The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 24.0387 Tuesday, 6 August 2013
Date: August 6, 2013 1:03:47 PM EDT
Subject: Re: Editing
The debate over Michael Egan’s attribution of Woodstock has now degenerated into a nasty exchange over what I did and did not say in the unanimous opinion of three scholar-arbitrators which rejected Egan’s speculation. I will not indulge further. The entire opinion is in the archivespdf Egan v Elliott. I urge everyone who is interested to read the opinion and compare it for himself or herself with Egan’s misleading characterizations. For example, the opinion describes the only appearance of the ghosts of Edward III and Edward the Black Prince on p. 21.
[Editor’s Note: On the original subject of the thread "Who Edited Shakespeare?”, I find that the thread is exhausted and will not post on it anymore. On the subject of Egan v Elliott v Weiss et al., I find that recent posts have not contributed substantially to the arguments and see no reason to continue with it unless something arises from the Oxfordian publication.
You can find both sides below and read to your hearts content.
Egan v Elliott (PDF): pdf Egan v Elliott
Egan v Elliott (Word doc): document Egan v Elliott (Word doc)
Egan’s Reply to Weiss (PDF): pdf Egans Reply to Weiss (PDF)
Egan’s Reply to Weiss (Word doc): document Egans Reply to Weiss (Word doc)