May
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0960 Monday, 23 May 2005 From: Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, May 23, 2005 Subject: How to Start Your Own listserv Dear SHAKSPEReans, During my sixteen years association with SHAKSPER, I have noticed that some members appear to be interested in a single topic, for example *Hamlet,* to the exclusion of all others and, therefore, seldom if ever contribute to any discussion other than to that one special interest. Because my time, talent, and treasure are responsible for bringing this list to the members, I sometimes get impatient with those who seem to be exclusively concerned with their special theory or agenda, like Anti-Stratfordians. To anyone to whom this characterization applies, I offer you my considerable experience in explaining how you can start your own listserv or newsgroups. When I decided no longer to post submissions about other candidates for authorship of Shakespeare's works, some Oxfordians founded the humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare newsgroup. Not only will I share my knowledge but I will also let anyone interested use SHAKSPER to make a reasonable number of announcements of the list's/group's existence to alert potential members of the opportunity to join. Hardy M. Cook Owner/Editor/Moderator of SHAKSPER _______________________________________________________________ S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List Hardy M. Cook,This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. The S H A K S P E R Webpage <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.
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 email 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 email 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 email 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 email 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 email 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 email 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 email 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 email 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 email 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.
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0958 Friday, 20 May 2005 [Editor's Note: This thread has been all over the place and is now at an end. Any further exchanges should be conducted privately.] [1] From: Joseph Egert <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 19 May 2005 22:11:34 +0000 Subj: SHK 16.0935 Failed Application [2] From: Bill Arnold <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 19 May 2005 20:18:40 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 16.0947 Failed Application [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joseph Egert <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 19 May 2005 22:11:34 +0000 Subject: Failed Application Comment: SHK 16.0935 Failed Application If our accommodating editor will permit, I cannot allow Bill Arnold's distortions, however inadvertent, to pass uncontested. I still hold Bill accountable for what he has written in this forum or anywhere else. The ellipse he alludes to has no bearing on the point at issue. On the mistranslation of the Hebrew Ten "Utterances" as "Commandments", Arnold cites the isolated use of "commandments" in EXODUS 20:6, which refers to all commandments and not specifically to the Ten. Indeed, what is striking is the consistent use in Hebrew of "Utterances" and not "Commandments" when referring to the big Ten in EXODUS c20, c24, c34, c35 and again in DEUT c4 and c10. These "Utterances" were clearly mistranslated as "Commandments" in EXODUS 34:28 and DEUT 4:13, 10:4 in both the GENEVA BIBLE (1560 etc) and the KING JAMES VERSION (1611 etc). With respect to the immemorial elevation of the "Thou shalt love..." commandments in Jewish culture, I refer Bill to his local Rabbi. Let him go head to head with the Pharisees of the day. But this time, tape the discussion unedited. Now, back to Shakespeare. Regards, Joe Egert [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill Arnold <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 19 May 2005 20:18:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: 16.0947 Failed Application Comment: Re: SHK 16.0947 Failed Application Cheryl Newton writes, "The KJV translation is rife with mistranslations, some for lack of scholarship, some in the OT deliberate to 'predict' the events of the NT." Indeed? No, not really. You can go to any large library and find a wall of books on *Christology* which cover the thesis you state: although the thesis is not stated in the pejorative manner I see above. In my book on the subject, I make note of some interesting translation issues. I accept and acknowledge the two major schools of scholars, the Biblical scholars with a capital *B* and the biblical scholars with a lower case *b*. I assume you understand and know the difference. They begin their differences with whether or not they use BC/AD or BCE/CE designations for time. As I note, both camps seek the Truth. However, each comes with their biases, and I acknowledge that as well, being of the former camp myself. But I also say to you as a Biblical scholar myself that true scholars are aware of such matters as bias, recognize it when they see, and still seek and publish the truth. Perhaps, you need to read my book? Again, find it: http://anoldbooklook.com Having said that, let me say that this thread of failed application now has failed and has turned into Shakespeare's Biblical References, and that is where I wish to take it up if you wish to join the discussion under that subject heading here on SHAKSPER. Bill Arnold http://www.cwru.edu/affil/edis/scholars/arnold.htm _______________________________________________________________ S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List Hardy M. Cook,This email 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.
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0957 Friday, 20 May 2005 [1] From: John Briggs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 19 May 2005 17:34:54 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 16.0943 Shakespeare's Biblical References [2] From: Joseph Egert <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 19 May 2005 22:31:16 +0000 Subj: SHK 16.0914 Shakespeare's Biblical References [3] From: Bill Arnold <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 19 May 2005 20:45:27 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 16.0943 Shakespeare's Biblical References [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Briggs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 19 May 2005 17:34:54 +0100 Subject: 16.0943 Shakespeare's Biblical References Comment: Re: SHK 16.0943 Shakespeare's Biblical References Peter Bridgman wrote: >John Briggs writes ... > >An additional >hazard is that nearly all copies of "Douay-Rheims" that are available >are of Bishop Challoner's 18th-century revision - where he imported >wording from the KJV! > > >The original Douay-Rheims is very hard to find. The following site >claims to have the original 1582 Rheims NT, but the spelling has >unfortunately been modernised .... > >http://www.hti.umich.edu/r/rheims/browse.html No, I'm pretty certain that's Challoner's version - as are all such online texts. John Briggs [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joseph Egert <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 19 May 2005 22:31:16 +0000 Subject: Shakespeare's Biblical References Comment: SHK 16.0914 Shakespeare's Biblical References To Al Magary on his upcoming edition of HALL'S CHRONICLE: Why not tie in passages from Hall to quotes from Shakespeare, then link those with their closest Bible counterparts. More work but more glory. Regards, Joe Egert [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill Arnold <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 19 May 2005 20:45:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: 16.0943 Shakespeare's Biblical References Comment: Re: SHK 16.0943 Shakespeare's Biblical References John Briggs writes, "I think Bill Arnold has illustrated my point. As not even Bill Arnold would claim that Shakespeare wrote the King James Bible *before* LLL, wouldn't it make more sense to use quotations from an earlier translation?" Peter Bridgman writes, "The original Douay-Rheims is very hard to find. The following site claims to have the original 1582 Rheims NT, but the spelling has unfortunately been modernised .... http://www.hti.umich.edu/r/rheims/browse.html" John, I think Peter answered your point very well. I have already put into Hardy's archives here on SHAKSPER my point about this matter and covered these matters extensively in my book, but will say briefly: I used the KJV as it is the Shakespearean Age Bible and it is readily accessible, useful for its poetic beauty as well for those well attuned to Will Shakespeare's words. Beauty never hurts in these matters, to misparaphrase Keats! The Catholic Bible was done on the Continent and is less relevant to the Shakespearean Age. There are significant differences between the major precursors to the KJV, namely the Great/Geneva and others which all three borrowed upon. I make note in passing in my book with Psalm 23 and John 3:16 about these matters. In the end, in my scholarly opinion, the differences are as noted in the famous fictional piece on the matter by Kipling, and that is one of poetic beauty! The questions of *translation* are really scholarly questions, and open to significant debate in *Christology* circles inasmuch as there were no dictionaries to consult on the meanings of certain words in dispute: for instance, the word *Spirit* in most detailed *Christology* books clearly show the mutiplicity of meanings which can be attached to the word in terms of connotation, and yet some wish to use individual connotations as denotative to the exclusion of others. If you go to any one text, indeed, you are stuck with the translators's denotative choice, but if as a scholar you go to the *Christology* and study, some, then you can come away with a broader appreciation of the hard task any translator works under. I will end in noting that the texts used for the Bibles in question are based on a Greek text. Indeed, scholars know that Old Testament texts are found in Hebrew, and so many other languages that I wont repeat them all here. We are talking ancient texts extant. Textual questions would swamp Hardy, and he hardly needs that. I cite the major texts in my book. What is needed is that we SHAKSPEReans accept *how* all this applies to Shakespeare, in the final analysis. That is why I suggested a first reading for most would be Shaheen's introduction to his voluminous *Biblical References in Shakespeare's Plays.* Bill Arnold http://www.cwru.edu/affil/edis/scholars/arnold.htm _______________________________________________________________ S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List Hardy M. Cook,This email 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.
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0956 Friday, 20 May 2005 [1] From: D Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 19 May 2005 12:14:27 -0500 Subj: RE: SHK 16.0944 First Folio Function [2] From: Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 19 May 2005 14:35:24 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 16.0944 First Folio Function [3] From: Peter Groves <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 20 May 2005 09:27:55 +1000 Subj: RE: SHK 16.0944 First Folio Function [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: D Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 19 May 2005 12:14:27 -0500 Subject: 16.0944 First Folio Function Comment: RE: SHK 16.0944 First Folio Function Kim Carrell writes "Why do modern editions continue to set Mercutio's "Queen Mab" speech as verse when both the Folio and Q2 show it is prose until the line "'This is the hag, when Maides lie on their backs'". One possible reason is that a very large percentage of it scans very smoothly as iambic pentameter. Of course, not all of it does. We thus have a conundrum (not to be confused with --never mind), or even a crux, which allows three possibilities. 1 -- The compositors screwed up and set most of it as prose when it should all have been set as verse. 2 -- The modern editors are screwing up and that the mixture of prose and verse, as seen in the early editions, is precisely what WS had in mind. 3 -- Something else that I haven't thought of or worked out yet. What the scholar would do, if the matter was important, would be to consult those editors that have discussed the question -- as in the notes to the more scholarly editions, but also in journal articles. What have the experts concluded? On what grounds. Peripherally, it strikes me as the sort of passage -- intense and image-laden -- that WS, especially in his early days, is mostly like to have written in verse. Also peripherally, my experience in performing S has led me to conclude that a fair number of actors have tin ears when it comes to verse, so that they either jog along (didah, didah, didah, etc) or they obliterate it -- a sad loss. This may occur partly as result of the anxiety, amounting sometimes to terror, that otherwise capable actors sometimes feel in speaking the words of the Immortal Bard. Cheers, don [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 19 May 2005 14:35:24 -0400 Subject: 16.0944 First Folio Function Comment: Re: SHK 16.0944 First Folio Function >Dramatically it is much more >effective and tragic if Mercutio is wounded in the course of his and >Tybalt's macho posturing which Romeo breaks up - and Mercutio's "...why >the devle came you betweene us? I was hurt under your arme" becomes much >more poignant. I have often seen it played something like this, with the Mercutio/Tybalt duel more of a gentlemanly match, a la Hamlet/Laertes, while the Romeo/Tybalt fight is more violent, with death as the intended outcome. In fact, the banter preceding the duel suggests that sword fights are fairly common, but there is no hint that they usually end with a corpse. The characters' reactions to the death of Tybalt suggests that it is highly unusual. But, isn't still appropriate to have a stage direction? [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter Groves <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 20 May 2005 09:27:55 +1000 Subject: 16.0944 First Folio Function Comment: RE: SHK 16.0944 First Folio Function Kim Carrell asks 'Why do modern editions continue to set Mercutio's "Queen Mab" speech as verse when both the Folio and Q2 show it is prose until the line "This is the hag, when Maides lie on their backs"?'. The answer, of course, is that they print it as verse because it's verse, as anyone who can hear the metre of iambic pentameter can testify. To believe that it was written as prose we must also hold that it is a mere coincidence that it can be divided up into 37 consecutive metrically well-formed and largely end-stopped pentameters: this is more coincidence than my credulity can cope with. Why the compositors of Q2 and F1 set it as prose is no doubt an interesting question, but it is one for bibliographers, not for critics, actors and other readers of Shakespeare: there has been much research, beginning with Charlton Hinman, into the methodical vandalism of Shakespeare's compositors. Peter Groves School of English etc. Monash University _______________________________________________________________ S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List Hardy M. Cook,This email 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.