Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2005 :: January ::
Greenblatt Discussion Forum
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0106  Wednesday, 19 January 2005

[1]     From:   Peter Bridgman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 19 Jan 2005 11:12:27 -0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0072 Greenblatt Discussion Forum

[2]     From:   Peter Bridgman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 19 Jan 2005 11:12:27 -0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0072 Greenblatt Discussion Forum

[3]     From:   Peter Bridgman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 19 Jan 2005 11:12:27 -0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0072 Greenblatt Discussion Forum


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Peter Bridgman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 19 Jan 2005 10:27:31 -0000
Subject: 16.0072 Greenblatt Discussion Forum
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0072 Greenblatt Discussion Forum

David Basch writes ...

 >As to what the significance is that a "Catholic" Borromeo will was found
 >secreted in John's house, the matter is open. The first page of it
 >disappeared after the will was found and may have had some pertinent
 >facts that someone did not want known-whatever that was.

I don't know why David Basch has put 'Catholic' in quotes.  Was
Archbishop Borromeo another secret Jew?  We know exactly what was on the
missing first page of the testament because complete printed editions of
the same text have been found.  It started with "I here protest and
declare in the sight and presence of Almighty God, Father, Son and Holy
Ghost, three Persons and one God, and of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and of
all the holy Court of Heaven, that I will live and die obedient unto the
Catholic, Roman and Apostolic Church ...'  No doubt this is some sort of
secret Talmudic code.

 >Naturally, it could also be a
 >useful document if someone were later accused of being-pardon the
 >expression-a Jew, then a crime in England, which is another explanation
 >of John's recusancy in church attendance.

The idea that John kept an outlawed Catholic tract to prove he wasn't a
Jew in the Protestant police state that was Elizabethan England is
rather wonderful.

Rather like pleading "I'm not Jewish, I'm a homosexual gypsy" to the
Gestapo.

Peter Bridgman

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Peter Bridgman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 19 Jan 2005 11:09:58 -0000
Subject: 16.0072 Greenblatt Discussion Forum
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0072 Greenblatt Discussion Forum

Ed Taft writes ...

 >Do we know for a fact the reason that Shakespeare's father lost his seat
 >as an alderman?
 >
 >I thought it most likely had to do with business setbacks.

It seems John's "business setbacks" have been exaggerated over the
years. Richard Wilson writes ..."For four hundred years John
Shakespeare's financial alibi was swallowed by most scholars, until
research in the Exchequer records revealed in 1984 that the Stratford
businessman remained rich to the end and active as a banker".In Wilson's
notes he cites D.L Thomas and N.E Evans, 'John Shakespeare in the
Exchequer', Shakespeare Quarterly 15 (1984), pp 315-318.Peter Bridgman

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Peter Bridgman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 19 Jan 2005 11:12:27 -0000
Subject: 16.0072 Greenblatt Discussion Forum
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0072 Greenblatt Discussion Forum

Ed Taft writes ...

 >Do we know for a fact the reason that Shakespeare's father lost his seat
 >as an alderman?
 >
 >I thought it most likely had to do with business setbacks.

It seems John's "business setbacks" have been exaggerated over the
years. Richard Wilson writes ...

"For four hundred years John Shakespeare's financial alibi was swallowed
by most scholars, until research in the Exchequer records revealed in
1984 that the Stratford businessman remained rich to the end and active
as a banker".

In Wilson's notes he cites D.L Thomas and N.E Evans, 'John Shakespeare
in the Exchequer', Shakespeare Quarterly 15 (1984), pp 315-318.

Peter Bridgman

_______________________________________________________________
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.