The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1607 Saturday, 24 September 2005
[Editor's Note: I have a strong aversion to the thought of the list's
beginning a prolonged discussion of whether there are or are not codes
in Shakespeare's writing. Clearly, anyone believing in the existence of
such codes believes as a matter of faith and such beliefs are not
subject to being changed by logic or other means of persuasion. Such a
thread would, therefore, be, at least from my perspective, an enormous
waste of time and energy, both of which I have little of right now. Let
us leave this kind of discussion to conspiracy theorists and the
proponents of the Man from Essex, who as those in the know know read,
spoke, and wrote many ancient tounges including Aramaic, Sanscrit,
Hindi, Hebrew, Attic-Ionic, and Codic to name a few.]
[1] From: Jack Heller <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Thursday, 22 Sep 2005 12:39:01 -0500 (EST)
Subj: Re: SHK 16.1589 Syphilis
[2] From: Richard Kennedy <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Thursday, 22 Sep 2005 12:07:47 -0700
Subj: Re: SHK 16.1589 Syphilis
[3] From: Bill Arnold <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Thursday, 22 Sep 2005 13:22:25 -0700 (PDT)
Subj: Re: SHK 16.1589 Syphilis
[4] From: Nora Kreimer <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Thursday, 22 Sep 2005 18:09:24 -0300
Subj: Re: SHK 16.1589 Syphilis
[5] From: David Lindley <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Friday, 23 Sep 2005 09:36:44 +0100
Subj: RE: SHK 16.1589 Syphilis
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jack Heller <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Thursday, 22 Sep 2005 12:39:01 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 16.1589 Syphilis
Comment: Re: SHK 16.1589 Syphilis
David Basch <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
>Seeing Sonnets 153 and 154 as being a suggestion of Shakespeare's own
>bout with syphilis is an illustration of the fallacy of overlaying
external
>preoccupations of commentators onto what the poet's intent is in these
>poems.
The ironies are endless.
Heller
[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Richard Kennedy <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Thursday, 22 Sep 2005 12:07:47 -0700
Subject: 16.1589 Syphilis
Comment: Re: SHK 16.1589 Syphilis
David Basch writes,
>While the Friedmans did make a few mistakes in taking on faith
>things that they were no doubt told on highest authority, such as
>the false fact that the symphony of the word counts of 46 that were
>found in Psalm 46 fully occurred in earlier translations of the Bible,
>they did a great job in bringing enlightenment to this subject.
Yes, the Friedmans could be wrong, and did no homework on the 46th
Psalm. The word count is unique in the KJV, no earlier Bible counts it
out the same, I think I was the first to chase that down several years
ago and I'm glad to see it established. The Friedmans had an agenda,
which was to disprove all Elizabethan word-play that touched on the
authorship question. They were also wrong about the so-called Scudamore
cipher.
[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bill Arnold <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Thursday, 22 Sep 2005 13:22:25 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 16.1589 Syphilis
Comment: Re: SHK 16.1589 Syphilis
David Basch writes, "While William Friedman and his wife Elizabeth
rightly exposed as frauds the alleged cipher codes in Shakespeare's work
that they investigated in their 1957 book, they were ignorant of
additional sets of codes and cryptographic devices that were only
discovered years later."
Indeed, not!
I do not know how this Shakespearean code comment was snuck into a
discussion of "Syphilis" but I can assure those who have not read the
Friedmans well, nor recently, that they were not ignorant of
codification in Shakespeare. Hardy's archives should be checked. The
Friedmans made a point so readily elusive to would-be finders of
cryptology in Shakespeare. To be adept at cryptology and by reverse
order the art of cryptanalysis, one must have more than a passing fancy
of the subject. As a former member of the American Cryptogram
Association, I am astounded at outrageous claims which would not pass
muster with solving the New York Times crossword puzzle.
Bill Arnold
http://www.cwru.edu/affil/edis/scholars/arnold.htm
[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Nora Kreimer <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Thursday, 22 Sep 2005 18:09:24 -0300
Subject: 16.1589 Syphilis
Comment: Re: SHK 16.1589 Syphilis
In fiction, the subject is brought up, and like all postmodernist
historical novels, where a lot of research lies behind them and provide
great information, DARK LADY may be included as a spin-off and part of
this discussion.
Baldwin, Michael, DARK LADY, 1998. Little Brown and Company. First
published in Great Britain. The origin of the syphilis Shakespeare comes
from the bastard son to Henry VIII, Lord Hunsdon, who got it from his
own father. He was a lover to Emilia and thus she passed the disease on
to all the men who came in contact with her, who were not very few,
apparently.
Regards,
Nora Kreimer
[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Lindley <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Friday, 23 Sep 2005 09:36:44 +0100
Subject: 16.1589 Syphilis
Comment: RE: SHK 16.1589 Syphilis
David Basch <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
>Seeing Sonnets 153 and 154 as being a suggestion of
>Shakespeare's own bout with syphilis is an illustration of
>the fallacy of overlaying external preoccupations of
>commentators onto what the poet's intent is in these poems.
I'm flabbergasted. Seeing codes wherever one turns is, of course, not
bringing one's own preoccupations to bear.....
David Lindley
_______________________________________________________________
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.
|
