A Matter of Life and Death: Forms, Functions and Audiences for 'The Three Living and the Three Dead' in Late Medieval Manuscripts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation examines approaches to illustrating the Three Living and the Three Dead, a moralizing tale known across Europe in the late Middle Ages. Illustrated versions of the texts survive in a number of different manuscript contexts. While the earliest depictions show an apparently benign conversation occurring between living and dead, by the late fifteenth century other ways of illustrating the tale had emerged. The most striking of these was the aggressive chase after the living by the dead, which most often accompanied the prayers of the Office of the Dead in Books of Hours. While previous art historical investigations have concentrated on localization, chronology, as well as stylistic and formal analyses, my project engages with the larger questions of function, audience, and the relationship between text and image. The thesis begins by situating the Three Living and the Three Dead in the scholarship on the art of death of the late Middle Ages. The art of that period has long been perceived as a reflection of a time of decline. This perspective was established mainly through consideration of large-scale monuments, mostly French and primarily displayed in public, funerary contexts. I expand the discussion to include small scale, private devotional images of death, and demonstrate that such images could serve practical and positive functions for their users. The wide range of possibilities for illustrating the story in its early history is established in chapter 2. This overview is followed by a series of chapters that offer close examinations of individual manuscripts and establish the functions that the Three Living and the Three Dead served for their original users. In sum, my project sheds light on the importance of the imagery of death and more specifically of the Three Living and the Three Dead in late medieval culture. It contributes to our understanding of a story that became popular across Europe in a variety of forms in response to the context in which it appeared, the function it was intended to serve and the audience for which it was intended.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".