Print

---

I've been lurking in the shadows here, as I imagine many others have
as well, reluctant to respond and yet very interested in this discussion
of situating REED records within larger theoretical and practical
frames.
 
Sally-Beth points out, quite rightly, that there has been increased
flexibility regarding recording practices and scope of inquiry on the
part of the REED project over time, and that is much to be applauded.
Meanwhile as Elsa notes, the material conditions surrounding the
production of these records has to be extended backwards from the
institutions currently sponsoring them to the institutions that
initially sponsored them. James Cummings clearly would like a clear
line through the issues that motivate both the collection and the
deployment of records material, and has concerns, as does William
Ingram, about the nature and extent of materials included or excluded
from these collections. Forgive me if I've grossly misrepresented the
happy contributions these people have made to the discussion so far.
 
Now I can't claim to have clear lines or quick answers, and I rather
like the suggestion of a symposium (perhaps at K'zoo?) addressing the
strengths and weaknesses of REED materials, their use and misuse
within a various critical, social, literary or extraliterary
parameters. In a roundabout way, though, I want to suggest that
the problems of use and misuse are not overdetermined at the
production end of things so much as at the dissemination and user end
of things.  Towards the end of this posting I also want to suggest
that once the limitations of REED collections (and collecting) are
faced, new possibilities of access and searching of REED materials
might well help get us beyond these initial concerns.
 
First, it may help to consider that the REED editorial guidelines
describe (and, I think, were designed to describe) minimum standards for
records collection rather than maximum--beginning points rather than
ending points. Collections can (and often do) include material that
goes well beyond these guidelines.  The initial project was supposed
to include only material before 1642, to give a simple example, but
later relevant material may well find its way into an appendix. All
REED editors I have ever met have a raft of tales of interesting
stuff, wierd stuff, that never made it into their collection, not
because it wouldn't be allowed but because in their judgment it didn't
belong there with the dramatic records. So it's ordinarily a judgment
call on the editor's part that keeps materials out. And editors'
judgments are conditioned and trained by the nature of the material
they face, which for both towns and counties is by definition incomplete
but larger than would be humanly possible to print, even if one had
the will and the means.
 
The answer to James Cummings' question regarding negative evidence,
those dead-ends of records research, is fairly simple: most editor
keep daily logs and scrupulously record the documents they survey, if
only so as not to go over the same things twice. REED certainly has a
copy of mine, and James could surely find out more about the range of
editorial inquiries from REED files.
 
I don't know quite how to make my way through the minefield of
historically-based inquiry being conducted along unannounced or
unrecognized agendas, irrespective of intent. But I would suggest that
in any case the REED project makes clear a certain agenda and certain
stated limits, and it would seem that some responsibility for
interpretion be placed on the scholars and critics who make use of
the material. Indeed, however thick (or thin) the REED volumes, they
cannot hope to offer the materials necessary to produce the "thick
text" of cultural and anthropological studies. Such an observation is
not to excuse editors from responsibly including references and
explanations to help contextualize their material; but in the end it
may simply mean that the individual scholar or critic has to continue
the enterprise. That may mean something as simple as finding out about
civic governing structures or something conceptually more difficult,
 
I think, however, that in some ways these issues of scope, selection and
deployment are distractions from a larger problem that dogs the REED
project: that of access. Given the collections already complete, and
given the current rate of REED publication, the project will have to
continue (assuming funding) far beyond the scholarly lives of most
members of this listserv, far beyond the reasonable expectation of
publication of the editors themselves.
 
That is, whatever the scope and selection, much of the REED material
remains unpublished, beyond the reach of anyone except REED personnel,
who are for the most part too busy copyediting or fundraising to use
it. But if we want to have more material, certainly there is a mass of
it in the blocked pipeline.
 
May I suggest that at least one way of addressing this situation is to
try what is now a regular ploy on the part of any number of historical
and literary publications: prepublication on the web. While there are
impressive technological matters to work out, it would surely bring a
broad spectrum of data within reach, and it may actually so in such a
way that editors could be queried about their choices and about the
records themselves, while the records are still relatively fresh in
their minds and, indeed, while the editors are still alive.
 
I know this suggestion won't solve the problems of critical
positioning or contextualizing that are also urgent and need further
attention. But one of the lessons of the Malone Society and REED
enterprises is that the more we get the more we want.
 
Any further thoughts on this?