|
View the h-war Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in h-war's April 2004 logs by: [date] [author] [thread] View the Next Message in h-war's April 2004 logs by: [date] [author] [thread] Visit the h-war home page.
On 6 April 2004, Michael Ramsey wrote, "Dr. Lynn's work tended to examine
his models when they were at rest, not in the process of moving from one
state to the next, which is what his appendix served to represent."
This comment struck a chord for me, for two reasons:
First, I am particularly interested in the relationship between
discourse and reality in the period immediately following that covered
in chapter 3 of Lynn's book, "Chivalry and Chevauchée." I attended
Lynn's session at the AHA in January and asked him to address what, if
any, impact he thought tournament practices (what his model calls
"perfected reality") had on actual battle practices ("reality") during
the 15th c. The circumstances were such that he never really answered
my question, so I am throwing it out to the list to see if any other
members would care to share their knowledge and/or opinions on this
issue. More on my own below.
Second, when I read Ramsey's comment, I reread Lynn's appendix to see if
perhaps I might find some indication of my answer there. I note,
however, that, though there is a line connecting "perfected reality" and
"reality," there is no directional arrow between them. Does this mean
that perfected reality has no effect on reality? that the effect can
move in either direction? that the two are connected is some way but not
in a causal one? that the two really are not connected at all but the
model looked funny without a connecting line (kidding)? Under what
circumstances (if any) did perfected reality influence reality? or did
the two remain essentially separate until something else came along to
alter either the discourse or the reality? If so, did the perfected
reality then cease to exist?
To relate these questions about Lynn's model to my own specific question
about the 15th c., I suspect (but as yet have done no formal research to
test this suspicion) that tournament practices probably _did_ influence
the behavior of noble heavy cavalrymen in battle, and for precisely the
types of cultural reasons for which Lynn argues. I would welcome the
comments of others on that thesis. Of those who would argue (and I
would guess that some will) that tournament practice and battle practice
remained distinct and separate until something else came along to alter
either the discourse or the reality, I would ask: what, in your
opinion, was that "something else" and when (and why) did it "come
along"? One of the things Lynn's model does not really address is what
happens to perfected realities when there is a shift in either reality
or discourse substantial enough to ease the clash between reality and
discourse which demanded the creation of the perfected reality in the
first place. According to Lynn's fourth chapter and to my own research,
we still see traces of the chivalric discourse as late as the 18th c.,
by which time the tournament was long defunct. Does that imply that it
was changes in the reality of war, rather than in the discourse, that
led to the waning of the perfected reality represented by the
tournament? If so, does that apply in all cases? i.e., can we say that
it is usually changes in reality, rather than changes in discourse,
which lead to the disappearance of a perfected reality? The fact that
Lynn's model puts perfected reality on the same plane as reality, rather
than on the same plane as discourse, would seem to imply this, but ....
I look forward to the comments of other members.
Treva J. Tucker
University of Southern California
_________________________________________________________________
Watch LIVE baseball games on your computer with MLB.TV, included with MSN
Premium!
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/mlb&pgmarket=en-us/go/onm00200439ave/direct/01/
 Humanities & Social Sciences Online 
|