The Shakespeare Association of Korea

In 1635 threeactors, RobertBenfield, EyllaerdtSwanston, andThomasPollard, petitioned the Lord Chamberlain to be allowed to purchase shares in the leases of the Globe and Blackfriars playhouses and, thereby, to take a larger cut of the profits.1 An answer to the petition was composed by a group of relatives of the Blackfriars playhouse’s former owner, Richard Burbage: his brother, Cuthbert; his widow, Winifred; and his son, William. They recount the history of the ownership and occupation of the playhouses, and contrast the Globe—built on land leased from Nicholas Brend and, later, his son Matthew—with the Blackfriars, saying, “Now for the Blackfriers that is our inheritance, our father [that is, James Burbage, father of Richard and Cuthbert] purchased it at extreame rates & made it into a playhouse with great charge and troble, which after was leased out to one Euans that first sett vp the Boyes commonly called the Queenes Majesties Children of the Chappell.” Later, they claim, “it was considered that house would bee as fitt for our selues, & soe [we] purchased the lease remaining from Evans with our money & placed men Players, which were Hemings, Condall, Shakspeare &c.”2 They present the playhouse not only as the possession of James Burbage, the man who bought the property in the Blackfriars precinct and converted it into a playhouse, and his heirs, but also of Henry Evans, who had a controlling interest in its profits during the term of his lease, which was drawn up in 1600 and projected to last for twenty-one years. With the “purchase” of the lease, the Burbages suggest, the playhouse returned seamlessly to “our selues,” and it is only now, in 1635, that the newcomers, Benfield, Swanston, and Pollard, are challenging their right.

The proposition of this essay is that conversation exists as a theme in its own right in The Duchess of Malfi. It is clear that Webster borrowed from The Civil Conversation (1586), as Steffano Guazzo’s book was known in English translation. As in Guazzo, honest conversation, in Webster's play, has a civil rather than courtly character, and as such the conversation theme corresponds with an antithesis that has been noted by John L. Selzer between merit and degree. But the conversation of Webster’s meritorious characters is entangled with dishonesty in ways that Guazzo would not have countenanced. The result is a moral ambiguity which is difficult to square with virtue ethics, and which calls for a reading in terms of the totalitarian contexts of the revenge play and the Tacitean history play then gaining ascendancy in Jacobean England. Ironically the Duchess is restored to her honesty by conversing with her murderer at the climax of the play.

Like a number of other prologues of the early modern period, the prologue to Romeo and Juliet is clear about the length of time its play will take in performance. Two hours. But how literal is that claim? This article will question whether plays ever habitually took two hours to perform. It will look at the lengths of playtexts and will ask when and why the 'two hours' assertion was made. But it will also investigate what 'two hours' meant in the early modern period. Exploring, in succession, hourglasses, sundials and mechanical clocks, it will consider which chronological gauges were visible or audible in the early modern playhouse, and what hours, minutes and seconds might have meant to an early modern playwright who lacked trustworthy access to any of them. What, it will ask, was time, literally and figuratively, for Shakespeare - and how did chronographia, the rhetorical art of describing time (rather than any real timepiece), shape his writing?

Ask, edebiyatin temel konularinin basinda gelir. Dogu ve Bati edebiyatinda ask uzerine yazilmis cok sayida eser vardir. Fuzuli’nin Leyla ve Mecnun’u ile Shakespeare’in Romeo ve Juliet’i bu eserler icerisinde ilk siralarda yer alir. Boyle bir oneme sahip olan bu iki eser degerlendirilip ayri basliklar altinda bir karsilastirma yapilmis; benzerlikler ve farkliliklar belirlenmeye calisilmistir. Ask ekseni etrafinda olusturulan bu hikâyeler karsilastirmali edebiyat acisindan oldukca dikkat cekicidir. Bazi bolumlerde gorulen ortakliklar bu eserlerin birbirinden etkilendigi kanaatini guclendirmektedir. Bu etkinin var olup olmadigina dair tespit ve degerlendirmelere makale icerisinde yer verilmistir.

A discussion of the reception of a Pakistani Shakespeare production in England becomes immediately complicated by the rarity of this occurrence.Any such production by its nature functions as a Polaroid photograph fixing in time several slippery variables, in an instantly emblematic snapshot that may later serve as a defining history.It would be similarly simplistic to let the 2012 Urdulanguage London-based production of The Taming of the Shrew (or Ilaaj-E-Zid Dastayaab Hai) serve as shorthand for the complicated and colourful topic of Pakistan's Shakespeare and its reception, Anglophone or otherwise.The topic is perhaps as complicated and colourful as the critical discussion surrounding Shakespeare's problematic rom-com and its controversially misogynistic story.Shrew is now widely performed in a more egalitarian, global, politically correct twenty-first century society, one that is largely alienated from the play's skewed gendering and its ambiguous resolution.The Urdu Shrew, directed by Haissam Hussain for the Theatre Wallay-Kashf, confronted these temporal, textual, societal, cultural and relational complexities head-on.Future audiences will determine whether the result can be called definitive or pioneering of its genre; for now it is enough to examine the production as a useful sample whereby to gauge its reception by audiences in England.This essay first traces the Urdu adaptation's genesis and performance, and then contextualizes these in a discussion of the issues surrounding its reception.

Due to the lack of archival evidence, circumscribing the phenomenon of stage censorship in Early Modern England is a difficult task. Thanks to The Book of Sir Thomas More, there is proof that the Master of the Revels did censor scenes of popular sedition, and the presence of similar and yet apparently uncensored scenes in other Elizabethan plays is somewhat puzzling, even more so when these scenes of popular rebellion appear ambivalent, which is the case of the Jack Cade rebellion in Shakespeare’s 2 Henry VI. The tension that exists in the characterization of Cade between what the script of the play says and what the performance of the dialogue in the scene does on stage shows how Shakespeare succeeded in apparently accommodating the censor’s incentive, while actually showing Cade as a popular hero.

Research Article| November 01 2009 Black Like Me: Reconfiguring Blackface in the Art of Glenn Ligon and Fred Wilson Peter Erickson Peter Erickson Peter Erickson, Visiting Professor of Humanities at Williams College, is author of Citing Shakespeare: The Reinterpretation of Race in Contemporary Literature and Art (2007), Rewriting Shakespeare, Rewriting Ourselves (1991), and Patriarchal Structures in Shakespeare’s Drama (1985), and co-editor of Approaches to Teaching Shakespeare’s Othello (2005), Early Modern Visual Culture: Representation, Race, and Empire in Renaissance England (2000), and Shakespeare’s “Rough Magic” (1985). Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Nka (2009) 2009 (25): 30–47. https://doi.org/10.1215/10757163-2009-25-30 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Twitter Permissions Search Site Citation Peter Erickson; Black Like Me: Reconfiguring Blackface in the Art of Glenn Ligon and Fred Wilson. Nka 1 November 2009; 2009 (25): 30–47. doi: https://doi.org/10.1215/10757163-2009-25-30 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search Books & JournalsAll JournalsNka Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. Copyright © 2010 Nka: Journal of Contemporary African Art2009 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Shakespeare’s works remain a reference when artists — either playwrights or stage professionals — aim at philosophising on human nature. These artists use the Shakespearean material to give vent to their own imagination and critical approach to the world they live in. Not surprisingly, Shakespeare’s plays have constantly been adapted on stage and in the cinema to comment upon contemporary facts and to voice either political or social concerns. But the same plays have also been the pretexts for other plays, written in modern English so as to serve new prospects. This study is based on the work of three twentieth-century writers – Arnold Wesker, Edward Bond and Tom Stoppard – who rewrote Shakespearean plays: The Merchant of Venice (The Merchant, 1977), King Lear (Lear, 1972) and Hamlet (Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, 1967). This article explores the way these plays were elaborated with reference to the original versions and why their authors decided to adapt the Elizabethan text.