DOCSLIB.ORG

Epilogue: Prospero's Bands

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Epilogue: Prospero's Bands Epilogue: Prospero’s Bands n thinking of endings, I am drawn to the final page of the Folio text of The Tempest (see Figure E.1). The conclusion of The Tempest, I particularly Prospero’s epilogue, is perhaps the most overana- lyzed and overrated moment in the canon; given the play’s position in Shakespeare’s career, its conclusion has taken on mythological propor- tions, with many reading it as the culminating statement of the play- wright’s life in, and farewell to, the theater.1 Such a reading not only distorts the biographical record (Shakespeare continued to write for the theater after he completed The Tempest, collaborating with John Fletcher on Henry VIII and The Two Noble Kinsmen2) but it also places its emphasis exclusively on performed modes of dramatic realization. As discussed in the Prologue to this book, in terms of the printing history of Shakespeare’s collected works, The Tempest represents not an ending, but a beginning, since it is the first play that appears in the Folio. The play occupies a singular position in that its placement at the beginning of the Folio initiates the experience of reading a collec- tion of Shakespearean drama that is constructed according to a larger, specific editorial program: to “gather his workes, and giue them [to] you.” With these factors in mind, and thinking of the earliest text of the play as a kind of threshold between performed and printed con- ceptualizations of drama, I return to some of my central concerns: what is it like to read this last page of The Tempest rather than seeing it performed? Or better, what is it like to read this moment and visualize it performed? How does the epilogue signify if it is not spoken by an actor but is instead conjured into existence by the imaginative powers of a reader? As Figure E.1 makes clear, readers of the Folio version of the play would have confronted something much different than readers of a modernized critical edition. The Folio page is neatly divided into three distinct segments of text (four if one includes the “FINIS” near the 186 M Shakespeare and the Imprints of Performance Figure E.1 The final page of The Tempest (F, 1623). By permission of The Horace Howard Furness Memorial Library, Rare Book and Manuscript Library, University of Pennsylvania. bottom). The upper segment is the conclusion of the action of the play- text proper, complete with an “Exeunt omnes.” The lower left-hand seg- ment contains Prospero’s epilogue (in italics), and a final direction for his “Exit.” These two segments are linked perhaps by way of Prospero’s “please you draw neere,” the final line before the epilogue, which might Epilogue: Prospero’s Bands M 187 be delivered to the other figures on stage, but might instead signal Prospero’s turn toward the audience as he begins his appeal to “be relieu’d by praier.” The final partitioned segment, “The Scene, an vn- inhabited Island” and the list of the “Names of the Actors,” constitutes a powerful textual rebuttal to Prospero’s prayer for freedom. The Folio text, that is, essentially resets itself—we end with a reminder of where the action took place, and of the characters motivating that action: almost as soon as Prospero finishes his petition to be free from “this bare Island” in the epilogue, the play’s setting is reinforced for read- ers; similarly, Prospero remarks that “I haue my Dukedome got, / And pardon’d the deceiuer,” yet just to the right of these lines is the descrip- tion of “Anthonio his brother, the vsurping Duke of Millaine.” Within the bounds of the Folio, Prospero’s escape to political power is over before it begins. Let me be clear: my intention is not to put this forth as a legitimate reading to the end of the play; it is difficult to imagine anyone reading the F page quite this literally and understanding the “Names of the Actors” as somehow undermining or qualifying every- thing that has come before. But this is precisely the point: reading a play involves processing various kinds of textual information located in discrete or disparate locations; that readers are almost certainly able to resist such a literal interpretation of the raw data of the F page is indicative of the level of participation that inheres in the act of reading drama. Beyond the interpenetrations of the tripartite textual layout, the page itself registers a range of information related to the material properties of the Folio text and early modern textual production that cannot be fully communicated in a critical edition. Different-sized type and fonts are used, and portions of both the title and initial lines of text of The Two Gentlemen of Verona can be seen bleeding through from the verso side of the sheet (the compositor’s anticipation of this play is recorded in the catchword “THE” at the foot of the page). The page also appears to record certain features of its underlying manuscript: Ralph Crane has been identified as having prepared the manuscript copy used in the printing house, and some of his scribal habits are on display. Prospero’s reference to “our deere-belou’d” reveals Crane’s fondness for both hyphenated words and elision. It is also likely that the list of the “Names of the Actors” and its brief descriptions of the major players—Gonzalo is “an honest old Councellor,” Caliban is “a saluage and deformed slaue,” Ariel is “an ayrie spirit”—are the contribution of Crane, not of Shakespeare. Similar lists appear at the end of other Folio texts for which Crane is thought to have prepared copy (The Two Gentlemen of Verona, the Folio 188 M Shakespeare and the Imprints of Performance text of The Merry Wives of Windsor, Measure for Measure, Othello, and The Winter’s Tale).3 Whether Crane’s list is the product of his interpreta- tion of what he witnessed in a performance of the play or his response to descriptions in Shakespeare’s manuscript (Vaughan and Vaughan 127), the “Names of the Actors” represents a point at which textual produc- tion and imaginative participation in the performance of the play inter- mingle and energize one another. Comparable points of intersection shared by page and stage are also evidenced in many of The Tempest’s stage directions; certain phrases in the directions—“A tempestuous noise of Thunder and Lightning heard” (TLN 2), “with gentle actions of saluta- tions” (TLN 1537), “to a strange hollow and confused noyse, they heauily vanish” (TLN 1807–8), “a franticke ge-/sture” (TLN 2009–10)—lead John Jowett to argue that Crane, “apparently influenced by his experi- ence of the play on stage . emphasiz[ed] visual aspects of the play as seen in the theatre and record[ed] them in a descriptive, complimentary, literary manner, in terms which aid the reader’s appreciation of the play but which are unlikely to have been used by the dramatist instructing the players” (Companion 612).4 Much of the information encoded on the final Folio page of the play will be lost or significantly altered by the editorial and publishing pro- cesses that produce a modern edition. Typefaces, spelling, punctuation, and paper quality will all be regularized; the unique structure of the page itself will disappear, as Prospero’s epilogue will likely be justified so that it appears in line with the playtext above it, and the “Names of the Actors” is shifted to the beginning of the play to serve as a list of dramatis personae. The re-coding options that are available to a modern editor, however, give something back to readers, even as they take away. Discussions in introductions or appendices can describe early modern manuscript production and Crane’s scribal fingerprints, and these dis- cussions can be linked to the playtext by way of cross-references in com- mentary notes; facsimile pages of the Folio text can be reproduced (the Arden 3 editors supply a reproduction of the final page of the play in their examination of Crane’s contribution of “important information that appears to reflect his own judgment” (127)). Above all, editors can remain faithful to the program that Crane, an early reader and media- tor of the playtext, appears to have instituted: produce a version of the text that facilitates a reader’s ability to imaginatively approximate the play in performance. A commentary note on the epilogue in the Arden 3 edition recalls George D. Wolfe’s 1995 production for the New York Shakespeare Festival, where “Patrick Stewart gave up the microphone he had used throughout the outdoor performance and here addressed the Epilogue: Prospero’s Bands M 189 audience without the aid of amplification. If Prospero has exited and returned, he may have doffed some of his ducal trappings and appear in a simple shirt or gown. Such theatrical choices can indicate Prospero’s loss of power or the actor’s loss of his role” (Epilogue 1n). A full-page photograph of a plainly adorned and “pensive” Stewart as Prospero can be found in the Arden 3 introduction (122). Stephen Orgel, editor of the Oxford edition of the play, notes of the epilogue that “[it] is unique in the Shakespeare canon in that its speaker declares himself not an actor in a play but a character in a fiction. The release he craves of the audience is the freedom to continue his history beyond the limits of the stage and the text” (319n). Whether the epilogue is spoken by the actor in a play or the char- acter in a fiction is open to debate.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Shakespeare Authorship Companion
    All That Is Shakespeare Melts into Air The New Oxford Shakespeare Authorship Companion reviewed by Michael Dudley, Gary Goldstein, and Shelly Maycock. The New Oxford Shakespeare Authorship Companion. Edited by Gary Taylor & Gabriel Egan. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017. $168.84 USD. he Shakespeare deniers are at it again. Here is yet another book filled with so- called “evidence” hidden in the texts – which only the deniers can decode – Tto support their conspiracy theory that Shakespeare didn’t write Shakespeare. It’s the old hoary argument that a commoner from Stratford-Upon-Avon could not have possibly written the greatest works in the English language. By himself, at any rate. Yes, the argument in The New Oxford Shakespeare Authorship Companion – a supplemen- tary volume to Oxford University Press’ prestigious new edition of the Shakespeare plays – is that Shakespeare wrote with some eleven collaborators and co-authors. These would include Christopher Marlowe, Thomas Middleton, Thomas Dekker, and Anonymous on seventeen of the dramas; the editors also suggest we need to ex- pand the size of the canon from 37 to 44 plays, only two-thirds of which are entirely by Shakespeare. Yet, as we shall see, the theories and methods used to reach these conclusions are as problematic as the scholarship’s all but single-minded focus on cryptic analysis at the level of single words and even syllables, in service of a group authorship theory. The rhetorical conceit in the opening paragraph above is intend- ed to be more than tongue-in cheek; instead, it underscores the extent to which the Shakespeare establishment has started to resemble the nineteenth century Baconians it professes to abhor.
    [Show full text]
  • Proem Shakespeare S 'Plaies and Poems"
    Proem Shakespeare s 'Plaies and Poems" In 1640, the publisher John Benson presents to his English reading public a Shakespeare who is now largely lost to us: the national author of poems and plays. By printing his modest octavo edition of the Poems: Written By Wil. Shake-speare. Gent., Benson curiously aims to complement the 1623 printing venture of Shakespeare's theatre colleagues, John Heminge and Henry Condell , who had presented Mr. William Shakespeares Comedies, Histories, & Tragedies in their monumental First Folio. Thus, in his own Dedicatory Epistle "To the Reader," Benson remarks that he presents "some excellent and sweetly composed Poems," which "had nor the fortune by reason of their lnfancie in his death, to have the due accommodation of proportionable glory, with the rest of his everliving Workes" (*2r). Indeed, as recent scholarship demonstrates, Benson boldly prints his octavo Poems on the model ofHeminge and Condell 's Folio Plays. ' Nor simply does Benson's volume share its primer, Thomas Cores, wirh rhe 1632 Folio, bur both editions begin with an identical format: an engraved portrait of the author; a dedicatory epistle "To the Reader"; and a set of commendatory verses, with Leonard Digges contributing an impor­ tant celebratory poem to both volumes. Benson's engraving by William Marshall even derives from the famous Martin Droeshout engraving in the First Folio, and six of the eight lines beneath Benson's engraving are borrowed from Ben Jonson's famed memorial poem to Shakespeare in char volume. Accordingly, Benson rakes his publishing goal from Heminge and Conde!!. They aim to "keepe the memory of such worthy a Friend, & Fellow alive" (Dedicatory Epistle to the earls ofPembroke and Montgomery, reprinted in Riverside, 94), while he aims "to be serviceable for the con­ tinuance of glory to the deserved Author" ("To the Reader," *2v).
    [Show full text]
  • AN EXAMINATION of PLAYS in MANUSCRIPT ET ME Begin by Stating As Clearly As I Can the Purpose L.4 of This Exploratory Study
    TEXTUAL DEGENERATION OF ELlZABETHAN AND STUART PLAYS: AN EXAMINATION OF PLAYS IN MANUSCRIPT ET ME begin by stating as clearly as I can the purpose l.4 of this exploratory study. It has seemed to me that in accounting for variation among Elizabethan and post-Eliza- bethan dramatic texts too little weight has been given to the activities of prompters and actors as compared with those of printers and copyists. According to R. B. McKerrow and Evelyn Albright,l the incompetence of printers has been greatly exaggerated, and the defense they offer seems sound and just, and, as for copyists, they seem, as a class, to have been the most efficient of those who worked on plays. On the other hand, the conditions of play production, now, in the Elizabethan age and in general, are such as not only to pro- voke alteration of texts but to necessitate it. The simplest in- vestigation of the history of Shakespeare on the stage (and on the screen) will reveal habitual and not infrequently vio- Ient modifications of his texts and even of his intentions. A visit to a production lot will convince any visitor that the pro- ducer feels free to alter the script without any reference to the author or what he has written. I remember a conversa- tion in 1908 with Eugene Walter, whose Paid in Full was then en uogue, and of hearing him describe without the least of- fense, indeed with pride, the great changes made in his play when it was produced on Broadway, Stage aIterations are and have been since the Elizabethan age and before the merest commonplace and by no means inconsiderable.
    [Show full text]
  • "'A Complicated and Unpleasant Investigation': the Arden Shakespeare 1899-1924" by Gabriel Egan This Paper Arises From
    Egan, Gabriel. 2007d. "'''A complicated and unpleasant investigation': The Arden Shakespeare 1899-1924': A paper delivered on 12 July at the conference 'Open the Book, Open the Mind: The 2007 meeting of the Society for History of Authorship, Reading, and Publishing (SHARP)' at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, 11-15 July." "'A complicated and unpleasant investigation': The Arden Shakespeare 1899-1924" by Gabriel Egan This paper arises from a survey of Shakespeare play editions in the twentieth century. I'm particularly interested in what those who made editions thought they were doing, how confident they felt about their work, how they thought readers would respond to the textual problems that arise in editing old plays, and how editors' assumptions about their readers were manifested in the editions that they produced. My published title in the programme covers the whole century of editions, but I'm going largely to confine my remarks to just one editorial project. For those of you who like to see the big picture first, however, I can offer a brief overview of just one of those variables I mentioned: editorial confidence [SLIDE]. I see it going like this, from a low at the start of the twentieth-century, through to a peak in the 1970s, and back to a low now. From the detailed history behind this pattern, I have room on this chart to pull just a few keys moments. [SLIDE] First, A. W. Pollard's book Shakespeare Folios and Quartos (1909) distinguished the good from the bad quartos and gave editors reasons to suppose that the good ones are textually close to Shakespeare's own papers.
    [Show full text]
  • Creating Literary Analysis
    Creating Literary Analysis v. 1.0 This is the book Creating Literary Analysis (v. 1.0). This book is licensed under a Creative Commons by-nc-sa 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/ 3.0/) license. See the license for more details, but that basically means you can share this book as long as you credit the author (but see below), don't make money from it, and do make it available to everyone else under the same terms. This book was accessible as of December 29, 2012, and it was downloaded then by Andy Schmitz (http://lardbucket.org) in an effort to preserve the availability of this book. Normally, the author and publisher would be credited here. However, the publisher has asked for the customary Creative Commons attribution to the original publisher, authors, title, and book URI to be removed. Additionally, per the publisher's request, their name has been removed in some passages. More information is available on this project's attribution page (http://2012books.lardbucket.org/attribution.html?utm_source=header). For more information on the source of this book, or why it is available for free, please see the project's home page (http://2012books.lardbucket.org/). You can browse or download additional books there. ii Table of Contents About the Authors................................................................................................................. 1 Acknowledgments................................................................................................................. 2 Dedications............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Horton1987.Pdf (4.307Mb)
    This thesis has been submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for a postgraduate degree (e.g. PhD, MPhil, DClinPsychol) at the University of Edinburgh. Please note the following terms and conditions of use: • This work is protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights, which are retained by the thesis author, unless otherwise stated. • A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. • This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the author. • The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the author. • When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given. The Effectiveness of the Stylometry of Function Words in Discriminating between Shakespeare and Fletcher Thomas Bolton Horton Ph D University of Edinburgh 1987 rj Abstract A number of recent successful authorship studies have relied on a statistical analysis of language features based on function words. However, stylometry has not been extensively applied to Elizabethan and Jacobean dramatic questions. To determine the effectiveness of such an approach in this field, language features are studied in twenty-four plays by Shakespeare and eight by Fletcher. The goal is to develop procedures that might be used to determine the authorship of individual scenes in The Two Noble Kinsmen and Henry VIII. Homonyms, spelling variants and contracted forms in old-spelling dramatic texts present problems for a computer analysis.
    [Show full text]
  • "A Sharers' Repertory." Rethinking Theatrical
    Syme, Holger Schott. "A Sharers’ Repertory." Rethinking Theatrical Documents in Shakespeare’s England. Ed. Tiffany Stern. London: The Arden Shakespeare, 2020. 33–51. Bloomsbury Collections. Web. 26 Sep. 2021. <http://dx.doi.org/10.5040/9781350051379.ch-002>. Downloaded from Bloomsbury Collections, www.bloomsburycollections.com, 26 September 2021, 08:28 UTC. Copyright © Tiffany Stern and contributors 2020. You may share this work for non-commercial purposes only, provided you give attribution to the copyright holder and the publisher, and provide a link to the Creative Commons licence. 2 A Sharers’ Repertory Holger Schott Syme Without Philip Henslowe, we would know next to nothing about the kinds of repertories early modern London’s resident theatre companies offered to their audiences. As things stand, thanks to the existence of the manuscript commonly known as Henslowe’s Diary , scholars have been able to contemplate the long lists of receipts and expenses that record the titles of well over 200 plays, most of them now lost. The Diary gives us some sense of the richness and diversity of this repertory, of the rapid turnover of plays, and of the kinds of investments theatre companies made to mount new shows. It also names a plethora of actors and other professionals associated with the troupes at the Rose. But, because the records are a fi nancier’s and theatre owner’s, not those of a sharer in an acting company, they do not document how a group of actors decided which plays to stage, how they chose to alternate successful shows, or what they, as actors, were looking for in new commissions.
    [Show full text]
  • Shakespeare's Impossible Doublet
    Rollett - The Impossible Doublet 31 Shakespeare’s Impossible Doublet: Droeshout’s Engraving Anatomized John M. Rollett Abstract The engraving of Shakespeare by Martin Droeshout on the title page of the 1623 First Folio has often been criticized for various oddities. In 1911 a professional tailor asserted that the right-hand side of the poet’s doublet was “obviously” the left-hand side of the back of the garment. In this paper I describe evidence which confirms this assessment, demonstrating that Shakespeare is pictured wearing an impossible garment. By printing a caricature of the man from Stratford-upon-Avon, it would seem that the publishers were indicating that he was not the author of the works that bear his name. he Exhibition Searching for Shakespeare,1 held at the National Portrait Gallery, London, in 2006, included several pictures supposed at one time or another Tto be portraits of our great poet and playwright. Only one may have any claim to authenticity — that engraved by Martin Droeshout for the title page of the First Folio (Figure 1), the collection of plays published in 1623. Because the dedication and the address “To the great Variety of Readers” are each signed by John Hemmings and Henry Condell, two of Shakespeare’s theatrical colleagues, and because Ben Jonson’s prefatory poem tells us “It was for gentle Shakespeare cut,” the engraving appears to have the imprimatur of Shakespeare’s friends and fellows. The picture is not very attractive, and various defects have been pointed out from time to time – the head is too large, the stiff white collar or wired band seems odd, left and right of the doublet don’t quite match up.
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction to William Shakespeare's First Folio
    An Introduction to William Shakespeare’s First Folio By Ruth Hazel Cover illustration courtesy of Stephen Collins This eBook was produced by OpenLearn - The home of free learning from The Open University. It is made available to you under a Creative Commons (BY-NC-SA 4.0) licence. 2 Brush up your Shakespeare The comic gangsters in Kiss Me Kate, Cole Porter’s 1948 musical based on Shakespeare’s The Taming of the Shrew, offer Shakespeare’s poetry – by which they actually mean his plays – as a guaranteed way to a woman’s heart: quoting Shakespeare will impress her and be a sure-fire aphrodisiac. Today, Shakespeare has become a supreme icon of Western European high culture, which is ironic since in his own day Shakespeare’s craft – jobbing playwright – was not a well-regarded one. Indeed, those who wrote plays to entertain the ‘groundlings’ (as the people who paid just one penny to stand in the open yard round the stage in public playhouses were called) were often considered little better than the actors themselves – who, in their turn, were only one level up, in the minds of Puritan moralists, from whores. Shakespeare himself did not seem eager to advertise authorship of his plays by seeing them into print, and when some of his plays were printed, in the handy quarto-sized editions for individual consumption, his name was not always on the title page. (The terms ‘folio’ and ‘quarto’ refer to the size of the pages in a book: in a Folio, each sheet of paper was folded just once, with a page height of approx.
    [Show full text]
  • Folio400 Limited © 2021 Folio400.Com
    The Shakespeare The word ‘folio’ A ‘folio’ edition The ‘folio’ format The Shakespeare First Folio was Unlike Jonson’s Ben Jonson wrote The First Folio ‘First Folio’ was comes from is made of was reserved for modelled on Jonson’s book, but Workes, the First two poems to was prepared by rst published in the Latin for printed sheets works of history, was printed in smaller type and Folio only printed introduce his Shakespeare’s November 1623. ‘leaf’, or ‘sheet’: that are each philosophy and in double columns. Shakespeare’s friend’s First Folio. acting colleagues FIRST folium. folded once. theology – until plays: it was John Heminge Ben Jonson’s folio as a man of the and Henry edition of his own theatre that he Condell, both FOLIO Workes in 1616. was to be chiefly of whom were remembered. remembered in Shakespeare’s 1616 will. Carefully They arranged the Histories The arrangement The First Folio’s full title reads: The word ‘folio’ appears just once in the The First Folio The other William researching by the chronology of the of the Comedies Mr. William Shakespeare’s Shakespeare First Folio: ‘I am for whole was produced members of Jaggard their collection, reigns Shakespeare had seems to follow a Comedies, Histories, volumes in folio,’ brags a character in by a syndicate the publishing was blind, Heminge and dramatized (from King John seasonal cycle, & Tragedies. Love’s Labour’s Lost. of publishers, consortium and died Condell divided to Henry VIII ) – not in the from The Tempest’s led by the were Edward a month their friend’s order of his writing them.
    [Show full text]
  • Learning to See the Theological Vision of Shakespeare's King Lear
    Learning to See the Theological Vision of Shakespeare’s King Lear Learning to See the Theological Vision of Shakespeare’s King Lear By Greg Maillet Learning to See the Theological Vision of Shakespeare’s King Lear By Greg Maillet This book first published 2016 Cambridge Scholars Publishing Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2PA, UK British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright © 2016 by Greg Maillet All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISBN (10): 1-4438-9729-9 ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-9729-7 TABLE OF CONTENTS Polemical Prologue .................................................................................... vii Criticism, Theology, and the Value of Shakespeare’s King Lear Chapter One ................................................................................................. 1 “See Better”: Christian Paradox in Act One of King Lear Chapter Two .............................................................................................. 27 “I Nothing Am”: Confusion and Clarification of Identity in Act Two of King Lear Chapter Three ............................................................................................ 51 “This Night will turn us all to Fools and Madmen”: Storm and the Transformation of Identity
    [Show full text]
  • Tennyson's Poems
    Tennyson’s Poems New Textual Parallels R. H. WINNICK To access digital resources including: blog posts videos online appendices and to purchase copies of this book in: hardback paperback ebook editions Go to: https://www.openbookpublishers.com/product/944 Open Book Publishers is a non-profit independent initiative. We rely on sales and donations to continue publishing high-quality academic works. TENNYSON’S POEMS: NEW TEXTUAL PARALLELS Tennyson’s Poems: New Textual Parallels R. H. Winnick https://www.openbookpublishers.com Copyright © 2019 by R. H. Winnick This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC BY 4.0). This license allows you to share, copy, distribute and transmit the work; to adapt the work and to make commercial use of the work provided that attribution is made to the author (but not in any way which suggests that the author endorses you or your use of the work). Attribution should include the following information: R. H. Winnick, Tennyson’s Poems: New Textual Parallels. Cambridge, UK: Open Book Publishers, 2019. https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0161 In order to access detailed and updated information on the license, please visit https://www.openbookpublishers.com/product/944#copyright Further details about CC BY licenses are available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Digital material and resources associated with this volume are available at https://www.openbookpublishers.com/product/944#resources Every effort has been made to identify and contact copyright holders and any omission or error will be corrected if notification is made to the publisher.
    [Show full text]