c. 1588) stages a sotto voce critique of centuries' worth of training in reading the classics in moralizing fashion: the play parodies and ironizes reading the Metamorphoses as a spur to action. Cymbeline (c. 1611), in contrast, draws not from classical texts but from English's peculiar grammar to invent a narrative time that is "future perfect" (163): characters anticipate a future valuable for the stories that, in that prospective time, they will have been able to tell. Cleopatra, however, dreads seeing herself portrayed at Caesar's triumph by "saucy lictors" and "scald rhymers" because those comedians' extemporaneous performances, like the couplets of the ballads they sing, are all too predictable and reproducible (Antony and Cleopatra, c. 1607). Shakespeare associates the untrammeled future not with extemporaneous performance but with the kind of ekphrastic scripting that only Shakespeare himself can produce: Enobarbus's depiction of Cleopatra on her barge, or Iachimo's of the tapestry in Imogen's bedroom. The days of future past in which Shakespeare invests his theater require what John Keats would call a state of mind "capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts" (letter to George and Thomas Keats, 1817). In an epilogue, Barret contrasts Adam's initial postlapsarian hope to remain in Eden in a static eternity of mournful nostalgia with the wandering, inconclusive mode of romance with which Paradise Lost (1667) ends. I wished to hear more about how John Milton's epic crafts open-ended futurity. (One thinks of the multiple alternative worlds Satan bypasses, not stopping to ask who inhabits them.) Barret tends to focus intently on a few moments in each work rather than on larger structures and multiple incidents. But this is perhaps the point. A malleable future cannot be found everywhere in a literary work, for then we would know to expect it. And then we would have a narrative that imprisons itself rather than seeks Paradise Lost's exit into a world of limitless, untold futures.
The introduction of the scabini, men who served as judgement finders, has long been connected to judicial reform enacted by Charlemagne. By the thirteenth century, the term scabini had become synonymous with legal culture and courts from Norway to Hungary and beyond. This article will trace the scabini from historiographical debates over their provenance, to their introduction under Charlemagne, why and how this change was enacted, their duties and the impact of the reform on terminology and the writing of documentary texts. This touches on keystones of changing historiographical perspectives of the Carolingians: from nineteenth-century views of a 'Germanic' past that privileged collective judgement to twentieth-century emphasis on the written word as a mode of governance and the relationship between Charlemagne and the aristocracy, and recent attention to the function of capitularies in tenthcentury western Europe. It will explore the alleged disappearance of the scabini, a development that is connected in scholarship to nothing less significant than debates concerning the feudal revolution, before considering areas for future study.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.