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="http:[log in to unmask]"> James Cummings, [log in to unmask], English, University of Leeds</A>.