Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2003 :: March ::
Re: King John Date
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.0569  Friday, 21 March 2003

[1]     From:   Ros King <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 20 Mar 2003 17:39:16 +0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.0547 Re: Endings (and Beginnings) of Titus

[2]     From:   Tony Burton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 20 Mar 2003 19:21:38 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.0555 King John Date (Was Titus)


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Ros King <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 20 Mar 2003 17:39:16 +0000
Subject: 14.0547 Re: Endings (and Beginnings) of Titus Andr
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0547 Re: Endings (and Beginnings) of Titus Andr

Roger Parisious wrote:

>And, by the way, the possibility was  raised with care, but not argued,
>in my last communication that "King John" dates pretty much as we have
>it from around l587. If so, Shakespeare was technically well in control
>of himself six years before he published "Venus and Adonis".

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.

While I would say that 1587 is too early for King John because there are
so many other plays that Shakespeare has to have written before he
tackled it, there is certainly no consensus that c.1595 is the answer.
That's the date suggested in Braunmuller's Oxford edition. I've argued
(in 'The case for the earlier canon' in Shakespearean Continuities:
Essays in Honour of E.A.J. Honigmann, John Batchelor, Tom Cain, Claire
Lamont (eds.) London and New York: Macmillan, 1997) that the play
probably dates from c. 1590 as does Lester Beaurline in his Cambridge
edition (1990).

It is inconceivable that the author of Troublesome Reign (published
1591) could have invented the character of the Bastard unaided by
previous example. That author doesn't understand the dramaturgical
reasons for creating such an a-historical character. He and his printer
do know, however, that the character is essential for marketing
purposes. Audiences are not going to be flocking to see TR's Bastard. If
the character is marketable he is so only in Shakespeare's version.
Shakespeare's version therefore has to be on the stage before TR is
published.

Ros

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Tony Burton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 20 Mar 2003 19:21:38 -0500
Subject: 14.0555 King John Date (Was Titus)
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0555 King John Date (Was Titus)

What a huge embarrassment!  I meant to propose evidence for a date of
1588 or so for King John, and the 1598 dating is simply a typo, that
isn't "early" on any theory.  Must have been very confusing for people
interested in the topic.  The invitation for inquiries still stands.

Tony B

_______________________________________________________________
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.
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.