Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Reviewed by: A Material History of the Bible, England 1200–1553 by Eyal Poleg Matti Peikola Keywords manuscript studies, England, Bible Eyal Poleg. A Material History of the Bible, England 1200–1553. Oxford: for the British Academy by Oxford University Press, 2020, xxxiv + 227 pp, 44 color illustrations. $90. ISBN: 9780197266717. As Bonnie Mak observes in How the Page Matters (University of Toronto Press, 2011, 21), “the page is . . . an interface, standing at the centre of the complicated dynamic of intention and reception; it is the material manifestation of an ongoing conversation between designer and reader.” Eyal Poleg’s British Academy Monograph is a richly contextualized and nuanced investigation into designers’ and readers’ contributions to the materiality of the page and the book through Bibles produced for the English market from the early thirteenth century to the end of the reign of Edward VI. The study brings out a wealth of precisely documented material evidence from handwritten and printed Bibles to show how their producers and users engaged with and responded to the ongoing religious and technological changes. A central argument is that such engagements tell a more complex story of the Bible in England during this period than the dominant narratives focusing on dichotomies between tradition vs. reform and orthodoxy vs. heterodoxy. As Poleg puts it, “biblical books were produced by artisans, traders and administrators, whose interests extended from religious piety, through commercial viability and technical capabilities, to political and financial gains. These books were then taken up by readers who were not always sure how to read them, and often did not adhere to the intentions of reformers, priests or monarchs in this matter” (xxiv). For Poleg, “these moments unfold cracks in the grand narratives . . . which are often the most revealing in the history of the Bible; the places where we can see the complex and uncertain course of change” (xxv). [End Page 374] The book is structured around five main chapters framed by an introduction and a conclusion. The introduction lays out a convincing case for the rationale of the study and describes the methods and primary sources used. Instead of examining the transformation of the biblical text itself, which has been a major topic in earlier histories of the English Bible, Poleg focuses on measurable physical features of the book, elements of the page layout, and various textual and visual “addenda” by producers and users in individual copies or editions. The array of features addressed in the volume is impressive: the physical dimensions and weight of the book; thickness of the writing support; bibliographic format; width of margins; presence and form of chapter numbers and subdivisions, running titles, and rubrics; annotations and manicules; title pages and prefaces; tables of lections and other liturgical navigational aids; script and typography; use of color; and so on. Poleg pays attention to both what is unique or idiosyncratic and what represents a more widespread usage. He highlights the importance of subtle changes, the detection of which is enabled by the close comparative scrutiny adopted throughout the book. The primary sources consist of a formidable body of English Bibles. The manuscripts surveyed for the study include more than one hundred copies of post- 1200 Latin Bibles made or used in England (ch. 1, “The Late Medieval Bible: Beyond Innovation”) and a considerable number of the more than 250 copies of the Wycliffite Bible, with a focus on the holdings of Cambridge libraries (ch. 2, “Wycliffite Bibles and the Limits of Orthodoxy”). The manuscripts actually cited in the book include eighty- two items (see “Manuscript Index”). For the printed Bibles, Poleg has “surveyed all major and minor reprints of single- volume Bibles in England and/or in English between 1535 and 1553” (xxvii). This includes comparisons between individual extant copies of the key editions discussed in chapter 3 (“The First Printed English Bible(s),” focusing especially on Thomas Berthelet’s Bible from 1535), chapter 4 (“The Great Bible as a Useless Book”), and chapter 5 (“Into Fast Forward: The Bibles of Edward VI”). In addition to single- volume Bibles, the discussion also features New Testaments and other part- Bibles, especially in chapters 2 and 3. While the five main...
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».