Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1999 :: January ::
Re: Psalm 46
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0088  Monday, 18 January 1999.

[1]     From:   Clifford Stetner <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Sunday, 17 Jan 1999 08:11:52 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0080 Re: Psalm 46

[2]     From:   Carl Fortunato <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Sunday, 17 Jan 1999 08:52:06 EST
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0080 Re: Psalm 46

[3]     From:   John Savage <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Sunday, 17 Jan 1999 09:24:08 -0500
        Subj:   SHK 10.0080 Re: Psalm 46

[4]     From:   Sean Lawrence <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Sunday, 17 Jan 1999 10:35:32 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0080 Re: Psalm 46

[5]     From:   David J. Kathman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Sunday, 17 Jan 1999 17:40:30 -0600 (CST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0080 Re: Psalm 46

[6]     From:   Brian Haylett <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 18 Jan 1999 16:04:03 -0000
        Subj:   Psalm 46


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Clifford Stetner <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Sunday, 17 Jan 1999 08:11:52 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 10.0080 Re: Psalm 46
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0080 Re: Psalm 46

What about the 46 year old thing? Isn't this complete conjecture, as the
translation was the work of several years? Was it already in progress in
1610? I have always believed that the plays and poems represented the
stuff of his own current obsessions.  I can't believe that a work which
would have occupied so much of his attention would leave no trace in the
last plays, unless it was one of Prospero's books (not the one he
intends to toss to Davey Jones I presume). I should add that I was first
shown this by two black Muslims who were attempting to prove that the
entire Bible was the work of the white devil.

Clifford Stetner

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Carl Fortunato <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Sunday, 17 Jan 1999 08:52:06 EST
Subject: 10.0080 Re: Psalm 46
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0080 Re: Psalm 46

>Because I'm an Oxfordian, I would just as soon that Shakespeare had
>nothing to do with working on the KJV because Oxford was dead in 1604,
>several years too much dead to be involved in the work.

>And yet there it is, the poetry of the Bible that can be explained only
>by a great poet being at the table, or divine intervention.

In my opinion, the poetry of the King James, while good, is of a very
different type than Shakespeare, and its impressiveness largely derives
from the original.  There is great poetry in the Revised Standard, the
New American, even the New International, because they are good writers
of English translating great poetry.

I've been trying to find a copy of the Psalm 46 in the Geneva Bible
without luck.  In the samples I've seen of the Geneva Bible, it often
reads word for word like the King James, so I suspect that may also be
the case here.

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Savage <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Sunday, 17 Jan 1999 09:24:08 -0500
Subject: Re: Psalm 46
Comment:        SHK 10.0080 Re: Psalm 46

>does that mean that one believes that Shakespeare
>didn't believe in a God who would punish messing with Its text in such
>an egotistical way?

You're right-I don't think Will Shakespeare believed in such a God. (Or
possibly any God at all.)

>Is there any evidence that Shakespeare wrote anything for free?

There's no evidence that he wrote his portion of the KJV Bible, if he
did, for free.

>Can we conclude that unattributed translations of the Bible with the
>names James and Joyce in them must have been written by our greatest
>modernist polymath?

Another attempt at reductio ad absurdum.  The complex Psalm 46 case
isn't at all as simplistic as the above.

>Given what Shakespeare did with his other sources, would you trust him
>with one of the most revered books of the most revered Book?

Given that he was the greatest poet of the age (some would say any age),
yes, I would indeed trust him with writing a portion of the Bible.

>as to Shakespeare being called to the job, again "why not?"  If the man
>>did< help with
>the work, and if the best of the language came from his pen, he just
>might have fooled about with sonnet 46 to code himself as a worker,
>Why not?

Why not indeed?

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Sunday, 17 Jan 1999 10:35:32 -0800
Subject: 10.0080 Re: Psalm 46
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0080 Re: Psalm 46

>And yet there it is, the poetry of the Bible that can be explained only
>by a great poet being at the table, or divine intervention.

Do you explain the poetry of the Book of Common Prayer in the same way?
What about the Qu'ran?

Cheers,
Se

 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.