Terry has raised some very useful caveats in regard to applying the
techniques of one difficult field of knowledge to another. If I may, I
would like to relate an experience that illustrates Terry's point.
Thirty-five years ago, I had the privilege to serve as a chaplain in an
excellent mental hospitial. At that time, a book purporting to explain
the Protestant reformation in terms of a psychoanalysis of Luther was much
in vogue and selling briskly.
A truly outstanding psychiatrist and I were drinking much needed cups of
coffee after a series of grueling "arrival interviews," interviews lasting
anywhere up to an hour each during which the care-givers sought to assess
the nature and degree of an incoming patient's illness so that proper
treatment could be undertaken. Usually such interviews were tiring for
all concerning, but they were especially so for the therapists, for a
great deal depended on the accuracy of their diagnoses.
Our discussion turned to the recent book on Luther, and, concerning it,
the psychiatrist remarked, "I find it so difficult to analyse a person
when they are sitting in the same room with me and I have their history
before me to review. I have absolutely no idea how this process can be
carried out across four or five centuries and strictly on the basis of the
patient's writing."
I know that this is far afield from a discussion of religion in the middle
ages; it was not that long ago I served as a chaplain. Still, his comment
remains fresh in my memory as a guide for researchers. I've learned that
I do not always *know* what I think I know.
Pax!
Frank
Frank Morgret
15 Towering Hts -- #1206
St Catharines, Ontario
CANADA
L2T 3G7
[log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|