CFP: 36th Annual OVSC

 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 23.191  Friday, 18 May 2012

From:        Joseph Sullivan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         May 16, 2012 2:23:33 PM EDT

Subject:     Updated CFP: 36th Annual OVSC

 

Extreme(ly) Shakespeare(an)

The 36th Annual Ohio Valley Shakespeare Conference 2012

Marietta College

October 18-20, 2012

 

The planning committee of the Ohio Valley Shakespeare Conference seeks proposals for papers or panels from across today’s theoretical and methodological landscape that engage some facet of the amalgam “Extreme(ly) Shakespeare(an).” “Extreme Shakespeare” alludes to the wide variety of extremities that can be found in Shakespeare’s work. It brings to mind those occasions where the playwright demonstrates either a lack of regard for or a lack of control over the principles of proportionality and balance, to the degree either of those principles were prioritized by dramatists of the early modern period. Of course, extremity is an inherently relative value, which leads to a second facet of the amalgam open to conferees. “Extremely Shakespearean” refers to the fundamental characteristics of Shakespeare’s art, craft, thought, philosophy, etc. How might we best operationalize the term “Shakespearean”? What quality or qualities should we identify as the quintessence of Shakespeare’s work? Conversely, where do we observe Shakespeare at his least Shakespearean? Have we in the past, do we now, and/or might we ever share a persuasive understanding of what constitutes the most significant attributes of Shakespeare? Is the pursuit a noble quest, or a fool’s errand?

 

The OVSC publishes a volume of selected papers each year and conferees are welcome to submit revised versions of their papers for consideration. Students who present are eligible to compete for the M. Rick Smith Memorial Prize.

 

Plenary Speakers:

 

Ralph Alan Cohen

The American Shakespeare Center and Mary Baldwin College

 

Lina Perkins Wilder

Connecticut College

 

Featured conference events will include a site-specific production of Hamlet staged by the Marietta College Theatre Department as well as an Esbenshade Series concert with a Shakespearean theme. Other conference events will include a night owl screening of a recent film adaptation, an evening reception at a local establishment, our annual luncheon, coffee, tea & snack breaks that will have you stuffing your pockets “for later,” and all the October foliage your eyes can possibly take in.

 

Abstracts and panel proposals are due by June 8th for an early decision. The final deadline is August 31st. All submissions and inquiries should be directed to Joseph Sullivan at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or by mail to

 

Joseph Sullivan

English Department

Marietta College

Marietta, OH 45750.

 

Conference updates will be posted on our webpage as they become available.

Pedestrians Crossing Cairncross

 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 23.190  Wednesday, 16 May 2012

 

From:        Gerald E. Downs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         May 16, 2012 1:54:46 AM EDT

Subject:     Pedestrians Crossing Cairncross

 

Gabriel Egan responded helpfully with some references I will follow up. As for Cairncross:

 

>The back-and-forth about Cairncross can be dispensed with

>quite simply. Taken to task by J. K. Walton for his faulty

>interpretation of variants between early editions, Cairncross

>confirmed his adherence to the principle that “identity of

>reading implies identity of origin” (“Dr Cairncross’s Answer”

>Review of English Studies new series 10 (1959): 139-40).

 

I think the exchange was about R3, where (simply) “variants between early [R3 quarto and Folio] editions” is not analogous to the question of 2H6 bad quarto agreements with Folio passages. That is, we’re not discussing which derivative quarto was copy for F, but whether quarto or manuscript was copy for the agreeing passages.

 

Speaking of agreement, I gather that Gabriel Egan agrees (finally!) with Michael Egan and Steven Urkowitz that Contention is not a memorially contaminated text but that it descends by transcription from the hand of Shakespeare. Otherwise, he should see that its corruption exceeds “critical” mass: it can’t switch between horrible and identical (or nearly so) by a will to believe. “Horrible” in quarto(s) is identified by text from a better manuscript and by other features. “Identical” identifies what may have been judged less horrible (by printing-house editors yet), but it’s still probably from the bad quarto. Memorial reports match authorized text only if they are well done. The Contention is not well done, by any rational stretch.

 

>There’s no point continuing discussing variants with someone

>who thinks that’s true, and Walton didn’t.

 

So much for discussing apples and oranges. I’ll point out that Walton denied Q2 influence on Folio Lear, which is generally acknowledged now, agreeing with Cairncross. Much of Walton’s work is downgraded; I prefer to take issues as they come and Walton’s input is OK at times. Not once having watched the TV show, I’m no expert. But there is no point in citing Walton here; memorial transmission is the question.

 

Of course, since R3 is probably a memorial report the same questions may arise. But Walton was talking about Q1, Q3, and Q6 variants, not origins, as I recall. He didn’t dismiss the idea that Q1 Lear is a report, which is unusual for his generation.

 

>>I seem to recall the word “blunder” and reference to a

>>principle of some sort. I don't have the book at hand.

>>Perhaps G. Egan can cite it for us.

 

>The word “blunder” appears nowhere in my book, The

>Struggle for Shakespeare’s Text. The closest match is

>“blindness”, as in “Cairncross’s blindness to the principle

>that only agreements-in-error are strong evidence” (p. 253).

>That restates the principle too. Nothing contentious there, I think.

 

An advocate of memorial contamination, I welcome all examples of my bad memory. “Blindness” is worse than “blunder,” wouldn’t you think? Poor, blind Cairncross—he’s right again. Perhaps, like me, he suffered from Weisenheimer’s. And a “principle” was there after all, though it doesn’t apply. Is it true we accept 2H6 set directions as coming from Contention because they agree? Is it a principle when we like it and not when we don’t?

 

Gerald E. Downs

The Shakespeare Institute Review CFP

 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 23.189  Wednesday, 16 May 2012

From:        Giulia Sandelewski <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         May 16, 2012 4:36:03 AM EDT

Subject:     The Shakespeare Institute Review CFP

 

The Shakespeare Institute Review is a new online academic journal, which is funded by the University of Birmingham College of Arts and Law. It is run by four research students at the Shakespeare Institute, Stratford-upon-Avon, UK

 

Students at this institution, and on other postgraduate Shakespeare programmes, are invited and encouraged to contribute short papers for publication. Each issue of the journal will be themed.

 

We thought it exhilaratingly inappropriate, and so irresistible, to signal the birth of this journal with an issue looking at death. 

 

Students are encouraged to submit papers, between 1,500 and 2,500 words, on topics relating to death, mortality and religion in Shakespeare’s plays, or elsewhere in the Early Modern period.

 

Possible topics might include, but are not restricted to:

  • Critical examinations of the way that various of Shakespeare’s characters deal with death, or die. This could include close-reading, comparative analysis, and analysis from a specific theoretical position (Marxist, feminist, etc.).
  • Historical studies of how mortality or religion was understood in the early Modern period, and of how Shakespeare makes use of (and plays off) those understandings in his plays.
  • Considerations of the political, ethical, religious, spiritual and existential significances of mortality or religion in the Early Modern period, and for Shakespeare’s characters.
  • Comparisons between how Shakespeare understands mortality, and how other creative artists and philosophers—of Shakespeare’s time, or before, or after—have understood it.
  • More intensely personal and experientially engaged writing on how Shakespeare’s plays have helped you deal with death—with your own mortality, or with the death of people that you know. How does Shakespeare make you look at death, and is this vision comforting or distressing? Does Shakespeare get to the truth of death, for you, or not?
  • Reflections on metaphysical and spiritual truths that arise from Shakespeare’s plays.
  • More provocative reflections on how the writing that is produced by the Modern academy—writing that is critical, theoretical, historical—does not deal adequately with death in Shakespeare’s plays, and suggestions as to how this inadequacy can be rectified.

Suggestions of other topics will be warmly received.

 

Papers should be submitted to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., with a deadline of 20 May 2012.

 

All submissions will be reviewed by the editorial board, and those submissions that are selected will be published in our first online issue. Please contact us for further information.

 

Giulia I. Sandelewski

Ph.D.c Shakespeare Studies

The Shakespeare Institute Review, Co-Editor

BritGrad Publicity Team

SSCC Student Representative

Early Theatre 15.1

 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 23.188  Tuesday, 15 May 2012

 

From:        Helen M Ostovich <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         May 14, 2012 2:19:10 PM EDT

Subject:     Early Theatre 15.1 (June 2012)

 

Early Theatre  15.1 (2012)

Special Issue: Access and Contestation:  Women’s Performance in Early Modern  England, Italy, France, and Spain

Guest Editor:  Peter Parolin

 

Introduction:

Access and Contestation: Women’s Performance in Early Modern England, Italy, France, and Spain

Peter Parolin 

 

Articles:

Women and Performance in Medieval and Early Modern Suffolk

James Stokes 

 

‘If I had begun to dance’: Women’s Performance in Kemps Nine Daies Wonder

Peter Parolin 47

 

‘In the Sight of All’: Queen Elizabeth and the Dance of Diplomacy

Bella Mirabella 

 

Between Courts: Female Masquers and Anglo-Spanish Diplomacy, 1603–5

Mark Hutchings and Berta Cano-Echevarría 

 

Marie de Medici’s 1605 ballet de la reine: New Evidence and Analysis

Melinda J. Gough 

 

‘Cattle of this colour’: Boying the Diva in As You Like It

Pamela Allen Brown 

 

The Spanish Actress’s Art: Improvisation, Transvestism, and Disruption in Tirso’s El vergonzoso en palacio

Amy L. Tigner 

 

Conniving Women and Superannuated Coquettes: Travestis and Caractères in the Early Modern French Theatre

Virginia Scott 

 

Book Reviews:

 

Melissa Croteau and Carolyn Jess-Cooke (eds). Apocalyptic Shakespeare: Essays on Visions of Chaos and Revelation in Recent Film Adaptations. Jefferson, NC and London: McFarland, 2009.

Reviewed by Catherine Silverstone 

 

Jane Hwang Degenhardt and Elizabeth Williamson (eds).  Religion and Drama in Early Modern England: The Performance of Religion on the Renaissance Stage. Aldershot and Burlington: Ashgate, 2011.

Reviewed by Erin E. Kelly 

 

Eugene Giddens. How to Read a Shakespearean Play Text. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011.

Reviewed by Brett D. Hirsch 

 

Max Harris. Sacred Folly: A New History of the Feast of Fools. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 2011.

Reviewed by Abigail Ann Young 

 

Natasha Korda. Labors Lost: Women’s Work and the Early Modern English Stage. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011.

Reviewed by Susan C. Frye 

 

Robert Mullally. The Carole: A Study of a Medieval Dance.  Aldershot and Burlington: Ashgate, 2011.

Reviewed by Emily F. Winerock 

 

Kristen Poole. Supernatural Environments in Shakespeare’s England: Spaces of Demonism, Divinity, and Drama. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011.

Reviewed by Ian McAdam

 

Federico Schneider. Pastoral Drama and Healing in Early Modern Italy. Aldershot and Burlington: Ashgate, 2010.

Reviewed by Alexandra Coller 244

 

Virginia Scott. Women on the Stage in Early Modern France, 1540–1750. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.

Reviewed by Claire Sponsler 247

Pedestrians Crossing Cairncross

 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 23.187  Monday, 14 May 2012

 

From:        Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         May 10, 2012 12:36:53 PM EDT

Subject:     Re: Peds

 

I can help Gerald E. Downs on a few points of detail:

 

>> William Montgomery's 1985 Oxford D. Phil. thesis . . .

> Sounds like something I would have to pay for.

 

There’s a national state-funded project (EThOS) to make all UK doctoral theses available for free over the Internet to all readers, but it hasn’t got around to Montgomery’s yet. The 36-page section “II The Text” is all one needs for this debate, and I’ll happily send my scan of it to anyone who wants it.

 

>> "Foucault's epistemic shift and verbatim repetition in

>> Shakespeare" that appeared in Richard Meek, Jane Rickard,

>> and Richard Wilson's book /Shakespeare's Book/ (Manchester

>> UP, 2008): 123-39.

>

> I'll look that up if only to see what the title means.

 

The Wikipedia page on “Michel Foucault” is a good starting point, and it has a pointer to the Wikipedia page on “episteme” which itself has a most useful section on “The Concept of an ‘Episteme’ in Michel Foucault”. The idea is also explained in the essay itself, the full text of which can be had by putting its title (“Foucault’s epistemic shift and verbatim repetition in Shakespeare”) into a web search engine. The links returned should point to a copy on my website and another in the Institutional Repository of my employer.

 

The back-and-forth about Cairncross can be dispensed with quite simply. Taken to task by J. K. Walton for his faulty interpretation of variants between early editions, Cairncross confirmed his adherence to the principle that “identity of reading implies identity of origin” (“Dr Cairncross’s Answer” Review of English Studies new series 10 (1959): 139-40).  There’s no point continuing discussing variants with someone who thinks that’s true, and Walton didn’t.

 

> I seem to recall the word "blunder" and reference to a

> principle of some sort. I don't have the book at hand.

> Perhaps G. Egan can cite it for us.

 

The word “blunder” appears nowhere in my book, The Struggle for Shakespeare’s Text. The closest match is “blindness”, as in “Cairncross’s blindness to the principle that only agreements-in-error are strong evidence” (p. 253). That restates the principle too. Nothing contentious there, I think.

 

Gabriel Egan

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.