The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.1663 Friday, 22 August 2003
[1] From: Bill Arnold <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Thursday, 21 Aug 2003 12:58:07 -0700 (PDT)
Subj: Re: SHK 14.1657 Re: Psalm 46 [Blame it on the Brits!]
[2] From: Bill Arnold <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Thursday, 21 Aug 2003 13:20:52 -0700 (PDT)
Subj: Re: SHK 14.1638 Re: Psalm 46 [Blame it on the Brits!]
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bill Arnold <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Thursday, 21 Aug 2003 12:58:07 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 14.1657 Re: Psalm 46 [Blame it on the Brits!]
Comment: Re: SHK 14.1657 Re: Psalm 46 [Blame it on the Brits!]
Syd Kasten writes, "Although I have sympathy with the idea that the
editors of the KJV, who presumably held the belief that our talents are
divine gifts, would use the services of the most gifted wordsmith of
the day to tighten up the product, I have no vested interest in it. I
do think, however, that the earliest date of mention of the Psalm XLVI
thing could be considered an objective fact. Even though having this
would shed absolutely no light on the question of Shakespeare's hand or
lack of it in the composition of the KJV, it would at least bring us
closer to the date of the composition and perhaps lead us to the author
or authors of the - would the term 'canard' be appropriate? Who was
this compulsive word counter who started the chain of "tradition" that
led to the outpouring of words, opinions and ideas of our present
discussion?
Bill Arnold will, of course refer me to the library or suggest I buy his
book. To the first I plead distance from a comprehensive library (I,
like many others on the list, am not in Academia). As to the second, my
interest is not strong enough to break the budgetary constraints on my
book purchases. I do promise to make adequate acknowledgment before I
use whatever insights he shares with us."
How do you know what Bill Arnold "will, of course" do when Bill Arnold
doesn't even know? I have been known, on rare moments, to do things
which others deem philanthropic and on lesser moments wholly not in my
best interest.
But this is SHAKSPER, and we are ruled by a higher power: HARDY!
And I can assure you I can write these words for free, and if money were
my only consideration, and not mine time as well, then maybe I might be
out there out-Arnolding Arnold as govna of California!
I wrote a book, and PART of it, as written in the SHAKSPER archives does
refer to the 46/46 question and Will S and the translation process of
the KJV. Thus, be assured I cannot and will not reprint my work here on
Hardy's messageboard. It is too lengthy.
However, I will remind Shakespeareans that it was a Brit, who was
anonymous, in 1901, and wrote an English newspaper, with the thesis.
Since then, it has taken on a life of its own: an Anglical Bishop
pronounced on the subject, with some apparent wisdom, and perhaps he was
privy to inside documents, but in any event, he said it was an honorific
to Will S's birthdate! Now, I did none of the two events above, and
have written that there is OTHER evidence to indicate that this might be
the case: and catalogued it in my introductory remarks in my book JESUS:
The Gospel According to Will. Be reminded: it IS all the other
collateral evidence which makes us still interested in the subject. As
to the cryptology question: as a member of the American Cryptogram
Association, I can assure SHAKSPEReans that the Friedmans were correct
in stating that matters of cryptology requires a cryptologist to pounce
upon the subject with some authority, as the scholarship behind the
field involves linguistics, math, and a host of unrelated skills. But
far be it from me, to tell other scholars, that the subject is beyond
their ken, because it is not.
The point is: the question of an honorific TO WILL S by the Brits at the
time of the translation process between circa 1603-1610 is a reasonable
subject to delve and does not involve cryptology at all. It is simple
word count, omitting the prologue and the coda. The text fits, and that
is that. I cannot go through the long and involved discussion of the
Hebrew text and Latin and early English, because it is really irrelevant
inasmuch as the numbers do NOT fit. No one has written that they do. I
put all that evidence in my book, including ALL the names of those who
are known to have been involved, only to do a thorough and scholarly job
myself.
Was it an honorific to Will S? Go ahead, and argue your case yea or
nay. I do not care what the opinion of individuals is anymore than
anyone cares what my opinion is. There have been a host of famous
authors who have pronounced on the subject, not knowing the facts. The
facts, as I have written are simple, and the evidence is quite
knowable. But I have also written that I do not conclude one way or the
other whether or not it WAS or WAS NOT an honorific. The Brits have
weight in that it was. So much for the Brits!
I am not defending the answer, but I do defend the scholarship to
resolve the facts about the 46/46 Will S and KJV subject, and have
contributed to it.
Bill Arnold
http://www.cwru.edu/affil/edis/scholars/arnold.htm
[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bill Arnold <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Thursday, 21 Aug 2003 13:20:52 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 14.1638 Re: Psalm 46 [Blame it on the Brits!]
Comment: Re: SHK 14.1638 Re: Psalm 46 [Blame it on the Brits!]
Bob Grumman writes, "Bill Arnold disagrees with my claim that
Shakespeare, in translating Psalm 46, would not have had the 'Selah'
messing his little trick up. Bill Arnold says the Selah is not part of
the text. What is it in the middle of Psalm 20?"
Thanks for the question.
But the answer is quite complex, and all I can say is of all I have read
about "Selah" and which makes the most sense is that it is a Hebrew
musical notation. As such, if true, it is not part of a text, but meant
as an indicator to a reader for direction of what to DO at that point in
the text in the same way stage directions are not part of the dialogue,
and thus not spoken by the actors. As a cryptologist, I concluded it
was not part of the text of Psalm 46, but the coda, just as the prologue
which is in earlier texts is not part of the text, and was omitted by
the KJV translators. Perhaps, they, even some of the Hebrew scholars at
one of the colleges, Cambridge, Westminster and Oxford, should have
noted this and did not and thus it appears as part of the text of Psalm
46 of the KJV. Take a look at the Bishops Bible and the Geneva Bible to
see the difference from the KJV.
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.
