|
上接：来山寨一个自己的手抄本吧！（上） 这个活计夹在三门大考和两个大论文中间果然只能有烂尾的结局，加上搭档的Steven同学居然摔断了腿（前不久Conor同学在暖炉前睡着，烧伤了腿，果然是宝瓶时代来临的先兆啊），各种烂尾……最后赶在交作业路上瞎拍了几张。正文共十八页，一半有rubrication, 三分之一有miniature. 封面：
首页：
尾页：
（Steven故意撕掉一页，号称营造原生态效果。真相是我们的手稿底本来自剑桥菲茨威廉博物馆的一卷微缩胶卷，不知是图书馆的机器太老还是胶卷本来就过曝，有好几页都是白花花一片看不清字，还有什么比撕掉一页号称手稿本来就不完整更便利的解决方案呢……）： 剩了一张散的，字体是Anglicana Formata:
几点随想： 1. The pens I used for the transcription (ICON Calligraphy Set) have three nibs of different precision, of which the board one proved most useful when I tried to mimic the angular, Gothic 'black letters' of the Luttrell Psalter (Quire A), giving me an exquisite sense of composure when writing the ascenders, descenders and ligatures. The medium nib is handier for the English Vernacular Hand or Bastard Hand of 'The Prick of Conscience' (Quire B), especially in the case of 'yogh' and 'w'. 2. In the process of transcribing the Psalter, I compared the text with that of the Psalms in the Vulgate Bible and found, to my surprise, that the Vulgate was not the base text of this 14th century Psalter (whose commissioner was a rough contemporary of Chaucer). For instance, Psalm 1 'Beatus vir qui non abiit' ('Blessed are those who walks not') is consistent with the Vulgate Psalm 1 until 'et folium eius non defluet', then differs slightly from it in diction and vocabulary till the very end. Why is that? Shouldn't the Vulgate be the 'authoriative' text from which every psalter is based at the time? What version of the Bible were Sir Geoffery Luttrell's scribes using, and why was it chosen instead of the 'standard' base text--these questions caught my eye but I haven't time to investigate into them yet. 3. The illustration process is very enjoyable and enriching, in which I've got a rough idea about the meaning of the layout of an illustrated medieval manuscript. For the Luttrell Psalter, a manuscript renowned (or notorious) for its grotesque, hilarious and at some points provocative miniatures, border decorations and historiated initials, the images have become an integral part of the textual information, silently but vividly commenting upon the nearby text, often in an indirect and allegorical way bordering on what I would venture to call 'animal exegesis'. For example, on the verso side of the first leaf (A-ii), does the woman vomiting a fox-shaped red monster represent the sin of gluttony? The visual elements have messages to convey. Once one is engaged in the actual process of conveying these messages, it becomes harder to believe that the lavish illustrations in manuscripts of religious texts merely served as decoration. This again reminds me of Umberto Eco's 'The Name of the Rose', in which the former librarian, the blind Borge (poking fun or paying tribute to Jorge Luis Borges, of course) bitterly protests against the exaggerated and distorted animal droleries created by the illustrator Adelmo ('Because Jesus never laughed!') and lays curses upon the latter on the ground of sacrilege. In fact, I think Eco did has an illustrated manuscript not unlike the Luttrell Psalter in his mind when he wrote that scriptorium episode. ————有主题和闲磕牙的分界线———— 今天终于出关了，高兴得满地滚。开始享受六室一厅（虽然有五室进不去），我要保证每天至少学习十小时+认真做一顿饭，不早起毋宁死！ |
|
|
