My reaction to Bynum's work is by no means based on an expertise in the
field nor in an exstensive reading of her work -- so it is admidtedly an
poorly informed reaction -- which is why I was interested in the
criticial response -- especially since her work is continually recommended
as an introduction without any furhter commentary or caveats. I will read
Professor Dinzelbacher's review.
I read passages from _Redemption_ years ago and my main objection was
that Bynum priveleges a reading of the images that focuses on hunger and
food over readings that discuss the eroticism of the images -- but adopts
exactly the same methodology of reading the images -- In other words, she
offers an interesting alternative but provides no real basis for
abandoning the erotic readings that she rejects -- in fact her
appropriation of the same methodology seemed to indicate that they are
just as valid. I found that alone to be quite probelmatic. But I need to
do further reading before I can react fairly to the work. Since Bynum's
works are praised so often, I was curious as to whether or not my inital
reaction was a complete anomaly. In any case the sustained presence of
her work in the discussion probably does warrant further reading on my
part.
Thanks for the responses!
Stephen M. Carey
On Fri, 3 Dec 1999, maiju.lehmijoki-gardner wrote:
> Dear Stephen Carey, Wylf Man and others,
> Stephen I was intriqued to learn about your strong reaction to Bynum, since
> I myself have just devored her books, and find especially Holy Feast and
> Holy Fast not only well-documented and fantastically written, but ground
> breaking also theoretically. It would be interesting to learn why you found
> her text you objectionable.
> Nonetheless, even master pieces need to be set under criticism, and Bynum's
> approach is very well (& critically ) discussed in Felice Lifshitz's article
> "Beyond Positivism and Genre: 'Hagiographical' Texts as Historical
> Narrative. " Viator 25 (1994), 96-113.
> As for the study of English female mystics, Bynum may not be the most
> helpful (in Holy Feast and Holy Fast she is particularly interested on the
> continental female mystics, Jesus as Mother focuses particularly on
> Cistersian spirituality, and Resurrection of Body uses mainly philosophical
> and scholarly, rather than devotional, texts), but she does discuss many
> aspects of Margery of Kempe's devotional life (in her Holy Feast).
> All the best,
> Maiju Lehmijoki-G.
>
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|