LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for REED-L Archives


REED-L Archives

REED-L Archives


REED-L@LISTSERV.UTORONTO.CA


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

REED-L Home

REED-L Home

REED-L  February 1996

REED-L February 1996

Subject:

(long) Methodology and Dramatic Records Research.

From:

J C Cummings <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

REED-L: Records of Early English Drama Discussion

Date:

Mon, 26 Feb 1996 19:32:54 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (187 lines)

Dear REED-l'ers,
 
The following is intended to initiate some discussion on the
assumptions of the methodology of REED (and REED-like)
research, I apologise in advance for its length and its naive
questions, but most of all for its unedited length.
        If I am to impose on REED-L to discuss certain theoretical
and methodological implications of early dramatic records
research, then I should begin by indicating my own biases and
assumptions.  Irrespective of my desire to play a "devil's
advocate" here, I am most certainly in favour of the collection of
dramatic records.  I have always been in awe at the
meticulousness and care with which REED volumes and Malone
Society 'Collections' are produced. (My queries are either of a
general nature, not critiques, just a desire to understand and
improve my own work with records.)  I should also indicate that
the real reason I'm thinking about these issues at all is because I
feel I need to address (and perhaps dismiss) them in the
introductory chapter to my dissertation on the textual and social
context to early dramatic records in the area around The Wash.
        What I am curious about is the assumptions which are
behind the methodology of dramatic records research.  The
purpose of REED is to "locate transcribe, and publish
systematically the surviving evidence of public performance in
Great Britain up to 1642." (REED: Handbook for Editors, A. F.
Johnston & S.B. Maclean, 1980)  I don't believe that this means
that REED feels it is trying to inch "its way  forward to a true and
full history of English drama." (Theresa Coletti, 'Reading REED'
in "Literary Practice & Social Change in Britain, 1380-1530" Ed.
Lee Patterson, 1990, p 249) Rather that it is trying to produce a
useful set of reference tools which lead researchers back to the
original documents.  While the project attempts to be as complete
as humanly possible mistakes will always be made.  As well, even
with the collection of _all_ remaining references to dramatic
activity within the period can a 'true and full' history ever be
written, since this concept of some final 'truth' implies access to
records which no longer exist, and may never have existed.  Some
would use this to dismiss any conclusions drawn on limited
surviving historical records, claiming that any arguments from
partiality are inherently flawed and thus biased towards the
records that, luckily, have survived.  These people would feel that
the randomness with which the records survive invalidates any
attempt at scientific deduction from them.  And yet, conclusions
drawn from partial sources is a necessary part of all historical
inquiry.  (I've only heard this argument in English Departments,
not History Departments.)  Does REED's attempts to be as
scientific as possible in the selection, collection, and transcription
of the extant dramatic records somehow sanitise the possible
problems? I think the perceived problem of partiality might be of
a later historian in attempting to use the complete collection of
REED volumes to create a 'true and full history of English drama'
does so by comparing divergent records of differing geographical
and temporal locations.  For example, To discuss minstrel life in
Britain through simultaneous use of examples of minstrels in Kent
in the 1350's and Cumberland in the 1580's provides an unfocused
picture. (Discussions of performer's travel and routes may be
exempt from that view though.)  I don't believe, however, that this
is the intent of REED volumes, preferring to see them as a tool for
quickly locating possible examples and areas of interest which
then are expanded upon through returning to the original
documents.  I would be curious what members of the list feel
about arguments from  partiality, and the types of valid and
invalid comparisons  between volumes.
        Several editors (Both REED and Malone Soc.) in their
introductions have mentioned resisting the temptation to provide
even more interpretation and explanation of the context from
which the records originate.  One can see how it would be
tempting to pursue individual dramatic extracts in attempts to
discover as much as possible about the people or performance in
question.  Most REED editors avoid this, and rightly so, as doing
so would make their task even slower and their final publications
even larger.  I am glad of this, of course, since this leaves space
for dissertations such as my own.  While Coletti decides that
REED volumes should not "offer more interpretation of the
evidence they gather" (269)  she does think that it should
"acknowledge that its editorial policies and procedures have
profound implications".  I disagree, or at least do not believe it is
of utmost concern that the historical inquiry of REED activity
may be self-historicising.  However, all editorial policies, by
necessity, influence the assumptions inherent in the final
publication.  In what ways does REED editorial policy introduce
or protect the final volumes from methodological assumptions.
        Coletti seems to draw a division in the field of early drama
between those who study play texts and those who study records.
While there is some justification for this stance, she also seems to
think the only, or at least prime, reason for records research is that
"knowledge of local circumstances of dramatic production will
illuminate play texts".(Coletti, 279)  While this supposed division
is understandable based on the courses taught in universities and
approaches taken by the two groups it often appears an abstract
division.  I would like to suggest, as probably has been suggested
before, that both texts and records are being used to find out about
historical performance, and hence records research that does not
necessarily illuminate extant play texts, or involves unscripted
activities, is equally as valid as those which do.  Play texts are, in
one sense, an indication of the intent of what the play was
supposed to be like. (We all know that plays rarely follow their
texts exactly when performed!)  Thus play texts are, in
themselves, a sort of 'signpost' or historical 'record' of the
intended dramatic performance.  It is this performance which is
often studied, and the extant texts and records are media through
which to understand this historical performance in greater detail.
I would like to know of references to this idea or anyone's reasons
for disagreement with it.
        Perhaps the questions we should be asking are not those of
motivation for the work, but those of concerning the assumptions
which are inherent in the project's method.  What is then the
precise nature of a REED editor's methodology?  While many
REED editors may not consider that they follow a specific
methodology - and 'just do it' - I'm convinced that their experience
and training in the field gives them a methodological background
based on common-sense and practical results.  This is evinced in
the detailed instructions of the "Handbook For Editors"  and Ian
Lancashire's "REED research guide" (REEDN, 1:1) which give us
at least an indication of how editors are supposed to proceed.
They are to first "understand the types of [dramatic, ceremonial,
and minstrel] activities and of historical records generally"
(REEDN, 1:1, p. 10), then compile a bibliography of printed
materials, then "locate and identify manuscripts with useful
records ... transcribe them ... describe and date them; and ... edit
them with Introduction, Textual Notes, and Appendices"(ibid.)
My knowledge of the meticulous nature of REED editors leads
me to find few if any possible areas of imprecision in this (basic)
method.  And yet, some questions may be raised of assumptions
behind this methodology.
        The main assumption is that of the 'principles of selection'.
For example, whether to include information about the private
lives of players and musicians, where possible, or exclude it since
it has no/little(?) bearing on performance.  And yet there is a thin
line to tread, since while many of the records excluded "mention
performers but do not attest to actual secular performance" (David
George, REED: Lancashire, p. c) they can be invaluable to those
seeking to examine the context in which this performance took
place.  As Richard Rastall states in his review of the Lancashire
volume, "we badly need to build up pictures of artistic life
through the biographies of players and musicians, and the
excluded material is what we should use." (Comparative Drama,
27:2, 1993, 256-62, p.259)  However, the line has to be drawn
somewhere, otherwise volumes would take several decades to
produce!  I would be interested to other views on the benefits and
limitations of the principles of selection.
        The last question that occurs to me concerning the actual
method of transcription of dramatic records is that of the very
reading and transcription itself.  Though I've taken a couple
palaeography courses, and continue to do so through the
Yorkshire Arch. Soc., I know that I am still very much a beginner
and often find myself in awe when a dark blurred blob on a folio
is illuminated through the experience of my betters.  Because I
am, in some senses, following footprints in the sand, my approach
has been limited to looking for specific items known to exist
*somewhere* in the account book (etc.) and then to read around
this.  Despite Diana Wyatt's description of determined
perseverance, ( 'Editing for REED' in "Manuscripts and Texts:
Editorial problems...." ed. by Derek Pearsall, Brewer: 1987, 161-
170, p. 163) I am curious as to palaeographical shortcuts that
might be employed by editors both for my own appropriation and
discussion in general.  In a document in which one is fairly sure
no useful references will be recorded - and how can one be so
sure? - do editors ever skim through documents less carefully with
a short list of Latin words and abbreviations that they should look
for?  (If so...what words?)  Or do they read through translating,
looking up _each_ unfamiliar word, expanding every abbreviation
with meticulous care?  Or is it somewhere in between?  The
"REED: Handbook for Editors" is quite clear on the checking and
re-checking of references the individual editor has found. (p. 35)
It is the initial locating of entries of interest within documents I'm
curious about.  I'm not meaning to imply any laxity on the parts of
editors, far from it, instead I'm curious about shortcuts which may
be taken without compromising methodological completeness.
        Finally, if anyone has suggestions for other reading for me
which may help me solve some of my noticeably naive questions
I would greatly appreciate hearing of it.  I hope that my queries
and observations are not taken in the wrong light, and that the
correcting of my oversights might be a springboard for further
discussion.  My thanks and sympathies to anyone who actually read
this far.
 
Always,
James Cummings
School of English
University of Leeds
Leeds, LS2 9JT
[log in to unmask]
 
--
<A href="[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]">
James Cummings, [log in to unmask], English, University of Leeds</A>.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

March 2024
January 2024
November 2023
September 2023
August 2023
May 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
June 2022
May 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
October 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
October 2020
June 2020
May 2020
March 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
March 2019
November 2018
October 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
December 2017
October 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
March 2017
April 2016
March 2016
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
February 2015
January 2015
November 2014
October 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
February 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996
February 1996
January 1996
December 1995
November 1995
October 1995
September 1995
August 1995
July 1995
June 1995
May 1995
April 1995
March 1995
February 1995
January 1995
December 1994
November 1994
October 1994
September 1994
August 1994
July 1994
June 1994
May 1994
April 1994
March 1994
February 1994
January 1994
December 1993
November 1993
October 1993
September 1993
August 1993
July 1993
June 1993
May 1993
April 1993
March 1993
February 1993
January 1993
December 1992
November 1992
October 1992
September 1992
July 1992
June 1992
May 1992
April 1992
March 1992
February 1992
January 1992
December 1991
November 1991
October 1991
July 1991
May 1991
April 1991
March 1991
February 1991
January 1991
December 1990
November 1990

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.UTORONTO.CA

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager