Кто написал «Дон Кихота»? Донки хот Ла- Маншский( Горячий осел Ла- Маншский)
Оригинал взят у mislpronzaya в Кто написал «Дон Кихота»? Донки хот Ла- Маншский( Горячий осел Ла- Маншский)
Лев Верховский
11.09.2015
Мы привыкли думать, что роман о хитроумном идальго и его верном слуге,
первый том которого вышел в Мадриде в 1605 году (второй - в 1615-м), есть классика испанской литературы.
Однако в самой Испании это произведение долгое время считали чуждым национальному духу, карикатурой,
и лишь во второй половине 19 века начали высоко его оценивать
(кстати, в 2002 году авторитетное международное жюри назвало его «Книгой всех времён и народов»).
На титульном листе указан автор книги Мигель де Сервантес
Титульный лист издания 1605 года
(до наших дней дошло только восемь его экземпляров)
однако прямые доказательства его авторства отсутствуют: нет ни рукописей, ни писем, ни каких-либо других документов.
Сама его биография темна и полна пробелов; так, никто не знал, где он похоронен.
Первым переводом романа на иностранный язык стал опубликованный в Лондоне в 1612 году английский (зарегистрирован в мае 1611-го);
причём выполнен он был настолько хорошо, что быстро сделался как бы частью английской литературы.
Переводчиком значился Томас Шелтон (Shelton), о котором практически ничего не известно (впрочем, нет - о нём есть статья в ВИКИ) .
В предисловии к английскому изданию он написал: «Переведя пять или шесть лет назад историю Дон Кихота за сорок дней…»
Ясно, что это или шутка, или намёк на некую мистификацию.
Английский исследователь Фрэнсис Карр (ныне покойный; он автор нескольких книг по истории европейской культуры) опубликовал в 2004 году свою небольшую книгу «Who Wrote Don Quixote?» <КаррКнига>, в которой отстаивает версию, что Сервантес не был истинным автором.
На многих фрагментах текста он показывает, что перевод делался не с испанского на английский, а наоборот.
Карр выдвигает гипотезу, что за Сервантесом стоял Фрэнсис Бэкон,
кторого уже давно считают причастным к авторству шекспировских произведений.
Карр приводит много текстуальных совпадений «Кихота» и трудов Бэкона, также творений Шекспира; кроме того,
он обращает внимание, что в романе постоянно встречается число 33,
а оно отсылает к Бэкону (это сумма чисел, соответствующих порядковым номерам букв его фамилии в алфавите
- в ту эпоху такие числовые метки людей широко применяли).
В авторском предисловии к роману сказано (а затем многократно, точнее - 33 раза повторяется),
что он, Сервантес, не отец, а отчим этого детища и что его истинный родитель - арабский историк Сид Хамет Бенэнгели
(Cide Hamete Benengeli; такой историк науке не известен).
Cid - по-арабски «господин», Hamet - похоже на Hamlet (мы полагаем: от слова ham - ветчина, окорок, что близко к бекону - философ любил обыгрывать свою фамилию в «гастрономическом» плане);
Benengeli - могло означать «сын Англии».
Добавим от себя: рыцарь родом из Ламанчи (de la Mancha), и такой топоним в Испании есть,
но можно предположить, что подразумевался также пролив Ла-Манш (фр. «рукав» - это название закрепилось за ним в 17 веке).
Отметим, что ещё в 19 веке начали обсуждать вопрос об авторстве «Кихота» и его перевода: <19векСомнения>.
Итак, допустим, что написал Бэкон. А в чём был смысл подобной мистификации?
Дело в том, что английский философ и государственный деятель мыслил широко и осуществлял общеевропейские проекты.
После многих военных столкновений Англии и Испании во второй половине 16 века, разгрома Великой армады (испанского военного флота) в 1588 году, стояла задача примирения двух держав (такую политику проводил вступивший в 1603 году на английский престол Иаков Первый).
Её и должен был помочь решить роман: в нём много фраз, положительно говорящих об Англии и англичанах (и нет о них негативных высказываний);
понятно, что если бы такое отношение к недавним врагам выражал не местный, а английский автор, это вызвало бы у испанских читателей протест.
На титульном листе первого издания изображён сокол, сидящей на руке (в перчатке) человека, который сам не виден.
Вокруг рисунка латинская надпись: POST TENEBRAS SPERO LUCEM
(Надеюсь на свет после мрака - из книги Иова, 17:12). (* иллюминаты!)
Данную фразу сделали своим девизом кальвинисты, а затем она стала лозунгом всей протестантской Реформации.
Трудно представить, что такой девиз мог выбрать для своего опуса писатель из сугубо католической страны.
Мы полагаем, что в основном Карр прав: «Дон Кихота» создавали те же люди, что стояли за псевдонимом «Шекспир», то есть Фрэнсис Бэкон и граф Рэтленд.
Они комически изобразили самих себя в главных героях - рыцаре печального образа и его оруженосце.
Можно предположить также, что первый том они писали вместе, а затем разделились:
Рэтленд сочинил своё продолжение (так называемого Лжекихота, будто бы вышедшего из под пера Авельянеды),
а Бэкон своё - второй том «настоящего» «Дон Кихота».(*Дон Кихот Авельянеды был лучше "сервантесовского"!)
(Кстати, этот же высокопродуктивный творческий дуэт ввёл в историю Средних веков мифическую фигуру Роджера Бэкона - будто бы мыслителя и учёного 13 века, автора поразительных изобретений, чьи трактаты по методологии научного познания очень похожи на таковые Фрэнсиса Бэкона. Так что, видимо, имеет место «формула»: РОДЖЕР БЭКОН = РОДЖЕР Мэннерс + Фрэнсис БЭКОН.)
Историю с авторством «Кихота» завершил ещё один удивительный факт: Шекспир (в смысле - актёр Шакспер, а с его кончиной, возможно, был связан какой-то криминал) и Сервантес оба умерли 23 апреля 1616 года; правда, из-за различия используемых в двух странах календарей Сервантес при этом почил на десять дней раньше (а может, его дата смерти выдумана?).
В общем, в те времена писатели умели разыгрывать читателей, да так, что озадачивали их на века!
(Обновлено: 25.10.15)
-------------------
Cуществовал ли Сервантес?
Нестыковки в истории напечатанного Дон Кихота
Почему Павел Первый изучал Дон Кихота
Сервантес это конец18 века, а не 17 век
ОГО!
The sixth rule of the Rosicrucians was that that members Should remain anonymous for a hundred years. The first rule was that they should heal the sick. The leading member of this secret society in England at this time was Francis Bacon.
Description from the publisher for a book which I greatly enjoyed.
"What evidence is there that Miguel de Cervantes wrote 'Don Quixote'? Little indeed. Not only do we know little of his life;the standard of his Work,apart from 'Quixote',is low. Most of his books remain unpublished abroad. What do we know about Thomas Shelton,whose translation into English has Won the praise of literary historians ever since it appeared in 1612? What do we know of Cid Hamet Benengeli,the Arab historian who,we Are told,is the real author?
Until now no proper attempt has been made to place Quixote in the wider Context of the great plays of this period. And no-one has paid attention To the Shelton version,which is seldom read today.
We start with an examination of the actual publication of Quixote in Madrid and London in 1605 and 1612. Then we move,in the story itself,from La Mancha to Sussex,from Madrid to London,to the court of Queen Elizabeth. Two characters in Quixote,who always appear together,are Queen Madasima and Master Elisabat. Other name s which invite scrutiny include Thomas Cecial(almost Cecil), Friston,an odd name for the Devil,and Pyramus and Thisbe,which make us think ofo Shakespeare.
'Don Quixote' is full of pithy statements,epigrams and mock proverbs which can be found in the Shakespeare plays. 'I was born free. The naked truth. Comparisons are odious. Time out of mind.' and many ,many more. 70 quotations are set out in table form in the book.
But why would anyone write a very long novel and use the name of a struggling Spanish author? Why the secrecy? The sixth rule of the Rosicrucians was that that members Should remain anonymous for a hundred years. The first rule was that they should heal the sick. The leading member of this secret society in England at this time was Francis Bacon.
No attention has been paid to the date of Quixote's publication in Madrid in 1605,only six Years after the fourth Armada of 1599. An important element in this work,seldom mentioned, Is its surprising lack of animosity towards England. If it had appeared in Spain as an English book,everyone would have been understandably prejudiced against it. It took a long Time to win the lasting admiration of the Spaniards. Allowing a Spanish author to present This book as his own work,Bacon gave this subtly pro-English novel the best possible chance Of being accepted in Spain without prejudice.
'Don Quixote' should be regarded as an instrument of reconciliation between Spain and England,two great countries kept apart by war and the threat of war for five decades. Distrust and hatred of the foreigner had caused the death of innocent men in both countries. Now was the time for peace and good will,a policy that James I keenly pursued. In England Quixote acted as a healer of the wide gulf between the two countries.
When "Don Quixote" appeared in Madrid and London,the great Shakespeare plays were being Acted on the London stage. When the English plays and the Spanish novel are looked at Together,a clear picture emerges: the creation of a pan-European literary master-plan. The greatest play about Denmark is 'Hamlet'. The greatest plays about Italy are 'Romeo and Juliet','The Merchant of Venice' and 'Othello,the Moor of Venice'. The greatest play about Rome is 'Julius Caesar'. The greatest play about Egypt is 'Antony and Cleopatra'. The greatest Plays about England are the Shakespeare history dramas. All these plays are the work of one man, Written under a pen-name. There is no world-famous play about Spain which is on the same Level of genius as the plays just mentioned. But there is one great novel about Spain which is just as famous throughout the world - 'Don Quixote'. Like all the Shakespeare plays,this appeared under an alias. Bacon,casting his eye over the whole of Europe,found that this area lacked an appropriate masterpiece,an epic story to match those of Greece and Rome and Great Britain.
In a letter to Lord Burleigh written in 1592,Bacon declared "I have taken all knowledge to be my Province." A play would not have been the right format for a Spanish epic. Needing a larger Canvas,he chose to write a work of fiction."
From Xlibris, the publisher of "Who Wrote Don Quixote?"
By Wolfie on April 11, 2015
I am a Mason and have been aware of Bacon's many contributions to the world of literature for many years.
Congratulations to Mr. Carr for finding Bacon's work in the travels of the Don without the help of the degrees
of Freemasonry. Carr's research brings forth many fresh historical factors and events of Bacon's Britain at the time
he was pinning many of the Shakespeare plays.
If you are a Mason who has studied the writings of the Albert Pike and Manly Hall, it is time for you to read
Francis Carr. And pay close attention the next time you read Don Quixote. Things will start to catch your attention
which you may have overlooked before.Also, be sure to obtain a copy of the Thomas Shelton English "translation" for reference as well as Michael Buhagiar's book Don Quixote and the Brilliant Name of Fire.
By Michael Buhagiaron January 2, 2008
The great Sufi author Saadi of Shiraz wrote, with typical deceptive simplicity: `I fear that you will not reach Mecca, O Nomad! For the road which you are following leads to Turkestan!' Francis Carr, who is surely on the road to Mecca, has produced a thoroughly researched, impeccably argued, and beautifully written work which, in a world where objectivity and enthusiasm for the truth ruled research in the humanities, would cause proponents of Miguel de Cervantes as the sole or even main author of Don Quixote to reconsider. The stakes are high here, as high as in the Shakespeare authorship debate; for in a survey by the Nobel Prize committee of one hundred of the world's foremost writers, Don Quixote was named as the greatest novel ever written. And let it never be thought that the identity of the true author is of academic interest only, affecting not one jot our response to the work at hand: for it is a portal into the vast store of the Ageless Wisdom underlying the great works of that era, a philosophical goldmine of which the modern interpreter remains largely and tragically ignorant.
A trained historian, Francis Carr worked as a private secretary to a member of Parliament, and edited for seven years the history magazine Past and Future, after which he became director of Residence Recitals, presenting monthly readings and music recitals in houses where great writers and composers once lived. His previous books are European Erotic Art, Ivan the Terrible, and Mozart and Constanze. He is, that is to say, a man of accomplishments and class, who may readily be sorted in this way with others such as Judge Nathaniel Holmes, Mark Twain, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Henry James, and Sir Edwin Durning-Lawrence, all of whom promoted Sir Francis Bacon as the true author of the Shakespeare works, just as Carr argues for his presence behind Don Quixote. One could prolong this list of luminaries considerably. The quality that links them all is that of nobility, in its truest sense, as derived from the Greek gignoskein, `to know', and related to the words `gnomic' and `gnosis'. Yet, such is the mire into which modern scholarship has fallen, that to profess a belief in nobility now is routinely to be accused of snobbery.
Carr has chosen, to use a current metaphor, the `red ocean' strategy of engaging with orthodox academe on its own territory, of the bloodstained sea of scholarly debate, rather than a 'blue ocean' strategy of arguing in terms of esoteric philosophy, in which the enemy has little expertise or interest. And yet, perhaps not: for the hostile navy is in truth a sham, as enfeebled by years of protection in an artificial harbour, without ever having hazarded the Sea of Truth. For, since its publication in 2004, Who Wrote Don Quixote? with its impressive weight of evidence, has met with, not impassioned rebuttals and lively debate from the Cervantian camp, but a deafening silence. It is surely just to assert that, had this been a scientific issue, it would have had a far different reception. For science used to be called, justifiably, `natural philosophy', and closely to study the natural world is inevitably to acquire wisdom and a hunger for the truth. And philosophy is, despite his/her pretensions to the contrary, a terra incognita to the average literary academic, as it certainly was not to the quintessential Renaissance man that was Sir Francis Bacon.
A brief tour through Who Wrote Don Quixote? will give a sense of the range and depth of Carr's investigations. The publication dates of the Spanish Don Quixote and the English `translation' by Thomas Shelton, as well as the complete lack of any anti-English sentiment, in the immediate aftermath of the humiliating defeats of the Spanish armadas, are suggestive that the novel was originally an English work, which was subsequently translated into Spanish. The literary career of Cervantes himself was, apart from Don Quixote, which shines like gold in silt, undistinguished in the extreme. There is as little contemporary documentation of his connection with his supposedly `major' work as there is in the case of Shakspere. Almost nothing is known of Thomas Shelton, and yet his `translation' has received ringing endorsements as one of the greatest of all time.
There is much textual evidence to suggest that Cervantes was not the true author. In the Preface, `Cervantes' mentions that he is `Though in shew a Father, yet in truth but a stepfather to Don Quixote.' Then there is the repeated mentioning of an `Arabicall Historiographer' Cid Hamete Benengeli--a name unknown in Arabic literature--as its true author. Cid means `Lord' in Spanish, while Benengeli most plausibly means `son of the English', which is suggestive enough in itself. The design on the title page of the first edition of 1605 shows a hooded falcon resting on the gloved hand of a man who is hidden from view. Around the arm and the bird is the inscription Post tenebras spero lucem, `After darkness I hope for light', a phrase from Job which was adopted as the motto of Calvinism, and later of the entire Protestant Reformation--an incongruous wording to have on a work issuing from a supposedly Catholic country.
It is in Introductory sonnets that the first firm evidence appears to indicate the nature of Don Quixote as a translation from English into Spanish--the verses in Shelton's version being more strongly written and readily understood, while in the Spanish they are generally flabby and at times incomprehensible, so that they indeed read, in fact, like poor translations. Carr might profitably have pursued the Sufi origins of the famous Windmill episode; but this topic deserves a book of its own, and he was surely right to keep his focus. Fascinatingly, this episode is thick with English references, which Carr has assiduously discovered, so that the author appears to have been thinking in writing it of an English rather tan Spanish landscape. The many learned references to English history suggest that the author had a deep interest in and sympathy for that country; yet there is not the slightest similar evidence in any of Cervantes' other works.
Here is a fine example, from many, of Carr's rigour. In Shelton's text he uses a mispronounced word to denote the rustic ignorance of Grisostome, the scholar turned shepherd who dies of unrequited love after his spurning by the shepherdess Marcela:
It was reported of him that he was skillfull in Astronomie, and all that which passed above in heaven, in the Sunne and the Moone; for he would tell us most punctually the clips of the Sunne and the Moone.
All Cervantes could produce was the following:
They said he knew the science of the stars and that which happens in the sky, the sun and moon, because punctually he told us the cris of the sun and moon.
There is no such Spanish word as cris; and the inference that must be drawn is that the Spanish translator failed to find an equivalent for `clips', and so substituted a nonsense word. No other conclusion is possible. In another erotic passage in Shelton there is clear evidence of bowdlerisation in the Spanish. The placement and frequency of the word `bacon' suggests that Sir Francis Bacon was making his role explicit. Carr provides a table of no less than sixty-nine phrases which are common to Don Quixote, the works of Bacon, and the works of Shakepseare: a nice example being `All is not gold that glisters'. In the novel of The Curious-Impertinent in Part 1, Camilla's maid Leonela tells her not to worry about her affair with Lothario, saying he has many good qualities, `the whole A.B.C.' There follows in Shelton a list of adjectives, `amiable, bountiful, courteous &c' each one exquisitely chosen for its role. Here then would be a supreme challenge for the translator--and the only possible conclusion again would be that Cervantes, or whoever performed the service, notably failed it.
Carr rightly highlights the Wagon of the Parliament of Death as an episode of interest. Quixote and Sancho come upon a wagon containing a fantastic group of personages--Death, a devil, Cupid, an angel, an emperor, a fool, a knight--who, it emerges, are a company of travelling players. Carr draws some fascinating parallels with the Shakespeare plays, which again suggest that they issued from the same atelier; yet he fails to pinpoint the episode's raison d'etre, which resides in the company's nature as a spectacular portrayal of cards of the Marseilles Tarot deck. This opens up a fascinating line of enquiry: for, when we consider the significant Qabalistic element in Don Quixote, and the similar importance of the Qabalah-Tarot in the Shakespeare works, then it becomes clear that the two works--the greatest body of plays in the Western tradition, and its greatest novel--were products of the Rosicrucian enlightenment, which was driven pre-eminently by Bacon. Is there any evidence that Cervantes had Rosicrucian connections? This is a question which the orthodox camp should answer.
One would have wished for a little more on the esoteric significance of the talking head of bronze in Part 2, as a reference to the golden or brazen head as a Sufi symbol of the enlightened man; and also the placement of this scene within the larger episode of the printing house: all of which forms a single, unified allegory of the true nature of Don Quixote as a product of the pen of Sir Francis Bacon, who was `talking through the head' of another, just as he did in the works of Shakespeare.
Carr draws many other notable historical and literary parallels. Finally, he demonstrates his objectivity by citing the work of James Fitzmaurice-Kelly, a Cervantian who has taken Shelton to task for shoddy translations. Carr nicely skewers him, while admitting that one or two of his points may indeed have some validity. There is a suggestion here, therefore, that Don Quixote may be yet another example in the works of Sir Francis Bacon of the Master involving his front man in the writing of the project, albeit in a low level way. I have argued this position, following the work of Rev. Walter Begley in Bacon's Nova Resuscitatio and Is It Shakespeare?, in the case of the plays and sonnets of Shakespeare. It is difficult to imagine how the ruse could have been carried off had this not been the case.
The true history of Elizabethan literature is being written, then, not in the groves of academe, but in the homes and offices of private scholars. I am sure I can speak for Francis Carr in thanking the literary establishment for giving us the privilege of doing such important and satisfying research, which will survive, like Timon's tomb, long after the cleansing waves of history have shattered their castles in the sand.
http://www.sirbacon.org/links/carrquixote.html
https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?1067-Who-Wrote-Don-Quixote#.WVwyoojytPY
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/Wgg-_7Ac_DM
http://barnesreview.org/pdf/TBR2013-no5-4-7.pdf
http://www.todayinliterature.com/today.asp?Search_Date=4/23/2017
http://www.philipcarr-gomm.com/my-father-francis-bacon-and-don-quixote/
Большой список англоязычной литературы по этой теме.
И ни одной книги на русском!
Но если Дон Кихот дело рук розенкрейцеров и Бэкона, масон Панин именно поэтому
изучал книгу с Павлом Первым!
Именно поэтому
эту иллюминатскую библию печатали и переводили на все языки
Лев Верховский
11.09.2015
Мы привыкли думать, что роман о хитроумном идальго и его верном слуге,
первый том которого вышел в Мадриде в 1605 году (второй - в 1615-м), есть классика испанской литературы.
Однако в самой Испании это произведение долгое время считали чуждым национальному духу, карикатурой,
и лишь во второй половине 19 века начали высоко его оценивать
(кстати, в 2002 году авторитетное международное жюри назвало его «Книгой всех времён и народов»).
На титульном листе указан автор книги Мигель де Сервантес
Титульный лист издания 1605 года
(до наших дней дошло только восемь его экземпляров)
однако прямые доказательства его авторства отсутствуют: нет ни рукописей, ни писем, ни каких-либо других документов.
Сама его биография темна и полна пробелов; так, никто не знал, где он похоронен.
Первым переводом романа на иностранный язык стал опубликованный в Лондоне в 1612 году английский (зарегистрирован в мае 1611-го);
причём выполнен он был настолько хорошо, что быстро сделался как бы частью английской литературы.
Переводчиком значился Томас Шелтон (Shelton), о котором практически ничего не известно (впрочем, нет - о нём есть статья в ВИКИ) .
В предисловии к английскому изданию он написал: «Переведя пять или шесть лет назад историю Дон Кихота за сорок дней…»
Ясно, что это или шутка, или намёк на некую мистификацию.
Английский исследователь Фрэнсис Карр (ныне покойный; он автор нескольких книг по истории европейской культуры) опубликовал в 2004 году свою небольшую книгу «Who Wrote Don Quixote?» <КаррКнига>, в которой отстаивает версию, что Сервантес не был истинным автором.
На многих фрагментах текста он показывает, что перевод делался не с испанского на английский, а наоборот.
Карр выдвигает гипотезу, что за Сервантесом стоял Фрэнсис Бэкон,
кторого уже давно считают причастным к авторству шекспировских произведений.
Карр приводит много текстуальных совпадений «Кихота» и трудов Бэкона, также творений Шекспира; кроме того,
он обращает внимание, что в романе постоянно встречается число 33,
а оно отсылает к Бэкону (это сумма чисел, соответствующих порядковым номерам букв его фамилии в алфавите
- в ту эпоху такие числовые метки людей широко применяли).
В авторском предисловии к роману сказано (а затем многократно, точнее - 33 раза повторяется),
что он, Сервантес, не отец, а отчим этого детища и что его истинный родитель - арабский историк Сид Хамет Бенэнгели
(Cide Hamete Benengeli; такой историк науке не известен).
Cid - по-арабски «господин», Hamet - похоже на Hamlet (мы полагаем: от слова ham - ветчина, окорок, что близко к бекону - философ любил обыгрывать свою фамилию в «гастрономическом» плане);
Benengeli - могло означать «сын Англии».
Добавим от себя: рыцарь родом из Ламанчи (de la Mancha), и такой топоним в Испании есть,
но можно предположить, что подразумевался также пролив Ла-Манш (фр. «рукав» - это название закрепилось за ним в 17 веке).
Отметим, что ещё в 19 веке начали обсуждать вопрос об авторстве «Кихота» и его перевода: <19векСомнения>.
Итак, допустим, что написал Бэкон. А в чём был смысл подобной мистификации?
Дело в том, что английский философ и государственный деятель мыслил широко и осуществлял общеевропейские проекты.
После многих военных столкновений Англии и Испании во второй половине 16 века, разгрома Великой армады (испанского военного флота) в 1588 году, стояла задача примирения двух держав (такую политику проводил вступивший в 1603 году на английский престол Иаков Первый).
Её и должен был помочь решить роман: в нём много фраз, положительно говорящих об Англии и англичанах (и нет о них негативных высказываний);
понятно, что если бы такое отношение к недавним врагам выражал не местный, а английский автор, это вызвало бы у испанских читателей протест.
На титульном листе первого издания изображён сокол, сидящей на руке (в перчатке) человека, который сам не виден.
Вокруг рисунка латинская надпись: POST TENEBRAS SPERO LUCEM
(Надеюсь на свет после мрака - из книги Иова, 17:12). (* иллюминаты!)
Данную фразу сделали своим девизом кальвинисты, а затем она стала лозунгом всей протестантской Реформации.
Трудно представить, что такой девиз мог выбрать для своего опуса писатель из сугубо католической страны.
Мы полагаем, что в основном Карр прав: «Дон Кихота» создавали те же люди, что стояли за псевдонимом «Шекспир», то есть Фрэнсис Бэкон и граф Рэтленд.
Они комически изобразили самих себя в главных героях - рыцаре печального образа и его оруженосце.
Можно предположить также, что первый том они писали вместе, а затем разделились:
Рэтленд сочинил своё продолжение (так называемого Лжекихота, будто бы вышедшего из под пера Авельянеды),
а Бэкон своё - второй том «настоящего» «Дон Кихота».(*Дон Кихот Авельянеды был лучше "сервантесовского"!)
(Кстати, этот же высокопродуктивный творческий дуэт ввёл в историю Средних веков мифическую фигуру Роджера Бэкона - будто бы мыслителя и учёного 13 века, автора поразительных изобретений, чьи трактаты по методологии научного познания очень похожи на таковые Фрэнсиса Бэкона. Так что, видимо, имеет место «формула»: РОДЖЕР БЭКОН = РОДЖЕР Мэннерс + Фрэнсис БЭКОН.)
Историю с авторством «Кихота» завершил ещё один удивительный факт: Шекспир (в смысле - актёр Шакспер, а с его кончиной, возможно, был связан какой-то криминал) и Сервантес оба умерли 23 апреля 1616 года; правда, из-за различия используемых в двух странах календарей Сервантес при этом почил на десять дней раньше (а может, его дата смерти выдумана?).
В общем, в те времена писатели умели разыгрывать читателей, да так, что озадачивали их на века!
(Обновлено: 25.10.15)
-------------------
Cуществовал ли Сервантес?
Нестыковки в истории напечатанного Дон Кихота
Почему Павел Первый изучал Дон Кихота
Сервантес это конец18 века, а не 17 век
ОГО!
The sixth rule of the Rosicrucians was that that members Should remain anonymous for a hundred years. The first rule was that they should heal the sick. The leading member of this secret society in England at this time was Francis Bacon.
Description from the publisher for a book which I greatly enjoyed.
"What evidence is there that Miguel de Cervantes wrote 'Don Quixote'? Little indeed. Not only do we know little of his life;the standard of his Work,apart from 'Quixote',is low. Most of his books remain unpublished abroad. What do we know about Thomas Shelton,whose translation into English has Won the praise of literary historians ever since it appeared in 1612? What do we know of Cid Hamet Benengeli,the Arab historian who,we Are told,is the real author?
Until now no proper attempt has been made to place Quixote in the wider Context of the great plays of this period. And no-one has paid attention To the Shelton version,which is seldom read today.
We start with an examination of the actual publication of Quixote in Madrid and London in 1605 and 1612. Then we move,in the story itself,from La Mancha to Sussex,from Madrid to London,to the court of Queen Elizabeth. Two characters in Quixote,who always appear together,are Queen Madasima and Master Elisabat. Other name s which invite scrutiny include Thomas Cecial(almost Cecil), Friston,an odd name for the Devil,and Pyramus and Thisbe,which make us think ofo Shakespeare.
'Don Quixote' is full of pithy statements,epigrams and mock proverbs which can be found in the Shakespeare plays. 'I was born free. The naked truth. Comparisons are odious. Time out of mind.' and many ,many more. 70 quotations are set out in table form in the book.
But why would anyone write a very long novel and use the name of a struggling Spanish author? Why the secrecy? The sixth rule of the Rosicrucians was that that members Should remain anonymous for a hundred years. The first rule was that they should heal the sick. The leading member of this secret society in England at this time was Francis Bacon.
No attention has been paid to the date of Quixote's publication in Madrid in 1605,only six Years after the fourth Armada of 1599. An important element in this work,seldom mentioned, Is its surprising lack of animosity towards England. If it had appeared in Spain as an English book,everyone would have been understandably prejudiced against it. It took a long Time to win the lasting admiration of the Spaniards. Allowing a Spanish author to present This book as his own work,Bacon gave this subtly pro-English novel the best possible chance Of being accepted in Spain without prejudice.
'Don Quixote' should be regarded as an instrument of reconciliation between Spain and England,two great countries kept apart by war and the threat of war for five decades. Distrust and hatred of the foreigner had caused the death of innocent men in both countries. Now was the time for peace and good will,a policy that James I keenly pursued. In England Quixote acted as a healer of the wide gulf between the two countries.
When "Don Quixote" appeared in Madrid and London,the great Shakespeare plays were being Acted on the London stage. When the English plays and the Spanish novel are looked at Together,a clear picture emerges: the creation of a pan-European literary master-plan. The greatest play about Denmark is 'Hamlet'. The greatest plays about Italy are 'Romeo and Juliet','The Merchant of Venice' and 'Othello,the Moor of Venice'. The greatest play about Rome is 'Julius Caesar'. The greatest play about Egypt is 'Antony and Cleopatra'. The greatest Plays about England are the Shakespeare history dramas. All these plays are the work of one man, Written under a pen-name. There is no world-famous play about Spain which is on the same Level of genius as the plays just mentioned. But there is one great novel about Spain which is just as famous throughout the world - 'Don Quixote'. Like all the Shakespeare plays,this appeared under an alias. Bacon,casting his eye over the whole of Europe,found that this area lacked an appropriate masterpiece,an epic story to match those of Greece and Rome and Great Britain.
In a letter to Lord Burleigh written in 1592,Bacon declared "I have taken all knowledge to be my Province." A play would not have been the right format for a Spanish epic. Needing a larger Canvas,he chose to write a work of fiction."
From Xlibris, the publisher of "Who Wrote Don Quixote?"
By Wolfie on April 11, 2015
I am a Mason and have been aware of Bacon's many contributions to the world of literature for many years.
Congratulations to Mr. Carr for finding Bacon's work in the travels of the Don without the help of the degrees
of Freemasonry. Carr's research brings forth many fresh historical factors and events of Bacon's Britain at the time
he was pinning many of the Shakespeare plays.
If you are a Mason who has studied the writings of the Albert Pike and Manly Hall, it is time for you to read
Francis Carr. And pay close attention the next time you read Don Quixote. Things will start to catch your attention
which you may have overlooked before.Also, be sure to obtain a copy of the Thomas Shelton English "translation" for reference as well as Michael Buhagiar's book Don Quixote and the Brilliant Name of Fire.
By Michael Buhagiaron January 2, 2008
The great Sufi author Saadi of Shiraz wrote, with typical deceptive simplicity: `I fear that you will not reach Mecca, O Nomad! For the road which you are following leads to Turkestan!' Francis Carr, who is surely on the road to Mecca, has produced a thoroughly researched, impeccably argued, and beautifully written work which, in a world where objectivity and enthusiasm for the truth ruled research in the humanities, would cause proponents of Miguel de Cervantes as the sole or even main author of Don Quixote to reconsider. The stakes are high here, as high as in the Shakespeare authorship debate; for in a survey by the Nobel Prize committee of one hundred of the world's foremost writers, Don Quixote was named as the greatest novel ever written. And let it never be thought that the identity of the true author is of academic interest only, affecting not one jot our response to the work at hand: for it is a portal into the vast store of the Ageless Wisdom underlying the great works of that era, a philosophical goldmine of which the modern interpreter remains largely and tragically ignorant.
A trained historian, Francis Carr worked as a private secretary to a member of Parliament, and edited for seven years the history magazine Past and Future, after which he became director of Residence Recitals, presenting monthly readings and music recitals in houses where great writers and composers once lived. His previous books are European Erotic Art, Ivan the Terrible, and Mozart and Constanze. He is, that is to say, a man of accomplishments and class, who may readily be sorted in this way with others such as Judge Nathaniel Holmes, Mark Twain, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Henry James, and Sir Edwin Durning-Lawrence, all of whom promoted Sir Francis Bacon as the true author of the Shakespeare works, just as Carr argues for his presence behind Don Quixote. One could prolong this list of luminaries considerably. The quality that links them all is that of nobility, in its truest sense, as derived from the Greek gignoskein, `to know', and related to the words `gnomic' and `gnosis'. Yet, such is the mire into which modern scholarship has fallen, that to profess a belief in nobility now is routinely to be accused of snobbery.
Carr has chosen, to use a current metaphor, the `red ocean' strategy of engaging with orthodox academe on its own territory, of the bloodstained sea of scholarly debate, rather than a 'blue ocean' strategy of arguing in terms of esoteric philosophy, in which the enemy has little expertise or interest. And yet, perhaps not: for the hostile navy is in truth a sham, as enfeebled by years of protection in an artificial harbour, without ever having hazarded the Sea of Truth. For, since its publication in 2004, Who Wrote Don Quixote? with its impressive weight of evidence, has met with, not impassioned rebuttals and lively debate from the Cervantian camp, but a deafening silence. It is surely just to assert that, had this been a scientific issue, it would have had a far different reception. For science used to be called, justifiably, `natural philosophy', and closely to study the natural world is inevitably to acquire wisdom and a hunger for the truth. And philosophy is, despite his/her pretensions to the contrary, a terra incognita to the average literary academic, as it certainly was not to the quintessential Renaissance man that was Sir Francis Bacon.
A brief tour through Who Wrote Don Quixote? will give a sense of the range and depth of Carr's investigations. The publication dates of the Spanish Don Quixote and the English `translation' by Thomas Shelton, as well as the complete lack of any anti-English sentiment, in the immediate aftermath of the humiliating defeats of the Spanish armadas, are suggestive that the novel was originally an English work, which was subsequently translated into Spanish. The literary career of Cervantes himself was, apart from Don Quixote, which shines like gold in silt, undistinguished in the extreme. There is as little contemporary documentation of his connection with his supposedly `major' work as there is in the case of Shakspere. Almost nothing is known of Thomas Shelton, and yet his `translation' has received ringing endorsements as one of the greatest of all time.
There is much textual evidence to suggest that Cervantes was not the true author. In the Preface, `Cervantes' mentions that he is `Though in shew a Father, yet in truth but a stepfather to Don Quixote.' Then there is the repeated mentioning of an `Arabicall Historiographer' Cid Hamete Benengeli--a name unknown in Arabic literature--as its true author. Cid means `Lord' in Spanish, while Benengeli most plausibly means `son of the English', which is suggestive enough in itself. The design on the title page of the first edition of 1605 shows a hooded falcon resting on the gloved hand of a man who is hidden from view. Around the arm and the bird is the inscription Post tenebras spero lucem, `After darkness I hope for light', a phrase from Job which was adopted as the motto of Calvinism, and later of the entire Protestant Reformation--an incongruous wording to have on a work issuing from a supposedly Catholic country.
It is in Introductory sonnets that the first firm evidence appears to indicate the nature of Don Quixote as a translation from English into Spanish--the verses in Shelton's version being more strongly written and readily understood, while in the Spanish they are generally flabby and at times incomprehensible, so that they indeed read, in fact, like poor translations. Carr might profitably have pursued the Sufi origins of the famous Windmill episode; but this topic deserves a book of its own, and he was surely right to keep his focus. Fascinatingly, this episode is thick with English references, which Carr has assiduously discovered, so that the author appears to have been thinking in writing it of an English rather tan Spanish landscape. The many learned references to English history suggest that the author had a deep interest in and sympathy for that country; yet there is not the slightest similar evidence in any of Cervantes' other works.
Here is a fine example, from many, of Carr's rigour. In Shelton's text he uses a mispronounced word to denote the rustic ignorance of Grisostome, the scholar turned shepherd who dies of unrequited love after his spurning by the shepherdess Marcela:
It was reported of him that he was skillfull in Astronomie, and all that which passed above in heaven, in the Sunne and the Moone; for he would tell us most punctually the clips of the Sunne and the Moone.
All Cervantes could produce was the following:
They said he knew the science of the stars and that which happens in the sky, the sun and moon, because punctually he told us the cris of the sun and moon.
There is no such Spanish word as cris; and the inference that must be drawn is that the Spanish translator failed to find an equivalent for `clips', and so substituted a nonsense word. No other conclusion is possible. In another erotic passage in Shelton there is clear evidence of bowdlerisation in the Spanish. The placement and frequency of the word `bacon' suggests that Sir Francis Bacon was making his role explicit. Carr provides a table of no less than sixty-nine phrases which are common to Don Quixote, the works of Bacon, and the works of Shakepseare: a nice example being `All is not gold that glisters'. In the novel of The Curious-Impertinent in Part 1, Camilla's maid Leonela tells her not to worry about her affair with Lothario, saying he has many good qualities, `the whole A.B.C.' There follows in Shelton a list of adjectives, `amiable, bountiful, courteous &c' each one exquisitely chosen for its role. Here then would be a supreme challenge for the translator--and the only possible conclusion again would be that Cervantes, or whoever performed the service, notably failed it.
Carr rightly highlights the Wagon of the Parliament of Death as an episode of interest. Quixote and Sancho come upon a wagon containing a fantastic group of personages--Death, a devil, Cupid, an angel, an emperor, a fool, a knight--who, it emerges, are a company of travelling players. Carr draws some fascinating parallels with the Shakespeare plays, which again suggest that they issued from the same atelier; yet he fails to pinpoint the episode's raison d'etre, which resides in the company's nature as a spectacular portrayal of cards of the Marseilles Tarot deck. This opens up a fascinating line of enquiry: for, when we consider the significant Qabalistic element in Don Quixote, and the similar importance of the Qabalah-Tarot in the Shakespeare works, then it becomes clear that the two works--the greatest body of plays in the Western tradition, and its greatest novel--were products of the Rosicrucian enlightenment, which was driven pre-eminently by Bacon. Is there any evidence that Cervantes had Rosicrucian connections? This is a question which the orthodox camp should answer.
One would have wished for a little more on the esoteric significance of the talking head of bronze in Part 2, as a reference to the golden or brazen head as a Sufi symbol of the enlightened man; and also the placement of this scene within the larger episode of the printing house: all of which forms a single, unified allegory of the true nature of Don Quixote as a product of the pen of Sir Francis Bacon, who was `talking through the head' of another, just as he did in the works of Shakespeare.
Carr draws many other notable historical and literary parallels. Finally, he demonstrates his objectivity by citing the work of James Fitzmaurice-Kelly, a Cervantian who has taken Shelton to task for shoddy translations. Carr nicely skewers him, while admitting that one or two of his points may indeed have some validity. There is a suggestion here, therefore, that Don Quixote may be yet another example in the works of Sir Francis Bacon of the Master involving his front man in the writing of the project, albeit in a low level way. I have argued this position, following the work of Rev. Walter Begley in Bacon's Nova Resuscitatio and Is It Shakespeare?, in the case of the plays and sonnets of Shakespeare. It is difficult to imagine how the ruse could have been carried off had this not been the case.
The true history of Elizabethan literature is being written, then, not in the groves of academe, but in the homes and offices of private scholars. I am sure I can speak for Francis Carr in thanking the literary establishment for giving us the privilege of doing such important and satisfying research, which will survive, like Timon's tomb, long after the cleansing waves of history have shattered their castles in the sand.
http://www.sirbacon.org/links/carrquixote.html
https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?1067-Who-Wrote-Don-Quixote#.WVwyoojytPY
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/Wgg-_7Ac_DM
http://barnesreview.org/pdf/TBR2013-no5-4-7.pdf
http://www.todayinliterature.com/today.asp?Search_Date=4/23/2017
http://www.philipcarr-gomm.com/my-father-francis-bacon-and-don-quixote/
Большой список англоязычной литературы по этой теме.
И ни одной книги на русском!
Но если Дон Кихот дело рук розенкрейцеров и Бэкона, масон Панин именно поэтому
изучал книгу с Павлом Первым!
Именно поэтому
эту иллюминатскую библию печатали и переводили на все языки