 |
 |
medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture From: Terri Morgan <[log in to unmask]> >> but what, exactly, is the advantage of the alphabetical arrangement, other than it's nouvoténess? > For me, it's ease. I'm trying to create (for myself, just for fun) a saints & feast calendar as it would have been available to someone with far-reaching resources on January 1, 1600. that raises an interesting question: how would such a c. 1600 collection be arranged? probably answerable by simply consulting suchlike animals, but i would be quite astonished if one of this period were to be arranged alphabetically --almost any other arrangement would be plausible, but an alphabetical one would surely never occur to a medieval/early modren collectionator. by date-- of course, that being the most utilitarian mathod-- but also by country, by region, by "importance" (however determined, surely Popes take precedent over mere LKSRs), by popularity, by familiarity, by almost any "subjective" criteria one might imagine, but *not* by the purely arbitrary (and relatively useless) ABCdiarian order. > But for reading here, to spark discussion or contemplation, or, simply for ease of use by those of us (like Bob Kraft and me) always looking for Asses' Bridges to reinforce our own chronological prejudices and insulate ourselves from pesky unwanted and extraneous knowledge acquisition. >there's really no reason to NOT mix it up into some other order. I can cut & paste into chronological order just as easily as I could in geographical order or any other order easily discerned. a geographical ordering might be tried --Regno fanatics or, of that matter, Chartrain fanatics might (temporarily) entertain such an order (to the groans of the rest of the list, save for the nouveautéists; but, what does one do about Tuscany, or the Orleanais? > And I admit - the legendary is what draws my particular interest. I like reading what folks of the time would have thought was true, or even 'true for purposes of the Church'. of great historiographic significance, as well a being absolutely essential to any kind of Ball-Park understanding of what/how the hell those weird, 1.5-cameral medievals actually thought. >I also appreciate the results of our more scientific and scholarly approach (such as John's exhaustive work for the List). As you can already tell, I am less interested in buildings than I am in direct images yes, all those are surely 'true for purposes of the Church' --except for the actual photographs. >- but with so many knowledgeable building-aficionados on the List, the *form(s)* of the building are, of course, of some interest to architectural historians, but it's surely the ages, locations and shear proliferation (or not) of the buildings which would be of interest to cultic-aficionados. >Not to mention that the archives are always available if you happen to have a link to those, why not just include the link as a matter of course? surely the resource is becoming so formidable that it would be further enhanced by such. c ********************************************************************** To join the list, send the message: join medieval-religion YOUR NAME to: [log in to unmask] To send a message to the list, address it to: [log in to unmask] To leave the list, send the message: leave medieval-religion to: [log in to unmask] In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to: [log in to unmask] For further information, visit our web site: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion.html