Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2005 :: May ::
Failed Application
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0869  Wednesday, 4 May 2005

[1]     From:   Peter Bridgman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 3 May 2005 17:57:40 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0859 Failed Application

[2]     From:   Larry Weiss <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 03 May 2005 13:28:01 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0859 Failed Application

[3]     From:   Joseph Egert <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 03 May 2005 18:14:37 +0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0859 Failed Application

[4]     From:   D Bloom <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 3 May 2005 13:47:49 -0500
        Subj:   RE: SHK 16.0859 Failed Application

[5]     From:   Peter Bridgman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 3 May 2005 20:32:03 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0859 Failed Application

[6]     From:   Jay Feldman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 03 May 2005 13:59:53 -1000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0859 Failed Application


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Peter Bridgman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 3 May 2005 17:57:40 +0100
Subject: 16.0859 Failed Application
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0859 Failed Application

John Briggs writes ...

 >It is unwise to cite the television personality Michael Wood as an
 >expert on any of this.  After all, he speaks of 'Henry VIII's
 >Reformation' - which would have surprised a king who wrote against
 >Luther, and in return received from the pope the title "Defender of the
 >Faith".

Perhaps Michael Wood was distinguishing Henry's Reformation (the
pillaging of shrines and monasteries) from Edward's Reformation (the
pillaging of parish churches, the end of the Mass) or from Elizabeth's
Reformation (the persecution of adherents of the old faith).  Since most
contemporaries dated parish reforms from 1547-48, John Briggs is right
in suggesting that the Reformation hadn't quite started by the end of
Henry's reign.

Henry's treatise, 'An Assertion of the Seven Sacraments', sent to Leo X
in 1521, described Luther as a "venemous serpent, a pernicious plague,
an infernal wolf ... an infectious soul, a detestable trumpeter of
pride, calumnies and schism, having an execrable mind, a filthy tongue,
and a detestable tongue".  Although Luther himself believed Henry's
treatise was ghost-written by Edward Lee, he retaliated in kind by
writing that "Squire Henry" was "nothing but a damnable rottenness and
worm".

Leo, for his part, gave Henry the title 'Defender of the Faith' (and
despite what it says on our coins, this was not an inheritable title)
and ordered another 28 copies of the treatise for his cardinals to read.
  These were left to gather dust in the papal library, and a year later
the English ambassador John Clerk noticed them there, still unread.

Peter Bridgman

[Editor's Note: I was citing Michael Wood to counter David Basch's
assertion that "I take Wood's words literally that there is ambiguity as
to where Mary's family came from. It would seem to me that Mary's
Catholicism has therefore not been proved." Wood has no doubts about
Robert Arden's faith or Mary's.]

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Larry Weiss <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 03 May 2005 13:28:01 -0400
Subject: 16.0859 Failed Application
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0859 Failed Application

 >Larry Weiss makes an interesting suggestion for reviewing my work, in
 >which I and he post a $10,000 stake on the matter. That amount is a
 >little steep for me, but why is it needed?

For the reason I explained:  To demonstrate your sincerity; to put your
inconsiderable money where your considerable mouth is.  We can now add
cowardice to the charges in the bill of indictment.

Since Basch is not inclined to make this even remotely interesting, and
since he has not said anything new in some time, I am unwilling to
devote any more energy to this.  And there seems no point to it anyway,
as everyone else who has responded to Basch's imaginings seem to agree
that they are the product of madness.

This thread is highly reminiscent of the authorship debate in many many
ways, not the least being that it depends on arcane puzzles and
arguments from what is "possible" rather than what is proved.  If Basch
argued that William Shakespeare could not have been the author of the
plays because the true author was obviously Jewish, Hardy would never
have let the posts see the light of day.  It is not much different to
argue that Shakespeare himself was the Jew, as that would so pervert
what we know about him that it would make him an entirely different
person.  I respectfully suggest that the same policy be applied.

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Joseph Egert <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 03 May 2005 18:14:37 +0000
Subject: 16.0859 Failed Application
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0859 Failed Application

Our resident Biblical scholar Bill Arnold concedes "Christians are of a
Judaic-Christian culture."
He was not always so generous. In 2003 (SHK 14.2128), he wrote:

    And what [Jesus] added was the eleventh commandment, the tenet of
Christianity: "Thou
    shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." Now, this was the newly
created commandment of Will S's
    "Saviour." And this commandment is the backbone of the New Testament
and replaced the
    eye-for-an-eye doctrine of the Old Testament.

Newly created? Can it be that Bill Arnold is unaware of the
commandment's origin in the Old Testament (Leviticus 19), a staple of
the Jewish culture which produced Jesus? Jewish sages from Hillel to
Maimonides have held this commandment along with "Thou shalt love the
Lord thy God with all thy heart..." as the backbone of the Old
Testament, pretty much encompassing the other commandments. The
"replacement" occurred when St. Saul, in a shameless display of
legerdemind, defied both Jesus and his brother Jacob (James) by
nullifying the Law and substituting in its place Lawless Love and Grace
to woo the Gentiles squeamish about circumcision. This struggle between
the Sons of Paul and the Sons of James is clearly allegorized in THE
MERCHANT OF VENICE. Shakespeare may in fact have used a palimpsest of
Jewish sources among others without recognizing many of its Jewish
allusions.

Enter David Basch.

Shalom,
Joe Egert

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           D Bloom <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 3 May 2005 13:47:49 -0500
Subject: 16.0859 Failed Application
Comment:        RE: SHK 16.0859 Failed Application

John Briggs writes,

"It is unwise to cite the television personality Michael Wood as an
expert on any of this.  After all, he speaks of 'Henry VIII's
Reformation' - which would have surprised a king who wrote against
Luther, and in return received from the pope the title "Defender of the
Faith"."

Is that the Henry who broke with the papacy, declared himself head of
the church, and closed the monasteries?

Cheers,
don

[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Peter Bridgman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 3 May 2005 20:32:03 +0100
Subject: 16.0859 Failed Application
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0859 Failed Application

We seem to be trudging endlessly round one of the circles of Hell.

David Basch (yet again) insists that because John Shakespeare's surname
was ONCE written as Shakere, and because 'shakere' means 'false' in
Hebrew (I'll take his word for it), this is evidence that the mayor of
the Catholic town of Stratford-upon-Avon was secretly a Jew.

There are in fact seventeen different spellings of John's surname in the
Stratford records.

If this is the only piece of evidence David Basch can offer (apart from
odd letters picked from the Sonnets read backwards), then I have to say
I fear for his sanity.

Peter Bridgman

[6]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Jay Feldman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 03 May 2005 13:59:53 -1000
Subject: 16.0859 Failed Application
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0859 Failed Application

David Basch: "...In the meantime, I have found my own answers to these
questions which tell of a Jewish poet who seems likely to have descended
from families of hidden Jews."

David, I'm curious about your thoughts concerning whether Wm.
Shakespeare and his son, if hidden Jews, were circumcised? It would seem
an unlikely choice if one wished to remain undiscovered, nevertheless it
would also seem to be a critical component of his faith as a Jew.

Sincerely - Jay Feldman

_______________________________________________________________
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.