"The Passionate Shepheard": A Matter of Changing Letters, "o" and "e"

© E. Le Roy Miller

NOTE: . . . ON THE NAME 'BONERTO'= BRETONO

I.E., [NICHOLAS] BRETON, see our Memorial-Introduction-G

The above quote after “NOTE.” Is the last sentence on the short page of notes, immediately facing the title page, “The Passionate Shepheard” (which is not the original title page— apparently missing?).

Below is a description of the publication, The Passionate Shepheard 1604, a group of poems by “Bonerto” as it shows on the printed, only surviving copy of the book; it is what is called a “unique expemplar.” Though, the author’s name is certainly mentioned in the book, as Bonerto, the scholars all agree (apparently) that it was written by “Breton” (Nicholas or “Nicolao” in Latin; Breton or “Bretono” in Latin—as shall soon be discussed). The Passionate Shepherd, is thought to be, by Payne Collins, if not Grosart himself, for the poet’s final farewell to the world. 

Manipulation of letters to create  more

“New Names”: Scholarly Fraud To Conceal It

Now, what needs be clearly revealed is the fact that someone (it is presumed by the author himself, by Payne Collier, the original owner of the rare book.author) changed the printed text, with it’s given “Bonerto” and—we are informed by Collier,  with a “slight change” in the lettering of his name, he made it appear as “Nicolao Bretono—in other words, the poet changed the typeset, printed text spelling of his printed name--from “Bonerto” into “Bretano” [with ‘o’ “above,”as claimed by Grosart, but, contrarily, according to Payne, it was simply added to the end of the word].

What’s There To Hide? [Nicolas]

How is that done? Simply, how are we to take the printed word “Bonerto” and with a “slight change” convert those letters into letters which read, not “Bonerto” but “Bretano”” How are we to do this. Here is Collier’s description of the book in Collier’s own book. [Reader recall, we are deal with a “unique” copy there is one surviving copy, of 1602].

Collier is speaking of the visual appearance of the text opening The Passionate Shepheard, he is speaking of the appearance of the name of the author. When he speaks of “against which is written” the reader needs visualize he is speaking of ink writing—applied to a typeset printed page, exactly at the place of the printed name on that page:

"Against which name is written, in a hand of about the time, "Nicolao Bretono," the letters forming Bonerto, with a slight change, making Bretono, i.e., Nicholas Breton. In 1604 the name of Nicholas Breton was so well known on title-pages, either at length, or as N.B. and B. N., that in this instance, perhaps for novelty's sake, he preferred to vary it, and came before the world as Bonerto. "

 Authoritiesa Can't Keep the Story Straighttraight

These are serious charges so we must be clear. We are speaking of the same document, first—that must be clear. There are not different versions of the book, “The Passionate Shephearde,”—it is a “unique” copy (only one). Grosart’s work was published in 1879, Payne Collier re-published the original, that was in 1865, I believe. Grosart discusses Collier and credit his “carefull work” in describing it. Mendacity. The first immediate evidence of Rev. Grosart’s mendacity is that in his printed work, as cited above, he gives in brackets, as the reader can see, the word in brackets is [Nicholao] not as Grosart would have his reader’s believe, “Nicholas.”

Why does it matter? Let us return to Collier’s “very careful description” as Grosart deemed it, and recall his remark about “slight change” in letters, and voila!—whoever wrote it,(and that, neither of them opined on—only Collier dared the foolish idea that the poet wanted a new “coming-out” so-to-speak, and so he came out with a “new” name. Neither Collier nor Grosart opine much on the matter. But, let us not be fools. The matter must be considered.

Nicholao/Nicholas

& Bonerto and Breton

Obviously, someone wrote “Nicholao” Latin for Nicholas, in ink, in front of the author’s printed name on the text, and added an “o” on the end of the text printed, i.e., Bonerto, i.e., “Bonertoo.” If the extra, inked in “o” was really “above” as claimed by Grosart, there would be one “o” stacked on another “o”—at the very end of the “mixed” signature (that already printed, and that inked onto the page).

Now, it is worthwhile to also note, before continuing, that I have no background in Latin, I did not study it, though, of course, I’ve often consulted and dealt with copious issues of etymological roots, etc. The point is these scholars, whom we deal with here, never mention that “Nicholas Bretono” is merely Latinizing “Nicholas Breton”! So, whoever, was physically modifying, with ink, the printed text name, knew that, and that’s what it’s partly about.   

Methinks the Rev Grosart entered into an unholy alliance with his closing his eyes to the truth of what was on the page he was looking at. He did not see, what the “careful” Collier saw and reported on—such that, this writing would certainly never known the truth about the problems with the letters of the name of the poet—but that does not mean it was the poet himself who made those changes to the names of the author, not at all.

LooK AND YOU SHALL SEE

There is nothing said about "Bonerto" by Grosart. Collier, as said, speaks of a "slight change" making "Breton," "Bretono. But, the first three letters of B R E T O N, the first three letters are B O N E R T O hardly seem conducive to that interpretation, without creating a strange amphibious linquistic “creature”—neither this nor that.   

Moreover, Collier tells us that the 'o' spoken of by Grosart, came at the END of the word, not “OVER” the word “Breton” or “Bonerto.” Simply, the experts conflict. Collier’s report makes more sense, because to put an “o” over the name, which has already an “o” at the end of “Bonerto”—so, two “o”s, one atop the other would be lOOing at us, the reader. If, since a lower case “o” was indicated by Grosart, not a capital “O”, putting it over the spellout out name B o n e r t o might interpreted to mean “over the whole word,” for if he saw that the “o” was over one of the letters he would have indicated that—as the eye can see, see!

If a photo of the cover of the book, The Passionate Shepheard had been shown, all would know. And, by the way, Grosart, FAILED to inform the reader that, according to Collier, what Grosart was speaking of was in handwriting, not printed:

"Against which name is written, in a hand of about the time, "Nicolao Bretono," so the writer, "N.B."  

"Nicolas", as  "Nicolao" is merely the Latin of “Nicolas.” 

Yet it appears, elsewhere in the book. At A 3, it also  shows: "Pastorall Verses, written by the Shepheard Bonerto. . ." pg. 78

And at page 80, the author, makes this very interesting remark, about the poetic work as a whole:

“The piece is more in Breton's didactic style than any of the preceding pastorals, and in succession he bides farewell to youth, beauty, friendship, love, power, hope, fortune, art and time. Still, he  reverts to Aglaia  [Godddess of Beauty]. . . "Breton's "passionated poem," [is one] which may be termed his "Farewell."

** It is, moreover, to be noted that "Bonerto" appears in the poetry text itself

Bretono’s Final Farewell/Lord Oxford’s Final Farewell

But that is not all. We learn from Grosart, more particulars about this "odd" spelling of the author's name, by the author, for--if one believes it--just to give some variety to the spelling and sounding of his name, which was, we are told, by Collins (above) was quite famous. No one shows us the actual photo of the cover--but Grosart dares reveal more about this "odd" spelling of his name.

In "Notes And Illustrations" section, immediately following the poem, Grosart informs us of the following:

EPISTLE-DEDICATORY--Page  4, I. i.

'Bonerto' = Breton, with an 'o' over. . .'

What!? How does one do that, how does one put an 'o' over the name of Breton. . .lets see:

       o

B r e t o n 

o

B r e t o n 

               o

B r e t o n 

It can't be done! Why are we being deceived about this matter, why is there no photo of the only copy known to exist, which has an odd use of an 'o' above "Breton"? But, this can't be.  As said, in the poem, for this very section, "The description and praise of his fairest, Loue" Sonet 2. it states:

In italic his name:  "Bonerto's  fairest . . ."

Let us simply assume, the o' was placed in the middle, not right above the B, not above the 'o' but in the middle, over the 'e' --giving O/E.

One thing is clear, no one thinks it was a printer's accident, but that it was intentionally the case that a 'o' was "over" the name, "Breton," but the name is never "Breton" anywhere in the entire publication! It is, for this poem, "Pastorall Verses, written by the Shepheard Bonerto. . ."

A Bibliographical and Critical Account of the Rarest Books in the English ...

By John Payne Collier

Pasted from <https://books.google.com/books?id=2kcJAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA78&lpg=PA78&dq=Bonerto+the+faithfull+Shepheard&source=bl&ots=ZOCilLZEhF&sig=ZNperqfcElAnIvw5GTO1g9uy3bc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwimppbG693SAhUY7mMKHTNSAvkQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=Bonerto%20the%20faithfull%20Shepheard&f=false>

"Lucifer Howling Like A Cut Down Animal"

Isaiah’s “Lucifer” & The King of Babylon

Eric Miller, April, 2015

                The oldest copy of the Book of Isaiah, prior to the discovery of the Dead  Sea Scrolls in 1947, was circa 150 A.D. With discovery of what is now called  The Great Book of Isaiah (the parchment scroll itself)--found in desert-buried urns, among books of an early Christian community, (the Essenes, the Quran) we now have a copy of The Book of Isaiah  350 years older than the oldest previously known Hebrew copy). The question is, is it old  enough to give us a truer picture of the meaning of that famous passage of Isaiah concerning “Lucifer” and his/her alleged fall into the pits of Hell.

At the outset we must ask ourselves: does the old canard, in the world of historical researches, hold in this, our present case—that is to say: Does it apply to an examination of religious documents considered “sacred” to Jews and Christians and Moslems alike, the old canard that "the older the source the more authentic the document"?

Well, not quite, it would seem. The Jewish guardians of the Hebrew version of the Holy Scriptures, as might be expected, hold (in their estimation) undisputed priority regarding the scholarship of the subject of what their Bible means or does not mean. But what happens when they, the experts, from whatever religion, those “in charge” disagree? When it comes to “sacred” texts, can the “authorities” just change their minds—as a result of new research or new information, or even, perhaps, just to accomplish the shedding of an interpretive “scheme” that can’t be gotten away with any longer?

As the renowned Biblical scholar, H.W.F. Saggs warns us, we should not think that the Prophets don’t lie. And, no doubt, there is good reason to question the veracity of the “Prophets” (of which there were some 600,000 in “Biblical days”!) when it comes to their dealing honestly, objectively, and analytically—“scientifically” it is now said, with religious documents.  

As with most all religions, their “literary-center” is their collection of "sacred books" or Bibles (be it in characters, words, pictographs, hieroglyphics, whatever). The official "scribes" of various religions throughout the world determine what is "in" what is "out"--as regards all matters concerning the meaning and interpretation of their "holy text." One thing is certain, and that is "official religion" is now, and apparently always has been, a very political religio-socio-economic paradigm—from which the subject of which texts are “sacred” and which are not, or which are “more sacred” than others—and upon what basis such consideration are made, is, one may say, extraordinarily a political matter. And it is a major issue of scholarly integrity and propagandistic corruption.

“For most of us,” Dr. Saggs observes, “our first impression of ancient Near Eastern religion comes from the Bible. We therefore need to be aware that what is said there on the subject is prejudicial; the Israelite prophets, those fearsome men of God, were capable of definitely misleading . . . a case in point is the picture of their Mesopotamian view of their gods which we get from the prophet we call Deutero-Isaiah (responsible for Chapters 40-55 of the Book of Isaiah.)”  And the author, Dr. Saggs, then quotes from Isaiah 46: 6-7:

                Those who lavish gold from the purse,

                and weigh out silver in the scales,

                hired a goldsmith, and he makes it into a god;

                then they fall down and worship.

                They lift it upon their shoulders, they carry it,

                they set it in its place, and it stand there,

                it cannot move from its place.

And Dr. Saggs goes on to explicate the double-fold mendacity and “character assassination” (or should we say “religious assassination”) practiced by Isaiah in his remarks above.

“Here there are two implications about Mesopotamian religion. One is that the Mesopotamians thought of the god as being no more than an image, and the other is that worshippers made such gods just as it took their fancy. Both implications are false.”

“Images of the gods there certainly were, but they were recognized as being images and not the ultimate divine reality. Certainly the gods could be approached through the image, but so could the Israelites Yaweh be approached through the Ark. The divine image of an ancient Mesopotamian was no more the essence of his god than the Ark was the essence of Yaweh, or than a crucifix, to the Catholic who reveres it, is Christ”

And he goes on to quote, as proof of his view, that “The ancient theologians were quite explicit about this. One text says of Marduk, supreme god of Babylon though worshiped also in Assyria: 

                The underworld is your washbasin, the highest               

                heaven your censer bowl

And Saggs adds, “A god of such cosmic vastness could not be confined within an image. Moreover, far from the great gods being identified with their images, they were often represented and revered not as an image at all but as a symbol. Thus we see on one sculpture a worshipper kneeling before an altar on which is a sword. . .” and he quotes from an ancient document showing an oath being taken “before the dagger of the god Ashur.” (p. 201)

The Might That Was Assyria, by H.W.F. Saggs, 1984,

St. Martin’s Press, New York, 1990, p. 200

(Head of the Department of Semitic Languages and

Biblical Studies at University College Cardiff)

  

 THESES OF TRANSLATION  & INTERPRETATION

OF Isa. 14: 12-3 

1.       The Correct Translation into  English Of the Hebrew noun Helel is “Shining” [“Shiny One”]/but only in the realm of “clear” or seeing. In the realm of “sound” the correct translation is “Howl” (N. “Howler”)

2.       The King of Babylon’s God, Marduk, is named the “Shining One”, [9^th name in the list of the 50 God Names given Marduk at birth]; Marduk’s consort is also named “Shining”, indeed, the Assyrian God Assur, also mentioned by Isaiah in related passages, is “Shining”; El, the old Hebrew word for God, is “Shining” and the Eloheim are the “Shining Ones” or “Sons of God”, or El—that is to say his “stars” or his “angels” or his “hosts” or “soldiers”—either by direct inference or explicit etymology.

3.       The etymological root of the word Phäeton, the subject of the Greek myth of Phaeton’s fall is also “Shining”. But the Greek version of “Phäeton’s fall” is apparently but a retelling of the much earlier Babylonian story (see Hebrew Myths, Patai/Graves, 1983) – more to come. . .

4.       Isaiah, was particularly clever in his choice of the only usage in the entire Hebrew Scriptures of the Hebrew word for “Shining One,” which combines, in its etymological roots, both the “glorious” and the “inglorious” – Heylel.  Likewise he was clever to make him “howl” like a hacked down animal, he (the King of Babylon) who exalted himself above God, and Defeated All The Nations.

5.       Isaiah uses the Hebrew name Heylel as a powerful, mocking, double entendre—because “Heylel is one of those words which can also mean it’s opposite. (as indicated in its most ancient etymological Hebrew pictographic form—give examples, see pix).

Indeed, we deal with a triple entendre because we must also include the fact, that the literal meaning of Heylel (as pointed out by Jerome in a note to the passage at issue) is HOWL.

6.       The reason for this, was, doubtless, immediately apparent to Isaiah’s audience—but not, apparently to the meticulous transcribers over a thousand year period, the Masoretes—that the very word Heylel has a powerful double entendre and more. Using the very name of the God of the King of Babylon [#1 supra] Isaiah delivers his “mock” against the King Of Babylon (whose conquering powers has made the whole earth to quake!).

We have in the authoritative pre-exilic lexicon of classical Hebrew, as well as in Strong’s Concordance, the fact of the matter. At the explication of the root of “shine” we find the positive and the negative meaning of “Shine”. Among the negatives are:

Shining; A shining through ones actions or words. May be in a positive (praise) or negative (folly) sense [freq. 57

B) JJ + (H-LL) – Shine co:? ab: ?: To cause a shining of one by praising or giving thanks to another or to one’s self.

                V) JJ . . .To shine through one’s actions or words. [freq. 165] . . . praise, glory, boast, mad, shine, foolish, commended, rage, celebrate

--Madness: As one shining in a negative sense. [freq. 1] [kjv]; madness,     

Virtually all the sins of the King of Babylon are “called out” by Isaiah in his “taunt” by use of a “parable” and as a metaphor for the King’s soon-to-come being chopped down, cut down from heaven into the bottom of the pit of the dark underworld.

Really, it needs be said that Isaiah’s genocidal mania—ready, willing, able, and calling for the smashing of the all babies of Israel’s enemies to complete annihilation of their entire race. That’s Isaiah for you, one of Velikovsky’s favorites.  All in the same context as the Isa:14:

. . . more on this to come 

 Preamble:

1.       That the word "Lucifer" used in the KJV and other Christian versions of the "Bible" (Old and New Testaments), appearing in the Vulgate of St. Jerome (circa: 400 AD?] had no provable connection to the "Devil" as is the case in the Christian demonological aspects of the interpretation the original Hebrew. Indeed, Jerome made a note exactly at this place in the biblical text (Isa. 14-12-3) that “the literal meaning” of heylel (trans. by him as “Lucifer”) was “howler”.  We shall return to this point, which has gone virtually unnoticed and/or unknown by modern commentators. For in Jerome’s note, it is only noted that “howl” is the “literal meaning” of the Hebrew Helel.

2.       Also, we have another use of “howl” to begin another verse, by Isaiah, in the same verse, verse 14, where he poetically cries out for the very “gate” of the city to “Howl” and for the city to “cry”!

3.        

Isa 14:31

Howl,H3213 O gate; cry, O city; thou, whole Palestina, [art] dissolved: for there shall come from the north a smoke, and none [shall be] alone in his appointed times.

2. The "original Hebrew" (as noted at the very beginning, supra), as to an evidentiary matter, is from circa 150 A.D. This "original Hebrew" was the work of Masoretes (religious scribes) who, it is claimed, maintained meticulous records of the Hebrew Bible for 1,000 years previously, such that scholars of highest rank do not question the authority of the Masoretic texts--in the main. "In the main", is, of course, the whole subject here. Are there no cases of questionable interpretation of the Masoretes or a corruption or editing "in" or "out" certain words or phrases--is there no trace of that at all?

And how would be know if the originals are missing. Unfortunately, we are told when the Masoretes made a careful correction of this or that--then destroyed the original they worked from. So, we must take on faith, or not, what we are told. The fact is, as noted by Graves/Patai, the ancient Hebrew record has been so corrupted by intentional destruction of original works, records, alterations of what had been written, and on and on, that fundamentalists would be horrified by the truth and what really came from “God” and what came from the various religious out of which the Israelites, a small tribe of cow-hearders, fabricated their own “God-Myth”—putting themselves, like everybody else, at the head of God’s List of Preferred Customers.   

But here we are concerned with contemporary efforts to “tailor the text” to fit the suit.    

Modern Examples of Biblical Text Manipulations

3. The 1917-1955 Masoretic Text published by the JBS has at Isa: 14-12 "day-star"

[1965, edition?]

4. The 1985 Tanakh has for same, "Shining"

5. The pre-1985 Tanakh had "Lucifer" --

 the Jewish bible was translating Christian demonology into Isa" 14:12-3, etc, published by Jewish Publications Society

6.  The Hebrew word for "Shining" is Heylel -- that is the Hebrew word we are dealing with. Is it "Lucifer"?

Well we find in Psalms, as revealed by Dahood, that God in the Psalms is also referred to as "The Luminous One" – with the etymological root, the same as “Shining”, and that the term itself was etymological rooted in Canaanite language.

The Solution Interpretation :

It needs be noted that Isaiah was a professional “prophet”—it was he who claimed God told him that God wanted his people to murder over and over and over again—whoever did not recognize his religion and his “God-Election”--and don’t forget all the babies!

In Isaiah’s famous “taunt” against the “King of Babylon”, he was giving a public performance, a “whistling in the dark” as the Hebrews, all in all, were not that important to the great civilization of Assyria/Babylonia! The point is, this is a “blood and guts” and “God told me so” type of speech, wagging his little finger at a great power. His language throughout is gruesome, so we need not shy away, at all, from our view that by opening his “taunt” against the King of Babylon with a great primal howl, as he is hacked to death—that’s the prophecy! Isaiah’s Fatwa.

Note in the verse below that we have another case of Isaiah with the theme of “howling” “the noise of terror”, with the “fall into the pit” indeed, as he says in both cases “in the midst of the pit” is an apparent recurring theme with Isaiah.

In Isaiah 25: 18:

”And it shall come to pass

that he who fleeth from the noise of the terror

shall fall into the pit;

And he that cometh up out of the midst of the pit shall be taken in the trap.  [italic added]

Seen in light of Isa: 14: 12-3: (CLV)/MASORITE

How you have fallen from the heavens!

Howl[er], son-of-Dawn. You are hacked down

to the earth, Defeater of Nations!

[You said] . . . I will ascend above the heights of

the clouds;

I will be like the Most High [i.e., “God]”

Yet thou shalt be brought down

To the nether-world

To the uttermost parts of the pit.

[In the above, the first three lines are from the Concordance Literal Version (CLV) and after “Defeater of Nations” the text is used from the Masoretic Text.]

**********

Notes Below For Comments To Come/Comments by Saggs

“The ultimate origin of the god Beli is uncertain, but if we identify the British Belin or Beli with Belus the father of Danaë (as Nemus does), then we can further identify him with Bel, the Babylonian Earth-god, one of a male trinity, who succeeded to the titles of a far more ancient Mesopotamian deity, the mother of Danaë as opposed to the father of Danäus [i.e., matriarchy vs patriarchy, ed.]. This was Belili, the Sumerian White Goddess, Ishtar’s predecessor, who was a goddess of trees as well as a Moon-goddess, Love-goddess, and Underworld-goddess. . . From her name derives the familiar Biblical expression ‘Sons of Belial’—the Jews having characteristically altered the non-Semitic name Belili into the Semitic Beliy ya’al (‘from which one comes not up again’, i.e., the Underworld)—meaning ‘Sons of Destruction.’ The Slavonic word beli meaning ‘white’ and the Latin bellus meaning ‘beautiful’ are also ultimately connected with her name. Originally every tree was hers. . . Above all she was a Willow goddess and goddess of wells and springs. . . The willow was of great importance in the worship of Jehovah at Jerusalem.. . The White Goddess, Robert Graves, p. 58-59

** These linguistic and etymological associations and relationships are virtually universal—with “beauty” “luminosity”, and “light” “war” “white” “shining” etc. applicable to the sun, the moon, Venus, and other stars.

Saggs makes a similar point as to early Babylonian beliefs by merely observing:

“But the ordinary Assyrian would probably not be aware that theologically Ashur had absorbed many features both of the gold Sumerian god Enlil, one of the supreme triad, and of Marduk, god of Babylon. Alongside Ashur was the goddess Ishtar, never far from mind because of her association on the one hand with sexual activities and on the other with war. Ishtar manifested herself in various forms –as Istar of Mineveh, Ishtar of Erbil, and Ishtar of Bit-Kitmuri, for example—and some Assyrians certainly thought of these as distinct deities. . . However. . . quite a few other god names occur as elements in personal names, and this might imply the widespread worship of those deities, for which other evidence is lacking. .” (p. 202-3, The Might That Was Assyria)

From The Nostratic Macrofamily: A Study in Distant Linguistic Relationship, Allan R. Bomhard, John C. Kerns (1994):

  

B:   Proto-Afroasiatic *hal-l*hel - 'to light up., to beam forth, to shine, to brighten up, to radiate': Proto-Semitic *hal-al- "to light up, to beam forth, to shine, to brighten up, to radiate' . . . Hebrew halal 'to shine', helel (appellation) 'shining one' (epithet of the king of Babylon); Arabic halla ‘to appear, to come up, to show (new moon); to shout with joy, to rejoice, to exult, to jubilate; to shine; to gleam, to glow, to be radiant; to beam with joy’. ..” , (pg. 586)

4. From the glorious appearance and effects of the irradiation of light in the material world, many words which in their primary sense are descriptive of light and its operations, do in all languages denote glory, praise, or the like, and thus in Heb.as a N. Fem. ___ praise, glory.       pg.115

 An “Early” Case Against “Lucifer” Being The Planet Venus in Isaiah’s 14: 12-3 

Below from A Hebrew and English lexicon without points: in which the Hebrew and  Chaldee words of the Old Testament are explained in their leading and derived senses, ... To this work are prefixed, a Hebrew and a Chaldee grammar, without points (Google eBook), by John Parkhurst, 1829

On Helel, Lucifer & Howl [the ___ below indicates the Hebrew word for “Helel” or “Howl” –being the same word

lll. To irradiate brisky, shine brightly.  It occurs not in this sense as a verb in the reduplicate form, but hence as a N. ____ the bright irradiator, a title given to, and perhaps assumed by, the king of Babylon. By being joined with _____ son of morning, it seems in its primary sense to denote the planet Venus, as we call it, while tending from its lower to its upper conjunction with the sun, when consequently it appears to the westward of him in the Zodiac, and so is visible in the morning before the sun-rise, and ushers in the day.

So LXXX, qui mame oriebaris, Lucifer, who didst arise in the morning. ___ then is generally thought to denote the morning star, from its vivid splendour; and this interpretation is in some measure confirmed by ver. 13. Michaelis, however, Supplem ad Lex. Heb. p. 539, disapproved of it.

1.       Because none of the eastern nations take the name Venus from the root ___though the Arabs do that of the moon.

2.       ____ is in its form more like to the V. ____ howl, than to a N. and accordingly the Syriac translations render it ____ howl, and even Jerome on the place observes, that it literally means howl.

3.       Venus, the morning-star, who on account of her beauty was by most nations reckoned feminine, should rather have been called  ___ daughter, than ___, son, of the morning.

4.       If the morning-star had been meant, it would have been more proper to say thou hast grown pale as the stars do on the approach of the sun, and last of all the morning star; but by no means, thou hast fallen from heaven, since that star is never so much elevated above the horizon, that it has far to fall.

5.       "Therefore," says Michaelis, "I translate “howl, son of the morning, i.e., thou star of the first magnitude." But compare Rev. xxii. 16, and Vitringa in Isa. ccc. Isa xiv. 12"

Continuing Research Nets Results: SHAKAR, THE MOON MOTHER!

“The first great civilization of the Euphrates and Tigris valley was the work of the Sumerians who were not Semites and worshipped a vast and complicated pantheon of gods. The Acadians, who invaded and took over the Sumerian civilization, perhaps about 3000 B.C. were Semites, speaking a wholly different language, coming from namely the Moon, Venus, and the Sun. They were obliged, however, when they became civilized to change the sex of the Sun and Venus, for among them the Sun had been a mother-goddess and Athtar, the planet Venus was male. The Moon remained masculine, but lost its Semitic name of Shahar and was called by the Sumerian name of Sin. To suit the Sumerian liturgy Shamash the Sun, became masculine, and Ishtar, the evening star, became the goddess of love and war. Thus she retained a double nature; in the morning she was goddess of war, and was called the Male Ishtar, but in the evening she became the goddess of love, and was called the Female Ishtar.” – p. 152,

     Babylonian Myths and Omens’, 

Rupert Gleadow, The Origins of the Zodiac, Castle Books, NY., 1968

As we can see Gleadow, the renowned classical scholar and astrology expert, gives us, a pause of amazement. What, Shahar was the Moon Goddess, before being called Sin!

Moreover, we see below, that “SAKAR” is a “technical term for the crescent moon”—as well.

Have the researchers not done their jobs? Could it be that Isaiah, by referring to Helel as the “son of Dawn” he was speaking of not the morning but the “night”?

  

Sin /ˈsiːn/ (Akkadian: Su'en, Sîn) or Nanna (Sumerian: ^DŠEŠ.KI, ^DNANNA) was the god of the moon in theMesopotamian mythology of Akkad, Assyria and Babylonia. Nanna is a Sumerian deity, the son of Enlil andNinlil, and became identified with Semitic Sin. The two chief seats of Nanna's/Sin's worship were Ur in the south of Mesopotamia and Harran in the north.

Pasted from <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin_%28mythology%29>

The original meaning of the name Nanna is unknown. The earliest spelling found in Ur and Uruk is ^DLAK-32.NA (where NA is to be understood as a phonetic complement). The name of Ur, spelled LAK-32.UNUG^KI=URIM₂^KI, is itself derived from the theonym, and means "the abode (UNUG) of Nanna (LAK-32)".

The pre-classical sign LAK-32 later collapses with ŠEŠ (the ideogram for "brother"), and the classical Sumerian spelling is ^DŠEŠ.KI, with the phonetic reading na-an-na. The technical term for the crescent moon could also refer to the deity, ^DU₄.SAKAR. Later, the name is spelled logographically as ^DNANNA.

The Semitic moon god Su'en/Sin is in origin a separate deity from Sumerian Nanna, but from the Akkadian Empire period the two undergo syncretization and are identified. The occasional Assyrian spelling of ^DNANNA-ar ^DSu'en-e is due to association with Akkadian na-an-na-ru "illuminator, lamp", an epitheton of the moon god. The name of the Assyrian moon god Su'en/Sîn is usually spelled as ^DEN.ZU, or simply with the numeral 30,^DXXX.^[1]

Pasted from <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin_%28mythology%29>

 To be continued

Sources:

Link for Ancient Hebrew Lexicon:

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/bookstore/e-books/ahlb.pdf

Notes

“The insatiable appetite of Death was proverbial in both Ugaritic and Hebrew literatures. Gaster, Thepis, 1961, p. 206, gathers the relevant texts, e.g. Isa v 14; Hab ii 5; . . . [and he also cites, among other references, Jer. Xviii 21, . . . “Give their [non-Jewish] children to the Hungry One.”

Elsewhere in this piece I quote other such “death-hungry” pronouncements from Isaiah himself, of course claiming they came from God himself.

[Above cited in The Anchor Bible, Psalms I (1-50), Introduction, Translation and Notes, by Dahood, S.J., p. 117

Who is Athar”?  - from Wikipedia

Attar (Aramaic); Athtar (South Arabia); Astar (Abyssinia); Ashtar (Moab); Ashtar(t) (Canaan); Ishtar(Assyro-Babylonian)^[1] is the god of the morning star in western Semitic mythology. In Canaanite legend, he attempts to usurp the throne of the dead god Baal Hadad but proves inadequate. In semi-arid regions of western Asia he was sometimes worshipped as a rain god. His female counterpart is the Phoenician Astarte. In more southerly regions he is probably known as Dhu-Samani.

In Dahood’s translation of the Psalms, to explicate a passage in Psalm 18, he remarks, “The theme concerning the vastness of the nether world makes early appearance in UT, 49: i:33-37” and he quotes from the text. Below:

“And Athtar the terrible replied: ‘I cannot rule in the heart of Zaphon.’ Athtar the terrible came down from the throne of Baal, and became king in the vast underworld, all of it. Scholars have invariably taken bars il kih  to refer to the earth, but this interpretation overlooks the consideration that this was Baal’s dolman. Being unable to fill Baal’s throne, Athtar was obviously unfit to supplant Baal as the ruler of the visible earth and had to be content with governing the dead. The phraseology of Job xxxviii 18 points to the same motif. . . .”Have you comprehended the vast reaches of the nether world?? Speak out if you are familiar with all of it.”

[Above cited in The Anchor Bible, Psalms I (1-50), Introduction, Translation and Notes, by Dahood, S.J., p. 111

It is to be noted that in Epithet 89, in Divine Epithets in the Ugaritic alphabetic Texts, p. 263, it is spoken of the “decent” of Attaru (same as Ashtar, Athatar, etc. “ and that fact that “He descends from the throne of Ba’lu the mighty one.” Gingsberg, ANET, 140 and numerous other places indicates that Athtar is often referred to as “the Terrible”. Interestingly, Gray proposed “the Luminous” based on Arab. Arisa “to flash” (of lightning). [see, p. 263]

Divine Epithets in the Ugaritic Alphabetic Texts

 By Aïcha Rahmouni

Notes to Myself:

see: Craigie, P.S. 1973 “Helel, Athtar and Phaethon (Jes 14:12-15.” ZAW85

(See printout. . . The Mythological Provenance Of Isa. 14: A Reconsideration of the Ugaritic Material, by Michael S. Heiser, Madison, Wi. I have it. )

An Antiquarian Note:

The renowned classical antiquarian, Humbolt, expressed his view that “some connection existed between Ethiopia and the elevated plain of Central Asia.” And Donnelley continues, These were invasions which marched from the shores of Arabia into China. “An Arabian sovereign, Schamar-Iarasch (Abou Karib) is described by Hamza, Nuwayri, and others as a powerful ruler and conqueror, who carried his arms successfully far into Central Asia; he occupied Samareand and invaded China. He erected an edifice at Samareand, bearing an inscription, in Himyarite or Cushite characters. ‘In the name of God, Schamar-Iarasch has erected this edifice to the sun, his Lord.” (Baldwin’s “Prehistoric Nations,” p. 110). These invasions must have been prior to 1518 B.C.”). These invasions must have been prior to 1518 B.C.)

(p. 427, Atlantis. By Ignatius Donnelley, Harper and Row, 1883)

H3214

ילל

yelêl

yel-ale'

From H3213 ; a howl: - howling.

H3213

ילל

yâlal

yaw-lal'

A primitive root; to howl (with a wailing tone) or yell (with a boisterous one): - (make to) {howl} be howling.

Strong’s Numbers

Additional Notes:

Also to be noted. . .

 “Now Astarte, the divine mistress of Adonis, was identified with the planet Venus, and her changes from a morning to an evening star were carefully noted by the Babylonian astronomers, who drew omens from her alternate appearance and disappearance.  Here we may conjecture that the festival of Adonis was regularly timed to coincide with the appearance of Venus as the Morning or Evening Star. But the star which to people of Antioch saluted at the festival was seen in the East; therefore, if it was indeed Venus, it can only have been the Morning Star. At Aphaca in Syria, where there was a famous temple of Astarte, the signal for the celebration of the rites was apparently given by the flashing of a meteor, which on a certain day fell like a star from the top of Mount Lebanon into the river Adonis. The meteor was thought to be Astarte herself, and its flight through the air might naturally be interpreted as the descent of the amorous goddess to the arms of her lover.” P. 402-3 (Golden Bough)

It is further to be noted that just prior to this passage, Frazer discussed that there was a great tumult of noise. “the voices of a great multitude who cried that the star of Salvation  had dawned upon them in the East. This may doubles have been no more than a fulsome compliment. . . But it is also possible that the rising of a bright star regularly gave the signal for the festival. . . or the emperor may have been mistaken for a greeting to himself the shouts which were addressed to the star.” (p.402)

The “shouts” or “howls” of elation and delight addressed to the star . . .

 ELM

G.HARVEY'S "OE" CIPHER "OUTTING" SHAKESPEARE

Gabriel Harvey’s  Own Version of:

“The Importance of Being Earnest:

A Trivial Comedy for Serious People”

In 6 Lines of Marginalia

© E. Le Roy Miller, May 12, 2016

G

abriel Harvey, was a prominent Lecturer at Cambridge, a writer, an intimate friend of one of England’s greatest credited poets, Edmund Spenser. Harvey, who has many claims to fame or infamy, wrote in his copy of Chaucer, 1598, numerous marginalia notes (for which he is famous on that count alone). He was involved with many controversies and was an extraordinary “character” in his own right—having been involved in many imbroglios involving famous writers of his time, and, as I document, he once worked for Lord Oxford. He was so positioned and privileged to know that Lord Oxford was “Shakespeare.”  In his marginalia notes he commented on various literary figures, critiques and analysis of myriad matters, mostly literary, philosophical, and political.  He was, in fact, sometimes intimately knowledgeable of Lord Oxford’s comings and goings —so to speak. [At the end of the article are photocopies of original text by Harvey quoted below]

One of Harvey’s notes, destined I dare say, to soon become famous, in the Chaucer book, is featured below:

“The younger sort takes much delight in Shakespeares
Venus, & Adonis : but his Lucrece, & his tragedie of
Hamlet, Prince of Denmarke, haue it in them, to please
the wiser sort. Or such poets: or better: or none.

Vilia Miretur Vulgus : Mihi Flavus Apollo
Pocula Castalioe Plena Ministret Aquoe:

quoth Sir Edward Dier, betwene jest, & earnest.”

[extra space added to the quote, and italic and initial capitalization of words added for ease, nothing else changed]

The above, from Gabriel Harvey’s Marginalia, by Smith, as said, is believed to have been written by Harvey in a copy of a new edition of Chaucer, in 1598, the year of its publication. Harvey’s marginalia is, therefore, thought to be the date of the entry of Harvey’s confirmed note, in his secretarial style. At the outset, it needs be noted, there is no dispositive evidence, at all, for the proposition, however, that Harvey actually wrote his remarks in that year, i.e., 1598—it may well have been a number of years later. This writer believes the notes were written probably a few years later. In any case, first, it must be noted that the quotation by Harvey is “doctored” by him, by virtue of his inserting a Cipher code in the quoted material which is not in the “original” text of Shakespeare's use of the above given epigram quotation, by Ovid, for Venus and Adonis.

“CASTILOE” & “AGUOE”: HARVEY’S INVENTED CIPHER WORDS

  

Now, it must be noted at the outset, that the spelling of the two words (Castilioe and aguoe) in the quoted passage, is unique, invented, and gives us words which do not exist, in any language—certainly not Latin, of which Harvey Gabriel was an acknowledged master, who lectured at Cambridge University in Latin. The reader will readily see the two words which end in the cipher code = “OE” or lower case “oe.”  Thus, there can be no doubt at all that the cipher words were intended.

Below is Harvey’s “version” of the epigram to Shakespeare’s  Venus & Adonis [I note here, that the Latin spelling of “Adonis” is Adone, or AdOnE, itself containing the Cipher code—but this does not play an obvious role in the specific ciphers defined. The quote, as said, is from Ovid, but modified by said two words (“Castalioe” and “aquoe”), thus:

Vilia miretur vulgus : mihi flavus Apollo

Pocula Castalioe plena ministret aquoe:

Literal Google Translation of Harvey’s cipher spelling, bolded:

Vilia, marvel at the common people: for me may golden Apollo

 Castalioe cups full minister aquos:

Harvey’s Humor: In Jesting Earnest!

Obviously, the “oe” endings on Castilia and aqua are not grammatical and make no sense in any language—but we may ask:  is there anything in it “between jest and earnest”? –as Harvey declared to be the case. And, if there is, somehow or other, a joke or something serious [“serio” is another alternate word for “aquoe],” as said—what in the world could it be?

Harvey’s AQUOE, for AQUA

A Google alternate word suggestion for Harvey’’s “aquoe” is “aquos”—for which an alternate word is “aquos” which means “earnest.” [another Latin term for aquos is serio, as in “serious”]

Coincidence? That the very word of Harvey’s known-to-be-misspelled word “aqua” (originally” modified by Harvey to “aquoe”)—exactly fulfills the condition of the second part of his remark, i.e., that Harvey said Dier’s remark, obviously by his misquotation, which was between “jest and earnest.” What in the world could that mean? Let us look again at the text segregating “Dier’s quote” from the actual quote from Ovid, and showing the translation of Harvey’s misquoted passage (implicitly suggesting that Dier intentionally made his “jest” and “earnest” statement.

Harvey’s “quoting” Sir Edward Dier’s quote 
of the  epigram for Venus & Adonis

Vilia miretur vulgus : mihi flavus Apollo

Pocula Castalioe plena ministret aquoe

Original Text of Ovid used as epigram for Venus & Adonis

Vilia miretur vulgus : mihi flavus Apollo

Pocula Castalia plena ministret aqua

Literal Google Translations of Harvey’s distorted text -Google

(from Latin to English):

Vilia, marvel at the common people: for me may golden Apollo,

Castalioe cups full minister aquos: 

[an alternate word for “ aquos”given by Google is “earnest.”]

I would have the reader also note that, the cipher words are in the correct order as well, for as said, between “jest and earnest”—we have “jest first” then “earnest”—and that is exactly as Harvey made it, first the one, then the other. The jest is first, what jest could there be in a single word? It depends on how it’s spelled, Harvey would reply.

Literal Google Translation of Ovid’s original:

Vilia, marvel at the common people: for me may golden Apollo,

Castalia minister full cups water.

Smith’s  “standard” translation, used by most, if not all scholars, as said provides transcription of all of Harvey’s script writing, commentary, etc.  Nonetheless, this writer believes there are grounds for challenging use “oe” for both transcriptions. The reader can see what looks like aquae.

Here we would note that the “aqua” (water) being spoken of, is the water from the springs of Castilia—a ravine located near Apollo’s Temple, some miles away, the God of pOEtry’s springs!

Probably, the reason for NOT choosing to transcribe the handwritten word with an “ae” ending, instead of Harvey’s invented “oe” ending for “aquoe,” is because, though it is the wrong word from what Ovid wrote, and we are dealing with his original text, the word aquae is a Latin word, it gives the plural of “water”—which of course, is not in the original quotation. It is clear, to me, and Smith, also, obviously, that Castalioe is clearly intended—though Smith must have known there were problems with this, he made no mention of it, that I have found. The reader may need to note that the “g” letter’s descending open loop, cuts through the tail end of the word, at “e” and preceding it with an “o”.

WHERE’S THE JEST, WHERE’S THE EARNESTNESS

With that in mind, we need a little humor, a “jest” if you will.  In the present case the jest, curiously, is in the earnestness. Here’s how: Apollo is the God of PoeTRY, and nearby his temple is Apollo’s famous springs of the Castilia. Wikipedia gives the following:

  

Finally Roman poets regarded it as a source of poetic inspiration. According to some mythological versions it was here that Apollo killed the monster,Python, who was guarding the spring, and that is why it was considered to be sacred. . .The Castalian Spring became a type for a well of poetic inspiration, partly by confusing it with the Spring of Pieris. The Castalian Band, a group of poets or makars associated with the Court of James VI of Scotland (including the king himself) drew their name from this source.

In my interpretation, I take Harvey’s (or Dier’s, if Dier really did write or say the quote from Ovid as given by Harvey) the “jest” is—in relationship to “Shakespeare”—which is what the whole passage is about—that Shakespeare thinks himself to be the consummate poet, one who is himself, in persona, a living incarnation of that poet spirit. And that it the jest—that Shakespeare was so intoxicated with himself he could so conceive himself to be the reincarnation of the God of Poetry—which, of course, is what the whole story about the Phoenix is about. Conceit could not stretch further—it appears to be humorously the point. Indeed, the issue of conceit is virtually forever tied to Shakespeare and the quotation from Ovid, as Marlowe, interpreted what Harvey is suggesting, in about the same year, 1598, when he translated the same passage—apparently about the exact time that Harvey got the new book of Chaucer, thusly:

Let base conceited wits admire vile things

Fair Phoebus lead me by the Muses springs.

“FAIR PHoeBUS”

Obviously, it would seem, the Fair Phoebus is the leader, who takes poets to the “Muses springs.” I have elsewhere dealt with Marlowe choice of substituting what Ovid wrote, “Apollo” for his own Shakespeare/Oxford term which has Shakespeare’s cipher name in it, OE. It is the view of this writer that Marlowe was aware of the fact—and like Harvey, divulges it, cryptographically—by changing the name of the god from Apollo, to one with EO in it Phoenix, or Phoebus, being key personifications of the cipher. So, it appears, virtually about the same time, Harvey and Marlow, let the cat-out-of-the-bag—in writing, as it is virtually certain many others also knew Lord Oxford was Shakespeare.

Conclusion:

I’ve provided here, the central issue of the Harvey and Marlowe ciphers, indicating the person being referred to is Lord Oxford AKA “Shakespeare.” It is further my view, based on long research and scholarship, and articles written on the matter, that others besides Harvey and Marlowe knew Lord Oxford was Shakespeare—and one of those most knowledgeable about the matter is, probably, Gabriel Harvey.

Quod Erat Demonstratum

E. Le Roy Miller, May 14, 2016

  

.