The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.2468 Monday, 5 January 2004
Date: Friday, 2 Jan 2004 15:11:43 -0400
Subject: 1 Richard II?
I think Michael Egan's posting raises questions of a wider nature than
the narrow issue of talking horses, and perhaps deserves a new thread.
I have never previously heard Woodstock described as "1 Richard II", and
I wonder if Dr Egan (or others) might like to comment on the
implications of that description, which I take to be:
1. that Richard II is a deliberate sequel to Woodstock (or perhaps that
Woodstock is a deliberate prequel to Richard II); and
2. by extension, that Shakespeare wrote, or co-wrote, Woodstock.
Am I right that these are the inferences I am asked to make, or am I
reading in far too much? Am I right to guess that the description was
intended to be provocative?
I know better than to ask a man if his opinions are right. (I have never
once admitted one of my opinions to be wrong, although I will concede
that my view that Francis Bacon wrote the works of Harold Robbins has
not found scholarly favour. But I digress.) My question really is
whether there is any scholarly consensus on the relationship between
Woodstock and Richard II, or on the authorship of the former? Where
might I look for more background on this issue?
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
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.