief Merry Wives of Windsor: II, ii
marc
graham.a...@btinternet.com
Oct 21, 2015, 3:40:49 PM10/21/15
to
Actually that bit came from Elizabeth seeing the ghost of Henry VIII, with Robert Dudley telling her to speak to it. All from Elizabeth's teenage years. She certainly believed (rightly or wrongly) that Henry had been murdered.
People even today claim to see the ghost of Henry VIII so why not his daughter?
That's what great about the Shakespeare plays finding the real history of Elizabeth's life in them.
Back to the education thing....
It was well known that College students back then like to just eat and drink.
It was also known that most of them pretended to be beggars begging money off people. In other words the benefit scroungers of the Elizabethan world.
The final one implies that scholars have a short attention span.
If Shakespeare were around today, he would thump the Stratfordians and beat the crap out of all the other camps!
The story that he was once a school teacher in the country I believe came from one of the actors. And you should never believe any of them because like actors today they are the biggest drunks going. If you read most of the accounts they are also extremely sarcastic to each other. Though they actually did like each other! Ben Jonson was typical, even when he was pulled up on it, he still finishes up with an another sarcastic comment in the apology.
The above actor clearly knew that Shakespeare had beaten up a Schoolmaster in the country.
marco
Oct 21, 2015, 4:01:37 PM10/21/15
to
lots and lots of conjecturing there Graham
marc
graham.a...@btinternet.com
Oct 22, 2015, 6:47:55 AM10/22/15
to
Mind you it does come from the source himself.
seeya...@gmail.com
Jun 30, 2019, 4:07:40 AM6/30/19
to
On Sunday, September 13, 2015 at 10:40:15 AM UTC+5:30, Sabrina Feldman wrote:
> In Shakespeare's play The Merchant of Venice, Bassanio travels to Portia's home "in the company of the Marquis of Montferrat." After this single mention, the 'Marquis of Montferrat' plays no role whatsoever in the play. His gratuitous mention in one scene can only be attributed to a private whim of Shakespeare's. The author was obviously indulging in an obscure allusion to Guglielmo Gonzaga, the Duke of Mantua, who held the title of Marquis of Montferrat from 1550 to 1574.
>
> From a Sackvillian perspective, an even more intriguing fact is that on Jan. 23, 1575, Maximilian II, Holy Roman Emperor, raised Montferrat from a marquisate to a duchy. After this time, Guglielmo Gonzaga and his descendants held the title of the Duke of Montferrat. In other words, the title Marquis of Montferrat became obsolete after 1574. Its appearance in The Merchant of Venice establishes that Shakespeare learned of it from a 1574 or earlier source. It also indicates that Shakespeare never made a deliberate attempt to learn the titles of the Italian nobility in the 1590s to add a touch of realism to his play. If he had, he should have caused Bassanio to travel to Portia's home "in the company of the Duke of Montferrat."
>
> The Merchant of Venice's gratuitous and obsolete reference to the Marquis of Montferrat makes excellent sense if Thomas Sackville wrote as Shakespeare, because he traveled in Italy between 1563 and 1564. His status as an elite member of the English aristocracy would have entitled him to attend dinner parties, fêtes, and other events hosted by elite members of the Italian aristocracy. He thus had many opportunities to become familiar with gossip about the Italian nobility, and to become informed about the nobility's titles. It is entirely possible that Sackville met the then-Marquis of Montferrat in person, and perhaps even stayed at his house.
> In Shakespeare's play The Merchant of Venice, Bassanio travels to Portia's home "in the company of the Marquis of Montferrat." After this single mention, the 'Marquis of Montferrat' plays no role whatsoever in the play. His gratuitous mention in one scene can only be attributed to a private whim of Shakespeare's. The author was obviously indulging in an obscure allusion to Guglielmo Gonzaga, the Duke of Mantua, who held the title of Marquis of Montferrat from 1550 to 1574.
>
> From a Sackvillian perspective, an even more intriguing fact is that on Jan. 23, 1575, Maximilian II, Holy Roman Emperor, raised Montferrat from a marquisate to a duchy. After this time, Guglielmo Gonzaga and his descendants held the title of the Duke of Montferrat. In other words, the title Marquis of Montferrat became obsolete after 1574. Its appearance in The Merchant of Venice establishes that Shakespeare learned of it from a 1574 or earlier source. It also indicates that Shakespeare never made a deliberate attempt to learn the titles of the Italian nobility in the 1590s to add a touch of realism to his play. If he had, he should have caused Bassanio to travel to Portia's home "in the company of the Duke of Montferrat."
>
> The Merchant of Venice's gratuitous and obsolete reference to the Marquis of Montferrat makes excellent sense if Thomas Sackville wrote as Shakespeare, because he traveled in Italy between 1563 and 1564. His status as an elite member of the English aristocracy would have entitled him to attend dinner parties, fêtes, and other events hosted by elite members of the Italian aristocracy. He thus had many opportunities to become familiar with gossip about the Italian nobility, and to become informed about the nobility's titles. It is entirely possible that Sackville met the then-Marquis of Montferrat in person, and perhaps even stayed at his house.
John W Kennedy
Jun 30, 2019, 12:51:58 PM6/30/19
to
On 6/30/19 4:07 AM, seeya...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, September 13, 2015 at 10:40:15 AM UTC+5:30, Sabrina Feldman wrote:
>> In Shakespeare's play The Merchant of Venice, Bassanio travels to Portia's home "in the company of the Marquis of Montferrat." After this single mention, the 'Marquis of Montferrat' plays no role whatsoever in the play. His gratuitous mention in one scene can only be attributed to a private whim of Shakespeare's. The author was obviously indulging in an obscure allusion to Guglielmo Gonzaga, the Duke of Mantua, who held the title of Marquis of Montferrat from 1550 to 1574.
Rubbish. The character has a vital role to play that is instantly
> On Sunday, September 13, 2015 at 10:40:15 AM UTC+5:30, Sabrina Feldman wrote:
>> In Shakespeare's play The Merchant of Venice, Bassanio travels to Portia's home "in the company of the Marquis of Montferrat." After this single mention, the 'Marquis of Montferrat' plays no role whatsoever in the play. His gratuitous mention in one scene can only be attributed to a private whim of Shakespeare's. The author was obviously indulging in an obscure allusion to Guglielmo Gonzaga, the Duke of Mantua, who held the title of Marquis of Montferrat from 1550 to 1574.
obvious to anyone who has ever actually tried to construct a plot.
>> From a Sackvillian perspective, an even more intriguing fact is that on Jan. 23, 1575, Maximilian II, Holy Roman Emperor, raised Montferrat from a marquisate to a duchy. After this time, Guglielmo Gonzaga and his descendants held the title of the Duke of Montferrat. In other words, the title Marquis of Montferrat became obsolete after 1574. Its appearance in The Merchant of Venice establishes that Shakespeare learned of it from a 1574 or earlier source. It also indicates that Shakespeare never made a deliberate attempt to learn the titles of the Italian nobility in the 1590s to add a touch of realism to his play. If he had, he should have caused Bassanio to travel to Portia's home "in the company of the Duke of Montferrat."
>>
>> The Merchant of Venice's gratuitous and obsolete reference to the Marquis of Montferrat makes excellent sense if Thomas Sackville wrote as Shakespeare, because he traveled in Italy between 1563 and 1564. His status as an elite member of the English aristocracy would have entitled him to attend dinner parties, fêtes, and other events hosted by elite members of the Italian aristocracy. He thus had many opportunities to become familiar with gossip about the Italian nobility, and to become informed about the nobility's titles. It is entirely possible that Sackville met the then-Marquis of Montferrat in person, and perhaps even stayed at his house.
>
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"
0 new messages