2006

Dedications to Printed Plays--

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0552  Monday, 12 June 2006

[1] 	From: 	Matthew Steggle <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Friday, 9 Jun 2006 10:54:19 +0100
	Subj: 	Dedications to printed plays

[2] 	From: 	Bill Lloyd <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Friday, 9 Jun 2006 13:08:03 EDT
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 17.0546 Dedications to Printed Plays--


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Matthew Steggle <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Friday, 9 Jun 2006 10:54:19 +0100
Subject: 	Dedications to printed plays

For Robin Hamilton -

Try David M. Bergeron, _Textual Patronage in English Drama, 1570-1640_ 
(Ashgate, 2006), 215-28, who gives an interesting chronological list of 
dozens of printed play dedications in that period.  His first named 
dedicatee is Lady Cheynie of Toddington, dedicatee of an Italian play 
translated by Henry Cheeke and printed in 1573.  Even if you restrict 
the category to plays from the English professional stage, there are 
still plenty of examples on Bergeron's list, above all, Jonson's 1616 
Works with its numerous dedications.  So, surprisingly, it's more common 
than one might think.

- Matt

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Bill Lloyd <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Friday, 9 Jun 2006 13:08:03 EDT
Subject: 17.0546 Dedications to Printed Plays--
Comment: 	Re: SHK 17.0546 Dedications to Printed Plays--

 >When is the printed text of an individual play first dedicated to an
 >eminent personage?

I don't know if these are the earliest, but they're early-ish:

In 1575 George Gascoigne dedicated his play The Glass of Government to 
Sir Owen Hopton, knight, "hir Majesties Lieutenant in hir tower of 
London".  Not sure if this is eminent enough.

Sometime before his death in 1577, Gascoigne seems to have presented his 
'Work' to the Queen, in person. This is perhaps the *Hundreth Sundry 
Flowers* of 1573 or its 1575 revision *The Posies of George Gascoigne*, 
which included a novel, two plays, a masque, and verse. However as far 
as I can tell, the printed texts do not contain dedications to 
eminences. Gascoigne can be seen presenting his Work to the Queen at 
http://www.luminarium.org/renlit/gascbib.htm.

By the way, I've seen it said that Samuel Daniel's *Certain Small 
Workes* of 1607 (which along with much verse includes three plays) 
trumps Jonson's 1616 *Workes* as the first 'collected plays' in English. 
Gascoigne would seem to trump Daniel.

Bill Lloyd

_______________________________________________________________
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.

The Masks of Anthony and Cleopatra

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0551  Monday, 12 June 2006

From: 		Mary Rosenberg <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Monday, 12 Jun 2006 09:43:44 -0700
Subject: 	The Masks of Anthony and Cleopatra

June 2006

Dear SHAKSPERIANS,

I thought you might be interested to know that the fifth and last of 
Marvin Rosenberg's Masks books - "The Masks of Anthony and Cleopatra" - 
came out (posthumously) last month. It can be ordered through 
www.addall.com or www.abebooks.com or by communicating direct with the 
publisher, Associated University Presses, 2010 Eastpark Boulevard, 
Cranbury, New Jersey 08512.

There may be a discount for ordering before the end of June - worth asking!

Mary Rosenberg

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Early Modern Literary Studies (12.1)

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0549  Monday, 12 June 2006

From: 		Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Sunday, 11 Jun 2006 19:52:46 -0700
Subject: 	Early Modern Literary Studies (12.1)

The latest issue of Early Modern Literary Studies (12.1) is now 
available online at http://purl.oclc.org/emls/emlshome.html

The table of contents follows, below.  EMLS invites contributions of 
critical essays on literary topics and of interdisciplinary studies 
which centre on literature and literary culture in English during the 
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Contributions, including critical 
essays and studies (which should be accompanied by a 250 word abstract), 
bibliographies, notices, letters, and other materials, may be submitted 
to the Editor by email at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or by regular mail to Dr 
Matthew Steggle, Early Modern Literary Studies, School of Cultural 
Studies, Sheffield Hallam University, Collegiate Crescent Campus, 
Sheffield, S10 2BP, U.K.

Articles:

Virtual Scholarship: Navigating Early Modern Studies on the World Wide 
Web. [1] Kevin Curran, McGill University.

 From the ridiculous to the sublime: Ovidian and Neoplatonic registers 
in A Midsummer Night's Dream. [2] Sarah Carter, Warwick University.

Love, Death and Resurrection in Tragicomedies by Seventeenth-Century 
English Women Dramatists. [3] Margu


CFP: Teen Shakespeare Adaptations

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0550  Monday, 12 June 2006

From: 		Michael Friedman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Monday, 12 Jun 2006 14:06:58 -0400
Subject: 	CFP: Teen Shakespeare Adaptations

Call for Essays

Shakespeare Bulletin - Special Issue

Shakespearean Screen Adaptations for the Teen Market

Shakespeare Bulletin, a journal of performance criticism and scholarship 
incorporating the Shakespeare on Film Newsletter, announces a special 
issue devoted to Shakespearean Screen Adaptations for the Teen Market. 
Essays should address questions concerning the transformation of 
Shakespeare's plays from their textual incarnations to cinematic and 
video renderings designed for teenage audiences.  Subjects that might be 
addressed in such essays include:

* The definition of a Shakespearean teen film adaptation
* Recent trends in Shakespearean films aimed at teenagers
* The differences between a teen film version, an adaptation, and a spinoff
* The effects of teen film conventions on Shakespearean film adaptations
* The language of Shakespearean film adaptations intended for the teen 
market
* Shakespearean teen film adaptations and the DVD as a viewing medium
* Shakespearean adaptations designed for teen TV audiences
* Strategies for marketing Shakespearean film adaptations to teenage 
viewers
* The social and historical context of Shakespearean film adaptations 
for teens
* The use of Shakespearean film adaptations in the high school or 
college classroom

Essays may explore these subjects in a theoretical manner, or they may 
focus attention on one or more films (such as Romeo + Juliet, 10 Things 
I Hate about You, or She's the Man) that illuminate some aspect of these 
issues.  Documentation of sources in such essays should conform to the 
most recent edition of the MLA Style Manual.  Contributions should be 
sent in electronic form (Word format) by December 15, 2006 to the 
issue's special editor, Michael Friedman, at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

Michael D. Friedman
University of Scranton
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

_______________________________________________________________
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.

The Big Question

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0548  Thursday, 8 June 2006

[1] 	From: 	Donald Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Wednesday, 7 Jun 2006 09:57:31 -0500
	Subj: 	RE: SHK 17.0540 The Big Question

[2] 	From: 	Terence Hawkes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Wednesday, 7 Jun 2006 17:17:40 +0100
	Subj: 	The Big Question


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Donald Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Wednesday, 7 Jun 2006 09:57:31 -0500
Subject: 17.0540 The Big Question
Comment: 	RE: SHK 17.0540 The Big Question

Tony Burton writes: "I'd like to propose that we make a distinction 
between a writer whose work is deeply moral and one who is a moralist. 
I find something inescapably didactic and shallow in the notion of a 
Moralist."

I'm glad he's dragged this out into the light of day. If the term 
"moralist" is used to mean a writer who is "inescapably didactic and 
shallow," then we are not likely to want such a term applied to the IB. 
  If we use the term to mean a writer who writes within (and in reaction 
to) some kind of moral context then he could hardly be anything else. 
Even a psychopath exists in a moral context, though its contents may 
mean nothing to him.

Accepting the latter idea (whether we apply the term "moralist" to it or 
not) we can try to figure out just what the moral content or conflict is 
in a given play. Here our knowledge of the author's whole body of work, 
important critical commentaries, and the history of his time should 
help. Also helpful would be some knowledge of our own moral precepts, 
remembering that what we find in Shakespeare is largely what we are 
looking for in him, that is, what we ourselves believe.

We have been through many of these before (as, for example, if A spits 
on B and calls him nasty names, is B therefore justified in trying to 
have A judicially murdered?). As long as we make clear to ourselves 
individually and collectively what our moral context is, we can argue 
about it quite happily. What screws it up is usually confusing a 
conflict of moral contexts for a conflict of judgments within a given 
context.

In the example cited, within my moral context, no amount of spitting and 
name-calling justifies murder, but others have different contexts and 
thus disagree.

Cheers,
don

P.S. "Didactic" is a troubling word as a pejorative. Why should it be 
bad or inferior as a quality of writing? We clearly haven't gotten to 
the bottom (shallow or otherwise) of what's wrong with "moralism."

PPS. I think the comparison of literature to music and the plastic arts 
should be dropped. On the one hand, although the metaphor is appealing, 
I believe it is literally impossible to react to a work of literature as 
one reacts to the others. Moreover, even the others come out of a 
cultural context that can generate a moral response in those of other 
cultures -- such as fear, anger, hate, and a desire to lash out violently.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Terence Hawkes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Wednesday, 7 Jun 2006 17:17:40 +0100
Subject: 	The Big Question

'Shakespeare's art is that his stories don't deliver or require any poke 
in the ribs, allowing what you "get" to be very different from what I 
"get."  What nonsense, Tony Burton. Suppose I claimed that 'Hamlet' was 
about football?

T. Hawkes

PS As distinguished from 'King Lear', of course.

_______________________________________________________________
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.