Dear Jim,
It seems now a long time since I met you at the confession conference. Thanks for clarifying my
Douai reply yesterday; I keep my books at home, & remembered afterwards that I had actually
bought in Paris at Vrin & have at home the edition, which I had found not useful for the things in
which I'm interested [I'll be writing to Ampleforth to offer its loan]; I had just completely forgotten.
More to the point of this e-mail, have you a telephone no? Mine are, work 01904-432955, home
01904-624783; somev time when I'm across in Leeds it would be nice to meet. Cheers, Pete
On Wed, 16 Apr 1997 10:36:48 GMT James R Ginther wrote:
> From: James R Ginther <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 10:36:48 GMT
> Subject: Re: The Mind as a book
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> Thanks for all the suggestions. I had thought about Carruthers, but
> some insightful postgrad has his/her hands on it presently, and so I will have
> a library person snatch it away.
>
> I don't know if this is a facile observation, but the way Grosseteste
> employs the image, it is not about constructing the past, but rather
> the present. The sermon (which I am tempted to think was his
> inaugural lecture when he became master of theology at Oxford) starts
> off with an Ezechiel pericope about scripture being written externally
> and internally (foris et intus). RG exploits this image by arguing
> that this is a reading strategy a la four senses of Scripture (you
> can guess which is external and which is internal). When it comes to
> discussing the allegorical and moral sense, he argues that this
> reading must be reflexive, whereupon he then speaks of the human mind
> as a book written foris et intus. The point he is making is that the
> spiritual reading produces a change (reader-response???) in the
> reader, which is then reintroduced into the reading process. The
> reader does not focus on the past, but rather on the present activity of
> reading and the changes it produces in the reader.
>
> I realise that one cannot extricate memory from the act of reading,
> but I think he talking about something different than what interests
> Clanchy or Geary.
>
> Does this make sense? I am new to literary theory, and I have
> found Eco's essays in the Limits of Interpretation very useful as
> well as Anthony Thiselton's heavy going survey, New Horizons in
> Hermenuetics. Any further bits of wisdom would be most welcome.
>
> Thanks again.
> Jim
>
>
>
>
>
>
> =========================================================
> James R. Ginther
> Dept. of Theology and Religious Studies
> University of Leeds
> Leeds LS2 9JT
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> E-mail: Phone: +44.113.233.6749
> [log in to unmask] Fax: +44.113.233.3654
> -=*=-
> http://www.leeds.ac.uk/trs/trs.html
> =========================================================
> "Excellencior enim est scriptura in mente viva quam in
> pelle mortua" -Robert Grosseteste.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
