 |
 |
Thanks for the reply, Cliff. My sense of the matter is that there is an increasing degree of skepticism that all of these works must be attributed to a single individual. They might point to a convergence of metrical, stylistic, lexical, structural, and thematic traits produced by several hands. I think I'm just going to caution my colleague and advise him to use the old dodge: "a play often attributed to the so-called 'York Realist'." Steve ________________________________________ From: REED-L: Records of Early English Drama Discussion [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Clifford O Davidson [clifford.davidson@WMICHU] Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2012 2:39 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: York Master? Steve, It is a problem that has been considered by Paul Johnston in his contribution to my TEAMS edition of the York plays. His results are tentative, and he hopes eventually to do a book on the topic. I personally after editing the plays suspect a number of hands involved rather than a single "York Master," but I don't have the linguistic expertise that Paul has. Cliff ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Stephen K Wright" <[log in to unmask]> > To: [log in to unmask] > Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 4:27:19 PM > Subject: York Master? > > Dear Reedlers: > > I would like to know more about the current state of thinking about > the existence of the so-called "York Master"? I know that Richard > Beadle felt that a reconsideration was in order, but I am not sure > as to what the current state of the discussion is. Could someone > point me to the latest literature on the topic? > > Thanks in advance, > > Steve Wright > Dept of English / CUA > Washington, DC 2006 >