Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home ::


Graduate Scholar-in-Residence Program | Newberry

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 26.183  Wednesday, 14 April 2015

 

From:        Hardy Cook < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

Date:         April 12, 2015 at 12:56:05 PM EDT

Subject:    Graduate Scholar-in-Residence Program | Newberry

 

http://www.newberry.org/graduate-scholar-residence-program

 

Graduate Scholar-in-Residence Program

 

The Newberry Graduate Scholar-in-Residence program encourages PhD candidates in the humanities to conduct research in our collection and to join our community of scholars for a full academic year. We invite graduate students with advanced PhD candidacy to apply for this status, with preference given to those whose dissertation projects are well advanced. Graduate Scholars-in-Residence at the Newberry are expected to be “in residence” at the Newberry at least 10 hours per week from September to May, which will enable them to make good use of the collection and participate in the Newberry’s intellectual community. Like postdoctoral Scholars-in-Residence, Graduate Scholars-in-Residence should be willing to provide a small amount of service to the Newberry. Although the Newberry cannot offer remuneration to Graduate Scholars-in-Residence, we can offer some privileges, including reserve carrel space for paged materials, access to the Newberry during extended hours, and opportunities to present work-in-progress to the Newberry’s scholarly community.

 

Applications to become a Graduate Scholar-in-Residence are accepted each year in the spring. The applications for the 2015-16 academic year are due on May 1, 2015. We expect to notify applicants about their acceptance in June 2015. New Graduate Scholars-in-Residence are expected to begin their residences in the first week of September so that they can join the new long-term fellows in Fall Orientation activities.

 

If you have any questions about the webform, application materials, or the Graduate Scholars-in-Residence program, please email This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .

 

Apply to be a Newberry Library Graduate Scholar-in-Residence

Please read the following Application Guidelines carefully before submitting your application.

 

 

Application Guidelines

 

Using the Webform

All application materials must be submitted together electronically through the appropriate Newberry Library webform. The webform cannot be submitted partially, nor can it be revised once it has been submitted. Applicants must complete the webform and upload their project description and CV in order for their application to be considered complete.

 

The Newberry will not accept re-submissions of materials. Once an application has been submitted, the Newberry will not accept any revisions or updates.

 

The Newberry will not accept application materials through postal or electronic mail.

 

PDF files are preferred but not required. The server will accept .doc, .docx, or .pdf files.

 

The Newberry server cannot accept attachments larger than 10 MB.

After you have successfully submitted your application, you will receive a confirmation screen. You will also receive an electronically generated email within 24 hours. If you have not received an email within the allotted time, please check your spam folder before contacting us.

 

 

Required Materials

 

The Graduate Scholar-in-Residence application consists of four elements, which will be reviewed by a sub-committee of the Newberry’s Academic Council.

 

1. The Webform, which asks for contact information, project information, and other details pertaining to being a Graduate Scholar-in-Residence at the Newberry. The Graduate Scholar-in-Residence Webform can be found here. Remember: Webforms cannot be saved for submission at a later date, and the Newberry will not accept additional or amended application materials once it has been submitted.

 

2. A Project Description of no more than 1,000 words. This document should describe the research project, explain its significance, enumerate the Newberry materials to be consulted, and outline a plan of work. Additionally, please describe any other ways that being in residence at the Newberry will help advance your dissertation. When prompted, upload the project description to the webform.

 

Please note that candidates’ need for and intensive use of the Newberry’s collections is a crucial factor in our consideration of applications. Thus, please be as specific as possible about the Newberry materials you would like to use. For information about the Newberry’s collection, see our Core Collections and consult the Online Catalog.

 

3. A current Curriculum Vitae (CV) of no more than five pages. Upload your CV to the webform when prompted. Please use the following commonly accepted terms to describe forthcoming publications:

  • “in progress” (not yet completed or submitted)
  • “submitted” (currently under review at a journal or press)
  • “accepted” (contracted for publication; currently under revision)
  • “in press” (in the hands of copy editor, typesetter, or printer)

4. Two Letters of Recommendation. These letters are required by the same deadline as all other application materials. Applicants are responsible for contacting their referees and making sure they submit their letters on time. Letters must be submitted through the Letter of Reference Webform.

 

 

Additional Information about Letters of Reference

  • Graduate Scholar-in-Residence applicants must have their dissertation advisor submit one of their letters of reference.
  • Letters must come directly from the letter writer, not from the applicant.
  • The Newberry will not accept letters sent through postal or electronic mail. We strongly prefer letters to be submitted via the Letter of Reference Webform.
  • Each letter should speak to the proposed project, the value to the applicant of a residency at the Newberry as well as to the qualifications of the applicant. Letters that speak of the applicant’s project in specific terms are more effective than general letters from a dossier.
  • The Newberry prefers to receive letters on institutional letterhead, with a signature (either electronic or manual).
  • The letters must be written in English.
  • References can submit their letters before the applicant has submitted their application.

Please Note: The Newberry will not accept applications which include any materials in excess of the Required Materials. Excessive materials include but are not limited to:

  • Images (either embedded or in appendices)
  • Project descriptions, appendices, or bibliographies exceeding the word limit
  • CVs longer than the five-page limit
  • Personal cover letters
  • Audio-visual materials
 
Digital Renaissance Editions Launched

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 26.182  Wednesday, 14 April 2015

 

From:        Brett D. Hirsch < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

Date:         April 11, 2015 at 10:01:23 AM EDT

Subject:    Digital Renaissance Editions Launched

 

DIGITAL RENAISSANCE EDITIONS

http://digitalrenaissance.uvic.ca/

 

Digital Renaissance Editions officially launched during the Shakespeare Association of America meeting in Vancouver, on Saturday 4 April 2015. The project launched its new website with completed editions of The Honest Whore Parts One and Two (edited by Joost Daalder) and An Humorous Day's Mirth (edited by Eleanor Lowe).

 

Digital Renaissance Editions publishes open-access critical editions of non-Shakespearean early English drama and related materials. Each edition offers a fully annotated modern-spelling text, collations of textual variants, facsimiles and transcriptions of early textual witnesses, and generous introductions and commentary. A growing database of multimedia performance materials supplements the editions, and critical essays on topics relevant to the study of early English drama are soon to be commissioned. Digital Renaissance Editions shares the publication platform developed by the Internet Shakespeare Editions, allowing for complementary interlinking between both projects' editions and content. All content is subject to rigorous peer review, and is completely open access.

 

Some 50 scholars, theatre practitioners, directors of stage and screen, software developers and designers from around the world serve on the project's editorial and advisory boards. Such a project also relies on its users -- the scholarly community in particular -- to grow and thrive. We invite you to join our mission to expand the canon of early modern drama, one play at a time. We welcome your contributions, whether by proposing to edit a play for the series, submitting materials to the performance database and Critical Companion, using the completed editions and works-in-progress in your teaching and research, or by simply reporting bugs, errors, and areas of possible improvement to us. We have much to accomplish, and this is only the beginning.

 

Brett D. Hirsch

Coordinating Editor, Digital Renaissance Editions

http://digitalrenaissance.uvic.ca/

Co-Editor, Shakespeare

http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/shakespeare

 
 
SBReviews Is Seeking Potential Reviewers

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 26.181  Wednesday, 14 April 2015

 

From:        Hardy M. Cook < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

Date:         Wednesday, April 15, 2015

Subject:    SBReviews Is Seeking Potential Reviewers

 

Dear SHAKSPEReans,

 

Associate Editor Annalisa Castaldo and I are seeking potential reviewers for SBReviews, the SHAKSPER Book Review feature.

 

If you might be interested in reviewing a book for the SBReviews, please e-mail Annalisa < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it > and me < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it > with your expression of interest.

 

So that we can identify books with reviewers, please include a description of yourself and your research specializations. We will keep a list of potential reviewers, and when we identify a book in your area of interest, we will contact you to see if you are interested.

 

SBReviews is one of the best new features of SHAKSPER. It has been quiet of late, but we are very interested in getting it back as a functioning feature of SHAKSPER.

 

SHAKSPER reaches a large and diverse audience. There are 1120 subscribers who receive the Newsletter distributions and another 385 Facebook subscribers. In addition, the web site gets many hits from all over the world. SBReviews is peer-reviewed.

 

Also, if you have a book you would to suggest to us for possible reviewing, e-mail that information to both Annalisa and me at the above addresses. 

 

Thank you,

Annalisa Castaldo

Associate Professor of English

Widener University

This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

 

and

 

Hardy M. Cook

Professor Emeritus 

Bowie State University

Editor of SHAKSPER

This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Shaksper.net

 

 
Gobbo Name

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 26.181  Tuesday, 14 April 2015

 

From:        William Blanton < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

Date:         April 12, 2015 at 6:47:54 PM EDT

Subject:    Re: SHAKSPER: Lear Films; Erne; Gobbo

 

To Alan Dessen

 

Thank you very kindly for the references. However, I do not believe that they match my criteria, which are that they be: (1) by experienced trial attorneys who have (2) familiarized themselves with sixteenth century English law and trial procedure and (3) who have analyzed the Trial Scene as though it were a trial. 

 

As an amateur in Shakespeare Studies — particularly one who has confined his studies to only The Merchant of Venice — I have no desire to analyze the play as a work of literature. I am content to leave that to you professionals.

 

I am interested in The Merchant of Venice primarily as a cultural and historical artifact. My article (www.shylocke.org) demonstrates that Shakespeare wrote the Trial Scene as a sort of parody of a trial. The legally-savvy patrons of its performances would have quickly recognized this fact, and would have enjoyed how cleverly Shakespeare accomplished that feat. They would also have known that Shakespeare was Up to Something.

 

I have hoped that those who are professionals in Shakespeare Studies would be curious about my analysis and its various discoveries. In the Appendices to my article, I included several sections that provided elements of my research related to those discoveries. To date, only a tiny fraction of those who read this forum have shown such curiosity. But hope springs eternal.

 

 

To Tom Reedy

 

I understand your puzzlement. The change from “precedent” to “President” matters to me because it aligns with my observation that Shakespeare was demonstrating that Portia was incompetent to try the case of Shylock v. Antonio. 

 

He had her pretend to be a Doctor of Law, just as was her invisible cousin Doctor Bellario. Doctor of Law was the title awarded to those who graduated from Oxford or Cambridge with a degree in Civil Law, which was based on a lengthy code of laws promulgated under the Roman Emperor Justinian (The “Corpus Juris”). 

 

Precedent played little or no part in this system of law. In fact, Doctors of Law (called “civilians”) were forbidden to practice in the common law courts, which is where the common law case of Shylock v. Antonio would have been tried had it been a real case. The “Trial” in The Merchant of Venice took place in the common law Court of Queen’s Bench.

 

Those who practiced the common law studied at one of the Inns of Court, often for as long as nine years. The common law of England was based on precedent, not on codes, and civilians were almost entirely ignorant of those precedents. A civilian such as Portia was pretending to be could easily confuse “President” with “precedent.” 

 

I believe that Shakespeare marked up Q1 of The Merchant of Venice for its performance before the Court of King James in February 1605. I further believe that he took this opportunity to change the correct “precedent” to the incorrect “President.” The actor playing Portia could have so enunciated the word so as to signal her ignorance. Hence my argument.

 

 

To Tom Reedy and Professor Egan

 

Thank you both for pointing out to me that the Concordance that I consulted did not provide Shakespeare’s spellings of “precedent.” Who knew?

 

I have since cross-referenced its instances to those in my First Folio in Modern Type, with these results. Shakespeare spelled the word correctly as “precedent” only three times, one of which was in The Merchant of Venice. He spelled it incorrectly as “president” twelve times. He also spelled it “precedent” in three instances in which he did not use the word to mean something like an authority.

 

From this meagre evidence I conclude the following. That when focused on the word in its strictly legal sense in Q1, he spelled it correctly as “precedent” instead of as was his customary practice as “president.” He then purposefully changed its spelling in the version used for F1 to the incorrect “President” for the reason discussed above. 

 

I do not believe that some unknown compositor, tasked with using a perfectly legible copy of Q1 with a few mark-ups, would bother to change the spelling from Q1 unless it was one of those few mark-ups. 

 

Anyway, that’s what I believe. You and other professionals may well disagree. In either event, it’s really no big deal.

 

As to Professor Egan’s dissing of what Heminges and Condell wrote in F1. I do not know what parts of it, if any, are “demonstrably untrue.” I believe that they chose the version of The Merchant of Venice that was prepared for the performance before the Court in 1605 because they considered it superior to Q1 or to any other printings floating around. 

 

Anyway, that’s what I believe. In any event, it makes little difference given that the changes from Q1 were few and largely insignificant.

 
 
Criticism of Erne

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 26.180  Tuesday, 14 April 2015

 

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

Date:         April 12, 2015 at 9:35:05 PM EDT

Subject:    Re: Erne Review

 

Gabriel Egan notes:

 

> Gerald E. Downs’s account of the weaknesses he sees in

> Lukas Erne’s book ‘Shakespeare as Literary Dramatist’

> runs to over 3,400 words. I hope he doesn’t think I’m

> shirking a responsibility when I say that I don’t want to

> reply to it because I think an email list is not the place

> for contributions of that length. I strongly suspect that

> if I reply at the same length (which is what it would take)

> then Gerald and I would effectively be having a private

> conversation, and SHAKSPER is not the place for that.

> I was looking for a more pithy set of examples of errors

> of fact or logic.

 

This is a good place for discussion of Lukas Erne’s books because too much “conversation” elsewhere gives him a pass. Critical reviews are sorely needed, as history and most inquiry affirms. However, nice guys should always be given good reviews, except by mean guys.

 

Gabriel Egan has repeatedly stated that Erne’s first book has not been refuted. That’s an odd way to agree with Erne but Egan seldom expresses opinions directly. He made an exception in replying to Bill Blanton about Erne’s “copious evidence.” When arguing, Egan doesn’t hesitate to shirk responsibility. I saw his “not refuted” statement as a bluff; I called his bluff; he folded. As I posted on the same day as his note, I don’t expect him to reply; the review was meant for those who might be interested.

 

Some years ago I wrote privately (and critically) to Gabriel Egan about his own Struggle. I then expected a sincere discussion but he said my letter was too long; it wasn’t nearly as long as his book. So much for private conversation. I’m reminded of the words of Muhammad: “He can run but he can’t hide.” Gabriel does Sonny one better—he can hide. But who can believe my Erne refutation is itself refuted by refusing to discuss it? Larry Weiss asks:

 

>> I also assume that he spent time in Stratford before he died 

>> revising his work, and died before he could finish. 

> And this assumption is grounded on ... (?)

 

Assumption needn’t be grounded on anything. Shakespearians assume their lives away and the checks keep coming. I think about that around tax-time. The compensation is, Bozo the student learns (knows) the assumptions are correct. “Anne, methought I left the Hamnet revision on the third best bed. What? Yes, I took out the dvng.”

 

Jim Carroll further observes:

 

> . . . this idea that Shakespeare did not have interest in

> having his plays published has never made any sense to me.

 

That’s OK, because no one says that. The question is whether the evidence (the early editions) indicates Shakespeare’s participation in the process that actually occurred. The answer’s ‘No.’

 

> The quartos have typographical errors and probably

> misinterpretations by the printers, but how can those

> things be construed as evidence that Shakespeare didn’t

> care about seeing his work in print?

 

The corruption is far, far more extensive. Say, is Jim Carroll really Lukas Erne? Again, the question isn’t whether the author cared, but whether the evidence shows he cared.

 

> Otherwise he was a busy man who left such work as

> best as it could be handled.

 

What part of “best” don’t I understand? When Heywood’s plays were manhandled he was ashamed to assert his authorship.

 

> Otherwise the best evidence that Shakespeare intended

> his plays to be read is provided by Heminge and Condell,

> who went to the trouble to have his plays printed in folio.

 

Ben Jonson went to the trouble of speaking for them; of course F was a publisher’s venture collecting the playtexts, “stolne” or not. But they’re only evidence.

 

Pervez Rizvi suggests:

 

> Was Shakespeare content to be a secret benefactor to

> his readers by writing long passages just for them, but

> never told the publisher of any of his quartos, and so his

> readers never knew the favour he was doing them?

 

Pervez assumes the publishers worked with authorized manuscripts and that Shakespeare was in on the process. The evidence indicates something else. Shakespeare and his intentions had nothing to do with the corrupt publications, other than to stand by as they happened. At least Heywood made a public statement.

 

> If claiming that a quarto had more material in it than

> was acted on stage was a significant boost to sales then

> we should have had many more quartos making that

> claim (truthfully or not).

 

The claim was often that the quarto is what was acted. Often, I believe it.

 

Mike Jensen:

 

> [Erne] answered Hirrel on pages 14-7 of the second edition

> of Shakespeare as Literary Dramatist, CUP, 2013. We can

> debate if Erne’s answer was convincing, but we should at

> least start with the current argument.

 

That’s good advice.

 

> With all the negativity in this thread, I hope we do not lose

> sight of something that matters more, and that is the Lukas

> in one of the nicest Shakespeareans working today.

 

I think that niceness and inquiry are best kept apart. Because Shakespeare scholarship is a closed system (that is, meaningless to most of civilization), most participants are a bit too nice (to the right faction) and way too uncritical. I’m not apt to “attaboy” fantasy, but my criticism isn’t often personal. I try to adopt the Hired Man’s attitude: “I believe all Shakespeare scholars are good / If they’re only understood; / Even bad ones, ‘pears to me, / Are just as good as they can be.”

 

Gabriel Egan muddies the waters:

 

> Pervez Rizvi hits the nail on the head:

>> Erne is least convincing when he argues for a

>> 'coherent strategy' of publication in the late

>> 16th century which was abandoned in the 17th century.

> Erne more or less admits that he can’t explain why the

> publication of new Shakespeare plays fell so sharply

> after 1600.

 

Let’s stay in the 16th century for a moment, where Erne fails to establish his “coherent strategy” for publication. He goes to the extreme of including the bad quartos in the strategy, merely to help imagine a statistical pattern. There’s no pattern: printer’s copy was ‘finders-keepers.’ Why the surprise when the pattern continues not to exist?

 

> According to Taylor, Shakespeare recovered from this

> by teaming up with younger writers who had “the juice”

> he was now lacking.

 

Not in a million years.

 

> As Erne shows in ‘Shakespeare and the Book Trade’, despite

> the dip in the early 1600s of publication of new plays by

> Shakespeare he was by virtually every metric the best-selling

> published author of his lifetime. That he was indifferent to

> this extraordinary success is hard to imagine.

 

The evidence (corrupt editions) shows success for “the book trade” but not for the author. Erne seems to equate the two. That’s the leap of logic that falls flat. Why buy into it? And why ignore the overwhelming evidence?

 

Sean Lawrence:

 

> . . . a good deal of this discussion and allied discussions

> . . . seems to presume not so much authorial intent as

> authorial micromanagement. The notion of an author

> sweating over his texts, desperately defending his artistic

> integrity against meddling editors seems very much a

> recent idea.

 

The idea is as old as the era. What is meant by “stolen and surreptitious”? Why did the King’s Men repeatedly try to stop theft of their property? Why did Heywood grind his axe and teeth? What about the bad quartos? The questions aren’t about micromanagement. Why not compare Q1 & Q2 Philaster? The publisher himself was appalled at the textual blood-letting.

 

> Most of our problems are matters of literary interpretation,

> not bibliography. 

 

I agree. But editorial interpretation consists largely of the recognition and correction of corruption, which is not often significantly bibliographical. Turning a blind eye to the real severity of textual corruption multiplies the problems and gets history wrong.

 

Larry Weiss:

 

> I can’t think of any reason a pirate could not select

> whatever portions he wants.

 

A play reported in performance is limited to the performance itself, unless the text is subsequently revised. That’s one reason (the likely one).

 

Duncan Salkeld:

 

> I’d like to endorse Mike Jensen’s important point.

> Lukas Erne is one of the kindest, most courteous

> and personable Shakespeare scholars around.

> He is also one of the most invigorating. 

 

Mistakes can be invigorating, even to the extent of pointing them out.

 

> I set out evidence to suggest that the unusually short

> quarto was an abridgement of the Folio (or a similar)

> version, and compiled partly by dictation but mainly

> from memory. . . . T. W. Craik, in a tightly argued Arden 3

> edition, regarded Q as a text patched together for the sole

> purpose of producing a saleable, printed text. To this I 

> merely added that Q largely preserves its speakers’ cues,

> and so seems to derive in part from a performance script.

 

Someday I would like to see a few persons as perceptive as Salkeld take the obvious step toward the concept of shorthand reporting of performance. Theatrical reporting is memory and dictation in its most likely setting, cues and all. Such a text (e.g. Bordeaux, without doubt) came to be in 2+ hours’ time (with 6+ in transcription); not exactly patched together but recreated.

 

The hang-up appears to be reluctance to believe players in performance could be behind such faulty texts. In the real world, why not? Heywood and Buc testify to a technology that could capture performance. Once the scales are off and levelled, it gets pretty clear: most questions are immediately answered. For example, that’s where the printers got their copy, and they got it cheap. 

 

> Erne’s proposition that we distinguish between shorter

> theatrical texts and longer literary versions never quite

> holds: (a) some sort of performance script does seem to

> lie behind Q 1600; (b) nevertheless Q may well have been

> produced just as a reading edition;

 

What else is a Q but a reading edition? Undoubtedly, the texts were edited to enhance the fact.

 

> I do, however, agree with Erne’s claim in Book Trade that

> some printers and publishers seem to have favoured

> Shakespeare: Andrew Wise entered five Shakespeare

> quartos in the Stationers’ Register, and and Valentine

> Simmes saw nine of them into print, if one allows Q

> Hamlet 1603.

 

Shakespeare was, and still is, the cat’s meow. But a fence needn’t consult or even know the victim of the theft.

 

My thanks to Bill Lloyd for the Google Books reminder:

 

> Here is most of Erne’s Introduction to the Second Edition;

> the reply to Hirrel begins on p.14. Now I want to hear what

> Hirrel has to say in re-reply...

 

Hirrel says the intro is too long for a reply and this is not the forum. But seriously, Hirrel is a very good scholar. His “Duration” and “James Roberts” articles are the way it should be done. He will be ignored as much as possible, for The Bard’s sake. For me play length is decided, as reported texts like Lear and R3 are beyond the artificial limits. For the same reason I have long been of the opinion that the King’s Men attempted to keep reported texts from print.

 

I’ll comment on two quotes from Erne’s “defense”:

 

“After 1603, only three of Shakespeare's plays were newly published before the end of his lifetime, King Lear in 1608 and Pericles and Troilus and Cressida in 1609, although [T&R] had been entered in the Stationers' Register six years earlier. The evidence suggests that, while manuscripts of Shakespeare's plays were sold to stationers with some regularity up to 1603, this was no longer the case after that year.”

 

The ultimate question, once scholarship wakens, is where the manuscripts came from. Lear is a bad quarto. How bad is hard to say because we don’t have a good text to compare. The author had nothing to do with its publication. Pericles is a very corrupt text—a bad quarto. Nowadays it is described as “collaboration,” but Wilkins simply began his crap on Shakespeare’s reported play

 

“Hirrel claims to find evidence in “the surviving print texts”, an unreliable source for what was actually performed given that the manuscripts from which the printed texts were set up were often abridged before performance” (14).

 

This sentence shows that Erne thinks the evidence (the early editions) is unreliable. Imagination is better, presumably. But the texts are just about all we have; they are reliable sources—but of what? I believe they are often records “of what was actually performed” (sometimes abridged, sometimes not). They are identified by characteristic corruptions that at the same time remove them from consideration as authorized texts.

 

Gerald E. Downs

 
 
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>

Page 6 of 10

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.