DOCSLIB.ORG

Introduction

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Introduction Notes Introduction 1. Mr. William Shakespeare’s Comedies, Histories, & Tragedies. Published According to the True Originall Copies (London: Isaac Iaggard and Ed. Blount, 1623), A5r. 2. Ibid. 3. Ibid. 4. Ibid. 5. Ibid. 6. Ibid., A5r–A5v. 7. E. K. Chambers emends “deere” to “cleere,” and, as G. Blakemore Evans notes, the Hol- gate MS, fol. 110 (Pierpont Morgan Library), and Additional MS. 30982 at the British Library read “deere.” See Chambers, William Shakespeare (Oxford: Clarendon, 1930), 2:224; Evans, “Early Critical Comment on the Plays and Poems,” in The Riverside Shake- speare, 2nd ed., ed. G. Blakemore Evans, with J. J. M. Tobin (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1997), 1971. 8. Evans, “Early Critical Comment,” 1971–72. 9. Ibid., 1973. 10. Ibid. 11. Mr. William Shakespeares, A5v. 12. Ibid. 13. Ibid. 14. Ibid. 15. Ibid. 16. A good example of an accomplished scholar writing a general book for what he calls “a non-professional audience” is Frank Kermode, Shakespeare’s Language (2000; repr., Lon- don: Penguin, 2001), vii. 17. Gilbert Murray, The Classical Tradition in Modern Poetry (1927; repr., New York: Vintage Books, 1957), vii. On Ben Jonson, see Anne Barton, Ben Jonson, Dramatist (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984). 18. Rather than go into this topic, I refer to my other discussions of Shakespeare’s relation to irony and Romanticism in a number of works, including Theater and World: The Prob- lematics of Shakespeare’s History (Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1992), esp. 9–11, 228–31. 19. William Lambard, in John Nichols, Progresses and Processions of Queen Elizabeth (1823), quoted in The Shakespeare Allusion-Book, ed. and rev. J. Munro (1909; repr., Freeport, NY: Books for Library Press, 1970), 100. 20. Walter Kaufman, From Shakespeare to Existentialism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980), 3. 212 NOTES, PP. 1–13 21. The Platonic Socrates, particularly in the tenth book of Republic, shows skepticism over the role of Homer in Greek education and would prefer that poetry serve philosophical and political ends. This is an attempt to displace poetry with philosophy. Still, Plato is also uncomfortable with the rhetoricians, comparing these professionals with someone devoted to education without financial interests—Socrates, poetry, philosophy, and rheto- ric are not—as his student, Aristotle, recognized—easy to separate. To persuade is, for Aristotle, the end of the rhetoric: “Persuasion is clearly a sort of demonstration, since we are most fully persuaded when we consider a thing to have been demonstrated.” Aristotle, Rhetoric, trans. W. Rhys Roberts (1924; repr., New York: Dover, 2004), 1355a. Aristotle does not portray the study and practice of rhetoric, which originated in the Greek colony in Sicily and was exported back to Athens, as something insincere and manipulative. No cheap lawyer jokes for him. Instead, Aristotle says that rhetoric is of use “because things that are true and things that are just have a natural tendency to prevail over their oppo- sites, so that if the decisions of judges are not what they ought to be, the defeat must be due to the speakers themselves, and they must be blamed accordingly.” Aristotle, Rhetoric, 1355a. See Plato, The Republic of Plato, trans. Francis MacDonald Cornford (1941; repr., Oxford: Clarendon, 1945), Book X, 595 A-608 B. Poetry, according to Aristotle, sprang from imitation and harmony and rhythm. He considers these aspects to be two elements deep in human nature. Poetry, for Aristotle, comes down to a relation between the char- acter of the author and the choice of genre. On Aristotle, see Jonathan Hart, “The Author Writes Back (and Speaks Up),” Primerjalna književnost 31, no. 2 (2008): 15–37. 22. Clifford Geertz, Available Light: Anthropological Reflections on Philosophical Topics (2000; repr., Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001), 3. For my own recent discussions of culture, poetics, interpretation, recognition and other topics, see Interpreting Cultures: Literature, Religion, and the Human Sciences (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006). 23. See Aristotle, Poetics, chapter 9. 24. In a well-known passage, Philip Sidney gives us a view of the historian as lost in a slowly vanishing archive: “The Historian, scarcely giueth leysure to the Moralist, to say so much, but that he loden with old Mouse-eaten records, authorising himselfe (for the most part) vpon other histories, whose greatest authorities, are built vpon the notable foundation of Heare-say, hauing much a-doe to accord differing VVriters, and to pick trueth out of partiality, better acquainted with a thousande yeeres a goe, then with the present age.” See An apologie for poetrie. VVritten by the right noble, vertuous, and learned, Sir Phillip Sidney, Knight, At London: Printed [by James Roberts] for Henry Olney, and are to be sold at his shop in Paules Church-yard, at the signe of the George, neere to Cheap-gate, Anno. 1595. In the opening paragraphs of “Preface to Shakespeare,” Samuel Johnson also says famously, “Shakespeare is above all writers, at least above all modern writers, the poet of nature; the poet that holds up to his readers a faithful mirrour of manners and of life. His persons act and speak by the influence of those general passions and principles by which all minds are agitated, and whole system of life is continued in motion. In the writings of other poets a character is too often an individual; in those of Shakespeare it is commonly a species.” See Mr. Johnson’s Preface to His Edition of Shakespear’s Plays (London: J. and R. Tonson, H. Woodfall, J. Rivington, R. Baldwin, L. Hawes, Clark and Collins, T. Longman, W. John- ston, T. Caslon, C. Corbet, T. Lownds, and the Executors on B. Dodd, 1765), A4v–A5r. In Jerusalem, William Blake takes a contrary view to Johnson’s: “He who would do good to another must do it in Minute Particulars. / General Good is the plea of the scoundrel, hypocrite & flatterer: / For Art & Science cannot exist but in minutely organized Particulars, / And not in generalizing Demonstrations of the Rational Power.” See William Blake, “Jeru- salem,” in The Complete Poetry and Prose of William Blake, rev. ed., ed. David V. Erdman and Harold Bloom (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982), 205. NOTES, PP. 1–13 213 25. For a discussion of the London of Shakespeare and its material culture at the turn of the seventeenth century, see Material London, ca. 1600, ed. Lena Cowen Orwin (Philadel- phia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2000). In this volume, on the theatres in London, see Andrew Gurr, “The Authority of the Globe and the Fortune,” 251–67. 26. Ben Jonson, The Workes of Beniamin Ionson (London: Will Stansby, 1616). 27. See Rosalind Miles, Ben Jonson: His Life and Work (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1986), 166–69. See also David Riggs, Ben Jonson: A Life (Cambridge MA: Harvard Uni- versity Press, 1989); Sarah Van Den Berg, “True Relation: the Life and Career of Ben Jon- son,” in The Cambridge Companion to Ben Jonson, ed. Richard Harp and Stanley Stewart (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 1–13; and, in the same volume, Leah Marcus, “Jonson and the Court,” 30–42. My thanks to Jane Wong for discussing Jonson as laureate. 28. For records on Shakespeare’s life, see, for example, E. K. Chambers, William Shakespeare, 2:1–18. See also Samuel Schoenbaum, William Shakespeare: A Documentary Life (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975); William Shakespeare: Records and Images (New York: Oxford Uni- versity Press, 1981). 29. Mark Harrison, Disease and the Modern World: 1500 to the Modern World (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2004), 27–29. See also F. P. Wilson, The Plague in Shakespeare’s London (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1927); William H. McNeill, Plagues and Peoples (Oxford: Blackwell, 1977); Clare Gittings, Death, Burial and the Individual in Early Mod- ern England (London: Croom Helm, 1984); Paul Slack, The Impact of Plague in Tudor and Stuart England (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985); J. Leeds Barroll, Politics, Plague, and Shakespeare’s Theatre: The Stuart Years (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1991); F. David Hoeniger, Medicine and Shakespeare in the English Renaissance (Newark: University of Delaware Press, 1992); Nat Wayne Hardy, “Anatomy of Pestilence: The Satiric Disgust of Plague in Early Modern London (1563–1625)” (PhD thesis, University of Alberta, 2000); Colin Heywood, A History of Childhood (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2001). 30. See John Seeley, The Expansion of England (London: Macmillan, 1883). 31. In 1734, Voltaire showed ambivalence toward Shakespeare (he wrote about Shakespeare from about 1733 to 1776): “The English as well as the Spaniards were posses’d of Theatres, at a Time when the French had no more than moving, itinerant Stages. Shakespear boasted a strong, fruitful Genius: He was natural and sublime, but had not so much as a single Spark of good Taste, or knew one Rule of the Drama.” See “Shakespeare’s Montrous Farces . Lettres Philosophiques, 1734,” in Four Centuries of Shakesperian Criticism, ed. J. Frank Kermode (New York: Discus/Avon, 1965), 73. In 1765, Samuel Johnson observed, “When Shakespeare’s plan is understood, most of the criticisms of Rymer and Voltaire vanish away.” See “Samuel Johnson, Edition of Shakespeare 1765,” in William Shake- speare: The Critical Heritage, ed. Brian Vickers (London: Routledge, 1974), 45. Elizabeth Montagu also came to the defense of Shakespeare against Voltaire’s charges of barbarism in “Essay on the Writings and Genius of Shakespeare,” in Vickers, William Shakespeare, 169;
Load more

Recommended publications
  • JOHN FRANK KERMODE John Frank Kermode 1919–2010
    JOHN FRANK KERMODE John Frank Kermode 1919–2010 I PROFESSOR SIR FRANK KERMODE WAS A DISTINGUISHED literary scholar and the pre-eminent critic of his generation. Unlike the best-known critics of a slightly earlier time—R. P. Blackmur, Lionel Trilling or William Empson, for example, all born fifteen years or so earlier than he—Kermode did not present himself as an amateur or an intellectual or a person who took a whole national canon as his material. He was an academic specialist, he had a ‘field’: the English Renaissance. He edited Shakespeare, collections of works by Donne, Marvell, Milton, Spenser and English pastoral poetry. One of his last and most frequently read books is Shakespeare’s Language (New York, 2000). But he was never confined by his field; he knew when and how to set his specialised knowledge aside, or use it to understand other areas of scholarship and endeavour. All of his writing was prompted by what he himself called his love of words (‘whatever they meant—even without knowing what they meant’1)—and was full of subtle, searching thought on difficult topics. His work remains literary even when it seems to have strayed into other regions. He suggested that his book The Sense of an Ending (Oxford, 1967) was ‘recognisable as literary criticism’, in spite of its informed attention to ‘the psychology and sociology of apocalyptic thinking’.2 We may conclude that he was after all an amateur, an intellectual 1 F. Kermode, Not Entitled: a Memoir (New York, 1995), p. 6. 2 Ibid., p. 220.
    [Show full text]
  • A Conversation with Sir Frank Kermode
    SELLogan 45, 2D. (Spring Browning 2005): 461–479 461 ISSN 0039-3657 A Conversation with Sir Frank Kermode LOGAN D. BROWNING The ten-page article “Some Recent Studies in Shakespeare and Jacobean Drama” by Frank Kermode appeared in the fi rst volume of SEL in the spring of 1961. Kermode, already highly ad- mired in the scholarly world generally, but with the Arden edition of Shakespeare’s Tempest then his only signifi cant publication in the area of Renaissance drama, assessed the general state of the fi eld, but focused particularly on four books and one journal: Alvin Kernan’s The Cankered Muse: Satire of the English Renais- sance, Jonas A. Barish’s Ben Jonson and the Language of Prose Comedy, volume 11 of Shakespeare Quarterly, Bertrand Evans’s Shakespeare’s Comedies, and William Rosen’s Shakespeare and the Craft of Tragedy. By contrast, Richard Dutton treats more than ninety books and journals in this issue’s review essay, “Recent Studies in Tudor and Stuart Drama.” On several occasions over the last few years, the editors of SEL have invited Kermode to reprise his role as review author for SEL, but, no doubt contem- plating the immense amount of work involved, he declined each entreaty. He did, however, agree to submit this past October to the videotaping in his Cambridge fl at of a full day of conversation between himself and SEL’s managing editor, Logan Browning, during which he registered his sense of the state of the profession of literary criticism and scholarship, with particular attention to Shakespeare and his contemporaries.
    [Show full text]
  • ANNE BARTON Anne Barton 1933–2013
    ANNE BARTON Anne Barton 1933–2013 IN 1953 SHAKESPEARE QUARTERLY, then, as now, one of the two leading academic Shakespeare journals in the world, published an article concisely titled ‘Love’s Labour’s Lost’.1 The list of contributors identified the author as ‘Miss Bobbyann Roesen, a Senior at Bryn Mawr’, who ‘is the first under- graduate to contribute an essay to Shakespeare Quarterly. She attended the Shakespeare Institute at Stratford-upon-Avon in the summer of 1952 and hopes to pursue graduate studies in Renaissance literature at Oxford or Cambridge.’2 Looking back forty years later, the former Miss Roesen, now Anne Barton, had ‘a few qualms and misgivings’ about reprinting the article in a collection of some of her pieces. As usual, her estimate of her own work was accurate, if too modest: As an essay drawing fresh attention to a play extraordinarily neglected or mis- represented before that date, it does not seem to me negligible. Both its high estimate of the comedy and the particular reading it advances are things in which I still believe. But, however influential it may have been, it is now a period piece, written in a style all too redolent of a youthful passion for Walter Pater.3 Undoubtedly influential and far from negligible, the article not only continues to read well, for all its Paterisms, but also continues to seem an extraordinary accomplishment for an undergraduate. There is, through- out, a remarkable ability to close-read Shakespeare carefully and with sus- tained sensitivity, to see how the language is working on the page and how 1 Bobbyann Roesen, ‘Love’s Labour’s Lost’, Shakespeare Quarterly, 4 (1953), 411–26.
    [Show full text]
  • Making Shakespeare Accessible to the High School Student: a Study of Language and Relationships in Hamlet and the Taming of the Shrew
    Making Shakespeare Accessible to the High School Student: A Study of Language and Relationships in Hamlet and The Taming of the Shrew Virginia Kay Jones INTRODUCTION Having taught for over thirty years at an inner city high school, I have tried not only to shape my curriculum to my students‘ needs but also to make the study of British literature relevant to my students‘ lives. The teaching of Shakespeare is always a challenge. I have taught Romeo and Juliet, Julius Caesar, Macbeth, The Taming of the Shrew, A Midsummer Night’s Dream, and Hamlet—all with varying degrees of success. For the past few years, Hamlet has been my focal point for the spring semester of senior English. Although my students enjoy the play—often stating that it is the first Shakespearean play that they have liked—I feel that I can do more than what I am doing. By just reading and discussing a play, a student cannot appreciate the essence of the work. My students love language. They can improvise rap and create beautiful poetry with little prompting. However, they are afraid to tackle Shakespeare. I intend to design a unit that will make the study of Shakespeare more accessible to my students by helping them ―come to terms‖ with the language. My students also love to act, so I want to teach Shakespeare with a more performance-based approach. Additionally, I want to expose my students to Shakespearean comedy as well as tragedy. A unit designed around the theme of relationships (male-female, sibling, and parent-child) is the thread to connect Hamlet and The Taming of the Shrew and make them more relevant to today‘s students.
    [Show full text]
  • VII Shakespeare
    VII Shakespeare BRETT GREATLEY-HIRSCH, PETER J. SMITH, ELISABETTA TARANTINO, DOMENICO LOVASCIO, SHIRLEY BELL, CHRISTIAN GRIFFITHS, KATE WILKINSON, SHEILAGH ILONA O’BRIEN, AND LOUISE POWELL This chapter has three sections: 1. Editions and Textual Studies; 2. Shakespeare in the Theatre; 3. Criticism. Section 1 is by Brett Greatley- Hirsch; section 2 is by Peter J. Smith; section 3(a) is by Elisabetta Tarantino; section 3(b) is by Domenico Lovascio; section 3(c) is by Shirley Bell; section 3(d) is by Christian Griffiths; section 3(e) is by Kate Wilkinson; section 3(f) is by Sheilagh Ilona O’Brien; section 3(g) is by Louise Powell. 1. Editions and Textual Studies Readers will, I hope, forgive the relative brevity and narrow scope of this section as a necessary consequence of accepting the YWES brief three-quarters into the year. To avoid piecemeal, superficial treatment of the full range of this year’s offerings in Shakespearean textual studies, I limit my focus to a more manageable section of scholarship: studies in authorship attribution and the apocrypha. My discussion thus excludes a great deal of interesting and important work across a field whose vibrancy and rapid evolution is reflected by the range of topics brought together in Margaret Jane Kidnie and Sonia Massai’s Shakespeare and Textual Studies (CUP). My capacity as interim caretaker of this section similarly does not allow me to give the third edition of The Norton Shakespeare (Norton) and three impressive monographs — Laura Estill’s Dramatic Extracts in Seventeenth-Century English Manuscripts (UDelP), Judith Milhous and Robert D.
    [Show full text]
  • Hamlet (The New Cambridge Shakespeare, Philip Edwards Ed., 2E, 2003)
    Hamlet Prince of Denmark Edited by Philip Edwards An international team of scholars offers: . modernized, easily accessible texts • ample commentary and introductions . attention to the theatrical qualities of each play and its stage history . informative illustrations Hamlet Philip Edwards aims to bring the reader, playgoer and director of Hamlet into the closest possible contact with Shakespeare's most famous and most perplexing play. He concentrates on essentials, dealing succinctly with the huge volume of commentary and controversy which the play has provoked and offering a way forward which enables us once again to recognise its full tragic energy. The introduction and commentary reveal an author with a lively awareness of the importance of perceiving the play as a theatrical document, one which comes to life, which is completed only in performance.' Review of English Studies For this updated edition, Robert Hapgood Cover design by Paul Oldman, based has added a new section on prevailing on a draining by David Hockney, critical and performance approaches to reproduced by permission of tlie Hamlet. He discusses recent film and stage performances, actors of the Hamlet role as well as directors of the play; his account of new scholarship stresses the role of remembering and forgetting in the play, and the impact of feminist and performance studies. CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS www.cambridge.org THE NEW CAMBRIDGE SHAKESPEARE GENERAL EDITOR Brian Gibbons, University of Munster ASSOCIATE GENERAL EDITOR A. R. Braunmuller, University of California, Los Angeles From the publication of the first volumes in 1984 the General Editor of the New Cambridge Shakespeare was Philip Brockbank and the Associate General Editors were Brian Gibbons and Robin Hood.
    [Show full text]
  • King Richard III: Updated Edition Edited by Janis Lull Frontmatter More Information
    Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-73556-8 - King Richard III: Updated Edition Edited by Janis Lull Frontmatter More information THE NEW CAMBRIDGE SHAKESPEARE general editor Brian Gibbons associate general editor A. R. Braunmuller, University of California, Los Angeles From the publication of the first volumes in 1984 the General Editor of the New Cambridge Shakespeare was Philip Brockbank and the Associate General Editors were Brian Gibbons and Robin Hood. From 1990 to 1994 the General Editor was Brian Gibbons and the Associate General Editors were A. R. Braunmuller and Robin Hood. KING RICHARD III King Richard III is one of Shakespeare’s most popular and frequently performed plays. Janis Lull’s introduction to this new edition, based on the First Folio, emphasises the play’s tragic themes – individual identity, determinism and choice – and stresses the importance of women’s roles in the play. It also underscores the special relationship between Richard III and Macbeth, demonstrating that the later tragedy re-examines issues raised in the earlier one. A thorough performance history of stage and film versions of Richard III shows how the text has been cut, rewritten and reshaped by directors and actors to enhance the role of Richard at the expense of other parts, especially those of the women. This updated edition contains a new introductory section covering recent criticism and performances – including the RSC cycles of the history plays – of this perennially popular play. The notes define the play’s language in terms easily accessible
    [Show full text]
  • Douglas Bruster
    DOUGLAS BRUSTER Mody C. Boatright Regents Professor in American and English Literature Distinguished Teaching Professor Department of English, 1 University Station B5000 The University of Texas at Austin Austin, Texas 78712-1164 512.471.3635 (Office) ● 512.550.3465 (Mobile) [email protected] CURRICULUM VITAE EDUCATION ______________________________________________________________________________ 1990 Harvard University Ph.D. (English) 1987 Harvard University M.A. (English) 1985 University of Nebraska B.A. (English, History, Latin) ______________________________________________________________________________ APPOINTMENTS ______________________________________________________________________________ 2009- The University of Texas at Austin 2008 Université de Paris X (visiting professor) 1999-2008 The University of Texas at Austin 1995-99 The University of Texas at San Antonio 1991-95 The University of Chicago 1990-91 Harvard University ______________________________________________________________________________ PUBLICATIONS ~ BOOKS _____________________________________________________________________________ v Shakespeare and the Power of Performance: Stage and Page in the Elizabethan Theatre. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. With Robert Weimann. v To Be or Not To Be. London and New York: Continuum, 2007. v Prologues to Shakespeare’s Theatre: Performance and Liminality in Early Modern Drama. London and New York: Routledge, 2004. With Robert Weimann. v Shakespeare and the Question of Culture: Early Modern Literature
    [Show full text]
  • Alistair Brown BA MA Phd AHEA [email protected]
    Alistair Brown BA MA PhD AHEA [email protected] OVERVIEW Journal publications and book chapters in fields of contemporary literature, science and literature, and the digital humanities Teaching and syllabus development experience at four universities Active contribution to REF impact as founder and editor of Research in English At Durham blog Founding editor of Kaleidoscope journal, and editor of Annual Reports for Durham Institute of Advanced Study; advisory editor to Postgraduate English ACADEMIC QUALIFICATIONS PhD Thesis Demonic Fictions: 10/2005 – 04/2009 PhD Durham University Cybernetics and Postmodernism 10/2004 – 09/2005 M.A. English Literary Studies Distinction Durham University 10/2000 – 06/2003 B.A. English Literature First Class Honours Durham University RECENT RELEVANT EMPLOYMENT HISTORY 04/2012 – Present Editor, Research English At Durham <readdurhamenglish.wordpress.com> Contribute to Department’s REF impact by disseminating research online, promoting events and producing podcasts. Play active role in postgraduate recruitment by writing e-newsletters and monitoring social media. Work with journals to support open access agenda through Open Journal Systems hosting. 02/2013 – 05/2013 Associate Tutor, University of Sunderland Lectured and tutored course of 24 lectures and seminars for a Level 2 course on literary theory. 10/2011 – Present Course Developer, Singapore Institute of Management University Developed courses on Topics in Modernism, including writing 60 000 word distance learning textbook. Developed online courses on Contemporary (Women’s) Writing and American Literature. 01/2010 – 04/2012 Publications Officer, Institute of Advanced Study, Durham University Designed and wrote IAS Annual Reports and IAS Annual Programmes, disseminated to an international audience of scholars and funding bodies.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:1610.05670V2 [Cs.CL] 3 Aug 2017
    Stylometric Analysis of Early Modern Period English Plays Mark Eisen1, Santiago Segarra2, Gabriel Egan3, and Alejandro Ribeiro1 1Dept. of Electrical and Systems Engineering, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA 2Inst. for Data, Systems, and Society, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, USA 3School of Humanities, De Montfort University, Leicester, UK Editor: Abstract Function word adjacency networks (WANs) are used to study the authorship of plays from the Early Modern English period. In these networks, nodes are function words and directed edges between two nodes represent the relative frequency of directed co-appearance of the two words. For every analyzed play, a WAN is constructed and these are aggregated to generate author profile networks. We first study the similarity of writing styles between Early English playwrights by comparing the profile WANs. The accuracy of using WANs for authorship attribution is then demonstrated by attributing known plays among six popular play- wrights. Moreover, the WAN method is shown to outperform other frequency-based methods on attributing Early English plays. In addition, WANs are shown to be reliable classifiers even when attributing collaborative plays. For several plays of disputed co-authorship, a deeper analysis is performed by attributing every act and scene separately, in which we both corroborate existing breakdowns and provide evidence of new assignments. 1 Introduction Stylometry involves the quantitative analysis of a text’s linguistic features in order to gain further insight into its underlying elements, such as authorship or genre. Along with common uses in digital forensics (De Vel et al., 2001; Stamatatos, 2009) and plagiarism detection (Meuschke and Gipp, 2013), stylometry has also become the primary method for evaluating authorship disputes in historical texts, such as the Federalist papers arXiv:1610.05670v2 [cs.CL] 3 Aug 2017 (Mosteller and Wallace, 1964; Holmes and Forsyth, 1995) and the Mormon scripture (Holmes, 1992), in a field called authorship attribution.
    [Show full text]
  • The Forty-First Annual Region III Festival 2009 Illinois, Indiana
    The Forty-first Annual Region III Festival 2009 ynes H Jason Jason : y b esigned D Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin January 6 to 11, 2009 Hosted by Saginaw Valley State University Presented and Produced by The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts The Kennedy Center American College Theater Festival is sponsored by Delta Air Lines Additional support is provided by: The U.S. Department of Education Dr. and Mrs. Gerald McNichols The Laura Pels International Foundation The Kennedy Center Corporate Fund The National Committee for the Performing Arts Region III 41st Kennedy Center American College Theater Festival 1 2009 Festival Productions The Seagull by Anton Chekhov, translated by Jean-Claude van Itallie Purdue University Chekhov’s monumental masterpiece of unrequited love, failed ambition and the changing face of Russian theatre is presented here within a theatrical world of heightened realism and vivid metaphor. Mobile aquariums, the color TV of 1890’s Russia, white period furniture floating on a high gloss black floor, cascading light bulbs, a heightened Edwardian fashion sensibility and Gypsy music all pay homage to Chekhov’s own desire to have symbol and metaphor more fully represent the world of his plays. FRIDAY, JANUARY 9 8:00 PM Temple Theatre How I Learned to Drive The Trojan Women by Paula Vogel by Euripides, adapted by Ellen McLaughlin University of Michigan-Flint Oakland University “How I Learned to Drive” unfolds with all the slow motion clarity of an impend- The Women of Troy struggle with the aftermath of war and destruction of ing car crash as we witness the social dynamic that exposes a young girl to the sys- their beloved homeland.
    [Show full text]
  • The Shakespeare Apocrypha and Canonical Expansion in the Marketplace
    The Shakespeare Apocrypha and Canonical Expansion in the Marketplace Peter Kirwan 1 n March 2010, Brean Hammond’s new edition of Lewis Theobald’s Double Falsehood was added to the ongoing third series of the Arden Shakespeare, prompting a barrage of criticism in the academic press I 1 and the popular media. Responses to the play, which may or may not con- tain the “ghost”2 of Shakespeare and Fletcher’s Cardenio, have dealt with two issues: the question of whether Double Falsehood is or is not a forgery;3 and if the latter, the question of how much of it is by Shakespeare. This second question as a criterion for canonical inclusion is my starting point for this paper, as scholars and critics have struggled to define clearly the boundar- ies of, and qualifications for, canonicity. James Naughtie, in a BBC radio interview with Hammond to mark the edition’s launch, suggested that a new attribution would only be of interest if he had “a big hand, not just was one of the people helping to throw something together for a Friday night.”4 Naughtie’s comment points us toward an important, unqualified aspect of the canonical problem—how big does a contribution by Shakespeare need to be to qualify as “Shakespeare”? The act of inclusion in an editedComplete Works popularly enacts the “canonization” of a work, fixing an attribution in print and commodifying it within a saleable context. To a very real extent, “Shakespeare” is defined as what can be sold as Shakespearean. Yet while canonization operates at its most fundamental as a selection/exclusion binary, collaboration compli- cates the issue.
    [Show full text]