2005

Benson's 1640 POEMS

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0570  Tuesday, 29 March 2005

From:           Robin Hamilton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 26 Mar 2005 14:21:04 -0000
Subject:        Benson's 1640 POEMS

In John Benson's  +Poems : written by Wil. Shake-speare, gent.+, (1640),
between K4v and K6r, Benson prints in sequence Marlowe's "Passionate
Shepherd to His Love", Ralegh's "The Nymph's Reply", and a poem beginning:

         Come live with me and be my deare,
         And we will revill all the yeare,
         In plaines and groves, on hills and dales,
         Where fragrant ayre breeds sweetest gales.

(For Benson's text, I used the facsimile at:

http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=poems&PagePosition=1
)

As Benson prints these in the part of his text *before* "An Addition of
some Excellent Poems ... By other Gentlemen" (the volume finally
concludes with, unattributed, Thomas Carew's "Ask me no more ..."), he's
presumably implying that they are by Shakespeare.

Or is he?

My question simply is whether any comment been made on this.

As a further, tangentially connected, observation, Issac Walton in +The
Compleat Angler+ (1653) prints [without attribution] the Marlowe and the
Ralegh poems in Chapter II, and in Chapter IX ("... a Coppie of Verses
that were made by Doctor Donne, and made to shew the world that hee
could make soft and smooth Verses, when he thought them fit and worth
his labour ..."), John Donne's "The Baite".  [Walton doesn't include the
title.]

Any light that can be (or has been) shed on this concatenation of texts
would be much appreciated.

Robin Hamilton

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Obituary: Janet Field-Pickering

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0569  Tuesday, 29 March 2005

From:           Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, March 29, 2005
Subject:        Obituary: Janet Field-Pickering

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8359-2005Mar28.html

Janet Field-Pickering; Folger Library Official

By Louie Estrada
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 29, 2005; Page B08

Janet Field-Pickering, 51, the Folger Shakespeare Library's head of
education who developed programs and resources to help teachers and
students gain a better understanding of the works of the Elizabethan Age
playwright, died of cancer March 21 at her home in Silver Spring.

A former high school English and drama teacher, Ms. Field-Pickering was
for the past 10 years the coordinator and guiding force behind the
library's extensive educational outreach programs. Those included docent
tours, teacher workshops, educational materials, online resources and
the annual elementary and secondary school Shakespeare festivals, during
which students perform excerpts from Shakespeare's plays on the Folger
stage.

She updated classroom lesson plans available on the library's Web site,
www.folger.edu, started a program for underserved D.C. public school
elementary students and created educational materials for media outlets.

Most of the programs emphasized Ms. Field-Pickering's preference for
"performance-based" learning of Shakespeare, in which students speak the
dramatic verses aloud and act out the plays rather than listen to lectures.

"Janet brought a unique blend of magnificent gifts to the work -- the
skill set of a master teacher, the enthusiasm of someone who really
loves kids, the energy and vision of a leader," said Werner L.
Gundersheimer, who as former director of the Folger Shakespeare Library
hired Ms. Field-Pickering in 1995.

Ms. Field-Pickering was born in Boston and grew up in Scituate, Mass.
She graduated from Gettysburg College in Pennsylvania with a degree in
English and received a master's in English from the Bread Loaf School of
English at Middlebury College in 2003.

She joined the faculty at Chambersburg Area Senior High School in
Pennsylvania in 1979 and taught there until 1995, specializing in
advance placement English and drama. She directed student theatrical
productions as the faculty adviser for the drama program.

She also performed in productions at the Summer Theatre at Gettysburg
College.

In 1994, she participated in a four-week summer teaching program at the
Folger Shakespeare Library. The next year, she applied for the position
of head of education, which became vacant when the first person to hold
that job, Peggy O'Brien, stepped down.

In 1998, Ms. Field-Pickering published "Discovering Shakespeare's
Language" with Shakespearean scholar Rex Gibson.

"I think that elementary students are such in a mode of learning new
words all the time that they don't get concerned about a word that they
don't understand," Ms. Field-Pickering once said about challenge of
Shakespeare's prose. "They start to revel in the sounds of the words and
the rhythm of the words -- words like rabbit sucker, and boisterous, and
cudgel and peevish, words that Shakespeare coined, or at least wrote
down for the first time in the English language, and they really enjoy
them."

Survivors include her husband, David Pickering, and their two sons,
Andrew Pickering and Benjamin Field-Pickering, all of Silver Spring; her
parents, Charles and Florita Field of Boca Grande, Fla., and Scituate;
two sisters; and a brother.

_______________________________________________________________
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 Webpage <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.

Some Thoughts from SHAKSPER's Editor

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0568  Friday, 25 March 2005

From:           Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, March 25, 2005
Subject:        Some Thoughts from SHAKSPER's Editor

Dear SHAKSPEReans:

Still being confined to a chair with my leg elevated for most of the
day, I thought that I would take the opportunity to reflect briefly on
the current state of SHAKSPER from my prospective of being its editor
for fifteen years, on my ideas about self-moderation and
self-government, and on my requests for members to pre-format their
submissions.

On the whole, I think the conference is in a good place. There are
currently more than 1,300 members from Andorra, Argentina, Australia,
Austria, Belgium, Bermuda, Bosnia, Brazil, Canada, China, Costa Rica,
Croatia/Hrvatska, Cuba, Cyprus, Denmark, Egypt, England, Fiji Islands,
Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, India, Iran, Ireland, Israel,
Italy, Japan, Korea, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Malaysia, Malta,
Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Northern Ireland, Norway, Pakistan,
Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Puerto Rico, Romania, Russian Federation,
Saudi Arabia, Scotland, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland,
Taiwan, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab
Emirates, the United States, Ukraine, Wales, and Yugoslavia. Our current
membership includes Shakespearean textual scholars and bibliographers,
editors and critics are members, but so are university, college, and
community-college professors, high-school teachers, undergraduate and
graduate students, actors, theatre professionals, authors, poets,
playwrights, librarians, computer scientists, lawyers, doctors,
retirees, and other interested persons. The great variety of
backgrounds, interests, and levels of sophistication of the SHAKSPER
community is an integral part of what makes the discussions so
wide-ranging.

SHAKSPER, like Shakespeare studies as a whole, is a strange beast
(neither fish nor foul). Some of members are very prominent scholars;
others are individuals with a deep interest in the works. Those of us
who are members of the profession (or industry if you choose) are not
generally known for our gentility. Further, Shakespeare studies both
inside and outside of the academy appears often to be a magnetic for
persons with strongly held beliefs that to many others are on the very
margins of the credible. These two circumstances are often sources of
contention on the list.

Over the years, I have sent out many messages about my ideas and pleas
for self-moderation on the part of list members. I would like to review
some of what I have said and add another idea that I gleaned from
SHAKSPER Advisory Board member Phyllis Gorfain in response to a query I
recently made to the Board regarding some complaints I have received
about one member's postings - the idea of self-government.

For some time now, I have out of necessity taken a more active role as
moderator and refused to post many more messages than I have in the
past. On the other hand, I have on advice from the SHAKSPER Advisory
Board decided not to impose guidelines. But I want to make it clear that
I have absolutely no desire to mini-manage ever single submission that I
receive. Additionally, SHAKSPER is not a newsgroup nor was meant to be
one. Practices that are acceptable on less formal electronic media are
not appropriate to this list. So I ask members to exercise self-moderation.

One suggestion I have made is to request that members "count to ten"
before hitting the reply key. For a compilation of some of these
requests see http://www.shaksper.net/archives/2001/0061.html.

I also ask that members display a degree of civility toward each other.

Further, when a thread becomes individual members talking with each
other rather posting messages that are responding to substantive issues
raised in the threads, then the discussion should be taken off-line and
conducted privately between the persons involved.

Similarly, consider that some exchanges are more appropriate offline
than online. I made a list of suggestions that can be found at
http://www.shaksper.net/archives/2002/1361.html.

I also request the members consider exercising a degree of self-government.

Please try to select only one or two threads to respond to in any one
day, and please try to keep your responses as brief and to the point as
possible. Occasional long posts are perfectly acceptable, but the ideal
is to limit your submissions to a screen or two of text.

Finally, I ask that members pre-format their submissions.

If your name does not appear in the FROM line or does not appear
correctly (i.e., account is in the name of a spouse, partner, companion,
alias, etc.), sign your name at the bottom so that I can cut and paste
it next to your e-mail address. You may include your title, academic
affiliation, geographical location, or similar information, but
signatures should be kept to a minimum of three lines.

Do not copy and re-send the message to which you are replying or
automatically include the entire original post or digest. Quote,
paraphrase, copy and paste, or cite your correspondent by name; give as
much of the context as you can to clarify the nature of your reply. If
you "cut and paste" information from another Internet or electronic
source, which often results in irregularly spaced lines of text, then
pre-format that text to be sure that the information is word wrapped and
does not require me to extra spend time re-formatting the text for
distribution.

Along these lines, I have asked
(http://www.shaksper.net/archives/2002/2399.html) that members avoid the
temptation of simply cutting and pasting entire online articles and
reviews and forwarding them directly to the list. Posters should
judiciously quote and summarize and then provide the URL.

One more issue and then I will be through. I have three suggestions to
the matter of what does one do when one finds another's contributions to
be foolish, myopic, mistaken, or boring (list courtesy of Terence
Hawkes, another member of the Advisory Board)?

First, don't bother reading submissions from such persons; use the
delete key.

Second, as I was implying in my "Unproductive Threads" posting
(http://www.shaksper.net/archives/2005/0412.html), ignore them.

Third, address them indignantly; be courteous but be indignant.

Thank you for your consideration,
Hardy M. Cook
Owner-Moderator-Editor of SHAKSPER

_______________________________________________________________
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 Webpage <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.

Some Thoughts from SHAKSPER's Editor (Revised Copy)

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0569  Saturday, 26 March 2005

From:           Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, March 26, 2005
Subject:        Some Thoughts from SHAKSPER's Editor (Revised Copy)

[Editor's Note: I should have taken more time before mailing this
message to proof it more carefully than I did. Here is a corrected copy.]

Dear SHAKSPEReans:

Still being confined to a chair with my leg elevated for most of the
day, I thought that I would take the opportunity to reflect briefly on
the current state of SHAKSPER from my perspective of being its editor
for fifteen years, on my ideas about self-moderation and
self-government, on my requests for members to pre-format their
submissions, and on my suggestions for dealing with messages you object to.

On the whole, I think the conference is active and healthy. There are
currently more than 1,300 members from Andorra, Argentina, Australia,
Austria, Belgium, Bermuda, Bosnia, Brazil, Canada, China, Costa Rica,
Croatia/Hrvatska, Cuba, Cyprus, Denmark, Egypt, England, Fiji Islands,
Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, India, Iran, Ireland, Israel,
Italy, Japan, Korea, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Malaysia, Malta,
Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Northern Ireland, Norway, Pakistan,
Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Puerto Rico, Romania, Russian Federation,
Saudi Arabia, Scotland, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland,
Taiwan, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab
Emirates, the United States, Ukraine, Wales, and Yugoslavia. Our current
membership includes Shakespearean textual scholars and bibliographers,
editors and critics are members, but so are university, college, and
community-college professors, high-school teachers, undergraduate and
graduate students, actors, theatre professionals, authors, poets,
playwrights, librarians, computer scientists, lawyers, doctors,
retirees, and other interested persons. The great variety of
backgrounds, interests, and levels of sophistication of the SHAKSPER
community is an integral part of what makes the discussions so
wide-ranging.

SHAKSPER, like Shakespeare studies as a whole, is a strange beast
(neither fish nor foul). Some members are prominent scholars; others are
individuals with a deep interest in the works. Those of us who are
members of the profession (or industry if you prefer) are not generally
known for our gentility. Further, Shakespeare studies both inside and
outside the academy appears often to be a magnet for persons with
strongly held beliefs, beliefs that many others consider as existing on
the margins of the credible. These two circumstances are often sources
of contention on the list.

Over the years, I have sent out many messages about my ideas and pleas
for self-moderation on the part of list members. I would like to review
some of what I have said and add another idea that I gleaned from
SHAKSPER Advisory Board member Phyllis Gorfain in response to a query I
recently made to the Board regarding some complaints I have received
about one member's postings -- the idea of self-government.

For some time now, I have out of necessity taken a more active role as
moderator and refused to post many more messages than I have in the
past. On the other hand, I have on advice from the SHAKSPER Advisory
Board decided not to impose guidelines. But I want to make it clear that
I have absolutely no desire to mini-manage ever single submission that I
receive. Additionally, SHAKSPER is not a newsgroup nor was meant to be
one. Practices that are acceptable on less formal electronic media are
not appropriate to this list. So I ask members to exercise self-moderation.

One suggestion I have made is to request that members "count to ten"
before hitting the reply key. For a compilation of some of these
requests see http://www.shaksper.net/archives/2001/0061.html.

I also ask that members display a degree of civility toward each other.

Further, when a thread becomes individual members talking with each
other rather than posting messages that are responding to substantive
issues raised in the threads, then the discussion should be taken
off-line and conducted privately between the persons involved.

Similarly, some exchanges are more appropriate offline than online. I
made a list of suggestions that can be found at
http://www.shaksper.net/archives/2002/1361.html.

I also request the members consider exercising a degree of self-government.

Please try to select only one or two threads to respond to in any one
day and try to keep responses as brief and to the point as possible.
Occasional long posts are perfectly acceptable, but the ideal is to
limit submissions to a screen or two of text.

Also, I ask that members pre-format their submissions to make my job of
preparing the daily digest easier.

If your name does not appear in the FROM line or does not appear
correctly (i.e., account is in the name of a spouse, partner, companion,
alias, etc.), sign your name at the bottom so that I can cut and paste
it next to your e-mail address. You may include your title, academic
affiliation, geographical location, or similar information, but
signatures should be kept to a minimum of three lines.

Do not copy and re-send the message to which you are replying or
automatically include the entire original post or digest. Quote,
paraphrase, copy and paste, or cite your correspondent by name; give as
much of the context as you can to clarify the nature of your reply. If
you "cut and paste" information from another Internet or electronic
source, which often results in irregularly spaced lines of text, then
pre-format that text to be sure that the information is word wrapped and
does not require me to extra spend time re-formatting the text for
distribution.

Along these lines, I have asked
(http://www.shaksper.net/archives/2002/2399.html) that members avoid the
temptation of simply cutting and pasting entire online articles and
reviews and forwarding them directly to the list. Posters should
judiciously quote and summarize and then provide the URL.

One more issue and then I will be finished. I have three suggestions to
the matter of what does one do when one finds another's contributions to
be foolish, myopic, mistaken, or boring (list courtesy of Terence
Hawkes, another member of the Advisory Board)?

First, don't bother reading submissions from such persons; use the
delete key.

Second, as I was implying in my "Unproductive Threads" posting of a few
days ago (http://www.shaksper.net/archives/2005/0412.html), ignore them.

Third, address them indignantly; be courteous but be indignant.

Thank you for your consideration,
Hardy M. Cook
Owner-Moderator-Editor of SHAKSPER

_______________________________________________________________
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 Webpage <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.

Othello's Name

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0567  Friday, 25 March 2005

[1]     From:   William Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 24 Mar 2005 14:46:17 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0557 Othello's Name

[2]     From:   David Basch <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 24 Mar 2005 13:03:13 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0546 Othello's Name


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           William Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 24 Mar 2005 14:46:17 -0500
Subject: 16.0557 Othello's Name
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0557 Othello's Name

As Frank Whigham points out, Moor can refer to a Muslin Indian, and it
may be fruitful to consider that Shakespeare may have thought of Othello
as Indian, thus the absence of direct references to Africa as his birth
place.  The following passages taken from the OED, however, indicate
that Moor was not always used to mean Muslim or Indian Muslim.

c1489
<http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-c.html#caxton>C<http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-c.html#caxton>AXTON
tr. Four Sons of Aymon xxvi. 565 He was soo angry for it, that he became
as blacke as a moure. 1512 in J. B. Paul Accts. Treasurer Scotl. (1902)
IV. 338 Item,..to the Bischop of Murrais more, at brocht ane present to
the King..xiiijs. ?1555
<http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-b3.html#a-boorde>A.
B<http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-b3.html#a-boorde>OORDE Fyrst
Bk. Introd. Knowl. (1870) xxxvi. 212 Barbary..the inhabytours be Called
the Mores: ther be whyte mores and black moors. 1548 Hall's Vnion: Henry
VII f. xxiijv, Granado, which many yeres had bene possessed of the
Moores or Mawritane nacion. 1555
<http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-e.html#r-eden>R.
E<http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-e.html#r-eden>DEN tr. Peter
Martyr of Angleria Decades of Newe Worlde f. 355, Ethiopes..which we
nowe caule Moores, Moorens, or Negros. 1613
<http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-p3.html#s-purchas>S.
P<http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-p3.html#s-purchas>URCHAS
Pilgrimage (1614) 687 The Sea coast-Moores, called by a general name
Baduini.

Bill Godshalk

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Basch <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 24 Mar 2005 13:03:13 -0500
Subject: 16.0546 Othello's Name
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0546 Othello's Name

The Othello name thread has generated a spirited exchange about elements
of this play that are worth pursuing since these things go to the heart
of Shakespeare's works, namely, the ability to fathom the wisdom that
the poet's insights bring.  It is through such discussion that we may
learn to delve more deeply into the meaning of his work for our own
benefit and for the benefit of society, which is why we should continue
these discussions.

In the latest round, John W. Kennedy rejects the idea that Othello's
final speech would revolve around "a point so wholly irrelevant to the
plot" as an alleged fact of Othello's circumcision. But, as I have
argued, this is indeed part of the story, made a part of it by the poet
himself in Othello's last speech and in the very name "Othello," which
in Hebrew refers to the fact of Othello's circumcision. This Hebrew
meaning is plain to anyone who understands Hebrew and recognizes the
Bible's reference to circumcision as a "sign" of the Abrahamic family's
connection to God or plain to anyone who has confidence in those who
have such knowledge.

What some persons on the list have difficulty with is crediting
Shakespeare with such knowledge and with his capacity to use this in his
play in an incident of high drama. What gives the application of this
Hebrew element further credibility is that the name "Othello," meaning
"his sign from God," could also point to Othello's character as a person
that regards himself as commissioned by Heaven to punish his wife's
adultery that he as both judge and jury has ferreted out.  With all
these connections operating, it is a very good bet that this was a
device that Shakespeare used to enrich his play and to inform of its
meaning. Hence, it is not at all as irrelevant to the play as John
Kennedy would insist. (It is to be noted that this is not the only
instance of the use of such devices in Shakespeare's plays.)

Concerning the term "Moor," this refers to the mixture of Arab and
Berber people that conquered Spain in the 8th century that were later
expelled just prior to the expulsion of the Jews in 1492. The expelled
Moors were dispersed to the many Muslim lands, including Turkey.
Presumably, it was Othello's Moorish background and sojourns in Muslim
lands, including Aleppo, Syria, that uniquely made him capable of
leading Venetian forces in defense of Venice after he had surfaced in
Christian lands, having presumably converted to Christianity. That would
explain why he was circumcised.  Otherwise, had he been born a Christian
in a Christian land, he would not have been circumcised. His name and
the few words of his last speech, in Shakespearean fashion, bring
together this history.

Concerning Ruth Ross's comment, I am amused that she is amused that I
have brought information forward that suggests the poet's personal
background as a Jew. I and Florence Amit have brought not a few
indications of this to the list. There is much more in this vein that
has not been presented and it is available to anyone who wishes to
further probe these matters.

A good part of this information consists of the evidence of
Shakespeare's facility in the use of the Hebrew language and his
knowledge of Talmudic and other Judaic literatures that he displays
throughout his work and which he uses in telltale ways.  I and Florence
Amit and many others competent in this material have certified its
presence. Sure, there may be controversy as to exactly what these
findings signify, but their presence is harder to explain away.
Scholarship is a discipline that deals with such things and is an
attempt to probe their meaning, not to ignore them because to the
unacquainted they seem "farfetched."

Larry Weiss again reveals his capacity to misunderstand the written word
and to stamp what he reads with his own personal preoccupations. As he
himself says, "no amount of information or reason can supply vision to
the willfully blind." So be it with Larry. But others on the list may be
willing to sort through what I have wrote and what Larry chooses to make
of it.

I raised the issue of the Bible's prescribed ordeal of dealing with the
jealous husband as an aside to Tolstoy's allegation that he found
unconvincing that a character like Othello could have so easily
succumbed to murderous jealousy. I referred to the Bible as evidence
that such things do happen, as if that were needed in a world in which
rage shootings have become all too common. It is Larry that takes it
upon himself to show his "higher wisdom" that rises above the Biblical
and to bring forward to the list his poor understanding of this trial by
ordeal and its procedures, its circumstances and its efficacy in
defusing the rage of a jealous husband.

The Biblical prescription for dealing with the jealous husband was used
whether the wife was guilty on not in cases where no one was caught in
the act. The ordeal presupposed a religious society that regarded the
Bible as God's law. The ordeal protected the wife from direct harm
whether she was guilty or not. If she was guilty, she might suffer pangs
of guilt and physical or psycho-somatic suffering through the ordeal as
her punishment, but nothing more than this. (Larry uses his active
imagination to imagine the great harm that dirty water might bring,
something parents often see their young children do, rather than
visualize the potential great harm of a jealous husband operating as a
loose cannon.) But since the specific physical effect on the guilty wife
could not be predicted, her fate would literally have been "left to
Heaven." [Has anyone heard that phrase before? How about the ghost
telling Hamlet to leave his mother to heaven?].

Meanwhile the Bible's ordeal would enable an innocent wife to reconcile
her husband, such being his devotion to the "Word." In any case, the
husband's jealousy was dealt with in a prescribed way. Unless he was
altogether crazy and could not be bounded, in which case all bets would
be off, the ordeal would be a useful tool.

When I alleged that such an ordeal would have cooled down Othello, I
meant it in the context of a religious Othello wishing to uphold
religious law rather than filling a vacuum in the law that enables him
to view himself as God's instrument of punishing his adulterous wife,
which Shakespeare's play reveals he feels himself to be.

Anyway, the Bible point was beside the point, an interesting aside that
was my attempt to make aspects of the circumstances of Othello's
jealousy more three dimensional. But this was made into a super heated
issue by Larry who apparently has an axe to grind that is outside the
purview of this discussion of Othello, the reasons for which we can all
imagine.

Concerning embedment in Shakespeare's Sonnets that Larry says do not
exist, I have presented numerous instances of these, one of them
involving the poet's full name and proving that he made use of such
devices. Here is that one from Sonnet 148 repeated below. Let Larry
laugh that one off:

[11]                                    ake
  [12]               selfe               h         eere
  [13]                l                 s          p
  [14]                w                            s


  [11] No maruaile then   though  I   mistake my view,
  [12] The  sunne it selfe sees not,till heauen  cleeres.
  [13]   O cunning    loue,with    teares  thou keepst me blinde,
  [14]   Least eyes   well seeing  thy foule  faults should finde.

I also showed how Shakespeare embedded transliterations of the
Tetragrammaton in Sonnets 30 and 31. I found these to be the poet's way
of communicating Who his Friend was. While the last time I showed this
embedment in Sonnet 31, I revealed three instances. This time I want to
show that there are actually at least three more.

I repeat an amended account of Sonnet 31 below and follow it with three
additional Tetragrammaton representations;

     And if there is any doubt as to whom Shakespeare
     directs his praise and love, he once again spells
     out his name in the first set of letters that begin
     lines 1 and 2 and transliterate the Tetragrammaton
     as yh-W-h. [Read line 1 from right to left and line
     2 from left to right. Y-W-H can also be read down
     from 1 to 3 (YaWaH). The original quarto printing makes
     this even more evident since the letters "hy" both
     straddle the wide letter "W" below.

         [1]         hy
         [2]          Wh
         [3]          h

     Additional transliterations of the name occur in
     the words, "I view," which, since the "I" is also
     the Elizabethan letter "J" becomes JaVIEW," and in
     the ascending string that occurs in lines 14 to 12
     in the words "theY," loUe, and "noW," a set of
     whose stacked letters read "Y-U-W" or "Y-V-W" (YaVaW)
     since the letter "U" is also the Elizabethan "V."


                       31
        ___
[1]     |    hy bosome is indeared with all hearts,
[2]     |    Which I by lacking haue supposed dead,
[3]     And there raignes Loue and all Loues louing parts,
[4]     And all those friends which I thought buried.
[5]     How many a holy and obsequious teare
[6]     Hath deare religious  loue stolne from mine eye,
[7]     As interest of the dead,which now appeare,
[8]     But things remou'd that hidden in there lie.
       -----------------------------------------------------
[9]     Thou art the graue where buried loue doth liue,
[10]    Hung with the  tropheis  of  my louers gon,
[11]    Who all their parts of me to thee did giue,
[12]    That due of  many,now is thine alone.
[13]       Their images I lou'd, I view in thee,
[14]       And  thou(all they)hast all the all of me.


Here are another three versions of the Tetragrammaton in this sonnet not
shown earlier. Again, since the Elizabethan "i" is also a "j," we can
read the transliteration in the following:

[6]                            o
[7]                             whi
[8]                             hi

[6]     Hath deare  religious loue stolne from mine eye,
[7]     As interest of the dead,which now appeare,
[8]     But things remou'd that hidden in there lie.

Since the "i" is a "j," reading right to left on line 8 and then up and
to the right, we get JH-WH (JaHWaH). Note the similarity of this
configuration to that in the opening lines of the sonnet shown above.
This is a similarity that clearly reveals that this was the poet's
deliberate contrivance.

Continuing,... reading again right to left on line 8 and then up and
diagonally left up, we get JH-W-O (JaHWO); or reading right to left on
line 7 from the "i" and then down, we get JHW-H (JaHWaH), not bad
transliterations. [The letters are treated like Hebrew consonants to
which, like in the Hebrew, the vowels are understood as existing through
the cues of context.]

And then there are still others, two divided versions, not uncommon
devices in these special sonnets. One reads Y-H-W-H, making use of the
acrostic W-H in lines 11 and 10 and the aligned
Y-H in midline:

[10]    H                             y
[11]    W                             h


[10]    Hung with the  tropheis  of  my louers gon,
[11]    Who all their parts of me to thee did giue,

The other divided mode appears on line 6 as "yah-woH"
with the first syllable read from left to right and
the second read right to left:

[5]     How    y a h

[5]     How many a holy and obsequious teare

Again, these are hardly imagined but are some of quite a few instances
that show up in certain sonnets in which the poet addresses The Lord,
their frequency being evidence that these were the product of craft and
intention. No doubt, some of the instances presented would be marginal
as representations were they to appear isolated and alone. But they
become convincing through their repetitions in appropriately themed
sonnets. The example of the poet's name embedded in the same manner a
further confirmation that a device is being used. Readers can judge the
meaning and significance of these for themselves, but they cannot
imagine these configurations are not there or that they can be made to
appear by a charlatans in such frequent clusters within sonnets at whim,
as any reader can confirm for himself if he tries.

David Basch

_______________________________________________________________
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.