Content deleted Content added
Chiscotheque (talk | contribs) |
Chiscotheque (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 46:
In 2006 [[Michael Egan (author)|Michael Egan]] offered a case for Shakespeare's authorship of the play in a four volume (2100-page) analysis.<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Egan |first1=Michael |year=2006 |title=The Tragedy of Richard II: A Newly Authenticated Play by William Shakespeare |publisher=Edwin Mellen Press |isbn=0-7734-6082-9 |postscript=<!--None-->}}</ref> His evidence consists for the most part in what he suggests are thousands of verbal parallels.<ref name="entertainment.timesonline.co.uk">{{cite news |date=26 March 2008 |url=http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/the_tls/tls_letters/article3627704.ece |work=The Times |location=London |title=Last weeks letters |accessdate=2010-05-25}}</ref> Egan claimed that [[Ian Robinson (author)|Ian Robinson]] supported the attribution of the play to Shakespeare in a 1988 publication, ''Richard II and Woodstock''.<ref>[http://books.google.ca/books/about/Richard_II_and_Woodstock.html?id=0UMgAQAAIAAJ&redir_esc=y Robinson, Ian, ''Richard II and Woodstock'', Brynmill Press, 1988] Retrieved 29 November 2013.</ref> but he cited no other adherents to this view. [[Ward Elliott]] reported that he had performed [[Stylometry|stylometric]] analysis on the manuscript's text which he claimed discounts Egan's attribution.<ref>[http://www.shaksper.net/archives/2005/1358.html SHAKSPER 2005: Wager<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> In a review of Egan's treatise for the ''Times Literary Supplement'', [[Bart Van Es]] also challenged Egan's attribution, arguing that the verbal links he had found were often tenuous. Egan wagered ₤1,000 that he could prove "by clear, convincing and irrefutable evidence" that Shakespeare wrote the play. In 2011, a panel of three independent Shakespeare scholars concluded that he had not done so, and that the play was not Shakespearean.<ref>http://shaksper.net/archive/2011/304-august/28082-thomas-of-woodstock; see, also, "Poor Richards," SHK 25.080 Sunday, 16 February 2014</ref>
An argument against Shakespeare's authorship is the fact that the character of [[Henry Green (politician)|Sir Henry Green]] is killed fighting in Act V of ''Thomas of Woodstock'', yet is alive again at the beginning of ''Richard II'' until his execution is ordered by [[Henry IV of England|Bolingbroke]] in Act III. There is no instance of a character dying twice in the validated works of Shakespeare.{{citation needed|date=November 2013}}There are however in Shakespeare inconsistencies, such as the claim at the end of [[Henry IV, Part 2]] that [[Falstaff]] will be seen again in
==Date==
| |||