The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1487 Friday, 9 September 2005
From: David Basch <
Date: Thursday, 08 Sep 2005 10:27:47 -0400
Subject: Epistomological Considerations
Larry Weiss in discussion brings up "epistomolgical" considerations. He
is correct that we on the list will have better discussions if we deal
with substantive matters grounded in fact and clear reasoning. But he
strays from such considerations when he cavalierly dismisses me, Amit,
and Chan as providing no evidence for our views. He writes:
>In this case, there is a fundamental epistemological objection.
>Chan, Basch and Amit do not offer evidence....
But I did not imagine finding the poet's full name in Sonnet 148 as
steganographic embedment and I even displayed these to the list to no
comment from Larry. What does he make of this? I see it as evidence of
the poet's use of such devices, Therefore, when I showed the list how
Marlowe's Latin motto ("Quod me nutruit etc") is also to be found in the
same way in Sonnet 73 it must not be seen as off the wall.
I also presented Henry Wriothesley's full name inserted through equal
letter skip devices in the dedication of the Sonnets, proving that this
type of cryptographic device was known and used at the time so that when
I show that "w-i-l-l" occurs twice as an equal letter skip sequence in
Sonnet 148 it too is not to be seen as something plucked from thin air.
And then when Florence Amit and myself show many unmistakable instances
and indications of Shakespeare's use of Hebrew in his work and we see
this as evidence of proficiency on the poet's part, it is not something
presented without an epistemological base.
Nor are the many parallels to Ecclesiastes and a scheme of meaning that
corresponds with the thought of Ecclesiastes that I brought up as found
in Hamlet without evidentiary status in themselves. These could be
further bolstered by the many additional such parallels that I have
found but which interest Larry not one whit.
And Larry Chan confirms at least the presence of a spiritual outlook in
Hamlet that audiences must recognize if we are to fully appreciate this
play and its playwright. This presence is also confirmed by many other
Yet Larry Weiss has no compunctions about pretending that these things
don't exist and should not become part of the discussion, writing us off
as though we mindlessly indulge our obsessions. But Larry's saying so
makes does not make this so and is in itself an epistemological
I think our discussions on list would improve if we hear out the views
of members and, if we disagree, would raise questions and contradictions
in a manner that invites response and further discussion. This is the
way to test reality and get to reality.
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook,
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.