Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2005 :: May ::
Basch Threads
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0959  Friday, 20 May 2005

[Editor's Note: I have given Michael Luskin the opportunity to make his
point, members to respond, and Michael to address those responses. There
is no useful reason to continue with the thread.]

[1]     From:   Michael B. Luskin <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 19 May 2005 12:38:59 EDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0948 Basch Threads

[2]     From:   Michael B. Luskin <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 19 May 2005 13:38:59 EDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0948 Basch Threads

[3]     From:   Joseph Egert <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 19 May 2005 21:27:53 +0000
        Subj:   SHK 16.0937 Basch Threads

[4]     From:   Alan Horn <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 20 May 2005 01:45:50 -0400
        Subj:   RE: SHK 16.0948  Basch Threads


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Michael B. Luskin <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 19 May 2005 12:38:59 EDT
Subject: 16.0948 Basch Threads
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0948 Basch Threads

I am not sure just what Bill Arnold is saying here, but I think I agree.
  Bill is more or less right, when he says quoting from the Bible, Old
or New testament, is NOT necessarily the same thing as saying that
someone is a Talmud chochem, or expert, as the phrase is.  On the other
hand, the Talmud is basically a commentary on first five books of Moses,
so quoting the Talmud or alluding to it, is referring to the Torah, one
step removed.

But I am not sure what Bill's point is.

 >As to Basch's claims I have no comment other than to say that there
 >should be a distinction drawn in your mind, and SHAKSPERean minds, that
 >to quote from the Bible, both the Old and New Testaments, is different
 >than saying that someone was a Talmudic scholar and quoted only from the
 >Talmud, and ipso facto would lead to conclusions other than that Will
 >Shakespeare was a son of the Judaic-Christian culture of England, circa
 >1600.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Michael B. Luskin <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 19 May 2005 13:38:59 EDT
Subject: 16.0948 Basch Threads
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0948 Basch Threads

I have to agree and disagree with GabrielEgan.com.  I find it a little
creepy going far a field to find out things about Basch - or you, or me.
  I assume what you say is true, though, and I do not like it.  Without
involving us in something even farther a field, the Arab Israeli
conflict, in which there is plenty of blame on everybody's heads, it is
routine, if you read Islamic web sites, to read not only about the
beauty of destruction of Israel, but also the destruction of Jews and
celebrations of the nazis. Be only to glad to send you all you want of
that stuff.  I could quote Shylock's speech back at you...  I certainly
wish that people, including Basch and half the imams in the world, did
not write and say what they write and say routinely.

I think we should restrict ourselves to what Basch writes on
Shakespeare, that is what he offers for our dialectic.

And I don't know about Larry Weiss, with his bets, his calling Basch
mad, etc.  I think very wrong is more than good enough.

Michael B. Luskin

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Joseph Egert <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 19 May 2005 21:27:53 +0000
Subject: Basch Threads
Comment:        SHK 16.0937 Basch Threads

Michael Luskin writes, "Clearly, the Bible was not on his mind ... as
much as birds or colors or movements..."

I don't see how Shakespeare's mind could avoid soaking up the religious
atmosphere of his time. Or do you mean "her mind" referring to Spurgeon?

Luskin continues, "Please, nobody say that the samurai got their ideas
from the Bible."

Depends which Lost Tribe of samurai. Check with Basch.

Luskin then admits he never thought "Shakespeare's works were riddled
with Biblical allusions, or hidden Hebrew words.."

Certain of his works are in fact riddled with such allusions. Once
again, the Jew may not be hidden in Shakespeare himself but in his sources.

Luskin believes "Jessica" is ultimately derived from Jesse or Issaacher.
Wouldn't a closer fit for "Iessica" be Abram's niece and Lot's sister
"Iscah" (GEN 11:29)?

Finally, Michael reviles anyone arguing "the Song of Songs demonstrates
the love between God and his church" as "nuttier than Basch." In fact,
the Old Testament religious authorities sanctioned its inclusion into
the Canon precisely because it represented to them the love between God
and Israel. Later Christian leaders in their supersessionist program saw
their Church as the New Israel and heir to God's love as reflected in
the Song of Songs. Not so nutty after all.

Regards,
Joe Egert

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Alan Horn <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 20 May 2005 01:45:50 -0400
Subject: 16.0948  Basch Threads
Comment:        RE: SHK 16.0948  Basch Threads

I don't see what principle would prevent this list from treating
contributions on the subject of the hidden religious or ethnic identity
of Shakespeare in the same way it treats contributions on the supposed
authorship question--by excluding them.

Like the theories that Shakespeare didn't write Shakespeare's works,
speculations that he may have been Jewish or--as some far-right Hindu
nationalists have argued (not here, thank God)--Indian are not part of
the scholarly and critical discussions this list is designed to
facilitate. Claims like those say a lot about the people making them and
nothing at all about Shakespeare.

SHAKSPER has an admirable ethos of openness to contributors in many
different fields who come at our shared interest from varied
perspectives and levels of professionalism. This is the very thing that
sets this list apart from any other forum on this subject. I would not
like to see this spirit compromised. I would not be for bans against
individuals, unless they were being abusive or bigoted (on this list).
But I don't see what would be wrong in saying that questions that aren't
fit for discussion here won't be discussed.

Until we get such a policy, all those who would like to see less of
David Basch on this list (unless he can stick to other topics) should
keep in mind that responding to him in any way produces one sure result:
a long reply by David Basch.

Alan Horn

_______________________________________________________________
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.