Print

Print


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>.