To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure email@example.com
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
This essay examines key moments in the history of the “jailor scene” (act 3, sc. 3) in William Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice to make the case for games and especially dicing as an epistemological lens for the operations of adaptation. Drawing on Gilles Deleuze's account of the double movement of dicing, it argues that games offer not simply a metaphor for rules and free play but also a flexible model for different networks of control and resistance. These networks are on display in the dramatic fiction of Shakespeare's Merchant and in the play's theatrical legacy including medieval Passion plays, Restoration and Victorian productions, and modern and postmodern adaptations.
Keywords:The Merchant of Venice; dicing; adaptation; passion plays; Marowitz, Charles; Variations on the Merchant of Venice
In 2011 the curtain rose on Rupert Goold's Las Vegas–themed The Merchantof Venice to reveal gamblers throwing dice at a craps table. Forty years earlier Terry Hands's production “began with the fantastical spectacle of toy galleons being moved about the patterned stage floor according to the fall of the dice thrown by Antonio and his companions in what looked like a giant game of snakes and ladders.” These moments of performance materialized the motif of high-stakes gaming in Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice. When Antonio and Bassanio hazard all they have on maritime ventures and the casket test, the drama taps into early modern fascinations with financial risk and its prospect of upward social mobility. The repeated references to “hazard” evoke widespread associations between hazard and dicing as well as a specific synonymy: “the game at dice called hazard” was the most popular dice game in England from the Middle Ages through at least the nineteenth century. Games of dice not only evoke the drama's thematic investments; as Hands's and Goold's productions suggest, they also characterize its theatrical history. This essay examines key moments in this history to make the case for games and especially dicing as an epistemological lens for the operations of adaptation.
A crucial point of contestation in recent theories of Shakespeare and adaptation concerns regulation and license. Scholars present disparate understandings of the extent to which political, legal, economic, social, and cultural forces do or do not control adaptation.
This study examined the effectiveness of a formal postdoctoral education program designed to teach skills in clinical and translational science, using scholar publication rates as a measure of research productivity.
Participants included 70 clinical fellows who were admitted to a master’s or certificate training program in clinical and translational science from 1999 to 2015 and 70 matched control peers. The primary outcomes were the number of publications 5 years post-fellowship matriculation and time to publishing 15 peer-reviewed manuscripts post-matriculation.
Clinical and translational science program graduates published significantly more peer-reviewed manuscripts at 5 years post-matriculation (median 8 vs 5, p=0.041) and had a faster time to publication of 15 peer-reviewed manuscripts (matched hazard ratio = 2.91, p=0.002). Additionally, program graduates’ publications yielded a significantly higher average H-index (11 vs. 7, p=0.013).
These findings support the effectiveness of formal training programs in clinical and translational science by increasing academic productivity.