Humanities Researchwear

Scientists have their lab-coats. Engineers have their safety helmets and funky orange vests. Doctors, dentists, and surgeons have their gowns, not to mention the catalogue of shiny metal devices they keep on their person. Psychologists can justify having a couch in their office, or get away with smoking a pipe. Lawyers flaunt their gowns and wigs of varying weights.

Colleagues in other faculties have lorded these accessories over us for too long. It's time for the Humanities researchers to strike back. It's time for the lazypatch™ Duvet Suit. I've just put in my order for one. Hopefully it arrives in time for my next lecture. There must be a way to work these into a grant application somehow...

A Poem

I began with the desire to speak with Stephen Greenblatt.
I emailed him in 2006. He still hasn't replied.

Wikipedia

Last night I was at a sponsored lecture given by a prominent Renaissance scholar from Oxbridge. The paper this Professor delivered was on Classical motifs in Renaissance art, and, for the most part, quite lively and interesting. At one point, towards the end of the lecture, Professor X employed the following definition of "subliminal advertising" as given in Wikipedia:

A subliminal message is a signal or message embedded in another object, designed to pass below the normal limits of perception. These messages are indiscernible by the conscious mind, but allegedly affect the subconscious or deeper mind. Subliminal techniques have occasionally been used in advertising and propaganda; the purpose, effectiveness and frequency of such techniques is debated.

A colleague next to me and I both looked at each other at this point, since it was not clear whether Professor X's reference to Wikipedia was tongue-in-cheek or not. There was nothing explicit to suggest that it was meant as a joke. Suffice to say I found it difficult to give the rest of the paper the attention it probably deserved after that point.

I held my tongue during question time, opting to approach the speaker after the session. "Why did you use Wikipedia?" Instead of addressing my question directly, their response was to justify giving a definition for "subliminal advertising," so I queried again: "Were you being serious, or was it meant to be tongue-in-cheek?" Finally, I was told it was a joke, but I couldn't help but feel troubled by the fact that its tongue-in-cheek nature was not made explicit during the lecture (not to mention the apparent difficulty in giving me a direct answer in the first place). I don't know what to think.

Given last month's 'Wikipedia Scandal' here in Australia (see cartoon on right and The Age article it is taken from), the general academic consensus on the merits of Wikipedia, and the comments of its founder ("For God sake, you’re in college; don’t cite the encyclopedia" - cited in the Chronicle of Higher Education), I don't feel the least bit upset in failing students who insist on relying on Wikipedia in their essays and research assignments. My colleague sitting next to me at the lecture informed me afterwards that this practice had put me in a position of some notoriety with students – I'm the guy that fails folks for using Wikipedia. Am I wrong?

Gloat Post

Woot! I finally won one of the Blogging the Renaissance Woodcut Caption Contests. This last contest attracted a record number of entries, and I thoroughly enjoyed keeping abreast of the latest submissions. My personal favourite was "mmm. squab." For those of you who haven't entered before, keep an eye on the BtR site for the next one!

Bursting dogs

I've been busy working on a chapter of my thesis on Jews in early modern England, and I stumbled onto a story which I'd like to share with you. I'm not sure how I'm going to work it into the thesis just yet, but I'd like to.

Our story begins with James Wadsworth (1572-1623), Church of England clergyman and Roman Catholic convert. Wadsworth's commitment to the Anglican church had been waivering for a while before he left for Spain, where after a period of theological study he was granted a pension by the Spanish crown and employed by the Inquisition. Later he would tutor English to the infanta Maria. He died of consumption in 1623, and his apologia, The Contrition of a Protestant Preacher, Converted to be a Catholiqve Scholler was published posthumously at St Omer in 1625 (STC 24924.5). It is in this volume that Wadsworth recounts the following story:

"[A] christian who wickedly purposing to poyson himselfe, came to Iew a Doctor of physicke for some strong poyson: the Iew glad to kill a Christian, gaue him a violent poysonous potion. Before he dronke it, he made the signe of the crosse ouer it, as he vsed to doo commonly before he did eat or drinke. It did him no harme: he complaynes to the Iew that his poyson was not strong enoughe. The Iew coulde giue him none stronger: but the encreaseth the quantity of the same. As before, he takes it making the signe of the crosse. The poyson preuayles not. He is angry at the Iew: and the Iew is madde to see him still aliue: he doubtes the Christian had not taken it: or had mixte, or done somewhat else to it. The Christian sweares he had done nothing to it: only he remembers he had made the signe of the crosse, as alwayes he vsed. The Iew giues a little to a dogge, which presently burste. The Christian signing it with the crosse, agayne takes a great deale more of the same poyson, in the sighte of the Iew, and yet feeles no harme: whervpon he repentes: the Iew is conuerted: both of them aske God mercy, and become honest deuout men." (sig. G3r-v)

Wadsworth's story is clearly geared towards 'proving' the efficacy of the sign of the cross, and he often refers to stories such as this one in discussing other Catholic practices. What I find most interesting is the figure of the Jewish doctor. Where do you go to get hold of poison? The doctor of course! But not just any doctor - you want to get some of the good stuff - so who do you go to? The Jewish doctor. That Jews were expert poisoners was one of the traditional charges leveled against them, and is one of the reasons why the Church repeatedly forbade Christians to consult Jewish doctors. It is certainly an assocation that would have been familiar to an English audience, owing to the success and popularity of Marlowe's Jew of Malta, where the title character, Barabas, boasts about poisoning wells among his other sordid, anti-Christian exploits.

But Wadsworth's story does not simply engage with this stereotype: the Jew is not only the enemy of the Christian, but he indulges in cruelty to animals. Unconvinced that the Christian has followed his directions, the Jew does not hesitate to test the efficacy of the poison on an innocent dog, which "presently burste." For an idea of what this might look like, please enjoy the following video:



This is another charge that was leveled at the Jews, perhaps founded on a misunderstanding of kosher practices, and in fact it is one that is repeated centuries later in Nazi propaganda. Finally, as with all of these sorts of stories, both parties realize the errors of their ways, the Jew converts to Christianity (presumably Roman Catholicism in this case), and become devout men. I personally don't find Wadsworth's story convincing, and I wonder whether his readers did either. In any event, this seems to me to be the first instance in English history where a dog is described as having "burste." Milton, eat your heart out...