The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.1948 Monday, 6 October 2003
Date: Friday, 3 Oct 2003 15:45:42 -0400
Subject: 14.1937 King John and The Troublesome Play
Comment: Re: SHK 14.1937 King John and The Troublesome Play
>Thanks to all for useful responses and especially Gabriel Egan (no
>relation) for calling my attention to the John Klause piece. Brian
>Vickers with his usual grace kindly sent me a prepublication copy of his
>forthcoming essay, 'The Troublesome Raigne, George Peele, and the date
>of King John', an extension of his Titus chapter in Shakespeare,
>Co-Author, proving that Peele had a hand in The Troublesome Raigne.
He PROVED it?! Wow.
No, I'm not attacking Brian Vickers again, only the use of the word
"proving." I myself reserve the use of that word for hard science, mth
or logic. I would never use it to mean, "establishing to the
satisfaction of some, or even the majority, of persons in one's field."
Particularly if no hard evidence (like testimony from a contemporary
that Peele wrote the Troublesome Raigne, or his name on its title-page)
is involved, as I suspect is the case here.
Am I out of it in this opinion of mine?
I find it hard to believe Shakespeare could have participated in a
revision in 1597 enough to get credit for the work revised that resulted
in a play as bad as King John, myself. But at least Michael Egan only
says he's TRYING to SHOW that that was the case.
Interesting topic, though, that seems to be inspiring a good deal of
good work regardless of what is eventually "proven."
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.