Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2012 :: June ::
Himself

 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 23.0262  Thursday, 21 June 2012

 

[Editor’s Note: There are some submissions that I receive that cause me to take three or more long cleansing breaths before I decide whether to post or not. I did so with the submission that prompted these replies. When David Basch first started peddling his “pet’ theories on SHAKSPER, I myself tried to argue with logic and facts that his major suppositions did not stand up to the received conventions of scholarly evidence. I posted his recent submission to the list, with a private warning to him that such was not a justification for renewed discussion of the theory, hoping that others might point out the problems with it. Respondents for this and any possible future posts should direct replies to the content of the post and not to wider implications.

 

Anecdote Warning: My younger daughter after her first year of college has decided to major in sociology and political science, not literature to my chagrin. Since I am in the process of divesting myself of many of my possessions, I went to my bookshelves in my study and picked up my copy of Eric Hoffer’s The True Believer, a book that I read at about her age and that has had a lasting influence on me. I gave it to her, describing it as a classic in sociology (well, among other things). True believers simply will not be swayed by any arguments—I could here mention American politics but that too is a topic to be avoid on SHAKSPER. –Hardy]

 

[1] From:        Joseph Egert < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

     Date:         June 20, 2012 4:48:44 PM EDT

     Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Himself 

 

[2] From:        Larry Weiss < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

     Date:         June 21, 2012 12:02:22 AM EDT

     Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Himself

 

 

[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------

From:        Joseph Egert < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

Date:         June 20, 2012 4:48:44 PM EDT

Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Himself

 

David Basch writes:

 

>Concerning the name Falstaff, I would in the end refer to the 

>surprise that Peter Levi mentioned in his book, The Life and 

>Times of William Shakespeare. He noted that in an English 

>court record of an inheritance given to John Shakespeare 

>from his father, Richard, John was referred to as 

>“Johannem Shakere.” (Levi was at a loss to explain it.) 

 

David, were you able to personally confirm the spelling of John’s last name in the Worcester record, as reported by Levi?

 

Curious,

Joe Egert 

 

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------

From:        Larry Weiss < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

Date:         June 21, 2012 12:02:22 AM EDT

Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Himself

 

David Basch is once again regaling us with his imaginative creation of fanciful links, leading him now to conclude that Sir John Falstaff was intended as a representation not of Sir John Oldcastle, as the Q text of 1HenIV expressly indicates and as is explicitly confirmed by the epilogue to 2HenIV, but of Shakespeare’s own father. His analysis depends on an assumption that WS was fluent in ancient Hebrew, for which no support is cited and that the Shakespeare coat of arms has a falcon displayed in the crest. This strikes me as not too different from Basch’s earlier attempts to persuade us that WS subtly weaved the Hebrew tetragrammaton into his texts by occasionally using the letters J, V and H.

 

Please, enough already!

 

As I tried to convey in footnote 73 to my opinion in Egan v. Elliott, obtainable in the archives: 

 

Where a theory is based on perceived patterns, we may . . . question whether the patterns are misconceived or even the result of malfunction of the anterior cingulate cortex of the brain. See M. Shermer, The Believing Brain (Times Books 2011) at 124-27; see, also, e.g., D.H. Mathalon, et al., Error Detection Failures in Schizophrenia, 73 Int’l J. of Psychopathology, no. 2 at 109-17 (2009); M.I. Posner & G.J. DiGirolamo, Executive Attention: Conflict, Target Detection, and Cognitive Control, in R. Parasuraman, ed., The Attentive Brain (MIT P. 1998). 

 

 

Other Messages In This Thread

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.