<i>Making the Bible French: The ‘Bible historiale’ and the Medieval Lay Reader</i> . By Jeanette L. Patterson <i>Making the Bible French: The ‘Bible historiale’ and the Medieval Lay Reader</i> . By PattersonJeanette L.. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2022. 264 pp.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In this impressive analysis of the thirteenth-century Bible historiale, Jeanette L. Patterson blends a detailed history of the text’s manuscript tradition with a sharp enquiry into the intellectual priorities that animated its translation into French by Guyart des Moulins as well as subsequent expanded versions produced in later centuries. It is argued that Guyart des Moulins, his successors, and the lay public for whom they wrote shared literary expectations that were determined by a range of historical factors: the waning importance of the Latin Crusader states; the emerging popularity of reading among the laity; and specific understandings of literature’s capacity to convey truth in biblical texts as well as in secular poetry and prose. On this last score, Patterson maintains that the author and his lay readers commonly evaluated the truth of a text by the spiritual edification that the written work produced in the reader. Such an approach to literary truth did not oppose truth and fiction, thereby allowing even the more fantastical stories of the Bible to advance the sanctification of laypeople without compromising exacting standards of credibility. In one especially compelling illustration, Patterson describes how two different versions of the Book of Job (one complete, one highly redacted) were juxtaposed in certain copies of the Bible historiale. By combining the more theologically conservative redaction with the unabridged text, the French translator gave lay readers the power to discern which version of Job they were spiritually equipped to read. Thus, Patterson helpfully uncovers how Guyart des Moulins’s Bible did not simply embody a clerical conservatism but actively empowered the laity through specific redaction and translation strategies. By interpreting the Bible historiale in this way, Patterson identifies a culture of biblical translation and reader reception that valued transformative reader responses above overly literal translation, historical facticity, or the imperatives of ecclesiastical control. The success of these arguments should make this book of interest not just within a range of disciplines in medieval studies but also in hermeneutics and literary theory. In fact, one of the most compelling aspects of Patterson’s argumentative approach is the way that she identifies the latent origins of hermeneutical thinking in the medieval translation practices studied here. We come to learn that Guyart des Moulins and his heirs were not simply rendering sacred text from Latin into the vernacular; they were engaged with the biblical text in playful, nuanced, and even daring ways that prioritized reader response as the engine of translation. Patterson’s project also offers a crucial anglophone counterpart to a growing investment in the study of medieval French Bibles within francophone scholarship, evident in the recent collection Écrire la Bible en français au Moyen Âge et à la Renaissance (ed. by Véronique Ferrer and Jean-René Valette (Geneva: Droz, 2016)). Given Patterson’s thorough philology and insightful analysis, one hopes her book will occasion new interactions between francophone and anglophone discussions of vernacular biblical translations and their relation to medieval secular literatures.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,046 | 0,009 |
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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».