The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 24.0226  Wednesday, 8 May 2013

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

Date:         May 7, 2013 3:44:39 PM EDT

Subject:     CFP: Renaissance Studies & New Technologies, RSA 2014

CFP: Renaissance Studies + New Technologies

RSA 2014, 27-29 March; New York, NY

Since 2001, the Renaissance Society of America (RSA) annual meetings have featured panels on new technologies for scholarly research, publishing, and teaching. At the 2014 meeting in New York, we will offer panels on recent research (with 20-minute papers, followed by questions) and workshops on emerging ideas and methodologies (with 10-minute introductions, followed by hands-on demonstrations).

Your proposal should include a title, a 150-word abstract, and a one-paragraph CV. We welcome proposals from individuals and teams for papers, panels, or workshops in the following areas:

WORKSHOPS:

1 / New forms of publication, including social, hybrid, and dynamic editions; from the perspective of authors, editors, and publishers

2 / Training the next generation of digital humanists, for the alt-ac and/or tenure tracks

3 / Scholarship in the public sphere: crowdsourcing, collaboration and resource development; gathering expertise and feedback through social/web 2.0 channels

4 / Digital pedagogy: issues specific to early modern materials/archives; course and assignment designs; collaborating with students (graduate and undergraduate)

PANELS:

1 / Big data and early modern scholarship

2 / Text analysis and early modern language

3 / Data visualizations and/or GIS

4 / Other research, with a focus on results as well as processes

**Through the support of Iter, we are pleased to be able to offer travel subventions on a competitive basis to graduate student presenters. Those wishing to be considered for a subvention should indicate this in their abstract submission.**

Please submit proposals before Wednesday 11 June 2013 via EasyChair:

<https://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=ntmrs2014>

NB: All participants must be members of the RSA by August 2013 or they cannot be included in the program.

* William R. Bowen, University of Toronto Scarborough

* Laura Estill, Texas A&M

* Diane Jakacki, Bucknell University

* Ray Siemens, University of Victoria

* Michael Ullyot, University of Calgary

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 24.0225  Tuesday, 7 May 2013

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

Date:         May 7, 2013 12:00:59 AM EDT

Subject:     Re: Greenblatt

>This speculation comes from something other than the eyes.

I have read this several times trying to figure out if this is a pun and, if so, precisely how to parse it. I confess I am lost.

>So judgment says that the beloved is ugly, while the eyes of 

>love say s/he is beautiful. If the eyes of love see truly, then 

>judgment judges the beloved falsely. We take “censure” to 

>be negative, and so to imply “ugly”, but Duncan-Jones (I 

>haven’t located a Booth yet) says it then had no such 

>connotation. It simply meant to judge.

This is not fair to either Duncan-Jones or Booth, and, as I cited their glosses, I might be responsible for the unfairness. So let me try to set it to rights. Duncan-Jones says that “censures falsely what they see aright” “explores the possibility that the error is not in his eyes, but in his capacity to judge or appraise correctly what his eyes see”; while Booth says that the poem contains “a series of explanations for the discrepancy between what he esteems beautiful and what the world esteems so.” Neither Duncan-Jones nor Booth explicitly considered Bishop’s “speculation”; and, since we are here dealing with the rather slippery world of interpretation of the Sonnets, I don’t think we can say that they “reject” it. In that surreal world two (or more) different and somewhat contradictory meanings can exist simultaneously. Therefore, I would not jump to the conclusion that Booth and Duncan-Jones reject other glosses by implication. In this unique instance expresio unius non est exclusio alterius.

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 24.0224  Tuesday, 7 May 2013

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

Date:         May 6, 2013 9:39:55 PM EDT

Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Hollinshed

William Rubinstein wrote:

It is almost always said that Shakespeare used the second, 1587, edition of Holinshed in writing his History plays.

Can we be sure of this? Is it possible to point to references in these plays which were based on material in the second edition which did not appear in the earlier edition?

According to Kenneth Muir, The Sources of Shakespeare’s Plays (1977), this was all chewed over by W.G. Boswell-Stone, Shakespeare’s Holinshed (1907). The situation is complicated by Shakespeare using multiple sources (he used Hall’s Chronicle and Grafton’s Chronicle as well as Holinshed), but in Richard III, v.iii.324 he reproduces a mistake (“mother’s” for “brother’s”) from the 1587 edition of Holinshed (Muir p.33; Boswell-Stone p.417).

John Briggs

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 24.0223  Tuesday, 7 May 2013

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

Date:         May 6, 2013 4:41:44 PM EDT

Subject:     Re: Kent’s Character

Jack Heller wonders if Kent’s treatment of Oswald is “appropriate” in II.ii. It depends on a code of ethics we don’t so much hold to anymore. Kent succinctly explains what he finds so objectionable (lines 1139-40):

That such a slave as this should wear a sword, 

Who wears no honesty.

I don’t believe William Empson covered this particular case of “honesty,” but as used here it’s clearly one of his complex words. Kent’s actions are his explication: he offers insulting words, and then the flat of his sword, to demonstrate that Oswald doesn’t dare use his “edge.” In Oswald’s hands, the sword is for cowing those who are weak, not for meeting those equal in arms: he’s the practical definition of a villain. And there is Kent’s justification.