 |
 |
I attended a very enjoyable METh Conference (on the use of records in drama studies) at Southampton last weekend, where (sadly but I think predictably) much of the conversation turned into REED criticism. May I say, before anything else, therefore, that I think REED does a splendid job;that REED policy very properly adapts itself to changes in perceived needs; that I welcome initiatives to make REED available in non-book format; that I see no reason to expect REED editors to be entirely consistent from one volume to another; and that the problems with using REED stem more from the users than from the product--REED is perfectly usable as long as the user doesn't demand from any volume what that volume never pretended to offer. At the end of the conference Peter Meredith suggested that there might be an annual REED conference set up, where REED editors and others might exchange views. While viewing with horror the prospect of yet another possibly introspective annual conference, I support his reasons, which are that REED editors do need a forum for exchanging views away from the conference paper. At conferences, not surprisingly but with some honourable exceptions, REED editors tend (a) to discuss "their" records out of context and (b) to concentrate on anecdotal material that may or may not be exceptional but in any case needs to be put in context; few literary (or musical) scholars have the kind of diplomatic and paleographical skills that such work demands; and the work also requires detailed knowledge in areas not the editor's academic discipline. Any editor has learned a lot and become "experienced" by the time her/his first volume is published, but gaining a wide enough experience usually takes longer than the writing of a volume. When REED-L started some of us hoped that discussions of this sort would take place, and a specific request for more REED editors to make use of the list was actually made. Though some editors have done so, the kind of discussions envisaged have not really happened, and I see no evidence of REED editors regularly sharing their experiences with each other and with us. May I suggest that REED-L would be a very proper forum for such discussions and encourage REED editors to exchange their problems, views and insights with each other and with us in this medium? Let me start a hare for this purpose. It comes out of a conversation I had after a paper at Southampton, when I was encouraged to state my views in the REED Newsletter. These views are already in print, however (most recently in my Comparative Drama review of Lancashire), and I should feel embarrassed at repeating them yet again: so let me put the bones of them here and then get on with the business. 1) TOWN WAITS were instituted as a new item of civic expenditure in the fifteenth century; 2) TOWN WAITS were never watchmen: they have no connection with civic security (except of the most accidental sort), do not descend from civic security posts, and were never required (according to the evidence that _I_ know of) to take any security duties. 3) TOWN WAITS were minstrels from the start. This puts a new light on some records. While the old chestnut was in operation a payment to men referred to as "ministralli de Ebor'", or something similar, could be used as evidence that the York _waits_ were in existence in the 14th century or earlier. If we get rid of this error we see that this term has different meanings at different times. Before the institution of town waits at York (this is not confined to York, of course, which I take merely as a hypothetical example) the term means "minstrels of York" (in a York record) or perhaps "minstrels from York" (in a record from elsewhere): the designation is a convenient geographical one. After the institution of the waits at York the term might mean the same but could also mean "THE minstrels of York", i.e., the York Waits, which I think it normally does mean. (A scribe would know of the potential ambiguity and avoid it: there were of course other ways of describing a non-wait minstrel who came from York.) Put into generalised form: a) The meaning of a record may depend not only on the place and date but also on the particular circumstances prevailing--in this case, whether the place concerned employed town waits at the time concerned. b) Extrapolating meanings backwards is very dangerous! REED editors will certainly know all this, but I doubt if they have discussed it in these terms or come to these specific conclusions. So I throw it open: Is this correct? Does any editor have evidence to the contrary? Are there other circumstances of which this general conclusion is true? And, finally, is REED-L usable for this purpose, or do REEDers actually need to get together in the same bar (sorry, room) to share their interests? Richard Richard Rastall Department of Music, University of Leeds, Leeds LS6 9JT UK Tel: 0532 332581 Fax: 0532 332586