"Blown Up in the Mine Field: The 'Monoculturalist' Debate"

Forum LETTERS ON "MONOCULTURAL CRITICISM" LA CORÓNICA 28.1 (FALL, 1999) FROM: Gene W. DuBois, University ofNorth Dakota "Blown Up in the Mine Field: The 'Monoculturalist' Debate" In the recent discussion on the subject of "Inflecting the Converso Voice" in the Forum section of La corónica (28.1, 1999: 229-53), Colbert I. Nepaulsingh arguesvigorously in favor ofwhat he terms a multicultural approach to the study and interpretation of medieval Spanish texts (229-37) . It is not my intent here to rehearse the bones of contention raised by the three respondents who analyzed Nepaulsingh's pronouncements (Gregory S. Hutcheson, Dayle Seidenspinner-Núñez and John Zemke), although some repetition may prove unavoidable, but rather to address several points which seemed to escape their vigilance. Approximately halfway through his discourse, Nepaulsingh calls attention to "recent criticism" on the Rachel and Vidas episode of the Poema de Mio Cid, which he characterizes as an example of "imperious secular 'humanism'" (233) . Shortly thereafter, he trains his sights on those who have investigated the identity of the Poema's author, dismissing any scholarship into the question of the oral vs. learned nature of the PMC as "ill-focused", the product of "false distinctions", and "critically irrelevant " (234) . Any who would dare to embark on such efforts are monocultura ! conquerors, guilty of posing "poorly focused questions and ill-conceived theoretical premises" (234). In the space oftwo pages, then, La corónica 29.1 (Fall, 2000): 231-234 232La corónica 29. 1 , 2000 Nepaulsingh goes about unleashing an ad hominem attack whose buzz words impose the type ofinquisitorial atmosphere he himselfcondemns others of fomenting. My misgivings about this rhetorical fusillade do not spring from any sense on my part that the code ofcollégial pundonorhas somehow been violated; Spanish literary criticism over the years has witnessed far more vitriolic disagreement. Yet I must confess to a good deal of surprise to find my name explicitiy mentioned as one of the secular humanists, only to discover that, implicidy, I am also one of the monocultural conquerors of the oral/learned debate, all of this springing from a modest attempt on my part to offer a possible alternative explanation to that proposed byJohn England for the sudden return ofthe moneylenders toward the conclusion of Minaya's second embassy to Burgos. Nepaulsingh leaves it to the reader to infer the cause of the great umbrage he takes, for while he is long on accusation, he is woefully lacking in specifics. The only flame he ignites to illuminate this darkness is thrown as an incendiary device aimed at our own apparent ignorance or close-mindedness, as though Bibles and religious debates were thoroughly irrelevant in medieval Spain, as though a critic should define the optimal critical approach to a text rather than learn to let the text speak for itself and lead the critic to its full range of meanings and significances. (233) When this is read in tandem with the paragraph following, in which Nepaulsingh reiterates his belief that "the author of the Poema de mio Cid was well-versed in the Psalms, and that knowledge of the Psalms is reflected in the composition ofthe poem", the reason for the short shrift given our work on Rachel and Vidas becomes understandable: we are being used as straw men, a convenient springboard to initiate discussion and legitimize his own view.1 In his eagerness to propound his thesis that recognition of the role of the Tanakh in the poet's fashioning of the story is absolutely essential to realize a full appreciation of the narrative art of the Poema, Nepaulsingh blithely overlooks the fact that the thrust 1 The zenith ofNepaulsingh's penchant for leaving his reader in the dark occurswhen he states: "Twenty years ago and more, a monoculturalist conqueror's approach to the Rachel and Vidas episode generated a series of poorly-focused questions based on ill-conceived theoretical premises" (234) . This not only rudely depersonalizes the critic in question, it fails to give any sort ofclue as to who it mightbe. Is he referring to Smith (1965) or McGrady (1985)? Or someone else? Forum233 ofmy studywas directed toward one small interlude consisting ofa handful...