Le temps passe, et Terry Gilliam est toujours là. A bientôt 70 ans, l’ancien Monthy Python revient sur le devant de la scène avec l’un des tous meilleurs films de cette fin d’année : L’Imaginarium du Docteur Parnassus, que l’ami Eric Nuevo, dans le 17è numéro de VERSUS décrit comme un « croisement ingénieux entre Bandits bandits, Munchausen, la légende de Faust et la psychanalyse freudienne, et qui s’incarne dans une roulotte de foire menée par un docteur millénaire et sa fille promise à un drôle de diable (joué par Tom Waits), qui permet aux curieux de visiter leur propre imaginaire ». De passage à Lyon pour faire la promotion de son dernier rejeton à l’Institut Lumière, qui lui consacre également un hommage jusqu’au 20 décembre, le plus britannique des cinéastes américains revient sur la conception du film, réalisé avec seulement 30 millions de dollars, et sur son œuvre en général.

Il n’échappera à personne que L’Imaginarium du Dr Parnassus peut se voir comme la synthèse de la filmographie du cinéaste. « J’avais envie de faire un résumé de tout mon travail, de ce que j’avais fait, de ce que j’aurais pu faire, de ce que je voudrais faire. Je voulais partir d’une image, celle d’une roulotte à l’ancienne qui arriverait dans un lieu moderne, Londres ». Le Docteur Parnassus et ses complices invitent les passants à monter sur la scène de leur théâtre ambulant, et à traverser un miroir pour plonger dans leur imaginaire, avant de se voir proposer un choix crucial, entre le Bien et le Mal. « La thématique du choix était une thématique intéressante de départ, car nous avons nous tous, des millions de choix à faire au quotidien, ce qui est une situation détestable ». Gilliam, comme à son habitude, mélange les références, avec cette fois-ci une nette prédominance théâtrale. « J’aime l’âme et la magie du théâtre, donc il y a forcément des références, et en premier lieu Shakespeare, de King Lear à Prospero dans La Tempête.(…) Pendant la période d’écriture, je lis beaucoup, je vois beaucoup de films, j’observe des peintures et des sculptures, je me documente. Tout cela à la fin forme des combinaisons qui se retrouvent effectivement dans le film. Mais je n’ai pas forcément conscience de ces références, et j’ai parfois besoin des journalistes et du public pour me les signaler. Les critiques m’amusent parce qu’ils voient des choses dans mes films que moi-même je n’avais pas vues. C’est génial et formidable, puisque cela signifie que mon film est un tremplin pour l’imagination des autres. Vous êtes mon psy. Vous décidez si je suis fou ou pas »! Citant un critique américain qui s’était exprimé à propos de Bandits bandits, le cinéaste rappelle à juste titre que son dernier film est « suffisamment intelligent pour les enfants, et assez excitant pour les adultes », avant de poursuivre que ses histoires sont « ouvertes et posent des questions sans toujours apporter de réponses. La plupart des films aujourd’hui sont formatés. J’aime bien laisser des sortes d’éclats d’obus dans la mémoire des spectateurs pour qu’ils puissent discuter et réagir autour de mes films… ». Pour l’anecdote, Gilliam révèle que la toute dernière scène du film, où le docteur Parnassus se retrouve à vendre des théâtres miniatures sur le trottoir, est un hommage à George Mélies, qui avait terminé sa vie à vendre des jouets dans les rues de Paris.

Terry Gilliam a la poisse. Au début des années 2000, il s’était lancé dans la réalisation de L’Homme qui tua Don Quichotte, avec le désastreux résultat que l’on sait. Sur le tournage de L’Imaginarium du Docteur Parnassus, il dut faire face au décès soudain de son acteur principal, Heath Ledger. Si abandonner le navire fut un temps à l’ordre du jour du cinéaste, bien lui en a pris d’avoir persévéré avec l’aide de trois talentueux « remplaçants » : Johnny Depp, Jude Law et Colin Farrell. Ce tragique incident retarda bien entendu la réalisation du film, mais n’en changea pas pour autant les plans. « Non le film ne ressemble pas à ce que j’avais imaginé, simplement parce que j’ai dû faire appel à trois autres acteurs pour continuer le rôle de Heath. Mais c’est fondamentalement le même film, car nous n’avons rien changé au scénario. Ce qui a changé, c’est que l’on peut effectivement changer de visage lorsque l’on traverse le miroir, que l’on peut devenir quelqu’un d’autre une fois de l’autre côté. Autrement, c’est strictement fidèle au scénario original et à son histoire. Il était inconcevable dès le départ, qu’un seul acteur remplace Heath. Et puisque le personnage traverse à trois reprises le miroir, il devait donc y avoir trois acteurs. Pendant six à huit mois, en salle de montage, j’avais complètement l’impression que Heath était toujours là, toujours vivant, puisque chaque jour, grâce à la magie du cinéma, je voyais les images de son personnage. Bien sur il n’était plus là pour discuter, sortir aller boire des verres, mais la période de montage a été belle pour vivre ce chagrin et cette peine ». Avant d’ajouter, très cynique : « Je crois que c’est une bonne leçon pour les jeunes acteurs. Si vous ne vous pointez pas au boulot, il y a toujours trois de vos collègues prêts à prendre votre place! »

Après l’échec commercial des Frères Grimm, et le relatif anonymat rencontré par Tideland, L’Imaginarium du Docteur Parnassus devrait permettre à Terry Gilliam de renouer avec le succès, qu’il soit critique ou public. Le réalisateur de Brazil rappelle que ses films « rapportent assez d’argent pour produire les suivants ». Interrogé sur les cinéastes qu’il apprécie aujourd’hui, Gilliam répond aimer « ses voisins du Minnesotta les frères Coen, ainsi que Guillermo Del Toro et le travail du studio Pixar ». Il avoue suivre de près les films d’Albert Dupontel (pour lequel il a d’ailleurs fait une apparition dans Enfermé dehors) et Jean-Pierre Jeunet. Quid de Tim Burton, dont l’imaginaire peut renvoyer à l’oeuvre de Gilliam, et qui réalise actuellement Alice au pays des merveilles avec Depp ? « Il a plus d’argent que moi ! ». Annoncé sur de nombreux projets tout au long de sa carrière, Terry Gilliam porte un regard critique d’une grande justesse sur celle-ci : « Je ne regrette pas de n’avoir pas réalisé certains projets, puisque je peux toujours les mettre en scène. Je ne regrette pas non plus de n’avoir pas réalisé Watchmen. Je voulais en faire une mini-série de cinq heures. Au final le film est paradoxalement trop court et trop long. Dans ma carrière, tout n’a pas toujours fonctionné comme je l’aurais souhaité, certains films ne ressemblaient pas au final à ce que je voulais en faire au départ. Mais ce n’est jamais une question de mauvais choix. C’est le destin. Tous mes films correspondent à la vision que j’avais d’eux, sauf que celle-ci pouvait être un jour géniale, un autre beaucoup moins. Parfois j’ai été d’un aveuglement total ! » Conscient d’avoir livré comme la synthèse de son œuvre, Gilliam semble vouloir se tourner vers de nouveaux horizons. « Lorsque j’ai fini L’Imaginarium du Docteur Parnassus, j’avais beaucoup de mal à imaginer quel serait un projet sur lequel je pourrais prendre autant de plaisir, et qui pourrait exprimer une complète impression de ma vision du monde. J’ai commencé à travailler de nouveau sur L’Homme qui tua Don Quichotte, et je sais qu’il y a beaucoup d’obstacles qui m’attendent. C’est un film qui est en train de grandir de façon organique, un petit peu comme une sculpture qui change au fil des jours. Je sais qu’au final ce sera le film que j’ai en tête aujourd’hui, mais je ne sais pas quels sont les chemins qui m’y mèneront ». Avant de défendre une dernière fois L’Imaginarium du Docteur Parnassus avec un retentissant « j’adore mon film !… et j’espère ne pas être le seul ».

Propos recueillis par Julien Hairault

> L’Imaginarium du Docteur Parnassus de Terry Gilliam > sortie le 11 novembre 2009
Lire aussi notre “point de vue” (critique du film) dans VERSUS n° 17

On October 28:

1510 Francis Borgia, Spanish duke and Jesuit priest was born.

Saint Francis Borgia. He is depicted performing an exorcism in this painting by Francisco Goya.

1538 The first university n the New World, the Universidad Santo Tomás de Aquino in the Dominican Republic, was established.

1664 The Duke of York and Albany’s Maritime Regiment of Foot, later to be known as the Royal Marines, was established.

1697 Canaletto, Italian artist, was born.

1846 Georges Auguste Escoffier, French chef, was born.

1848 The first railway in Spain – between Barcelona and Mataró – wass opened

1886 President Grover Cleveland dedicated the Statue of Liberty.

1890 New Zealand’s first Labour Day celebrations took place.

1893 Tchaikovsky’s Symphony No. 6 in B Minor, Pathétique, received its premiere performance in St. Petersburg.

Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky by Nikolay Kuznetsov, 1893

1903 Evelyn Waugh, English writer, was born.

1914 Jonas Salk, American biologist and physician, was born.

1918 Czechoslovakia was granted independence from Austria-Hungary.

1927 Dame Cleo Laine, English singer. was born.

1929 Joan Plowright, English actress was born.

1941 Hank Marvin,lead guitarist for The SHadows, was born.

1942 The Alaska Highway (Alcan Highway) was completed through Canada to Fairbanks, Alaska.

1946 Australian politician, former leader of the Liberal Party, John Hewson, was born.

1948 – Swiss chemist Paul Müller was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his discovery of the insecticidal properties of DDT.

1954 The modern Kingdom of the Netherlands was re-founded as a federal monarchy.

1955 Bill Gates, American software executive, was born.

1960 Landon Curt Noll, Astronomer, Cryptographer and Mathematician: youngest to hold the world record for the largest known prime 3 times, was born.

1965 Nostra Aetate, the “Declaration on the Relation of the Church with Non-Christian Religions” of the Second Vatican Council, is promulgated by Pope Paul VI; it absolves the Jews of the alleged killing of Jesus, reversing Innocent III’s 760 year-old declaration.

1967 Julia Roberts, American actress, was born.

1970 Gary Gabelich set a land speed record in a rocket-powered automobile called the Blue Flame, fueled with natural gas.

1970 Britain launched its first (and so far, only) satellite, Prospero, into low Earth orbit atop a Black Arrow carrier rocket.

1982 Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party (PSOE) won elections, leading to first Socialist government in Spain after death of Franco.  Felipe Gonzalez became Prime Minister-elect.

2007 Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner became the first woman elected President of Argentina.

Sourced from NZ History Online and Wikipedia.

Speaker Prospero Nograles not running for mayor in 2010?

Last-termer Mayor Rodrigo Duterte does not believe this crap and is daring Nograles to battle it out with daughter Vice Mayor Sara Duterte for the city’s top post.

On television, Duterte dismissed talks Nograles is not running for any local position.

He will run for mayor because I will be running for congress, said the mayor. Nograles is grooming his son lawyer Karlo for the post he would leave in 2010, and earlier had been reported as saying he would challenge Sara Duterte for the city’s top post if Duterte faces it off with Karlo in the congressional race.

Masquerader.

You stay away in your rabbit hole.

At least I’m not the one who walks in the dark alleys afraid to be seen and criticized.

You create your own tragedy to feed on; you’re a vampire who drinks from her own blood.

You invited me inside the rabbit hole you live in. We walked through it together. I told you to stay close because I was a stranger in a strange place. We trotted through the gloomy streets of Beirut.

Cars with high beam headlights passed by. I saw an epileptic guy have a seizure when a police car cruised by. He fell on the ground desperate and he remained on the ground unseen and uncared for. The darkness swallowed him as it does to everything that lies on the floor.

This is your world.

I saw a guy shouting and cussing as he wiped the shit off the back of his shoe. You told me never to walk on the shit-full sidewalks. We walked on paved roads, weary of speeding cars and phantom motorcycles. I noticed small bats flying above us, appearing only slightly in the dim light that glowed from a distance to be my only desirable destination. But we turned right and walked through a very small door with the words “Et in Arcadia ego” carved on it; it locked behind it much of the insane.

This is your world.

I walked in behind you and the first impression that crept into me was that of the loud music. The second was that of the bright light of the TV which screened neutral model faces on top of boney bodies feigning mannequins. You told me to sit down and I joined the masquerade.

I was the only one there without a mask, in your world.

Human friends grow further apart with every eluding equivocation and exaggeration. You find more truth on the toilet wall scribbling. Their voices rose louder by time for them to hear each other over the deafening volume of the ball’s music. Their eyes contract because of the low light. Their minds numb with alcohol. Soon, everyone became a mere contour of a person. Soon, people only talked to themselves and lied to themselves. They said that we all stand together. They said that we are all for one and one for all. They said that if one falls we all fall, but the truth is that I fell alone.

I fell in your world.

There is a common wealth to an enactment done by many people. It’s a change in character every time the mask is changed. It’s an escape from separateness, albeit a harmful one, but still an escape. What good is a world in which we stand naked in front of the throes of rejection and the heat of perdition?

The clock tower chimes and becomes a church bell tolling. Only the mask dies, only the construct one has chosen to be and not what one is. But I, without any mask, danced with death alone.

The mourning wails are never heard in your world.

When I sat, you never came back. I know not if you wore a mask, but I never saw you again. I still live in the rabbit hole, estranged and alone. I am the outsider who was trapped in Prospero’s Masquerade.

For the insider, death does not exist and there is no exit.

For the outsider, death is the only thing. I have abandoned all hope upon entering here, awaiting the clock bells to toll for me. Timor mortis conturbat me. Fear of death disturbs me no more. There is no redemption in this Arcadian masquerade.

Every manuscript of Shakespeare’s is long lost, and almost every shred of his writing. A few signatures, and a few questionable lines in the plays of others, is all we have of his. And, as far as I know, all the costumes of the original performances, the props… there is nothing left. But imagine if there existed a real book, not a prop book, which symbolized one of the most important concepts in one of Shakespeare’s most important and influential works? This is arguably the case, and I actually held this book in my hands.

Cornelis Drebbel, from his "Elements"

The character of Prospero, from the Tempest, is sometimes described as an autobiographical one. I agree with that line of thought… I do like the idea that Prospero voiced for Shakespeare his leaving the theater, of giving up his art for retirement. But besides the biography of Prospero, it is concurrently argued that he is partially inspired, and based on, Rudolf II of Prague, and Cornelis Drebbel. Robert Grudin makes this case in his 1991 article, “Rudolf II of Prague and Cornelis Drebbel: Shakespearean Archetypes?” (The Huntington Library Quarterly, Vol. 54, No. 3 (Summer 1991), pp. 181-205). After drawing similarities to the sciences and “magic” of both men to the works of Shakespeare, and to Prospero and his magical island, he concludes, “Shakespeare took aspects of both Rudolf and Drebbel for his characterization of Prospero.”

Prospero

And so Cornelis Drebbel, one of the most forgotten yet influential men of the Renaissance, is not forgotten in the works of Shakespeare. In this case his influence has to be surmised… his works are not directly mentioned as they are by Ben Jonson or Francis Bacon; nor is the character as obvious as Jonson’s Subtle of the Alchemist… also based on Drebbel. But knowing the profound influence Drebbel did have on his contemporaries, and the close relation Shakespeare must have had to the court of James, to Jonson, and to Bacon, there can be no doubt that Drebbel must have had an influence on Shakespeare.

Given that, then, let’s look at the one known (although little-known) possession of Drebbel’s still in existence: A little book of alchemy by Basil Valentine which, it seems, Drebbel carried with him in his pocket for years. This would be the 1603 edition of Basil Valentine’s 1603 “Of Natural and Supernatural Things”, rebound with his 1602 Treatise on the Tincture of Metals. This book was apparently given by Drebbel’s son in law, Abraham Keuffler, after Drebbel’s death, to John Winthrop (12 February 1606 – 26 March 1676), governor of Connecticut. Winthrop had an interest in all things scientific, and reported on many personal observations and experiments directly to the British Royal Society. Perhaps the book was given to Winthrop when he visited London in 1641-1643. At any rate, the book followed Winthop back to the Colonies, and eventually ended up in New York City, in the collection of his works and papers in the New York Society Library.

Owned by Drebbel? Gnomon in the Adler Museum

Of course I was very interested in seeing this book. In my years of studying Drebbel I was painfully aware that everything the man constructed or possessed had long since disappeared or lost his attribution… save one small gnomon in the collection of the Adler museum… a device constructed when Drebbel was only about 2 years old, but possibly owned by him… as it has his name engraved on it. And then I became aware of this book. I made an appointment to see it in person… it was described as having many “nota bene”… margin notes… and the idea that some of these notes would contain a clue to my work with the Voynich, or possibly give hints as to the interests and work of Drebbel in some personal way, was intriguing. But of course there was an element of interest in the emotional power such an object this book would possess for me… a book owned and carried by a man I had found to be so important to history, having influenced Bacon’s philosophies and the New Atlantis, and then, though indirectly, the foundation of the Royal Society.

As all things go, we are sometimes surprised at what we find when we are looking for something else. For although Drebbel is famous for many things, or at least, should be… his submarine, his isolating and production of oxygen, his fine engravings for Goltzius (and his own)… his perpetual machines… his fine optical devices, including the first quality twin-convex-lensed microscopes (one of which was the very device Faber peered through, and so first coined the term “microscope”)… although Drebbel can hold claim to these and many other discoveries and inventions, he was most known for his discovery of a process for manufacturing a brilliant red cochineal dye, the “Drebbel Red”. Drebbel himself was unable to successfully commercialize this process, but his two sons in laws… the Keufflers… did. And one of these sons, Abraham, is the above mentioned son in law who gave Winthrop Drebbel’s little alchemal.

The exact process Drebbel used, and exactly how he came to it, is and has been a subject of long debate. The author Amy Butler Greenfield recounts the history and impact of Cochineal dyes in her excellent book, “A Perfect Red”, and has a very insightful chapter on Drebbel and his process. She also experimented with the process herself, and has a webpage showing the procedure and results. It remains that the famous red dye of Drebbel figures greatly in the history and industry of Europe. Given that, it might then be understood the excitement I felt when I discovered that a few of the pages of Drebbel’s personal alchemal tome were splashed with an unusual and brilliant red stain! As I wrote to Ms. Greenfield, “…I was very surprised to see that several of the pages are stained with splashes of a red dye. Now of course this could be just about anything, including cranberry juice or cherry soda. But considering the controversies and interest, and the historical significance of Drebbel’s actual dye process, I thought I would bring this to your attention.”

Again, we cannot know what the red is on the pages of this book. Ms. Greenfield agrees. But considering the historical importance of this dye process, perhaps it might be of interest to someone, at some point, to test the spill. It would be, to my knowledge, the only existing example of Drebbel’s original red dye.

Amy Butler Greenfield's experiment

So like Drebbel’s cloudy legacy, touching on so much, but so silently, this book sits un-noticed in a small collection in New York … and yet represents powerful influences on both literature, and possibly, science and industry. It conceivably reflects not only one of the most profound literary concepts, a book of Prospero, but also possibly contains the last remaining evidence of one of the most important discoveries of the real Prospero, Drebbel’s Scarlet Red.

It was surprising to me when, at the end of The Tempest, Prospero decides that all he wanted was to be returned to his dukedom, and he didn’t want revenge. It seemed like such a sudden transformation from the man who conjured a vicious storm in order to shipwreck his foes on the island. It didn’t seem like there was a point between that act of magic and his final act of mercy where his motivations changed. But now I’m reconsidering that.

I think that there may very well have been a point where Prospero decided that there was no need for revenge. That just returning things to their natural order would be enough.

Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve,
And, like this insubstantial pageant faded,
Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff
As dreams are made on; and our little life
Is rounded with a sleep.

When I read this now, it seems to me that Prospero was getting tired. Tired of his life of hatred for his brother and the others.

If the lives we live are fleeting, and will inevitably fade into nothingness, what point could there be to base your life on a single goal which would ultimately leave your life hollow when accomplished?

So Prospero decided forgiveness was the better way. It would allow him to spend his life in a more fulfilling manner.

Even though his life would be just as insubstantial as before, it would mean more while it still existed.

*A reminder:  Only group A is scheduled to post a conversation paper response this week.  I encourage everyone, however, to keep track of the dialogue on the blog.

The last lines in The Tempest, which may in fact be the last lines written by Shakespeare in his lifetime, have puzzled and wondered critics of the play for a long time.  In this epilogue, Prospero delivers a soliloquy and reflects on the events that have just transpired.

What is the significance of Prospero’s final speech, given what we’ve seen take place throughout the play?  Note:  when you think about this question, consider the responses to last week’s conversation paper topics and build on what’s been suggested already.

Why is Prospero asking the audience to “set me free”?  Is this a moment of pastoral introspection, and if so, to what degree?

Does the fact that this epilogue occurs change our understanding of the play?  Does it give us a new insight into Prospero’s perspective?

How would our reading of the play change if we did, as some critics have argued, see Prospero’s epilogue as a “signing off” moment from Shakespeare to his audiences?

Yes. I did. I myself am still in a state of shock   .

I finished it late last night – because i just couldn’t stop!! and when i was done i was pleasantly surprised to realize that i enjoyed every single page of it. It’s not that i disliked Shakespeare’s plays, it’s just that they didn’t appeal to me. I read Romeo and Juliet just out of curiosity and found it sad but otherwise dull, Julius Caesar actually annoyed me with all those arrogant characters, MacBeth was too bloody and Twelfth Night was wholly unrealistic and the ending… well it sucked – i love a happy ending but that was plain dumb, sorry.

Miranda by John William Waterhouse

BUT The Tempest was absolutely wonderful! Shakespeare transforms his characters throughout the play, making us sympathize with them and then gradually showing us that they don’t really deserve our pity and vice versa. Also, by doing so we can see that most of the characters are morally gray – just like in real life.  I mean Caliban is at first someone to feel sorry for, but by the end of the play you just don’t care anymore because afterall he tried to kill Prospero – despite the fact that it wasn’t wholly unfair (see the morally gray i’m talking about ??).

I think the only two characters that are good throughout the play are Ferdiand and Gonzalo and mind you i still think they were somewhere around 10% evil ( Gonzalo watched as an injustice was being done and just shut up – but then what could he have done, and Ferdiand probably knew about the whole Antonio deal…). Anyways Ferdinand is my favorite character just ’cause he was such sucker for Miranda .

Hope all of you out there who just gave up on Shakespeare will decide to give him another chance and read The Tempest because i really think it is one of his best works…

Well since it’s a gloomy afternoon, I’m off to see Audrey Hepburn in Sabrina … Have a nice and hopefully sunny day !

Here’s the link to the entire play with note entries and a modern translation next to the original text.

Obviously the situation has changed/
between us. Why-How?/
I’m sorry you don’t think/
I’m worth letting know./
I hope you’re happy. Be well,/
live long and Prospero!

Scene with Miranda and Ferdinand, Angelika Kauffmann

I want to really like this painting. On paper, so to speak, it sounds great. Not to be sexist, by it is by a woman painter, and I do like to see historical achievements by women. And it’s about a Shakespeare scene, which inherently holds interest for me.

In reality, however, it doesn’t quite win me over. I don’t want to be too picky, but I am going to be honest, so I suppose we’ll see if that ends up sounding too picky.

First problem: the oval. By explicitly framing the scene, it reminds me that I am removed from the action. Given the fascination with tableaux at some points in history (though I associate it more with the 19th century), this may be the desired effect.

Second problem: the cave ovals. The cave mouth Prospero’s sitting in is, perhaps, oddly regular, but I can forgive that. What’s with the other arch, though — the one behind Miranda? She and Ferdinand can’t be in a cave because there’s a tree growing there. So there’s just a random arch? Unlikely, as are the two plants that are growing picturesquely on the bare white stone.

Third problem: Prospero. I know why he’s here, but he just seems so… iconic! Look. There’s his book. Look. There’s his staff. At the same time, I feel kind of bad for him. He and Miranda have been marooned on this island for years, but she manages to come up with a fashionable dress in nice materials, and he has to wear something that they’d make senile old grandfathers wear. (~I~ wouldn’t do that, of course.) And after engineering this whole Miranda/Ferdinand thing, he doesn’t look like he’s even looking at them, and he’s not reading his book, either. He looks like he’s still telling a story he started half an hour ago, and the kids stopped listening.

Fourth problem: Ferdinand. I don’t like to make fun of people for the way they look, so I won’t comment on his face, but I am impressed that the feathers in his hat and his lace collar and cuffs survived the sea water so nicely. Maybe he can give Prospero the name of his tailor (and/or laundry service).

Also, I know that there was a vocabulary of stylized gestures that were considered appropriate and suitable for decorum, but I think they’ve been carried too far with Ferdinand: unless he has anti-gravity superpowers, he can’t possibly hold up a log of that (or any) size by laying his hand on the side of it. No wonder Miranda’s offering to help him.

Why I chose the picture despite all this: it’s Miranda, and it is, after all, depicting an interesting passage in The Tempest:

MIRANDA

If you’ll sit down,
I’ll bear your logs the while: pray, give me that;
I’ll carry it to the pile.

FERDINAND

No, precious creature;
I had rather crack my sinews, break my back,
Than you should such dishonour undergo,
While I sit lazy by.

Technically, he doesn’t say that hauling logs for firewood isn’t woman’s work; he says that he wouldn’t sit around like a lump watching her do the work by herself. Having hauled logs myself, I also think it’s funny that both of them focus as much on the question of the dishonour of performing menial labor as on the difficulty of the labor.

Mostly, I like that she steps up and isn’t afraid to work, even if she’s never done it before, and Shakespeare probably ought to get more credit for that than Kauffmann.

The Prospero Cipher was written over three years time, late in the 1980’s. One agent took a look at the manuscript and told me there was no story, or too many of them. After re-reading it, I decided that was the least of its deficiencies, and I would not add to the number of mediocre books cluttering dusty shelves in failing bookstores.

But I feel no such compunction about adding to the number of blogs. Infinite room in little riches.

The characters in the book are all figments of my laboring imagination. But true to many people in my life. Some of the places, such as Lookout Mountain, Chattanooga and others are real. Many are not.
The story starts with a flashback, involving three of the figures in a tale of misplaced ambitions and hopes. Real life, in other words, although fictional in this version.

Following is the flashback. There are five parts to the book, with varying numbers of chapters per part. The individual chapters will be linked from the footer blocks at the bottom of the page.

On the uplifted, narrow tableland of Lookout Mountain, two families will be wracked by a storm of their progeny’s making. The Lauderdale family, reduced by his father’s early death to the straitened rule of Cantrell Cauthen Lauderdale, IV, ‘Punk’ to all, and the Talbots, headed by Stearns Talbot, the actual power in the Lauderdale enterprises held in his trusteeship for Punk. Stearns has a son, Jester, whose early association with Punk lays the foundation of the story.

The epigraphs for each part from The Tempest, by William Shakespeare–

Oh! I haue suffered
With those that I saw suffer: A braue vessell
(Who had no doubt some noble creature in her)
Dash’d all to peeces: O the cry did knocke
Against my very heart:
–Act I.II.86-90

Bom, muitos nunca ouviram falar, muitos pensam que só tem índios,  muitos pensam que não é nada mais do que o “lixo que sobrou de Goiás” Desciclopédia, porém ao contrário do que muitos pensam esse é um estado próspero como poucos o são, lembro me o tempo que demorou para abrir um Pão de Açúcar em Goiânia, enquanto que na capital do mais novo estado do Brasil já está para abrir isso em 21 anos de vida, além desse já está sendo construído a unidade do Atacadão, Grupo Carrefour, na capital, Palmas.

Então, como atual palmense, sendo que já vivi em três estados brasileiros, Goiás, Minas Gerais e Tocantins tenho que defender essa cidade e esse estado, visto que, como um novo estado o povo age como se fosse um corpo estranho dentro do Brasil, mas não é bem assim que acontece, pois o Estado é um dos que mais recebe investimentos estrangeiros, além disso mesmo que em uma propaganda indireta e distorcida foi gravado Survivors, no Jalapão, região que tem um grande misto de atrações desde deserto, grandes quedas da água e até mesmo um poço de água que não afunda, natural e não construído pelos homens.

Houve aqui no Tocantins um seminário internacional muito importante, pode se concluir visto que Edgar Morin, um grande filósofo francês, veio para dar palestras, porém a imprensa pareceu não se importar com a visita do mesmo ao Brasil, provavelmente pensaram que era uma notícia falsa, pois como um seminário tão importante pode acontecer em Tocantins? Simples, é um estado novo que tem tudo para se fazer e pode começar a ser feito tudo de modo sustentável.

Entretanto, se eu fosse falar detalhadamente desse estado eu gastaria muitos posts, eu só queria que o povo parasse de negligenciar esse estado, visto que ele é novo mais tem também uma importância para a nação se não ele não viria a surgir.

OBS.: Sobre o seminário é só clicar aqui: http://www.distintosolhares.com/pt-br/

The Rosicrucian Fama Fraternitatis makes reference to several important works. The “Book M” is one of these. From meta-religion.com:

“In Damcar, the Fama recounts the learned men ‘to whom Nature was discovered’ received the precocious boy ‘not as a stranger but as one whom the had long expected; they called him by his name, and showed him many other secrets’ – among them mathematics, physics, alchemy, and a document the Fama refers to as the Book M. This last treasure, whose full name is thought by some to be Book Mundi, or Book of the World, is said to have held the secrets of the universe. Young Rosenkreutz decided that he would translate this prodigious work into Latin, so that he might share it with others upon his return to Europe.”

And what language was Rosenkreutz translating this book “out of”, if “into” Latin? From the Fama:

“After this manner began the Fraternity of the Rosie Cross–first, by four persons only, and by them was made the magical language and writing, with a large dictionary, which we yet dayly use to God’s praise and glory, and do find great wisdom therein.”

So the answer is, that the Book M was written in a, “magical language and writing”. Now from New Atlantis, about the Book of Solomon:

“Some think it beareth the founder’s name a little corrupted, as if it should be Solomon’s House. But the records write it as it is spoken. So as I take it to be denominate of the King of the Hebrews, which is famous with you, and no strangers to us; for we have some parts of his works which with you are lost; namely, that natural history which he wrote of all plants, from the cedar of Libanus to the moss that groweth out of the wall; and of all things that have life and motion.”

So in New Atlantis, in Bensalem, we have the lost works of Solomon, which included “…all plants…”, and “…all things that have life and motion.” Now I come to a man, John Heydon, described by Elias Ashmole as “an ignoramus and a cheat”, and Francis Yates as a, “strange character…an astrologer, geomancer, alchemist, of a most extreme type.”

See wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Heydon

John Heydon wrote “The Holy Guide” (pub. 1662), in which he shamelessly rips off Bacon’s New Atlantis, and re-writes many portions of it as a straightforward Rosicrucian text. Of course the New Atlantis is undeniably Rosicrucian in it’s premise, and contains not only RC tenets and philosophy, but also RC symbolism. But Heydon took it a step further, and stripped away Bacon’s reluctance, in a sense, in his version. On the lost works of Solomon reference in NA, Heydon reworks this into,

“…we have some parts of works which with you are lost, namely the Rosie Crucian M, which he wrote of all things past, present, and to come”.

We might ask “of what importance?” is Heydon’s later interpretation of The New Atlantis? Yates and others saw his view of the work as the intent of the work, and also how the work was perceived in his time, i.e., as a Rosicrucian document. It is considered that Bacon, or his friend and posthumous publisher, in being cautious, stripped The New Atlantis of the most obvious and direct Rosicrucian references. James I would not have been open to such RC references and connections. The later John Heydon can be seen as having returned, or added, originally references which reflect the intent of the work.

Now imagine if a faux book were created, meant to look either like the Book M, or the Book of Solomon, from New Atlantis, between about 1610 to 1620. Would it not have a look of mystery, and yet contain many plants, and scientific devices, both familiar and yet somehow mysterious? And contain both borrowed and invented bits of astrology, astronomy… all perhaps Hermetic-inspired, but enigmatic illustrations of these themes, nonetheless? And in addition we know that if such a book were created, it would need to be written in a “magical language and writing”, in order to accurately reflect the fictional original. And it would, to complete the effect, have to be made to much older look than it really was. But unavoidably, it would possibly give us a sense, today, of a “newness”, because it would be difficult to mimic exactly the look of a book one to two hundred years older. We can only imagine it, because so far as we know, no such book has been found. And if the Voynich is such a book, it would be the first, with nothing exactly like it to compare it to.

The Book M was not alone in the crypt with the well preserved remains of our mysterious figure:

In the tomb of Rosenkreutz, “In another chest were looking-glasses of divers virtues, as also in another place were little bells, burning lamps, and chiefly wonderful artificial songs–”

Of course I am struck by the inclusion of “looking-glasses of divers virtues”, as they are clearly not referring to glasses simply as corrective vision, but either telescopes of microscopes, or both. Optics both as devices and a concept ran through the philosophies of the time, and were a tool of the new movement toward inductive reasoning. The tomb of Rosenkreutz and the New Atlantis contained optics for much the same reasons: for what they meant to the new concepts promulgated by the Rosicrucian movement. And, as I personally would argue, why I believe optics may have been included in the Voynich.

Looking at these fantasy cipher tomes: Book M, The Book of Solomon from Bensalem… and remember, Prospero’s books: I’m not so certain, if all three of these faux books were created in 1610/20, that we would be able to tell them apart today… or, for that matter, apart from the Voynich Manuscript. And if the Voynich is one of these books, everyone has been looking for answers in the wrong places, which would then make it unsurprising that no answers have been found.

-post adapted and updated from a May 2008 VMS-net entry

Sie halten es für eine märchenhafte Übertreibung, dass Prospero, abgesetzter Herzog von Mailand in Shakespeares “The Tempest”, mit ein bisschen weißer Magie in der Lage gewesen sein soll, den Verstand seiner Feinde zum Flirren und Schwirren zu bringen? Aber wie erklären Sie sich dann, was am 30. Oktober 1938 an der Ostküste der USA geschah, als das von Orson Welles gegründete Mercury Theatre on the Air eine Hörspiel-Adaption von H. G. Wells’ Science-Fiction-Klassiker “Der Krieg der Welten” ausstrahlte? Das Massenmedien-Wunderkind Welles und seine künstlerischen Kollaborateure gaukelten am Vorabend von Halloween den Radiohörern draußen im Lande vor, Marsmenschen seien in New Jersey gelandet, und jetzt könnten die Menschen live die weiteren Entwicklungen dieses Ereignisses von intergalaktischer Tragweite in Form von Vor-Ort-Reportagen verfolgen. Eine Massenpanik breitete sich im Lande aus, während die Marsmännchen auf den Radiowellen unerbittlich ihren vermeintlichen Vernichtungskrieg gegen die menschliche Spezies fortsetzten, und obwohl der Sender CBS wiederholt auf den fiktionalen Charakter der Sendung hinwies, waren manche braven Amerikaner sogar schon entschlossen, lieber ihrem Leben ein Ende zu setzen, als in die Fänge dämonischer Marsianer zu geraten.
Das kann passieren, wenn Prospero einen Augenblick nicht aufpasst beim Herumspielen mit seinem Zauberstab.
Orson Welles war übrigens von Kindheit an ein Fan von William Shakespeare.

Diré algo horrendo, pero cierto y no lo malinterpreten. El hecho de que el mejor amigo de un amigo mio muriera la semana pasada, me ayudó a superar un poco mi cnonstante depresión. Ahora, me siento terrible por loq e sucedió, y realemnte, cuando mi amigo me llamó llorando como nunca lo había escuchado llroar, estube a punto de desmoronarme también, y recordé lo d emi hermana y mi padre y mi tía y mi otra tía, y ciertamente sabía como se sentía él. Diferente y cerca a la vez, lo mismo peor pero el mismo dolor. Me sentí tan mal. Quicé ir y estar con él, pero (y por ello lo admiro) honestamente preifiró estar solo. Ha pasado una semana y sé que su cabeza debe ser un camino de carbones ardientes, pero en el exterior logra mantener la compostura. Yo llevo dos años, dos años para recuperarme, y aún soy demasiado inestable. Lo admiro mucisimo. Y cada vez que me siento deprimido en estos ultimos días, solo me basta pensar en que él la esta pasando peor y que no tengo ya derecho a quejarme, y me recompongo…

Pero hoy me atacó una depre menos… emo? no lo sé. El dinero.
El estupido dinero. Este amigo mio, alguien a quien también envidio un poco, está comodamente rodeado del mismo. No es millonario, pero vive en zona medio alta y todo… y puede comprarse ropa a su gusto un par de veces al mes… la ultima vez que yo pude fue hace más de un año, y en diciembre ciertamente sostuve el dinero para comprarla, pero preferí gastrlo en salir y romper mi aislamiento en mi casa un poco más d elo previsto. No me arepiento. Y siempre muestor la imagen de “la ropa no es importante, yo estyo bien como estoy con mi ropa vieja y barata” peor e smentira. Me intento convencer a mi mismo, peor por dios… salgo con él, saben? y él compra cosas donde queira y un día quizo entrar en Zara y yo que iba a objetar? y había una simple franela, negra, talla S, pegada, que me moría por tener. ciertamente era barata, 90mil, si mal no recuerdo, pero no los tneog, y no veo la posibilidad de tenerlos y poder gastarlos, no pronto. Y me sienot mal. Porque lo veo como algo tan básico, tan elemental, y no estoy pidiendo una chauqeta de 300mil bs… una tonta franela nega sencilla, de tela comoda, diseño sencillo, que no llega ni a cien mil… es mucho pedir?

Pero no puedo quejarme. no tengo derecho. Porque temo dar los pasos que pueden ayudarme a lograr prosperidad y estabilidad. Diré algo que, bueno, no improta si lo creen o noXD quienes me conozcan me creeran jeje… sé ahcer cosas que me podrían hacer realmente adinerado. Puedo hacer trabajos que en tres semanas me darían diez mil dolares, si encuentro quien queira apgar por ello obviamente. Todo legal:) trabajo en el campo audiovisual.

Pero mi sicologa decía que yo era tan exigente conmigo mismo que no me dejaba hacer nada, y en parte es cierto.Mientras no cobre y sienta amor al trabajo que hago, lo hago bien y lo hago. Pero soy mi jefe y conozo mis limites. Que sucederá cuando alguien me pdia algo que no sé hacer? yo me pido a mi mismo eso algunas veces, pero si no lo logro, lo cambio, y me complasco a mi como jefe. O procuro pedirme cosas que, en lineas generales, creo saber como lograrlo, o en teoria conocer el camino para aunque nunca lo halla practicado ni estudiado a fondo. Pero que sucederá cuando alguien me exiga un nivel que no puedo entregar…??? que sucederá si fracaso? y me caigo? y vuelvo a deprimirme? me siento fragil, inestable… y no sé si es correcto que espere a estar estable emocionalmente para comenzar a buscar trabajo y arriesgarme a las caidas…

En fin… hub algo en grey’s anatomy que me gustó mucho. una frase que decía algo así:” todos tenemos sombras tras nosotros, y elunico modo de sehacernos de ellas es apagando todas las luces, enfrnetnado la oscuridad”…

Me lanzaré relaemnte? me arriesgaré a las caidas? todo es tan confuso. QUieor ser feliz por sobre todo, y sano mental y fisicamente. Pero tengo miedo de dar un paso en falso en la oscuridad.

O aniversário é meu, mas a festa é nossa.

De surpresa a luz é acesa denunciando um bolo de aniversário.
Amigos escondidos pipocam por todos os lados desejando-me prosperidade, saúde e muitos anos de vida. Balões de festas coloridos, confetes, serpentinas, chapeuzinhos, língua de sogra enfeitam o ambiente. Apagam-se as luzes em quanto à velinha sobre o bolo é acesa e o “Parabéns a Você” é cantado acompanhado de palmas. De olhos fechados um pedido é feito e o primeiro pedaço de bolo é dedicado a todos os familiares e convidados.
Na platéia alguém gritou discurso e logo todos os presentes engrossaram o coro.
- Não foi por acaso que nós nos conhecemos foi Deus que colocou cada um de vocês em minha vida e eu o agradeço por tudo até aqui conquistado. Muito obrigado pela presença e o companheirismos de todos! Pois o aniversário é meu, mas a festa é nossa! Viva a amizade.
 
Produzido por: Leonardo Silvestre.
Contato: spsantos2@hotmail.com
Site: http://spsantos2.spaces.live.com/default.aspx

Woodland Chapel                                     (an original poem by Mark Nielsen)

I will take this twig for a rosary,
breaking off one inch at a time
with each silent prayer
(for the dying).

This pile of logs, my altar.
This woodland stream, my well.
From it I shall draw and drink
the water of abundant life,
a communion wine that quenches
and does not run out.

I hear the song in my ears
of bees and birds
and the dandy lion,
roaring as it goes triumphantly to seed,
then spreading out, flying to freedom
in response to the Spirit’s galeforce wind.

I will take another twig –
this one Y-shaped,
like a divining rod.
I will listen to it,
be led by it,
toward fresh water
in the pond beyond.
It will lead me to refreshment
if I surrender my steps
to its divine prompting.

Or, turning it around,
I will make a private joke with the twig,
turning it into the antennae
of an ant.

Now I am the ant:
probing, picking up signals,
sent by the magician’s own Ariel
and all those sprites
–unseen messengers–
in the woods around me.

Lo sapevi che l’ALTRO che menziona Paolo nelle sue epistole è Gesucristo Uomo?

Gesucristo Uomo spiega la lettera ai Romani 7: 4 dove parla dell’ALTRO, che è il resuscitato, il ponte per portare frutto a Dio. Non è Gesù di Nazaret.  

Di cosa vive la Chiesa Cattolica? Di Gesù di Nazaret (del rosario, l’immagine del bambinello, del Sacro Cuore, la croce…). Di questo vive anche la chiesa protestante. Lo stesso Gesù di Nazaret lo ha detto: “…E chi cadrà su questa pietra (…) lo stritolerà” (Matteo 21: 44).

Siamo già morti alla LEGGE, non ci può condannare e adesso siamo sottomessi all’ALTRO (lettera ai Romani 7: 4), ma la RELIGIONE si intestardisce ad essere di Gesù manifestato in carne, il “biondo di Galilea”. Adesso siamo di colui che è resuscitato dai morti per portare “frutto”, non per le varie denominazioni, se fai questo ottieni duemila anni di ritardo, sei stregato (lettera ai Galati 3: 1). Stai con un altro marito, in carne, dobbiamo portarti ad un ALTRO marito, a colui che è Resuscitato. Cosa succede ad una donna quando muore suo marito? Che si può risposare. E cosa succede alla chiesa quando muore Gesù di Nazaret? Si deve sposare con l’ALTRO, colui che è resuscitato, questa è l’analogia.

Nella Prima lettera ai Corinzi 3: 10 Paolo parla di un fondamento che è Cristo e poi afferma: ED UN ALTRO COSTRUISCE SOPRA. Questo “ALTRO”, lo stesso della lettera ai Romani 7:4, il resuscitato, si è nascosto in un corpo glorificato e poi ha messo questa semente nel Dottor José Luis De Jesús Miranda, Gesucristo Uomo: dal 1973 si è manifestata in Lui questa “radice di Iesse” e, questo germoglio, fu depositato in questo velo.

Oggi i religiosi apostati stanno ancora con Gesù di Nazaret e questo non li rende cristiani; e neanche fissare lo sguardo su Gesucristo in croce; ci rende cristiani comprendere la nostra vera identità (sani, completi, prosperi, benedetti, senza macchia, perfetti…).     

Dichiariamo che gli occhi del tuo intelletto sono illuminati e riceviamo che tu vedi Dio in Gesucristo Uomo e porti frutti per Lui.   

Apprezzato Lettore: Solo il Dottor José Luis De Jesús Miranda ci esorta a che veniamo chiamati a ricevere lo spirito che esce dalla sua bocca, che è lo splendore della Sua venuta.

Benedetto!

 Why is the play titled such? The storm only lasts for the first few scenes. Is it because the fundamental struggle between good and evil is, like a storm, a tempest?

Is Prospero a vigilante? Does he only want revenge? Or does he want resolution and love?  Prospero was motivated by love for Miranda.

A very famous, much praised Danish king over part of England (Knute the Great) had his throne placed on a beach and ordered the waves not to touch his feet. Of course the waves did not obey the king, but continued to wash ashore. He did this in order to show his people that he was not as great or powerful as his subjects were making him out to be and that there were powers greater than he was.

Prospero seems to also recognize the greater powers to which he is subject. He does use his magic to try and point out that people are also subject to powers greater than themselves, that there is clearly defined good, and clearly defined evil, and that knowledge does give power, but only a limited kind. His magical powers are directly connected to his books, and consequently, education and learning. Is Shakespeare using this as a type of allegory for showing how useful education is, but that even with all the education in the world, men are still men and under control of greater powers such as nature, fate, or GOD?

“Ariel” is an elemental spirit of air, fire, water, and earth.

What does the island look like? Whose description of it is correct? Gonzalo or Antonio? Could it be both? A&A are bad guys – morally desert, so they see the island as brown and sparse. Gonzalo is good, spiritually rich in character, he sees a lush paradise. This could also be seen as the varying levels of gratitude – A&A had little or no gratitude because of their pride, while Gonzalo is incredibly grateful and humble in spirit.

“We are such stuff as dreams are made of.”

The stage of the Globe theatre could be likened to the island: what you see is what you bring to it. Audience members would be required to use their imagination and so provide the necessary missing components to those plays they watched. Shakespeare, as a playwright, is like Prospero, the magician. He creates  a type of magic and uses “spirits” as his slaves, in a sense.

Gonzalo: “And all of us, ourselves, when no man was his own.”

Shakespeare also uses his “magic” to teach others their flaws, and bring a sort of reconciliation to them.

Prospero uses his magic to show others more about themselves – the three evil ones through a stinking swamp, the courtiers through a maze. While this means of magic is “fakery” or “trickery,”  it can lead to more wisdom about true matters. Just as fiction or drama can show great human truth about human interactions or nature while being fake or not real.

The Tempest also deals with the subject of usurpation.

Fairness issue with Prospero: Dr. Donovan claimed that one cannot be “just” when there is no one to be just to. So, Prospero’s use of magic on an island deserted by humans, would not necessarily be an issue of fairness (as magic usually is), and explains why Prospero did not practice magic until he was on the island, then gave it up when he moved off of it.

Who is Prospero?

Is he a villain of The Tempest for owning slaves and practicing magic, or is he rather a noble hero because he uses his magic to help others rather than himself?

First off, Prospero is a mysterious character;he rarely ever makes the reasons for his actions explicitly known. However, his great love for his daughter, Miranda, seems to be a key motivator for many of his actions. I see it as one of the main reasons that he took hold of the chance offered him by “Providence” and caused the shipwreck of the king and company. Some see this action as selfish, they believe that it evidences Prospero’s selfishness and they argue that he uses his magic to gain power over others. I do not see it this way though for several reasons.

First, Prospero did study books (magic in this play is closely linked with “book knowledge”) back while he was still Duke of Milan. However, he is not mentioned to have actually practiced any magic at this time.  This seems to indicate that he did have a knowledge of magic, but he deliberately chose not to use it until he was exiled.

Once he was exiled, his magic was virtually the only means available to him of providing any hope of escape for him or his daughter.  From the play, we learn that he gradually used his magic powers to kill Caliban’s mother, and eventially enslave Caliban as well as Ariel. This act of slave ownership has often been used to argue against Prospero. However, in Caliban’s case, Prospero first tried to teach Caliban language and he even took Caliban into his own house and treated him very well. Only after Caliban rebelled did Prospero enslave him, and perhaps he did this to ensure the safety of Miranda. With Ariel, Prospero did not have as much reason to enslave him as Caliban, yet Prospero does keep his word and set Ariel free at the play’s end. I think that maybe there was some benefit for Ariel in being Prospero’s slave.

Prospero seems to be much more concerned with reconcilation than revenge.  He does not kill or harm his enemies at all, he merely teaches them a lesson and restores his rightful property. I also believe he does this for Miranda’s sake. He wanted to give her a future, and if he did not have his dukedom, what would she have? He also seems to be very concerned with making sure that her husband was a man of good character and faithful affections. Prospero’s magic is used to effect good in people, not evil.

Yet his magic can only go so far. There is an interesting parallel between Prospero and God. Prospero is given a god-like power, but he is still under another’s authority. He could not cause the ship to come to his island, he could only make the most of the opportunity when “Providence” provided it. And he cannot change anyone’s soul like God could. Caliban is a perfect example of this. Despite Prospero’s efforts, his evil nature persisted.

One of the strongest reasons that I view Prospero as a hero rather than a villain is his action at the play’s end.  He chooses to get rid of his magic book, and so give up his magic. This indicates that once his purpose of reconciliation was accomplished, he gave up his magic to enjoy the rest of life. If he were power-hungry, why would he have abandoned his chance to have an advantage over other human beings in the earth?

His actions regarding magic seem to be a sort of “fairness doctrine.” While he is among other humans in Milan, he does not practice his magic. Only when he is alone on the island, and needs that advantage to restore his position in society, does he use his magic. Once he is restored back to society, he gets rid entirely of his magic. This self-control and seemingly purposeful use of magic indicates that Prospero has a good heart and that he uses his power for the benefit of others (especially his daughter) rather than himself.