Responses

Richard Kieckhefer, David L. D’Avray, Bernd Christian Otto, Claire Fanger

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Abstract

The essays by David L. d’Avray and Bernd-Christian Otto are stimulating, insightful, deeply engaging reflections, pointing in opposite directions: D’Avray argues for using etic alongside emic terms, giving “magic” the clarity and precision of a Weberian ideal type so that it becomes a sharp analytic tool for both European history and cross-cultural study; Otto draws back from “second-order” or “third-order” terms and urges instead a “discourse historical” analysis that tracks and analyses language within historical texts. Claire Fanger and I come from different directions but reach concordant conclusions, both advocating flexible understandings of “magic” while allowing (in Fanger’s case) or urging (in mine) more technical use of alternative terms. I have questions for both d’Avray and Otto.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationThe Routledge History of Medieval Magic
PublisherTaylor and Francis
Pages57-67
Number of pages11
ISBN (Electronic)9781317042761
ISBN (Print)9781472447302
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2019

    Fingerprint

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Arts and Humanities(all)

Cite this

Kieckhefer, R., D’Avray, D. L., Otto, B. C., & Fanger, C. (2019). Responses. In The Routledge History of Medieval Magic (pp. 57-67). Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315613192