 |
 |
medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture >Please note that I am not presuming to "defend" a book I haven't >read. I am urging that we maintain a tone of civility in discussing >our colleagues' work. Sue >medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture > >Well, my "impressions" are very much interim reports - I am still >formulating my "final conclusions". But two points: > >(1) I have read the book and you haven't. I made exactly the same >mistake as you in assuming beforehand that it was "obviously" a >substantial work. I would be delighted to discuss any aspect of the >book - or my account of it - with anyone who has read the book, but >it is pointless arguing with someone who hasn't. > >(2) I have given chapter and verse (or rather page) for the errors >listed below. Yes, some are trivial - careless, even - but others >are more serious. For example, on p.549 Pfaff argues that because >there were no processionals printed for use in England before 1508, >then the many processionals listed for Lady Margaret Beaufort's >household chapel must have been manuscripts. I am by no means an >expert in the field of liturgy (I know rather more about medieval >architecture, which is why I am quite so dismissive of Pfaff's >attempts to relate liturgy to architecture), so I just should not >have been able to spot quite so many errors. How many more have I >missed? This suggests to me (a) that Professor Pfaff's friends and >colleagues should have been more attentive in their reading of his >drafts, and (b) that Cambridge University Press have been slack in >their reviewing, editing and copy-editing of his manuscript. > >John Briggs > >---- Susan Ridyard <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture >> >> >John >> >> I don't have a horse or any other animal in this race, but I'm sure >> I'm not alone in finding the tone of these remarks somewhat >> offensive. Pfaff is a distinguished scholar who has obviously written >> a substantial work; it may have some errors, as most works inevitably >> do; but it surely deserves to be treated with more professional >> objectivity and less relentless sarcasm. >> >> Sue >> >> >medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture >> > >> >Another change of gear: the last 250 pages consist of five chapters >> >on the secular Uses and a final concluding chapter. Picking up the >> >story of the secular Uses at about 1100 after 200 pages on the >> >monastic Uses (!), we have three chapters on the Sarum Use, with one >> >on Exeter (don't ask!) and another on the other Uses. >> > >> >The three chapters on the Sarum Use seem much more like a coherent >> >history. Not that it actually is, of course. It's the familiar >> >story of manuscripts, saints and modern editions. There are curious >> >errors: a reference (p.373) to Frere using the same alphabetical >> >sigla for his editions of the Sarum consuetudinary and customary, >> >despite them referring to different manuscripts (yes, but the sigla >> >for the customary are in bold, and a different typeface!); the >> >reference (p.426n) to an incomplete edition of the Sarum antiphonal >> >in 1519 (a reference on p.549 to the "sole edition" of the >> >antiphonal in 1519-20 gives the correct answer); a curious belief >> >that the Sarum Processional of 1508 (edited by Henderson) was the >> >first printed one - calamitous on p.549 when an argument is >> >constructed upon it (even from my bed I can clearly see that the >> >facsimile edition has "1502" on the spine! The mistake must arise >> >from a touching reliance on Dickinson's "List of Printed Service >> >Books" of 1850: Pfaff does make use of Wordsworth's "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", 1901] > > >which should have given him a clue, but not of Bailey's "The >> >Processions of Sarum and the Western Church" [1971] - the name >> >"Terence Bailey" occurs neither in the index nor the >> >acknowledgments). >> > >> >Pfaff continues to trip himself up over bibliographical and >> >biographical issues. On p.425 he writes: "As early as 1842-43 >> >Charles Seager published two fascicules of a proposed edition of the >> >Sarum Book" [the Sarum Breviary] "but apparently lost interest after >> >his conversion to Roman Catholicism in the latter year." Well, no. >> >The fascicle published in 1843 was the second edition (actually a >> >re-issue with considerable added matter and a new title page) of the >> >the first fascicle of 1842. The second fascicle was published in >> >1855. >> >On the next page, discussing the Procter and Wordsworth edition, he >> >writes (p.426n): "the patience of the Cambridge University Press may >> >have been wearing thin." Is it fanciful to suggest that he is >> >projecting his own experience onto the 19th century? >> > >> >The Exeter chapter concludes with a reference: "Frere, p.70, citing >> >pp.10-11 of H.E. Reynolds's edition of the Exeter Chapter Acts, a >> >book unavailable to me." Well, it's not unavailable to me: I have >> >Christopher Wordsworth's copy! >> > >> >Chapter 14, "Regional Uses and local variety" is much more >> >satisfactory. The brief account (pp.445-462) of the York Use is a >> >model of clarity. Unfortunately, here we have a comparison: in 2008, >> >Matthew Cheung Salisbury published as Borthwick Paper 113 "The Use >> >of York: Characteristics of the Medieval Liturgical Office in York." >> >An attempt to compare them shows that they can't be compared: they >> >are largely examining different manuscripts! Pfaff takes five saints >> >to be diagnostic of the York Use. Salisbury (who is only looking at >> >the Office) takes a different approach: he uses the Responsory >> >series to distinguish a group of York Breviaries from Sarum >> >Breviaries adapted to the York Use. He identifies seventeen feasts >> >as peculiar to the York Use, but argues that they cannot be used as >> >a diagnostic tool. >> > >> >The discussion of the Hereford Use (pp.463-480) is satisfactory, if >> >somewhat limited. A trick is missed in discussing the St Paul's Use: >> >Pfaff wonders why that term is used instead of "London Use", but >> >doesn't consider why the cathedral is called "St Paul's Cathedral" >> >rather than "London Cathedral". A howler seems to be perpetrated on >> >p.481: he claims that the 10th century "Rule of St Paul's" was "an >> >adaptation of the Institutio Canonicorum of Amalarius of Metz" - I'm >> >pretty certain he doesn't mean either "Institutio Canonicorum" or >> >"Amalarius of Metz" - what actually means is somewhat opaque. Total >> >obscurity occurs on p.491: "Both in Sparrow Simpson's 1875 printing >> >of that register (itself still unpublished), and in the missal" - >> >what is it that is unpublished? Several of Simpson's publications >> >are cited, but his "Registrum" dates from 1873. >> > >> >Pfaff is (probably correctly) sceptical of the existence (ever) of >> >the Lincoln Use which he considers to be a reification of Cranmer's >> >preface to the Book of Common Prayer. Here he misses a couple of >> >tricks. First, he could have mention that the list of Uses in that >> >preface: "And whereas heretofore there hath been great diversity in >> >saying and singing in Churches within this Realm; some following >> >Salisbury Use, some Hereford Use, and some the Use of Bangor, some >> >of York, some of Lincoln;" differs from the list in the preamble to >> >the 1549 Act of Uniformity itself: "Where of long time there has >> >been had in this realm of England and in Wales divers forms of >> >common prayer, commonly called the service of the Church; that is to >> >say the Use of Sarum, of York, of Bangor, and of Lincoln;" Second, >> >he could have pointed out that the preface is itself highly >> >rhetorical (Pfaff himself points out on p.478 that the Sarum Use had >> >already been made uniform for the southern province) and is a free >> >translation of Cardinal Quignon's preface to his own reformed > > >Breviary! >> > >> >The section on "Liturgy in parish churches" is unsatisfactory: >> >unbelievably, Pfaff has difficulty defining a "parish church" >> >(p.509)! >> > >> >The last chapter "Towards the end of the story" is rather a rag-bag, >> >with subjects as diverse as the Bridgettines and printed service >> >books. This is done, of course, to avoid any suggestion of teleology >> >or whiggishness: as if it wasn't blindingly obvious (whatever Eamon >> >Duffy might say) that the Reformation was inevitable. A howler is >> >made in trying to strain a point that didn't need to be made at all >> >(in the context of printed breviaries for Abingdon and St Albans): >> >"The monks can scarcely have supposed that their choirs would soon >> >be bare, as at Abingdon, or ruined, as at St Albans." It's the other >> >way around, of course! (Pfaff's attempts to relate liturgy to >> >architecture are consistently painful.) >> > >> >Final conclusions to follow. >> > >> >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 >> >> >> -- >> Susan Ridyard >> Professor of History >> Director, Sewanee Medieval Colloquium >> The University of the South >> 735 University Ave >> Sewanee, TN 37383 >> >> tel. (931) 598 1531 >> >> ********************************************************************** >> 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 -- Susan Ridyard Professor of History Director, Sewanee Medieval Colloquium The University of the South 735 University Ave Sewanee, TN 37383 tel. (931) 598 1531 ********************************************************************** 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