Antiqui or Moderni?
Brian Stock
HE CENTRAL ISSUE raised by these papers can perhaps best be summed up comparing the opening remarks of Eugene Vance and Hans Robert Jauss. points to resurgence theories language communication in past two decades, which has affected study medieval culture at least ways. Research been undertaken into roots semiology, notion sign slowly but surely found its way back discussions literature. Jauss looks new tendencies a broader perspective. Although, he notes, interest positivistic or idealistic criticism gradually waned, methodologies linguistics, semiotics, phenomenology have as yet provided no satisfactory general models for interpreting major developments culture. In part I agree with both positions. The contemporary interpreter Middle Ages finds himself an uncomfortable no-man's-land, so speak, between ancients moderns. situation is not without ironies. After all, richest all periods symbolism, structuralism, semiotic approaches cultural meaning. existence such patterns thought expression led Romantics revive period own sake create first widespread, popular audience art, literature, theology. Indirectly, they also inspired some finest synthetic studies life art later nineteenth twentieth centuries, works writers Huizinga, Gilson, Haskins, Bloch, C. S. Lewis. Today tables are turned. professional caste medievalists less concerned large interpretive issues than editing, establishing facts, preventing field from once again sinking oblivion. As consequence, strategies understanding often coming students whose center gravity outside field. Medievalists themselves ever increasing numbers taken studying anthropology, archaeology, even more arcane branches hermeneutics. interdisciplinarity course welcomed, it raises dangers. On one hand, must tested internal consistency, task beyond
New Literary History