Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2011 :: November ::
Thomas of Woodstock

 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 22.0304  Wednesday, 16 November 2011

 

[Editor’s Note: This thread has probably reached its useful conclusion. I will allow one more round of responses should they be coming and I will make available the detailed response promised from the onset by Michael Egan, but unless submissions are substantiate, I will consider the thread over. Hardy] 

 

[1] From:         Al Magary < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

     Date:         November 15, 2011 4:29:32 PM EST

     Subject:      Re: SHAKSPER: Thomas of Woodstock

 

[2] From:         Gabriel Egan < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

     Date:         November 15, 2011 5:12:33 PM EST

     Subject:      Re: SHAKSPER: Thomas of Woodstock

 

[3] From:         Larry Weiss < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

     Date:         November 15, 2011 7:03:18 PM EST

     Subject:      Re: SHAKSPER: Thomas of Woodstock

 

 

[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------

From:         Al Magary < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

Date:         November 15, 2011 4:29:32 PM EST

Subject:      Re: SHAKSPER: Thomas of Woodstock

 

Michael Egan may know the difference between a hawk and a handsaw but not between Shakespeare's Richard II and John Doe's Thomas of Woodstock. 

 

It is quite obvious that he will not—indeed, cannot—back off his Woodstock claims because expanding the canon has become his career, as he himself admits:

 

>I have promises to keep, among them a new Complete 

>Shakespeare—for the first time, really complete, with 

>the likeliest "apocryphal" plays printed alongside their 

>First Folio counterparts, e.g. The Taming of a Shrew

>and The Taming of the Shrew, The Troublesome Reign 

>and King John, etc.

>BTW, I am looking for Introducers/Editors, so if any readers 

>would like to offer their talents I'll be glad to receive them. 

>You may propose one play or a group of plays.

 

Michael didn't like my P.T. Barnum burlesque as commentary on his amazing ambition to expand the canon with "the likeliest 'apocryphal' plays," let me quote someone authoritative to suggest Michael's naiveté:

 

Ham. Do you see yonder cloud that ’s almost in shape of a camel?

Pol. By the mass, and ’t is like a camel, indeed.

Ham. Methinks it is like a weasel.

Pol. It is backed like a weasel.

Ham. Or like a whale?

Pol. Very like a whale.

 

In the cloud of apocrypha, Michael will find not just camels, weasels, and whales but unicorns, dragons, griffins, and whatever else he wants to believe.

 

Cheers,

Al Magary 

Mental Infant

 

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------

From:         Gabriel Egan < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

Date:         November 15, 2011 5:12:33 PM EST

Subject:      Re: SHAKSPER: Thomas of Woodstock

 

Michael Egan's correspondent casts a slur on this list that should go unremarked:

 

>"I am not allowed on SHAKSPER . . ."

 

Everyone is allowed on this list. Not every topic is allowed, of course, but that's true of all focussed lists.

 

Michael Egan should distance himself from this unwarranted aspersion on the probity of the list owner.

 

Gabriel Egan

 

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------

From:         Larry Weiss < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

Date:         November 15, 2011 7:03:18 PM EST

Subject:      Re: SHAKSPER: Thomas of Woodstock

 

Michael Egan quotes an anonymous correspondent, who evidently has been banned from this site, as saying that his (Egan's) comments in this discussion are "remarkably cool, calm and correct."  I could be wrong, but I thought that responsible scholarship requires one to attribute quotations.  In any case, I wonder if Egan's correspondent (if there is such a person) regards it as "cool, calm and correct" to call Al Margary and anyone else who doesn't accept Egan's thesis a "mental infant" or to say that I am "fake and dishonest" or that the 44-page opinion unanimously adopted by a panel of independent Shakespeareans, which considers every one of Egan's arguments, a "hatchet job."

 

Maybe I was wrong, and I am willing to reconsider the case if Egan presents his long-promised point-by-point refutation of my opinion.  His failure to do so, like his repeated refusals to follow the procedures he agreed to in connection with the submission of the dispute to the independent panel (see pp. 4-7 of the Opinion), does not evince that he has a high degree of confidence in the correctness of his position or in his ability to convince others.  Nor does his style of advocacy encourage his readers to put a lot of faith in the reliability of what he says.  The incident reported in footnote 2 of the Opinion is illustrative.  For those who don't have the time to look it up, here it is:

 

"In an email to Larry Weiss of December 9, 2010, Egan asserted that his “thesis is slowly gaining acceptance” and referred to an article in THE OXFORDIAN which was said to contain a “devastating rebuttal” of Prof. Jackson‟s position. No other support for “growing acceptance” of his thesis was cited and Egan‟s email did not identify the author of the OXFORDIAN article. The author was Michael Egan, who is also editor of THE OXFORDIAN. M Egan, Slurs, Nasal Rhymes & Amputations: A Reply to MacDonald P. Jackson, XI THE OXFORDIAN 157-206 (2009) [hereinafter “Slurs”]."*

 

*I also note in passing that even though Egan promised to supply the panel with this and other articles he wrote in response to Mac Jackson, he did not do so and I was required to obtain it at my own expense in fairness to Egan in order to consider every scrap of argument he made.

 

Yes, as Joseph Welch said, “Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?”  Thank you, Michael, for teaching me that word.

 

Opinion written by Larry Weiss for the committee of Shakespearean looking into Egan-Elliott dispute icon Egan V Elliott

 
 

Other Messages In This Thread

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.