medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
Well, no-- not EVERYONE with an interest in the Sarum use pays much attention to processionals, John. I (for one) had never heard of this facsimile, or even looked at Henderson's edition.
Sherry
----- Original Message -----
From: John Briggs <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wednesday, January 6, 2010 6:11 am
Subject: Re: [M-R] Third Impressions: Pfaff - The Liturgy in Medieval England: A History
To: [log in to unmask]
> medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
>
> ---- SHERRY L REAMES <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > Pfaff (whose main focus is the manuscripts, remember) may well have
> made some
> > errors about the dates of the subsequent printed editions, but such
> errors
> > are much less egregious than John suggests when he ridicules Pfaff
> for
> > missing the 1502 edition of the Sarum processional [one copy of
> which
> > survives, according to Bailey] and calls the result "calamitous on
> p.549 when > an argument is constructed upon it." In fact, the error
> detracts only
> > slightly from Pfaff's brief argument on 549-50 about the
> preponderance of
> > manuscript service books over printed ones in the chapels of Lady
> Margaret
> > Beaufort.
>
> That only one copy survives of the 1502 Sarum processional is rather
> less relevant than the fact that a facsimile edition* of it has been
> published. More to the point, it is still in print! Yes, it was
> produced by musicologists [Henderson's edition of the 1508
> processional - chosen because he believed it to be the earliest -
> omits the music], and is thus a little off Pfaff's radar, but Pfaff
> directs the beginner in liturgy to Harper, "Forms and Orders". On
> pp.215-6 Harper has a table comparing the contents of the 1502
> facsimile, Henderson's edition, and Wordsworth's 1901 edition of the
> Salisbury MS. Moreover, as I pointed out, the title of Wordsworth's
> book makes explicit reference to the 1502 processional ("Ceremonies
> and Processions of the Cathedral Church of Salisbury: Edited from the
> fifteenth century MS no. 148, with additions from the cathedral
> records, and woodcuts from the Sarum processionale of 1502".) So the
> 1502 processional has been known to scholarship for over a hundred
> years, and everyone with an interest in the Sarum Use knows about the
> facsimile edition (they do, don't they?) The reason I boggled at the
> error was that it should not have been possible to have made it.
>
> *[G. Rastall,] Processionale ad Usum Sarum 1502 (Clarabricken, 1980).
>
> John Briggs
>
> **********************************************************************
> To join the list, send the message: join medieval-religion YOUR NAME
> to: [log in to unmask]
> To send a message to the list, address it to:
> [log in to unmask]
> To leave the list, send the message: leave medieval-religion
> to: [log in to unmask]
> In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to:
> [log in to unmask]
> For further information, visit our web site:
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion.html
**********************************************************************
To join the list, send the message: join medieval-religion YOUR NAME
to: [log in to unmask]
To send a message to the list, address it to:
[log in to unmask]
To leave the list, send the message: leave medieval-religion
to: [log in to unmask]
In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to:
[log in to unmask]
For further information, visit our web site:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion.html
|