Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2005 :: April ::
Failed Application
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0820  Thursday, 28 April 2005

[1]     From:   Peter Bridgman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 27 Apr 2005 19:09:11 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0805 Failed Application

[2]     From:   David Basch <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 27 Apr 2005 23:39:58 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0792 Failed Application

[3]     From:   Hardy M. Cook <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Re: SHK 16.0792 Failed Application
        Subj:   Thursday, April 28, 2005

[4]     From:   Larry Weiss <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 28 Apr 2005 01:09:59 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0792 Failed Application


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Peter Bridgman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 27 Apr 2005 19:09:11 +0100
Subject: 16.0805 Failed Application
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0805 Failed Application

Geralyn Horton writes ...

 >... in his last years he was a Vestryman in the Stratford church.
 >The guide there shows the visitor the book under glass opened to the
 >relevant records, and declares that it was WS's services to the church
 >rather than his theatrical fame that won him the choice burial spot he
 >enjoys.

Is this entry in the "relevant records" mentioned in Schoenbaum?

Peter Bridgman

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Basch <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 27 Apr 2005 23:39:58 -0400
Subject: 16.0792 Failed Application
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0792 Failed Application

Larry Weiss raises some interesting questions and conclusions about John
Shakespeare's applications for a Coat of Arms.

Weiss disregards the fact that the first application for a coat of arms
was disapproved. Authorities found it not persuasive and it needed
William Shakespeare's influence to get it approved in a second
application. And even after it was approved, a number of years later it
was challenged again.  This is hardly ringing support for the solidity
of the ancestral claims in the application.

I have not read the application itself and take at face value Weiss's
statement that an unequivocal claim for Mary Arden's gentility was made.
  But what does that claim mean? It only means that she comes from
ancestral stock that could claim some kind of recognized status in
English national life as a family of contributing patriots. It does not
confirm Mary's link to a particular line of the Arden family but rather,
as the quotation from Michael Wood's recent book on Shakespeare states,
it only "suggests" a link but does not confirm it. The link is hazy.

I made no claims for Shakespeare's mother because I made other striking
claims that would render that subject moot. For example, as British
historian Peter Levi wrote in his book, The Life and Times of William
Shakespeare, John Shakespeare was left a legacy from Richard his father
and was named in it, "Johannem Shakere," as entered in the court record.
"Shakere" happens to be a word that has meaning in Hebrew and appears in
the Ninth Commandment in the phrase "aeyd shakere," meaning "false
witness," as in "Do not bear to your neighbor false witness." This
suggests (the word "suggests" again) the witness of the family was false
in its professions as Christians. This would have been necessary if as
Jews they were to remain in the country, let alone be allowed to remain
alive, since Jews were expelled from Britain around the year 1290.
Interestingly, by their name "Shakere," the Shakespeares would have been
declaring the truth of their situation.

The significance of such a name is given more substance through the
verse in Isaiah 63:8, "For he [The Lord] said, Surely they are my
people, children that will not lie: so he was their Saviour." Note that
this is Isaiah declaring The Lord's prophesy on behalf of His people
that there will be a time when "they will not lie," a future outcome so
certain that on that basis The Lord chose to be this people's Savior. As
it happened, this condition did not exist in Shakespeare's England and
the family was forced to be "Shakere," (false). So, for survival, the
family would have had to be false in the hope that one day the situation
would be otherwise and they would no longer have to live a lie.

By the way, this condition explains the thousand year old Yom Kippur
prayer, Kol Nidre, which proclaims that all oaths to be taken in the
coming year are to be declared nul and void. The prayer commemorates the
circumstances in which false oaths of faith would have had to be taken
in order for Jews to avoid annihilation by hostile authorities.  So if
Weiss would render harsh judgment on persecuted Jews who would attempt
to hide behind subterfuges to protect their lives, others may be more
understanding of false professions, even those made in coat of arms
applications.

While Peter Levi was baffled by this court record, there is abundant
evidence that Shakespeare knew this name and its meaning since he refers
to it in his work and artifacts. For example, the falcon in the poet's
coat of arms has been identified as of the "saker" type. (Look "saker"
up in any English dictionary.) The Hebrew letter "shin" (SH) which is
used to spell SHakere can also be pronounced as an "S" and was the
Hebrew letter involved in the Bible story concerning the word
"SHibboleth," which was pronounced "Sibboleth" in the dialect of an
outlaw tribe.  This indicates that the use of the falcon/saker in the
coat of arms was for the purpose of linking it to the hidden name of the
Shakespeares as "Shakere."

A second allusion to this name appears in Richard III. Richard, a wicked
horseman is knocked off his horse in battle. As he heads toward defeat,
he yells, "A horse! A horse! My kingdom for a horse." He thinks a horse
will save him. The situation recalls the line in Psalm 33:17, "False is
the horse for salvation." Transliterated into Hebrew, the line reads,
"SHEKER ha'soos lyt'shu'ah." Note the presence in the verse of the word
"sheker" (the same as "shakere"), the poet's name trademark. I have
found that Shakespeare uses this name device at least four times in his
work.

Weiss also lists the milestones in Shakespeare's life involving
baptisms, marriage, burials, etc. Of course there would be such in the
poet's life. This was necessary if he were to continue living in Britain
and to contribute his greatness to British culture. It is lucky for the
world he did so. And as for John's record of recusancy, I would observe
that, in the light of the other findings, John's alleged Catholicism is
not the only possible explanation of it.

David Basch

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Hardy M. Cook <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Re: SHK 16.0792 Failed Application
Subject:        Thursday, April 28, 2005

I should not be entering into any thread because of the extreme
difficulty I have typing with one hand, but . . .

It has been a long time since I taught composition (technical writing
yes but not composition) and I am not a logician; however, I can
recognize post hoc ergo propter hoc when I see it and the statement

 >Weiss disregards the fact that the first application for a coat of arms
 >was disapproved. Authorities found it not persuasive and it needed William
 >Shakespeare's influence to get it approved in a second application. And
 >even after it was approved, a number of years later it was challenged
again.
 >This is hardly ringing support for the solidity of the ancestral claims
 >in the application.

is clearly an example of this logical fallacy. Because the application
was not approved at first is not proof that it was rejected on the
grounds of its ancestral claims. I have found David Basch's posts on the
subject of Shakespeare's Jewishness overflowing with this and other
logical fallacies that I simply cannot remember all of the names of.

Also, I have read every scholarly biography of Shakespeare from
*Shakespeare's Lives* to *Will in the World* (and the earlier Peter
Levi's *The Life and Times of William Shakespeare* and Sidney Lee for
that matter). In these biographies, no one has questioned Mary Arden's
descent. If Barach has any concrete evidence beyond the vague conspiracy
theory thinking of this statement

 >I have not read the application itself and take at face value Weiss's
 >statement that an unequivocal claim for Mary Arden's gentility was made.
 >But what does that claim mean? It only means that she comes from
ancestral
 >stock that could claim some kind of recognized status in English national
 >life as a family of contributing patriots. It does not confirm Mary's
link
 >to a particular line of the Arden family but rather, as the quotation
from
 >Michael Wood's recent book on Shakespeare states, it only "suggests" a
 >link but does not confirm it. The link is hazy.

I would welcome to hear it. If Basch cannot demonstrate conclusively
that Mary Arden was Jewish and not a descendant of a Catholic family
whose roots in Warwickshire can be traced back hundreds and hundreds of
years, then he has no documentary substantiation that Shakespeare was
Jewish.

Tangential parallels between one of the dozens ways that Shakespeare's
name was spelled at a time when spelling was not fixed and Hebrew, while
interesting to some, do not constitute proof.

I am not convinced by all of Basch's posts to the list on the subject
that Shakespeare was Jewish, and I cannot believe that more of the sort
of evidence that I have just cited will ever convince me.

I am sure that if ANY member of Shakespeare has been convinced by David
Basch's arguments, then he must gratified by his efforts. I am also sure
that anyone wishing further information about David Basch's theories
will be more than willing to purchase one or more of his books on the
subject from http://www.ziplink.net/~entropy/. I question, however, that
any more posts noting parallels with Hebrew as proofs of Shakespeare's
Jewishness, which I am sure can be found in even greater verbosity in
Basch's books, are necessary. Basch has, I believe, been granted a
platform to state his case. He has done so. I do not see a need for any
more iterations of the same sort of "evidence."

I am NOT censoring, silencing, or banning posts from David Basch. I
simply would like to see confirmation, substantiation, verification of a
different kind than repetitions of parallels and hidden codes.

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Larry Weiss <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 28 Apr 2005 01:09:59 -0400
Subject: 16.0792 Failed Application
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0792 Failed Application

Ok, Basch, you win.  I am convinced.  Shakespeare was a Jew.  Even
though he wasn't born a Jew, since his mother (at least) did not
qualify, and maternal Jewishness is all-in-all, Shakespeare was a Jew.
Even though he was baptized, thus making him a Christian, ipso facto,
Shakespeare was a Jew.  Even though he was a liturgically practicing
Christian all his life, even serving as a vestryman (as someone was kind
enough to point out to me off list), Shakespeare was a Jew.  Even though
he was buried in a church under an epitaph containing an invocation of
Jesus, Shakespeare was a Jew.  In fact, he was the Grand Lubuviticher
Rebbe.  Satisfied now?  Good; then I beseech you in the bowels of
Christ, SHUT UP!

_______________________________________________________________
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.