February
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 19.0075 Wednesday, 6 February 2008 [1] From: Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 05 Feb 2008 00:22:27 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 19.0068 Books to Buy [2] From: Carol Barton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 05 Feb 2008 10:48:20 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 19.0068 Books to Buy [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 05 Feb 2008 00:22:27 -0500 Subject: 19.0068 Books to Buy Comment: Re: SHK 19.0068 Books to Buy >* I don't mind 'red-baiting', but unauthorized diminutives >are a bit cheeky. I started last semester with an announcement >in my first lecture about forms of address to tutors and the >assertion that "I'm not Gabe." I mustn't have stressed that >final plosive hard enough, for I heard distinct mutterings of >"Why did he tell us he's not gay?" It is not only cheeky diminutives and unheard plosives that can plague Gabriel. I recently had a conversation with someone who thought that *Gabriel* Egan was plumping for canonical recognition of Woodstock. [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Carol Barton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 05 Feb 2008 10:48:20 -0500 Subject: 19.0068 Books to Buy Comment: Re: SHK 19.0068 Books to Buy On works for hire: U.S. government regulations make a clear distinction between personal inventions and Government-owned copyright when it comes to technology and manufacturing. If I develop software at my own expense, then modify it under contract for the Government's use, I retain rights in the original program, but the Government owns the modification, and can do with it as it pleases. If under Government contract, I design and build a widget to Government specifications, and in the process make some tangential discovery unrelated to the Government's application, the knowledge I have gained presumably belongs to me--but if in the process of building a better mousetrap under contract, I invent a more economical or humane approach to the applicaton, that belongs to Uncle. I know that, despite Larry's accurate legal description of the invalidity of assertions to copyright of images that are considered to be "in the public domain," libraries and archives and other "makers" like EEBO still insist on their right to charge permission fees for reproduction of the images, arguing that they purchased the equipment and expertise that enabled the images to be digitized, and therefore own the process, not the work per se. The costs (to users) can be prohibitive, as we all know, and in the case of something like the Yale edition of the _Complete Prose Works of John Milton_, which is long out of print, but at $100 or more a volume for the ones most often used (if you can find them), is still the "authoritative text," they invite piracy. How is someone who doesn't live near one of the few libraries holding all eight volumes supposed to do his or her work without access? And how is he or she supposed to get access, if the books can't be purchased, and are not digitized and available online? It would take nothing to OCR this text, which is in modern print--but Yale refuses to do so. I will leave the customary solution to your collective imaginations. As an independent scholar, I can well appreciate Gabriel Egan's position on this subject. There is a major difference between digitizing _The Canterbury Tales_ and offering it to the public at no cost, and digitizing the Harry Potter series, however: I'm sure that, were Rowling to die unexpectedly, her heirs would demand, and should retain the right to, her royalties in those works . . . and just imagine how much wealthier Shakespeare's heirs would have been, had his estate retained royalty rights to his works! I think the 50-year limit is reasonable, and that after that, the work should be free for use (with appropriate credit to the author, of course). And there should (but doesn't seem to be) a distinction made between the fees applied for reproduction of a print or graphic in a scholarly work in the humanities intended for resale (which is typically written pro bono, and earns a pittance for its author, no matter how brilliant it is) and all other kinds of publications (such as Rowling's), which have the potential to earn millions of dollars. The costs of such things for use in a manuscript I have recently completed come entirely out of my pocket, and will not likely be recouped, if the book stays in print for the remainder of my lifetime. My only tangible reward will come in the hoped-for positive reception of the scholarly community. For me, it isn't even a matter of "publish-or-perish"--so why should I have to pay such astronomical fees to make something available to the patrons of the Folger Shakespeare Library, Library of Congress, New York Public Library, British Library, or Guildhall for free available to students in Tokyo or Buenos Aires or Honolulu? 'Tis a puzzlement. Best to all, Carol Barton _______________________________________________________________ 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 Shakespeare Conference: SHK 19.0074 Wednesday, 6 February 2008 From: Arthur Lindley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 5 Feb 2008 10:50:52 +0000 Subject: 19.0065 WS & GWB Comment: Re: SHK 19.0065 WS & GWB Excuse a small, pedantic sidebar: by the time Henry is king, he no longer refers to himself as 'Hal' but as Harry (though in a pinch he'll settle for 'England'). I believe it's called rebranding. W, who is a stickler for being properly addressed, would understand. Regards, Arthur _______________________________________________________________ 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 Shakespeare Conference: SHK 19.0073 Wednesday, 6 February 2008 From: Jennifer Pierce <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 5 Feb 2008 10:06:04 -0500 Subject: 19.0067 The Pious Chanson in Hamlet II.ii Comment: RE: SHK 19.0067 The Pious Chanson in Hamlet II.ii Though I think the choice to have Hamlet returning from Wittenberg would not be lost on an Elizabethan audience I think it's also important to note that Hamlet takes place when the Danes controlled England, some several hundred years prior to nuns and monks running amok in Germany. Jennifer Pierce _______________________________________________________________ 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 Shakespeare Conference: SHK 19.0072 Wednesday, 6 February 2008 [1] From: Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 04 Feb 2008 23:37:34 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 19.0064 A Titus Tangent of Tone [2] From: Kristen McDermott <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 5 Feb 2008 07:57:52 -0500 Subj: RE: SHK 19.0064 A Titus Tangent of Tone [3] From: Patrick Dolan Jr. <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 5 Feb 2008 07:11:38 -0600 Subj: A Titus Tangent of Tone [4] From: John Briggs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 5 Feb 2008 13:21:52 -0000 Subj: Re: SHK 19.0064 A Titus Tangent of Tone [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 04 Feb 2008 23:37:34 -0500 Subject: 19.0064 A Titus Tangent of Tone Comment: Re: SHK 19.0064 A Titus Tangent of Tone >Schoolchildren who studied Latin and Roman history would >have been taught of the great Roman hero Scipio Africanus, >who was so called because of the color of his skin. I suppose school children might have been told such a thing. After all, some teachers today tell their charges that Cleopatra VII Ptolomy was a black African. In fact, of course, Scipio was awarded the agnomen Africanus as a triumphal mark when he returned to Rome after defeating Hannibal at Carthage. [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kristen McDermott <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 5 Feb 2008 07:57:52 -0500 Subject: 19.0064 A Titus Tangent of Tone Comment: RE: SHK 19.0064 A Titus Tangent of Tone Joe Egert notes: >And Satanic as well. When Emilia begrimes, not Iago's, but >Desdemona's union with Othello as a "most filthy bargain," >I believe this is sermon code for devil's compact. Has any >editor noted this? Indeed, Othello is described in the language for a medieval stage devil in the same way Iago shares qualities with the medieval Vice. However, an even more interesting interpretation of Othello's symbolic blackness is Robert Hornback's "Emblems of Folly in the First Othello: Renaissance Blackface, Moor's Coat, and 'Muckender'," Comparative Drama 35.1 (2001): 69-99. He argues persuasively that blackface was equally associated with stage fools as with devils-very interesting stuff. Kris McDermott Central Michigan University [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Patrick Dolan Jr. <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 5 Feb 2008 07:11:38 -0600 Subject: A Titus Tangent of Tone Two points: 1. Unless I've missed something, Aaron was originally played by an English male. The question isn't so much whether he's played by a man whose skin is dark, as whether he's played as black, whatever black meant to an Elizabethan audience and means to today's. 2. And the latter point is the problem. Whatever a black, African or Moorish male character meant to a Tudor audience, he/she didn't mean several centuries of international chattel slavery, the colonial devastation of Africa, a fully articulated pseudo-science of race that persists to this day, the U.S. Civil War, Frederick Douglass, M.L. King Jr., Michael Jordan, Denzel Washington, O.J. Simpson, the U.S. discourse on "the war on drugs," and Kofi Annan. For me, at least, the changes in audience over the last several centuries give the people who put on the play wide latitude to adjust, depending on their purposes. If their purpose is to put on "Shakespeare's play" as "originally conceived by the playwright," then boy actors for the women, no dental work for any of the cast, the play gets put on outside in daylight, and Aaron's blackness gets full emphasis. Any other purpose seems to me to involve balance and choice. The upshot is that Aaron's blackness may be an important signifier, but the signified has so radically changed for any audience today that directors have to make choices for today's audience. Cheers, Pat [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Briggs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 5 Feb 2008 13:21:52 -0000 Subject: 19.0064 A Titus Tangent of Tone Comment: Re: SHK 19.0064 A Titus Tangent of Tone Dan Venning wrote: >Schoolchildren who studied Latin and Roman history would have been >taught of the great Roman hero Scipio Africanus, who was so called >because of the color of his skin. One hopes that even Elizabethan schoolchildren wouldn't have committed such a howler. Those with a classical education (and what other type of education was there?) would have known that Scipio received the agnomen "Africanus" as an honour commemorating his victory over Hannibal. [Perhaps I need to point out that Carthage is in North Africa...] Now, what colour was Hannibal's skin might (or might not) be a relevant question in this context... Dan Venning was probably misled by "Scipio Africanus" being a name 'jocularly' bestowed on slaves in the 18th or 19th centuries. 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.
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 19.0071 Wednesday, 6 February 2008 From: C. David Frankel <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 4 Feb 2008 20:58:28 -0500 Subject: 19.0063 Petruchio's Blasphemy Comment: RE: SHK 19.0063 Petruchio's Blasphemy As I reported earlier, USF is producing Taming of the Shrew as our BRIT production this year. It opens Feb. 21st, so a final report will have to wait. But in conversation with the director, he revealed that his antipathy toward Petruchio is so start, his behavior so heinous, the he (the director) has decided to kill him (Petruchio) at the end of the play. There are some other facets to the production that may prove of interest to some, but I'll wait until I see it on stage before saying more. C. David Frankel School of Theatre and Dance University of South Florida _______________________________________________________________ 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.