The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.0555  Thursday, 20 March 2003

[1]     From:   Tony Burton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 19 Mar 2003 11:57:01 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.0547 Re: Endings (and Beginnings) of Titus Andronicus

[2]     From:   Roger Nyle Parisious <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 19 Mar 2003 13:00:57 -0800 (PST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.0547 Re: Endings (and Beginnings) of Titus Andronicu


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Tony Burton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 19 Mar 2003 11:57:01 -0500
Subject: 14.0547 Re: Endings (and Beginnings) of Titus
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0547 Re: Endings (and Beginnings) of Titus
Andronicus

For anyone actively editing King John, I can produce a powerful textual
argument for the early dating, 1598 or so.  It's nothing I've ever taken
the trouble to write up for publication, but if someone out there is
about to take a stand on the issue I'll be glad to exchange thoughts and
evidence off-list.  As John Briggs makes clear, the currently popular
best estimate doesn't have much in the way of evidence to support it,
but I can provide it for the earlier date.

Tony Burton

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Roger Nyle Parisious <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 19 Mar 2003 13:00:57 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 14.0547 Re: Endings (and Beginnings) of Titus
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0547 Re: Endings (and Beginnings) of Titus
Andronicus

John Briggs writes,

>I should point out that such an early date for "King
>John" is not
>accepted these days.  The general consensus seems to
>be c.1595, even if
>the date has been plucked out of thin air!  In any
>case, the copy for
>the Folio text seems to be a transcript and may be a
>late theatrical
>one.

I am sure that this opinion is not part of the general consensus but it
is set forth at some length by Dr. E. J. A. Honigmann in the Arden
Shakespeare, an edition which, I believe, is very much part of these
days. If anyone is curious enough to consult the web under Honigmann,
"King John", he can find easily find several additional arguments in
favor of Dr.  Honigmann's cogently argued thesis.

   Roger Nyle Parisious

_______________________________________________________________
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.