Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home ::


Review of Making Make-Believe Real: Politics as Theater in Shakespeare’s Time

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 26.132  Monday, 16 March 2015

 

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

Date:         Friday, March 13, 2015 at 3:14 PM

Subject:    Shakespeare and the Struggle for Power by Stanley Wells

 

[Editor’s Note: The following appeared in this The New York Review of Books. I will provide excerpts here; and if anyone wishes the entire article and does not have online access to The New York Review of Books, please contact me at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it . -Hardy]

 

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2015/mar/19/shakespeare-and-struggle-power/?insrc=toc

 

Shakespeare and the Struggle for Power

By Stanley Wells

March 19, 2015 

 

Making Make-Believe Real: Politics as Theater in Shakespeare’s Time

by Garry Wills

Yale University Press, 414 pp., $30.00

 

The twin stars of Garry Wills’s immensely well-informed and wide-ranging book are Queen Elizabeth I and William Shakespeare, but it also boasts a glittering supporting cast of courtiers, poets, statesmen, and playwrights other than Shakespeare. The theatrical metaphor is inevitable because of the resemblances in the Elizabethan Age between the theater and the great stage of the world, where politics, drama, and the other arts interacted and reflected one another.

 

Wills writes that the aim of his book is “to look at the various kinds of imaginative construction that went into [Elizabeth’s] reign—at its make-believe love, make-believe monarchy, make-believe religion, make-believe locales, and make-believe war.” Drama is at the book’s center because the plays of the time are full of self-dramatizing characters “who put themselves on a stage to delight in their own performance.” Shakespeare’s Richard III, Richard II, and Antony and Cleopatra, Marlowe’s Edward II and Tamburlaine, are just a few of the most obvious examples. And among these the “most grandiose self-presenters are men and women who seek or hold power.”

 

In real life, too, persons in positions of high power needed to use dramatic means to project their personalities, to exercise control, and even to sustain their personal identity. Elizabeth’s subjects put pressure on her, not least in the matter of marriage, but “the pressures on her changed over the years from urging her toward marriage to guarding her from marriage.” She negotiated her course in this as in many other difficult matters with consummate skill. As a result, during her long reign she won the admiration, even adulation, of a great number of extraordinary and diverse followers, many of whom figure in this book’s cast.

 

Of course, courtiers tend by nature to be sycophantic, and many expressions of praise for a monarch are insincere and self-serving. But Elizabeth was intelligent enough to preserve her integrity. She knew her own worth, writing in her private prayers:

 

I am unimpaired in body, with a good form, a healthy and 

substantial wit, prudence even beyond other women, and 

beyond this, distinguished and superior in the knowledge 

and use of literature and languages, which is highly esteemed

because unusual in my sex.

 

Especially toward the end of her reign she received adulatory tributes from poets such as Edmund Spenser, dramatists such as George Peele, musicians such as Thomas Morley, and a great bevy of lesser courtiers. But she had strength of character enough to distinguish between true and false praise.

 

Like a great actor, she was a mistress of the art of self-projection, aware of her theatricality. Wills quotes her own words: “Princes, you know, stand upon stages so that their actions are viewed and beheld of all men.” Throughout her reign she presented herself to her people with the flair and manipulative self-knowledge of a virtuoso performer. She could rise to great occasions with a dignity and grandeur worthy of a tragedy queen. Addressing her troops assembled at Tilbury in 1588 to repel the invasion by the Spanish Armada when, William Camden wrote, “incredible it is how much she encouraged the hearts of her captains and soldiers by her presence and speech to them,” “she is reported to have worn a silver cuirass, with an attendant riding beside her with a silver helmet.”

 

In doing so she emulated the soldier heroes and even heroines—such as Shakespeare’s Joan la Pucelle, who fights “with the sword of Deborah,” and Margaret of Anjou, “she-wolf of France”—of the stage: acting companies had stocks of armor for their dramatic warriors. Wills has a fascinating and informative section on scenes in Shakespeare in which characters are required to don armor: “The cumbrous task of assembling it around the body is indicated by the number of lines spoken while the actors do it. Macbeth… spends twenty-five lines on the process, then breaks it off unfinished and tells Seyton to carry it after him.” When Cleopatra takes over the task of arming Antony from his servant Eros, he needs to “keep correcting her efforts as he teases her about it.” And in The Two Noble Kinsmen Arcite and Palamon “spend almost fifty lines arming each other.” The make-believe of the theater mirrored the reality of the battlefield.

 

[ . . . ]

 

Wills is right to question what was said about the place of performance but not about its frequency. “No play by Shakespeare,” he writes, “can have been put on forty times in Elizabeth’s lifetime or even in his.” This is surely wrong: in the ad hoc theatrical system of the time plays could come and go with minimal preparation according to demand, as the theater records of Philip Henslowe amply demonstrate and as the Essex-inspired performance of Richard II itself shows.

 

Wills’s polemic is inspired by the desire to refute the idea that Richard II was put on as a subversive act, but he cannot deny, and does not try to deny, that the performance was commissioned by Essex’s followers the day before the uprising, or that the members of the company who performed it were hauled into court to give an account of themselves for doing so. It would surely be absurd to suggest that the insurrectionists simply wanted a good afternoon’s entertainment and just happened to alight on this play for the purpose. They would have done much better with A Midsummer Night’s Dream—or even with The Merry Wives of Windsor.

 

For all Wills’s interest in real-life theatricality, his approach to Shakespeare is essentially that of a reader rather than a playgoer. When he offers comment on performance it is based, so far as he tells us, on films or on other scholars’ accounts rather than on personal theatrical experience. This can result in clear misjudgments. Writing on The Taming of the Shrew, a play that allows him to vent his spleen against feminist critics, he comments that “Ann Thompson notes that Petruchio shares Kate’s deprivations of sleep and food” and that Petruccio “denies Kate meat because it is not good enough for her but denies himself because it makes him choleric: ‘And I expressly am forbid to touch it/For it engenders choler, planteth anger.’” And he criticizes John Cleese in the television version directed by Jonathan Miller (not, as he writes, by Peter Hall) on the grounds that he “slips when he later chews on a morsel of meat.”

 

[ . . . ]

 

 
Adventures in Original Punctuation

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 26.131  Friday, 13 March 2015

 

[1] From:        Gabriel Egan < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

     Date:         March 12, 2015 at 4:00:44 PM EDT

     Subject:    Re: SHAKSPER: OP 

 

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

     Date:         March 12, 2015 at 5:18:18 PM EDT

     Subject:    RE: SHAKSPER: OP 

 

 

[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date:         March 12, 2015 at 4:00:44 PM EDT

Subject:    Re: SHAKSPER: OP

 

In deference to what I suspect is the shortening patience of SHAKSPERians, I’ll keep this response to William Blanton short.

Blanton thinks that it is “pettifogging” to make a distinction between the claim “that Shakespeare himself was the one who marked up Q1” to produce Folio copy for The Merchant of Venice and the less specific claim (by Bate) that someone did it.

 

Since SHAKSPERians demonstrably care about what Shakespeare did in relation to his work, I trust that it matters to the majority of them even if it does not matter to Blanton.

 

Regarding the authority of the Folio versions of plays, Blanton writes:

 

> Hemings and Condell state that their friend Will

> Shakespeare wrote the plays included in the First

> Folio, and that they had selected the best versions

> of those plays for inclusion. That's good enough

> for me.

 

It should not be good enough for anyone who cares about the truth since part of this claim is demonstrably untrue: the Folio is not the best version for every play. 2 Henry 4, for instance, is represented in the Folio by an expurgated text in which Falstaff is robbed of his rich wordhoard of oaths evident in the preceding quarto.

 

Lastly, and equally erroneously:

 

> I believe that we all recognize that Shakespeare

> wrote his plays as scripts to be performed, not

> as texts to be studied.

 

We don’t. The vast body of evidence against this view is contained in two books by Lukas Erne:

 

‘Shakespeare as Literary Dramatist’ (Cambridge University Press, 2003) and ‘Shakespeare and the Book Trade’ (Cambridge University Press, 2013).

 

It’s not the ignorance I object to—who shall ‘scape whipping?--it’s the combination of ignorance and indignant certainty.

 

Gabriel Egan

 

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date:         March 12, 2015 at 5:18:18 PM EDT

Subject:    RE: SHAKSPER: OP

 

Bill Blanton has been on the receiving end of some pretty gratuitous patronising from Gradgrind Egan.

 

Egan is setting himself up as arbiter of truth in areas where is knowledge is, at best partial, and at worst misleading, and throws brickbats at anyone and everyone.  Let me say that if he is an arbiter of knowledge then my name Dr Faustus.

 

I’m afraid that I started this bibliographical hailstorm by making of your original question (that was a perfectly good one) something that does involve recognising that how we deal with characters such as ‘Shylock’ and that involves some awareness of how thee marks printed on thee page got there. There is a rather conservative strand in textual bibliography to which Egan seems now to have attached himself, and from this position he professes to decide what is scientific ‘truth’ and what is error.  Moreover, he lectures you on a politeness that he is unable to maintain himself, as his recent childish outburst indicates.  Clearly, he is now trying to recover some semblance of professional courtesy. He hasn’t got there yet but we’ll give him time.

 

You are right to insist that Launcelet’s surname is ‘Iobbe’ and NOT ‘Gobbo’. The question is: what can we do with this instability and how do we justify it.  It is because we have too few surviving copies of Q1 in existence that it would be difficult to reconstruct a fuller printing history for it. Charlton Hinman gathered together some 70+ copies of the First Folio (now swollen to 90), and I have found that for a quarto text something of the order of 30-35 might suffice, but even then an element of serendipity prevails.

 

There is evidence to suggest that MV was an untidy play.  There are some loose ends and it is difficult to know what to do with them  The ‘Iobbe’ issue is one of them. IF ‘Iobbe’ is something that in the manuscript copy from which Q1 is set is substantive, then we might be able to suggest the reason for thee name of the son ‘Launcelet’. Have a look at Patricia Parker’s excellent chaapter in Alternative Shakespeares 3 where the name ‘Lancelet’ is teased out carefully.

 

I would, if I were you, not be sidetracked into the debate about the few other textual cruces that appear in Q1.  Thus far they have been in this discussion nothing more than opportunities for airing of imperfect knowledge.

 

If you still want to pose your original question about Shylock and the Devil, please do so and I will respond without the excursions into textual bibliography.

 

Cheers

John Drakakis

 
 
The SATAN is in the details of Romeo(us) & Juliet….AND the King James Bible, too!

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 26.130  Friday, 13 March 2015

 

[1] From:        Lois Leveen < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

     Date:         March 12, 2015 at 12:47:28 PM EDT

     Subject:    SHAKSPER: Secret Code 

 

[2] From:        Arnie Perlstein < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

     Date:         March 12, 2015 at 6:40:40 PM EDT

     Subject:    The SATAN is in the details of Romeo(us) & Juliet….AND the King James Bible, too!

 

 

[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date:         March 12, 2015 at 12:47:28 PM EDT

Subject:    SHAKSPER: Secret Code

 

On Mar 11, 2015, at 3:37 PM, Bill Lloyd < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it > wrote:

 

>Re Arnie Perlstein’s SECRET SATAN...

>It occurs to me that since Brooke, Shakespeare, and Milton

>published their SATAN acrostics in 1562, 1597 and 1667 

>that there must have been one published in 1632, so that 

>they would all appear a uniform 35 years apart. Maybe the 

>1632 Second Folio of Shakespeare counts, though that 

>hardly seems fair.  Perhaps Lyly’s ‘Six Court Comedies’?

>And what was published in 1527 and 1702? We have some 

>SATAN scouting to do.

>

>Need I point out that the 35-year gaps are not without 

>significance? 35 is 5 x 7; and 5 + 7 =12. So there you have 

>the 12 tribes of Israel, the Seven Deadly Sinnes and the 

>Five, uh.... hmmm I’ll have to get back to you on that...

 

I’m pretty sure the phrase Bill seeks is “Five Golden Rings” which then feeds into ONE ring to bind them and we see that Golem is Satan is Sir Israel Gollancz – founding member of the British Academy, and Hon. Sec. of the Shakespeare Memorial National Theatre Committee (and, according to a scholarly paper I heard Gordon McMullan of King’s College London deliver last year, possibly the model for Tolkien’s character).  

 

-Lois Leveen

 

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date:         March 12, 2015 at 6:40:40 PM EDT

Subject:    The SATAN is in the details of Romeo(us) & Juliet….AND the King James Bible, too!

 

Bill Lloyd wrote: “It occurs to me that since Brooke, Shakespeare, and Milton published their SATAN acrostics in 1562, 1597 and 1667 that there must have been one published in 1632, so that they would all appear a uniform 35 years apart. Maybe the 1632 Second Folio of Shakespeare counts, though that hardly seems fair.  Perhaps Lyly’s ‘Six Court Comedies’? And what was published in 1527 and 1702? We have some SATAN scouting to do.”

 

Bill, your tongue is clearly at the edge of your cheek, but I’ll indulge in wagging mine back at you a bit—let me point out that I attributed NO significance whatsoever to the specific year of publication of Romeo & Juliet. I merely mentioned 1597 as the year of its publication, in passing, and I assumed that most reading it here in this Shakespeare-savvy venue would know that this was merely shorthand on my part. 

 

From what I understand, the First “Bad” Quarto of Romeo & Juliet was published in 1597, but the Second “Good” Quarto was published in 1599. The 1599 Good Quarto, by the way, actually is the first to have the SATAN acrostic—as does the much later 1623 First Folio-whereas the 1597 First Quarto, revealingly, does NOT. This suggests to me that the SATAN acrostic was unknown to or unrecognized by the 1597 non-Shakespearean author, and/or that the SATAN acrostic was actually first added to the play text by Shakespeare himself after 1597. 

 

But back to your clever straw man of cicada-like 35-year rhythmic cycles. As I just explained, there is not even a real superficial pattern to cleverly manipulate. Your straw man merely illustrates the danger of claiming the existence of an intentional pattern of parallels based on too few and too thin points of correspondence. It begs the question of whether a specific case with some meat on the bones is real or Memorex. And when you wrote ….

 

“Need I point out that the 35-year gaps are not without significance? 35 is 5 x 7; and 5 + 7 =12. So there you have the 12 tribes of Israel, the Seven Deadly Sinnes and the Five, uh.... hmmm I’ll have to get back to you on that...”

 

 …your tongue disappeared so DEEP into your cheek, that all I can do is applaud your wit and move on.

 

As for Lawrence’s reply to me (extracting 6-6-6 from my hyperbolic guess of the mathematical improbability of coincidence of the three SATAN acrostics), that was also very clever, but it evades the central question, which (if I may use an apt cliché) is that the devil (or should I say, the SATAN) is in the details. 

 

And if you look at all the specific details that converge among Brooke, Shakespeare, and Milton, focused on the SATAN acrostics in each, they collectively present a dense, large and coordinated web of parallelism that I claim really is astronomically unlikely to have occurred randomly. If you disagree, I’d love to hear some substantive argument in support of your disagreement, in which you address the actual points I made, and give some other explanation for how those specific points, connected as I showed they are, could have appeared randomly. 

 

And the beauty and strength of my central claim is that it really does rest on the impregnable foundation of three texts which each have very clear SATAN acrostics at congruent points in their respective chronologies. All the rest of my argument are “ornaments” I have hung on that very firmly planted rhetorical ANTIChristmas tree (i.e., the one Satan decorates).   ;)

 

If I understand you, Lawrence, your point in taking my hyperbolic claim of the mammoth size of the improbability of coincidence, and pulling out of it a Satanic numerological pattern, is clever---  is that it demonstrates that patterns can be ingeniously generated post hoc which have a superficial veneer of prior intentionality. But, again, that should merely function as a reminder not to jump too quickly at superficial patterns. I believe that what I presented is qualitatively different from your example—and exponentially less probable to be a figment of my overheated imagination. 

 

And one last thing—when and if either of you (or anyone else) responds, you will now have to contend with an additional major point of textual congruence, which was pointed out to me privately by a very sharp and precise scholar, a mathematician from Norway named Frode Larsen, who wrote the following response to me the other day:

 

“Arnie, you mention a link to the King James Bible given by the occurrence of the number 42 in both the quotation from R & J and in Revelation 13.5. When you specifically refer to the KJV, I guess the reason is that both in R & J and in the KJV, “two and forty”/“forty and two” are preceded by the word “continue”, which I don’t find in the versions of the Bishop’s Bible or the Geneva Bible I have looked at.”

 

And my immediate answer to Frode was, “No, as carefully as I looked at those two lines, I did NOT consciously notice that both the Revelations verse with “two-and-forty” and the R&J verse with “two and forty’ both used the word “continue”, too! I used the KJV as my Biblical source only because it was the one that was published not long after R&J, and it is the one that has historically exerted the greatest influence over the past 4 centuries. I.e., the KJV is THE English language version of the Bible. So, Frode, I thank you very much, because you have just made my original claim that much stronger, by showing yet another hidden connection in the matrix among the KJV, Romeus & Juliet, Romeo & Juliet, and Paradise Lost. And I will honor your insight by leveraging still further, to draw more tightly into this matrix one other famous and great literary work, Jane Austen’s Mansfield Park.

 

I.e., the skeptics must also explain why the word “continue” is there in BOTH the KJV and in Friar Laurence’s speech, in both cases modifying “two-and-forty”. I’d say, just add a few more zeroes to the string of them comprising the cosmically large improbability of coincidence.

 

I will write up the post I promised Frode sometime in the next week, in which I will draw Jane Austen into my web of literary SATANism. For now, I will merely add the following tantalizing additional hypothesis for you all to chew on:

 

The 1597 Q1 of Romeo & Juliet lacks BOTH the SATAN acrostic AND the word “continue” (which, as a classical scholar friend of mine whom I will mention in my next post, has told me, is something of a reach in translating the verb in the original Biblical Greek), but the 1599 Q2 of R&J was published BEFORE the KJV was even authorized in 1604, let alone was published in 1611. 

 

So, how to explain this apparent allusion between Romeo & Juliet and the KJV Book of Revelation? The simplest and most likely explanation, it seems to me, is that the translator(s) of the Book of Revelation in the KJV were aware of Friar Laurence’s SATAN acrostic and its veiled allusion to the Book of Revelation! I will address that in more detail in my next post as well.

 

And I’ll stop there before I get hyperbolic again, and give Bill or Lawrence more fodder for clever satire.

 

Cheers, ARNIE

 
 
Broadway Twelfth Night and More Now on Globe Player

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 26.129  Friday, 13 March 2015

 

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

Date:         March 13, 2015 at 11:33:27 AM EDT

Subject:    Broadway Twelfth Night and More Now on Globe Player

 

Twelfth Night, The Taming of the Shrew, Henry V and Othello now available on Globe Player in the US

 

You can now enjoy our 2012 productions on Globe Player in the comfort of your own home.

 

Relive the magic of Broadway sensation Twelfth Night with Mark Rylance and Stephen Fry; laugh once more at The Taming of the Shrew starring Samantha Spiro; or follow Henry V into battle as Jamie Parker returns after his much loved for his performance as Prince Hal in Henry IV Parts 1 & 2 (2010).

 

Also just released is our 2007 production of Othello with Eammon Walker (HBO’s Oz) in the title role and Tim Innerny (Notting Hill and BBC's Blackadder) as the enraged Iago.

 

https://www.globeplayer.tv/videos/twelfth-night?utm_source=Shakespeare%27s+Globe&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=5451349_Globe+Player+-+2012+US+releases+and+Othello&utm_content=TwelfthNight&dm_i=1U22,38UAD,CGT9UR,BM9MQ,1

 

https://www.globeplayer.tv/videos/the-taming-of-the-shrew-english?utm_source=Shakespeare%27s+Globe&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=5451349_Globe+Player+-+2012+US+releases+and+Othello&utm_content=TamingOfTheShrew&dm_i=1U22,38UAD,CGT9UR,BM9MQ,1

 

https://www.globeplayer.tv/videos/the-taming-of-the-shrew-english?utm_source=Shakespeare%27s+Globe&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=5451349_Globe+Player+-+2012+US+releases+and+Othello&utm_content=TamingOfTheShrew&dm_i=1U22,38UAD,CGT9UR,BM9MQ,1

 

https://www.globeplayer.tv/videos/othello?utm_source=Shakespeare%27s+Globe&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=5451349_Globe+Player+-+2012+US+releases+and+Othello&utm_content=Othello&dm_i=1U22,38UAD,CGT9UR,BM9MQ,1

 
 
Lexicons of Early Modern English now includes over 713,000 word-entries!

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 26.128  Friday, 13 March 2015

 

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

Date:         March 13, 2015 at 11:18:24 AM EDT

Subject:    Lexicons of Early Modern English now includes over 713,000 word-entries!

 

Lexicons of Early Modern English now includes over 713,000 word-entries!

 

Lexicons of Early Modern English is a growing historical database offering scholars unprecedented access to early books and manuscripts documenting the growth and development of the English language.  

 

With the recent additions of the immense Latin-English text, Ortus Vocabulorum, White Kennett’s very detailed etymological work, Parochial Antiquities (1695), and Nathan Bailey’s 900-page Universal Etymological English Dictionary (1737), this incredible resource now boasts more than 713,000 word entries! The addition of Ortus Vocabulorum completes LEME’s series of the four large Latin and English dictionaries in manuscript and print at the end of the fifteenth century (Promptorium Parvulorum, Catholicon Anglicum, Medulla Grammatice in Pepys MS 2002, and Ortus).

 

Recently added to Lexicons of Early Modern English - http://bit.ly/_leme

 

· Nathan Bailey, Universal Etymological English Dictionary (1737)

·  White Kennett, Parochial Antiquities (1695)

·  Ortus Vocabulorum (1500)

 

Coming soon to LEME

· Henry Hexham, A Copious English and Netherdutch Dictionary (1641-42)

· Richard Hogarth, Gazophylacium Anglicanum (1689)

 

Use Modern Techniques to Research Early Modern English!

203 searchable lexicons   

152 fully analyzed lexicons 

713,402 total word entries

493,827 fully analyzed word entries

60,891 total English modern headwords

 

LEME sets the standard for modern linguistic research on the English language. LEME provides researchers with more than 710,000 word-entries from 203 monolingual, bilingual, and polyglot dictionaries, lexical encyclopedias, hard-word glossaries, spelling lists, and lexically-valuable treatises surviving in print or manuscript from the Tudor, Stuart, Caroline, Commonwealth, and Restoration periods.

 

LEME provides exciting opportunities for research for historians of the English language. More than a half-million word-entries devised by contemporary speakers of early modern English describe the meaning of words, and their equivalents in languages such as French, Italian, Spanish, Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and other tongues encountered then in Europe, America, and Asia.

 

For a partial bibliography of publications that employ LEME, see herehttp://bit.ly/lemebiblio

 

Join the LEME email list!

Sign up for important news relating to Lexicons of Early Modern English. You'll receive emails highlighting new and upcoming additions to the database, editorial announcements and LEME news. You can unsubscribe at any time and we will never publish, rent or sell your contact details to anyone . Sign up here – http://bit.ly/leme_alerts

 

University of Toronto Press Journals 

5201 Dufferin St., Toronto, ON, Canada M3H 5T8

Tel: (416) 667-7810 Fax: (416) 667-7881 

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

www.utpjournals.com/leme

http://leme.library.utoronto.ca/

 

posted by T Hawkins

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

Page 7 of 15

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.