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

Magic
Clarity
Discourse
Historical Language
Historical Analysis
European History
Ideal Types
Cross-cultural Studies
Emic

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
Kieckhefer, Richard ; D’Avray, David L. ; Otto, Bernd Christian ; Fanger, Claire. / Responses. The Routledge History of Medieval Magic. Taylor and Francis, 2019. pp. 57-67
@inbook{fd9175b2239d460ebc15daf7759bbd86,
title = "Responses",
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.",
author = "Richard Kieckhefer and D’Avray, {David L.} and Otto, {Bernd Christian} and Claire Fanger",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.4324/9781315613192",
language = "English (US)",
isbn = "9781472447302",
pages = "57--67",
booktitle = "The Routledge History of Medieval Magic",
publisher = "Taylor and Francis",

}

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

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

The Routledge History of Medieval Magic. Taylor and Francis, 2019. p. 57-67.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

TY - CHAP

T1 - Responses

AU - Kieckhefer, Richard

AU - D’Avray, David L.

AU - Otto, Bernd Christian

AU - Fanger, Claire

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85064374360&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85064374360&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.4324/9781315613192

DO - 10.4324/9781315613192

M3 - Chapter

SN - 9781472447302

SP - 57

EP - 67

BT - The Routledge History of Medieval Magic

PB - Taylor and Francis

ER -

Kieckhefer R, D’Avray DL, Otto BC, Fanger C. Responses. In The Routledge History of Medieval Magic. Taylor and Francis. 2019. p. 57-67 https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315613192