2003

Re: Psalm 46

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.1663  Friday, 22 August 2003

[1]     From:   Bill Arnold <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 21 Aug 2003 12:58:07 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1657 Re: Psalm 46 [Blame it on the Brits!]

[2]     From:   Bill Arnold <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 21 Aug 2003 13:20:52 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1638 Re: Psalm 46 [Blame it on the Brits!]


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Bill Arnold <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 21 Aug 2003 12:58:07 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 14.1657 Re: Psalm 46 [Blame it on the Brits!]
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1657 Re: Psalm 46 [Blame it on the Brits!]

Syd Kasten writes, "Although I have sympathy with the idea that the
editors of the KJV, who presumably held the belief that our talents are
divine gifts, would use the services of the  most gifted  wordsmith of
the day to tighten up the product, I have no vested interest in it.  I
do think, however, that the earliest date of mention of the Psalm XLVI
thing could be considered an objective fact. Even though having this
would shed absolutely no light on the question of Shakespeare's hand or
lack of it in the composition of the KJV, it would at least bring us
closer to the date of the composition and perhaps lead us to the author
or authors of the - would the term 'canard' be appropriate?  Who was
this compulsive word counter who started the chain of "tradition" that
led to the outpouring of words, opinions and ideas of our present
discussion?

Bill Arnold will, of course refer me to the library or suggest I buy his
book.  To the first I plead distance from a comprehensive library (I,
like many others on the list, am not in Academia).  As to the second, my
interest is not strong enough to break the budgetary constraints on my
book purchases.  I do promise to make adequate acknowledgment before I
use whatever insights he shares with us."

How do you know what Bill Arnold "will, of course" do when Bill Arnold
doesn't even know?  I have been known, on rare moments, to do things
which others deem philanthropic and on lesser moments wholly not in my
best interest.

But this is SHAKSPER, and we are ruled by a higher power: HARDY!

And I can assure you I can write these words for free, and if money were
my only consideration, and not mine time as well, then maybe I might be
out there out-Arnolding Arnold as govna of California!

I wrote a book, and PART of it, as written in the SHAKSPER archives does
refer to the 46/46 question and Will S and the translation process of
the KJV.  Thus, be assured I cannot and will not reprint my work here on
Hardy's messageboard.  It is too lengthy.

However, I will remind Shakespeareans that it was a Brit, who was
anonymous, in 1901, and wrote an English newspaper, with the thesis.
Since then, it has taken on a life of its own: an Anglical Bishop
pronounced on the subject, with some apparent wisdom, and perhaps he was
privy to inside documents, but in any event, he said it was an honorific
to Will S's birthdate!  Now, I did none of the two events above, and
have written that there is OTHER evidence to indicate that this might be
the case: and catalogued it in my introductory remarks in my book JESUS:
The Gospel According to Will.  Be reminded: it IS all the other
collateral evidence which makes us still interested in the subject.  As
to the cryptology question: as a member of the American Cryptogram
Association, I can assure SHAKSPEReans that the Friedmans were correct
in stating that matters of cryptology requires a cryptologist to pounce
upon the subject with some authority, as the scholarship behind the
field involves linguistics, math, and a host of unrelated skills.  But
far be it from me, to tell other scholars, that the subject is beyond
their ken, because it is not.

The point is: the question of an honorific TO WILL S by the Brits at the
time of the translation process between circa 1603-1610 is a reasonable
subject to delve and does not involve cryptology at all.  It is simple
word count, omitting the prologue and the coda.  The text fits, and that
is that.  I cannot go through the long and involved discussion of the
Hebrew text and Latin and early English, because it is really irrelevant
inasmuch as the numbers do NOT fit.  No one has written that they do.  I
put all that evidence in my book, including ALL the names of those who
are known to have been involved, only to do a thorough and scholarly job
myself.

Was it an honorific to Will S?  Go ahead, and argue your case yea or
nay.  I do not care what the opinion of individuals is anymore than
anyone cares what my opinion is.  There have been a host of famous
authors who have pronounced on the subject, not knowing the facts.  The
facts, as I have written are simple, and the evidence is quite
knowable.  But I have also written that I do not conclude one way or the
other whether or not it WAS or WAS NOT an honorific.  The Brits have
weight in that it was.  So much for the Brits!

I am not defending the answer, but I do defend the scholarship to
resolve the facts about the 46/46 Will S and KJV subject, and have
contributed to it.

Bill Arnold
http://www.cwru.edu/affil/edis/scholars/arnold.htm

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Bill Arnold <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 21 Aug 2003 13:20:52 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 14.1638 Re: Psalm 46 [Blame it on the Brits!]
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1638 Re: Psalm 46 [Blame it on the Brits!]

Bob Grumman writes, "Bill Arnold disagrees with my claim that
Shakespeare, in translating Psalm 46, would not have had the 'Selah'
messing his little trick up.  Bill Arnold says the Selah is not part of
the text.  What is it in the middle of Psalm 20?"

Thanks for the question.

But the answer is quite complex, and all I can say is of all I have read
about "Selah" and which makes the most sense is that it is a Hebrew
musical notation.  As such, if true, it is not part of a text, but meant
as an indicator to a reader for direction of what to DO at that point in
the text in the same way stage directions are not part of the dialogue,
and thus not spoken by the actors.  As a cryptologist, I concluded it
was not part of the text of Psalm 46, but the coda, just as the prologue
which is in earlier texts is not part of the text, and was omitted by
the KJV translators.  Perhaps, they, even some of the Hebrew scholars at
one of the colleges, Cambridge, Westminster and Oxford, should have
noted this and did not and thus it appears as part of the text of Psalm
46 of the KJV.  Take a look at the Bishops Bible and the Geneva Bible to
see the difference from the KJV.

Bill Arnold
http://www.cwru.edu/affil/edis/scholars/arnold.htm

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email 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.

British Shakespeare Association

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.1662  Friday, 22 August 2003

From:           Stuart Hampton-reeves <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 21 Aug 2003 13:06:25 +0100
Subject:        British Shakespeare Association

As many on this list will know, the first proper British Shakespeare
Association conference will take place next week (in Leicester). With a
full program of research papers, teaching and acting workshops,
postgraduate sessions and keynote lectures, the conference promises to
be an important event for Shakespeareans. I edit the BSA website
(www.britishshakespeare.ws) and for those not attending the event who
would like to know more about how it unfolds, I will be updating the
site during the conference with news, discussions and (hopefully)
interviews.

SHAKSPER members may also be interested in the BSA news page (co-edited
by Thomas Larque), which is updated daily with links to
Shakespeare-related articles in the news and includes an archive of
theatre reviews. In recent months, we have covered such stories as: the
Scandinavian Hamlet played on a replica of the Globe made entirely out
of ice; the Iranian tour of The Winter's Tale and Volcano's
controversial tour of the Sonnets; reviews of Edinburgh fringe
productions, including Malachi Bogdanov's rewriting of The Italian Job
in Shakespearean verse; and Blair Worden's provocative LRB article on
Richard II. I hope you enjoy this service and let us know if there is
anything we miss.

Stuart Hampton-Reeves

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email 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.

Thirteenth Night

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.1660  Friday, 22 August 2003

[1]     From:   Jack Heller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 20 Aug 2003 19:18:18 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1653 Thirteenth Night

[2]     From:   D Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 21 Aug 2003 07:49:12 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1653 Thirteenth Night

[3]     From:   Charles Weinstein <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 20 Aug 2003 22:06:55 -0400
        Subj:   Thirteenth Night

[4]     From:   Graham Hall <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 21 Aug 2003 13:58:18 +0000
        Subj:   Cutting Remarks


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Jack Heller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 20 Aug 2003 19:18:18 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 14.1653 Thirteenth Night
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1653 Thirteenth Night

>From Brian Willis:

>Go ahead and criticize the verse speaking. Quite a few productions
>deserve it. But the idea and the time of the sacred unalterable text
>seems to have passed quite a long time ago. It's not an artifact. It's a
>script.  And even the best scripts sometimes need to be reconstituted in
>order to suit limits of time, adequacy, and the audience.

I was severely disappointed two years ago by a performance of Coriolanus
that lasted only one hour and fifteen minutes. By my calculation, a
third to a half of the text had been cut. Lots of modestly budgeted
companies still manage to do essentially full-text competent
performances; for such companies, I would include the Kentucky
Shakespeare Festival, the Shakespeare Festival at Tulane, and the South
Carolina Shakespeare Festival. Two of these perform for contributions.

I think at the very least that any advertising of a severely reduced
production should indicate the time duration of the show. At least let
us know what we are(n't) getting.

Jack Heller
Huntington College

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           D Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 21 Aug 2003 07:49:12 -0500
Subject: 14.1653 Thirteenth Night
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1653 Thirteenth Night

Brian Willis writes in support of text-cutting:

>As much as I
>enjoy watching a good performance of the complete text, I can also
>understand the reasons for cutting it. Especially in circles below the
>RSC and the top level professional companies.

I don't think the length of the text is the problem with mediocre acting
companies. If they can't do a decent job without cutting, they probably
won't do a decent job with it. Any actor with his or her salt can learn
the lines and maintain the character through a long part. If they can't
-- well, there you are. Perhaps they ought to take up honest work.

(What drives ya nuts is seeing these mediocrities getting good
professional jobs and butchering the characterization when there are
thousands of better actors out there frantically trying to get work.)

Cheers,
 don

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Charles Weinstein <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 20 Aug 2003 22:06:55 -0400
Subject:        Thirteenth Night

Those film directors who do preserve generous portions of Shakespeare
prove to be less-than-generous in practice.  Uneasy at making their
spectators listen to all that tedious language, they deploy an arsenal
of gimmicks to alleviate the burden:  frenetic camerawork;
jump-cut-riddled editing; grotesque and distracting production design;
superfluous insets, flashbacks and voice-overs.  In effect, they make
war upon the language, utilizing one technique of word-hatred after
another:  playing music almost constantly over the dialogue; chopping
longer scenes into fragments and scattering them broadcast; turning
word-driven chamber scenes into image-oriented travelogues; casting
pretty but clueless actors who cannot begin to speak their
lines--anything to offset or nullify the language and degrade it into
sound-bites, captions and word-balloons.  Can a profoundly logophobic
medium be an adequate vehicle for Shakespearean drama?

--Charles Weinstein

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Graham Hall <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 21 Aug 2003 13:58:18 +0000
Subject:        Cutting Remarks

Brian Willis (14.1653) transmogrifies text cutting complaint into a
defence of "sacred unalterable text". As the two are not necessarily
congruent this demeans the original consideration. Whiners, such as me,
who despair at the excesses of the practice, are not invariably votaries
of the Temple of the Sacred Text. There are questions of quantity and of
quality involved.  In challenging the "wisdom of attacking productions"
that cut, it could be thought that he casts aspersions upon the wisdom
of a substantial number of his academic colleagues who must be
conducting such attacks out of a lack of nous, the desire to accumulate
lucre or the avoidance of damnation from the limbo of non-publication.
(Forgive my blasphemy! Surely there's no such thing!)

Citing the Shakespeare Crew as slashers of the First Water cuts no ice
with  reactionary folk of my ilk because we think they had a right to
wield the rubber, possessing, as it were, what m'learned friends would
call the intellectual property to the texts.  Since the King's Men's
collective demise, the Cibbers of the world have taken it upon
themselves to chop till they drop and squeak out their cozier's catches
without so much as a by-your-leave to consideration of place, persons or
time. They flog their dross under the name of Shakespeare (there's a
novelty!) knowing up to the hilt of their guilty quills that camouflage
and deceit are the only method whereby the unsuspecting public will
approach their turnstile.

As to verse speaking, what's to be made of verse and prose crammed and
shuffled willy-nilly thanks to the original lines being butchered?  The
reasons for cutting text may be understandable - even forgivable - but
they are inexcusable when the sign says "By William Shakespeare" and not
"Adapted from William Shakespeare".

Best,
Graham Hall

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email 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.

Re: Tillyard (Again)

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.1661  Friday, 22 August 2003

[1]     From:   Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 21 Aug 2003 01:37:15 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1650 Re: Tillyard (Again)

[2]     From:   Terence Hawkes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 21 Aug 2003 06:04:16 -0400
        Subj:   SHK 14.1650 Re: Tillyard (Again)


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 21 Aug 2003 01:37:15 -0400
Subject: 14.1650 Re: Tillyard (Again)
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1650 Re: Tillyard (Again)

>I know that Wagner was a Nazi sympathizer

No.  That would be anachronistic.  It is more accurate to say that Nazis
(or many of them) were Wagnerian.

I have heard it said that Karl Marx was fond of Shakespeare.  Surely,
that doesn't make Shakespeare a Marxist.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Terence Hawkes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 21 Aug 2003 06:04:16 -0400
Subject: Re: Tillyard (Again)
Comment:        SHK 14.1650 Re: Tillyard (Again)

Carol Barton's revelation

'I know that Wagner was a Nazi sympathizer'

almost made that slog through her intimate journals worthwhile. Of
course, we presentists have had our eye on him for some time. The
jackboots and the saluting initially roused our suspicions, but it was
the muttering about invading Poland that finally gave him away.

T. Hawkes

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email 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.

The Image of Woman

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.1659  Friday, 22 August 2003

[1]     From:   Sam Small <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 21 Aug 2003 00:41:21 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1648 The Image of Woman

[2]     From:   Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 21 Aug 2003 01:50:19 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1648 The Image of Woman

[3]     From:   Carol Barton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 21 Aug 2003 07:27:06 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1639 The Image of Woman


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sam Small <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 21 Aug 2003 00:41:21 +0100
Subject: 14.1648 The Image of Woman
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1648 The Image of Woman

A good response about a tricky passage.  But there are some assumptions
made by most contributors that were rather predictable concerning the
socially acceptable position for women to take in marriage.  To embrace
Katherine's speech in any way seriously is held to be offensively
right-wing - whatever that means.  Shakespeare, in writing this speech
with no obvious irony, is seen to be woefully out of touch with modern
times.  But there is in society a very modern undercurrent that
contradicts the strident female equalists.  It is that marriage might be
less confrontational if the wife deferred to the husband on many
things.  A successful book on the topic was Laura Doyle's own account of
the saving of her marriage - "The Surrendered Wife :
A Practical Guide to Finding Intimacy, Passion, and Peace with Your
Man".  (Put 'The Surrendered Wife' into Google) Reviews were mostly
supportive - some saying the book saved their marriages.  The point is
that to many people living with a rival is no marriage at all and have
looked to new inspirations for a better way.  By rejecting feminist
calls for absolute equality millions of women across the western world
have discovered a new identity that has helped discover aspects to their
marriages they didn't imagine existed.  And all this nowhere near the
Christian right wing.

However, Shakespeare must have been familiar with 1 Peter chapter three
"Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any
obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the
conversation of the wives; while they behold your chaste conversation
coupled with fear." Not particularly mad right wing, but not mad
feminist either.  And clearly Peter recognises women as spiritual
teachers.

In conclusion I have to say that I think the speech was sincere and
straight - all those who sought their own ironic layering for
performances were guilty of corruption.  It may be proved that
Shakespeare was not only nearer the true heart of the real woman but
centuries ahead of his time.

SAM SMALL

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 21 Aug 2003 01:50:19 -0400
Subject: 14.1648 The Image of Woman
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1648 The Image of Woman

Marcia Eppich-Harris  has it right --

>One thing that
>I think is very important to the interpretation of the Taming of
>the
>Shrew is that all of the characters in this plot are members of a
>play
>within a play that is being put on for Sly and the characters who
>dupe
>him and set up the play. As much as we would like to take
>Katharina's
>speech either ironically or seriously, we have to remember that
>she and
>all the characters around her are players in a play. No, we don't
>come
>back to the Sly plot (depending on your edition of Shrew), but
>there
>must be a reason for that framework that starts the play.

I have said it before, and will probably repeat it as often as this
discussion is resurrected:  T/S is a farce within a framework.  The only
"real" characters are Sly, the low tavern folk and the Lord and his
entourage.  The players are putting on an entertainment.

The big punch line comes in the Sly epilogue in The Taming of A Shrew
after the "women are so simple" scene.  Sly finds himself restored to
his station as a tinker and comments to the tapster (who somehow has
reappeared) that he has just had a wonderful dream in which he learned
how to tame a shrewish wife, and he is going right home to practice the
technique on his own wife.  The audience, who understands the farcical
nature of the entertainment Sly witnessed, will go to their own homes
pleasantly contemplating the likely consequences that will befall Sly.
Thus, the epilogue pulls the fangs of Katherine's speech -- it is both
sincere (in the context of the play within the play) and ironic in the
context of "real" life characterized by Sly.

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Carol Barton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 21 Aug 2003 07:27:06 -0400
Subject: 14.1639 The Image of Woman
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1639 The Image of Woman

->sigh<-

Check the archives, Sam, as at least one person has already suggested.
It means the Shrew has tamed as much as she has been "tamed," IMHO, as I
have said at length before: she knows that she will "wound [her] lord,
[her] king, [her] governor" if she treats him with contempt in front of
"the guys" (the way everyone expects her to, and the way the sweet and
lovely Bianca treats *her* husband, sincerely, and to his ridicule). Her
speech is not ironic, but neither is it face-value sincere: Katarina
would have to be a broken thing, not a tamed one, to have become what
she pretends to be for the sake of Petruchio's "rep"---but he has made
her love him, and to that extent made her "change her evil ways" where
"doing him ease" (not mocking him publicly) is concerned.

Please see the digests, where my case (and the opposition's) is argued
at length.

Best,
Carol Barton

>I just happened across this passage from act 5 of The Taming of the
>Shrew - a play I'm not familiar with in detail.
>
>         Fie, fie! unknit that threatening unkind brow,
>         And dart not scornful glances from those eyes,
>         To wound thy lord, thy king, thy governor:

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email 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.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.