The theories about the Alfred Jewel which have been noticed hitherto, belong to the crude attempts at interpretation1 which were evoked2 by the surprize of the strange discovery in the last decade of the seventeenth century. We come now to a new theory which was broached3 in our own time by Bishop4 Clifford, in his Inaugural5 Address as President of the Somersetshire Arch?ological Society in 1877, when the Annual Meeting of that Society was held at Bridgwater.
This theory demands a fuller attention than any 32 of the foregoing, first, because it bears manifest tokens of maturer thought, but further, because there is much curious material woven into its fabric6, which gives it independent value. If only for the single fact that it introduces a new explanation of the problematic ‘?stel,’ it ought to quicken the interest of every reader. It will be better on all accounts that the ideas of the author be presented in his own words:
Amongst the articles of church furniture used in the middle ages, frequent mention is made of ‘Baculi Cantorum,’ or choir7 staves. In the year 1222 there were eight such staves in the treasury8 of Salisbury Cathedral. ‘The staves at Canterbury Cathedral (writes Dr. Rock, Church of our Fathers, vol. ii) were as rich as they were curious, in the year 1315.’ He gives a list of them, and among them are ‘IV baculi de cornu, cum capitibus eburneis’—four staves of horn with ivory handles; others were adorned10 with gold and silver and precious stones. The use of these staves was to enable the Cantor or master of the choir to point out to the singers and to the readers their places in the book, and so prevent the manuscripts and their illuminations being soiled by the touch of fingers. When the lessons were read, the choirmaster not only pointed11 out the spot where the lesson commenced, but handed, if necessary, the staff to the lector, that he might use it to guide his eye along the lines in reading. This precaution was not only observed with regard to those beautifully illuminated12 volumes used for the church services,33 but was equally, if not more so, required in the case of books which were intended for the use of the general public. Most readers required to use their fingers to assist their eyes in following the lines, a practice which, if allowed, would not only soil the manuscripts, but in course of time obliterate13 them. Therefore when books were intended for public use it was customary to place by them a small staff or pointer for the use of the reader, even as in modern days a paper-knife forms one of the ordinary articles of furniture on a library table. In many instances these little staves or pointers were inserted in the binding14 of the books themselves, something after the fashion in which pencils are inserted in modern pocket-books.
I may seem to be widely departing from Alfred and from Athelney, but you will soon perceive the pertinency15 of these remarks. Alfred, as you know, did much to encourage learning amongst his subjects, and he was especially anxious that useful works should be translated into English, and copies of them be arranged in public places, where all might gain access to them and read them.
To encourage this good and noble work by his example he became himself an author. And he thus describes, in the preface which he wrote to the book he translated, the steps he took to start what I may call the first public reading in England:—‘When I reflected,’ he says, ‘how the knowledge of the Latin tongue had fallen away throughout England, though many still knew how to read English writing, I began in the midst of divers16 and manifold affairs of this kingdom to turn into English this book (of St. Gregory the Great) which in Latin is named Pastoralis, and in English, The Herdsman’s Book; sometimes word for word, and sometimes34 sense for sense, even as I had been taught by Plegmund my Archbishop, and Asser my Bishop, and Grimbald my Mass-Priest, and John my Mass-Priest. After I had learned of them how I might best understand it, I turned it into English. And I will send a copy to every bishop’s see in my kingdom, and in each book there is an aestel (i.e. a staff) of (the value of) 50 mancusses; and I command, in God’s name, that no man take the staff from the book, nor the book from the minster, seeing that we know not how long there shall be such learned bishops17, as now, thank God, there be. Therefore I command that these remain always in their places, unless the bishop have them with him either to lend somewhere, or to have other copies made from them.’
Here, then, we have the explanation of Alfred’s gem18. It is the handle of a book-staff or pointer which, like those at Canterbury, and elsewhere, was made of horn (which has perished), the handle itself being of precious and durable19 materials. The inscription20 on it bears witness that it was made by Alfred’s order, ‘Aelfred had me worked;’ and this circumstance, taken in conjunction with the costliness21 of its material and the beauty of its execution, makes it in the highest degree probable that it is one of those aestels which Alfred says were worked by his order, and inserted in the presentation copies of his translation of The Herdsman’s Book, and which were valued at 50 mancusses, or (taking the value of the mancus at 7s. 6d.) ￡18 15s., a large sum for those days.
But if so, how came this gem to be found in this neighbourhood? Alfred presented one to each bishop’s see in his kingdom, and there was no bishop’s see in those days in these parts nearer than Sherborne, in Dorsetshire. You will35 have remarked that Alfred in his preface mentions four persons who assisted him in translating the book: Plegmund, Archbishop of Canterbury; Asser, Bishop of Sherborne; the Priest Grimbald, who presided over the school which Alfred had founded for the training of the English youth; and the Priest John, who was placed by Alfred as abbot over the monastery22 which he founded at Athelney. Copies of the book, each having a book-staff, were sent to Plegmund and Asser, for they both were bishops. Can there be any reasonable doubt that this mark of attention was equally observed in the case of the other two collaborators? More especially as Grimbald was at the head of Alfred’s school, and it was in order to promote English reading that Alfred had undertaken the translation of the book, and John, though not a bishop, was abbot over the monastery which Alfred himself had built in gratitude23 to God for the victory he had gained. A copy of the book, with the costly24 aestel in it, was no doubt sent by Alfred to his friend John, at Athelney, as well as to the other three collaborators. The book and the staff were, agreeably to Alfred’s order, preserved in the minster, till, in the days of trouble, (probably at the dissolution of the monastery,) both were hidden out of sight, and for that purpose buried in the grounds of some neighbouring friend at Newton Park, in the hopes of recovering them in better days. As time passed on, the secret of the place where they were hidden died with the man who had hidden them; and when after many years chance revealed the place of the deposit, the book itself and the perishable25 portion of the staff had rotted away, leaving only the gold and crystal handle, with the words, ‘Aelfred had me worked,’ to tell the tale. This I believe to be the true history of Alfred’s gem.
36
When I visited the Ashmolean Museum at Oxford26, in the month of July, I was shown by the courteous27 Curator, by the side of Alfred’s jewel, a smaller specimen28 of ancient goldsmith’s work which was dug up a few years ago at Minster Lovel, in Oxfordshire, on the site of an ancient abbey. It is smaller than Alfred’s gem, but, like the latter, it is evidently the handle of a reading-staff. The handle of Alfred’s staff was made of a size that might be conveniently grasped in the hand; the one from Minster Lovel was intended to be held between the finger and thumb. It is smaller and less costly, but the workmanship of the gold is so like the larger one of Alfred as almost to suggest its being the work of the same man.
Thus Bp. Clifford would fain persuade us to see in our Jewel the costly handle of a pointing stave. This satisfies the requirement of the socket29 and rivet30, which is a fit provision for the insertion of a fine stave. The only question at this point that could be raised in opposition31 is, whether the socket is not too small to admit a stave of useful thickness for the purpose contemplated32. And as the author of this theory has applied33 it equally to the Minster Lovel jewel, this objection gains in force, as the rod that could be inserted in that little jewel would be of very doubtful service as a pointer.
37
But when we consider the common elements in the design and workmanship of these two jewels, we are compelled to reject the theory that they were intended as handles to pointers. And first of the design. Both of these jewels have an obverse and a reverse, which in such an instrument would not only be unnecessary and unmeaning, but absolutely inconvenient34 and detrimental35. Both of them are obviously designed to gratify the eye; as objects to be displayed in positions which they are to adorn9 and beautify. The Alfred Jewel contains the picture of a man in enamel36, framed in golden filigree37, glazed38 with crystal, and backed with a plate of gold curiously39 engraved40; the whole composition plainly dictates41 which side is to be foremost and which end is to be uppermost when it is fixed42 in the position for which it is intended. Bp. Clifford’s theory cannot be accommodated to these conditions.
So much for the design: now as to the materials and workmanship. In both of these jewels the outer surface is filigree work of very fine texture43; can it be imagined that this agrees with the suggested use of a handle to38 a choirmaster’s wand, whether we consider the implied defacement of the finest goldsmith’s work, or the galling44 friction45 to the musician’s hand?
But besides appropriateness of design and workmanship, there is yet another condition to be satisfied, and one which this theory can only meet by means of a roundabout and arbitrary hypothesis. Any interpretation of the Jewel, to be satisfactory, must harmonize naturally and spontaneously with the Alfredian associations of the spot on which it was found. Bp. Clifford has felt this, and he has employed an elaborate machinery46 to meet it. The place of the find is one that naturally suggests direct and immediate47 connexion with the goings and comings of the king himself, for it lies near the centre of that region in which he spent some months of acute effort in the most critical juncture48 of his diversified49 and adventurous50 life. If our interpretation harmonize with the associations which are linked to the spot, and through the spot to the Jewel, probability is strengthened while the interest is heightened; but what possibility is there of bringing these39 associations to bear upon a costly book-pointer? If anything so extravagant51 existed, it might be preserved in the treasury of the minster or in the book-room of the cloister52; but it could have no place about the person of a fugitive53 king and a struggling warrior54. Accordingly the author of this theory is compelled to detach the interpretation from the personal history of the king, and to rest his solution of the problem upon a highly speculative55 assumption combined with the chances and vicissitudes56 of a later age.
The author of this theory has to face the inevitable57 question—On the supposition that the Alfred Jewel is the handle of a book-pointer, how do you account for its being found in the neighbourhood of Athelney? In preparing to answer this question, he fetches a wide compass, enclosing in his sweep the literary achievements of the king, and seven centuries of the after-time. He begins by recalling Alfred’s acknowledgements to Plegmund, Asser, Grimbald, and John, for their help in his translation of Gregory’s Pastoral Care, and he recites the king’s statement that he would send a copy of40 the translation to each bishop’s see, and with each book an ‘?stel’ worth 50 mancusses. It is an essential part of his theory that the ‘?stel’ was a book-pointer with a costly handle, and moreover that the Alfred Jewel was one of these handles. But there was no bishop’s see at or near Athelney, the nearest being at Sherborne: how then did this relic58 find its way to Newton Park by Athelney? The answer is that John the Priest became abbot of Alfred’s foundation at Athelney, and that there can be no reasonable doubt that Alfred gave the book and ‘?stel’ not only to Plegmund and Asser, but that he also extended his bounty59 to Grimbald and John, his two other collaborators[11]. So the Alfred Jewel having thus arrived at Athelney as the handle of a book-pointer, was religiously preserved there until the time of Henry VIII, when it was buried to await better times, and in the course of nature forgotten. My objection to this is not that it is imaginative, but that it is ill suited to its purpose, because it is needlessly cumbrous, and41 because the Jewel can be traced to Athelney by a much simpler and more obvious process.
But while I find it impossible to admit Bp. Clifford’s theory as an interpretation of the Alfred Jewel, seeing that this relic absolutely refuses to be classed with the decorated handles of the baculi cantorum, I must add that the question of the ‘?stel’ stands apart. I am by no means prepared to maintain that the explanation of that problem which I have recently offered in Alfred the Great is preferable to Bp. Clifford’s. There is a close affinity60 between the two explanations; they both rest upon a common basis in the ancient gloss61: ‘Indicatorium, ?stel.’ I interpreted the indicatorium to be a light slab62, much like a flat ruler, which was to be brought to bear across the page so as to guide the reader’s eye, and perhaps furnish a rest for his fingers. The Latin term would fit a pointer as well as a flat ruler, and perhaps better. It may therefore well be that in the endeavour to interpret the Jewel, Bp. Clifford has incidentally explained that problematical object which king Alfred sent as a fitting accompaniment42 with each of the presentation copies of his version of Gregory’s Pastoral Care. The remark that the pointer might be fitted to the volume by an arrangement like that now in common use for attaching a pencil to a notebook must, I think, be felt to add a certain persuasive63 concreteness to his suggestion. Only then, if the ‘?stel’ was a book-pointer with a costly handle, that handle was certainly not fashioned after the manner of the Alfred Jewel, or of its natural associate the minor64 jewel of Minster Lovel—it was not fashioned with obverse and reverse.
A subsequent interpretation by Llewellynn Jewitt, F.S.A., appeared in the Reliquary for October, 1879, vol. xx, p. 66:—‘Many, and very curious as well as various, have been the conjectures65 as to the use or origin of this remarkable66 jewel, and of the figure intended to be represented upon it, but it is not worth while to here repeat them. The probability, to my mind, is that it simply formed the head of a sceptre, and that just possibly it might have been ultimately given by Alfred to the head of the monastery founded by himself, to be used43 as a pastoral staff or staff of office, as was the crosier in later days. The design and the workmanship are of exquisite67 beauty, and in all respects the jewel is unsurpassed by any other existing example of Anglo-Saxon art.’ Again, this interpretation, like that of Hearne and others, appears to be excluded by the formation of the Jewel with a front and a back.
By the rejection68 of so many hypotheses the field of choice is narrowed, and our path should be so much the clearer to find the true design and use of the Alfred Jewel.
[10] William Joseph Hugh Clifford, second son of the seventh Baron69 Clifford of Chudleigh, was the Roman Catholic bishop of Clifton from 1857 to 1888. He was a member of the Somerset Arch?ological and Natural History Society, and for many years a constant attendant at the yearly meetings. In 1877 he was President of the Society. His obituary70, by Canon Holmes, is in vol. xxxix of the Society’s Proceedings71.
[11] This machinery for bringing the baculus cantoris to Athelney was first employed in the interest of the stylus theory. See S. Pegge in Arch?ologia ii, quoted above in chapter iii.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
interpretation
|
|
| n.解释，说明，描述；艺术处理 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
evoked
|
|
| [医]诱发的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
broached
|
|
| v.谈起( broach的过去式和过去分词 )；打开并开始用；用凿子扩大（或修光）；（在桶上）钻孔取液体 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
bishop
|
|
| n.主教，（国际象棋）象 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
inaugural
|
|
| adj.就职的；n.就职典礼 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
fabric
|
|
| n.织物，织品，布；构造，结构，组织 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
choir
|
|
| n.唱诗班，唱诗班的席位，合唱团，舞蹈团；v.合唱 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
treasury
|
|
| n.宝库；国库，金库；文库 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
adorn
|
|
| vt.使美化，装饰 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
adorned
|
|
| [计]被修饰的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
pointed
|
|
| adj.尖的，直截了当的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
illuminated
|
|
| adj.被照明的；受启迪的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
obliterate
|
|
| v.擦去，涂抹，去掉...痕迹，消失，除去 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
binding
|
|
| 有约束力的，有效的，应遵守的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
pertinency
|
|
| 有关性，相关性，针对性； 切合性 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
divers
|
|
| adj.不同的；种种的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
bishops
|
|
| （基督教某些教派管辖大教区的）主教( bishop的名词复数 )； （国际象棋的）象 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
gem
|
|
| n.宝石，珠宝；受爱戴的人 [同]jewel | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
durable
|
|
| adj.持久的，耐久的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
inscription
|
|
| n.（尤指石块上的）刻印文字，铭文，碑文 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
costliness
|
|
| 昂贵的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
22
monastery
|
|
| n.修道院，僧院，寺院 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
gratitude
|
|
| adj.感激，感谢 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
costly
|
|
| adj.昂贵的，价值高的，豪华的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
perishable
|
|
| adj.（尤指食物）易腐的，易坏的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
Oxford
|
|
| n.牛津（英国城市） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
courteous
|
|
| adj.彬彬有礼的，客气的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
specimen
|
|
| n.样本，标本 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
socket
|
|
| n.窝，穴，孔，插座，插口 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
rivet
|
|
| n.铆钉；vt.铆接，铆牢；集中(目光或注意力) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
opposition
|
|
| n.反对，敌对 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
contemplated
|
|
| adj. 预期的 动词contemplate的过去分词形式 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
applied
|
|
| adj.应用的；v.应用，适用 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
inconvenient
|
|
| adj.不方便的，令人感到麻烦的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
detrimental
|
|
| adj.损害的，造成伤害的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
enamel
|
|
| n.珐琅，搪瓷，瓷釉；(牙齿的)珐琅质 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
filigree
|
|
| n.金银丝做的工艺品；v.用金银细丝饰品装饰；用华而不实的饰品装饰；adj.金银细丝工艺的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
glazed
|
|
| adj.光滑的，像玻璃的；上过釉的；呆滞无神的v.装玻璃( glaze的过去式)；上釉于，上光；（目光）变得呆滞无神 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
curiously
|
|
| adv.有求知欲地；好问地；奇特地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
engraved
|
|
| v.在（硬物）上雕刻（字，画等）( engrave的过去式和过去分词 )；将某事物深深印在（记忆或头脑中） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
dictates
|
|
| n.命令，规定，要求( dictate的名词复数 )v.大声讲或读( dictate的第三人称单数 )；口授；支配；摆布 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
fixed
|
|
| adj.固定的，不变的，准备好的；(计算机)固定的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
texture
|
|
| n.(织物)质地；(材料)构造；结构；肌理 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
galling
|
|
| adj.难堪的,使烦恼的,使焦躁的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
friction
|
|
| n.摩擦，摩擦力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
machinery
|
|
| n.(总称)机械，机器；机构 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
immediate
|
|
| adj.立即的；直接的，最接近的；紧靠的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
juncture
|
|
| n.时刻，关键时刻，紧要关头 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
diversified
|
|
| adj.多样化的，多种经营的v.使多样化，多样化( diversify的过去式和过去分词 )；进入新的商业领域 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
adventurous
|
|
| adj.爱冒险的；惊心动魄的，惊险的，刺激的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
extravagant
|
|
| adj.奢侈的；过分的；(言行等)放肆的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
cloister
|
|
| n.修道院；v.隐退，使与世隔绝 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
fugitive
|
|
| adj.逃亡的，易逝的；n.逃犯，逃亡者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
warrior
|
|
| n.勇士，武士，斗士 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
speculative
|
|
| adj.思索性的，暝想性的，推理的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
vicissitudes
|
|
| n.变迁，世事变化；变迁兴衰( vicissitude的名词复数 )；盛衰兴废 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
inevitable
|
|
| adj.不可避免的，必然发生的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
relic
|
|
| n.神圣的遗物，遗迹，纪念物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
bounty
|
|
| n.慷慨的赠予物，奖金；慷慨，大方；施与 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
affinity
|
|
| n.亲和力，密切关系 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
gloss
|
|
| n.光泽，光滑；虚饰；注释；vt.加光泽于；掩饰 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
slab
|
|
| n.平板，厚的切片；v.切成厚板，以平板盖上 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
persuasive
|
|
| adj.有说服力的，能说得使人相信的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
minor
|
|
| adj.较小(少)的，较次要的；n.辅修学科；vi.辅修 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
conjectures
|
|
| 推测，猜想( conjecture的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
remarkable
|
|
| adj.显著的，异常的，非凡的，值得注意的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
exquisite
|
|
| adj.精美的；敏锐的；剧烈的，感觉强烈的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
rejection
|
|
| n.拒绝，被拒，抛弃，被弃 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
baron
|
|
| n.男爵；(商业界等)巨头，大王 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
obituary
|
|
| n.讣告，死亡公告；adj.死亡的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
proceedings
|
|
| n.进程，过程，议程；诉讼(程序)；公报 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |