I think that one of the most difficult things for me to wrap my modern
brain around is the very notion of multiple, often paradoxical and even
directly contradictory, interpretations of Biblical texts existing
simultaneously for the medieval reader. That line A could be both about and
not about subject B, that it could mean both C and D (and still mean a and
b), and so on. To paraphrase a very helpful notion from Martin Irvine's
"The Making of Textual Culture" - no text ever stood alone. The existence
of one text necessarily meant the existence of a potentially endless series
of other texts which gave the original context(s) and meaning(s). In that
sense, what we view as a paradox or an impossible contradiction is simply a
sign of our mental inflexibility compared to medieval readers.
This little paragraph is a grammatical mess, but it may indicate just how
hard it is for us (at least for me) to understand the complexity and
layered nature of medieval reading habits.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|