Stone Fidelity: marriage and emotion in medieval tomb sculpture. By Jessica Barker. 240mm. Pp xv + 336, 33 col ills, 63 b&w, maps, plans. The Boydell Press, Woodbridge, 2020. isbn 9781783272716. £50 (hbk).

IF 0.2 4区 社会学 0 HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
C. Steer
{"title":"Stone Fidelity: marriage and emotion in medieval tomb sculpture. By Jessica Barker. 240mm. Pp xv + 336, 33 col ills, 63 b&w, maps, plans. The Boydell Press, Woodbridge, 2020. isbn 9781783272716. £50 (hbk).","authors":"C. Steer","doi":"10.1017/S000358152100007X","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"flection of his own likeness in the description he gives to his Host. Gone are conventions of humble deference or presentation to a superiority that qualify much medieval vernacular writing and representation of authors. Writing has, so to speak, become gentrified and the author authoritative. However, had this plausible trajectory been in some measure anticipated? For I could wish Drimmer had felt able to include discussion of the flamboyant frontispiece to Troilus and Crisyede in the early fifteenth-century Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, MS . Some claimed this lovely, enigmatic, picture shows Chaucer reading to a courtly audience, and attempts have been made to identify others in the picture. Whatever the truth of that – the picture is certainly not journalism – Chaucer is shown speaking (or performing, if you prefer) in the authority position of a pulpit. That interesting sidelight on the discussion does not sit wholly happily with the case made for the indeterminacy of authorial status in the early s, but this expensive picture certainly does indicate the illuminator’s importance. This MS was a very high-status object: someone important valued Chaucer’s work very highly. Yet the MS is unfinished: spaces were left for illuminations that were never executed – eighty in all, and eight initials, were planned – and these spaces often correspond to marginal notes in other MSS. Drimmer then explores with equal resourcefulness how Gower and Lydgate were handled. They, with Chaucer, constitute the authors ‘everyone must know’ by the late s (if Skelton, who knew everybody, and was Henry VIII’s tutor while that prince was still a promising lad, is anything to go by). Part  of her book, stressing her argument that illuminators were integral to English verse’s rising prestige, examines how Lydgate’s works were presented as both contemporary commentary and as future history. Moreover, she has a persuasive discussion of how the narrative illuminations in Gower’s Confessio Amantis in New York, Pierpont Morgan MS M (of c ), re-present that wonderful poem (a subtle multi-voiced Mirror for Princes as well as a profound meditation on change and time) as highly specific to Edward IV during the Wars of the Roses – indeed, as diagnostic and prophetic. Here, the long-dead author’s work is doing things of which he could never have thought – though he might have approved. She closes with discussion of an issue that has lurked on the sidelines of her whole argument: if illustrators/illustrations were central to English verse’s rising prestige, why were there no illustrations to the tales in Canterbury Tales? She suggests, in effect, that the tradition begun by Ellesmere of prefacing each tale with an image of the pilgrim set up a reflexive dynamic between tale and ostensible teller that might be prejudiced by foregrounding events in the narrative. Whether Chaucer ever wanted this quasi-psychological relationship of tale to teller seriously to qualify a reading is doubtful, though for many students nowadays it is a default position despite its palpable nonsense when the Shipman’s Tale’s narrator is female, the Nun’s Priest exists only as a picture and the Knight cannot be a first-person narrator without being a time traveller. The way so many modern readers so commonly give the pilgrims, created in Chaucer’s imagination, quasi-authorial status is ironic tribute to the power of those Ellesmere illuminations. ‘It was not just poets and scribes who made literature: it was illuminators too’ (p ). Does the closing claim of this good book stand? Given the effective redefinition given to that problematic word ‘literature’, I think so. It offers a way of exploring and appreciating books, poems, we thought we knew in a newly-nuanced historical context. But for few readers without access to the actual MSS, or facsimiles, will this be actually possible? Meanwhile the lavish illustration – twenty-seven full colour – of this book will have to do. The book is decently produced – though the typeface chosen for its large pages is mean, and a trial to aging eyes. I checked the index a few times and found some errors: better proofreading might have helped.","PeriodicalId":44308,"journal":{"name":"Antiquaries Journal","volume":"101 1","pages":"450 - 453"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S000358152100007X","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Antiquaries Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S000358152100007X","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

flection of his own likeness in the description he gives to his Host. Gone are conventions of humble deference or presentation to a superiority that qualify much medieval vernacular writing and representation of authors. Writing has, so to speak, become gentrified and the author authoritative. However, had this plausible trajectory been in some measure anticipated? For I could wish Drimmer had felt able to include discussion of the flamboyant frontispiece to Troilus and Crisyede in the early fifteenth-century Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, MS . Some claimed this lovely, enigmatic, picture shows Chaucer reading to a courtly audience, and attempts have been made to identify others in the picture. Whatever the truth of that – the picture is certainly not journalism – Chaucer is shown speaking (or performing, if you prefer) in the authority position of a pulpit. That interesting sidelight on the discussion does not sit wholly happily with the case made for the indeterminacy of authorial status in the early s, but this expensive picture certainly does indicate the illuminator’s importance. This MS was a very high-status object: someone important valued Chaucer’s work very highly. Yet the MS is unfinished: spaces were left for illuminations that were never executed – eighty in all, and eight initials, were planned – and these spaces often correspond to marginal notes in other MSS. Drimmer then explores with equal resourcefulness how Gower and Lydgate were handled. They, with Chaucer, constitute the authors ‘everyone must know’ by the late s (if Skelton, who knew everybody, and was Henry VIII’s tutor while that prince was still a promising lad, is anything to go by). Part  of her book, stressing her argument that illuminators were integral to English verse’s rising prestige, examines how Lydgate’s works were presented as both contemporary commentary and as future history. Moreover, she has a persuasive discussion of how the narrative illuminations in Gower’s Confessio Amantis in New York, Pierpont Morgan MS M (of c ), re-present that wonderful poem (a subtle multi-voiced Mirror for Princes as well as a profound meditation on change and time) as highly specific to Edward IV during the Wars of the Roses – indeed, as diagnostic and prophetic. Here, the long-dead author’s work is doing things of which he could never have thought – though he might have approved. She closes with discussion of an issue that has lurked on the sidelines of her whole argument: if illustrators/illustrations were central to English verse’s rising prestige, why were there no illustrations to the tales in Canterbury Tales? She suggests, in effect, that the tradition begun by Ellesmere of prefacing each tale with an image of the pilgrim set up a reflexive dynamic between tale and ostensible teller that might be prejudiced by foregrounding events in the narrative. Whether Chaucer ever wanted this quasi-psychological relationship of tale to teller seriously to qualify a reading is doubtful, though for many students nowadays it is a default position despite its palpable nonsense when the Shipman’s Tale’s narrator is female, the Nun’s Priest exists only as a picture and the Knight cannot be a first-person narrator without being a time traveller. The way so many modern readers so commonly give the pilgrims, created in Chaucer’s imagination, quasi-authorial status is ironic tribute to the power of those Ellesmere illuminations. ‘It was not just poets and scribes who made literature: it was illuminators too’ (p ). Does the closing claim of this good book stand? Given the effective redefinition given to that problematic word ‘literature’, I think so. It offers a way of exploring and appreciating books, poems, we thought we knew in a newly-nuanced historical context. But for few readers without access to the actual MSS, or facsimiles, will this be actually possible? Meanwhile the lavish illustration – twenty-seven full colour – of this book will have to do. The book is decently produced – though the typeface chosen for its large pages is mean, and a trial to aging eyes. I checked the index a few times and found some errors: better proofreading might have helped.
在他对主人的描述中对他自己的肖像的反映。谦逊顺从或表现优越感的传统已经一去不复返了,这种传统使许多中世纪的白话文写作和作者的表现成为合格。可以说,写作已经变得绅士化,作者具有权威性。然而,这种看似合理的轨迹在某种程度上是意料之中的吗?因为我真希望Drimmer能把15世纪初对Troilus和Crisyede华丽的正面作品的讨论包括在内. 一些人声称,这张可爱、神秘的照片显示乔叟在向宫廷观众朗读,并试图识别照片中的其他人。不管真相如何——这张照片肯定不是新闻——乔叟在讲坛的权威地位上发言(或表演,如果你愿意的话)。这场讨论中有趣的旁注并不完全符合早期作者地位不确定性的情况s、 但这张昂贵的照片确实表明了照明器的重要性。这个MS是一个地位很高的对象:一个重要的人非常重视乔叟的作品。然而,MS尚未完成:为从未执行的照明留下了空间——总共80个,计划了8个首字母缩写——这些空间通常对应于其他MSS中的边缘音符。Drimmer随后同样足智多谋地探讨了Gower和Lydgate是如何被处理的。他们和乔叟一起构成了到晚期“每个人都必须知道”的作者s(如果说斯克尔顿,他认识所有人,是亨利八世的家庭教师,而当时亨利八世还是一个有前途的小伙子,那就另当别论了)。部分 在她的书中,强调了她的论点,即启蒙者是英语诗歌声望上升不可或缺的一部分,并探讨了利德盖特的作品是如何作为当代评论和未来历史呈现的。此外,她对高尔在纽约的《阿曼蒂斯的忏悔录》中的叙事启示进行了有说服力的讨论 (共c页)), 重新呈现这首美妙的诗(为王子们提供了一个微妙的多声部镜子,以及对变化和时间的深刻思考),这首诗是爱德华四世在玫瑰战争期间所特有的——事实上,它是诊断性的和预言性的。在这里,这位去世已久的作家的作品正在做一些他从未想过的事情——尽管他可能已经同意了。最后,她讨论了一个隐藏在她整个争论之外的问题:如果插画家/插图是英语诗歌声望上升的核心,为什么《坎特伯雷故事集》中没有插图?实际上,她认为,埃尔斯米尔开始的以朝圣者的形象为每个故事开头的传统,在故事和表面上的讲述者之间建立了一种反射性的动态,这种动态可能会因叙事中的前瞻性事件而受到偏见。乔叟是否真的希望故事与讲述者之间的这种准心理关系能成为一种阅读的标准,这是值得怀疑的,尽管对现在的许多学生来说,这是一种默认的立场,尽管《希普曼的故事》的讲述者是女性,《修女的牧师》只是一幅图画,而骑士如果不是一个时间旅行者,就不可能成为第一人称的讲述者。许多现代读者如此普遍地赋予乔叟想象中的朝圣者准作者地位,这是对埃尔斯米尔照明力量的讽刺致敬。”创造文学的不仅仅是诗人和抄写员,还有照明者). 这本好书的结束语站得住脚吗?考虑到对“文学”这个有问题的词的有效重新定义,我认为是这样。它提供了一种探索和欣赏书籍、诗歌的方式,我们认为我们是在一个新的细致入微的历史背景下认识的。但对于少数无法访问实际MSS或传真的读者来说,这真的可能吗?与此同时,这本书的奢华插图——27幅全彩——将不得不完成。这本书制作得很好——尽管为大页面选择的字体很刻薄,对衰老的眼睛来说是一种考验。我检查了几次索引,发现了一些错误:更好的校对可能会有所帮助。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Antiquaries Journal
Antiquaries Journal HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
34
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信