Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2003 :: June ::
Re: King John, Titus, Peele 2
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.1245  Monday, 23 June 2003

[1]     From:   Marcus Dahl <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 20 Jun 2003 17:12:42 +0100
        Subj:   RE: SHK 14.1241 Re: King John, Titus, Peele

[2]     From:   Bill Lloyd <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Saturday, 21 Jun 2003 03:20:42 EDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1241 Re: King John, Titus, Peele


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Marcus Dahl <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 20 Jun 2003 17:12:42 +0100
Subject: 14.1241 Re: King John, Titus, Peele
Comment:        RE: SHK 14.1241 Re: King John, Titus, Peele

Dear All,

Maybe I'm weird or maybe it's just that I enjoy seeing scholarship red
in tooth and claw, but I have to defend this thread (if it needs it)
from those who have suggested it should ease up. I think Brian Vicker's
last post (though perhaps slightly sententious - the self reference to
Pontius Pilate / Austin perhaps a little too much even for me) was a
fantastic piece of work - and let's face it, there are few scholars in
the world better placed to pursue arguments about early modern rhetoric
and Shakespearean authorship questions than Vickers. As someone who
regularly feels the doubt experienced by those whose work only goes to
prove they knew less than they thought I did - I also feel that Vicker's
powerful and imposing work ought to spur us all on to equal it, measure
it and add to it. That is also one of the purposes of this list (or so I
thought).

This world uncertain is, but let us not look too fondly on the products
of ignorance and lethargy

Cheers,
Marcus (still got no idea who wrote 1HVI but probably still not Nashe)
Dahl

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Bill Lloyd <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Saturday, 21 Jun 2003 03:20:42 EDT
Subject: 14.1241 Re: King John, Titus, Peele
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1241 Re: King John, Titus, Peele

Too long? it shall to the barber's with your beard... Of course I've
sometimes been one of the sinners, but I think our posts should be
judged by what they contain rather than how long they are -- after all,
we're talking a few pages, not endless chapters. Recent posts by Jim
Carroll and by Brian Vickers have been lengthy, true, but oh! what a
difference. Jim Carroll's tend to be swollen by long excerpts from his
opponents' posts, with dismissive comments in between. Brian Vickers
last post was, I thought, [though lengthy] a model of sanity, and its
detail relevant.  Opponents in a debate often take each other to task,
but I don't think Vickers' posts qualify as diatribes -- his criticisms
of Carroll's reasoning seem to me substantive and are very different
from the personal attacks aimed at him. I know Vickers is by some felt
to be excessively combative, but I would instead characterize his recent
posts as patient and informative, and if frank then witty.

Jim Carroll thinks I chose to quote the Titus-like excerpt from Edward I
because of the vocabulary in common, which he helpfully lists. I was in
fact surprised to find so much detail in common-- as I said, my choice
of that passage was on account of a general impression I had of its
similarity to the verse in Titus Act 1. Although I've read Titus a
handful of times over the last 30 years, the last was a few years ago
and I haven't committed large swathes to memory, nor did I have the play
at hand when choosing the passage. But the recent extensive quoting of
Titus by both sides here has left some of Act 1 ringing in my ears and
it was [as I said] my =impression= that the Edward I excerpt felt like
more of the same. Jim Carroll's vocabulary list helps explain why.

Jim, it's clear thou art not convinced by the evidence and arguments put
forth by various reputable scholars [not just by thy nemesis Brain
Vickers] for a second hand in Titus. That's ok, not everyone will agree
on everything. But thy attacks on the case are not convincing and have
become increasingly incoherent. By now the followers of this thread have
been exposed to some of the arguments pro and con, and know what they
think. But the evidence for the second hand in Titus is so extensive
that it can't be given in sufficient detail here on SHAKSPER [heaven
forbid!]. For a survey of the case for [and against], I recommend that
folks go direct to Vickers' book Shakespeare, Co-Author, which I
understand is coming out in affordable paperback format in Winter
2003-04. Jim, we accept that thou disagreest.

There, 3 paragraphs...

Bill Lloyd

_______________________________________________________________
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.
 

Other Messages In This Thread

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.