tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4883291738125908596.post8157376464830440977..comments2024-02-06T00:24:17.205-08:00Comments on Text Technologies: Swerving from the Straight and Narrow: Greenblatt's Fictional Medieval PeriodElaine Treharnehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08771494133960076143noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4883291738125908596.post-83281810613341963912017-11-09T13:12:02.419-08:002017-11-09T13:12:02.419-08:00...and then 5 years later, I read The Swerve. I di......and then 5 years later, I read The Swerve. I didn't want to believe that it was quite as bad as the negative reviews indicated. But, alas... https://thewrongmonkey.blogspot.com/2017/11/stephen-greenblatts-swerve-is-not-as.htmlSteven Bollingerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03215202747829300924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4883291738125908596.post-86043437536022900452015-08-16T21:37:55.678-07:002015-08-16T21:37:55.678-07:00Greenblatt's book reveals far more about him t...Greenblatt's book reveals far more about him than it does either about the Renaissance or the Middle Ages. In his preface he acknowledges the subjective and projective animus of his approach when he tells us that Lucretius was for him an escape from his guilt-ridden and death-obsessed mother's influence. Not so much a swerve from a benighted medieval past as a personal flight from an overprotective Jewish mother. The book is a fascinating case study in Greenblatt's subjective approach to the past rather than an objective work of scholarship. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10463281080901829968noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4883291738125908596.post-62770608411813033792013-02-18T11:14:48.832-08:002013-02-18T11:14:48.832-08:00Great post. You may also find my critical review ...Great post. You may also find my critical review of Greenblatt's thesis interesting:<br /><br />http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com.au/2013/01/stephen-greenblatt-swerve-how-world.htmlTim O'Neillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00292944444808847980noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4883291738125908596.post-43004449399894834522013-01-23T21:26:33.754-08:002013-01-23T21:26:33.754-08:00I really like your blog it’s excellent.
Enterpri...I really like your blog it’s excellent.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.superconnect.com//" rel="nofollow"> Enterprise gamification training</a>superconnecthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15281401484109772152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4883291738125908596.post-22247784623506980352012-12-06T04:24:43.723-08:002012-12-06T04:24:43.723-08:00Right on, baby.Right on, baby.Eileen Joyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13756965845120441308noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4883291738125908596.post-91487615997289157212012-12-06T03:33:28.689-08:002012-12-06T03:33:28.689-08:00Thank you too -- I agree with both the post and wi...Thank you too -- I agree with both the post and with Steffen's comment. It *is* a matter of reenacting the rhetoric of the Renaissance as a field. But I also think it has to do with the priviledging of the new in academe, even above the truth. When I write a fellowship application, I always have to explain what's so innovative about my work, not what might be true or revealing or useful or whatever other measure of worth one might have. This is a structural issue, and one that leads to all kinds of experts in periods more modern than our own declaring something to have "begun" in their period. Whatever it is -- modernity, the individual, credit systems, world travel and exploration -- it always suspiciously begins in their period, because they are usually ignorant of what came before. (Gross generalization -- obviously there are scholars who are more nuanced in their grand claims.) <br /><br />In the meantime, someone should send Greenblatt an anthology of fabliaux...ihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14105686105741162480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4883291738125908596.post-9405241816958581822012-12-05T18:00:57.285-08:002012-12-05T18:00:57.285-08:00Just a quick correction to my own comment: It was ...Just a quick correction to my own comment: It was not the artists of the Renaissance who gave the period its name, but scholars of the 19th century. Steffenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01891266202142841626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4883291738125908596.post-55106244486452596162012-12-05T17:37:37.264-08:002012-12-05T17:37:37.264-08:00Dear Elaine
Thank you for a very poignant summary...Dear Elaine<br /><br />Thank you for a very poignant summary of this contentious issue. Personally I believe that the reason Greenblatt and his fellow Renaissance enthusiasts with such contumacy compress the Middle Ages into a night of religious darkness shattered by the light of their favoured period, is simply that being scholars of the period they adopt unquestioningly the parameters laid down by those who gave the Renaissance its name. In this way they perpetuate the legacy of the self-promoting artists of the Italian renaissance and the prejudices of the English renaissance so heavily Protestant in its nature. This legacy has been nurtured by a staunch anti-papism from Spenser and onwards, the self-blinding arrogance of high-brow classicists and the naiveté of postmodern relativism. <br /><br />To my mind the heart of the problem is precisely that as long as the Renaissance is considered an historical fact rather than a gimmick of self-promotion and self-identification - quite similar to the Romantic movement of the late 1700s - this false divide between the Middle Ages and the Renaissance will be perpetuated and spawn further scholarship which warps the appreciation of historical complexity in the minds of the inexperienced reader.Steffenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01891266202142841626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4883291738125908596.post-62653297381433670812012-12-05T14:36:01.586-08:002012-12-05T14:36:01.586-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Dr Anne Marie D'Arcyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02920490774898872831noreply@blogger.com