2005

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1321  Thursday, 11 August 2005

[1]     From:   Bill Lloyd <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 10 Aug 2005 09:30:43 EDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.1316 1 Richard II

[2]     From:   Jonathan Hope <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 10 Aug 2005 14:50:15 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.1316 1 Richard II

[3]     From:   Marcus Dahl <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 10 Aug 2005 18:00:42 +0100
        Subj:   RE: SHK 16.1316 1 Richard II

[4]     From:   Al Magary <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 10 Aug 2005 12:29:18 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.1316 1 Richard II


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Bill Lloyd <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 10 Aug 2005 09:30:43 EDT
Subject: 16.1316 1 Richard II
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.1316 1 Richard II

Michael Egan This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. writes:

 >"I'd like my 1,000 pounds sterling, please...  if Elliott could refute my
 >non-stylometric evidence and show that the anonymous Elizabethan play
 >Richard II, Part One (also known as Woodstock) is not by Shakespeare, I
 >would pay him his one thousand pounds. But if he could not, he would
 >write me a check for the equivalent amount."

As I asked before, how are we to judge who has won? Michael and his
partisans will believe he has made his case and Ward and his partisans
will believe he has not.

 >"I challenge him [Mac Jackson] to explain how he
 >reconciles his claim that Rowley wrote the play ca. 1610 (Jackson, op.
 >cit., p. 55) but the same play was actually written ca. 1595, as he
 >asserts in his more recent book,  Defining Shakespeare (2003), p. 46.
 >So, Mac, which is it? Is 'Woodstock' Jacobean, as of 2001, or
 >Elizabe 

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Gift to SHAKSPER

Consider making a gift to support SHAKSPER.