The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 24.0069  Friday, 15 February 2013

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

     Date:         February 15, 2013 1:33:15 AM EST

     Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Egan/Elliott 

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

     Date:         February 15, 2013 10:23:00 AM EST

     Subject:     Egan vs Elliott 

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

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

Date:         February 15, 2013 1:33:15 AM EST

Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Egan/Elliott

What with the SAA coming up next month and a number of other projects in progress, it might be a little while before I have a chance to consider Michael Egan’s 40-page single spaced submission and consult my colleagues on the panel as to whether any reconsideration of our opinion is warranted, but this surely should not take a year and a half.

In the meantime, I would be grateful if anyone would let me know, on SHAKSPER or privately, if they think Egan has made valid criticisms.

L. Weiss

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

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

Date:         February 15, 2013 10:23:00 AM EST

Subject:     Egan vs Elliott

I enjoyed reading Michael Egan’s defense, which I thought was well presented and generally informative.  

One point in his conclusion puzzles me, however. He says that 1 Richard II must have been written “decades” before Shakespeare composed works such as 2 Henry VI. Is there a misprint here?