2004

EEBO in Undergraduate Studies Essay Contest

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.0431  Monday, 16 February 2004

From:           Shawn Martin <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 13 Feb 2004 11:17:32 -0500
Subject:        EEBO in Undergraduate Studies Essay Contest

  [apologies for cross posting]

EEBO in Undergraduate Studies Essay Contest
Deadline: 10-31-2004
Prize:  Grand Prize: $1,000
        First Prize: $750
        Second Prize: $500
        2 Honorable Mentions: $200

The EEBO in Undergraduate Studies Essay Competition Committee is seeking
undergraduate research papers that rely on research conducted via the
Early English Books Online collection of primary texts. Essays may
reflect the approach of any number of academic disciplines history,
literary studies, philosophy, anthropology, religious studies, and more
or they may be interdisciplinary in nature. The chief requirement is
that each paper draws substantial evidence from the works included in EEBO.

EEBO will contain page images of 125,000 books listed in the Pollard and
Redgrave, Wing, and Thomason Tracts catalogs. With its substantial
coverage of printed material found in England between 1473 and 1700,
EEBO provides rich research possibilities for students interested in a
wide variety of topics in early modern studies.

For more information about the Undergraduate essay contest, please view
http://www.lib.umich.edu/tcp/eebo/edu/edu_essay.html.  For more
information about the project, please visit
http://www.lib.umich.edu/tcp/eebo/

You can also contact Shawn Martin, Project Outreach Librarian by e-mail
at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or by phone at (734) 936-5611

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.

Cordelia: Loss of Insolence (Studies in the

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.0430  Friday, 13 February 2004

From:           Bob Marks <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 13 Feb 2004 01:35:21 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 15.0416 Cordelia: Loss of Insolence (Studies in the
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.0416 Cordelia: Loss of Insolence (Studies in the
Humanities)

David Evett writes concerning Oswald:

"I'm also less inclined than Graham to see Kent's treatment of Oswald as
thuggish, at least not in early modern terms; we know from 2H6 and RJ,
among other sources, about the physical violence by which servants
acted out the hostility of their masters.  There seems a fair
presumption that Oswald is younger than Kent; I suppose him to be a
gentleman (most likely a younger son) and therefore  likely to have had
training in arms (a surmise supported by his subsequent attempt to
capture Gloucester at sword's point), sol the struggle between them need
not be egregiously uneven."

I was interested to read that David supposes Oswald to be a young
gentleman with some training in arms. King James I thought it
appropriate to have such young lords at court. Oswald's counterpart in
the 1605 LEIR seems to be the bungling messenger, Skalliger, who defects
from the service of Leir to Gonorill.

In "Lear" we do not know Oswald's name until some time after we first
meet him.  And when he first comes on stage it is twice at Lear's call
for his Fool.

Whatever training in arms he has had, however, seems to have been lost
on him, for not only is he ineffective against old man Kent, but he dies
with a sword drawn against an old blind man at the hands of Edgar who
only has a ballow or peasant's stick.

I believe that the original audience could have identified Oswald as
"the Fool that ran away" "the wise man" who flies away, "the knave
[who]turns [out to be the] Fool that runs away" 2.4.75-82 leaving an
opening for Cordelia to wear the motley - an absolute disguise.
For those interested I have written much more on Oswald's identity in a
chapter "The Fool that Runs Away" of my book which is now online.

http://users.bigpond.net.au/catchus/chapter%20vii.html

Bob Marks
Sydney

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.

Henry V Question

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.0428  Friday, 13 February 2004

From:           John Briggs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 12 Feb 2004 20:11:25 -0000
Subject: 15.0418 Henry V Question
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.0418 Henry V Question

Dominica Borg wrote:

 >His mother, Phillippa of Hainault, was not Dutch

Actually, her father, William I, Count of Hainaut, was also William III,
Count of Holland.

John Briggs

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.

More on "In Search of Shakespeare"

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.0429  Friday, 13 February 2004

From:           John Reed <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 12 Feb 2004 23:01:01 -0800
Subject:        Reply to In Search of Shakespeare

Being moved to add a small particle of idiosyncratia to this discussion,
I'll start by admitting I watched part of this series the other night.
I wasn't too interested in it, though, being occupied with posting my
pictures of Cliveden to Webshots.  I didn't particularly like it; it was
by no means compelling enough to distract me into actually watching it,
although I did notice the part Dr. Taylor mentioned about the play "as
it was actually performed" (or however they put it) and then seeing a
black actor on the stage.  I'm not sure which play was being performed
at that point, but it was definitely not Othello, and it was a little
confusing, as I started turning it over in my mind: just what is the
authentic detail being shown here, did they have black actors then? (I
always perk-up when something purports to be the way it was done in
ancient times).

I didn't like it, but I wasn't full of revulsion at it, either.  It just
seemed thin.  I'm not sure, but it looked like they shot it on
videotape, which is never a good sign (subjectively speaking).  I had
the impression they probably had done a good deal of thinking about what
kind of audience they were trying to reach, and then went out and tried
to adjust their presentation to that hypothetical audience as well as
they could.  It had what seemed to be a dose of dramatic conflict,
including violent conflict, not exactly depicted but nevertheless part
of the story they were showing and telling.  It sort of reminded me of
the style of adaptation suffered (or enjoyed) by the movie made out of
The Lord of the Rings in that respect (a lot of conflict selected and
frequent violence).  Maybe I'm not part of that audience.  Almost
assuredly not, as hardly anything I see on television these days
interests me, or in the theater/cinema either, certainly not enactments
of plays written by Shakespeare.  Except for the Rose Bowl; I liked
watching that.  The Rose Bowl is much better than bear baiting probably was.

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.

Hamlet Survey?

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.0427  Friday, 13 February 2004

From:           David Evett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 12 Feb 2004 19:37:40 -0500
Subject: 15.0414 Hamlet Survey?
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.0414 Hamlet Survey?

 >A witty wag once said that there are two kinds of tests:
 >one that assesses factual knowledge ("cow") and one the ability to write
 >("bull").  Pure bull without cow (e.g., a review of a controversial book
 >written by an able writer who knows not what he is talking about, but
 >writes convincingly to the uninformed), nevertheless is in some sense
 >(not the moral sense) admirable but insufficient and often highly
 >misleading.

The "witty wag" invoked by David Cohen was Bill Perry, head of the
Bureau of Study Counsel (the academic advising service) at Harvard in
the 50s and 60s.  He laid out the principle in an essay, part of a
collection entitled *Examining at Harvard College*(1963).  Perry wrote
of a student who fell into conversation with a roommate outside the
latter's classroom, followed him into the room to complete a point,
discovered that the class (pre-Civil War American history, I think) was
about to write an essay exam, on an impulse sat down and responded to
the questions, and earned a B-; when the exploit came to the attention
of another student who had attended all the lectures and studied hard
but only made C, a formal complaint was made.

The essay explores a problem familiar to anybody who tries to grade
essay exams fairly--and does not, as best I can remember, make such a
black-and-white moral distinction between knowledge and persiflage as
Cohen seems to endorse.  It was not a matter of "knows not"; the student
knew something about American history, and something about American
government, and something about reasoning and writing, and was able to
construct logically and rhetorically if not evidentially persuasive
arguments on these bases;  but  he "does not know as much as they
should" before they pretend to authoritate on this subject.

The gender implications of Perry's terms, and especially the notion that
"bull" is somehow superior to "cow" are irremediably sexist; I can only
plead the willful ignorance (read "stupidity") of 1963.

My copy, unfortunately, went missing when I retired and moved out of my
office.  So I can't recover all the subtleties of the argument.  And I
learn, to my distress, that at Harvard itself this contribution to
American learning has been consigned to the Repository, a kind of
scholarly limbo somewhere across the Charles (the B-School side!!!), so
I will have to wait several days to see it again.   Anyway, Perry was a
charming, witty, and accomplished guy, whose other work included a
translation of the Iliad.  There's a nice memoir at this site:

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/1999/05.27/mm.perry.html

Bullishly,
David Evett

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.