• Next message: Ken Steele: "*Prospero's Books*"
• Previous message: Ken Steele: "Blayney's Review of Otness's *Census*"
• Next in thread: Ken Steele: "1991 Scholarship in Retrospect"
• Maybe reply: Ken Steele: "1991 Scholarship in Retrospect"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ]

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 2, No. 324. Friday, 13 Dec 1991.
 
 
From: 		Ken Steele <ksteele@epas.utoronto.ca>
Subject: 	1991 Scholarship Retrospective
Date: 		Fri, 13 Dec 91 16:40:47 EST
 
 
Dear Fellow SHAKSPEReans;
 
As we approach the end of 1991, I'm wondering what you think were the
most interesting, revolutionary, or important works of Shakespearean
scholarship or criticism published this year.  Obviously our
impressions will still be too fresh to reach any fully objective,
time-proven conclusions, but I also hope we can think about it without
turning the subject into some sort of popularity contest.
 
One theory which springs to mind is Winifred L. Frazer's argument
that "ne" in Henslowe's *Diary* might actually mean "Newington Butts"
rather than "New" (*Notes & Queries* 38:1 March 1991, 34-5).  This
short item makes it difficult to look at the *Diary* in quite the same way.
 
The other is Donald Foster's work on "Reconstructing Shakespeare" in
the *Shakespeare Newsletter*.  His argument that the parts Shakespeare
memorized for performance might influence the plays he wrote at that
time or later seems irresistible.
 
Are there any other nominations?  What should we be *sure* not to miss
from this year's mountain of criticism?
 
						Ken Steele
						University of Toronto
 
						

• Next message: Ken Steele: "*Prospero's Books*"
• Previous message: Ken Steele: "Blayney's Review of Otness's *Census*"
• Next in thread: Ken Steele: "1991 Scholarship in Retrospect"
• Maybe reply: Ken Steele: "1991 Scholarship in Retrospect"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ]