Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2005 :: April ::
Public Insults
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0770  Friday, 22 April 2005

[1]     From:   D Bloom <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 21 Apr 2005 14:01:21 -0500
        Subj:   RE: SHK 16.0758 Public Insults

[2]     From:   Stephen C. Rose <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 21 Apr 2005 13:41:52 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0758 Public Insults

[3]     From:   Peter Bridgman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 21 Apr 2005 23:06:01 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0758 Public Insults

[4]     From:   Larry Weiss <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 21 Apr 2005 19:01:53 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0758 Public Insults


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           D Bloom <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 21 Apr 2005 14:01:21 -0500
Subject: 16.0758 Public Insults
Comment:        RE: SHK 16.0758 Public Insults

David Basch offers this pontification:

"In actuality, it was shown that Sonnets 30 and 31 open with
unmistakable configurations that present transliterations of the
Tetragrammaton. In Sonnet 30, this is in the form of a palindromic
presentation that can be read forward and backward as I-VV-H (JaVVaH)
and I-HV-h (JaHVaH). In Sonnet 31, we find yh-Wh at the beginning of the
first two lines, which when also read from right to left yield ihW-H.
(In these "i" and "j" are the same Elizabethan letter.) When the poet's
method of presenting these names is recognized, we are then enabled to
find other similar configurations of this name in the same sonnets,
which though in divided forms, have divided forms which are similar in
construction, telling that these are patterned and not accidental. Then
in Sonnet 105, we have similar phenomenon in displaying the
transliterated name "El Shaddai" numerous times.  The presence of these
names tells to whom the poet is addressing these sonnets, though this
alone would not tell whether the poet were Jewish or not."

There is a curious nightmare quality to reading Basch's comments, like
one of those dreams where you keep doing the same tedious chore over and
over again. If they weren't about five times my limit, I might read them
more often just to induce that semi-somnolent state in my over-stressed
existence.

But it is easy to see the source of Weiss's exasperation: there is no
content here at all. Claims such as "In Sonnet 30, this is in the form
of a palindromic presentation that can be read forward and backward as
I-VV-H (JaVVaH) and I-HV-h (JaHVaH). In Sonnet 31, we find yh-Wh at the
beginning of the first two lines, which when also read from right to
left yield ihW-H," mean nothing whatsoever. Using that sort of reasoning
I could pull out "There is no God but Allah" (transltered)," "Workers of
the world unite" (ditto), and any other thing my fevered brain sought to
find there.

Arguments based on palindromes, transliteration, and letters plucked
from here and there are not arguments at all but fantasies.

If Basch wishes not to be regarded as a screwball and a crank, he will
have to find some real evidence.

don

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Stephen C. Rose <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 21 Apr 2005 13:41:52 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 16.0758 Public Insults
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0758 Public Insults

Thanks to David Basch. I doubt I would have taken the substantive issues
seriously without your note. Silver lining I guess. Cheers, S

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Peter Bridgman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 21 Apr 2005 23:06:01 +0100
Subject: 16.0758 Public Insults
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0758 Public Insults

David Basch writes ...

 >... there is no proof that Shakespeare's mother was
 >a descendant from the historic Arden family, but merely from a family
 >with the same name.

The "proof" is that WS claimed the descent himself.  I quote from
Michael Wood's book ...

"There is still some uncertainty over Mary Arden's exact relationship to
the Park Hall Ardens, but the evidence suggests she was descended from
Thomas Arden, one of several younger sons of Walter Arden of Park Hall,
who recovered the family estates during the Wars of the Roses.  Thomas
had land in Warwickshire at Wilmcote and Snitterfield.  His son Robert,
who farmed in both places, was called a 'gentleman of worship' by
Shakespeare in his submission to the Royal College of Arms in 1596.
That was to rewrite history a little.  In reality Robert was just a
well-to-do farmer who called himself a husbandman.  But he came from an
ancient family, and he was the father of Mary, the poet's mother".

Peter Bridgman

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Larry Weiss <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 21 Apr 2005 19:01:53 -0400
Subject: 16.0758 Public Insults
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0758 Public Insults

 > there is no proof that Shakespeare's mother was
 >a descendant from the historic Arden family, but merely from a family
 >with the same name.
 >
 >David Baschh

Shakespeare's application in the right of his father for the award of an
escutcheon recites that his father was married to Mary Arden, a
descendent of the Wilmcote Ardens.  That seems a hell of a lot probative
than anything Basch has introduced to support his contention that
Shakespeare's mother was a Jew.  Come to think of it, he has not said
anything about Shakespeare's mother.  That, of course, is fatal to his
contention, since Jewishness descends from the distaff (surer) side.

With the exception of the fact error I just answered, there is nothing
new in Basch's latest ramblings and certainly nothing worthy of
scholarly consideration.  Therefore, I respectfully urge Hardy to put
"fine" to this nonsense for once and ay.

_______________________________________________________________
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.