Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0149. Thursday, 24 February 1994.
Date: Wednesday, 23 Feb 94 08:03:56 -0600
Subject: Re: Much ado about universals and science
My sense of it (being trained in 19th & 20th century, and a mere passionate
amateur in the Renaissance) is that that the distinctions we make between the
humanties and the sciences were much less clear then; there was much less to
know (in theory, anyway) and people who thrived on learning wanted to know as
much about everything as they could. (For a wonderful picture of this world,
see Stephanie Cowell's recent novel *Nicholas Cooke.*) One of today's great
tragedies, I think, is that disciplines have become so discipline-bound. While
I know a number of scientists who enjoy literature, the reverse is less true.
Since I was persuaded as a young woman that women didn't do science, here I am
in literature, but find myself reading books about science all the time
(currently the wonderful *Lonely Hearts of the Cosmos* about recent and
contemporary cosmology--and those cosmologists go at one another with as much
vigor and delight as members of this conference.)
And just for the record, in case folks don't know this, the video release date
of *Much Ado* is March 2. (I read the review in the October 1993 *Commentary*
that was mentioned recently; whew! nasty, brutish, and long--and I disagreed
with nearly every word.)
And special to Luc at Montpellier: I'll crush a cup of wine with you anytime!
English/University of Minnesota