The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0412  Friday, 4 March 2005

From:           Michael Egan <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
Date:           Friday, 25 Feb 2005 08:52:59 -1000
Subject: Date of King John
Comment:        SHK 16.0379 Date of King John

Bob Grumman writes: ' I don't have to read [Vickers'] essay to know he
didn't prove [The Troublesome Raigne] was partly by Peele conclusively.'

Wow, as Bob himself might say. He also thinks he doesn't need to consult
dictionaries. However the OED defines 'Conclusively' thus: 'In a
conclusive manner; so as to conclude or decide the question or matter;
decisively, finally.'  This is my view of Vickers' demonstration of
Peele's hand  in TR's verse. It matches the criteria for a civil trial,
i.e., by a preponderance of the evidence.  If Bob or anyone else wishes
to disagree-appeal against the verdict-please do so by citing specifics.

For the record, I don't think Vickers' follow-up essay makes the case
for Peele as TR's plotter. His argument is largely lateral, i.e., he
citescritics describing Peele's plots in general and then claims that
the same language could apply to TR.  This is not evidence and is a far
cry from the careful detailing we find in his first essay.

Peter Bridgman and Jack Heller assert that KJ is only superficially
anti-Catholic (as opposed to profoundly). The distinction escapes me:
it's an anti-Catholic play. Yes, John is poisoned by a monk offstage,
but he dies in horrible agony on it. Cardinal Pandulph is unquestionably
the story's heavy, an unscrupulous  manipulator ruthlessly dispensing
political indulgences: Heaven for those who comply with the will of
Rome, Hell for those who don't. It's true that Shakespeare re