Loys the metaphor of a scabby horse (equus scabiosus) that allows itself to be gently LY2510924 chemical information anointed (leniter ungatur) but not groomed (strillietur). In this analogy, the liar anoints (with flattery) whilst the truthful man is he who grooms and lances/heals (strilliat et pungit). The drawing of the man leading an animal, possibly a horse, may connect with this part of the text (Figure 1). Lamothe has shown that the devils drawn on folios 22r and 23r (Figures 2 and 3) may also relate to the text, which has brief references to the torments of devils (personal communication, April 21, 2016). For instance, in the second column of folio 22r, Durandus’ text employs the metaphor of a stag, seeing itself surrounded by dogs, weeping and escaping to revive itself at a spring. The text refers to Psalm 22:16, “many dogs have surrounded me”, explaining that the dogs represent demons. If these drawings have some symbolic relationship to the text, we must ask: What are the implications for our understanding of pre-modern child education and literacy?Page 15 ofThorpe, Cogent Arts Humanities (2016), 3: 1196864 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2016.7. ConclusionIn the planning stages of this article, developmental psychologists Rosalind Arden and Esther Burkitt inspected the drawings of LJS 361, and judged them to be the work of children. Arden commented that the human in Figure 1 is of the “tadpole” type figure typical of a four-year old, whilst the animal shows signs of being slightly older (personal communication, April 18, 2015). Burkitt placed the age of the child artist of Figures 2 and 3 at approximately five years old (personal communication, May 6, 2015). By developing a list of criteria, based on the stylistic features of modern drawings by children, I can argue with confidence that the drawings in LJS 361 were the work of children. Close scrutiny of the material features of these drawings in person supports this assertion, and indicates that that there was more than one child artist involved. For example, the hesitant, jagged lines of the human in Figure 1 contrast with the smooth strokes in the adjacent animal, suggesting different artists. In addition, there are minor differences in the ink colour and consistency between these two regions of the drawing. Finally, there is smudging around the animal, which may suggest that an original attempt was erased. In a recent exhibition, children’s marginalia was exhibited alongside page rips by dogs and even rat droppings caught within the volume–each various and striking “defacements” of the book (Lerer, 2012, p. 128). Lerer argues that the pen work of children should not be considered defacement, and the doodles in LJS 361 support this argument. The children responsible doodled in this medieval book gleefully, but they restricted their drawings to the margins, and may have even had some understanding of the subject matter of the text itself. The effacement of the original scribe’s name from the first folio of LJS 361 hinted that one early possessor wished to convert the book into their “artefact for owning” (Bale, 2014, p. 91). However, without these drawings, the cultural context of the texts within the manuscript, and the provenance of the manuscript itself, might appear unremarkable. Its Chaetocin cost subsequent owners would have otherwise been lost to history, along with the many other individuals who have looked upon medieval folios but not left a mark. Instead, the crude but appealing images that survive in.Loys the metaphor of a scabby horse (equus scabiosus) that allows itself to be gently anointed (leniter ungatur) but not groomed (strillietur). In this analogy, the liar anoints (with flattery) whilst the truthful man is he who grooms and lances/heals (strilliat et pungit). The drawing of the man leading an animal, possibly a horse, may connect with this part of the text (Figure 1). Lamothe has shown that the devils drawn on folios 22r and 23r (Figures 2 and 3) may also relate to the text, which has brief references to the torments of devils (personal communication, April 21, 2016). For instance, in the second column of folio 22r, Durandus’ text employs the metaphor of a stag, seeing itself surrounded by dogs, weeping and escaping to revive itself at a spring. The text refers to Psalm 22:16, “many dogs have surrounded me”, explaining that the dogs represent demons. If these drawings have some symbolic relationship to the text, we must ask: What are the implications for our understanding of pre-modern child education and literacy?Page 15 ofThorpe, Cogent Arts Humanities (2016), 3: 1196864 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2016.7. ConclusionIn the planning stages of this article, developmental psychologists Rosalind Arden and Esther Burkitt inspected the drawings of LJS 361, and judged them to be the work of children. Arden commented that the human in Figure 1 is of the “tadpole” type figure typical of a four-year old, whilst the animal shows signs of being slightly older (personal communication, April 18, 2015). Burkitt placed the age of the child artist of Figures 2 and 3 at approximately five years old (personal communication, May 6, 2015). By developing a list of criteria, based on the stylistic features of modern drawings by children, I can argue with confidence that the drawings in LJS 361 were the work of children. Close scrutiny of the material features of these drawings in person supports this assertion, and indicates that that there was more than one child artist involved. For example, the hesitant, jagged lines of the human in Figure 1 contrast with the smooth strokes in the adjacent animal, suggesting different artists. In addition, there are minor differences in the ink colour and consistency between these two regions of the drawing. Finally, there is smudging around the animal, which may suggest that an original attempt was erased. In a recent exhibition, children’s marginalia was exhibited alongside page rips by dogs and even rat droppings caught within the volume–each various and striking “defacements” of the book (Lerer, 2012, p. 128). Lerer argues that the pen work of children should not be considered defacement, and the doodles in LJS 361 support this argument. The children responsible doodled in this medieval book gleefully, but they restricted their drawings to the margins, and may have even had some understanding of the subject matter of the text itself. The effacement of the original scribe’s name from the first folio of LJS 361 hinted that one early possessor wished to convert the book into their “artefact for owning” (Bale, 2014, p. 91). However, without these drawings, the cultural context of the texts within the manuscript, and the provenance of the manuscript itself, might appear unremarkable. Its subsequent owners would have otherwise been lost to history, along with the many other individuals who have looked upon medieval folios but not left a mark. Instead, the crude but appealing images that survive in.
Heme Oxygenase heme-oxygenase.com
Just another WordPress site
