2005

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0456  Thursday, 10 March 2005

From:           Bob Grumman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 10 Mar 2005 09:07:04 -0500
Subject: 16.0412 Date of King John
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0412 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.'

Apologies.  I use the term, "prove," intelligently, not as lawyers use
it or as dictionaries sometimes use it, but as scientists use it.  You
can't prove anything in history.  Whether Vickers demonstrated Peele
contributed to the Troublesome Raigne "conclusively," I doubt, but it's
possible--if he has any direct evidence of it.  I believe he only has
stylistic evidence (i.e. subjective evidence).  I'm neutral on the
matter, only annoyed here at the loose use of the terms "prove" and
"conclusively."

--Bob G.

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email 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.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.