 |
 |
--Boundary (ID ytI3M6GtYUxBwCkhBcA9OA) Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Abigail, I inadvertently left off the ca at the end of your address, and will try again to send along something for the discussion, for what it is worth. I do want to encourage a formal panel, as suggested by John Coldewey. Cliff[**** Insert text here ****] --Boundary (ID ytI3M6GtYUxBwCkhBcA9OA) Content-type: MESSAGE/RFC822 Return-path: [log in to unmask] Received: from piglet.cc.wmich.edu (piglet.cc.wmich.edu [141.218.20.105]) by gw.wmich.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA13022 for <[log in to unmask]>; Sun, 10 Mar 1996 16:33:49 -0500 Received: from wmich.edu by wmich.edu (PMDF V5.0-5 #5064) id <[log in to unmask]> for [log in to unmask]; Sun, 10 Mar 1996 16:33:18 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 10 Mar 1996 16:17:03 -0500 (EST) From: [log in to unmask] Subject: REED and theory To: [log in to unmask] Message-id: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII I have been following the discussion started by William Ingram with great interest, and endorse John Coldewey's suggestion concerning a discussion (in May 1997) to be organized here at the Kalamazoo Congress. I personally have lots of trouble with theory as currently fashionable, in part because as an editor I have seen so much half-digested stuff written by people out there -- stuff which we have of course rejected. When doing records research, it seems to be that it is important not to put on blinders, and I think that some practitioners of theory would want precisely that done. Not long ago I reviewed a book that purported to discuss "Social Struggle" in relation to Renaissance drama without an adequate grounding in either records or the social background, though lots of plays were cited. It is easy is such cases for theory to wag the dog (to mangle a rather trite saying). I would suggest that REED's old-fashioned historicism with which it started was a good deal more solid than a good deal of the new historicism that has tried to refashion history, often along ideological lines. There is a temptation to see what we want to see, and this is as true of the new historicism and other post-modern (so-called) approaches as of the old. I have personally found the REED research invaluable (though I still have a few quibbles about the ignoring of Easter sepulchres and liturgical drama), and fully believe that the local context is the prime target of investigation at this time -- the local context with regard to texts, records, and iconography. This does not mean that we are to have blinders in looking for answers only on a local level, of course. There is plenty of room for methodological diversity. And there is plenty of room for a healthy discussion by a panel with diverse views. Cliff Davidson Medieval Institute Western Michigan University --Boundary (ID ytI3M6GtYUxBwCkhBcA9OA)--