SHAKSPER Web Site Statistics


The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 23.040  Tuesday, 31 January 2012


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

Date:         Tuesday, January 31, 2012

Subject:     SHAKSPER Web Site Statistics


I recently, thanks to Ron Severdia, got tools by which I can study usage statistics for the SHAKSPER web site: shaksper.net.


During the period between June 1, 2011 to January 31, 2012, I gleaned the following:


There were 30,923 visits.


Of which there were 23,911 unique visitors with 71,938 page views.


77.08% of these visitors (23,834 visits) were new to the site, while 22.92% (7,089 visits) were returning visitors.


The day with the most visits was September 6, 2011: 431 visits—something I cannot fathom other than in terms of chaos theory.


Visitors were from the following countries in descending order: US, UK, Canada, Australia, Singapore, India, Germany, Italy, France, Japan, Philippines, New Zealand, Ireland, Israel, Spain, Switzerland, Russia, Netherlands, Poland, Brazil, Turkey, Sweden, Norway, China, South Africa, Pakistan, Greece, Romania, Belgium, Malaysia, Czech Republic, Hungary, South Korea, Austria, Ukraine, Mexico, Denmark, Finland, Indonesia, Thailand, Taiwan, Portugal, Hong Kong, Argentina, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Iran, Serbia, Croatia, Bangladesh, Tunisia, Bulgaria, Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Slovenia, Vietnam, Latvia, Columbia, Jamaica, Lebanon, Georgia, Lithuania, Iraq, Jordan, Malta, Slovakia, Kenya, Kuwait, Kazakhstan, Mauritius, Nigeria, Bermuda, Cyprus, Macedonia, Qatar, Belarus, Chile, Luxembourg, Morocco, Puerto Rico, Venezuela, Bahrain, Trinidad and Tobago, Albania, Peru, Syria, Sri Lanka, Costa Rico, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Moldova, Côte d’Ivoire, Iceland, Senegal, Ghana, Isle of Man, Jersey, Oman, Guernsey, Guam, Cambodia, Tanzania, Uruguay, Dominican Republic, Estonia, Guatemala, Nepal, Uzbekistan, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan, Barbados, Brunei, Guyana, Montenegro, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Panama, Togo, Ugandan, Yemen, Netherlands Antilles, Aruba, Burkina Faso, Benin, Bolivia, Bahamas, Bhutan, Congo, Cameroon, Dominica, Fiji, Gibraltar, Guadeloupe, Honduras, Haiti, Kyrgyzstan, Saint Lucia, Monaco, Madagascar, Macau, Maldives, Malawi, Palestinian Territories, Seychelles, El Salvador. 


[Editor’s Note: Gee, I haven’t had this much fun with countries since I collected stamps as a kid. –Hardy]


The site content pages that were most often visited were



Current Postings


Archives 1994

Archives 2011

Reference Files

Shakespeare on the Internet


Pedagogy Teaching Resources

Library of Essays

Scholarly Resources


Scholarly Papers for Comments

About PlayShakespeare.com

General Information

Book Reviews



I really found this information to be fascinating. I was not surprised that most appear to come to the site to use the Archives, but I was interested that my Shakespeare on the Internet list and the Announcements, Pedagogical Teaching Resources, Scholarly Resources, Library of Essays, Papers for Comments, and Book Reviews were also popular.


If you have not explored the SHAKSPER web site recently, I encourage you to do so and share your comments with the other readers.


Best wishes,

Hardy Cook




The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 23.039  Tuesday, 31 January 2012


[Editor’s Note: I suggested this thread with trepidation, and despite my own political and pacifist beliefs I must remind everyone that the thread has to do with the relationship of SHAKSPER to PIPA/SOPA. If this connection is not observed, the thread will end by executive order and with extreme prejudice. –Hardy]


[1] From:         Donald Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         January 30, 2012 12:39:05 PM EST

     Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: PIPA/SOPA 


[2] From:         Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         January 30, 2012 7:11:37 PM EST

     Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: PIPA/SOPA


[3] From:         Robert Projansky <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         January 30, 2012 8:55:08 PM EST

     Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: PIPA/SOPA




From:         Donald Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         January 30, 2012 12:39:05 PM EST

Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: PIPA/SOPA


It strikes me that PIPA and SOPA -- now on hold in the U.S. Congress, and possibly dead -- are a classic reaction against an unpleasant reality. The battle is already lost. While many cruel injustices could be perpetrated in an attempt to enforce such laws, that would be the sole accomplishment: the free exchange of information, including proprietary information and creative efforts, is going to continue. Moreover, it would be a strong incentive to the vicious sort of hackers to attack the companies and individuals that were trying to benefit from such laws. Those attacked wouldn't enjoy the results.


Simply put, it is an attempt to enforce a 19th Century concept on a 21st Century situation, and it is doomed. I can understand that people want to maximize the payback from successful creative endeavors. But copyright, as we have known it, is dying, if not dead. The whole business needs to be re-thought. But thinking, including re-thinking, is something rarely found, especially where money is involved. Eventually, the accountants will figure out how to maximize the bucks, and the authors, producers and lawyers can go back to whatever it is they do.






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

Date:         January 30, 2012 7:11:37 PM EST

Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: PIPA/SOPA


Gabriel Egan challenges my assertion that the scope of copyright protection (as opposed to its duration) has not altered materially since the enactment of the 1976 Act, by citing one case and a provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which codifies into U.S. law provisions of international conventions designed to provide mechanisms to protect copyrighted material from electronic theft.  In neither instance does the cited authority expand the scope of existing protections.  


Indeed, the case Gabriel cites -- Bridgeman v. Corel -- actually rejected a claim for broad protection.  That was a trial court decision that held that a photograph of a two-dimensional work of art (painting, etching, etc.), which was only a faithful reproduction of the original work without any creativity much beyond snapping the shutter was not, itself entitled to copyright protection. The case says nothing about photographs of three-dimensional works, which might entail creative choices regarding lighting, angle, etc.; so Gabriel’s statement that the holding deals with photographs of "artwork" in the broader sense is incorrect.  The Bridgeman case surely does not represent an expansion of copyright protection.  It was nothing more than an application of the hoary doctrine that a work must exhibit some modicum of creativity to be entitled to copyright protection. There may, indeed, be a Constitutional dimension to that rule.  There was no definitive U.S. authority to the contrary view, so Bridgeman cannot be said to depart from the prior state of the law.  U.K. law does allow a photographer to have a copyright in a photo of a painting, and the court held that, on choice of law principles, that law did not apply in the Bridgeman case.


Gabriel also misstates the DMCA.  He says that it “criminalizes the circumvention of digital locks for the purpose of accessing locked material even when that material itself enjoys no copyright protection.”  That is not so.  The prohibition of the statute (17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)(A)) is confined to circumventing digital locks preventing access to copyrighted material only: "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title." (emphasis supplied).  The statute goes on to make clear that all defenses are unaffected by the enactment: "Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title." (17 U.S.C. § 1201(c)(1)).


As for the asserted position of the Huntington Library that it owns rights to the microfilm images of works in its library which are available on EEBO, Gabriel might be correct that “The validity of that assertion depends upon complex judgements about the amount of creativity embedded in microfilm reproduction and subsequent digitization.”  That would be the inquiry under the Bridgeman case, if it applied, but I wouldn't hold out a lot of hope for successful prosecution of such a claim.  And, of course, it is difficult to hypothesize a case in which it matters in the least.  Will a researcher copy the microfilm or the text on the microfilm?  What purpose would be served by copying the microfilm?  Of course, Huntington would have a tough time claiming a copyright to an Elizabethan text.



From:         Robert Projansky <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         January 30, 2012 8:55:08 PM EST

Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: PIPA/SOPA


After decrying the politicization of the Obama Administration’s administration of justice and how it might affect SHAKSPER, I appended this smartass substitute solution to copyright piracy:


>I might point out that things previously unthinkable are now commonplace 

>in post-9/11 America. Maybe if SOPA/PIPA fails of passage the 

>government will use another method with which it has already had such 

>great success: the CIA tracks down the offenders and the president 

>orders them killed. 


In response Larry Weiss asks:


 I wonder which of the deaths Bob Projansky prefers not have occurred -- bin Laden? Awaki?


My answer, since I am asked, is both of them, and many more. 


Two weeks after President Obama had Anwar al-Awlaki killed by drone attack, the president also killed Awlaki’s 16-year-old son the same way. If the president of the US can kill Awlaki and his child, American citizens both, away from any combat zone, without the slightest due process, the US Government can kill anyone, anywhere. And they are not the only people the US Government has slaughtered via its drone method -- and my answer is the same as to all of them. If someone commits an indictable crime against the US, the government’s business should be prosecution, not murder. 


Apart from the moral issues (if that separation is even possible), no president or any of his minions is infallible. It is now undisputed common knowledge that some men - and teenage boys too - have been caged at Guantanamo for years although entirely innocent. But if our power-of-life-and-death president had just had all of those “terrorists” slaughtered upon arrest, who would be the wiser? And why publish the arrest of the next Bradley Manning when President Death-at-a-Whim can just quietly dump his corpse in the nearest ocean?


The events of 9/11 were crimes, not acts of war. Criminals should be tracked down, arrested, and brought to justice, not made the excuse for shredding the Constitution and launching real wars of aggression that have killed and maimed and displaced many hundreds of thousands of people.


When terrorists attempted to bring down the World Trade Center towers in 1993 the US Government tried, convicted and imprisoned eight people for the crimes without invading any other countries or murdering any citizens abroad. And before you say fat lot of good all that did in preventing the 9/11 attacks, I might point out that all of the killing and invading and renditioning and torturing and civil liberties-mutilating and bombing and lying and destruction that the US government has done has not and will not put an end to the terrorism it would defeat. 


Much of the Islamic world has very substantial grievances against the US. Just by way of simple example, it is indisputable that the Iranian antagonism against the US for the last thirty-three years begins with the 1953 CIA gangsters’ coup that ousted the democratically-elected Mossadegh government and foisted a kleptocratic US-managed police state on the Iranian people’s backs for almost three decades. Well, as long as the US continues to add to the very large catalogue of third-world grievances against the US we can expect lots more terrorism. If we wrong them shall they not revenge? 


When Congressman Ron Paul, in a recent Republican presidential candidates’ debate, proposed the Golden Rule as a basis for US foreign policy, the yahoo Republican audience booed him for it, but Rep. Paul is no milksop, no Pollyanna. It’s a matter of practicality: unless and until something like that idea takes hold in Washington there is going to be lots more terrorism for us, no matter how many Larry Weiss-approved murders the president commits.


Pax to all,

Bob Projansky


Theatre in Stratford-upon-Avon 1597


The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 23.037  Tuesday, 31 January 2012


From:         Sylvia Morris <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         January 31, 2012 6:26:21 AM EST

Subject:     Theatre in Stratford-upon-Avon 1597


Historian Dr Robert Bearman has uncovered a long-lost snippet of information about Stratford-upon-Avon performances in Shakespeare’s lifetime. His report is the latest post of The Shakespeare blog, http://theshakespeareblog.com/2012/01/how-chances-it-they-travel-players-in-stratford-upon-avon/


Berman writes in part, “ . . . I recently stumbled more or less by chance on the names of three travelling companies of players who visited Stratford in the summer of 1597, the year Shakespeare bought New Place. These visits were already on record in outline form and have been known about for some time: for Stratford’s chamberlain, in his accounts for that year, had included a payment of 19s 4d to reimburse the bailiff, Abraham Sturley for money he had laid out ‘for foure companyes of players’. But on the back of a bill (still extant in the borough archives) which formed another item in the accounts, I found that Sturley had jotted down further details of these playing companies, principally ‘the Queens plairs’, who were given 10 shillings on 16 and 17 July. He then adds, more scruffily and in a different ink, the names of two other troupes, ‘Therle of Darbies’ and ‘mi Ld Ogles’, though not specifying the payments received. . . .”


Sylvia Morris


Twitter:  @sylvmorris1

John Ford in New York


The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 23.038  Tuesday, 31 January 2012


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

Date:         Tuesday, January 31, 2012

Subject:     John Ford in New York


From The New York Times




January 27, 2012


Extreme Theater: Wake-Up Calls From the 1600s

By Alexis Soloski


The 17th-century playwright John Ford never met a character he didn’t want to kill: gruesomely, ingeniously, poignantly. He liked them stabbed, starved, poisoned, burnt, bled and assaulted by roving packs of bandits. His two best plays both having forthcoming New York revivals boast body counts nearly as long as the cast lists.


“The Broken Heart,” which begins performances next Saturday in a Theater for a New Audience production at the Duke on 42nd Street, leaves seven characters dead. ’Tis Pity She’s a Whore” typically offs eight, though fewer perish in the streamlined production from the British troupe Cheek by Jowl that arrives at the Brooklyn Academy of Music on March 20.


Owing perhaps to the violence of his plots, the density of his poetry and the intensity of the emotions he describes, Ford isn’t often staged in New York. For several centuries he wasn’t staged anywhere. Ford began his career as a poet in the early 1600s, then moved to playmaking, working collaboratively with other writers, like Thomas Dekker and John Webster. In the late 1620s Ford struck out on his own, writing eight plays over a decade and then promptly disappearing from the historical record, just as his plays soon disappeared from theaters.


Yet Ford has become popular in the last 20 years, and feels wholly contemporary. Mark Houlahan, a senior lecturer at the University of Waikato in New Zealand, said he thought today’s audiences responded to Ford’s “extremes of violence and passion,” while Lisa Hopkins, a Ford authority who teaches at Sheffield Hallam University in England, praised his “aesthetic of silence and nuance.” Ford is a playwright of dichotomies, somehow both restrained and outrageous, shrewd and shocking.


He didn’t shock Selina Cartmell, a young British director making her American debut with “The Broken Heart.” This play, probably written in the late 1620s, just before ’Tis Pity,” and set in ancient Sparta, features a complex plot concerning three intertwined couples. A posthumous marriage and one of the most macabre dances ever to grace the stage are particular highlights. . . . 


[ . . . ]


Declan Donnellan, the acclaimed director who will present ’Tis Pity” at the Brooklyn Academy, has been awake to the pleasures of Ford for decades. He first staged ’Tis Pity” 30 years ago and studied it in school years before that. This “thrilling play,” he wrote in an e-mail from the tour’s stop in Australia, is “a human study about an illicit passion, and a compelling insight into our capacity to break rules indeed the need to break rules.”


’Tis Pity” breaks many rules. Set in Renaissance Parma and inhabiting some very tricky moral territory, it concerns the incestuous love between Annabella, to whom the title refers, and her brother Giovanni. . . . 


[ . . . ]


Wooden O Symposium, August 6-8, 2012


The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 23.036  Tuesday, 31 January 2012


From:         Matt Nickerson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         January 31, 2012 10:03:17 AM EST

Subject:     Wooden O Symposium, August 6-8, 2012


I believe this conference will be of interest to readers of SHAKSPER



Utah Shakespeare Festival -- Center for Shakespeare Studies

August 6-8, 2012 -- Cedar City, Utah


The 2012 Wooden O Symposium is a cross-disciplinary conference sponsored by Southern Utah University’s Center for Shakespeare Studies and the Utah Shakespeare Festival, located in Cedar City, Utah. August 6-8, 2012. Scholars attending the conference will have the unique opportunity of immersing themselves in research and performance in one of the most beautiful natural settings in the western United States.


Conference Priorities: The Wooden O Symposium invites papers on any topic related to Shakespeare, including Shakespeare in performance, the adaptation of Shakespeare works (film, fiction, and visual and performing arts), Elizabethan and Jacobean culture and history, and Shakespeare’s contemporaries, but gives priority to presentations relating to the Utah Shakespeare Festival’s 2012 season: Titus Andronicus, The Merry Wives of Windsor, and Hamlet.  Because USF will also be producing Moliere’s Scapin and Fredrich Schiller’s Mary Stuart in their 2012 summer season, we also welcome essays on these plays, as well as presentations that address the subject of early modern drama throughout Europe and representations of female monarchs in dramatic literature.


Keynote Speaker: The keynote speaker for the 2012 Wooden O Symposium is Dr. Susan Frye, Professor of English at University of Wyoming, and author of Elizabeth I: The Competition for Representation (Oxford, 1996), Pens and Needles: Women’s Textualities in Early Modern England (UPenn, 2010), and co-editor with of Maids and Mistresses, Cousins and Queens: Women’s Alliances in Early Modern England (Oxford, 1999.)


In support of Southern Utah University’s mission to promote undergraduate research, the Wooden O Symposium regularly includes undergraduate panels as part of our program, so please share this notice with your undergraduates.


We will also invite presenters to submit revised papers from the 2012 symposium to our peer-reviewed Journal of the Wooden O.


Submission: Deadline for proposals is May 1, 2012. Session chairs and individual presenters will be informed of acceptance no later than May 15.  250-word abstracts or session proposals (including individual abstracts) should include the following:

  • Author’s name
  • Participant category (faculty, graduate student, undergraduate, independent scholar)
  • Mailing address
  • College/university affiliation (if any)
  • E-mail address
  • Daytime phone number. 

Send 250 word abstract or session proposal to: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.


Wooden O Symposium

c/o Utah Shakespeare Festival

351 W. Center St.

Cedar City, UT 84720

Subscribe to Our Feeds


Make a Gift to SHAKSPER

Consider making a gift to support SHAKSPER.