Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1999 :: March ::
Miola's Complaint
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0521  Wednesday, 23 March 1999.

[1]     From:   John Cox <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 23 Mar 1999 10:48:15 -0500
        Subj:   Miola's Complaint

[2]     From:   Michele Marrapodi <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 24 Mar 1999 11:47:15 +0100 (GMT+0100)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0506 Miola's Shakespeare's Rome


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Cox <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 23 Mar 1999 10:48:15 -0500
Subject:        Miola's Complaint

Thanks to Robert Miola for a remarkably restrained and civil response to
a fairly brutal injury.  Posting such a response on SHAKSPER strikes me
as an appropriate way to deal with that kind of treatment-letting a wide
audience know about it without being rancorous.  It's an effective way
to get justice in the court of scholarly opinion, if nowhere else.

John Cox

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Michele Marrapodi <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 24 Mar 1999 11:47:15 +0100 (GMT+0100)
Subject: 10.0506 Miola's Shakespeare's Rome
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0506 Miola's Shakespeare's Rome

We were surprised (and, indeed, amazed) to read of the misattribution
and misuse of Robert Miola's essay on Cymbeline. As one of the most
innovative exponents of the classical legacies in early modern drama,
Miola deserves proper acknowledgement for his outstanding contribution
to Shakespeare studies.

More generally, this unfortunate error might well open a discussion on
the uses and functions of collecting past criticism as a means of
justifying new theoretical agendas. Every novelty in literary study
emerges within the context of previous work and we must acknowledge our
links with tradition.  No new academic product arises independent of a
legacy of close reading and literary theory. And we should mistrust any
pronouncement which attempts to score easy points by challenging earlier
scholarship.

Michele Marrapodi
Michael J. Redmond
University of Palermo
Dipartimento di Scienze filogiche e linguistiche
 

Other Messages In This Thread

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.