(no subject)
Since posting about my haircut on Saturday afternoon, I've spent a large part of my weekend cooking. I made this shaved asparagus pizza (thanks to 
newredshoes), and this rutabaga casserole thing to use up the giant rutabaga that's been lurking in the bottom of my fridge since January. They were both delicious, OM NOM NOM.
On the subject of my hair, the trim as opposed to new haircut has, at least, turned out pretty well. I'm actually pleased enough that I'm willing to let it live, fluffily, for now.
When I haven't been cooking, I've been working on reading things for that chunk of historiography I owe advisor R, which I've told her I'll give her on June 7th. Yesterday, that led into an hour of reading online translation forums discussing the word enjeu, the meaning of which, despite discussing it with Prof FM last year, I'm still having trouble pinning down. Evidently it can mean a lot of things, some of them only tenuously related to its literal meaning of something that's at stake. None of the suggested meanings seem to correspond to prof FM's suggestion of "context," although in the context I'm looking at, it might in fact really mean something like context, or even something like "space of action."
I also have to say that, although feudalism is not tyrannizing the book I'm currently reading, the all-encompassing feudal blob of feudalization is tyrannizing it. Or possibly the feudal and seigneurial blob of feudalization and seigneurialization is tyrannizing it, seriously. Or maybe it's a Gregorian blob...
I've been tracking some of what the author uses the adjective feudal to mean, and oh dear. My marginal notes include things like "making them hereditary, basically" and "feudal=shit is hereditary, basically." For "feudalization," I have "society feudalized=lordship banalized->as the ban became the only game in town?" The point, sigh, is that these are not words with transparent meanings! Or with precise and technical meanings, no matter how precise and technical they may sound! THIS AUTHOR HAS YET TO DEFINE WHAT HE MEANS BY FEUDAL!! And the phrase "a feudal and seigneurial [something]" needs to be taken out back and shot because it's very old and tired already, only 35 pages in. That, by the way, is a hendiadys, in which one idea is "expressed through two nouns connected by 'and' when a closer relation is suggested" (Keller and Russell, Learn to Read Latin, 262). And again, it is not transparent! The way it's being thrown around MEANS NOTHING!! Because NOBODY AGREES ABOUT WHAT FEUDAL MEANS! AND USING THE ADJECTIVE FEUDAL EVEN IN CONJUNCTION WITH SEIGNEURIAL DOES NOT GET YOU AROUND THE PROBLEM OF FEUDALISM BECAUSE IT'S EVEN MORE VAGUE AND WEASELLY IN ITS MULTIFARIOUS MEANINGS! And plus, there are suspect assumptions behind what this author seems to mean!
Sigh. Can I order the author a personal visit from Elizabeth A.R. Brown? Maybe she can beat him around the head with a rolled-up copy of "The Tyranny of a Construct: Feudalism and Historians of Medieval Europe" (link above goes to my reaction the first time I read it).
On the other hand, it's been a long time since I've felt compelled to rant about things feudal. Appropriately for this moment of nostalgia, as of this evening I've arranged to have lunch with erstwhile advisor A on Wednesday. I'm sure he will appreciate my pain, since he was the one who introduced me to the woes of the f-word!
This entry was originally posted at http://monksandbones.dreamwidth.org/716387.html. Talk to me here or there, whichever you prefer.
newredshoes), and this rutabaga casserole thing to use up the giant rutabaga that's been lurking in the bottom of my fridge since January. They were both delicious, OM NOM NOM.
On the subject of my hair, the trim as opposed to new haircut has, at least, turned out pretty well. I'm actually pleased enough that I'm willing to let it live, fluffily, for now.
When I haven't been cooking, I've been working on reading things for that chunk of historiography I owe advisor R, which I've told her I'll give her on June 7th. Yesterday, that led into an hour of reading online translation forums discussing the word enjeu, the meaning of which, despite discussing it with Prof FM last year, I'm still having trouble pinning down. Evidently it can mean a lot of things, some of them only tenuously related to its literal meaning of something that's at stake. None of the suggested meanings seem to correspond to prof FM's suggestion of "context," although in the context I'm looking at, it might in fact really mean something like context, or even something like "space of action."
I also have to say that, although feudalism is not tyrannizing the book I'm currently reading, the all-encompassing feudal blob of feudalization is tyrannizing it. Or possibly the feudal and seigneurial blob of feudalization and seigneurialization is tyrannizing it, seriously. Or maybe it's a Gregorian blob...
I've been tracking some of what the author uses the adjective feudal to mean, and oh dear. My marginal notes include things like "making them hereditary, basically" and "feudal=shit is hereditary, basically." For "feudalization," I have "society feudalized=lordship banalized->as the ban became the only game in town?" The point, sigh, is that these are not words with transparent meanings! Or with precise and technical meanings, no matter how precise and technical they may sound! THIS AUTHOR HAS YET TO DEFINE WHAT HE MEANS BY FEUDAL!! And the phrase "a feudal and seigneurial [something]" needs to be taken out back and shot because it's very old and tired already, only 35 pages in. That, by the way, is a hendiadys, in which one idea is "expressed through two nouns connected by 'and' when a closer relation is suggested" (Keller and Russell, Learn to Read Latin, 262). And again, it is not transparent! The way it's being thrown around MEANS NOTHING!! Because NOBODY AGREES ABOUT WHAT FEUDAL MEANS! AND USING THE ADJECTIVE FEUDAL EVEN IN CONJUNCTION WITH SEIGNEURIAL DOES NOT GET YOU AROUND THE PROBLEM OF FEUDALISM BECAUSE IT'S EVEN MORE VAGUE AND WEASELLY IN ITS MULTIFARIOUS MEANINGS! And plus, there are suspect assumptions behind what this author seems to mean!
Sigh. Can I order the author a personal visit from Elizabeth A.R. Brown? Maybe she can beat him around the head with a rolled-up copy of "The Tyranny of a Construct: Feudalism and Historians of Medieval Europe" (link above goes to my reaction the first time I read it).
On the other hand, it's been a long time since I've felt compelled to rant about things feudal. Appropriately for this moment of nostalgia, as of this evening I've arranged to have lunch with erstwhile advisor A on Wednesday. I'm sure he will appreciate my pain, since he was the one who introduced me to the woes of the f-word!
This entry was originally posted at http://monksandbones.dreamwidth.org/716387.html. Talk to me here or there, whichever you prefer.