The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.1244 Tuesday, 20 June 2000.
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,