On Fri, 26 Jul 1996, Dennis D. Martin wrote:
> Rarely, if at all, was the argument that controls over vernacular
> translations of the Bible or lay preaching couched in terms of "you folks
> are commoners, i.e., you are not aristocrats, so we cannot give you free
> license to preach or translate because it would undermine social
> stability. Rather, the arguments ran along the lines of "controls are
> necessary in any ordered society."
dear dennis
pardon me for jumping in on your discussion with richard. But a couple
of things ... Going back to your original point, the suspicion of "bias
from all quarters" is not "postmodernist" strictly speaking. Suspicion
of bias is part of a long historiographical tradition; postmodernism
demands not only engagement with bias and the "hermeneutic" dance, but
also a self-reflection on one's [academic] project. This seems an
important point to make, not to score one-up-person-points [:)] about
who knows their theory better, but because you have a valid point in
regard to the context of self-reflexion [that we, in the comfortable
West, have a romantic engagement with struggle and anarchy]; but you
miss out the sense of "project". From the historical bits you have
included in your last few posts, it would seem that you see yourself
engaged in recreating how medieval people "really thought" [as opposed to
Richard, as the "modern scholar", imposing new ideas]. But what you
think they thought [!] surprisingly enough underpins your own
"conservative" position [nb i don't claim to know your party politics
here, i'm just picking a word to describe your view of history], and
"naturalizes" it. You suggest in the
post i have partly quoted above that terms of *struggle* were unknown to
medieval people, and that the sources do not reflect the kind of
sociocultural tensions we historians like to ascribe ... This is, to be
frank, rubbish. There is a vast amount of work on the cultural
divisions between the litterati and the illiterati, and the earlier
discussion on Walter Map's comments about Waldensian translations
illustrate that struggle beautifully. I do not comment on Map's discourse
in order to condemn him ["Bad, naughty Walter"] but to analyse what is
going on in that historical context ["Why was Waldes pushed towards
heresy? What were the nuances in the cultural understanding of
literacy at this point? What was at stake in the whole issue?"] It seems
to me that you *are* "defending" Map's position,
and trying to naturalise the forces of power at play there [which
incidentally, as you no doubt already know, places you in a long line
of Catholic commentators on heresy and inquisition, lined up against
Protestants commentators seeking to represent heresy as the roots of
Luther]. This seems extremely problematical to me;
far more problematical than all that guff about "chips on shoulders".
[aside: what is the "chip" found on a shoulder? are we talking fried
potatoes or what?]
cheers
john arnold
Centre for Medieval Studies
Kings Manor
Exhibition Square
York YO1 2EP
ENGLAND
(01904) 433948
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|