早期古物研究方法论:16世纪《坎布里亚游记》和《坎布里亚描述》边缘的冲突

IF 0.2 0 HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Sarah J. Sprouse
{"title":"早期古物研究方法论:16世纪《坎布里亚游记》和《坎布里亚描述》边缘的冲突","authors":"Sarah J. Sprouse","doi":"10.1353/mns.2020.0014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:The Tudor period saw a revolution in antiquarian histories of Britain. Their networks of transmission largely circle around major collectors such as Matthew Parker and William Cecil. One prominent figure in Cecil's orbit was Laurence Nowell, the antiquarian whose name is famously associated with the Beowulf manuscript (the \"Nowell Codex\"). Nowell made copies of the Itinerarium Kambriae and Descriptio Kambriae, both texts by Giraldus Cambrensis, from differing sources, resulting in the defective manuscript London, British Library Additional MS 43706. His colleague William Lambarde used the Add. MS 43706 as the basis for his copy of Descriptio Kambriae. However, before Lambarde finished his transcription, he made annotations in Nowell's copy. This paper will examine the marginal annotations in Add. MS 43706, which include several annotations in Nowell's hand too. Nowell and Lambarde must have exchanged the manuscript back and forth, as demonstrated by their crossing out and correcting of each other's annotations. This correspondence on the physical pages of the manuscript speaks to their differing attitudes towards prominent aspects of Giraldus's text, including how to read and interpret marvels, natural history, and the twelfth-century discord between Wales and Anglo-Norman England. Nowell's more conservative attitude led him to derisively identify many of the anecdotes as \"superstitio\", \"ridiculum\", and \"fabula\", whereas Lambarde resists such disparaging comments by crossing them out and then justifying them with notes such as \"mais miraculu[m]\". This article ultimately argues that reading conflict in the margins highlights the value of studying marginalia in order to better understand the transmission practices of the antiquarians, including how they read medieval texts and how they interpret, translate, excerpt, and summarize them.","PeriodicalId":40527,"journal":{"name":"Manuscript Studies-A Journal of the Schoenberg Institute for Manuscript Studies","volume":"15 1","pages":"227 - 253"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Early Antiquarian Methodologies: Conflict in the Margins of a Sixteenth-Century Copy of Itinerarium Kambriae and Descriptio Kambriae\",\"authors\":\"Sarah J. Sprouse\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/mns.2020.0014\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract:The Tudor period saw a revolution in antiquarian histories of Britain. Their networks of transmission largely circle around major collectors such as Matthew Parker and William Cecil. One prominent figure in Cecil's orbit was Laurence Nowell, the antiquarian whose name is famously associated with the Beowulf manuscript (the \\\"Nowell Codex\\\"). Nowell made copies of the Itinerarium Kambriae and Descriptio Kambriae, both texts by Giraldus Cambrensis, from differing sources, resulting in the defective manuscript London, British Library Additional MS 43706. His colleague William Lambarde used the Add. MS 43706 as the basis for his copy of Descriptio Kambriae. However, before Lambarde finished his transcription, he made annotations in Nowell's copy. This paper will examine the marginal annotations in Add. MS 43706, which include several annotations in Nowell's hand too. Nowell and Lambarde must have exchanged the manuscript back and forth, as demonstrated by their crossing out and correcting of each other's annotations. This correspondence on the physical pages of the manuscript speaks to their differing attitudes towards prominent aspects of Giraldus's text, including how to read and interpret marvels, natural history, and the twelfth-century discord between Wales and Anglo-Norman England. Nowell's more conservative attitude led him to derisively identify many of the anecdotes as \\\"superstitio\\\", \\\"ridiculum\\\", and \\\"fabula\\\", whereas Lambarde resists such disparaging comments by crossing them out and then justifying them with notes such as \\\"mais miraculu[m]\\\". This article ultimately argues that reading conflict in the margins highlights the value of studying marginalia in order to better understand the transmission practices of the antiquarians, including how they read medieval texts and how they interpret, translate, excerpt, and summarize them.\",\"PeriodicalId\":40527,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Manuscript Studies-A Journal of the Schoenberg Institute for Manuscript Studies\",\"volume\":\"15 1\",\"pages\":\"227 - 253\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-11-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Manuscript Studies-A Journal of the Schoenberg Institute for Manuscript Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/mns.2020.0014\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Manuscript Studies-A Journal of the Schoenberg Institute for Manuscript Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/mns.2020.0014","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要:都铎时期是英国古物史的一次革命。他们的传播网络主要围绕着马修·帕克和威廉·塞西尔等主要收藏家。塞西尔身边的一位杰出人物是劳伦斯·诺埃尔,一位著名的古物学家,他的名字与贝奥武夫手稿(“诺埃尔抄本”)联系在一起。诺埃尔从不同的来源复制了《坎布里亚游记》和《坎布里亚描述》,这两本都是由吉拉尔达斯·坎布里亚西斯撰写的,导致了有缺陷的手稿伦敦,大英图书馆附加MS 43706。他的同事威廉·兰巴德(William Lambarde)使用编号MS 43706作为他的《坎布里亚描述》副本的基础。然而,在兰巴德完成抄写之前,他在诺埃尔的抄本上做了注解。本文将研究Add. MS 43706中的边缘注释,其中也包括Nowell手写的一些注释。诺埃尔和兰博德肯定来回交换过手稿,他们勾掉并纠正彼此的注释就证明了这一点。手稿实体页上的这种通信说明了他们对吉拉尔多斯文本突出方面的不同态度,包括如何阅读和解释奇迹,自然历史,以及12世纪威尔士和盎格鲁-诺曼英格兰之间的不和谐。诺埃尔更为保守的态度使他嘲笑地将许多轶事称为“迷信”、“可笑”和“荒谬”,而兰巴德则抵制这种贬低性的评论,把它们划掉,然后用“mais miraculu[m]”等注释来证明它们的真实性。本文最终认为,阅读页边空白处的冲突凸显了研究页边空白处的价值,以便更好地理解古物学家的传播实践,包括他们如何阅读中世纪文本,以及他们如何解释、翻译、摘录和总结它们。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Early Antiquarian Methodologies: Conflict in the Margins of a Sixteenth-Century Copy of Itinerarium Kambriae and Descriptio Kambriae
Abstract:The Tudor period saw a revolution in antiquarian histories of Britain. Their networks of transmission largely circle around major collectors such as Matthew Parker and William Cecil. One prominent figure in Cecil's orbit was Laurence Nowell, the antiquarian whose name is famously associated with the Beowulf manuscript (the "Nowell Codex"). Nowell made copies of the Itinerarium Kambriae and Descriptio Kambriae, both texts by Giraldus Cambrensis, from differing sources, resulting in the defective manuscript London, British Library Additional MS 43706. His colleague William Lambarde used the Add. MS 43706 as the basis for his copy of Descriptio Kambriae. However, before Lambarde finished his transcription, he made annotations in Nowell's copy. This paper will examine the marginal annotations in Add. MS 43706, which include several annotations in Nowell's hand too. Nowell and Lambarde must have exchanged the manuscript back and forth, as demonstrated by their crossing out and correcting of each other's annotations. This correspondence on the physical pages of the manuscript speaks to their differing attitudes towards prominent aspects of Giraldus's text, including how to read and interpret marvels, natural history, and the twelfth-century discord between Wales and Anglo-Norman England. Nowell's more conservative attitude led him to derisively identify many of the anecdotes as "superstitio", "ridiculum", and "fabula", whereas Lambarde resists such disparaging comments by crossing them out and then justifying them with notes such as "mais miraculu[m]". This article ultimately argues that reading conflict in the margins highlights the value of studying marginalia in order to better understand the transmission practices of the antiquarians, including how they read medieval texts and how they interpret, translate, excerpt, and summarize them.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
16
×
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