![]() |
||||||
|
SHAKSPER 2005: 1 Richard II
From: Hardy M. Cook (editor@shaksper.net) Date: 08/10/05
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1316 Wednesday, 10 August 2005 From: Michael Egan <drmichaelegan@hawaii.rr.com> Date: Tuesday, 9 Aug 2005 06:42:41 -1000 Subject: 1 Richard II I'd like my 1,000 pounds sterling, please. Readers of this listserv will know that over the years Prof Ward Elliott of Claremont Mckenna College has issued a challenge, recently repeated here, the substance of which is that he will pay 1000 British pounds to anyone able to prove that any anonymous Elizabethan play deemed non-Shakespeare by stylometry and himself is in fact by Shakespeare. On 28 July (SHK 16.1251 Shakespeare by the Numbers) I accepted this challenge in the following form: if Elliott could refute my non-stylometric evidence and show that the anonymous Elizabethan play Richard II, Part One (also known as Woodstock) is not by Shakespeare, I would pay him his one thousand pounds. But if he could not, he would write me a check for the equivalent amount. My evidence is detailed in The Tragedy of Richard II, Part One: A Newly Authenticated Play by Shakespeare (Edwin Melllen Press, 2005, forthcoming). It is now two weeks later and the silence from the direction of Claremont Mackenna College has been deafening. Obviously the man is not showing up. As a further irony, Elliott went out of his way to boast that previous opponents had 'wisely' declined to take him on; apparently he learned from this wisdom. I thus declare myself the winner. Cough up, Ward! In fact, I feel so confident about my case, I'm willing to issue the same challenge to any and all. How about Robert J. Valenza, Elliott's partner, who may have more spine than his cowering friend? Or will he too wisely choose discretion as the better part of academic valor? I'll wager we'll not be hearing from him either. To keep things interesting, however, let me issue my challenge directly to Prof. MacDonald P. Jackson, described by Brian Vickers as 'the most inventive scholar in attribution studies over the last thirty years.' Many SHAKSPEReans will know that in 2001 Jackson published 'Shakespeare's Richard II and the Anonymous Thomas of Woodstock,' in John Pitcher, et. al (eds): Medieval and Renaissance Drama in England, Volume 14 (Cranbury, CT: Associated University Presses and Rosemont Publishing & Printing Corp., 2001) pp. 17-65, arguing that Samuel Rowley Jr is the play's true author. But Jackson's argument is as insubstantial as Elliott's and the rest of the Stylometry Gang. For starters, I challenge him to explain how he reconciles his claim that Rowley wrote the play ca. 1610 (Jackson, op. cit., p. 55) but the same play was actually written ca. 1595, as he asserts in his more recent book, Defining Shakespeare (2003), p. 46. So, Mac, which is it? Is 'Woodstock' Jacobean, as of 2001, or Elizabethan, as of 2003? And if it's the latter, which of course it is, how did Rowley--if indeed Jackson still stands by this attribution--manage to incorporate lines from Shakespeare plays as yet uncomposed? My case against Jackson and for Shakespeare will be available on my updated web site (prematurely announced in these emails a few days ago) in the next day or two for the discussion to begin. I will post the link as soon as I can. It's time to call the stylomeretricious bluff. --Michael Egan _______________________________________________________________ S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List Hardy M. Cook, editor@shaksper.net The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net> DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the editor assumes no responsibility for them.
|
|
|||||