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 10.0121  Friday, 22 January 1999.

[1]     From:   Carl Fortunato <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 21 Jan 1999 08:55:06 EST
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0117 Re: Psalm 46

[2]     From:   John Savage <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 21 Jan 1999 09:10:56 -0500
        Subj:   SHK 10.0102 Re: Psalm 46

[3]     From:   Sean Lawrence <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 21 Jan 1999 08:54:47 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0117 Re: Psalm 46

[4]     From:   Mike Jensen <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 21 Jan 1999 09:41:26 -0800
        Subj:   SHK 10.0117 Re: Psalm 46

[5]     From:   Thomas Larque <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 21 Jan 1999 23:21:18 -0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0102 Re: Psalm 46


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Carl Fortunato <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 21 Jan 1999 08:55:06 EST
Subject: 10.0117 Re: Psalm 46
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0117 Re: Psalm 46

>Great as my admiration for the bard may be, I find it hard to think that
>he not only translated the psalm, and inserted his cryptographic
>signature, but also corrected an oversight made by S. Jerome when he
>translated the Hebrew into Latin, without dealing with the problem of
>that uncounted final "Selah".
>
>  Peter Hillyar-Russ.

Excellent.   Thank you for the information, which explains the addition
of the two words very clearly.  And far as I'm concerned, this is the
last word on the subject.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Savage <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 21 Jan 1999 09:10:56 -0500
Subject: Re: Psalm 46
Comment:        SHK 10.0102 Re: Psalm 46

>Shakespeare is hardly in the same category as
>those who worked on the KJV in that we have most of their names and da
>Bard ain't on the list.

With all good will, it appears we do not have all the names, so how do
we know the Bard wasn't on the original list?

>It has been demonstrated that Ps. 46 does not work as a cipher.

Sorry, don't agree.  My dictionary's definition of a cipher most
definitely doesn't exclude what happens in Psalm 46.

>It has been demonstrated that the position of those words was
>established in earlier translations.

Sorry, can't agree with that either.  The extraordinary positioning of
the words "shake" and "spear" in Psalm 46 of the KJV was not established
in earlier translations.

>It has been demonstrated that everyone known on the translation team was
>an expert in their field.

"Everyone known"-okay.  What about those on the team who are not known?
(And by the way, Shakespeare was an expert in his field.)

>Shakespeare almost certainly did not know Hebrew.
>Psalm 46 was translated from Hebrew.

If, as I believe possible, Shakespeare did some of the writing of the
psalms, he was chosen to do this work because he was a great poet, not
because he knew Hebrew.  He would not have been hired just to do basic
translation; others would have done that.

>Another critical thinking error everyone seems to miss is all the other
>lovely language in the KJV.  No one proposes Shakespeare to have done
>more than Ps. 46.

Sorry, not true.  It has been pointed out that he could have worked on a
number of the psalms, but if he decided to hide his name in the text he
would have done it with only one.  Makes sense, no?

>It is time to stop whipping this poor horse and bury it. <<

But, as is obvious from these posts, the horse is still very much alive
and kicking.

Keep in mind the strong possibility, mentioned several times during this
discussion, that one of the scholars, as an academic jest or prank, may
have buried Our Will's name in the 46th Psalm.

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 21 Jan 1999 08:54:47 -0800
Subject: 10.0117 Re: Psalm 46
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0117 Re: Psalm 46

Richard Kennedy writes:

>Thanks to Thomas Larque for his research into the KJV. However, and
>whatever it may mean, it is only the KJV that has the 46th Psalm trick.
>Maybe it means nothing, but it's unique.

It's also imaginary.  In order to discover it, you have to ignore the
word "Selah" (which was printed), the introduction to the Psalm (which
was also printed), assume that Shakespeare was 46 whenever he edited, or
whatever, this peice, and choose to count backwards from the end of the
psalm.  None of this is given.  Nor, an earlier correspondent to this
list assures us, is it in keeping with how Renaissance cryptograms
generally worked.

>More unique, possibly, is that this immense piece of work that lasted
>for 6 years or more leaves us no clue as to the work being done, no
>notes, no letters, no paper at all except for a few Hebrew quibbles by
>Bois, not much helping our doubts that those men "appointed" were
>actually engaged in the work.

Actually, it does leave clues "as to the work being done."  We have most
of the names of the appointees.  We have the source texts.  We even have
some rough notes.  You're just trying to find quibbles on which to
dismiss all such clues.  An argument based on the idea that we know very
little, so that what we actually do know is called into further doubt,
so we can just make up whatever we like based on no real evidence at
all, is a very weak argument, requiring a strange mixture of paranoia
and dogmatism.

Cheers,
Se

 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.