2003

Re: Models

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.0539  Wednesday, 19 March 2003

[1]     From:   Terence Hawkes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 18 Mar 2003 13:34:55 -0500
        Subj:   SHK 14.0523 Re: Models

[2]     From:   Ted Dykstra <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 18 Mar 2003 21:03:11 EST
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.0518 Models


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Terence Hawkes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 18 Mar 2003 13:34:55 -0500
Subject: Re: Models
Comment:        SHK 14.0523 Re: Models

Stuart Manger writes angrily of  Charles Weinstein's

'ad hominem attack on one of UK's most distinguished Shakespearian
scholars'

Goodness, how sad.  Who could it have been?

T. Hawkes

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Ted Dykstra <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 18 Mar 2003 21:03:11 EST
Subject: 14.0518 Models
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0518 Models

>"The study
>of mediocrity, whatever its origins, breeds mediocrity."

--Charles Weinstein

In studying your contributions to this site and trying to think of
appropriate responses, I couldn't agree more!

Ted

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.

Re: Reviews

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.0538  Wednesday, 19 March 2003

From:           Thomas Larque <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 18 Mar 2003 17:06:36 -0000
Subject: 14.0530 Re: Reviews
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0530 Re: Reviews

>"Just because Charles Weinstein doesn't like hearing about minor
>productions or failed productions...doesn't mean that nobody else wants
>to hear about them...."
>
>--Thomas Larque on bad Shakespearean theater (2003)
>
>"Even if he is mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people
>and lawyers.  They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they,
>and a little chance?  We can't have all Brandeises and stuff like that
>there."
>
>--Senator Roman Hruska of Nebraska on failed Supremem Court nominee G.
>Harrold Carswell (1970)

And of course if Charles Weinstein were writing the History books we
would hear nothing about bad judges, bad wars (why write about the Suez
crisis, it failed, didn't it?) or anything except the best of
everything.  Of course that would mean future generations reading this
history would have no idea about how the world really operated, but what
does Charles Weinstein care about reality? - he is too busy riding his
hobbyhorses to bother with it.

Writing about bad productions is not the same as saying they are good
productions, just as writing history about bad judges is not the same as
saying that bad judges have every right to their jobs.

Thomas Larque.

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.

Re: Standard Work On Early English Book Publishing

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.0536  Wednesday, 19 March 2003

[1]     From:   Kristine Batey <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 18 Mar 2003 10:45:56 -0600
        Subj:   Re: Standard Work On Early English Book Publishing

[2]     From:   Brian Willis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 18 Mar 2003 15:09:11 -0800 (PST)
        Subj:   Re: Standard Work On Early English Book Publishing

[3]     From:   Al Magary <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 18 Mar 2003 15:51:34 -0800
        Subj:   Re: Standard Work On Early English Book Publishing


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Kristine Batey <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 18 Mar 2003 10:45:56 -0600
Subject: 14.0527 Re: Standard Work On Early English Book
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0527 Re: Standard Work On Early English Book
Publishing

Michael Shurgot wrote:

>Professor Magary asks a pertinent and frightening question: What
>is happening to academic publishing? In looking for a publisher of a
>book of interviews of American Shakespearean actors, I have discovered
>that Univ. of California Press no longer publishes scholarly books on
>drama or literary topics. I guess such books don't sell well enough to
>be worthwhile for that erstwhile prestigious academic press.

What's happening to academic publishing is a combination of what's
happening to publishing in general, and what's happening in academe.
Publishing does badly in a bad economy, and the industry in general has
never recovered from the recession of the early '90s. As for academe,
universities are finding it difficult to justify maintaining programs
that don't pay their own way. I'm involved enough in development (i.e.,
fund-raising) to understand that at the moment we're all competing for
limited funds in an uncertain market (very uncertain this morning), but
I also know that there is a corporate, for-profit philosophy being
applied that isn't the only approach to running a university. Our press
was recently reorganized--meaning pretty much the whole staff was "laid
off" and then replaced. They've had to rethink their catalogue
(translation: start publishing books that will make enough money to let
them be self supporting). Of course, there's plenty of money being
pulled in by our hard-science and research institutes, but supposedly no
way of redirecting it to the units that do nothing but the work that a
university is designed to do. Our biggest windfall in recent years came
five years ago when our football team accidentally became the hottest
thing in sports. So much money was donated to upgrade athletic
facilities that there was enough left over to carpet and paint some of
the other buildings. And I don't know what undesignated funds came in
last year, but we suddenly got grounded outlets installed in our
building, and it's only the beginning of the century.

Kristine Batey

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Brian Willis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 18 Mar 2003 15:09:11 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 14.0527 Re: Standard Work On Early English Book
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0527 Re: Standard Work On Early English Book
Publishing

>Professor Magary asks a pertinent and frightening
>question: What is
>happening to academic publishing? In looking for a
>publisher of a book
>of interviews of American Shakespearean actors, I
>have discovered that
>Univ. of California Press no longer publishes
>scholarly books on drama
>or literary topics. I guess such books don't sell
>well enough to be
>worthwhile for that erstwhile prestigious academic
>press. The UCP's web
>site no longer lists such topics, not is there a
>contact person listed
>for them.  Such developments bode ill, I fear, for
>our and related
>professions.
>
>Regards,
>Michael Shurgot

I'm sorry Michael. It appears that Charles Weinstein is now a consultant
for the University of California Press. A sad day indeed.

Brian Willis

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Al Magary <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 18 Mar 2003 15:51:34 -0800
Subject: 14.0527 Re: Standard Work On Early English Book
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0527 Re: Standard Work On Early English Book
Publishing

>Professor Magary asks a pertinent and frightening question:
>What is
>happening to academic publishing?...

I do appreciate the sudden promotion but as I have confessed, I am a
mere civilian in academic precincts.  Maybe "Perfesser" would fit...

Merely,
Al Magary

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.

Re: Julius Caesar's Protagonist

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.0537  Wednesday, 19 March 2003

[1]     From:   Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 18 Mar 2003 12:05:16 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.0519 Re: Julius Caesar's Protagonist

[2]     From:   Colin Cox <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 18 Mar 2003 09:45:26 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.0519 Re: Julius Caesar's Protagonist


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 18 Mar 2003 12:05:16 -0500
Subject: 14.0519 Re: Julius Caesar's Protagonist
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0519 Re: Julius Caesar's Protagonist

>(Is there a parallel to the Woody Allen case of a few years ago?)

Wonderful idea - an update of Plutarch's parallel lives.  Julius Caesar
and Woody Allen.  How about Pericles and Michael Bloomberg.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Colin Cox <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 18 Mar 2003 09:45:26 -0800
Subject: 14.0519 Re: Julius Caesar's Protagonist
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0519 Re: Julius Caesar's Protagonist

I think we can presume that Shakespeare knew the following. He knew that
Brutus' mother, Servilia, was Caesar's mistress; Plutarch told him that
(via Sir Thomas North's magnificent translation of 1595). Of course, to
add even more nasty gossip to the whole affair, Plutarch also makes the
suggestion that Brutus is the product of Servilia's love to Caesar!
Plutarch also tells us how very fond Caesar was of Servilia and that
they were lovers in his younger days.

As to the Junia story, it is Suetonius that would have provided William
with the details. Suetonius tells us in his "De Vita Caesarum, Divus
Iulius', "that Caesar was unbridled and extravagant in his intrigues . .
. But beyond all others Caesar loved Servilia, the mother of Marcus
Brutus, for whom in his first consulship he bought a pearl costing six
million sesterces. . . .  and in fact it was thought that Servilia was
prostituting her own daughter to Caesar."

These two sources lead me to conjecture that, indeed, Caesar asked
Servilia's permission to seduce her daughter, Junia, and Shakespeare
knew about it. Could she have stopped him? I doubt it very much, though
he may have thought twice about it.

There are, in fact, many examples of the 'permission request.' It was a
very Roman thing to do. Brutus' wife, Portia, was a constant source of
such requests when she was married to her first husband, Bibulus. Portia
was a renowned beauty, and her father, Cato, received many petitions
from fellow senators to allow them to mate with his daughter! The most
famous example is Quintus Hortensius, who told Cato Bibulus could have
her back once Hortensius had a son by Portia! {This is all found in
Plutarch's "Life of Cato the Younger".}

It gets 'juicier'. Servilia was Cato's sister. Brutus and Portia were
first cousin's. William knew this; he has Portia, on her knees, tell us.
Did Portia know of the rumour that Brutus was Caesar's son? According to
Plutarch, the whole of Rome knew about it "So public and notorious was
Servilia's love to Caesar."

Cheers,
Colin

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.

Re: Shakespeare at Stratford

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.0535  Wednesday, 19 March 2003

From:           John W. Kennedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 18 Mar 2003 11:36:34 -0500
Subject: 14.0520 Re: Shakespeare at Stratford
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0520 Re: Shakespeare at Stratford

Thomas Larque <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.> writes,

>I am amused to see that Weinstein has completely ignored the body of my
>posting in which I made a variety of arguments against his ridiculous
>claims that only one type of book about Shakespearean Performance
>History should ever be written, and that nothing except the "best"
>productions should be considered.  Would Weinstein let us know, for
>example, whether he believes that his "high standards" should be applied
>to Elizabethan History (which would ban biographies, social and familial
>history, and anything other than general histories about "landmark"
>events)

Nay, perhaps Mr. Weinstein, in an uber-Platonic mood, would demand that
history be reduced to the study of the lives of virtuous men.

(Since we're all intullekchals, here, I do not think I need to mention
the well-known proof that there is no such thing as an uninteresting
number, though it comes to mind.)

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.