“And is there a difference between the various years?” asked Hjalmer Ekdal. The answer is undoubtedly yes. In spite of the really alarming growth in Shakespearian studies—there is a book or article on Shakespeare for every day of the year—every year has a characteristic flavour. In Shakespeare Survey, 1, Miss Ellis-Fermor observed “the contemplation of Shakespeare as an artist and as a poet”, and she looked for a crucial change in the direction of criticism within the next few years. The next year she laid the emphasis upon the development of Shakespeare’s art and thought, and in Shakespeare Survey, 3 she said:

The critical studies of 1951 bear out these views. Shakespeare the artist and poet is the subject of the majority of works, and Shakespeare is interpreted in terms of speech and style. The language of the plays looks like being the central interest for some years to come. As in the 1920's Shakespearian study depended upon an increased awareness of the power of theatrical conditions, and in the 193 o's was concerned chiefly with problems of imagery, so the writers of to-day are instinctively looking for poetic and dramatic patterns, but with a closer sense than the critics of the 193 o's employed of the way in which these were shaped by Elizabethan habits of thought and of writing.