Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2003 :: August ::
Re: Psalm 46
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.1618  Friday, 15 August 2003

[1]     From:   Bob Grumman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 14 Aug 2003 11:48:24 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1610

[2]     From:   Hannibal Hamlin <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 14 Aug 2003 17:09:24 +0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1610

[3]     From:   Bruce Fenton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 14 Aug 2003 13:01:41 EDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1610


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Bob Grumman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 14 Aug 2003 11:48:24 -0400
Subject: 14.1610
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1610

Not sure what happened to my post below, but it seemed confusing to me,
so I thought I ought to comment on it:

I said: "I agree with all Hannibal Hamlin says about Psalm 46 except the
following:

>. . . even if the numbers were 46 and 46, this >would be a ludicrous way
>for Shakespeare to leave his mark on the KJV.

I, not Hannibal, as the formatting may suggest, went on to say: "This
ignores the playfulness of many poets.  As a visual poet, and one who
has also put codes into poems, and know of many others who have worked
tricks like 46/46 in poems, I can easily conceive of a Shakespeare who
noticed two parts of his name in the psalm, one of which was about the
same distance from the beginning as the other was from the end, and
thought that very amusing.  Consequently, he could have thought to make
them each not only the same distance from one end that the other was
from the other end, but use the number "46."  Not to let people know he
was responsible for that particular version of the poem, but for the
hell of it!"

I also added, "But he didn't, and if he had, he wouldn't have the
'Selah' messing his little trick up."

Since I'm bothering with this extra post, I might as well add that I
wish Bill Arnold, in defending his unlikely hypothesis, had presented
some argument against his opponents rather than simply complained of
"cavalier treatment."  Except that I've found out it's now illegal at
SHAKSPER, I would suggest that Bill, with his mode of argument and
references to Copernicus and Galileo, sounds like an anti-111.

--Bob G.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Hannibal Hamlin <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 14 Aug 2003 17:09:24 +0000
Subject: 14.1610
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1610

In reply to Bill Arnold, I am happy to blame the Brits as well as the
Americans for propagating this idea.  At the same time, I object
strongly the suggestion that dismissing the possibility of Shakespeare's
involvement in the KJV is close-minded.  This smacks of the same kind of
logic used by proponents of the rival author theories (which I DO NOT
want to get into).  Are we really supposed to accept the analogy between
questioning yet another silly idea about Shakespeare and the punishment
of Galileo by the Inquisition?

I have seen no evidence remotely persuasive for Shakespeare's
participation in the translation of the King James or any other Bible,
and there are a host of convincing reasons (many mentioned in previous
posts) why such participation would have been extremely improbable.  It
may be objected that "improbable" does not mean "impossible," but as the
recent US adventures in Iraq have demonstrated, it is rather too easy to
argue that something might exist simply because no one has been able to
prove conclusively that it does not.  Though I am no scientist, I gather
that probability theory allows for the possibility that I could, given
certain conditions, pass my hand through a solid table.  Nevertheless,
most people would acknowledge this possibility to be so slim as to be
negligible for all practical purposes.

If Bill Arnold really can offer solid proof that Shakespeare was
involved in the translation of the KJV, fine.  Let's hear it.  If not, I
think we can all feel free to dismiss the idea and get on to more
serious matters.

Hannibal Hamlin

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Bruce Fenton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 14 Aug 2003 13:01:41 EDT
Subject: 14.1610
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1610

Bob Arnold, great post

It does make sense to go beyond the simple number 46 and look at other
facts

As far as   WILL = V V I L L = 5 + 5 + 1 + 50 + 50 = 111

goes,  it is indeed an outrageous stretch as Tue Sorensen pointed out

I once got a pamphlet on the street in NYC that spoke of worldwide
conspiracy and had some concoction of Roman numerals derived from "Bill
H Gates III" and "The Pope J Paul" added together to the number '666' or
some nonsense.

People can find 'evidence' for whatever they desire if they look hard
enough.  Perhaps the latest Tom Clancy novel has the words "shakes" and
"spear" 46, or 111 or 1563 words apart.

Bruce Fenton

_______________________________________________________________
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.