March
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.