Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Current Postings ::
In the Case of Egan vs. Elliott: A Reply to Larry Weiss et al.

 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 24.0075  Monday, 18 February 2013

 

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

     Date:         February 15, 2013 7:38:14 PM EST

     Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Egan vs Elliott 

 

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

     Date:         February 17, 2013 9:12:12 PM EST

     Subject:     Michael Egan on Larry Weiss 

 

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

     Date:         February 18, 2013 6:49:45 AM EST

     Subject:     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 15, 2013 7:38:14 PM EST

Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Egan vs Elliott

 

>[Egan] says that 1 Richard II must have been written “decades” 

>before Shakespeare composed works such as 2 Henry VI. Is 

>there a misprint here?

 

Yes, decades in some cases is an exaggeration. 1 Richard II is almost contemporary with 2 Henry VI.

 

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

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

Date:         February 17, 2013 9:12:12 PM EST

Subject:     Michael Egan on Larry Weiss

 

Michael Egan has argued that Shakespeare wrote Woodstock/1Richard II. He has responded at length to the adverse report of Larry Weiss and others on his claims, and in doing so he mentions my work on the play many times. In my judgement, he continues to misrepresent my publications at almost every point and to repeat charges that I have rebutted. I am sure that Michael believes otherwise. So I’d like the chance to list, once again, the places where my evidence, arguments, and views on Woodstock/1Richard II can be found. Scholars with sufficient interest in the topic can reach their own conclusions: 

 

“Shakespeare’s Richard II and the Anonymous Thomas of Woodstock,” Medieval and Renaissance Drama in England 14 (2002): 17-65.

 

“The Date and Authorship of Thomas of Woodstock: Evidence and its Interpretation,” Research Opportunities in Medieval and Renaissance Drama 46 (2007): 67-100. 

 

“Some Comments on Michael Egan’s ‘Slurs, Nasal Rhymes and Amputations’,” The Oxfordian 12 (2010):  94-8. 

 

Perhaps I may clarify one point, on which Michael accuses me of contradicting myself. In “Three Seventeenth-Century Revisions: Thomas of Woodstock, The Jew of Malta, and Faustus B,” Notes and Queries 228 (1983): 133-43, David J. Lake showed that, on the evidence of various colloquial forms, the extant manuscript of Woodstock must have been penned in the seventeenth century. Not questioning the majority view that the play had been composed in the early 1590s, he noted that, as a group, the seventeenth-century forms were especially associated with Samuel Rowley and suggested that some time after 1600 Rowley had acted as a kind of ‘creative copyist’ of the early 1590s original. Later he decided that his evidence pointed to Rowley’s having been the actual author, not knowing that this was an opinion that I had independently expressed. I augmented Lake’s evidence for a seventeenth-century penning of the extant manuscript and for Rowley’s association with the play. I further pointed out that the handwriting of the Woodstock manuscript was not Rowley’s, as it survived in documents that Lake had overlooked. Therefore, I argued, the Woodstock spellings, contractions, and so on that linked the play to Rowley must have already been in a manuscript by Rowley from which the extant manuscript derived. The natural assumption that Rowley was the author seemed to be confirmed by the nature of the rhyming and other stylistic features.

 

MacDonald P. Jackson

 

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

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

Date:         February 18, 2013 6:49:45 AM EST

Subject:     1 Richard II Egan vs Elliott

 

I’ve spotted numerous typos in my submission of which “the sound and the fury” is the worst. I apologize.

 
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.