![]() |
||||||
|
SHAKSPER 2000: Re: A Shrew
From: Hardy M. Cook (editor@ws.bowiestate.edu) Date: 06/20/00
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.1244 Tuesday, 20 June 2000. From: Mike Jensen <mjensen@mayfieldpub.com> Date: Monday, 19 Jun 2000 08:34:41 -0700 Subject: Re: A Shrew Comment: SHK 11.1224 Re: A Shrew Stephen Miller wrote: > Though Mike Jensen cited Laurie Maguire as a caution against accepting > memorial reconstruction in A Shrew; she classifies it 'Part MR' in > SHAKESPEAREAN SUSPECT TEXTS. I said her book convinced me I should be very slow to assume memorial reconstruction. I was not saying I thought Shrew as not one, or that Maguire said Shrew was not. Mine was a general comment. My mind is not at all made up about the nature of this text, except that it seems likely to have some obscure connection to Shakespeare's text. Stephen's wording is such that I can't tell of he thinks I needed correction, or if he was making a general comment of his own. I usually need correction, but not this time. I very much appreciate his suggestion that "A Shrew represents a deliberate adaptation of The Shrew. " It is an idea I have been considering. I gave serous consideration to purchasing his edition of A Shrew a couple of weeks back, but alas, the price would bust my modest budget. Is a paperback forthcoming? The facsimile I have is impossible to read on some pages because of the bleed through. All the best, Mike Jensen
|
|
|||||