2004

Columbo and Shakespeare?

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.2012  Thursday, 25 November 2004

From:           HR Greenberg <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 24 Nov 2004 23:48:51 EST
Subject:        Columbo and Shakespeare?

Someone recently mentioned to me that there had been an article source
alone in which it was claimed that the Columbo character in the
eponymous series was based on a Shakespearean character. I can't think
of who that would be. There are certainly no lack of wise clowns in the
plays, but I can't think of any who solved a mystery.

Anyone out there know what this is all about -- if anything.  Thanks in
advance. HR Greenberg MD

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Patagonese Shakespeare

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.2011  Thursday, 25 November 2004

From:           D Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 24 Nov 2004 08:13:24 -0600
Subject:        Patagonese Shakespeare

In point of fact the cultural underpinnings of the alleged
"Shakespearean" plays were discovered a few years by myself and revealed
in my article "The Cultural Underpinnings of the Alleged 'Shakespearean'
Plays," published in *Cultural Underpinnings* two years ago.

In it I show that the plays were in fact based on myths and legends of
the Chaako-Suubeer people of Lower Patagonia, one of whom was taken on
board the Golden Hind during Drake's circumnavigation of the globe
(whence the name of the theatre). Learning English rapidly, the man
(known only by the name of his people) regaled the crew with his
people's tales. These proved to be so popular that on the return of the
ship to London he was sold as a slave to Lord Feversham (later the Earl
of Stratford), a noted collector. Feversham, or more likely another of
his slaves, wrote down the stories, unfortunately using an obscure coded
shorthand. Reports of the stories evidently circulated throughout
aristocratic circles of Elizabethan England and their slaves, but the
originals were thought to have been lost.

Then, a few years ago, I met a descendent of Feversham on a bench in
MacArthur Park in Los Angeles. Being rather hard up, and having a
strange and unreadable document in his possession, he accepted two
bottles of Thunderbird for it.

I have thus far been able to decode only fragments of the text, but I
have made most progress on the one that relates contest of two clans,
the Roo-Myoo (Eats Many Penguins) and the Chool-Yoot (Seal Blubber), for
overlordship of Booroon-Ga (southern Patagonia). After many bloody
battles, the priest of the one and the sacred virgin of the other were
sacrificed to Az-Khah-Lahs (Anteater Lord), the tutelary god of the
Chaako-Suubeer, and peace was restored

I will have further reports as I uncover the secrets of this remarkable
(and, indeed, earth-shaking) manuscript.

don

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Jewish Shakespeare

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.2009  Wednesday, 24 November 2004

[1]     From:   Jack Heller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 23 Nov 2004 08:16:16 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.1997 Jewish Shakespeare

[2]     From:   Joachim Martillo <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 23 Nov 2004 05:40:26 EST
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.1997 Jewish Shakespeare

[3]     From:   Terence Hawkes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 23 Nov 2004 12:34:36 -0500
        Subj:   SHK 15.1997 Jewish Shakespeare

[4]     From:   Stephen Dobbin <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 23 Nov 2004 12:53:52 +0000 (GMT)
        Subj:   Jewish Shakespeare


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Jack Heller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 23 Nov 2004 08:16:16 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 15.1997 Jewish Shakespeare
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1997 Jewish Shakespeare

I will make one final posting on this thread before I ignore it
altogether: I ask that anyone interested in pursuing this line of
reasoning to search the SHAKSPER archives for postings by "Florence
Amit," a former member of the discussion board.

Is there really anything to add to this topic?

Heller

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Joachim Martillo <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 23 Nov 2004 05:40:26 EST
Subject: 15.1997 Jewish Shakespeare
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1997 Jewish Shakespeare

Translations of portions of the Talmud into Latin were already available
by Shakespeare's time.

Shakespeare's lines, put in the mouth of Marcius (Coriolanus, Act 1, Sc. 1).

What's the matter,
That in these several places of the city
You cry against the noble senate, who,
Under the gods, keep you in awe, which else
Would feed on one another?

bear such a close resemblance to R. Hanina's words in Ab. III, 2, that
the suggestion has been made that the Poet was cognisant of them through
the Latin translation of Aboth by Paulus Fagius which was published in
1541 (see L. Kelner in the Hebrew periodical D'VIR, Berlin, 1923, vol.
1, p. 287). It is, however, quite probable that Shakespeare merely had
in his mind the scriptural verse:

If it had not been the Lord who was for us,
When men rose up against us,
Then they had swallowed us up alive,
When their wrath was kindled against us.
Ps. CXXIV, 2, 3.

Joachim Martillo

David Basch <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

 >In regard to the skeptical comment about the possibility of a Jewish
 >Shakespeare, what makes him possibly Jewish are the signs he left in his
 >work using Talmudic and Medrashic elements that are recognizable by
 >culturally trained Jews. Hence, if the Earl of Oxford wrote
 >Shakespeare's work, then we would have to confront that he was Jewish.
 >
 >In addition to communicating origins, these elements often turn out to
 >be pointers for meaning in some of the poet's plays.  For example, take
 >the Talmudic line, "What is mine is yours and what is yours in mine,"
 >located in the next-to-the-last line of Measure for Measure, would
 >indicate that the Duke was a foolish person since the Talmud asserts
 >that those who think like this are foolish. And when we examine the
 >play, we do find that the Duke erred in putting a moralist in charge
 >when he went on a trip and that he is superficial in thinking that
 >marriage provides a solution to relations between people.
 >
 >I would also note the presence Talmudic controversies in Hamlet. For
 >example, there is a Talmudic controversy about whether it is permissible
 >to use the testimony of an angel (or other heavenly being) in order to
 >settle a point of Talmudic law. The Rabbis concluded that it was not
 >permissible but that earthly evidence is needed. This controversy is
 >enacted in Hamlet's reaction to his father's ghost. Hamlet does not act
 >on the say so of this spook but tries to prove the case right here on
 >earth by the King's reaction to the play Hamlet stages. This is not the
 >only such controversy in Hamlet.
 >
 >While this knowledge alone does not absolutely prove Shakespeare was a
 >Jew, it sure shows he must have had intimate contact with Jewish
 >culture.  At the very least, this will have to be explained, as well as
 >what it was that the poet was trying to communicate with this abundant,
 >undeniable presence.
 >
 >And, by the way, it is not only the fact that certain Jewish ideas are
 >found -- some of these ideas do appear in other cultures too-but it is
 >the manner in which the ideas are presented in the poet's work that
 >follow the manner of the setting of the original in Judaic teaching.
 >These are things that ought to be explored to see what new insights
 >emerge, a fertile source for advancement of our understanding of the poet.

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Terence Hawkes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 23 Nov 2004 12:34:36 -0500
Subject: Jewish Shakespeare
Comment:        SHK 15.1997 Jewish Shakespeare

David Basch's proposals concerning 'the possibility of a Jewish
Shakespeare' have, surely, to be set against Adolf Hitler's evident
commitment to Stratford, as manifested in the Luftwaffe's bombing strategy.

Terence Hawkes

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Stephen Dobbin <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 23 Nov 2004 12:53:52 +0000 (GMT)
Subject:        Jewish Shakespeare

Hey!

Just a long shot, but perhaps that world-famous playwright Shakespeare
got his "intimate contact with Jewish culture" from that medieval
religious bestseller the Bible!!

Whaddaya think!!!

I've heard that parts of the bible, especially the old testament,
contain cryptic, hidden and veiled references to Jewish culture!!!

How weird is that!!!!

And here's another thing. Has anyone noticed that 'dog' is 'God' spelled
backwards? I mean, is that freaky or what!!!!!

Yours faithfully
Dan Brown!!!!!!

Sorry, no. Slip of the pen. I meant Stephen Dobbin.

_______________________________________________________________
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.

PERICLES in Minneapolis

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.2010  Thursday, 25 November 2004

From:           Chris Gordon <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 22 Nov 2004 09:43:59 CST
Subject: PERICLES in Minneapolis
Comment:        SHK 15.1991 PERICLES in Minneapolis

And if you can't get to Washington DC or NYC, those in the Midwest can
see a production of _Pericles_ at the Guthrie Lab, directed by my
talented friend Joel Sass; it opens February 12 and runs through March
6. I just saw the preliminary designs this weekend, and they looked
amazing and beautiful.

Chris Gordon

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Real Hamlet

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.2008  Wednesday, 24 November 2004

From:           D Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 23 Nov 2004 07:56:52 -0600
Subject: 15.1996 Real Hamlet
Comment:        RE: SHK 15.1996 Real Hamlet

Bill Arnold what

"Sheesh.  So what is the point?  We should burn the TEXTS of Hamlet and
only see the play, and RESTRICT our discussions on SHAKSPER to actor's
deliveries?  And seeing as it is ENDLESSLY ARGUABLE then we ought to
agree to disagree and just plain fogedaboddit?  And seeing as there
ain't much DIFFERENCE between TEXTS and none of us will OFFER AS THE
COMMON GROUND ONE TEXT, then why CITE texts if none of us agree to THIS
or THAT being pertinent?

"Hey, Shakespearean scholars, is THIS the Hamlet we want to portray: as
dubious a character as dubious presentations of dubious scholars and
dubious students of the bard?  I admit it plays into the hands of the
DUBIOUS interpreters.

"But, I ain't buying it.  Y'all get a big fat F!"

There is a point at which any judgment, when challenged, breaks down. It
must then be asserted as Revealed Truth or confessed as "IMHO." It is,
however, a useless exercise to make such rude challenges. Most of us on
this list realize that Absolutes belong to the realm of religious faith.
  But Near-Absolutes-grounds of agreement-can be reached if we
understand our own ideas well enough to explain them, and the premises
they are based on, clearly to people who are eager to learn and have the
good manners to listen attentively and ask politely for clarifications.

(In bar-room versions of the learned academic discussion, politeness and
attentiveness can be dispensed with-but this is only possible among
friends.)

Placed in the absolute terms of faith, only fanatics would assert that
their Hamlet was the only true Hamlet. But it also serves no purpose to
lapse into relativism, as my students do when they haven't the brains or
the energy to think something through.

Thus, I agree with Bill at least in part. Establish the common ground
and then work out what should logically follow. If you find no common
ground, drop the subject and order another round.

Cheers,
don


PS: Nice to see a quotation from Cecil the Sea-Sick Sea-Serpent. Where
is Stan Freberg when we need him?

_______________________________________________________________
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.