Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2002 :: April ::
Re: Shakespeare and Catholicism
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.0896  Saturday, 1 April 2002

[1]     From:   R.A. Cantrell <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 29 Mar 2002 10:40:48 -0600
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0888 Re: Shakespeare and Catholicism

[2]     From:   Takashi Kozuka <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 29 Mar 2002 21:53:39 +0000 (GMT)
        Subj:   Re: Shakespeare and Catholicism

[3]     From:   David Evett <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 29 Mar 2002 21:51:31 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0856 Re: Shakespeare and Catholicism


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           R.A. Cantrell <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 29 Mar 2002 10:40:48 -0600
Subject: 13.0888 Re: Shakespeare and Catholicism
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0888 Re: Shakespeare and Catholicism

> R. Cantrell implies that no one has considered the Latin Bibles
> available in his day.  I do not have Shaheen 1999 handy, but am
> virtually positive that he says in the Introduction that he found no
> evidence of Sh's use of the Vulgate.

Professor Velz,

Please note that I used the plural, Bibles, but your point re Shaheen is
well taken. I should have said that no one has demonstrated, in a manner
analogous to Shaheen and Noble, a comprehensive study of the Vulgate or
any other Latin Bible in the context of Shakespeare studies. The timbre
of Shaheen's remark about the Vulgate leads me to believe that his
examination of it was not as thorough as his examination of the Bishops
and Geneva English Bibles.

All the best,
R.A. Cantrell
<
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Takashi Kozuka <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 29 Mar 2002 21:53:39 +0000 (GMT)
Subject:        Re: Shakespeare and Catholicism

John Velz says, "I think that Shaheen found no evidence in the
Douay-Reims Bible, which would be both OT and NT together."

I've mentioned briefly that "a couple of other books (or maybe just one
of them) I've read comment(s) that a Biblical passage in one of
Shakespeare's early plays doesn't come from the Bishops' Bible."

I have at hand Alan Keen (and Roger Lubbock)'s The Annotator (1954).
Keen states (very honestly, unlike some bad students!) that Clara
Longworth de Chambrum's Shakespeare Rediscovered (1938) has noted that
Shakespeare's phrasing/wording of the parable of the sowers in LLL
suggests his familiarity with the Reims Bible. Keen also quotes the
Reims translation of the parable.

It's not true, it seems safe to conclude, that that Shakespeare's
biblical references in his early plays are "entirely" from the Bishops'
Bible.

Best wishes,
Takashi Kozuka

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Evett <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 29 Mar 2002 21:51:31 -0500
Subject: 13.0856 Re: Shakespeare and Catholicism
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0856 Re: Shakespeare and Catholicism

> I attended a lecture by a Ph.D. candidate a week and a half ago, during
> which I believe she said that the Catholic New Testament was available
> and for sale along side the others in Shakespeare's time.  Either I
> misremember, or perhaps she was wrong?  Can you clarify?

In response to Mike Jensen's query and R. C. Cantrell's comment, I can
point to the fact that my (first ed.) STC lists as published in England,
between 1538 and 1610, 8 issues of the Bible in Latin, entire, in the
proto-Protestant or Protestant versions of Erasmus or of Franciscus
Junius and Immanuel Tremellius, 13 of the Latin New Testament with the
Protestant commentaries of Beza and Tremellius, and 4 of the Latin New
Testament, all based on Erasmus' text.  The Vulgate was apparently not
published in England between 1540 and sometime after 1640, though
pre-Reformation copies that survived the Edwardian pyres or were
smuggled in from the Continent were no doubt available in personal and
institutional libraries.  The implication is that if Shakespeare (or any
other Elizabethan/early Jacobean) author saw the Bible in Latin it was
probably not the Vulgate.

David Evett
http://uk.my.yahoo.com

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, 
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.