Appendix 1 to Egan v. Elliott and Valenza Elliott Wager Timeline, January 22, 2011 Elliott Editor’s Overview: This timeline is a bare-bones aide-memoire to help us in composing and substantiating our respondent’s brief. It is mostly excerpts from SHAKSPER postings and e-mails and leaves out much material, most notably Egan’s parallel dispute with MacDonald Jackson, who has published two articles on Woodstock. But it may serve as a helpful starting point for anyone else interested in our bet. The fullest record of the controversies, through 2005, is to be found in the archives of SHAKSPER, the World Shakespeare Newsgroup. Without SHAKSPER, and owner/moderator Hardy Cook’s years of creating, running, and maintaining it, there would have been no discussion, no bet, no archives, and no timetable. Every party to this debate is in Hardy’s debt for providing such an attractive forum for bringing together Shakespeare buffs of different backgrounds and persuasions, building bridges, and, equally important, highlighting obstacles to building bridges. One such obstacle for us has been a strong taboo against using statistics to settle authorship questions. This taboo prompted our original bet and fuelled both of Michael Egan’s attempts to “improve” our bet to his purposes. We think there is a place for such bets, to cut transaction costs and settle otherwise-endless subjective disputes where the answer is objectively testable. Any such testing offends the taboo and raises hackles, and Dr. Egan has done his best to move the controversy out the realm of observation and back into the realm of opinion. Could it have actually incurred greater transaction costs than a simple marshalling of feelings, opinions, and reputations unencumbered by facts? Will it actually settle anything, or will it merely extend and prolong the bickering? We do not yet know the answer, but the question has surely been much more fully raised and widely discussed with SHAKSPER than it would have been without it. SHAKSPER’s other great virtue is that all the discussions get recorded in searchable form. But, while Hardy and SHAKSPER last, anyone can dig out and check recollections and assertions of months or years later, against the actual record of the time. Completists, if there are any for this often-edgy topic, can click on the pertinent postings supplied here, or look at the entire threads from which they are taken, such as Shakespeare by the Numbers, 1 Richard 2, Wager, or Lions and Tigers and Wagers...oh my... Most of the discussion after 2005 was offline, but it is recent enough that most of the pertinent e-mails can still be retrieved. Our timeline follows: 9 June 2003: Elliott to SHAKSPER, SHK 14.1129. The original bet: $1,000 for an untested non-Shakespeare play that tests like Shakespeare, or vice versa. No takers. http://www.shaksper.net/archives/2003/1127.html
Seán Lawrence, a SHAKSPER numerophobe, has insisted several times that Elliott’s and Valenza’s statistics, indeed all statistics, are circular and often misleading and can tell you nothing that you do not already know. Elliott says the question is objectively testable, offers a one-thousand-dollar bet that the Claremont tests would reject any previously-untested, other-authored play any taker might choose – and that they would accept any such new play by Shakespeare, if one could be found. See http://www.shaksper.net/archives/2003/1241.html
and the entire Re:
King John, Titus, Peele Shaksper thread (2003) for a fuller description
of this controversy. Lawrence declines, and there are no other
takers.
Winter
2005: E&V Tennessee Law Review article, Fall 2004 issue, explains terms and
purposes of bet. Pre-screening
OK. No takers. Elliott and Valenza in long Tennessee Law Review article, discuss
the capabilities of their methods, apply them to the Earl of Oxford, and repeat
the offer to any willing taker. They note that scores or hundreds of untested, other-authored plays are
available for the purpose, takers are permitted to pre-screen any or all of
them with free Claremont software.
“It could confirm or qualify our confidence in our new techniques, help
spread its use to others, and maybe, just maybe, it could turn up that
long-overlooked Shakespeare treasure that so many have sought so long in
vain. What is not to like?”
“…Just
as important as our willingness to bet on the predictive powers of our findings
is the fact that we think our rules are tight enough and replicable enough that
our prediction would be eminently testable and falsifiable. If anyone takes us up on our bet, with or without screening, it will
not be difficult to tell who won or lost, and by how much.”
72 Tennessee
Law Review 323, 363-65 (2004). This is the fullest description of our
methods. http://www.cmc.edu/pages/faculty/welliott/UTConference/Oxford_by_Numbers.pdf No takers.
28
July 2005: Elliott to Shaksper, SHK 16.1251. E&V
have raised their wager offer from $1,000 to £1,000. http://www.shaksper.net/archives/2005/1253.html
29
July 2005: Egan to Shaksper, SHK 16.1260. Egan announces his forthcoming book on Woodstock, claims Woodstock is “irrefutably” Shakespeare’s, “accepts” the Elliott bet,
challenges Elliott to admit error and
fork over “1,000 British big ones” with challenge from Richard II: “Pale
trembling coward, there I throw my gage...” http://www.shaksper.net/archives/2005/1262.html
1
August 2005: Bill Lloyd to SHAKSPER, SHK 16.1271: Lloyd reveals that Egan has a web page not
mentioned in his 29 July posting. “Who
will decide between Ward and Michael? Portia?”
http://www.shaksper.net/archives/2005/1273.html
From:
Bill Lloyd <Bnklloyd@aol.com>
Date:
Friday, 29 Jul 2005 14:36:16 EDT
Subject: 16.1260 Shakespeare by the Numbers
Comment:
Re: SHK 16.1260 Shakespeare by the Numbers
Michael Egan drmichaelegan@hawaii.rr.com writes:
>"Within
a few months (publication date is scheduled
>for late
summer/early fall from Edwin Mellen Press) my study and
>Variorum
Edition of Richard II, Part One (aka Woodstock) will be
>available."
For a preview of Michael Egan's arguments see the
extensive extracts from the introduction to his three-volume edition of Richard
II, Part 1[aka Thomas of Woodstock] on-line at http://home.hawaii.rr.com/drmichaelegan/
.
Who will
decide between Ward and Michael? Portia?
Bill Lloyd
2
August 2005: Egan to SHAKSPER, SHK 16.1277: Egan is not pleased with Lloyd’s
disclosure. “Lloyd, you should have checked with me first before you opened
your mouth. The site is NOT the book.”
For book, go to Edwin Mellen press website.
http://www.shaksper.net/archives/2005/1279.html
Date:
Monday, 1 Aug 2005 05:38:00 -1000
Bill Lloyd and others: My web site with a few extracts from my study of 1 Richard II is still
under construction. I had no intention of publishing it until later. Lloyd, you
should have checked with me first before you opened your mouth. However, I
shall now complete it, with this BIG CAVEAT: The site is NOT the book.
To be fair, then, here is a link to Edwin Mellen Press's own web site
for the book too:
http://www.mellenpress.com/mellenpress.cfm?aid=5765&pc=10
--Michael
3
August 2005: Lloyd and Gabriel Egan [no relation to Michael] to SHAKSPER, SHK
16.1285 : I am reminded of Greta Garbo. “If it's not for public consumption it
shouldn't be posted.”
http://www.shaksper.net/archives/2005/1287.html
[1] From: Bill Lloyd <Bnklloyd@aol.com>
Date: Tuesday, 2 Aug 2005
10:49:24 EDT
Subj: Re: SHK 16.1277 1 Richard
II
[2]
From: Gabriel Egan
<mail@GabrielEgan.com>
Date: Tuesday, 2 Aug 2005
21:12:15 +0100
Subj: Re: SHK 16.1277 1 Richard
II
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:
Bill Lloyd <Bnklloyd@aol.com>
Date:
Tuesday, 2 Aug 2005 10:49:24 EDT
Subject: 16.1277 1 Richard II
Comment:
Re: SHK 16.1277 1 Richard II
Michael Egan drmichaelegan@hawaii.rr.com writes:
>"Bill Lloyd and
others: My web site with a few extracts
from my study of
>1 Richard II is still under construction.
I had no intention of
>publishing it until later. Lloyd, you
should have checked with me first
>before you opened your mouth. However, I
shall now complete it, with
>this BIG CAVEAT: The site is NOT the
book."
My goodness. The link is out there on the web, not
blocked, available to anyone with Google who is interested in Woodstock,
etc. That's how I found it. If it's not for public
consumption it shouldn't be posted. Egan, I never implied the site WAS
the book; I specifically described it as "extracts". Nor did I say
anything negative about it, just said it was there.
(Bill) Lloyd
[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:
Gabriel Egan <mail@GabrielEgan.com>
Date:
Tuesday, 2 Aug 2005 21:12:15 +0100
Subject: 16.1277 1 Richard II
Comment:
Re: SHK 16.1277 1 Richard II
On a point of principle I have to disagree with
Michael Egan when he writes:
>My web
site with a few extracts from my study of
>1 Richard
II is still under construction. I had no
>intention
of publishing it until later. Lloyd, you should
>have
checked with me first before you opened your
>mouth.
The act of
making something accessible by HTTP is of itself an act of publication.
If you don't want something to be seen by the world, don't put it on a publicly
accessible webserver. Once it's there, it's up for grabs and Lloyd is perfectly
right to draw others' attention to it. If, Michael, you'd written "I
didn't mean to put that on the webserver", I'd have some sympathy with
you. But to admit you put it there and complain when people find it and talk
about it is daft.
I'm reminded
of Peter Cook's impersonation of Greta Garbo riding in the back of an open-top
limo, bawling through a loudhailer (=bull-horn) to the crowds on the pavement
(=sidewalk) her famous catchphrase "I vant to be alone!"
Gabriel Egan
After
2 August 2005: Elliott starts to work
his way through Egan’s long web page.
10
August 2005: Egan to Shaksper, SHK
16.1316. Elliott has not responded. Egan
derides him as “cowering” and “stylomeretricious,” challenges Valenza and
MacDonald Jackson: “[Elliott’s] silence is deafening.” http://www.shaksper.net/archives/2005/1319.html
“It is now two weeks later and the silence from the
direction of Claremont Mackenna College [sic] has been deafening. Obviously the
man is not showing up.”
“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.’”
“It’s
time to call the stylomeretricious bluff.”
“I’d like my
1,000 pounds sterling, please.”
17
August 2005. Egan to Shaksper, SHK 16.1334: Egan webpage up, wager off,
discussion still on. “Let’s take the contention out of the mix.”
:http://www.shaksper.net/archives/2005/1344.html
[2] From:
Michael Egan <drmichaelegan@hawaii.rr.com>
Date: Sunday, 14 Aug 2005
04:20:43 -1000
Subj: Re: SHK 16.1316 1 Richard
II
My website is up, and I invite anyone intrigued at
the possibility of a new Shakespeare play to visit it. Please note that only
portions of the complete study are reproduced, though enough for a healthy
debate. Listserv readers may be particularly interested in the rebuttal of
Prof. Macdonald P. Jackson’s thesis, which has gone unchallenged up to now, that
Samuel Rowley wrote the play. Another
section, ‘Woodstock’s ‘Golden Metamorphosis,’ demonstrates that far from being
the work of a third-rate hack, Richard II, Part One is a complex and subtle
work fully worthy of Shakespeare.
I’ll be happy
to withdraw the ‘thousand pounds’ wager element (which provoked this thread and
which I did not originate) if that makes
it easier for anyone in California or New Zealand or anywhere else for that
matter to participate in the discussion. Let’s take the contention out of the
mix and return to a friendly exchange of views.
Here’s the
link:
http://home.hawaii.rr.com/drmichaelegan/index.html
19
August, 2005: Elliott to SHAKSPER SHK 16.1348. Elliott responds to Egan, argues
that E&V’s bet is like a horse race and can be settled on the facts. Egan’s is like a beauty contest, a matter of
opinion, and can’t be settled on the facts.
It has much heavier transaction costs for judges and participants than the
available Egan web page evidence seems to merit. E&V don’t want endless, standardless,
subjective wrangling over matters of opinion but are willing to make a short
detour to help settle the question. Why
not put it to SHAKSPER’s membership, with some rules of engagement to control
transaction costs? Why not give each side 6 pages for a case statement, with unlimited
room on their own webpages for further supporting detail, and a month of
discussion on SHAKSPER?
http://www.shaksper.net/archives/2005/1358.html
… Does
anyone on SHAKSPER ever respond to those letters from Nigeria …? …We did
not find Mr. Egan’s evidence persuasive enough, nor related enough to our own
bet, to warrant a lengthy detour from [our own research].
…Mr. Egan’s mountains of supposedly unique “borrowings,”
“echoes,” and “verbal parallels,” his bold talk of irrefutability, DNA, and
thumbprints, his unconcern with contrary evidence, even his jeers at doubters,
savored too much of other prospectors we have previously encountered,
aggressively marketing their Fool’s Gold as the real thing. To us, the apparent focus on weak, untestable
positives, and the non-focus on strong, testable negatives, threatened a return
to the limitless, standardless wrangling we try to avoid.
…My
inclination is to invite him to post a 6-page statement of the highlights of
his case, respond with a 6-page statement of our own, let the list discuss it,
and, if people want it, ask the list for a straw vote at the end of September.
At a minimum, it would get the views aired without requiring any money-changing
in the
22
August 2005: Weiss SHAKSPER posting, SHK 16.1355. Larry Weiss, a retired Wall Street lawyer and
Shakespeare buff, offers his services as a mediator.
Later:
Subsequent offline negotiation produces much agreement on terms of debate, but
Egan finally decides they are too confining and backs out.
25
August, 2005: Lene Peterson SHAKSPER posting SHK 16.1393 (with Marcus Dahl and
Jonathan Hope; only Peterson’s extracted here): many of Egan’s ‘unique’ Shakespeare parallels are not unique.
http://www.shaksper.net/archives/2005/1403.html
Lene Petersen <lenepet@blueyonder.co.uk>
Date: Wednesday,
24 Aug 2005 20:32:02 +0100 (BST)
Subject: 16.1367 Wager/ Evidence
Comment: Re:
SHK 16.1367 Wager/ Evidence
Greetings All,
In the most recent posting on the case of the
authorship and provenance of 1, Richard II, Michael Egan states that
"whoever wrote 1 Richard II also wrote Edward III, the Shakespeare scenes
in The Two Noble Kinsmen and the fragment from Sir Thomas More attributed to
Shakespeare." He directs readers to his website, where "the data
supporting these claims" can be consulted in the form of parallel phrases
linking 1, Richard II with Edward III, and with Shakespearean scenes in Kinsmen
and Sir Thomas More. I make no comment here as to how
convincing or not the bulk of this evidence may be; only I would like to
disqualify an -admittedly- small section of Egan's 'parallels' as incapable of
indicating specific authorship in early modern playtexts.
Comparing 1, Richard II with Kinsmen, Egan says:
"That we find any overlaps at all, however, is remarkable since The Two
Noble Kinsmen was almost certainly one of Shakespeare's final plays, 1 Richard
II among his first. The common turns of phrase thus reveal habits of mind
spanning an entire career." Included in these 'turns of phrase' are, for
instance:
"Come, come, let's leave them [i.e., the
court]. (1 Richard II, II.i.171)
Let's leave his court (Two Noble Kinsmen, I.ii.75)
He comes, my lord,- (1 Richard II, II.i.127)
Here she comes (Two Noble Kinsmen, II.i.15)
Look where she comes (Two Noble Kinsmen, IV.iii.9)"
These
particular examples may yield 'habits of mind', or formulae rather, but they do
not belong to the careers of any specific playwrights.
They are found in several
playtexts of the period (as simple searches in LION or KEMPE-online will
show). I would like to call them 'oral' formulae (as similar look, see, come
and news formulae appear to increase in number in orally transmitted folk
ballads), but the fact is that on the English renaissance stage, with its
intense repertoire system, they have probably become "strong"
variants of theatrical formulae; that is, they are not only used by players in
repeated (oral) performance, but also by playwrights in the writing of their
(literary) texts. It would appear there are certain formulae for certain
stereotypical situations.
The stock of various "Come, (come) let's
go/see...", Here x/y/z comes/comes/goes/is", "Look/see where
he/she/it comes/goes/is etc" is substantial in the surviving texts from
the early modern English stage, so are "what's the news...",
"leave me alone..." and
"how now" formulae. That such features can be seen to increase
in so-called "bad" texts in relation to equivalent long texts (where
these survive, e.g. Hamlet Q1 vs Q2/F1 or Romeo and Juliet Q1 vs. Q2/F1etc.) is
worth noting. These features are induced by transmission per se. They are used
by players and playwrights alike; in composition by playwrights and in
"de-composition" by players. Thus
they cannot and should not be claimed to belong to the careers of individual
playwrights.
For the same reasons, I recommend excluding the
following features as part of a case for Shakespeare's authorship of 1, Richard
II vis-à-vis Edward III:
How now, Bagot, what news? -1 Richard II, IV.i.51
how now? what's the news?-Edward III, III.ii.1
How now? What news?-1 Richard II, III.ii.115
Lord Percy, welcome! What's the news in England?
-Edward III, IV.ii.36 [...]
here comes company,-1 Richard II, III.ii.165
here comes another-1 Richard II, III.iii.196
Here comes Sir Edward Bagot-1 Richard II, IV.iii.92
Here comes Sir William Bushy. -1 Richard II,
IV.iii.103
Here comes King Richard,-1 Richard II, IV.iii.134
Here comes her father-Edward III, II.i.293
Here comes his highness, -Edward III, II.ii.22
Of the same type of 'parallel' Egan moreover
supplies:
'Leave me alone' (1 Richard II, II.iii.75-6), 'leave
me alone' (Edward
III, II.ii.37), 'Go, leave me' (Edward III,
II.ii.107); 'How now, what
read'st thou, Bushy?' (1 Richard II, II.i.54); 'how
now? what's the
news?' (Edward III, III.ii.1); ' 'How now, what
noise is this?' (1
Richard II, I.iii.235), 'how now? what's the news?'
(Edward III,
III.ii.1); 'See, where she comes' (Edward III,
II.i.367), [...]"
Egan states
"What possible explanation other than common authorship can account for
the following remarkable identities?"-Well, many of the parallels listed
are indeed very convincing. Just not the
above selection.
Yours,
Lene Petersen
28
August, 2005: Egan to Elliott offline. “You’re obviously a fake and phoney, jut
as I thought. I’m not prepared to waste any more time on these fruitless
so-called negotiations. The issue is truth, and it won’t be hurried.”
“Dear Ward
You’re
obviously a fake and phoney, jut as I
thought. I’m not prepared to waste any
more time on these fruitless so-called negotiations.
As I
previously noted, you will constantly find objections to avoid putting the
issue to a fair test. ‘A
short route good for September only’ is just so much flim-flam. I insist
neither on a long route nor a short one, just a process that takes as long as
it needs to take. The issue is truth and it won’t be hurried. You say: ‘too
much risk for us to take on.’ Quite so.
We’ll meet again. You can count on it.
--Michael Egan”
28
August 2005: Elliott to Egan: “I take it that means a no.”
I take it
that means a no.
W
29 August 2005: Egan and Elliott to SHAKSPER, SHK 16.1416. Egan: “The bet has been called off and the matter is now closed.”
Elliott: “We are still awaiting his evidence that the “unique verbal parallels”
with Shakespeare are actually unique, and we still need his explanation why the
many and gross stylistic discrepancies between Shakespeare and Woodstock listed
in our studies don’t make Shakespeare an improbable author.”
http://www.shaksper.net/archives/2005/1426.html
From: Michael
Egan <drmichaelegan@hawaii.rr.com>
Date: Sunday,
28 Aug 2005 09:06:31 -1000
Subject: 16.1407 Wager
Comment: Re:
SHK 16.1407 Wager
I’m sorry to have to report to the listserv that
Ward Elliott and I have been unable to agree on a process to resolve the
differences between us.
The bet has
been called off and the matter is now closed.
--Michael Egan
[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ward
Elliott <WElliott@claremontmckenna.edu>
Date: Sunday,
28 Aug 2005 19:41:56 -0700
Subject: 16.1407 Wager
Comment: RE:
SHK 16.1407 Wager
[Explains worked-out terms of bet and thanks Larry
Weiss for mediating] With his help, Mr.
Egan and I were able to agree on two important points: a resolution to be
debated, and an implicit burden of proof: “Resolved: that
Michael Egan has presented clear, convincing, and irrefutable evidence that the anonymous Elizabethan play
known variously as Richard II, Part One, Woodstock and/or Thomas of Woodstock
is by Shakespeare.”
[Quotes Egan offline “fake and phoney” letter,
above]
We took it
that that means a no...
…Mr. Egan started by interpreting our bet his way,
then went on to make it his bet, then his non-bet, but always and unbudgeably
his way. His way is still too long, vague, and contentious for us to want to
pursue voluntarily, far too reliant on
declamation and jeers to make his point, and far too short of convincing
substantiation to be worth a long detour on our part -- and now he’s telling us
it’s that or nothing. That’s not such a
hard choice. If he wants a no on our
offer, that’s his choice.
We are
grateful to Larry Weiss for working offline to clarify these issues. It looks like he has saved us not only the
long “my way” detour Mr. Egan insists on, but also the much shorter one we were
willing to give him. Whether it will
spare us his future jeers and name calling remains to be seen. But jeers and name calling are not evidence;
they are not even arguments. We are
still awaiting his evidence that the “unique verbal parallels” with Shakespeare
are actually unique, and we still need his explanation why the many and gross
stylistic discrepancies between Shakespeare and Woodstock listed in our studies
don’t make Shakespeare an improbable author.
23
November 2005: William Davis to SHAKSPER, SHK 16.933. Can stylometrics work on early plays? http://www.shaksper.net/archives/2005/1935.html
Davis wonders whether E&V’s stylometric data,
though well enough validated for Shakespeare’s “core” plays written “mostly at
the height of his career,” can tell us anything worthwhile about whether a play
written “very early in his career,” or “pre-career,” could be identified as
his.
27
November 2005: Elliott to SHAKSPER, SHK 16.1951. [Responding to Davis] If you
found R3, 2H6, and Woodstock in a time capsule, could
stylometrics tell you which were Shakespeare’s? Easily.
http://www.shaksper.net/archives/2005/1953.html
Answer: easily. Woodstock fails … 20 [Shakespeare] tests,
while R3 fails none and 2H6 fails only three, with a Shakespeare
composite threshold of two. The odds that
Shakespeare could have written Woodstock
are trillions of times lower than the odds that he could have written R3 or 2H6, no matter which of our two odds-calculating conventions
is used.
30
November 2005: Egan SHAKSPER posting SHK 16.1974: “Ward Elliott is obviously
looking for a fight. I’m not interested.”
[2
From: Michael
Egan <drmichaelegan@hawaii.rr.com>
Date: Tuesday,
29 Nov 2005 19:59:29 -1000
Subject: 16.1964 Lions and Tigers and Wagers...oh
my...
Comment: Re:
SHK 16.1964 Lions and Tigers and Wagers...oh my...
Ward Elliott
is obviously looking for a fight. I’m not interested. If he wants to discuss
the authorship of 1 Richard II/Woodstock, it must be in an appropriately
scholarly manner.
--Michael Egan
5
December 2005: Egan to SHAKSPER, SHK
16.1999. Egan’s evidence.
http://www.shaksper.net/archives/2005/2000.html
[3] From: Michael
Egan drmichaelegan@hawaii.rr.com
Date:
Sunday, 4 Dec 2005 14:40:35 -1000
Subj:
Re: SHK 16.1983 Lions and Tigers and
Wagers...oh my...
Ward Elliott’s
provocations take the form of misrepresenting my data and my arguments, then
sneering at his own caricatures. For example, in his November 27 letter
he asserts that I claim 1 Richard II/Woodstock “dovetails so perfectly with
Richard II that it has to be the first part of a sequence.” This is just not
true. On the contrary, I state repeatedly what is plain to even the most
superficial reader, that the two plays do NOT dovetail perfectly. Among other
things, in 1 Richard II Green is slain though he shows up hale and hearty in
the later play, Woodstock’s jailor is Lapoole, not Mowbray, etc. Indeed, these
differences are among the reasons proffered in support of my case for 1 Richard
II as the earlier play--if it’s a ‘prequel’ to Shakespeare’s acknowledged
history, why not just call Lapoole Mowbray and let Green live? What I actually
believe and say is this (quoting from my posted text, http://richardsecondpartone.com
which Elliott says he consulted):
“It seems clear Shakespeare was not thinking of a
sequel when he wrote [1 Richard II/Woodstock] in the early 1590s, though
undoubtedly he knew the full tale had not been told...The paradox of 1 and 2
Richard II is that the second part is sequel to a play not originally conceived
of as its Part One...This does not necessarily mean, and I do not intend to
argue, that they were originally conceived as a pair. 1 Richard II is...a
partly discrepant history...obviously composed in ignorance of what still lay
artistically ahead.” [Etc.]
Elsewhere in his letter Elliott parodies my general
argument thus: “Shakespeare spoke of ‘heads cut off,’ of ‘forfeiture of land,’
and of ‘nearness in blood;’ so did whoever wrote Woodstock; therefore
Shakespeare must have written Woodstock.”
It’s hard to
believe this was mailed in with a straight face. While the parallels Elliott
cites do exist, and are worth noting in the larger context, they are not my
case. Much more
significant are the analogies of theme, preoccupation and character (the Spruce
Courtier and Osric, Simon Ignorance and Dogberry, etc.; parallel scenes; s.d.
overlaps; comparable narrative strategies; convergences of philosophy and
historical analysis; use of the same obscure sources, and in the same way;
identical imagery; similar errors; at least one revealing Freudian slip; and a
lot more). Elliott is culpably silent about all this, that is, the guts of my
position--why? I certainly do offer numerous phrase and verbal parallels, but
devote several pages explaining my reasons for rejecting trivial expressions
such as ‘heads cut off,’ ‘forfeiture of land,’ ‘nearness in blood’, etc. I even
go out of my way to cite ‘touchstone examples,’ drawn from the attributionist
work of Vickers and Mac Jackson. What I actually do provide in support of my claim ( at
the verbal/phrasal level) are examples like these:
LAPOOLE:
What, is he dead?
MURDERER As a
door-nail, my lord.-1 Richard II, V.i.242-3
FALSTAFF:
What, is the old king dead?
PISTOL: As
nail in door.-2 Henry IV, V.iii.120-1
How now, what
guard is that? What traitor’s there? -1 Richard II, V.vi.15
What noise is
this? What traitors have we here?-1 Henry VI, I.iii.15
There, let
him take it, shiver’d, crack’d and broke, -1 Richard II,
II.ii.164
For there it
is, crack’d in an hundred shivers-2 Richard II, IV.i.199
[Note: both
lines spoken at the climax of deposition scenes.]
Thou royal
issue of King Edward’s loins.-1 Richard II, V.i. 63
Thou loathed
issue of thy father’s loins!-Richard III, I.iii.231
They are the
issue of your loins, my liege,
Yet died and
left no issue of their loins. -Edward III, I.i.9
KING: Give up
your Council staff, we’ll hear no more.
WOODSTOCK: My
staff, King Richard? See, coz, here it is.-1 Richard II,
II.ii.156-7
KING:Give up
thy staff. Henry will to himself / Protector be...
GLOUCESTER:My
staff? Here, noble Henry, is my staff. -2 Henry VI,
II.iii.23-4,
32-
Where slept
our scouts, that he escap’d the field?-1 Richard II, V.vi.11
Where slept
our scouts, or how are they seduced,
That we could
hear no news of this repair?-3 Henry VI, V.i.19
I have a
trick in law
Shall make
King Richard seize into his hands
The
forfeiture of all their goods and lands.-1 Richard II, II.iii.134-6
Think what
you will, we seize into our hands
His plate,
his goods, his money and his lands....-2 Richard II, II.209-10
the rich
chuffs...rich whoresons...ye bacon-fed pudding-eaters...ye
caterpillars...Lay
hold of them, I charge ye!...their hands shall be
under a horse’s
belly...knaves...!-1 Richard II, III.iii.2, 20, 95, 119,
175, 185, 190
Strike! down
with them! cut the villains’ throats! Ah whoreson
caterpilars!
bacon-fed knaves!...ye fat chuffs...! [Here they rob them
and bind
them.]-1 Henry IV, II.ii.81-92
The full
catalogue has not yet been published--I daily await the appearance of my book.
What I can say is that my Verbal Parallels in the Plays and Poems contains
literally thousands of instances this good, drawn from the entire corpus of
Shakespeare’s works, long poems and sonnets included.
Clearly they
must be accounted for, and there are only three alternatives: Shakespeare
copied from Anon; Anon copied from Shakespeare; Shakespeare is Anon. The play’s
original critics proposed Hypothesis One, but the extent of the overlaps,
accumulated 1870-2002, has become embarrassingly large. 1 Richard II as source
play is one thing, but Shakespeare the crudest of plagiarists quite another.
Thus
Hypothesis Two, most recently proposed by Mac Jackson in ‘Shakespeare’s Richard
II and the Anonymous Thomas of Woodstock.’ I have published on line a full
critique of Jackson’s argument, exposing its methodological, logical, and
evidentiary flaws.
(http://richardsecondpartone.com/Jackson.htm.)
Elsewhere I detail my reasons for dating 1 Richard II 1592-3.
(http://richardsecondpartone.com/dating_the_play.htm.)
Hypothesis Two does not withstand close examination.
Which leaves
Hypothesis Three.
--Michael Egan
9
January 2011. [Out of order for easier
comparison with Egan’s short list of “unique parallels” between Woodstock and Shakespeare.] Elliott makes a cursory search of Claremont
Text Archive’s modern-spelling plays only, for parallels to Egan’s 8-item
short-list, finds 34 examples of Woodstock-like
language used by other authors:
Woodstock
/Shakespeare, Egan “Unique Parallels:”
are they really unique?
34
variants by other authors of eight supposedly unique parallels between Woodstock and Shakespeare
Elliott
cursory-search results, January 9, 2011, based on Claremont Text Archive’s available
other-authored or anonymous modern-spelling texts only.
Porter, Two
Angry Women of Abingdon: “dead as a
doornail”
Anon., The
Contention of York, Part I: “dead as
a doornail”
Marlowe, Edward
II: “What traitor have we here?”
Henry
VI, Part I 3.03.15, non-Shakespeare: “What traitor have we here?”
Anon., A Knack
to Know a Knave: “I leave my staff”
Anon., Look
About You: “I leave my staff”
Anon., Mucedorus: “Take my staff”
Anon., The
Contention of York, Part I: “This my
staff …Was broke in two “ “resign thy staff;” “My staff I yield;” “Take up the
staff. “
Barnes, The
Devil's Charter: “issued from thy loins”
Marlowe and Nashe: Dido and Aeneas: “offspring
of kingly loins;” “issue from their wat’ry loins”
Edward
III,
non-Shakespeare: “issue of their loins”
Peele, Edward
I: “sprung from the loins;”
“descended from the loins;” “spring from the loins”
Anon., Edmond
Ironside: “proceeding from the loins”
Anon., Leir:
“issue from our withered loins”
Anon., Locrine:
“issue of his loins”
Samuel Rowley: When
You See Me, You Know Me: “issue of
thy loins”
Greene, Selimus:
“sprung from the loins”
Marlowe, Tamburlaine,
Parts I & II: three “sprung from
the loins”
Anon., The
Contention of York, Part II: “from his loins no issue might succeed”
Anon., The
True Tragedy of Richard III: “where slept the garrison”
Anon., The
Contention of York, Part II: “where slept our scouts”
Heywood, Edward
IV, Part II: “By forfeit into his highness’s hands get restitution of your
goods and lands”
Middleton,
Michaelmas Term: “here are his lands
forfeited to us”
Anon., Edmond
Ironside: “forfeiture … thy father’s land”
Samuel Rowley, When
You See Me, You'll Know Me: “forfeit of his goods”
Anon., The
London Prodigal: “greasy chuff”
30
April 2006. Egan’s
Tragedy of Richard II is finally
published by Edwin Mellen Press, 4
volumes, 2,000+ pages, at a price close enough to $400 that Elliott, having
already read the Egan web page, does not buy it. By now, Egan has taken down his web pages.
17 June 2006. Egan to Elliott and Oxfordian Roger
Stritmatter: “I’m calling you out,
Ward.”
Indeed, yes. Elliot fully
appreciates that my data destroy at least his brand of stylometrics, and so he
has run as fast as his little intellectual legs can carry him from a free and
open debate with me.
But maybe he'd like to join in here. I offer him this challenge: Your stylometric analyses say
that WS did not write 1 Richard II. My data completely refute that. Please tell
me where my data are wrong. If you can do so, I'l pay you one thousand British
pounds. (Elliot notoriously offered to pay this amount to anyone who could
prove him wrong. When I accepted he found reasons not to put the matter to the
test. He has yet to respond to my book.)
Note to readers: Don't expect to be hearing from Elliot soon.
17 June 2006: Elliott to Egan: “we gave
you a fair chance to respond, twice, and you have folded twice. Don’t
expect us to give you a replay with a different forum till you’ve delivered on
your original callout.”
Dear Michael:
You have had plenty of opportunity to present your case on SHAKSPER, but,
when offered a fair debate, you have folded twice, after taking more of my time
and attention, and that of other SHAKSPER members, than your case
deserves. Now you’ve found a different, Oxfordian newsgroup and seem to
be trying the same approach: Tough-talking challenge, announcement that you
have destroyed our case, and hints that if we don’t respond, or fail to buy
your $400 vanity-press book and respond to its every point, we’ve conceded that
you must be right. That won’t wash. You called us out on SHAKSPER
with similar bombast; we gave you a fair chance to respond, twice, and you have
folded twice. Don’t expect us to give you a replay with a different forum
till you’ve delivered on your original callout.
Ward Elliott
9 July 2006: Roger Stritmatter to
Elliott: I urge you to accept [Egan’s]
challenge….
Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2006 11:16 AM
To: Elliott, Ward
Cc: drmichaelegan@hawaii.rr.com
Subject: Scholarly Debate
Dear Dr. Elliott,
I am writing to inform you that Professor Michael Egan has pubicly challenged you on our Electronic Forum to debate the relevance of your stylometric methodologies for ascertaining the authorship of disputed Renaissance works.
As a member of the Shakespeare Fellowship Website Team, and the Vice-President for Outreach and Education of the Fellowship, I urge you to accept this challenge….
Sincerely,
Dr. Roger Sritmatter
Assistant Professor, Literature and Humanities, Coppin
Vice President for Outreach and Education, The Shakespeare Fellowship
11 July 2006: Elliott to Stritmatter:
“Thanks, but no thanks. I
don’t think he has earned the right to a rematch, and I have told him so.”
Dear Dr. Stritmatter,
Thanks, but no thanks. Dr. Egan has some baggage to deal with in his challenges to us.
This one is his third. The first two were on SHAKSPER with too much
jeering and namecalling on his part, and too little hard evidence, for a
productive debate. We did agree to take him up on SHAKSPER, and did post some reasons for
doubting that
Yours,
WE
17 July 2006: Egan to Elliott: Keep smilin’, Ramon Jimenez’ Oxfordian review
attached. Egan’s 2100-page book is “author’s dream, reader’s nightmare,” erratically
organized, difficult to use, no index, but so thoroughly documented that it
cannot be denied. Opens path for ascribing other Apocrypha plays to
Shakespeare.
Egan sends Elliott semi-laudatory review of his book by Oxfordian Ramon Jimenez.
“It is hard to imagine that there will be much more to be written about Thomas of Woodstock than what Egan has included in these 2100 pages. The Edwin Mellen Press merits a compliment for subsidizing what can only be called an author’s dream. On the other hand, it might be a reader’s nightmare. Egan’s commentary and analysis range over two volumes and are so erratically organized that they are difficult to use. Without an index, it is nearly impossible to find specific items, and there is no index. It’s also nearly impossible to find an affordable copy of Woodstock. However, the publisher is offering all four volumes in paperback for $50. + shipping through June only. Also, Rossiter’s text is online, but without notes, in the Oxford Text Archive at http://ota.ahds.ac.uk.”
“In the end, Egan’s case is so thoroughly documented that it cannot be denied. He fully proves his remark that “I Richard II is . . . easily as good as Shakespeare’s early Histories, whose mode and manner it closely resembles.” And he is justified in claiming that the author of Woodstock not only influenced Marlowe, but “was responsible for some of the most important technical advances in the theater of his day.”
“Michael Egan is Scholar in Residence at the Hawaii campus of Brigham Young University, and has written or edited ten books, including studies of Ibsen, Mark Twain, and Henry James. All Shakespeare scholars have reason to be grateful to him for not only resolving a longstanding authorship puzzle, but adding another rich and glittering history play to the Shakespeare canon. Although Egan adheres throughout to the Stratfordian theory of authorship, those who dispute it owe him further thanks. His convincing demonstration of Shakespeare’s authorship of the anonymous Thomas of Woodstock suggests that the path will be easier for those who seek to bring other anonymous, but obviously Shakespearean, history plays, such as Edmond Ironside, The True Tragedy of Richard the Third, and The Troublesome Raigne of John, into the canon, where they belong.”
---------- two years pass
----------
26 March 2008: Egan letter to TLS:
Egan denies that his case is based on verbal and character
analogues. “This is simply not so.” “While
I … do
adduce literally thousands of phrasal parallels, my case rests principally, as
it should, on the quality of the writing.” But he concludes with a verbal
parallel, “dead as a doornail.”
Sir, – Bart Van Es is entitled to
disagree with my thesis but not
to misrepresent the evidence supporting it. He says, in his review of
The Tragedy of Richard II, Part One: A Newly Authenticated Play by William
Shakespeare (In Brief, February 15), that “Egan’s argument is based in large part on verbal and
character analogues . . . ”, but this is simply not so. While I do point to strong similarities
between, for instance, the Spruce Courtier and Osric, Simon Ignorance and
Dogberry and of course the entire cast of historical figures transferred almost
unchanged to Richard II, and do adduce literally thousands of phrasal parallels, my case rests
principally, as it should, on the quality of the writing.
An outstanding example is Queen
Anne’s speech to the courtiers who have welcomed her in I.iii.36–50:
My sovereign lord, and you true English
peers,
Your all-accomplish’d honours have so tied
My senses by a magical restraint
In the sweet spells of these your fair demeanours,
That I am bound and charm’d from what I was.
My native country I no more remember
But as a tale told in my infancy,
The greatest part forgot; and that which is,
Appears to England’s fair Elysium
Like brambles to the cedars, coarse to fine,
Or like the wild grape to the fruitful vine.
And, having left the earth where I was bred,
And English made, let me be Englished.
They best shall please me shall me English call.
My heart, great King, to you; my love to all!
Who else but Shakespeare writes like
this?
Van Es also suggests that the
phrasal analogues I cite are superficial, giving as his lone example the claim
(which in fact I do not make) that 1 Richard II and 2 Henry IV “compare dead
men to doornails”. Here’s the actual collocation:
Lapoole: What, is he dead?
Murderer: As a door-nail, my lord.
– 1 Richard II, V.i.242–3
Falstaff: What, is the old king
dead?
Pistol: As nail in door.
– 2 Henry IV, V.iii.120–1
My
study cites scores of comparable parallels.
Clearly, there are deep connections between Anon and Shakespeare. Either one copied from the other
or they are the same playwright.
MICHAEL EGAN
Brigham Young University, Hawaii Campus, Laie, Oahu, Hawaii 96762.
----------Two more years
pass-------------
25
October 2010: Egan e-mail to
Elliott. Egan, now editor of The Oxfordian, has requested Elliott and
Valenza to write an article on their relationships with Oxfordians. Egan tries
to insert a footnote on the bet correcting E&V’s “mendacious account.”
Dear Ward
I have added this footnote to your mendacious account of our
bet. If you’d like to comment, I’ll run it.
Note
[1][1] Michael Egan writes: If this is an
example of Elliott’s and Valenza’s over-all accuracy we’re all in big trouble. The account of our bet given
here is a complete distortion, and I can provide the emails to prove it.
My negotiations with
Elliott over the wager that he first proposed broke down over his insistence
that we each limit ourselves to six pages of evidence. This of course suits an
argument comprising numbers and word lists but does not provide sufficient
space for a case which depends on often lengthy and detailed analyses of
character, scene, language and the like. My book is over 2000 pages and it
needs each one. Anytime Prof. Elliott is willing to compare his analysis of 1 Richard II with mine, in full on both
sides, I’m up for it. The panel of judges, which I’m happy for Elliott to
select, could well include Mac Jackson, Sir Brian Vickers and even the dreadful
Gabriel Egan (no relation) who has already declared his willing ignorance of my
study. Indeed, I’d be delighted to have him, Vickers and Jackson actually read
my book. I also proposed to Elliott that the ₤1000 be given to the
panelists as compensation for their time and effort, but he balked at that.
Maybe his views have changed—how about it, Ward?
[Elliott note:
On 27 August, 2006, a day before pulling out of the wager, Egan did
offer to bind the loser to pay the panelists, but far less than the fair market
value of their time, and to cover the costs of his bet, not ours. We saw no
reason to hazard our money and waste our time recruiting and underpaying a
panel hired solely to examine his case, and said so.]
October
26, 2010: Elliott to Egan: “This seems
to me off-target in several ways”
“Dear Michael:
How sweet of you to ask! Here’s my rejoinder.
Ward
Elliott responds: This seems to me off-target in several
ways: it attempts to resurrect Mr. Egan’s
failed effort to commandeer our wager, and Shaksper, to help sell his then-new
book on Woodstock; it’s got the facts
of it insistently wrong; it has almost nothing to do with the Oxford claim, our
topic; and it’s thoroughly out of place injected uninvited into our
article. Mr. Egan was free to make his case on his own website at
any length he wished, but he chose not to; instead, when his book was
published, he withdrew hundreds of pages of Woodstock
analysis from his site. When we offered
him a month of debate on Shaksper, with brief opening and closing statements on
both sides, and no restrictions on postings on his own site, he found our terms
intolerably restrictive and announced: “The bet has been called off and the
matter is now closed.” Maybe his views
have changed. I would urge him to
abide by his own words and give it a rest.
Any TOX readers wishing to explore this contentious, convoluted topic
further may consult Shaksper’s archives, especially the following:
http://www.shaksper.net/archives/2005/1358.html
http://www.shaksper.net/archives/2005/1426.html“
October 29, 2010 5:15 AM, Egan e-mail
to Elliott. “The sarcasm is unnecessary.
It’s not personal. I truly wish you would read my book. Just put aside the
stylometry for a minute and look through the bloody telescope!”
“From: Michael Egan
[mailto:drmichaelegan@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 5:15
AM
To: Elliott, Ward
Subject: Re: footnote
The sarcasm is unnecessary. I don’t mind the rough-and-tumble of debate but it’s not personal, Ward. What you don’t get is that I’m genuinely interested in the truth and the way to arrive at it is for the debate to be as open as possible. So you will always have an opportunity to be heard in full under my editorship.
What I do truly wish is that you would actually read my book, I mean in the same open-minded spirit, because the evidence for Shakespeare is overwhelming. Just put aside the stylometry for a minute and look through the bloody telescope!
Dr Michael Egan
October
29, 2010 12:24:41 PM: Elliott e-mail to Egan: “Thanks for the clarification. You certainly could have fooled me.”
From: “Ward Elliott”
<ward.elliott@claremontmckenna.edu>
To: “Michael Egan” <drmichaelegan@comcast.net>
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 12:24:41 PM
“Subject: RE: footnote
I actually did read the hundreds of pages on your
website before you took them down, but I was not persuaded by your 1600 points
of resemblance, nor eager to buy the multi-volume set for its very high asking
price to go through the process again, far less to spend however long it takes
to rehash it yet again in a protracted, standardless wrangle with you with your
fighting hat on and your thinking hat off.
Thanks for
the clarification that there is nothing personal about calling me a mendacious,
minatory fake and phony, and a pale, trembling coward who distorts the truth.
These falsehoods, I take it, are just part of the rough-and-tumble of
debate and the quest for truth. You certainly could have fooled me! But
namecalling, personal or not, doesn’t seem to me the most persuasive of
arguments, nor does it fit at all well with TOX [The Oxfordian]’s claim of welcoming points of view outside those of
the believers. If you really want people like us to contribute to TOX, you
shouldn’t sling so much mud, nor encourage it with our Oxfordian minders, [John]Shahan
and [Richard]Whalen.
Yours,
WE”
October 29, 2010: Egan to Elliott:
Egan changes footnote to a letter,
offers a new bet: “You win, you get 1000 pounds stirling. I win, I’ll take
nothing except the satisfaction.”
“LOL good points. But the adjectives are directed at your arguments and the pale trembling coward was just a nice quote.
How do you deal with the following and similar, I wonder?
What, is he dead?
As a door-nail, my lord.¾1 Richard II, V.i.242-3
What, is the old king dead?
As nail in door.¾2 Henry IV, V.iii.120-1
Anyway, Ward, I just
offered you the following deal: set up a panel of your own choosing and submit
your full case for non-Shakespeare along with my full case for WS. You win, you
get 1000 pounds stirling [sic]. I win, I’ll take nothing except the
satisfaction.
That’s how confident I am. Now, what’s your excuse for refusing? Because I know ahead of time you don’t have guts.
Dr Michael Egan
Editor”
October
30, 2010: Elliott e-mail to Egan discussing terms of Egan’s bet. Elliott willing to set up a hearing but wants
to limit implicit burden on panelists and other side. $13,333 worth of panelists’
time, and $3,333 of ours, just to read Egan’s book is too much to ask to settle
a £2,000-bet.
“Dear Michael,
Sounds like too easy a win for us, too much like one
of those letters from Nigeria, and too likely to lead where all your past
proposals tended to lead, that is, toward a protracted, rancorous,
standardless, unbounded wrangle over your book, at a time when I’m trying to
get other things done which are more important to me, not hopping to with every
new twist of your road. But I can’t exclude the possibility that you
would actually like to get this settled, and I’m willing to give it some
thought.
If I were to choose a dream panel for this, Plan A
would be a 3-man panel taken from the people I consider the top authorities on
Shakespeare authorship, let’s say, MacDonald Jackson, Brian Vickers, Gary
Taylor, David Lake, Stanley Wells, Hugh Craig, Arthur Kinney, Richard
Proudfoot, James Shapiro, and Jonathan Hope, for starters. You
probably have your own such list. It would be nice to know who is on it.
I would not put Jackson on the panel -- or you, or
even Corbin and Sedge, for that matter -- though Jackson knows more about
Woodstock/1R2’s authorship, and commands more respect, than anyone I can think
of. All of you have already made up your minds on the matter, and it’s
possible that some of the others have as well.
The biggest problem I would anticipate with this A-list panel is their
willingness to drop everything and plow through what I would expect to be your
over-2,000-page case statement and supporting documents, plus whatever we have
to offer, and put themselves at the disposal of your mood swings.
I expect that most would not want to do it at all, and anyone that would do it
would want to be paid quite a bit for it and would want to be given plenty of
time to fit it in. If you
really expected them to read all 2,000 pages, at a minute a page, that’s 33
hours of reading, worth $3,333 per panelist at a very conservative $100 an
hour, times three panelists and the other party = $13,333 worth of time to
settle a £2,000-bet. That’s far too much to ask of them, or me,
just to give you the satisfaction you crave. There could also be a lot of
negotiation/wrangling over details: how many and who are on the panel, what
they should be paid, when they should be done, how the question is put, and who
bears what burden of proof. The parties to the bet should provide the
case statements and supporting documents, not expect the panel or the other
party to buy them on their own, yet another reason for keeping the panel small.
On the other hand, we did arrive last time at an
agreed-on question statement and a burden of proof that still seems to me about
right:
“Resolved: that Michael Egan has presented
clear, convincing, and irrefutable evidence that the anonymous Elizabethan play
known variously as Richard II, Part One, Woodstock and/or Thomas of Woodstock
is by Shakespeare.”
I could also think of a Plan B free of many of the
problems of Plan A, that could get us a capable, impartial panel and a
reasonable workload: if he is still willing, have Larry Weiss, who
offered to moderate our debate for free last time, serve as one panelist, and
have him recruit two more from the those members of my panel of Golden Ears who
have not requested anonymity, choosing them by availability and whatever other
standards seem to him most fair and least burdensome, costly and
time-consuming. If I were doing it, I would probably go down the list in
descending order of demonstrated ability to tell Shakespeare from
non-Shakespeare and take the first two willing to commit to it and not too
closely connected to me or you; i.e., excluding the one who was in my
Shakespeare Clinic.
I would give
you as many weeks as you need to draw up a brief of whatever length you think
the panelists would deem reasonable, and distribute whatever supporting
documents you wanted to, such as your book(s). If it’s too long, the
panelists themselves can judge how much or little of it they need to cover to
come to a fair and considered judgment. Alternatively, we could settle on
a word-length maximum for all briefs, let’s say a generous total of 20,000
words for all briefs on either side. I would expect ours to be much
less. Again, I don’t want to be a party to saddling the panel, or myself,
with an unreasonable workload just for your satisfaction.
The question isn’t all that complicated – your hundreds of perceived
resemblances against our two dozen or so measured discrepancies. I would
suppose that Larry Weiss’s time, as a senior partner of a New York law firm,
would be worth on the order of $1,000 per billable hour. If it’s
available, I don’t want to waste it.
After you submit your opening brief, we would
prepare a response, a statement of our own case, and send supporting documents
as soon as we reasonably can manage at the time. However long it takes us, you
would have an equal period after our submission to submit a closing
brief. That is, you would bear the burden of proof and have the first and
last word. After your final statement the panel would have however long
they need to read and judge the statements and make up their mind, with no
further posturing, wrangling, haranguing, mudslinging, or cross-examination by
either side in the mean time. Of course, you can do all of these you
want, except for cross-examination, in your opening and closing briefs. So
could we, if we thought we were any good at it and that it would persuade
anyone.
Some decision needs to be made as to how high- or
low-profile to make this exercise. Low would probably be better if the
actual intent is to get the matter settled. High would probably be better
for drawing attention to your book, which I take to be a strong consideration
for you. Your goals, as I see them, are to draw attention to your book
and to make it as difficult as you can for us to continue to offer our original
wager. I don’t mind the first. I do mind the second, since my goal
is to keep diversionary nuisances to a minimum. Hence, I don’t mind
higher-profile if we can skip the circus of wrangling and mudslinging by the
parties in other forums. I could see a joint initial announcement from us
on Shaksper that the bet is underway, or by Larry, if we can’t agree, and a
final summary of the outcome by Larry afterward, perhaps with commentary by
each of us. I do mind high-profile if it’s just a reprise of the previous
wrangling and mudslinging. I know you think it’s part of the game to call
us fakes and phoneys who deal in flim-flam and mendacious accounts, and that we
don’t have guts if we don’t play your game by your rules on your
schedule. None of these are my idea of a good use of my time, or the
panel’s, or Shaksper’s. If you are really interested in getting your bet
settled, you should keep these to a minimum while it is being decided; same for
us.
I would expect Larry, or whoever else is willing to
serve as the head of the judging panel, to be the final arbiter on whether and
how seriously these terms are abused while the process is underway, with power
to issue warnings or declare a forfeit if, in his opinion, either side is
gravely out of compliance. When it’s all over, you would be entirely free
to go back to your rough-and-tumble on your own, and we would be free to go on
about our business with the hope that the air might be cleared a bit on the
question of whether 1R2/Woodstock is irrefutably Shakespeare’s.
Yours,
Ward
October
31, 2010: Egan to Elliott, “Set up any
damn panel you like”
Ward
Your statement is too convoluted to comment on in
detail. Here’s my bottom
line: Set up any damn panel you like under whatever circumstances you like,
obviously within reason and the rules of fairplay. I trust you to do this as we
don’t want any squabbles about its objectivity afterwards, because then we will
have resolved nothing. As long as the panelists agree to objectively
review all the evidence presented and then provide reasons for accepting or
rejecting it, I’m fine, win, lose or draw..
Regards
Michael
Dr Michael Egan
Editor
October
31, 2010. Elliott e-mail to Egan, proposes terms of engagement. One is: “Panelists
may consider as much or little of these as they deem necessary to come to a
fair and considered judgment.”
Dear Michael,
Then
let’s go with Plan B, low profile. I
checked with Larry Weiss, and he is willing to serve. The terms are as follows:
Question: “Resolved: that Michael Egan has
presented clear, convincing, and irrefutable evidence that the anonymous
Elizabethan play known variously as Richard II, Part One, Woodstock and/or
Thomas of Woodstock is by Shakespeare.”
Burden of proof: on you to show by
clear, convincing, and irrefutable evidence that it is by Shakespeare .
Panel: Larry Weiss, convener, and two non-anonymous
members of my Golden Ear panel chosen and recruited by him as he thinks best.
Format: Case briefs by both sides, not to exceed a
total of 20,000 words per side.
Unlimited supporting documents may be submitted by both sides. Panelists may consider as much or little of
these as they deem necessary to come to a fair and considered judgment. You
present your opening brief first whenever you are ready. We respond as soon as we reasonably can. You submit your closing brief in the same
amount of time we took to respond to your opening brief. Panel deliberates and decides in its own
time, states its reasons, informs both sides, and announces the results on
Shaksper.
Terms of your bet: If the panel declares for us, you owe us
£1,000. If it declares for you, we owe
you nothing under your bet. [But we might
well have some further thinking to do about ours.]
Publicity:
Summary of results to be posted by convener on Shaksper at end of process. No outside publicity permitted prior to that.
Behavior of parties: should be consistent with terms of agreement,
reasonable and non-obstructive on both sides.
Convenor is final arbiter, has power to warn parties and declare a
forfeit in extreme cases of noncompliance.
Waiver
of terms: Permitted, with mutual consent
of parties and convener.
Sound
OK?
WE
Oct
31, 2010: Egan to Elliott, Halloween, 2010:
“Agreed”
Agreed
Dr Michael Egan
1
November, 2010: Larry Weiss to prospective panelists on rules of engagement.
Dear fellow Golden Ear,
You might recall the long-standing controversy between Michael Egan on
the one side and Ward Elliott and Robert Valenza on the other regarding
Prof. Egan’s contention that the play commonly known as Thomas of
Woodstock, which Egan calls Richard II, Part 1, was written by
Shakespeare. Some years ago, I offered to preside over a panel of
independent assessors who would judge the controversy and resolve a
friendly professional wager between the contestants. The contesting
parties have now agreed on a procedure to have the dispute settled by a
panel of three amateur or professional Shakespeareans, chaired by
myself, who qualified as “Golden Ears” in the exercise which Prof.
Elliott conducted a few years ago. I am writing to invite you to
join
the panel, as I believe that you would lend valuable insight to the process.
The rules of engagement
are as follows:
Question: “Resolved: that Michael Egan has presented
clear, convincing, and irrefutable evidence that the anonymous
Elizabethan play known variously as /Richard II, Part One/, /Woodstock/
and/or /Thomas of Woodstock/ is by Shakespeare.”
Burden
of proof: on Egan to show by clear, convincing, and
irrefutable evidence that it is by Shakespeare .
Panel: Larry Weiss, convener, and two non-anonymous
members of the Golden Ear panel.
Format: Case briefs by both sides, not to exceed a total
of 20,000 words per side. Unlimited supporting documents may be
submitted by both sides. Panelists may consider as much or little of
these as they deem necessary to come to a fair and considered judgment.
Egan presents opening brief first after the panel is set. Elliott and
Valenza will respond as soon as they reasonably can. Egan may submit
closing brief in the same amount of time it took to Elliott and Valenza
to respond. Panel deliberates and decides in its own time, states its
reasons, informs both sides, and announces the results on SHAKSPER.
Terms
of the wager proposed by Egan and accepted by Elliott and Valenza:
If the panel decides that Egan has not met his burden of proof, he owes Elliott
and Valenza £1,000.
If it decides that he has met his burden of proof, Elliott and Valenza owe him
nothing. I note, however, that he would be in a stronger position to argue that
he has met the terms of an original, separate, Elliott bet that no one can find
a new, genuine Shakespeare play which does not test within the pertinent
Elliott-Valenza profiles. But that question is not submitted to this
assessment procedure.
Publicity: Summary of results to be posted by convener on SHAKSPER at
end of process. No outside publicity permitted prior to that.
Behavior of parties: should be consistent with terms of agreement,
reasonable and non-obstructive on both sides. Convener is final arbiter,
has power to warn parties and declare a forfeit in extreme cases of
noncompliance.
Waiver
of terms: Permitted, with mutual consent of parties
and convener…
November
2010. Larry Weiss
recruits two members of the Golden Ear panel to complete the Judgment of Thomas
panel. The process takes a month. Three
others decline; two already have an opinion on the authorship of
Woodstock. One of these has concluded “it
wasn’t even close to being a Shakespeare play,” but is interested in the
question and asks for copies of evidence submitted. Elliott and Egan agree. By end of November, the three-person panel is
complete: Larry Weiss, convenor; Dale Johnson, and Will Sharpe.
1 December, 2010, 8:50 pm: Egan to Weiss. “This encounter will be historic.”
Larry
Many thanks for your efforts. This encounter
will be historic.
It will take a couple of weeks to get my publishers
to send copies of my book to the panelists. Please send me their addresses.
Please also send me something about the panelists’
background.
Thanks
Dr Michael Egan
1 December 2010, 9:37:19 PM: Weiss to Egan: The submission agreement
limits briefs to 20,000 words per side
From:
“Larry” <larry@lweiss.net>
To: “Michael Egan” <drmichaelegan@comcast.net>
Cc: “Ward Elliott” <ward.elliott@claremontmckenna.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, December 1, 2010 9:37:19 PM
Subject: Re: Egan c. Elliott & Valenza Re Woodstock
The submission agreement
limits briefs to 20,000 words per side. Does your book satisfy that
limit? If not, you can submit the book as supporting material, which the
panel members are free to consider or not in their discretion, and you would
also submit a brief. If you book is less than 20,000 words, you
may submit it in lieu of a brief, and your reply brief would be limited in size
to the difference between the length of the book and 20,000 words.
Nonetheless, I will ask the other panel members for their addresses so that you
can send them physical submissions.
1
December 2010, 10:04 pm: Egan to Weiss: I need their street addresses so they
can each have full copies of my book. That’s my case.
I need their
street addresses so they can each have full copies of my book. That’s my case.
Dr Michael Egan
1
December 2010, 10:08 PM: Egan to Weiss:
It’s a condition of my participation that the panelists agree to actually
read the evidence presented in my book
Larry, following up.
It’s a condition of my participation that the panelists agree to
actually read the evidence presented in my book. Email is insufficient.
Dr Michael Egan
1 December, 2010, 11:21: Will Sharpe to all: “I have easy access to Prof Egan’s book”
Dear All,
I have easy access to Prof
Egan’s book (all 4 volumes of it) in the Shakespeare Institute library,
which is a 3 minute walk from my house, so there’s no need to send it. But
thank you for the offer.
Best,
Will
2
December 2010: Egan to all: “That’s great.”
That’s great.
In my summary presentation I’ll indicate which parts of the book contain the
most persuasive evidence for my case.
Thanks
Michael
2
December 2010: Egan to Weiss: 6:55 AM: I have to insist that the panelists
make a commitment to reviewing it. There is no point in my participation
otherwise.
Michael Egan wrote:
I will of
course submit an initial statement tho in itself it will be insufficient,
comparable to an attorney’s opening statement. The book contains the actual
evidence. I have to insist that the panelists make a commitment to reviewing
it. There is no point in my participation otherwise.
Dr Michael Egan
2 December 2010, 8:33 AM: Weiss to
Egan and Elliott (who is on his way to Guatemala and out of touch for 11 days: “The
panel members signed on based on the submission agreement. It is not fair
to now change the rules to enlarge their burden.”
From:
“Larry” <larry@lweiss.net>
To: “Michael Egan” <drmichaelegan@comcast.net>
Cc: “Ward Elliott” <ward.elliott@claremontmckenna.edu>
Sent: Thursday, December 2, 2010 8:33:17 AM
Subject: Re: Egan c. Elliott & Valenza Re Woodstock
The panel members signed
on based on the submission agreement. It is not fair to now change the
rules to enlarge their burden.
Twenty thousand words
should be quite sufficient to present the substance of your
argument. Briefs on the merits in the U.S. Supreme Court are limited to
15,000 words with reply briefs no longer than 6,000 words, or a total which is
a thousand words less than your limit.
I can’t provide advice as to how to present your argument, but my expectation
was that your brief would present the substance of your argument and cite to
where the evidence to support it can be found. Judges deal with
submissions of this character all the time and become quite adept at discerning
what underlying data they need to review.
If you have the technology, you could scan the more detailed data and present
an electronic brief that contains hyperlinks to the portions that you want us
to read in support of your points. Courts in the U.S. are beginning to
require such submissions. Of course, I would still want the hard
documents in addition.
December 2, 2010 10:41 AM: Egan to Weiss: “Sorry Larry but this is now a losing
proposition to me.”
Sorry
Larry but this is now a losing proposition to me.
I
understood that in addition to the initial statement, any amount of supporting
evidence/documentation could be submitted. There’s no point in doing so unless
the intention is to weigh it. Obviously in a technical sense I cannot compel the panelists to read my
book, but I would nonetheless request their commitment to read:
(a) My edition of the text
(b) My General Introduction
(c) A Short History of the Text
The first two, a and b, comprise
volume I.
C is found in Volume 3.
Volune
2, which is in two books, comprises variorum notes. There are details in there
which help clinch the argument, but I can live with the panelists setting these
data aside for now.
I consider the above the minimum. If
the panelists are not willing to look at what I actually adduce in support of
my claims I decline to continue.
Please contact them about this and get
their responses/opinions and commitments.
Best
wishes
Michael
December
2, 2010 9:04:21 AM: Weiss to Egan and Elliott: I for one expect that I would
read your book or at least so much thereof as appears relevant, but I cannot
speak for the others and I am loath to ask them for a further “commitment.”
From: “Larry” <larry@lweiss.net>
To: “Michael Egan” <drmichaelegan@comcast.net>
Cc: “Ward Elliott” <ward.elliott@claremontmckenna.edu>
Sent: Thursday, December 2, 2010 9:04:21 AM
Subject: Re: Egan c. Elliott & Valenza Re Woodstock
Michael,
I am now confused. Your submission agreement provides:
“Format: Case briefs by both sides, not to exceed a total of 20,000 words
per side. Unlimited supporting documents may be submitted by both
sides. Panelists may consider as much or little of these as they deem
necessary to come to a fair and considered judgment.”
You are correct that “any
amount of supporting evidence/documentation could be submitted,” and, of
course, you may request us to read any or all of it. But to ask us for a “commitment”
to read large parts of it as a condition to proceeding is quite another
thing. It changes the rules upon which Elliott & Valenza agreed to
the submission and on which the panelists agreed to participate. I for
one expect that I would read your book or at least so much thereof as appears
relevant, but I cannot speak for the others and I am loath to ask them for a
further “commitment” unless Ward Elliott agrees to this, in which case we could
find ourselves trying to find new panelists.
I suppose that if you decide at this stage to pull out, Elliott & Valenza
would be able to contend that you owe them £1,000.
I solicit Ward’s views on these matters.
Larry
2
December /2010 11:22 AM, Egan to Weiss: “Legalisms
be damned.” “Now you tell me the panel doesn’t even have to look at my
evidence?” “I have conceded enough already.”
Look Larry this is not a supreme
court case and all the legalisms
be damned. The issue is: Do I or do I not prove that Shakespeare wrote
Richard II Part One? Any decision will be assumed to have been based on a
consideration of the data I produce in my book, whether it was or no.To play
with well, you can submit evidence but we don’t have to consider it is
ridiculous.
I suggest you share my
concerns with the panelists, since they seem to be good people who I
hope in fairness will agree to look at the key parts of what I have to
say. Afetr all, the intellectual consequences are tremendous and the evidence (both Ward’s and
mine) deserves scrupulous examination. If I’m right we have a new Shakespeare play and this is
important enough to warrant a careful weighing of the relevant data.
I feel I have conceded enough already, allowing you and Ward to appoint whomever you
wishes, willing to pay Ward if I lose but to take nothing if I win, and
restricting myself in the way the data is presented. That’s enough. Now you tell me the panel doesn’t
even have to look at my evidence?
I think it would be a pity if the
deal broke down at this point. I’m just asking the panel to please hear me out--to just look through
my telescope. Is this so much? If they won’t do that, I’m sorry but I’m
not suicidal.
Dr Michael Egan
2
December 2010, 10:04:27 AM: Weiss to Egan and Elliott: “I just have to enforce
the rules that everyone agreed to.”
From: “Larry”
<larry@lweiss.net>
To: “Michael Egan” <drmichaelegan@comcast.net>
Cc: “Ward Elliott” <ward.elliott@claremontmckenna.edu>
Sent: Thursday, December 2, 2010 10:04:27 AM
Subject: Re: Egan c. Elliott & Valenza Re Woodstock
If you and Ward can reach
an agreement about this, I am at your disposal. Otherwise, I just have to
enforce the rules that everyone agreed to.
2 December 2010, 5:00 PM, Egan to Weiss:
“If they agree to review all the evidence I present, then fine, we continue. If
not sayonara.”
I have already requested that the
panelists be consulted. If they agree to review all the evidence I present,
then fine, we continue. If not sayonara.
Dr Michael Egan
2 December 2010: Weiss to Egan
and Elliott: It is not up to the panel.
It is not up to the panel, unless Ward
is willing to revise the rules to require them to give such a commitment.
|
|||
|
2 Dec 2010 23:01 Egan to Weiss:
Then must the Jew be merciful |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
Then must the Jew be merciful
Dr Michael Egan
3
December 2010: Egan to Sharpe and Johnson : “we have a problem that threatens
the whole enterprise”
From: “Michael Egan” <drmichaelegan@comcast.net>
To: themommis@gmail.com, willdotsharpe@yahoo.co.uk
Sent: Friday, December 3, 2010 8:33:44 AM
Subject: Shakespeare panel
Dear Will and Dale
First, let me thank you for agreeing to sit on
this panel. However, we
have a problem that threatens the whole enterprise.
When I agreed to this process, I understood that
Ward Elliott and I would each present an opening statement supported by
additional evidence of whatever kind we wished. Now Larry Weiss and Ward say that you, the panel, do not
have to actually review that additional evidence.
On checking
the wording of the original agreement I see that technically they are correct.
But unfortunately that additional information, which includes the General
Introduction to my book, my new edition of the play, and an essay called A
Short History of the Text, is critical to my case. The fact is, the argument rests on a number of sometimes
lengthily presented data, such as the way a scene is constructed or the
commonalities between characaters in 1 Richard II (Woodstock) and others in
Shakespeare. As you know,
my book is 4 volumes. I’m asking only that you review one volume and a bit of
another (the short history of the text).
I feel that
if you decline to consider this minimum, there is no point in my continued
participation.
So I’m now writing to ask whether you will kindly
commit to reviewing my actual data rather than just the initial summary, which
is insufficient in itself. I would like to go ahead with everything but I feel
it’s crucial that my actual evidence be considered. Is this such a
radical request?
Please let me know, as I would like to have my
publishers send you each vol I and vol III of The Tragedy of Richard II Part
One, A Newly Authenticated play by William Shakespeare, Edited Introduced and
with variorum notes.
With best wishes and hopes for a happy outcome
Dr Michael Egan
3 December 2010: Weiss to Egan [and
Elliott]: “it is contrary to the submission agreement, and obstructive, for you
to insist on their prior commitment to consider additional information as a
precondition to your further participation.”
Michael,
In addition to the provision governing the nature
and length of submissions, the agreement which you entered into with Elliott
& Valenza contains this provision:
“Behavior of parties: should be consistent with terms of
agreement, reasonable and non-obstructive on both sides. Convener is
final arbiter, has power to warn parties and declare a forfeit in
extreme cases of noncompliance.”
It was a wrong of you to
try to embroil the other panel members in your attempt to revise the rules.
As I made clear in the prior correspondence with the parties, and as you now
concede “technically,” you unambiguously agreed to limit submissions on both
sides to 20,000 words with the right to submit unlimited supporting
documentation. Moreover, I do not accept the implication that this was an
inadvertent oversight, as I believe there was detailed negotiation between you
and Ward over this very provision. As I learned in a long career at the bar, 20,000 words is
ample to present any position, no matter how complex. The U.S.
Supreme Court limits initial briefs to 15,000 words and reply briefs to
6,000 words, or a thousand words less than your total.
As I also made clear in
the prior correspondence, you are perfectly free to ask the panel to consider
anything beyond the briefs that you want them to study, and we may do so in our
discretion. I expect that the panel will in fact review everything
relevant that you submit. But it is contrary to the submission agreement,
and obstructive, for you to insist on their prior commitment to consider
additional information as a precondition to your further participation.
I hope that you will see
fit to withdraw your insistence on altering the rules as a condition to
honoring your end of the contract. I also expect that you will refrain
from deviating from the submission agreement in the future.
Larry
12/3/2010
12:06 PM, Egan to Weiss: “I absolutely will not go ahead
with a charade and show trial,”
Larry
I see nothing in the passage you quote precluding my contacting them directly. I am hardly embroiling them, they are embroiled. I absolutely will not go ahead with a charade and show trial, to pursue your metaphors. All I’m asking is a fair shake, which I understood the original agreement to include.
Dr Michael Egan
3 December 2010: Dale Johnson to all: “I’m willing to look over any reasonable
amount of information either party may desire to submit .”
As far as I’m
concerned, I’m willing to look over any reasonable amount of information either
party may desire to submit ... “reasonable” being the operative word. I’m
not a slow reader, so I’m not too perturbed about the amount of material I may
be asked to review; however, I agree with Larry that 20,000 words should be
more than sufficient to present any case. That being said, I’ll look at
anything you all decide will be appropriate to send me.
12/3/2010
11:07: Egan to Johnson: “Thanks, that’s an acceptable undertaking.”
Thanks, that’s an acceptable undertaking.
Dr Michael Egan
12/6/2010 6:49 AM: Weiss to Egan: “I assume from your last
post that you are now content with the assurances you have received.”
Michael,
It could taint the entire proceeding if the parties were free to make direct
contact with the assessors individually.
I can’t imagine where you
got the idea that I was using metaphors like “charade” and “show trial”; I
never suggested anything of the sort.
In any case, I assume from your last post that you are now content with the
assurances you have received and will proceed without further snags. If I
am wrong, please let me know.
Larry
12/6/2010 11:37 AM, Egan to Weiss:” I’ll be happy to proceed once
I get the second assurance.”
I have not received assurances fro both members of the
panel. I’ll be happy to proceed once I get the second.
A show trial or
legal charade is where one side, in this case Ward Elliott, gets to determine
how and what evidence the judges consider, but the result is presented as an
objective review.
Dr Michael Egan
12/6/2010 10:10 AM: Weiss
to Egan. “The assurances you are asking for deviate from the rules you agreed
upon.”
In this case, the rules
were negotiated by the parties and agreed upon. These include the rules
regarding the limitation on sizes of briefs, what the panel may consider and as
to who rules on procedural points, etc.
The assurances you are
asking for deviate from the rules you agreed upon. You have no right to refuse
to proceed unless you receive them.
12/6/2010 11:23 AM: Egan to Weiss and
Elliott: “Unless the panel agrees to review all the evidence I present I refuse
to participate.”
Gentlemen
I have made my position
absolutely clear. Unless
the panel agrees to review all the evidence I present I refuse to participate.
Here is what I propose to present:
1. Opening stetement, less than 20,000 words
2. Supplementary:
The Tragedy of Richard II, Part One, Vol. I (Text of
play, General Introduction).
A Short History of the Text (An essay inluded in Vol
III).
I’m afraid it never
occurred to me when I agreed to this format that evidence would be presented
but not considered. The proposition in this context is prima facie absurd. The
purpose of the wager process is precisely to determine whether the evidence in
my book is valid or not. This can only be decided--I feel ridiculous making
this point--if the evidence in my book is actually considered. I can’t require close reading or
attention, but I would hope that what I have to say will be fairly considered
in the spirit of the enterprise.
It is now over to you.
One panelists has agreed to review my data, and that is acceptable to me. If
the other affirms similarly, we can go ahead. If the other says flatly he will
NOT consider my published data then clearly I’d be a fool to continue.
Set it up now or call it quits.
Michael
8 December 2010 3:23:20
PM: Weiss to Egan & all: how long is
the submission?
From: “Larry” <larry@lweiss.net>
To: “Michael Egan” <drmichaelegan@comcast.net>
Cc: “Ward Elliott” <ward.elliott@claremontmckenna.edu>,
“Dale Johnson” <themommis@gmail.com>,
“Will Sharpe” <willdotsharpe@yahoo.co.uk>
Sent: Wednesday, December 8, 2010 3:23:20 PM
Subject: Egan c. Elliott & Valenza
Michael,
In order to enable the other parties and the panelists to consider your
demand to revise the rules, we need to know the following:
1. How long is the “Short
History of the Text” essay?
2. How long is the
General Introduction to the play in Vol I of your books?
3. Will your main submission repeat any of the material in these two
sources?
4. Do you assure us
that you will make no further demands to revise the
rules?
Larry
|
9 Dec 2010 12:40:31: Egan to Weiss: “I don’t care for your tone.
Your demand is profoundly offensive. I withdraw.” |
|
Dear Larry
I don’t care for your tone and your repeated
characterising of my concerns as a “demand to revise the rules.” This is not the case, though the fact that you describe them as
such is disturbing. You are clearly not an objective chair. What I’m concerned with
is getting clarity about and interpreting what I had understood was agreed. I have demanded nothing except
the reassurance that the evidence I intend to submit be actually considered. If
the rules preclude that, I decline to play. I’m not stupid.
Relatedly, I don’t like the implications of
your questions about length and repetition. These matters are or should be
irrelevant and I see nothing in the rules about them, If my data
are to be considered “too long” or “repetitious” does this then mean that they
will not be taken into account? That’s the clear implication.
I have also not
yet received an assurance from the second panelist that my submitted evidence
will actually be weighed. T
Finally, your demand that I cease to “demand
revision of the rules” is profoundly offensive and repeats your
pejorative characterisation of my legitimate concerns about the rules of
evidence and their interpretation.
Under the circumstances, I
withdraw. There is nothing here to encourage me to think that this is anything
but a rigged process with a predtermined outcome. I’m
sure Ward Elliott is already preparing a triumphalist statement that will
distort my concerns and the actual reasons for my withdrawal. He’s welcome, but
the attitude is part of the problem. This is just a legal game to him. The real issue here--did
Shakespeare write Richard II, Par One?--has been lost sight of.
My thesis is
slowly gaining acceptance as scholars take in the implications of the vast
quantity of data I’ve marshalled. The current issue of The Oxfordian, available
from the Shakespeare Oxford Society, contains a devastating rebuttal of
Mac Jackson’s demonstrably flawed thesis that the play dates from ca.
1610. These are all
fine points, I’m aware, but unfortunately that’s what the argument takes. I
have no confidence you and that the panelists are in any frame of mind to deal
with them.
I don’t need the ongoing
aggravation of dealing with this silly wager. Again I remind you of the
huge concessions I have already made, allowing you and Ward Elliott to set up a
panel of judges already in the other camp, as it were, and allowing Elliott his
thousand pounds if he wins while taking nothing for myself if I do. I
agreed to this because I am so confident of my case, but if it is not to be
weighed (not even in full, mark you, which would require reading my entire book
carefully and in detail) then I’m not going to tamely put my head in the noose you and Elliott have
prepared for me. Fortunately this not an actual trial, though frankly I’m
already feeling like the “accused.”
Finally, FYI, I am
attaching A Short History of the Text, which runs to approximately 30,000
words. Should you or the panelists actually get around to reading it you may
begin to appreciate the depth and subtlety of the issues and how carefully and
indeed scrupulously they need to be considered.
If at some point you wish to set up a genuinely fair and
objectively review of the case for Shakespeare and 1 Richard II I will gladly
participate. Until then, thanks but no thanks.
Sincerely
Dr Michael Egan
December 9, 2010 10:25:25 AM: Weiss to Egan: It
would be unfair to the other panelists to more than double the burden they
agreed to shoulder.
Subject: Re: Egan c. Elliott & Valenza
Dear Michael,
If you had read my last
post with a critical eye, you should have discerned that I was seeking a way to
proceed and still satisfy your demands. Perhaps you did observe that, but
prefer to withdraw nonetheless.
I have trouble understanding your assertion that you have not asked to revise
the rules. At the risk of exasperating everyone, including myself, I
again point out that the submission contract you agreed to, after extensive
negotiation with Ward Elliott, explicitly limits both parties to written
submission of no more than 20,000 words and provides that they could submit
additional supporting documentation of any length which the panel members are
free to consider or not in their discretion. Do you not regard that as a
rule relating to the length of submissions, which you say you do not see in the
rules? If your
insistence as a condition of participating further that the panel members be
required “carefully and indeed scrupulously” to study lengthy materials in
addition to you main submission, including a “short essay” which is one and a
half times the permitted length of the submission which the rules require us to
study, isn’t a request to deviate from the rules, I don’t know what is.
Indeed, in a prior post you acknowledged that “technically” I am correct about
what the rule says and that your demand that the panel be required to consider
more is contrary to the rule.
Many issues far more serious than yours are resolved daily by courts who read
much shorter submissions than the rules allow you. Lawyers will tell you
that lengthier submissions are counterproductive. The longer it takes to
make a point, the less persuasive the point is, and genuinely salient arguments
get lost in a morass or less significant detail.
Speaking for myself,
however, I am perfectly willing to consider your “short essay” and even review
your “general introduction” in addition to the play itself and your main
submission, even though it seems inevitable that these materials will
repeat each other. I would probably even read the “devastating rebuttal”
article in the current issue of The Oxfordian as well, of course, as the Mac
Jackson paper it responds to. (By the way, who wrote that article and who
edits The Oxfordian?) I will go further: I will consider published
articles you provide from the scholars who accept your thesis. I assume
that the author of the current Oxfordian article is one of them, as you imply,
even though your post does not name him or her. But I can afford to do
this as I have time on my hands and I am interested in the issue. I don’t know if the
other panel members are so privileged. They might have other
obligations which they cannot conveniently put aside to give the kind of
detailed consideration of so much material which you request. They signed
on to this project with full knowledge of the requirements on their time
imposed by your submission agreement. It would be unfair to them to more than double the burden
they agreed to shoulder.
Finally, I resent your
suggestions that the assessors are biased. I have not prejudged the issue
and I can assure you that no inquiries were made of the other panel members
about their views, if any, on the subject. Nor did Ward ask me whether or
not I had any impression about it.
By copy of this post, I am soliciting Ward Elliott’s input.
Sincerely,
Larry
On 12/9/2010 2:14 PM, Egan to Weiss: My A Short
History of the Text is NOT my initial submission
Your response exemplifies exactly what’s wrong with this
process. My A Short History of the Text is NOT my initial submission but was
simply included FYI as an example of the type of close and careful analysis my
case rests upon.
Dr Michael Egan
Dec 9, 2010 at 3:02 PM, Weiss to Egan: Are you
saying there is no need for us to read it?
Are you saying there is no need for us to read it, only
to look at it to see that you put a lot of work into this?
12/9/2010 1:28 PM: Johnson to all: A deal is a deal. Are we going to see the
evidence, or not?
Gentlemen, gentlemen ...
it’s clear this exercise is not going to go forward, since we’ve fallen to
bickering about “tones” and “biases” before we’ve even begun to hear the
arguments. Let me just offer this thought: A deal is a deal. The initial
agreement stipulated a limit to the amount of material to be considered, and, Professor Egan, you apparently
agreed to this amount. End of discussion.
Having said that, if all
of us concerned have no objection to reading more than the stipulated material,
I for one am willing to continue ... provided there’s an ending point in sight.
But please consider, Professor Egan -- and I suspect I may speak for all the
panelists here -- that although
we may admire the energy of your argument as well as the copious amount of work
you’ve put into it, these things will certainly have no bearing on our eventual
findings.
So ... are we going
to see the evidence, or not? -- Dale Johnson Tucker
12/15/2010.
Elliott to Weiss: “I’m back and
thinking about what to do. “
Dear Larry,
I’m back and thinking
about what to do. The short, low-budget option A is a simple
forfeit. My guess is that he will not be eager to pay up, the cost of
suing him for it would be more than the amount at issue, and that the
controversy will linger on with him maintaining that he was treated unfairly.
We do have enough closure, and enough of a record, to make our promised short
report to SHAKSPER.
A longer option B would to go ahead with the judgment on
the merits with what we have, perhaps accompanied by an invitation to him to
present his case as originally agreed to, with the panelists reading as much or
little of it as they thought necessary to come to a fair judgment. I wouldn’t be above writing a short case statement for the
negative, probably no more than 10-20 pages, with a supplement of articles by
David Lake and MacDonald Jackson. These go into quite a bit of detail.
Egan’s side might be covered by his short history of the text, which I
gather he has sent to you and the other panelists, while insisting that it is
not his case statement. Could you send it to me for a look? He will
either offer more or denounce the process as biased and unfair and stay in his
present posture of having stomped out. Either way would be OK if
panelists don’t have to read every word. I’m in no rush to buy his book, but I
do have notes on the hundreds of pages he posted on his website but took down
when the book was published. The gist of them is that there are 1,600
supposedly unique resemblances between Woodstock and Shakespeare, which,
in aggregate make an irrefutable case that Shakespeare wrote it. The gist
of our case is that the resemblances are not unique, that Woodstock
flunks at least 22 of our tests, 20 more than the farthest outlier in our
Shakespeare baseline, and that the discrepancies far outweigh the resemblances.
The argument for considering the longer option is that you’ve
gone to the trouble of finding a qualified, willing panel; it would be nice to
give them a shot at settling the case on the merits; and that it would get the
question more settled than it would by Egan’s procedural breaches, flagrant
though they are.
The argument against it
is that his case looks very much like a 2,000-page letter from Nigeria,
facially not worth the trouble of reviewing on the merits, far less absorbing
the attendant flack from him; that he would not accept the outcome; and that it
would still be taken as an open question by Shakespeare buffs who don’t want to
take the time to go through the details themselves. There are many such,
who will simply split the difference. Too bad.
As with many bets, my
original idea of offering the bet to Sean Lawrence, was an attempt to settle an
otherwise-endless course of wrangling over a question to which an objective
answer could be had by observation and testing with simple, express,
cut-and-dried rules. It was a horserace, and our methods had a terrific
track record. Sean wisely declined, and the controversy was settled and
over.
Egan in 2005 did not
want a horserace but a beauty contest, with unlimited, standardless discussion
of his candidate, by an unpaid panel expected to buy his book and read all 2000
pages. We tried to arrange something more reasonable and less burdensome
on the panel; he agreed to its first stages, but eventually backed out,
announcing that for him the question was closed, and slinging mud at almost
every step.
It seems to me that he
has done essentially the same thing this year, demanding a bet, agreeing to
terms to make it reasonable to the panelists, then backing out and slinging mud
at all involved.
Thanks for your
willingness to take this on, not once but twice, and my apologies for incurring
an even bigger mess of a situation than last time. There’s a
lesson. Bets on horse races are much better for settling things than bets
on beauty contests. But, having set one up, I wouldn’t mind seeing if we
have enough evidence to proceed with the beauty contest.
Best regards,
Ward
2/10/2011. Elliott to Weiss, Egan, panelists: Respondents’
Brief and attachments: “We would like to go ahead with the hearing this time
and ask for a judgment on the merits.”
From: "Ward Elliott" <ward.elliott@claremontmckenna.edu>
To: larry@lweiss.net,
"Michael Egan" <drmichaelegan@comcast.net>, themommis@gmail.com, willdotsharpe@yahoo.co.uk
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2011 8:19:37 PM
Subject: Respondents' Brief and Supporting material, Egan v. Elliott and
Valenza
To: Larry Weiss, Dale Johnson Tucker, Will Sharpe, and Michael Egan
Dear All,
I’m attaching our respondent’s brief, supporting timeline, and two further supplemental appendices for Egan v. Elliott and Valenza. We are asking the panel to defer judgment on what seems to us the easy question whether Mr. Egan has breached his agreement and rule for now on the merits whether it thinks Woodstock is irrefutably Shakespeare’s. Mr. Egan has many times demanded such a ruling, Larry Weiss has twice set up a fair hearing process for it, and Mr. Egan has both times backed out at the last minute. We would like to go ahead with the hearing this time and ask for a judgment on the merits.
We would also like again to invite Mr. Egan to submit a brief and whatever supporting material he thinks appropriate, with suitable submission deadlines, and consistent with his agreement that the panelists may read as much or as little of it as they think is necessary to arrive at a fair assessment of the case. He has already distributed or posted two of the three documents he said he needed, his 80-page Short History of the Text, and his edition of Woodstock. The third document is his general introduction. He has published and posted part of that on his Oxfordian web page, http://shakespeare-oxford.com/wp-content/oxfordian/Egan-Rowley.pdf He has posted a 4-page summary of his position on SHAKSPER, see Timeline, 13-16, and another brief statement in a letter to the Times Literary Supplement, Timeline, 20-21. We have scanned most of his General Introduction to pdf, and would be willing, with his written permission, to send them to the panel. He has the right, of course, to withhold his permission, but not, we believe, the right to deny it and at the same time claim that the panel ignored his evidence. We would think a week would be a reasonable time for him to decide on giving us permission to send our scan to the panel, and maybe six weeks to write his brief, which I believe he says he has written already. That’s how long it has taken for us to write ours. We’re flexible on these deadlines, but hopeful that the process will not be dragged on indefinitely.
If Mr. Egan refuses this invitation, he should forfeit whatever standing he might otherwise have had to object to our going ahead with the hearing he asked for, most recently in his withdrawal letter of December 9 (Timeline, 41), “If at some point you wish to set up a genuinely fair and objectively [sic] review of the case for Shakespeare and 1 Richard II I will gladly participate.” We think he has already posted or distributed enough to give his side of the case, certainly many more pages than we plan to submit, even including all our supporting material. Should he prefer to withhold the rest of his case, it should not bar us from presenting ours. In any case, we again invite him to have his say, on the terms he agreed to in October, and hope that it will help get him, and us, a resolution of the question he has so long and urgently demanded to have brought before an impartial panel.
2/13/2011. Egan to Weiss: “Truths of this sort are not
determined by legalistic processes, only scientific ones.” “I will not participate in a sham process
whose outcome implies that all the data were reviewed when in fact they were
not.”
On 2/13/2011 11:37 AM, Michael Egan wrote:
First, I don't care for the tone of Elliott's letter, as usual. It is contenious, misleading, dishonest and full of not-so-artfully constructed pitfalls. None of this is appropriate. We are talking about an academic matter of some interest to a small percentage of scholars. Truths of this sort are not determined by legalistic processes, only scientific ones, and to those I dedicate my identification of Shakespeare as the author of 1 Richard II. Like Gallileo, I simply invite a sceptical world to look through my telescope. If Elliott wishes to make a public song and dance of our recent history so as to prove himself "right" in some PR sense, he's welcome. Go for it, Ward.
Second, I have already and repeatedly made the terms for my participation clear. I want my day in court. I want to present my evidence in the sequence of my choice and answer any questions the panelists may have. The panelists must agree to fairly review all the evidence I offer, and show in their written judgment that they have in fact done so. If their decision after reviewing everything is that I have failed to make my case, so be it. However, I will not participate in a sham process whose outcome implies that all the data were reviewed when in fact they were not. I realise I cannot compel the panelists to read and objectively evaluate, but I'm willing to accept their assurances that they will do so. Look through my telescope gentlemen and ladies and tell me what you see!
Finally, contrary to Elliott's insinuation, the documents I have so far made available are not sufficient to render a fair judgment. I refuse all citation or suggestion that I have agreed to any review process thus far. I have not and will not until both the letter and the spirit of the above are honored.
Dr Michael Egan
2/13-14/2011. Weiss to Egan to Weiss: Weiss: “Kindly
provide us with a definitive list of all the materials which you insist on our
reviewing in order to produce a result which you accept.” Egan responses (in red): “It’s sufficient.” “My position
is clear, I believe. Take it or leave it.”
----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry" <larry@lweiss.net>
To: "Michael Egan" <drmichaelegan@comcast.net>
Cc: "Ward Elliott" <ward.elliott@claremontmckenna.edu>,
"Opus 111" <Opus_111@msn.com>, themommis@gmail.com,
willdotsharpe@yahoo.co.uk
Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2011 10:34:57 AM
Subject: Re: Respondents' Brief and Supporting material, Egan v. Elliott and
Valenza
Michael,
Kindly provide us with a
definitive list of all the materials which you insist on our reviewing in order
to produce a result which you accept. In your email of December 2,
you said that it would be sufficient if we agreed to read, in addition to your
statement provided specially for this proceeding, your text of the Woodstock
play, the general introduction in Volume 1 of your set of books and the
"Short History of the Text" in Volume 3. Is this still
sufficient, or do you want to add more?
It's sufficient
Do you agree to bear the burden and cost of providing those materials to
all the members of the panel and to Prof. Elliott? It seems to me that
the submission agreement clearly requires that. Surely, you do not take
the position that the panel members are required not only to devote a huge amount
of time and effort to the process but to pay the costs of obtaining the
materials as well. If you agree to this, please let us know when all the
materials can be expected.
Of course I'll bear the costs of providing copies of
my books to the panel. Prof Elliott is on his own. The publishers generally
take about two weeks.
I note that you have now added another requirement to the
obligations imposed on the panel members by the submission agreement:
That the written judgment "show" that the panel has reviewed your
material. What do you contend is needful to make such a showing? It
is customary for an opinion to describe the arguments and perhaps to summarize
the most salient ones, and I would expect that to be done in this case.
Would that be sufficient?
It's sufficient
Finally, I am confused and not a little disturbed by the statement in the last
paragraph of you email below that you have not "agreed to any review
process thus far." Could you kindly explain the meaning of your
email of October 31, 2010 in response to Ward Elliott's email of the same date
setting out the terms of the submission and asking it they
were"OK" Your response consists of the single word
"Agreed"; which does not seem ambiguous.
I thought I had since made it plain that I was withdrawing. Please check your back emails. In fact I believe the issue was dead and quite surprised at the recent flurry of emails. However, in their light and despite your and Elliott's menacing legalisms, I'm willing to renew negotiations. I don't fear the contest, I just don't like the way you interpret its terms. My position is clear, I believe. Take it or leave it.
2/14/2011. Weiss to all: amended rules of engagement.
Just to make sure I
have a correct understanding of the entire procedure being proposed:
Prof. Egan agrees to supply to all the members of the panel a complete set of
his books containing the three portions he insists that we review (his text of
the Woodstock play, or Richard II, Part 1; his General Introduction and
his essay entitled"A Short History of the Text"). He will submit
these to the panel members free of charge, but he is not willing to supply a
free set of the books to Prof. Elliott, which does not appear fair as Elliott
& Valenza should be able to respond to Egan's entire submission, and
"due process" in every other context of which I am aware requires the
party who must answer a contention to be served with the contention.
Indeed, I would feel uncomfortable relying on an ex parte argument, i.e.,
one which Prof. Elliott is not afforded an opportunity to answer unless he is
prepared to pay for it. I hope Prof. Egan will reconsider not providing
Prof. Elliott with a free copy of the entire submission and put to rest a
possible objection that the procedure is not fair to the other side.
Nonetheless, I solicit Prof. Egan's views on this.
Egan may also submit a "brief" at about the time that the other
materials are provided. Elliott & Valenza may then submit a response
of no more than 20,000 words plus whatever other materials they feel would be
helpful for the panel to review. These could be the materials they have
already submitted.
If Egan wishes, he may submit a reply to Elliott & Valenza's
submission. The reply may be of such length that the total length of his
initial brief and reply does not exceed 20,000 words.
After the reply, if any, the panel will review all the submitted materials and
decide the question presented. Their determination will be expressed in
an opinion which should describe the arguments of the parties.
In all other respects, the terms of the submission agreement agreed in the
exchange of emails between the parties of October 31, 2010, are confirmed to
the extent that they are not inconsistent with the foregoing.
All that we need to go forward now are the following:
1. Prof. Egan's agreement to provide a full copy of his submission to
Ward Elliott or Prof. Elliott's agreement that he does not insist on this.
2. The consent of both sides to the revised procedure set forth above.
3. One of the following: (a) Will Sharpe's revocation of his withdrawal;
or (b) the selection, in accordance with the process used previously, of a
replacement panel member; or (c) the consent of both sides to proceed with only
two panelists. These alternatives are set out in the order of my own
preference.
L. Weiss
2/14/2011. Elliott to all: The revised terms of
engagement are fine with us.
Prof. Egan doesn’t have to send us his books. I’ve reviewed his arguments on his webpage in 2005, and Volumes 1 and 3 of his 1R2 this year. I would not feel deprived if I don’t have to go through them again. The revised terms of engagement are fine with us. I hope Will Sharpe will reconsider; otherwise, both of the backup variants for the panels, recruit one more or go with two, are OK with us.
Yours,
Ward Elliott