1999

Brush Up Your Shakespeare

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0082  Sunday, 17 January 1999.

From:           Tom Dale Keever <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 16 Jan 1999 15:13:55 -0500 (EST)
Subject:        Brush Up Your Shakespeare

"Depending on what you decide, it [ 'our cherished system of justice' ]
will either be strengthened in its power to achieve justice or it will
go the way of so much of our moral infrastructure and become a mere
convention, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

  - Rep. Henry Hyde (R, IL), 14 January 1999

I know the year is young and we will no doubt have additional worthy
candidates, but I want to be sure that when we are compiling our
"Silliest Shakespeare Allusions of 1999" we not forget Henry Hyde's
notable contribution to the genre.

Lest we forget the atmosphere of manufactured theatricality of the
"show" going on in the Capitol, the cameras pan back after each speech
to show the Chief Justice arrayed in the new gilded "costume" he
designed for himself in imitation of the outfit he enviously spied on
the lecherous Lord Chancellor in a recent Washington staging of
"Iolanthe."

We can only hope the House "Managers" get their wish and force Clinton
to come to the chamber and testify so that they can try to stage their
own version of the deposition scene from "Richard II."  I'm sure they
are already combing their Bartlett's for appropriate, or inappropriate,
lines to insert.

Tom Dale Keever
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
http://columbia.edu/~tdk3

Re: A Quick Question

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0081  Sunday, 17 January 1999.

[1]     From:   John Savage <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 16 Jan 1999 15:04:07 -0500
        Subj:   SHK 10.0069 Re: A Quick Question

[2]     From:   John Savage <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 16 Jan 1999 15:04:24 -0500
        Subj:   SHK 10.0069 Re: A Quick Question


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Savage <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 16 Jan 1999 15:04:07 -0500
Subject: Re: A Quick Question
Comment:        SHK 10.0069 Re: A Quick Question

>Sorry for picking John Savage's nits, but I wonder if Shakespeare really
>did have a great interest in Italy.  True, several plays are set there,

"Several"?  Over a dozen.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Savage <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 16 Jan 1999 15:04:24 -0500
Subject: Re: A Quick Question
Comment:        SHK 10.0069 Re: A Quick Question

>Comedy of Errors takes place in Ephesus which is in Turkey  so that's the
>odd one out.

Congratulations; a number of people supplied the correct answer.  I
shall have to come up with a harder one next time.  (And there will be a
next time.  <g>)

To: Patricia Cooke, Secretary & Editor
Shakespeare Globe Centre New Zealand Inc

Since I'm far away and know little about it, is the Shakespeare Globe
Centre there a reproduction of the original?

Re: Psalm 46; Sh. in Love; Spin-off

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0079  Saturday, 16 January 1999.

[1]     From:   Richard J Kennedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 15 Jan 1999 09:34:37 -0800 (PST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0067 Re: Psalm 46

[2]     From:   Melissa D. Aaron <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 15 Jan 1999 13:12:07 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0072 Re: The Theatre; Sh. in Love

[3]     From:   Ronald Dwelle <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 15 Jan 1999 20:32:46 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0073 Spin-off -R&J under the bridge


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Richard J Kennedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 15 Jan 1999 09:34:37 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 10.0067 Re: Psalm 46
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0067 Re: Psalm 46

Those who don't like the idea that Shakespeare had a hand in the KJV
will be happy to know that there is no proof that he did.

On the other hand, there is no proof that those 50 odd men appointed to
the job did the work either.  You'll not find any correspondence or work
sheets, or reports of conferences, nor any trace of the great amount of
paper that must have been created in such an enormous effort.

There is one exception, a few pages by Bilson, I believe it was, some
linguistic quibble he was attentive to, but in no way was he building a
style or making poetry.

It was a job that lasted 6 years at least, and there is no paper trail.
After being appointed to the task, those 50 odd men are no longer heard
about, leaving not a paper clip behind to make us suppose they were busy
at the job.

Take Lancelot Andrewes, for example, more capable and longer remembered
by History than any of the others.  I believe he once mentioned in a
letter of his appointment, but he left us nothing to let us know of his
work.  And when the work was done, not a man of them all was commended
by the King, and thereafter, in epitaph, or coin, or with the smallest
note were they remembered for this magnificent effort.  Why not?

Of course it is only a question, this "why not?", and 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,
since it seems that somewhere along the line it was agreed that nobody
was going to get any credit for the job.  Why not?  The Elizabethans
were full of word play, ciphering, puns, acrostics, anagrams, and so
forth.

Shakespeare was fairly idle in Stratford during the years that the KJV
was being translated, but no matter if he wrote a play or two in those 6
years, for we know that he wrote at a prodigous rate, and might have
time enough to smooth out Tyndale and draw from the best of the Geneva
Bible, and let all the others be satisfied that they were honored with
the "appointment" of King James to do the work, and then take the rest
of the day off.

The 46th Psalm may be only a small breeze that whispers some rumor to
us, but even such a small wind is more than the breath left behind by
those other 50 "translators".

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Melissa D. Aaron <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 15 Jan 1999 13:12:07 -0500
Subject: 10.0072 Re: The Theatre; Sh. in Love
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0072 Re: The Theatre; Sh. in Love

>> * The apothecary's hat. Cast as the apothecary), in the
>> play-within-the-movie, producer Hugh Fennyman (Tom Wilkinson) fusses
>> anxiously over wearing just the right hat.
>
>I thought this might be a very, very in-joke about Mark Rylance, a sorta
>actor-manager with a fairly well known fancy for hats.

Actually, the echoes I caught were Nick Bottom ("What beard were I best
to play it in?")  and oddly, to Jane Austen.  You may perhaps remember
Mr.  Rushworth in Mansfield Park obsessing about his two-and-forty lines
as Count Cassell, not to mention his blue costume with the pink lining.

Melissa D. Aaron
University of Michigan

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Ronald Dwelle <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 15 Jan 1999 20:32:46 -0500
Subject: 10.0073 Spin-off -R&J under the bridge
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0073 Spin-off -R&J under the bridge

Gawd, I'm SO moved....

"There's a happy ending as the lovers drop their weapons to make peace,
and set the example for the other gang members by starting out with a
kiss."

Re: Psalm 46

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0080  Sunday, 17 January 1999.

[1]     From:   John Savage <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 16 Jan 1999 15:04:41 -0500
        Subj:   SHK 10.0067 Re: Psalm 46

[2]     From:   Sara Vandenberg <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 16 Jan 1999 13:24:49 -0800 (PST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0079 Re: Psalm 46; Sh. in Love; Spin-off

[3]     From:   Pat Dolan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 16 Jan 1999 16:10:59 -0600 (CST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0079 Re: Psalm 46; Sh. in Love; Spin-off

[4]     From:   Richard J Kennedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 16 Jan 1999 17:35:36 -0800 (PST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0067 Re: Psalm 46


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Savage <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 16 Jan 1999 15:04:41 -0500
Subject: Re: Psalm 46
Comment:        SHK 10.0067 Re: Psalm 46

>As Peter Hillyar-Russ has pointed out the "Psalm 46" code doesn't work
>without the suppression of the word "Selah" at the end of the Psalm.

As Anthony Burgess pointed out, the salutation isn't part of the psalm.

>Of course it would take a good deal longer, and a great deal more effort,
>to find a more exact parallel for the "Psalm 46" reference, but I'm sure
>that there is something out there

I look forward to seeing it.

>P.S - I was re-reading Charles Nicholl's "The Reckoning" yesterday.  The
>book contains ample references to one John Savage who made "a solemn
>'oath' to kill Queen Elizabeth", and took part in the Babington plot.

Yes, I've read about the chap.  I would claim him as one of my (many)
illustrious ancestors were it not that Elizabeth Jenkins, in her
"Elizabeth the Great," reports that he was nothing more than a flunky to
Babington- and not all that bright.
>who's to say it had to be Shakespeare
>himself that did the adjusting?  Could a scholarly wag have made the
>adjustments as a little private joke?

Makes sense, as a possibility, to me.

>No, incorrect.  There is no evidence that Shakespeare worked on the King
>James Bible and no reason to think he would have, since the translators
>were almost all Hebrew or Greek scholars from the Universities.

May I suggest there are two things wrong with the above?  All those who
wrote the King James version of the Bible did not work directly from the
original; they did not all know Hebrew, nor was it required to do the
work.

As Thomas Larque, in a later post on this topic, mentions, the following
was in the instructions to those who worked on the new Bible: "It is
laid down that the ordinary Bible read in the Church (commonly called
the Bishop's Bible) shall be followed and as little altered as the truth
of the original shall permit."  Many, in other words, "translated" from
an "original" that was already in English.

The other point is this (since I'm the one who raised this "Psalm 46"
question most recently): my claim was that it would seem that either
Will Shakespeare took part in the writing or someone who did inserted
his name, perhaps as a jest, into the psalm.

The latter is perfectly possible and, given the remarkable nature of
#46, even quite likely.

>It must be remembered that it only works at all if the word 'Selah' is
>not included in the counting.

As is mentioned elsewhere, Anthony Burgess points out that the
salutation isn't part of the psalm.

>Hugh Black of Canada who 'deciphered' the first four lines on
>Shakespeare's tombstone as "FRA BA WRT EAR AY," of course this means
>"Francis Bacon Wrote Shakespeare's Plays."

Thanks.  An excellent example of what I've been talking about.  Because
usually this is what one gets: something so vague, so ridiculously
ambiguous, that it's like the predictions of Nostradamus, who, as you
know, predicted everything from the emergence of Hitler to the death of
Princess Diana-depending on whom you're talking to.

The key point is that the Psalm 46 deal isn't like that at all.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sara Vandenberg <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 16 Jan 1999 13:24:49 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 10.0079 Re: Psalm 46; Sh. in Love; Spin-off
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0079 Re: Psalm 46; Sh. in Love; Spin-off

The notes of one translator, John Bois, can be found in MS CCC312, f.
61-80, in the Corpus Christi College Library, Oxford University.  There
is also a modern edition: John Blois, _Translating for King James; being
a true copy of the only notes made by a translator of King James's
Bible, the Authorized Version, as the Final Committee of Review revised
the translation of Romans through Revelation at Stationers' Hall in
London in 1610-1611._  Edited by Ward Allen (Nashville: Vanderbilt
University Press, 1969).  Blois was a noted Greek scholar, and Anthony
Walker's 17th c biography of Blois is included in Allen's edition.

Sara van den Berg
University of Washington

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Pat Dolan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 16 Jan 1999 16:10:59 -0600 (CST)
Subject: 10.0079 Re: Psalm 46; Sh. in Love; Spin-off
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0079 Re: Psalm 46; Sh. in Love; Spin-off

Just an idle thought or four.

If one believes that Shakespeare encoded his name in the text of the
Psalms (I don't), 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?

Is there any evidence that Shakespeare wrote anything 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?

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

                Pat

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Richard J Kennedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 16 Jan 1999 17:35:36 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 10.0067 Re: Psalm 46
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0067 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.  And
Shakespeare of Stratford was available and not up to much else in a
literary way. Could it be that his involvement with the theater all this
while could have been an objection to his name being included with those
great scholars and men of the church?

I don't doubt that all those appointed men labored to get the Greek,
Aramaic, Latin and whatever other language to its correct aspect, and
the loss of all the manuscript and letters between the groups, records
of meetings and so on might somehow be explained.  Perhaps it was the
King's wish that it be so. But then again there's the poetry of the
Book, and even including the previous work of Tyndale, there is much
poetry to explain that cannot be explained with reference to those 50
odd men appointed to do the work. The question is hardly closed.

Re: The Theatre

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0078  Saturday, 16 January 1999.

[1]     From:   Tim Perfect <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 15 Jan 1999 11:36:00 -0800 (PST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0072 Re: The Theatre

[2]     From:   Joe Conlon <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 15 Jan 1999 21:10:49 -0600
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0072 Re: The Theatre


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Tim Perfect <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 15 Jan 1999 11:36:00 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 10.0072 Re: The Theatre
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0072 Re: The Theatre

>The Times article may be read online at
>http://www.the-times.co.uk/cgi-bin/BackIssue?1117888

Afraid I couldn't get that.  Can you forward the article to me? I would
appreciate it.

Tim

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Joe Conlon <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 15 Jan 1999 21:10:49 -0600
Subject: 10.0072 Re: The Theatre; Sh. in Love
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0072 Re: The Theatre; Sh. in Love

I tried the link given by Jerry Bangham and it didn't work.  I did find
the article at   http://www.the-times.co.uk/cgi-bin/BackIssue?3152373 .
I also would like to learn more about the details of this dig.  If
anyone else finds anything, please post it to the group.

Joe Conlon, Warsaw, IN, USA

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.