MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1968427147 · doi:10.1353/egp.0.0053

<i>The Illustrated Old English Hexateuch, Cotton Claudius B. iv: The Frontier of Seeing and Reading in Anglo-Saxon England</i> (review)

2009· article· en· W1968427147 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
A. N. Doane

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe Journal of English and Germanic Philology · 2009
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueMedieval Literature and History
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésReading (process)FrontierMeaning (existential)ClassicsHistoryLiteratureArt historyArtPhilosophyLinguisticsArchaeology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reviewed by: The Illustrated Old English Hexateuch, Cotton Claudius B. iv: The Frontier of Seeing and Reading in Anglo-Saxon England A. N. Doane The Illustrated Old English Hexateuch, Cotton Claudius B. iv: The Frontier of Seeing and Reading in Anglo-Saxon England. By Benjamin C. Withers . London and Toronto: The British Library and University of Toronto Press, 2007. Pp. xvi + 429; 115 b & w illustrations and a complete facsimile of the manuscript on CD-ROM. $80. The famous illustrated Anglo-Saxon Hexateuch finally receives a long-needed book-length treatment from the young art historian Benjamin C. Withers. As he says, it is "one of the most ambitious examples of projects of book design of any era" (p. 4), uniting translations of the first six books of the Old Testament by Ælfric and others with a massive picture-cycle of 500 colored illustrations of various episodes, running from Genesis through Joshua. This is a thoughtful, erudite study bristling with new approaches, insights, and much food for thought, while leaving plenty of room for further work. His ambitious goal, impossible to attain though worth pursuing, is "to write a history of how a manuscript like Claudius B. iv was read" beginning by examining the "forms which produce meaning" and "the mechanisms that make it available." Leaning heavily on Michael Camille and Roger Chartier for theoretical support, generally productive, sometimes leading to obscure muddles, Withers presents Claudius B.iv as a unique physical artifact which causes a particular reaction conditioned by an audience's "horizon of expectations" (including access, mediation, class, and literacy). Withers's talent as a sensitive reader of pictures, his willingness most of the time to be concrete, detailed, and specific, and his resourcefulness as a codicologist lend the book its strong bones. The book is informally divided into two roughly equal parts of four chapters, the first focusing on production, the second on reception (see pp. 13–16), though the divisions are far from watertight. The first chapter considers the two scribes' and the single artist's working methods. The true art of this book lies not so much in its makers' skill as in their ability to plan and execute a complex mass of textual and visual data in clear, consistent form over more than 150 large folios. The artist is responsible for placement of the pictures before the text was written in. Withers sees the quires as "flexible blocks" and within them scribes and artist can adjust their spacing to accommodate an overall plan. Quire divisions do not correspond with the beginning or ending of Biblical books, the careful organization of text in relation to image "trumping" the literary organization of the texts themselves. The images are confined within consistent well-defined frames usually divided into separate narrative panels and registers ordering, correlating, and subordinating story-elements and blocking out the placement of the text. "As a deliberate choice, the placement reveals how the narratives were to be read or viewed" (p. 27), highlighting continuity or encouraging pause and reflection, in effect marking the makers of the book as editors The second chapter tries to find a new way to date the manuscript using codicology rather than "style" as the touchstone. Francis Wormald famously dated the manuscript after 1035 on the basis of what he saw as its degenerate "Viking style." The consensus to the present day is "second quarter of the eleventh century." Ker's date of the writing tends a little earlier, "s. XI 1." Withers attempts to date it by comparing codicological features of other manuscripts that might be more precisely datable, namely two manuscripts known to be from Christ Church, Canterbury that show overall similarities of design and construction to Claudius B.iv: an illustrated [End Page 395] Prudentius, Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 23 and the Harley Psalter (BL Harley 603). Like Claudius B.iv, these are collaborations of a number of scribes with artists; they attempt variously to integrate text and pictures, and sometimes reserve unruled spaces for pictures, and all three, unusually for the eleventh century, use lead point. They are evidence of a tendency in Canterbury over the course of the century "to develop a system for constructing...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,779
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,469

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,012
Tête enseignante GPT0,211
Écart entre enseignants0,199 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2009
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe Journal of English and Germanic PhilologyMême sujetMedieval Literature and HistoryTravaux en français237 207