Genesis of the Shakespearean Works

By Peter D Matthews

This book is the result of fourteen years research scrutinizing thousands of historical documents. Dr Matthews reveals never before seen facts regarding the earliest quartos and the first folio – even new research into the leather cover of the Bodleian first folio and how that particular copy came into the possession of the Turbutt family.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Bassano Publishing House
• Release date: Jun 11, 2017
• ISBN: 9780992461614

Book preview

1

FRAGILE FOUNDATIONS

Whilst a few modern scholars tend to concur with the aforementioned literary giants, many rather foolhardy modern scholars still believe the practically illiterate Englishman named William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon penned these graphic Italian Kabbalistic works. Others have put forward a number of bizarre candidates in a failed attempt to underpin England’s claim to these works.

In my earlier book, Shakespeare Exhumed: The Bassano Chronicles, I provided a brief hermeneutical study of The Taming of the Shrew, whereby I exhibited documents proving the connection between William Shakespeare and Christopher Sly - a drunken tinker, come actor, who misquoted lines and fell asleep during his own performances. In essence, as the story goes, Shakespeare was tricked by an English lord into believing he was something that he was not - no doubt by the Lord Chamberlain, Henry Carey, 1st Baron Hunsdon.

In The Taming of the Shrew, the Bassano family were exhibited as musicians in keeping with their reputation as the finest musicians and musical instrument makers in the world - capable of playing the most heavenly melodies.¹ Before England, they were pivotal members in the festivals, processions, pageants, and early plays of Venice. The Bassanos were sought after by the Pope in Bologna,² the Doge of Venice, and finally King Henry VIII of England. Baptista Bassano became the Italian and lute tutor to Queen Elizabeth I between 1545 and 1552.³ The brothers were fluent in Italian, Emilian (Old Mantuan), French, Medieval Latin, Classical Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, as well as Ancient and Medieval Greek.

This should have given previous scholars an inkling that the first generation Bassano family were well qualified to read and expound from the source texts in the Shakespearean works. As I mentioned previously, each of the Shakespearean plays was deliberately embellished with Jewish Kabbalistic piyyut (embellished poetry used as poetic song in worship on Sabbaths and festivals),⁴ braided with Jewish Essene theology, and Jewish Kabbalistic teaching from the Sefer ha-Zohar and the Sefer Yetzirah.

These texts were otherwise inaccessible to anyone but pious Masters of Kabbalah,⁵ such as many eminent Rabbi’s within the Bassano family. I noted in my previous work:

Many assert William Shakespeare may have obtained his mastery of the Kabbalah from the first printing of the Zohar known as Tikunei haZohar which was printed in Aramaic with scripture in Hebrew in Mantua in 1557, followed by a three Volume edition in 1558-1560 at the same time as the first Haggadah of Mantua titled ‘Haggadah Shel Pesach’ (Telling of Passover) was printed. The printing press in Mantua was owned by Giacomo Rufinelli, who was supervised by a Jewish sexton at a Mantua synagogue by the name of Rabbi Isaac ben Solomon de Bassan (Rabbi Isaac Bassano). This original text of 1700 pages was printed in Medieval Aramaic by members of the Bassano family!⁶

Yet modern scholars continue to assert that the uneducated practically illiterate Englishman named William Shakespeare penned these graphic Italian Kabbalistic works – who undeniably had not completed any university studies, let alone any studies in Medieval Aramaic to be able to read any of these ancient texts.

Before we delve further into these citations, allow me to first investigate the assertions by early scholars that have influenced our thinking today, especially their attempts to reconstruct a chronology using relative dating methodology, which I note was primarily from external evidence, such as entries in the Stationers' Register, publication dates, performance dates, various letters, and scant records of the life of William Shakespeare.

Nicholas Rowe

The English poet, Nicholas Rowe (1674-1718), was the first to publish a modern edited edition of the Shakespearean plays in 1709.

Rowe was the son of a learned barrister and sergeant-at-law named John Rowe, who forced his son to follow in his footsteps. That is until his father passed away when Nicholas was nineteen. By the age of twenty-five, Rowe had penned his first play titled ‘The Ambitious Stepmother’, shortly followed by the tragedy ‘Tamerlane’ in 1702, ‘The Fair Penitent’ in 1703, ‘Ulysses’ in 1706, ‘The Royal Convert’ in 1714, and his final play of ‘Lady Jane Grey’ was completed in 1715, because in 1716 he was appointed as Poet Laureate after the ascension of King George I.⁷ It was between Ulysses and The Royal Convert that Rowe penned ‘The Works of William Shakespear’, published by Jacob Tonson in a six-volume set of octavos.⁸

In Rowe’s early biography of William Shakespeare, he revealed: It is without controversy, that he (William Shakespeare) had no knowledge of the writings of the ancient poets, yet Rowe also claimed the works were equal, if not superior, to some of the best of theirs (the ancient poets).⁹ Rowe posed the question in the reader’s mind: how could Shakespeare have penned such superior works without knowledge of the ancients? He answered his own question in the following passage:

It was possible for a Master of the English Language to deliver 'em. Some Latin without question he did know, and one may see up and down in his Plays how far his Reading that way went: In Love's Labour Lost, the Pedant comes out with a Verse of Mantuan; and in Titus Andronicus, one of the Gothick Princes, upon reading Integer vitæ scelerisque purus Non eget Mauri jaculis nec arcu says, 'Tis a Verse in Horace, but he remembers it out of his Grammar: Which, I suppose, was the Author's Case. Whatever Latin he had, 'tis certain he understood French, as may be observ'd from many Words and Sentences scatter'd up and down his Plays in that Language; and especially from one Scene in Henry the Fifth written wholly in it.¹⁰

In Act 4, Scene 2 of Titus Andronicus, Demetrius says:

what's here? a scrole, and written round about, Let's see,

Integer vitæ scelerisque purus, non eget mauri iaculis nec arcu.¹¹

This Latin citation from the First Quarto of Titus Andronicus was directly transcribed from Horace, Ode XXII to Aristius Fuscus, as follows:

Integer vitae scelerisque purus

non eget Mauris iaculis neque arcu¹²

The modern translation by C.M. Smart of this text reads:

The man of upright life and pure from wickedness, O Fuscus, has no need of the Moorish javelins, or bow, or quiver loaded with poisoned darts.¹³

In response to Demetrius’ Latin phrase, Chiron replies:

O tis a verse in Horace I know it well,

I read it in the Grammer long agoe.¹⁴

Rowe stated this claim was offensive, as school students studying grammar did not study the works of Horace, let alone able to recite it word-for-word from ‘long ago’. Rowe asserted the author of these works was no doubt a ‘Master’ poet with a comprehensive knowledge of the ancient poet’s works. Rowe had deduced over three hundred years ago that William Shakespeare could not have penned these works, simply because he had little education of the ancients.

Rowe took that statement one step further by quoting a combination of Medieval Latin, English, and what most scholars recognize as Italian, but it is in fact the ‘Old Mantuan’ dialect (which Rowe admits) in Act 4, Scene 2 of Love’s Labour’s Lost from the First Folio of 1623 below:

Facile precor gellida, quando pecas omnia sub vm

bra ruminat, and so forth. Ah good old Mantuan, I

may speake of thee as the traueiler doth of Venice, vem

chie, vencha, que non te vnde, que non te perreche. Old Man

tuam, old Mantuan. Who vnderstandeth thee not…¹⁵

Most scholars try to analyse the words, but overlook the fact that ‘Old Mantuan’ was in fact an ancient dialect of northern Italy called ‘Emilian’ (ISO 639-3 language code) from the ancient Etruscans (also ISO 639-3 language code), who bounded upon Venice to the south and west, and included cities such as Mantua, Ferrara, Ravenna, Reggio Emilia and Bassano Del Grappa where many of the Bassano family lived.

I asked a friend of mine from Ravenna in Italy to translate this for me because he is a linguist and fluent in Emilian. He advised Emilian is still spoken by some in the Emilia-Romagna, Lombardy and Tuscany regions today. Roberto’s translation of Emilian combined with my Latin translation is below:

Faustus, I pray, in cold water, all under the shadow of the flocks when they chew the cud, and so forth. Ah, good old Mantuan. I may speak of you as the travellers do of Venice; Vèneto, Vèneto, who do not have the wherewithal, and you do not marry. Old Mantuan, old Mantuan! Who does not understand me…

The word ‘perreche’ has been translated as ‘marry’, but Roberto admits, there is no English word that would do this sentence justice. ‘Marry’ has the inference of a relationship, but in this case, it refers to the lack of ability, such as the inability to ‘fit in’ because of a language barrier, learning difficulty, or even a spiritual barrier – which required further examination.

The cry ‘O Mantuan’ comes from Dante’s ‘The Divine Comedy’, Purgatorio Canto VI:

When my courteous guide began,

Mantua, the solitary shadow quick

Rose towards us from the place in which it stood,

And cry'd, "Mantuan! I am thy countryman

Sordello."¹⁶

Dante lived in Ravenna for the last three years of his life (1318-1321). Ravenna is an ancient Etruscan city that also spoke the Emilian (ISO 639-3 language code) dialect. Dante also used imageries of prayer and chewing the cud from Canto XVI below:

Who goes before, the shepherd of the flock,

Who chews the cud but doth not cleave the hoof.¹⁷

The above canto from Act 4, Scene 2 of Love’s Labour’s Lost is probably one of the most cunning phrases in the entire Shakespearean works, because it clearly illustrates that corrupt leadership is the cause of the world’s sinfulness. This is a Jewish precept taken directly from Pirkei Avot (Ethics of the Fathers) 1:8, where seven types of retribution come upon the world as a result.

In reference to ‘Faustus, I pray, in cold water’, water is one of the four elements of Sefer Yetzirah (Book of Formation) in relation to Creation, and forms part of the Jewish Kabbalistic doctrine of ‘Tikkun Olam’ translated as ‘world repair’¹⁸ mentioned in Gittin 4:2 of the Mishnah whereby Gamaliel the Elder instigated a range of social justice reforms.¹⁹

Why would the author use such teaching you may ask? Gamaliel the Elder was a direct ancestor of Rabbi Yehudah ha Nasi (Judah Nasi), who commissioned the writing of Jewish Oral Law into six orders containing 7-12 chapters known today as the Mishnah.²⁰ Rabbi Yehudah ha Nasi was a direct ancestor of Elena de Nasi – the wife of Antonio Bassano.

In brief, the Kabbalistic application is from the Zohar 1:46 where God separated the upper waters from the lower waters, fashioning the expanse, thereby creating the heavens and hell.²¹ To repair the world, one must be right with God and have no impurity. To the Jewish Kabbalist, attaining Torah is purity.²² The Sefer ha-Chinuch teaches the Mikveh, which is to immerse oneself in cold water as an act of prayer and repentance to God, and the person’s soul rises and cleanses itself through the pure living water, thereby regaining ritual purity.²³

This is the practise of the Jewish Essenes as cited by Josephus, who spent time with the three Jewish sects: Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes.²⁴ Josephus recorded that his Essene instructor Banus, who he spent three years with, ‘bathed himself in cold water frequently, both by night and by day, in order to preserve his chastity (purity)’.²⁵ This Essene practise is the origin of John the Baptist’s teaching of repentance and baptism in water, which form the basis of modern Christian doctrine. Thus, after Mikveh, or baptism, the shepherd can act out of purity, distancing himself from falsehood (Ex 23.7) and begin the repair of the world.

Finally, ‘Faustus’ from ‘Faustus, I pray, in cold water’ translated from the above canto from Act 4, Scene 2 of Love’s Labour’s Lost does not refer to the Samarian sorcerer named Simon Magus from Acts 8:9-24 as many assert. His sin was attempting to pay his way into the kingdom of God, desiring position and influence without repentance and baptism in water. Whilst this seems quite plausible, I suggest it is inconsistent with the theological argument.

In my view, it is the Manichaean bishop Faustus of Milevis, who is known to have ‘chewed the cud’ with Augustine of Hippo. Faustus drove Augustine away from the Manichaean faith as a result of Faustus’ denial of the Old Testament, particularly the prophet’s predictions of Jesus Christ.²⁶ In this context, Faustus directly opposed the Essene philosophy of Yeshua (Jesus Christ). Interestingly, the Manichaean doctrine stated that all manner of illnesses, including rabies, tuberculosis, and even demon possession could be treated by running toward a river or an abundant ‘cold water’ spring and immersing themselves fully dressed ‘forty times in seven days’.²⁷ Thus the author was mocking the Manichaean doctrine of Faustus.

William Shakespeare did not have the wherewithal with the ‘Old Mantuan’ or ‘Emilian’ language, nor the ancient Etruscans as a people, but he certainly had no idea of the major differences in theology between the Jewish Essenes and the dualistic Manichaean religion. Shakespeare, the ‘principal actor’,²⁸ had absolutely no idea of the carefully braided Jewish Kabbalistic imageries within these plays.

Why did the Jewish dramatist have such an affinity with the Etruscans? I believe the answer lies in an 1837 book by Johann Tuch titled ‘Kommentar Über die Genesis’. Tuch pinpointed the origin of the Etruscan civilization to Tiras, the grandson of Noah.²⁹ Therefore, the ancient Etruscans were of Hebrew origin. This highlights the fact that the Shakespearean works were penned by Jews lamenting over various ancient Hebrew civilizations that perished. (Please note: there is considerably more information on the ancient Etruscans and Lacedemonians within my philosophical dissertation contained in Part Two of this volume, and in Volume 2 to follow.)

Despite Rowe’s exceptional early analysis of certain parts of the Shakespearean works and the life of William Shakespeare, Rowe clearly exhibited Shakespeare as a fraud, thus his critique of Shakespeare was not well received in England. Surprise, surprise! However, Rowe’s works were a precursor for Edmond Malone.

Edmond Malone

The first Shakespearean scholar to construct a tentative chronology of the Shakespearean works was a Dublin Lawyer by the name of Edmond Malone.

In 1776, while in London researching documents relating to his recently deceased friend and playwright, Oliver Goldsmith (1728-1774), Malone met with George Stevens, who was heavily involved with Samuel Johnson, having already published ‘The Plays of William Shakespeare, in Eight Volumes’ in 1765. Stevens was at the time working on a second edition and enlisted Malone’s help in constructing a tentative chronology of the plays.

In 1778 ‘The Plays of William Shakespeare, in Ten Volumes, with the Corrections and Illustrations of Various Commentators’ (commonly referred to as the 1778 Variorum Edition) was published, which included a 78 page preface by Malone titled, ‘An Attempt to Ascertain the Order in Which the Plays Attributed to Shakspeare Were Written’.³⁰

As any learned barrister would do, Malone delved into the deepest, darkest secrets of Shakespeare’s life and works, seeking documentary evidence in contrast to the abundant wild and fanciful stories of the day. Malone wrote of research enquires in 1778:

After the most diligent enquiries, very few particulars have been recovered, respecting his private life, or literary history.³¹

After considerable research into the chronology of the Shakespearean works, he concluded:

The materials for ascertaining the order in which his plays were written, are indeed so few, that, it is to be feared, nothing very decisive can be produced on this subject.³²

This is why he termed it ‘an attempt’ to chronologically date the works. Malone also believed Titus Andronicus was the first play to be performed, on the basis that:

Titus Andronicus appears to have been acted before any other play attributed to Shakspeare; and therefore, as it has been admitted into all editions of his works, whoever might have been the writer of it, it is entitled to the first place in this general list of dramas. From Ben Jonson’s induction to Bartholomew Fair, 1614, we learn that Andronicus had been exhibited twenty-five or thirty years before, that is, at the lowest computation, in 1580 or taking a middle period in 1587.³³

Malone clearly admitted that William Shakespeare could not have been the author of Titus Andronicus because it was performed sometime between 1580 and 1587 while William Shakespeare resided in Stratford-upon-Avon with his family.

In summing up his chronological explanation of Titus Andronicus, Malone cited comments by Francis Meres to reinforce his determination:

It has been said that Francis Meres, who in 1598 enumerated this among our author’s plays, might have been misled by a title-page; but we may presume that he was informed or deceived by some other means; for Shakspeare’s name in not in the title-page of the edition printed in 1611, and therefore, we may conclude, was not in the title page of that in 1594, of which the outer was probably a re-impression.³⁴

Malone suggested Meres had been ‘misled’ or ‘deceived’ because the name of William Shakespeare was not on the Third Quarto of Titus Andronicus (1611) and therefore he suspected the name of William Shakespeare was not on the 1594 First Quarto. At the time Malone wrote this, there was no known copy of the First Quarto of Titus Andronicus of 1594 available. Therefore, his assertion was based upon the Third Quarto as below with no author cited on the title page:

THE

MOST LAMEN-

TABLE TRAGEDIE

OF Titus Andronicus

AS IT HATH SVNDRY

times beene plaide by the Kings

Maiesties seruants.

LONDON,

Printed for Eedward Whilte, and are to be solde

At his shoppe, nere the little North dote of

Pauls, at the signe of the

Gun. 1611.

The 1611 Third Quarto edition makes it very clear that the original works were penned anonymously. As the works were deliberately embellished with Jewish Kabbalistic poetry, Jewish Essene theology, and teaching from the Sefer ha-Zohar and the Sefer Yetzirah in medieval England, it is not surprising that the works were penned anonymously. This is because all Jews were ordered out of the Realm forever by King Edward I on 18 July 1290 by the Edict of Explusion of 1290.³⁵ Therefore, any scholar claiming the works were of Hebrew origin would have likely been charged with felony for seeking to corrupt others or possibly even high treason. The sixteenth century English Clergyman, William Harrison, recorded the punishment for such a crime: the perpetrator would be hanged by the neck till he be dead, and then cut down and buried.³⁶

Emilia Bassano was the first Jewish woman in England to declare herself a poet in her 1611 ‘booke’ of poetry titled ‘Salve Deus Rex Iudæorum’, where she attempted to bridge the gap between Christianity and Judaism, embracing both faiths from a subtle Essene perspective. However, she was careful to write of ‘Christ, King of the Jewes’, where she wrote a tribute to Christ as an alternate Epistle to Paul in the Bible, therein portraying herself as a Christian.³⁷ Most have interpreted this as a testament to her Christian faith against Judaism, but this is not the case. As a Jew who embraced Essene doctrine, Emilia was merely writing of the ignorance of Pharisees and Sadducees, who spent their days debating Oral Judaic law. This is abundantly clear in her statement:

Zeale, Lawes, Religion, now they doe pretend

Against the truth, vntruths they seeke to frame.³⁸

As a skilled poet, Emilia was extremely careful with her words to protect her own life. Those before her were not so fortunate. Thomas Kyd and especially Christopher Marlowe learned the ills associated with writing against the theologically acceptable custom of the day. In May of 1593, Kyd and Marlowe were arrested for suspected involvement in a manuscript containing vile heretical Concepts denying the deity of Jhesus Christe our Savior.³⁹ Without trial, Marlowe was stabbed to death, allegedly over a dispute of payment of a bill.⁴⁰ It is not surprising that the Shakespearean works were penned in a guarded style to protect the dramatists’ identities.

It was not until 1904 that Malone’s suspicions were validated, when a copy the First Quarto of Titus Andronicus was discovered, and sold to Henry Folger. It is now exhibited in the impressive Folger Collection of Shakespearean works in Washington DC.⁴¹ Therefore, we can confirm the 1594 First Quarto of Titus Andronicus did not cite any person as the author. The title page is illustrated below, confirming Malone’s suspicions – it was anonymous:

THE

MOST LA-

mentable Romaine

Tragedie of Titus Andronicus:

As it was Plaide by the Right Ho-

nourable the Earle of Darbie, Earle of Pembrooke,

and Earle of Sussex their seruants.

LONDON,

Printed by Iohn Danter, and are

to be sold by Edward White & Thomas Millington,

at the little North doore of Paules at the

signe of the Gunne.

1594.

Thus, the assertion by Francis Meres in Paladis Tamia, Wits Treasure of 1598 attributing the play Titus Andronicus to William Shakespeare is seriously questionable, even though many assert his book is important in English literary history as the first critical account of the poems and early plays of William Shakespeare.⁴² Meres wrote:

As Plautus and Seneca are accounted the best for Comedy and Tragedy among the Latines: so Shakespeare among the English is the most excellent in both kinds for the stage. For Comedy, witnes his Gentlemen of Verona, his Errors, his Loue Labors Lost, his Loue Labours Wonne, his Midsummers Night Dreame, and his Merchant of Venice; For Tragedy, his Richard the 2, Richard the 3, Henry the 4, King Iohn, Titus Andronicus, and his Romeo and Iuliet.⁴³

All this passage proves is that Two Gentlemen of Verona, The Comedy of Errors, Love’s Labour’s Lost, Love Labour’s Won, A Midsummer Night’s Dream, The Merchant of Venice, Richard II, Richard III, Henry IV, King John, Titus Andronicus and Romeo and Juliet were performed prior to Mere’s publication date of 7 September 1598, as recorded in the Stationer’s Register.⁴⁴ It proves nothing more. As Malone suggested, Meres’ remark of Shakespeare does not authenticate that William Shakespeare was the author. One only has to read Heming and Condell’s dedication in the First Folio of 1623, where they asserted Shakespeare was a principal actor. Clearly, Shakespeare was one of the main faces on the stage, but that does not mean he was the author.

Yet, scholars today use Meres comments as a yardstick for chorological dating. Some assert Meres was "the first critical account of the poems and early plays of William Shakespeare" (bold mine).⁴⁵ This statement is fatally flawed for two reasons. Firstly, some of the Shakespearean plays were performed in 1558 and 1562 before the birth of William Shakespeare in 1564. Furthermore, a playwright by the name of Stephanus Gosson cited the vast majority of the Shakespearean works being performed between 1572 and 1576 when Shakespeare was a child (refer Chapter 6 -The Gosson Connection). Therefore, citing Meres’ comment as a yardstick for chronological dating of the Shakespearean works is fallacious, unless one simply cites Meres’ comments as a ‘trivial’ (not critical) citation from 1598.

Meres was typical of English scholars with an uncritical, almost naive acceptance of English dramatists. In my view, many English scholars have acted sentimentally rather than forensically verifying data. Many have hung their hat upon the comments of Francis Meres, who compared Shakespeare to Plautus:

As the soule of Euphorbus was thought to liue in Pythagoras: so the sweete wittie soule of Ouid liues in mellifluous and hony-tongued Shakespeare, witnes his Venus and Adonis, his Lucrece, his sugred Sonnets among his priuate friends, &c.⁴⁶

Malone saw through the facade of fallacious representations and counterfeit documents. He spent years gathering and perusing documents just as I have done. From as early as 1780, Malone believed that many of the Shakespearean plays were not originally penned by Shakespeare - merely reproductions - as exhibited below in a letter he wrote to Thomas Percy:

I am at present very busy in arranging an Essay … the object of which is to prove that the Henries were not written originally by Shakspeare, but were a rifacimento. As this is our friend Dr Farmer’s own ground, I shall be a little mortified if he should not give me some support, and mean to run down to Cambridge for a few days to press him into the service; but he is so lazy that I doubt whether he will do anything, though he has half promised me.⁴⁷

In 1795, Malone released another book titled, ‘An Enquiry in the Authenticity of Certain Miscellaneous Papers and Legal Instruments’ where he proved many of the validating documents were forgeries, including:

I: Part of Queen Elizabeth’s pretended letter to Shakespeare, copied from the facsimile in ‘Miscellaneous Papers’;

IV: Superscription of Lord Southampton’s pretended letter to Shakespeare. Copied from ‘Miscellaneous Papers’;

VII: Two lines of a theatrical Account, pretended to have been written by Shakespeare; copied from ‘Miscellaneous Papers’;

VIII: A pretended autograph of Shakespeare; copied from ‘Miscellaneous Papers’;

IX: Part of Shakespeare’s pretended letter to Lord Southampton;

XXII: Part of Lord Southampton’s pretended letter to Shakespeare; copied from ‘Miscellaneous Papers’;

And finally –

V: A pretended receipt given by John Heming to Shakespeare. From the same collection.

I should note that John Heming mentioned above is the same man with his fellow player named Henry Condell that engaged the ill-reputed Jaggard to publish the First Folio of 1623 (expounded in Chapter 4 - First Folio).

In the end, I believe Malone achieved his stated goal, which was set down as follows:

to collect all the internal and external evidence that might serve to point out the probable authors of them; to ascertain as nearly as possible the era when each of them was produced; to collate them with the original copies; to attempt to free them from the numerous corruptions with which they abound; and to present them to the publick in a more questionable shape than that in which they have hitherto been exhibited.⁴⁸

May Edmond Malone rest in peace knowing that his tenacious resolve in early forensic examination of documents has assisted modern scholars in proving who the real authors of the Shakespearean works really were.

Sir Edmund Kerchever Chambers

The vast majority of modern chronologies are based on the work of Sir Edmund Kerchever Chambers (E.K. Chambers) from his 1930 two volume work entitled, ‘William Shakespeare: A Study of Facts and Problems’.

In addressing the ‘problem of authorship’, Chambers asserted the most important is the list given by Francis Meres in his Palladis Tamia of 1598⁴⁹. Chambers revealed this was because Henry VI must be an early work, thereby dating it between 1590 and 1591.⁵⁰ Yet, Chambers had not investigated early records that forensically date 1 Henry VI and 2 Henry VI prior to 1563, and further cited cantos from both plays being performed on the streets of London between 1572 and 1576.

The greatest error of Chambers was not carrying through his own discovery of the ‘Early Plays’ cited by Gosson. In briefly comparing the First Folio with Gosson’s attack against poets, players and the like, Chambers wrote:

Stephen Gosson's Schoole of Abuse (1579) mentions a 'lew… showne at the Bull… representing the greedinesse of worldly chusers, and bloody mindes of usurers:… neither with amorous gesture wounding the eye : nor with slouenly talke hurting the eares of the chast hearers'.⁵¹

This clearly illustrates that Chambers had read and partly examined the works of Gosson. Referencing the early record in Machyn’s Diary of Julius Caesar being performed in 1562, he asserted, it seems to be a forgery, noting that Gosson cited Caesar and Pompey, but in true English pomposity, Chambers concluded this was a possibility, although his words are not quite clear, without any evidence whatsoever to support this alternate conclusion.⁵²

Chambers’ only explanation was a play by the name of Casear Interfectus performed in Latin in 1582, six years later, which bears no reference whatsoever to Gosson’s citations from Julius Caesar. Thus, I believe Chambers conclusions are fatally flawed and must be abandoned.

Chronologically speaking, Chambers dated the Shakespearean works between 1590 and 1613 although he admitted his table of dates is mere scaffolding⁵³. We all understand how easy it is for scaffolding to buckle under the weight of mounting pressure and come crashing down. Chambers admitted he did not propose to retrace an argument which has already worked out by many writers.⁵⁴ Therefore, in essence, Chambers admitted he was merely building upon a fragile foundation with a shoddy scaffold that was likely to fail in the future.

I suspect past scholars intentionally cast aside documented early performances prior to the birth of Shakespeare purely because they felt compelled to preserve the works for mother England. After all, how could an English scholar from Oxford or Cambridge claim these profound Italian Kabbalistic dramas that changed the face of England could be penned by Jews? It seems such a claim was beyond the bounds of possibility in their bowdlerized information universe.

---

¹ Matthews, Dr Peter D (2013), Shakespeare Exhumed: The Bassano Chronicles, Bassano Publishing House, Australia, ISBN 9780987365255, p17.

² Ibid, p18.

³ Ibid, p132.

⁴ JewishEncylcopedia.com: Piyyut, The unedited full text of the 1906 Jewish Encyclopaedia, www.jewishencyclopaedia.com

⁵ Morgan, Usher, Ed. (2009) Full Guide to Becoming a Real Wizard, Witch Or Necromance, Lulu, ISBN 9781449967635, p129 where Morgan asserts the Hilkot Yetzirah is declared to be esoteric lore not accessible to anyone but pious Masters of Kabbalah who were obligated to use it solely for Kabbalistic purposes.

⁶ Matthews, Dr Peter D (2013), Shakespeare Exhumed: The Bassano Chronicles, Bassano Publishing House, Australia, ISBN 9780987365255, pp. 200-201.

⁷ Johnson, Samuel (1905), Lives of the English Poets (1779-81), ed. Hill, 2:65-77, http://spenserians.cath.vt.edu/BiographyRecord.php?action=GET&bioid=33487

⁸ William Andrews Clark Memorial Library at UCLA, Three later editions of the works and plays of Shakespeare: Nicholas Rowe, editor (London: Printed for Jacob Tonson, 1709); Alexander Pope, editor (London: Jacob Tonson 1723-25); Samuel Johnson, editor (London: J. & R. Tonson, 1765), http://clarklibrary.ucla.edu/chrzanowski-collection/126-the-works-of-mr-william-shakespear-in-six-volumes-nicholas-rowe-editor-london-printed-for-jacob-tonson-1709-with-the-works-of-shakespear-in-six-volumes-including-seventh-volume-of-poems-alexander-pope-editor-london-jacob-tonson-1725-23-25-and-the-plays-of

⁹ Rowe, Nicholas (1709), The Works of Mr. William Shakespear, Jacob Tonson, republished as ‘Some Account of the Life of Mr. William Shakespear’ Comm: Samuel Monk, 2005, p8. http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/16275/pg16275.txt

¹⁰ Rowe, Nicholas (1709), The Works of Mr. William Shakespear, Jacob Tonson, republished as ‘Some Account of the Life of Mr. William Shakespear’ Comm: Samuel Monk, 2005.

¹¹ Q1, Tit. 4.2.1697-9.

¹² Q. HORATI FLACCI CARMINVM LIBER PRIMVS, ODE XXII, http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/horace/carm1.shtml

¹³ Smart, C.M. (2004), The Works of Horace, revised by Theodore Alois Buckley, published by Gutenberg in 2004, http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14020/14020-h/14020-h.htm

¹⁴ Q1, Tit. 4.2.1701-2.

¹⁵ F1, LLL 4.2.1258-61.

¹⁶ Dante: The Divine Comedy, Purgatorio Canto VI:49-75 Sordello, http://www.gutenberg.org/files/8795/8795-h/8795-h.htm

¹⁷ Dante: The Divine Comedy, Purgatorio Canto XVI:97-145 The Error of the Church’s temporal power, http://www.gutenberg.org/files/8795/8795-h/8795-h.htm

¹⁸ Temple Isaiah (2011), What is Tikkun Olam, http://templeisaiah.com/what-tikkun-olam

¹⁹ Mishnah, Gittin, Chapter 4, http://www.sefaria.org/Mishnah_Gittin.4

²⁰ Matthews, Dr Peter D (2013), Shakespeare Exhumed: The Bassano Chronicles, Bassano Publishing House, Australia, ISBN 9780987365255, p76.

²¹ Matt, Daniel (2002-2014), The Zohar, Pritzker Edition, Stanford University Press, Sections 1:46(a) in Vol 1, p244.

²² Mishnah, Pirkei Avot 6:6.

²³ Mikvah, http://www.truekabbalah.org/bris-kodesh/pages/litah-mikva.htm

²⁴ Favius Josephus: Autobiography, Chapter 2, http://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/autobiog.html

²⁵ Ibid.

²⁶ Augustine of Hippo, Contra Faustum Manichaeum, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf104.toc.html

²⁷ Tardieu, Michel (2008), Manichaeism, Translated from the French by M.B. DeBevoise, University of Illinois Press, p7. https://archive.org/details/Manichaeism

²⁸ First Folio 1623, dedication by Heming and Condell, who claim Shakespeare was a ‘principal actor’.

²⁹ Tuch, Johann Christian Friedrich (1837), Kommentar Über die Genesis, pp.216-217, https://archive.org/details/kommentarberdie00tuchgoog

³⁰ Johnson, Samuel; Steevens, George; Reed, Isaac (1778), The Plays of William Shakespeare, in Ten Volumes, with the Corrections and Illustrations of Various Commentators, with preface by Malone, C.Bathurst. https://archive.org/details/playswilliamsha13reedgoog

³¹ Ibid, p270.

³² Ibid, p271.

³³ Ibid, p278.

³⁴ Johnson, Samuel; Steevens, George, Reed, Isaac (1778), The Plays of William Shakespeare, in Ten Volumes, with the Corrections and Illustrations of Various Commentators, with preface by Malone, C.Bathurst. p279. https://archive.org/details/playswilliamsha13reedgoog

³⁵ Smith, Geoffrey H and Leese, Arnold S., The Edit of Explusion of 1290, https://archive.org/details/TheEdictOfExpulsionOf1290

³⁶ Harrison, William (1577), A Description of England, edited and republished on 30 May 2010 by Gutenberg, http://www.gutenberg.org/files/32593/32593-8.txt

³⁷ Bassano (Lanyer), Emilia (1611), SALVE DEVS REX IVDÆORVM, Richard Bonian, a free copy of the works can be found in the Renascence Editions, University of Oregon, http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~rbear/lanyer1.html

³⁸ Ibid.

³⁹ Cunningham, Karen (2013), Imaginary Betrayals: Subjectivity and the Discourses of Treason in Early Modern England, University of Pennsylvania, ISBN 9780812204278, p129.

⁴⁰ Coroner’s Inquisition" Christopher Marlowe, discovered by Leslie Hotson, published at http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/inquis~2.htm

⁴¹ Folger Shakespeare Library

⁴² Wikipeda: Palladis Tamia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palladis_Tamia

⁴³ Meres, Francis (1598), Paladis Tamia, Wits Treasure, published in Elizabethan Critical Essays, Ed: G.Gregory Smith, 1905, paragraph 55-57. Can be found online by Baretly from the Bodleian Library copy http://www.bartleby.com/359/31.html

Malone, Edmund (1795), An Enquiry in the Authenticity of Certain Miscellaneous Papers and Legal Instruments, Baldwin and Davies for Cadell, p94. https://archive.org/details/inquiryintoauthe00malo

⁴⁴ Wells, Stanley; Taylor, Gary, Jowett, John; Mongomery, William (1987, 1997), William Shakespeare: A Textual Companion, Oxford University Press, ISBN 9780393316674, p90.

⁴⁵ The Book Drum, The Eyre Affair, p217. http://www.bookdrum.com/books/the-eyre-affair/9780340733561/bookmarks-201-225.html?bookId=172213

⁴⁶ Meres, Francis (1598), Paladis Tamia, Wits Treasure, published in Elizabethan Critical Essays, Ed: G.Gregory Smith, 1905, paragraph 55-57. Can be found online by Baretly from the Bodleian Library copy http://www.bartleby.com/359/31.html

⁴⁷ Tillotson, Arthur, ed. (1944), The Percy Letters: The Correspondence of Thomas Percy and Edmond Malone, vol. 1, Louisiana State University Press, pp. 34–35.

⁴⁸ Malone, Edmond ed. (1780), Supplement to the Edition of Shakspeare’s Plays Published in 1778, London.

⁴⁹ Chambers, E.K.(1930), William Shakespeare: A Study of Facts and Problems, Clarendon Press, p205.

⁵⁰ Ibid.

⁵¹ Chambers, E.K.(1930), William Shakespeare: A Study of Facts and Problems, Clarendon Press, p373.

⁵² Ibid, p400.

⁵³ Ibid, p250.

⁵⁴ Ibid, p251.

2

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND TO SHAKESPEARE

The Shakespeare Globe Trust would have us believe The Theatre built by Richard Burbage in 1576 was ‘the first purpose-built playhouse in London,’¹ even though the Red Lion was built in 1567 by John Brayne in Whitechapel, which included a purpose-built stage, scaffolding, and a trap door. Details of the construction are recorded in a legal dispute between Brayne and his carpenters, as recorded by Professor Mariko Ichikawa in his work on the ‘Shakespearean Stage’ as follows:

Although John Brayne’s Red Lion did not last long, there is not much doubt that this project had an influence on the design of the Theatre, which he was to build jointly with his brother-in-law James Burbage nine years later. According to the records of disputes between Brayne and his carpenters, the Red Lion consisted of ‘skaffoldes’ for spectators and a ‘stage’ with a ‘turrett’ on it. The stage was large – 40 feet (12.2 metres) wide, 30 feet (9.1 metres) deep and 5 feet (1.5 metres) high –with a‘voyde parte’ in it, apparently for a trap.²

In fact, neither The Theatre by Richard Burbage in 1576 nor the Red Lion by Brayne in 1567 were the first theatres of Britain. Any suggestion of this nature is absolute nonsense. Allow me to investigate the history of theatre productions in England that might have provoked the dramatists to pick up a quill pen.

Ancient History of English Theatre

The earliest theatres of England are claimed to have been built by the Romans prior to the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476AD. We know the first amphitheatre in ancient Londinium (London) was built wholly of timber in around 70AD and replaced with ragstone walls in about 120AD. The remains of the ragstone walls are exhibited beneath the Guildhall Art Gallery in London.³

In fact, throughout England there are at least eleven known Roman theatres and amphitheatres. The first identified theatre is in Verulamium, St Albans (Hertfordshire),⁴where many of my own ancestors originated.

Others have been identified in Colchester (Essex), Canterbury (Kent), Chester (Cheshire), Dorchester (Dorset), Faversham (Kent), Gosbeck’s Farm (Essex), London, Richborough (Kent), and Silchester (Berkshire). Construction of many of these theatres have been dated during the Julio-Claudian dynasty (27BC – 68AD ), while others have been dated during the reign of Flavian (69-96AD), Trajan (96-117AD), and Hadrian (117-136AD), although extensions and alterations to many of these theatres occurred right through to the fourth century.⁵

The most significant is Colchester (ancient Roman name Camulodunum), as it was the capital of Roman Britain at the time, but more importantly, it was the site where King Cunobeline (Cymbeline), king of the Catuvellauni, took power in around 9AD. He is cited by Geoffrey of Monmouth as Kymbelinus in his 1136 Historia Regum Britanniae (History of the Kings of Britain).⁶

King Cymbeline is also recorded by Cassius Dio in his eighty volume Historia Romana - a book beginning with the landing of the Greco-Roman legend Aeneas in Italy, who founded Rome, and conquered the ancient Etruscans.⁷ Cassius Dio revealed the Queen of the Iceni people, Boudica, led a revolt against the Roman rule of Britain in 60-61AD and the theatres of Colchester, London and St Albans were destroyed.⁸

The Roman theatre (not amphitheatre) was discovered during roadworks on St Helen’s Lane and Maidenburgh Street, Colchester in the 1980’s. It was a substantial structure, as represented in the below depiction, which they believe was used for Roman ‘plays’ and ‘oratory’ performances.

Figure 1 - Layout of remains and depiction of site.

This depiction of the original theatre in Colchester is similar to the Roman Theatres of Verulamium (St Albans) in England; Amman in Jordan; Bosra in Syria; Tzipori in Israel; Orange in France; Regina, Baelo Claudia, Mérida, and Cadiz in Spain; and three theatres in the ancient Etruscan cities of Brescia, Pompeii and Verona in Italy, just to name a few of significance.

Figure 2 - The remains of the theatre of St Albans. Copyright by Carole Raddato (2014). Used under CCA 2.0 licence.

Whilst British theatre arose during the Roman period, its origins were much early. Many scholars assert that Roman theatre emerged from the Greeks, citing Livy (Titus Livius Patavinus ~59BC-17AD), as follows:

Livius Andronicus, a Greek captured at Tarentum, produced the first translation of a Greek play into Latin, in 240 B.C.⁹

However, this is not the origin of Roman theatre. Had scholars investigated further, they would have discovered Livy also wrote:

The first theatrical performances in Rome (coincide with) when musical and dancing performers were imported from Etruria in an effort to appease the gods when plague was ravishing the city (in 364BC).¹⁰

The Etruscan dramatists and players were brought to Rome 124 years prior to the first Greek play being translated into Latin for the Roman stage. It was Horace (65-8BC) who wrote confirming that Latin drama originated from the Etruscan town of Fescennium:

Latin drama originated in the Fescennine Verses (from the Etruscan town of Fescennium), compositions consisting of improvised, abusive, and often obscene dialogue exchanged between masked clowns at harvest and wedding celebration.¹¹

Based on the above historical records, the Romans did not imitate the Greeks, but they had theatre of their own, passed down from the ancient Etruscans.

The Latin word scaena used in the early Shakespearean works, from which the word scene originates, comes from the ancient Etruscan language known as Emilian (ISO 639-3 language code), also known as Old Mantuan cited in Love’s Labour’s Lost. It is also noted that many of the ancient Etruscan cities were used as settings for a number of the Shakespearean plays, such as Padua, Mantua, and Verona. The ancient Etruscan language is akin to the Phoenician and Hebrew, which does tend to suggest a connection that required further investigation.

In 1838, Johann Christian Friedrich Tuch pinpointed the origin of the Etruscan civilization to Tiras, the grandson of Noah.¹² Therefore, the Etruscans were of Hebrew origin, which is not surprising when we investigate one notable theatre in Tzipori, Israel (see photograph below) that contains numerous imageries throughout the Shakespearean works.

Figure 3 - Photograph of the theatre in Sepphoris, Israel. Copyright by Oren Rozen (2014). Used under CCA 3.0 licence.

The name Sepphoris or צִפּוֹרִי (Tzipori) in Hebrew is taken from the Hebrew root word וְ֝כַח֗וֹל transliterated as ‘chol’ meaning ‘phoenix’ bird. The phoenix bird is cited throughout the Shakespearean works, and is discussed in greater detail in Chapters 4 and 5.

In the play Antony and Cleopatra, we find the mention of ‘Herod of Jewry’,¹³ which refers to Herod Antipas who selected Sepphoris as his residence after his father passed away in 4BC, from where he governed the district of Galilee. His father was ‘Great Herod’ as cited in Act 4, Scene 6 of Antony and Cleopatra, referring to Herod the Great.¹⁴ Therefore, this city was significant to the authors of the Shakespearean works, probably because it was an ancient Hasmonean city originally ruled by King Alexander Jannaeus. Whilst it was not significant to William Shakespeare, it was certainly significant to the Jewish authors of the Shakespearean works.

Sepphoris suffered destruction during the civil war between Herod the Great and the last Hasmonean King Matthias Antigonus. Josephus tells us that Matthias Antigonus pulled back from Sepphoris. After the Roman Senate made Herod ‘King of the Judeans’ including all of Galilee, the Jewish people of Sepphoris refused to submit, which started a bloody siege. After the death of Herod the Great in 4BC, Judah Ben Hezekiah, son of an executed ‘captain of a band of robbers’¹⁵ gathered a large group of men and raided the royal armoury and the Herodian palace in Sepphoris.¹⁶ Upon orders of Varus, the new Roman governor of Syria, "Caius (alternate character name in the plays of King Lear and Coriolanus) took the city Sepphoris, and burnt it, and made slaves of its inhabitants".¹⁷

Herod Antipas took the city without any difficulty in a very great snow,¹⁸ and rebuilt the city into a metropolis of the country.¹⁹ The city of Sepphoris was a well sought after city by Matthias Antigonus, Ptolemy, Herod, and Josephus, who asserted he took the city of Sepphoris twice by force.²⁰ It was a strong city built on a rocky promontory with walls built by Herod Antipas,²¹ and also by the people of Sepphoris under Josephus, as they were given leave to build their own walls, and this because he (Josephus) perceived they were rich and wealthy, and ready to go to war.²²

Herod Antipas was cited as ‘Herod of Jewry’ in the Shakespearean plays of Antony and Cleopatra, Henry V and The Merry Wives of Windsor because Sepphoris was the site where Judah ha Nasi relocated the Sanhedrin to in around 200AD due to its high altitude and ‘pure air’,²³ which incidentally is another Kabbalistic imagery used in Macbeth.

Another connection to Sepphoris is the death of Judah ha Nasi from the Babylonian Talmud, which is also used as imagery in Macbeth in a powerful struggle of fate:

Rabbi's (Judah ha Nasi) handmaid ascended the roof and prayed: 'The immortals (Angels) desire Rabbi [to join them] and the mortals desire Rabbi [to remain with them]; may it be the will [of God] that the mortals may overpower the immortals'. When, however, she saw how often he resorted to the privy, painfully taking off his tefillin and putting them on again, she prayed: 'May it be the will [of the Almighty] that the immortals may overpower the mortals'. As the Rabbis incessantly continued their prayers for [heavenly] mercy she took up a jar and threw it down from the roof to the ground. [For a moment] they ceased praying and the soul of Rabbi departed to its eternal rest.²⁴

Fate is an age old debate between Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes. The Sadducees believed entirely in free will, whilst the Essenes believed solely in fate as depicted in Macbeth. This is the very basis of Hieronymus Bassano’s own literary work debating ‘free will’ (like As You Like It) versus fate. The Essenes are sometimes referred to as the forerunners of Christianity, particularly Calvinism.²⁵ Then there are the Pharisees, who trust in the prophetic word and the fate it brings, but only after they examine and verify every detail before accepting it. Thus, the imagery in Macbeth is a dramatic contrast of the three different Jewish sects, just as the Jewish cantors (Hebrew - חַזָּן) of old told stories of the ancient legends with music and drama.

There are hundreds of Jewish Kabbalistic fables, parables, and stories that have been used in the Jewish festivals from antiquity. The finest example is the legend of the Golem exhibited in the play of The Tempest. Legend has it that Rabbi Judah ha Nasi created a Golem in Sepphoris, which was recreated in the 16th century by Rabbi Isaac ben Chimshon ha Cohan and his son in law Jacob ben Chayyim ha Levi exercising the Practical Arts of Kabbalah by creating a Golem from mud using the recipe of Judah ha Nasi.²⁶

Interestingly, the creator of the later 16th century Golem was Rabbi Judah ha Levi, who I recently learned is one of my ancestors. His direct ancestor was the 3rd century Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi who is believed to be buried in a cave in the backyard of a Bed and Breakfast in Sepphoris. The owner, Mitch Pilcer, claims to have been blessed in every area of his life since moving there.²⁷

Why have I laboured on this? The theatre of Sepphoris was built in two stages. The first stage, which is significantly deteriorated, held approximately 2,500 people. The theatre was extended approximately 100 years later to accommodate approximately 4,000 people. Some scholars assert the second stage was built by Herod of Jewry (Herod Antipas) after the rebellion in 4AD. If that is the case, who built stage one?

Could it have been Herod the Great, who Josephus recorded Herod also built the other edifices, the amphitheatre, and theatre, and market-place, in a manner agreeable to that denomination?²⁸ As the city was predominantly Jewish in the time of Herod, could he have built the theatre in a manner agreeable to the Jewish population in Sepphoris?

We know that Herod the Great built a theatre in Jerusalem, as recording by Josephus.²⁹ While Josephus seemed to think theatre opposed Jewish custom,³⁰ we find the ancient Etruscans originated from the Hebrews. Kabbalistic teaching of ancient theatre teaches to look behind the mask and costume that the world is wearing…by taking all things to their root, evil is eradicated automatically.³¹ This teaching originates from the Jewish story of Queen Esther who transformed from a passive sheltered girl to a dynamic woman of royal status that emerged from behind a mask to save her people. The festival of Purim enacted during the Hasmonean Dynasty was celebrated with masques (plays), dancing, and masks.

The world’s oldest masks were found in the Judean Hills and Wilderness, dated in the pre-pottery Neolithic B period (at least 5500 BC).³² There are twelve ancient stone masks exhibited in the Israel Museum from this period that appear of Hebrew origin, probably used in festivals since the days of Noah.

They are fashioned to look similar to humans but with monstrous features and jagged teeth, most likely depicting demons or their prodigy (the Nephilim), and later the evil Haman who sought to wipe out the Jewish race. These same styles of grotesque masks were found in ancient Etruscan regions in southern Italy from the later part of the 5th century BC.³³ This does confirm Tuch’s assertion that Etruscans were of ancient Hebrew origin.

The same style masks are still used today in theatre productions, religious rituals, festivals and carnivals around the world, although now mainly crafted from ceramic, metal and plastic, rather than stone – but all fashioned from ancient Hebrew festivals.

My point is that English theatre was shaped by the Romans, who were influenced by the Etruscans, who descended from the ancient Hebrews. Thus, English theatre was influenced to some degree by the festival culture of the Jews.

One only has to refer to the Hebrew titles of a number of the Shakespearean plays to understand the dramatists were Jewish Kabbalists. For example, the title ‘All’s Well That Ends Well’ is from the Hebrew expression ‘סוף טוב הכול טוב’ that is transliterated as ‘Ahh, Sof Tov, Hakol Tov!’ which in English means exactly that - ‘All’s Well That Ends Well’. Thus, the author of this play was clearly a Jew, but also a Jewish Master of Kabbalah, as Jewish Kabbalists claim there is nothing ‘bad’ in creation. It is merely that we as the fruit of creation, have not yet ripened to maturity – the very theme of this play.³⁴

Scholars have theorized what the title ‘A Midsummer Night’s Dream’ might have meant for the last four centuries, but none to my knowledge have grasped the real meaning. I suggest this is because they have peered through the eyes of a Protestant Englishman, who they claim fashioned this wonderful Jewish comedy play. This assertion is now proven to be absolute nonsense. The title is actually taken from the ancient Jewish holiday and festival of ‘באב ו"ט’ transliterated into English as ‘Tu B’Av’, meaning figuratively, a Carnivale style Midsummer's Night of Love according to the ancient Jewish rituals, where on the full moon of Tu B’Av (15th day of Av), young virgins would borrow white garments and dance in the vineyards upon nightfall to celebrate the ‘beginning’ of the grape harvest festival.

‘As You Like It’ comes from the Hebrew word חָפַש (chofesh) - a free people to do As You Like. In English, it is the expression of a Hebrew saying in relation to time and freedom in seizing the moment. Donn Taylor and Maurice Hunt were both on the right track when they compared As You Like It with the Greek word καιροῦ (kairos) where most of the characters ‘seize the occasion’, having grown to maturity and joined in good fortune through multiple marriage in