Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2005 :: March ::
Date of King John
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0534  Tuesday, 22 March 2005

[1]     From:   William Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 21 Mar 2005 15:29:20 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0524 Date of King John

[2]     From:   Bob Grumman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 21 Mar 2005 19:24:54 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0524 Date of King John


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           William Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 21 Mar 2005 15:29:20 -0500
Subject: 16.0524 Date of King John
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0524 Date of King John

Marcus Dahl belittles Bob Grumman's skepticism with regard to the
historical past. But let's admit that much or perhaps all of our
knowledge of history -- call it knowledge -- is based on assumptions
always made in the present. Because we urinate, we assume that
Shakespeare urinated. That seems probable. Perhaps you'd go further and
say it was necessary. We assume that Shakespeare had bathroom habits.

But that's all we know -- or don't know. Let's acknowledge how little
(if anything) we know for sure about the past. Merely lies agreed upon.
Perhaps Bob isn't skeptical enough.

Bill

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Bob Grumman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 21 Mar 2005 19:24:54 -0500
Subject: 16.0524 Date of King John
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0524 Date of King John

 >Seems to me Bob Grumman has been having too much radical doubt!
 >
 >I think Gabriel Egan has already replied on this thread to the effect
 >that much of what Bob seems to be saying implies a radical dislocation
 >theory of history in which he would doubt even the possibility of
 >'knowing' the existence of a test (e.g did the water boil?) even minutes
 >after the water had cooled.

Amazing obtuseness.  I would merely say that no one could prove the
water test had taken place the way one can prove water can boil (by
describing a replicable experiment).  This does not preclude someone's
demonstrating beyond reasonable doubt that the water test had taken
place via the testimony of witnesses--the sort of hard evidence I don't
believe Vickers has for Peele's authorship of any version of King John.

--Bob G.

_______________________________________________________________
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.