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 16.0935  Wednesday, 18 May 2005

[1]     From:   Bill Arnold <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 17 May 2005 08:43:26 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0915 Failed Application

[2]     From:   Larry Weiss <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 17 May 2005 16:16:23 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0915 Failed Application


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Bill Arnold <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 17 May 2005 08:43:26 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 16.0915 Failed Application
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0915 Failed Application

Joseph Egert quotes me, "I cannot be held accountable for what I have
not written..."

Then Joseph writes, "My dear Arnold, I hold you accountable only for
what you have written, no more no less."

Well, Joseph, you have in your ellipse cut off the meaning of my remarks.

What I said was I cannot be held accountable for what I had not written
to the message board but HAVE WRITTEN IN MY BOOK and which I referred to
in my remarks.

Then Joseph quotes me again, "Generally, in the Bible, reference to the
commandments are interpreted to be the ten commandments..."

Then Joseph writes, "Not so. The Bible itself refers to the ten as
utterances, not commandments (a label attached by later commentary)."

What you say disagrees with the KJV, wherein the Bible one finds the ten
commandments, Exodus, C 20, in which Moses quotes God, V 6 [KJV],

6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my
commandments.

Then Joseph quotes me,  "[Jesus] elevated this commandment [love of
neighbour]...to such a high standard, second only to His first
commandment [love of God]...was the doing of Jesus."

Then Joseph writes, "Once again, the elevated status of these two
commandments was accepted as a staple of Judaic culture for at least
several centuries before Jesus; they were included in mandatory prayers
possibly since Sinai."

Well, Joseph, I need a citation to text and without the "possibly since
Sinai" in the mix.

And the rest of what Joseph wrote I will not dignify with response.  He
is entitled to his opinions which I have no interest in shaking.  Nor do
they have anything to do with Will Shakespeare.

Bill Arnold
http://www.cwru.edu/affil/edis/scholars/arnold.htm

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Larry Weiss <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 17 May 2005 16:16:23 -0400
Subject: 16.0915 Failed Application
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0915 Failed Application

 >When you begin with the thesis I do and work backwards,

What an astounding admission!  Science and scholarship do not begin with
a favored speculation and then hunt for evidence to support it while
ignoring all the contrary evidence or recutting it to fit.  Consider how
Darwin developed the theory of evolution by natural selection by first
carefully noting tiny distinctions between related species of birds and
the like and then working upwards to his hypothesis.  To begin at the
other end leads to "intelligent design" and a Ptolmaic universe.

This sort of "reasoning" also leads to the following:

 >Since being Jewish in England was a crime during the period of
 >Shakespeare's life, why would anyone expect that those in danger of
 >being discovered would leave clear records of their life in any other
 >form but the conventional? That is why it is not revelatory to merely
 >rely on wills, marriage, and birth records.

In other words, the absence of proof is a form of proof while the
existence of proof is explained away by a conspiracy theory.

 > the pickings must have been scarce in
 >Stratford for a Jewish wife. Is that why William married a woman seven
 >years his senior, one of the few available Jewish women in town?

I wonder if the fact that Anne was up the spout had anything to do with
William's willingness to marry her.  Of course, Basch offers not a
scintilla of evidence that Anne was a Jewess.

 >There is even an early story about William who made
 >a speech before slaughtering animals in helping his father. ..
 >
 >Another anecdote is of Shakespeare's not wishing to party it up with
 >neighbors and excused himself by pleading illness. Is that how the
 >Shakespeares kept to themselves?

Then there's the one about WS and Ben Jonson rousing it up so much that
Will became deathly ill.  And the one about Will, Burbage and the
"citizen grown so much in liking" with him.  Of course that doesn't cut
against Will's orthodoxy; isn't there something in the Talmud absolving
Jewish men from marital fidelity if they are away from their wives for
30 days?

 >I was once in Iran during the time of the
 >Shah and visited with an Iranian Jew who was from a priestly family.

Jews weren't banned from Iran.  It is even true, until Basch and other
disciples of Meir Kahane have their way, that Moslems and Christians may
practice their religion in Israel.

 >he did indeed leave some artifacts, like his coat
 >of arms and some other things, more controversial, known among scholars.

Are we SHASPERians not sufficiently scholarly to be trusted with this
occult knowledge?  Or are we too scholarly to accept it?

Speaking of artifacts, at least two of the portraits said to be of
Shakespeare depict him as wearing an earring.  Aren't Jews forbidden to
pierce their flesh?  Come to think of it, aren't they enjoined to be
buried in consecrated Jewish ground rather than a Christian church
beneath an invocation of Jesus?  And isn't there something about Jews
not practicing the sacraments of other religions such as baptism, which
entails a protestation of belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ?

_______________________________________________________________
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.