![]() |
||||||
|
SHAKSPER 2004: 1 Richard II?
From: Hardy M. Cook (editor@shaksper.net) Date: 01/05/04
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.2468 Monday, 5 January 2004 From: Andy Jones <andyjones@northrock.bm> 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? Sincerely, Andy Jones. _______________________________________________________________ S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List Hardy M. Cook, editor@shaksper.net 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.
|
|
|||||