In 2006 Michael Egan offered a case for Shakespeare's authorship of the play in a four volume (2100-page) variorum edition, which includes a book-length authorship analysis. His evidence consists for the most part in what he suggests are thousands of verbal parallels. Egan claimed that Ian Robinson supported the attribution of the play to Shakespeare in a 1988 publication, "Richard II and Woodstock". but he cited no other adherents to this view. Ward Elliott reported that he had performed stylometric analysis on the manuscript's text which he claimed discounts Egan's attribution. 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.