Linda OLSON wrote:
> Now I have another question: some colleagues here believe that a
> Medieval/Renaissance program is preferable to a straight medieval studies
> one, both in terms of philosophy (no clear demarcation between time
> periods &/or artificiality of their separation) and practicality
> (insufficient student numbers for medieval studies only). Would any of
> you care to offer comments,
Some comments:
1. No historical period is a complete and self contained study unit in and of
itself. Everything is affected by what went before, and affects what went
afterwards. This makes historical periodization a fraught business. Yet, at
the same time, periodization is a useful tool. A scholar has to draw the line
somewhere, or they will simply be overwhelmed. The real issue is where to
draw the lines. That, I feel, should be determined by what is being studied,
rather than by a slavish adherence to definitions offered by previous
scholars (some going back to the 16th C, in the case of the `middle ages').
Your problem, if you do introduce a Med-Ren program, is where you will draw
the lines, and how you sell that demarcation to potential students.
2. Your group may find it instructive to consider the redefinitions that have
taken place at the other end of the middle ages, in the creation of `Late
Antiquity' as a major field of study. For a very long time,
Romanists/Classicists and medievalists walked their own paths, and seldom the
twain did meet. But once the barriers started to come down scholars on both
sides of the divide found that there was a tremendous amount they could learn
from each other. I think it would be fair to say that understanding of both
the later Roman world and the `Dark Ages' has been revolutionized in the last
30-35 years. Would your students benefit from a similar cross-fertilization?
3. Practical concerns, you say, may well turn out to be a major driving force
in any marriage of programs. The danger in that, given that a large part of
the problem is a shortage of students doing the medieval program, is that the
`medieval' could become no more than an introduction to the Renaissance. My
personal inclination to counter that would be to develop one or more new
courses that run over the whole period and stress the unity and continuity of
the period, rather than just maintaining the the existing course structure
and letting students do courses from each period. I -am- aware of how much
extra work this is, believe me :-). But it might save the medieval scholars
from becoming a minor appendage of the `Renaissance Department'. (I know, I'm
being cynical here. But I'm also aware of the ways academic politics can
evolve!)
Dr. Ronald A. Ross
531 Boler Road
London, Ontario
Canada
E-mail [log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|