2005

An Early Instance of Code

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1646  Tuesday, 27 September 2005

[Editor's Note: When this was another thread, I ended it. Now, it 
appears again in another guise. No more, please.]

[1] 	From: 	Bill Arnold <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Monday, 26 Sep 2005 21:46:41 -0700 (PDT)
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 16.1627 An Early Instance of Code

[2] 	From: 	Stefan Andreas Sture <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Tuesday, 27 Sep 2005 09:06:21 +0200
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 16.1627 An Early Instance of Code


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Bill Arnold <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Monday, 26 Sep 2005 21:46:41 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 16.1627 An Early Instance of Code
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.1627 An Early Instance of Code

Stephen Rose writes, all in the left margin, a nice crisp acrostic.

David Basch writes,  "Concerning the fact of hidden codes in 
Shakespeare's work...As I have already pointed out, J.M. Rollett, a 
retired physics professor from Ipswich England, not at all a 'conspiracy 
theorist,' found Henry Wriothesley's full name in the Dedication of the 
Sonnets embedded in Equal Letter Skip (ELS) codes. (The ELS code is a 
cryptographic device in which messages are presented in a text through 
equal letter spacing.)   Cannot readers believe the evidence of their 
own eyes concerning this presence since I showed a text matrix 
demonstrating this on list? I found this cipher code about seven years 
ago. Apparently it eluded that great expert, Bill Arnold. But Bill ought 
not to feel bad since for 400 years everyone else missed it, including 
the Friedmans."

As noted by Stephen Rose, some cryptology is amply clear.  Of late the 
same kind of clear acrostic was done by none other than poet Anne Sexton.

Edgar Allan Poe did a beauty in which the first letter of the first 
line, keyed with the second letter of the second line, and so forth, 
created the name of a woman admirer.

The famous Voltaire used his name in an anagram.

One would suspect if Shakespeare were so intended, he would have 
resorted to the historical methodology accepted by other poets of 
acrostics and anagrams dating back to Greek poet Lycophron in 260 BC.

So, David Basch is sure Shakespeare used crypto in his writings and the 
Friedmans and yours truly missed it.  As all know, I have a book out 
there on the alleged Shakespeare signature in the KJV.  In the final 
analysis, I presented the tentative evidence without drawing any 
conclusions of whether or not it was intentional and that Will 
Shakespeare took part in it.

Now, to David Basch's allegations about codes in Shakespeare. Indeed, 
there might be: but he has yet to present a credible case.

What the Friedmans suggested and David Basch ignores is that there is 
more to it than meets *HIS* eye!  The rest of us must see what he sees 
and conclude, when all is said and done, that Will Shakespeare 
*intended* it.   That is a tall order.

The poet Goethe did just that when he presented a ring to Rosette 
Stadel.  The gems were, reading the first letters, in German, Rubin, 
Opal, Saphir, Emeraude, Tturckis, Topas, Emeraude.  OK: they spelled her 
name.

David Basch states that his finding of a crypto message eluded the 
Friedmans and myself.  Where David Basch is standing on quicksand rather 
than solid ground is in the fact that his alleged ciphers are not 
crystal clear.  He sees them because he has made them up in his own 
mind, and that is why it eluded the Friedmans and me.  We are not mind 
readers.

He need not commit the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority in citing 
physics professor Rollett, retired or not.  Such is not proof, and he 
should know that, as well.

In order for a case to be made, the methodology has to be precise and 
irrefutable.  If it is not precise and irrefutable, then it is a 
standing allegation.  So noted: what David Basch has presented to 
SHAKSPER is a standing allegation but it is not as he states, "...fact 
of hidden codes in Shakespeare's work."

His so-called "text matrix" is not fact, but a contrivance of his 
creation, not convincing at all, leaves much to be desired, and stands 
as a standing allegation.  So be it.  I give him credit for it, created 
as he states "about seven years ago," and by my calculation, that was 
*about 1998.*  Scholarship takes note!

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

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Stefan Andreas Sture <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Tuesday, 27 Sep 2005 09:06:21 +0200
Subject: 16.1627 An Early Instance of Code
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.1627 An Early Instance of Code

Right on!, Stephen. This was fun.

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Shakespeare goes to high school

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1645  Tuesday, 27 September 2005

[1] 	From: 	John Briggs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Monday, 26 Sep 2005 17:56:55 +0100
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 16.1619 Shakespeare goes to high school

[2] 	From: 	Tanya Gough <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Monday, 26 Sep 2005 12:59:54 -0400
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 16.1594 Shakespeare goes to high school

[3] 	From: 	Bill Arnold <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Monday, 26 Sep 2005 12:49:38 -0700 (PDT)
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 16.1619 Shakespeare goes to high school


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		John Briggs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Monday, 26 Sep 2005 17:56:55 +0100
Subject: 16.1619 Shakespeare goes to high school
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.1619 Shakespeare goes to high school

Richard Burt wrote:

 >In the 1990s, a teacher was fired for teaching Twelfth Night.

How do you get fired for teaching "Twelfth Night"?  (Yes, I know, "Only 
in America...")  I remember that my school text some thirty-five years 
ago was expurgated, but even then I thought that it was a ridiculous 
effort, as all that they could find to cut out were two insignificant 
references, one of which was "Carry his water to th' wise woman"!

John Briggs

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Tanya Gough <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Monday, 26 Sep 2005 12:59:54 -0400
Subject: 16.1594 Shakespeare goes to high school
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.1594 Shakespeare goes to high school

 >5. Is the teaching of any specific play mandated by any state or nation?

Michael,

It's my understanding that some states have set curriculum which 
determines which plays can be taught and when.  I would say the vast 
majority of the US high school teachers I deal with teach JC 
specifically in 10th grade, and I know that is mandated in some states 
(though I can't tell you off hand which ones).  In Texas, plays such as 
Romeo and Juliet and others are considered to be the realm of the 
English department, and the Drama teachers aren't allowed to touch plays 
taught as literature, thus making Taming of the Shrew and Twelfth Night 
more popular in Texas high school drama departments.

Cheers,
Tanya Gough
The Poor Yorick Shakespeare Catalogue
www.bardcentral.com

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Bill Arnold <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Monday, 26 Sep 2005 12:49:38 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 16.1619 Shakespeare goes to high school
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.1619 Shakespeare goes to high school

Cheryl Newton writes, "Michael, I can't speak to the long term history 
in public schools.  A little more than 30 years ago, my class studied 
Julius Caesar in our sophomore year."

In 1967-68, during my first teaching job at the Orange, Massachusetts, 
High School, I had the responsibility of all four junior English 
classes, and de rigeur was Macbeth.  We made it a once a week class 
project, with editors elected, and all students contributing and 
published a hardbound casebook which every student received.  We had 
delicious fun doing Shakespeare, and Orange was a combination small town 
north of Amherst with a farming community as part of its population.

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.

Performing Angelo

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1643  Tuesday, 27 September 2005

[1] 	From: 	Abigail Quart <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Monday, 26 Sep 2005 05:55:58 -0400
	Subj: 	RE: SHK 16.1601 Performing Angelo

[2] 	From: 	Arnie Perlstein <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Monday, 26 Sep 2005 21:41:53 -0400
	Subj: 	Performing Angelo


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Abigail Quart <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Monday, 26 Sep 2005 05:55:58 -0400
Subject: 16.1601 Performing Angelo
Comment: 	RE: SHK 16.1601 Performing Angelo

D. Bloom:
I am still trying to make sure I understand Quart clearly. Virginity is 
to nun, as teddy bear is to toddler.

A. Quart:
All right. Perhaps I shouldn't have said "teddy." How about "blanky"? 
That precious thing you've had since earliest infancy which you will NOT 
give up, even though you're 18, shipping off to college, and, honey, 
it's time.

Gonna be a cold day in Hell when I get on the bandwagon of hymen worship.

D. Bloom:
Is she really saying that an earnest and difficult vow to God is the 
same as the possessiveness of a child with regard to beloved stuffed 
animal? I remain baffled.

A. Quart:
Me, too. In the Measure I'm fond of, Isabella hasn't made any vows. 
Shakespeare points that out immediately. As for "earnest," lordy, yes! 
She is that. But "difficult"? Nuh uh. She walks onstage and her first 
words are bitching that "you nuns" have it too easy. None of this is 
"difficult" for Izzy. For her, it's no tougher than a "Sweatin' to the 
Oldies" workout. In fact, Isabella seems quite proud of her taste for 
the strict life. Which means our girl is hellbound on one of the seven 
deadlies, doesn't it?

Act I, Scene 4

A nunnery.

[Enter ISABELLA and FRANCISCA]

     * Isabella. And have you nuns no farther privileges?

     * Francisca. Are not these large enough?

     * Isabella. Yes, truly; I speak not as desiring more;
       But rather wishing a more strict restraint
       Upon the sisterhood, the votarists of Saint Clare.

     * Lucio. [Within] Ho! Peace be in this place!

     * Isabella. Who's that which calls?

     * Francisca. It is a man's voice. Gentle Isabella,
       Turn you the key, and know his business of him;
       You may, I may not; you are yet unsworn.
       When you have vow'd, you must not speak with men
       But in the presence of the prioress:
       Then, if you speak, you must not show your face,
       Or, if you show your face, you must not speak.
       He calls again; I pray you, answer him.

[Exit]

That "you nuns" is a tiny piece of genius. An instant separation between 
Isabella and the real nuns, represented by Francisca. It makes it 
glaringly clear that Isabella does NOT see herself as one of them, 
despite any professed intentions.

As for that "earnest and difficult vow to God" that Isabella has NOT 
made, does anyone believe she blows off the Duke and returns to the 
nunnery for her wedding date with Jesus? It is true error to mistake 
Isabella the nunlet for a genuine religieuse.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Arnie Perlstein <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Monday, 26 Sep 2005 21:41:53 -0400
Subject: 	Performing Angelo

""my theory sits comfortably astride Occam's Razor" "What an image! 
Comfortably?"

I forgot to mention, I wear special padding. But I would loathe give up 
the razor, because, used with proper precautions, it is a great saddle. 
    ;)

Arnie Perlstein
Weston, Florida

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Two New Authorship Studies

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1644  Tuesday, 27 September 2005

From: 		Bob Grumman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Monday, 26 Sep 2005 17:49:39 -0400
Subject: 16.1616 Two New Authorship Studies
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.1616 Two New Authorship Studies

Michael Egan wrote:

"Elliott declines to come to trial on equal terms, so I'll put the 
matter clearly thus: He and his intellectual allies have decisively 
proved by numerical analysis that certain anonymous Elizabethan and 
Jacobean dramas are not by Shakespeare. But every other measure (line 
and word parallels, analogies of character and scene structure, thematic 
convergence, philosophical and historical viewpoint, and many other 
dimensions familiar to literary criticism) show quite otherwise."

To which I replied:

"Every other measure?!  Come on, Michael.  One measure is hard evidence, 
like names on title pages, and neither side has that.  Mr. Elliott and 
the other stylometricists haven't come close to convincing me of 
anything yet, but I'm convinced what they have to offer will become of 
central importance to authorship studies eventually."

To which Michael Egan replied (after deleting the context of my remark):

"Come on to you, Bob, all of Shakespeare's MSS. are lost, so there are 
no names on any extant title pages."

You've lost me, Michael.  I'm talking, obviously, about published plays 
with names on their title-pages.  As I keep having to tell 
anti-Stratfordians, these names are evidence--hard evidence.  They have 
to be taken into consideration in considering a play's authorship.

References by contemporaries to someone as the author of a play are 
other instances of hard evidence.  Names in the Stationers' Register are 
yet others.  Such measures clearly do not show otherwise about the plays 
you and Elliott are discussing as you contend.

All I'm saying is that you should have said, "many measures show 
otherwise" than that "every measure" does.

"Even contem


Greek Drama

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1642  Tuesday, 27 September 2005

From: 		Bill Arnold <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Monday, 26 Sep 2005 22:04:56 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 16.1622 Greek Drama
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.1622 Greek Drama

Tom Krause writes, "And of course, Shakespeare modeled his debasement 
metaphors on Aristophanes's pioneering allusion in The Frogs, and 
borrowed the 'old comic freedom' in Measure for Measure to boot, as I've 
explained elsewhere."

I, for one, would like to think that Ole Will got his chucklability from 
reading Aristophanes' Lysistrata.

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.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.