Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2013 :: February ::
In the Case of Egan vs. Elliott: A Reply to Larry Weiss et al.

 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 24.0078  Wednesday, 20 February 2013

 

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

     Date:         February 18, 2013 3:59:32 PM EST

     Subject:     Egan and Jackson 

 

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

     Date:         February 18, 2013 5:39:13 PM EST

     Subject:     SHAKSPER 1 Richard II Egan vs Elliott 

 

 

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

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

Date:         February 18, 2013 3:59:32 PM EST

Subject:     Egan and Jackson

 

I apologise to Mac Jackson for getting him involved in the Elliott/Weiss debate. The trouble is his work is cited at length by Weiss so I have no option but to deal with it.

 

However, now that he is in, I must respond to his claim that he has answered my critique of his 1 Richard II work. While he has ventured comments he has not answered Partridge’s detailed analysis of the manuscript and has nothing to say either about the associated scholarship of Halliwell, Keller, Frijlinck, Rossiter, Sams and many others.  This considerable literature by some of the best Shakespeareans of the 19th and 20th centuries overwhelmingly concludes that the play is of the early 1590s and the MS approximately 15 years later.

 

Weiss et al. are not persuaded by Jackson about his case for Rowley and a Jacobean play. Jackson should answer them, not me.

 

In addition, he still has not explained the fact that at two different places and times he has assigned the early 1590s and the 1610s for the composition of the play. My position is that he’s right.

 

Readers will find my detailed responses to the essays he lists in Richard II, Part One and in the 2010 and 2011 Oxfordian. Most libraries carry it but individual copies can be purchased from the Shakespeare Oxford Society, http://www.shakespeare-oxford.com/.

 

Michael Egan

 

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

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

Date:         February 18, 2013 5:39:13 PM EST

Subject:     SHAKSPER 1 Richard II Egan vs Elliott

 

Michael Egan wrote:

 

>I’ve spotted numerous typos in my submission of which “the 

>sound and the fury” is the worst. 

>

> I apologize.

 

There’s no need to apologise: “the sound and the fury” would be a standard American locution (cf “The Agony and the Ecstasy”, “The Bonfire of the Vanities” - even “The Passion of the Christ”.) It has been suggested that had Hollywood got to Jane Austen early enough, we would have had “The Pride and the Prejudice” and “The Sense and the Sensibility.” You should be fine as long as no-one mentions “The Comedy of the Errors”.

 

John Briggs

 
 

Other Messages In This Thread

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.