Overview

The twelfth-century Anglo-Norman verse Life of King Edward the Confessor is presented here in modern English for the first time, and with a full introduction and notes. Its author, an anonymous Nun of Barking Abbey, offers a many-faceted and absorbing portrait of the celebrated king and saint, together with legendary material found in no other version of this hagiographic narrative. There is also a wealth of detail about Edward’s times as well as about the twelfth-century context in which the Nun was writing, making the poem of great interest to historians as well as to literary scholars. This is among the earliest texts in French known to be by a woman, and so will also be of great value to scholars investigating medieval female authorship. Long neglected, perhaps because mistakenly thought to be a mere translation of Aelred of Rievaulx’s Vita in Latin, it proves to be remarkably independent of its main source and raises questions about the freedom and originality of medieval ‘transposition’ or translation.

Full Product Details

Author:   Jane Bliss
Publisher:   Liverpool University Press
Imprint:   Liverpool University Press
Dimensions:   Width: 16.30cm , Height: 1.80cm , Length: 23.90cm
Weight:   0.499kg
ISBN:  

9781846319518

ISBN 10:   184631951
Pages:   249
Publication Date:   19 June 2014
Audience:   Professional and scholarly ,  Professional & Vocational
Format:   Hardback
Publisher's Status:   Active
Availability:   Out of stock  
The supplier is temporarily out of stock of this item. It will be ordered for you on backorder and shipped when it becomes available.

Table of Contents

Preface Acknowledgements Abbreviations Introduction Edward the Confessor - La Vie d’Edouard - The Three Principal Manuscripts The Poem’s Themes - Edward: Holy Warrior, Royal Saint - Historical and Legendary Women - Chaste Marriage - The Nun as a Mystical Writer - From Latin to Medieval French Sources - Earlier Lives of Edward - Rewriting Aelred - The Nun and English Literature - Other Sources - Barking Abbey’s Books The Nun and her World - Barking Abbey - The Poem’s Date - The Nun’s Identity as Author of Edouard - The Poem’s Audience - Later Lives of Edward Translation and Presentation The Life of Edward the Confessor Appendix Glossary Bibliography - Primary Texts - Secondary Texts Indexes - Bible References - Proper Names in Text - General Index

Reviews

The twelfth-century La vie d'Edouard le Confesseur written in Anglo-Norman verse by a Nun of Barking Abbey is an important hagiographical work that has attracted growing scholarly attention in recent years. [1] Jane Bliss here presents the first translation of La vie into modern English. Scholarly interest in this text has largely focused on its significance as the work of a female author from one of the most influential and important abbeys in post-conquest England. Bliss's translation should serve to make this Life--one of a very small number of Anglo-Norman hagiographies composed by a woman--available to a wider audience, including students, who have no Old French. Although clearly a work of hagiography, La vie also sheds valuable light on Edward's times and on the Nun's own twelfth-century context. Bliss contends that this version of Edward's life can claim to be historical biography (4). In contrast, in his standard work on Edward, Frank Barlow writes that the hagiographical tradition [derived from Osbert of Clare via Aelred of Rievaulx] can be disregarded as an historical source for Edward's earthly career. [2] One of Bliss's main arguments in presenting this translation of La vie is that this work develops that hagiographical tradition in new, independent, and even historically illuminating ways. The translation itself is preceded by a lengthy and informative introduction that addresses numerous pertinent questions. Although she briefly discusses the three principal manuscripts containing La vie, Bliss does not, in this context, provide an analysis of Osten Sodergard's critical edition published in 1948. [3] Rather, critical comments on this edition are dispersed throughout the introduction and the translation itself. Bliss next identifies the poem's main themes: the depiction of Edward, the portrayal of female figures; the characteristics of Edward's marriage; the mystical nature of the Nun's work; and the significance of the Nun's translation from Latin to medieval French. A few points in this discussion deserve comment. First, Bliss highlights the depiction of Edward as an imitator of Christ--something one might expect in a Christian hagiographical work. Second, she notes that all the female figures in the poem are enhanced to a greater or lesser extent (6). As others have also observed, [4] in this work Edith, Edward's wife, has a unique role; she even has a voice of her own (7). Third, Bliss refers to the mystical quality in the Nun's writing (10). This, too, is an element that others, including Bliss herself in a previous article, [5] have addressed. To make this quality clearer, one might like some definition of mystical or mysticism that distinguishes these terms from deeply-felt devotion...to God (10). Finally, when Bliss treats the Nun's move from Latin to medieval French, she anticipates her subsequent discussion of the poem's sources. As is well-known and as the Nun herself famously acknowledges La vie is, in a sense, a translation of Aelred of Rievaulx's Vita s. Edward (ca. 1163). However, another principal argument of Bliss's book is that the Nun's poem (Aelred's is a prose work) is much more than a mere translation of Aelred's Vita. Although this argument is not new, [6] it is forcefully made and well-documented. According to Bliss, the Nun has made significant alterations and additions to her main source (13); she handles biblical references differently from Aelred; and her treatment of dreams and dreaming differs as well. In this context, Bliss is also able to indicate that the Nun's version of Aelred's Vita differs from that preserved in Migne (PL 195: 737-790). In addition to Aelred, Bliss suggests that the Nun drew upon other sources, including perhaps Old English sources. Much this of this discussion (22-26) is necessarily speculative, but Bliss concludes that taken all together, these items add up to strong evidence that the Nun had several sources (26). In turning to La vie's author and her context, Bliss addresses four key points. First is Barking Abbey itself. Bliss's brief history of the abbey shows it to have had a series of formidable abbesses and close connections to the highest levels of royal and ecclesiastical power. Second is the question of the poem's date. Since it relies on Aelred's Vita, the terminus post quem (1163) is generally acknowledged, but the terminus ante quem remains disputed. Bliss sides with those who prefer an early date, probably during or soon after the abbacy of Adelidis, that is the late 1160s; and her arguments seem sound. Third, Bliss makes a persuasive case for the Nun rather than Clemence of Barking as the author of La vie. Here she presents new evidence (mainly lexical and syntactical) that reinforces the case made in her 2012 article. Finally, Bliss discusses the poem's audience observing that addresses to the audience are frequent (48). The Nun's occasional use of the term seignurs for her readers/hearers might suggest a noble or clerical audience, but Bliss also envisions a lay audience, even one outside Barking itself. Why the Nun's tendency to suppress or alter Bible references should constitute further evidence that the proposed audience included lay visitors (49) is, however, not entirely clear. Bliss's comments on her own translation are clear and valuable. She notes that the translation aims to reproduce the Nun's voice as closely as is consistent with readable modern prose (52). Here she indicates that she has relied mainly on Sodergard's edition but has also consulted online versions of the poem. [7] As regards presentation, the translation inserts chapter divisions that do not appear in the edition in precisely this form but that do closely parallel the capitula in Aelred's Vita. Each such chapter is preceded by a brief but illuminating introduction. Bliss's translation can indeed be characterized as readable modern prose. A comparison of random passages with Sodergard's edition suggests that it is also quite accurate. Where relevant, Bliss usually identifies dubious words or uncertain passages, as well as variant readings, in her notes (e.g., p. 81, n. 4, n. 6 and n. 7). Indeed, the notes are an especially valuable source of textual, historical, and bibliographical information. But one might still quibble with certain translations. For example, at p. 66 grew in bravery and bounty should read grew in bravery and goodness (see Bliss's own note at p. 212). At p. 98, despite Bliss's explanations and especially in light of the similarity between sene and sene (see AND), in this context synod is still better than Senate for sene. At p. 112, einz de lui is better read adverbially than prepositionally, so I dedicated it before he did rather than I dedicated it before him. And at p. 131, for l'ure...del mangier, meal-time is preferable to dinner-time, especially for an American audience. One might cite other such examples, but they would likely all be minor as these are. Bliss's book, which also includes a brief appendix on dreams and prophecy and a short glossary of Anglo-Norman terms, has made this important text available in an admirable translation. Her introduction assumes substantial familiarity with English history, with hagiographical writings, and with the scholarly literature pertaining to the Nun's poem, and thus might be challenging for newcomers or beginning students. However, her translation and accompanying notes give a new English voice to this anonymous but dynamic female author. --------Notes: 1. See, e.g., Jennifer N. Brown, Translating Edward the Confessor: Feminism, Time, and Hagiography, Medieval Feminist Forum 43 (2007): 46-57; and the articles by Delbert Russell, Thelma Foster, and Jennifer N. Brown in Barking Abbey and Medieval Literary Culture: Authorship and Authority in a Female Community, eds. Jennifer N. Brown and Donna Alfano Bussell (York: York Medieval Press, 2012). 2. Frank Barlow, Edward the Confessor (London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1970), xxiv. 3. Osten Sodergard, La vie d'Edouard le confesseur: Poeme anglo-normand du XIIe siecle (Uppsala: Almquist-Wiksells, 1948). This was the author's doctoral thesis. 4. See, e.g., Brown, Translating Edward the Confessor, 53. 5. Jane Bliss, Who Wrote the Nun's Life of Edward?, Reading Medieval Studies 38 (2012): 77-98. 6. See, e.g. Brown, Translating Edward the Confessor, 47. 7. The twelfth-century La vie d'Edouard le Confesseur written in Anglo-Norman verse by a Nun of Barking Abbey is an important hagiographical work that has attracted growing scholarly attention in recent years. [1] Jane Bliss here presents the first translation of La vie into modern English. Scholarly interest in this text has largely focused on its significance as the work of a female author from one of the most influential and important abbeys in post-conquest England. Bliss's translation should serve to make this Life--one of a very small number of Anglo-Norman hagiographies composed by a woman--available to a wider audience, including students, who have no Old French. Although clearly a work of hagiography, La vie also sheds valuable light on Edward's times and on the Nun's own twelfth-century context. Bliss contends that this version of Edward's life can claim to be historical biography (4). In contrast, in his standard work on Edward, Frank Barlow writes that the hagiographical tradition [derived from Osbert of Clare via Aelred of Rievaulx] can be disregarded as an historical source for Edward's earthly career. [2] One of Bliss's main arguments in presenting this translation of La vie is that this work develops that hagiographical tradition in new, independent, and even historically illuminating ways. The translation itself is preceded by a lengthy and informative introduction that addresses numerous pertinent questions. Although she briefly discusses the three principal manuscripts containing La vie, Bliss does not, in this context, provide an analysis of Osten Sodergard's critical edition published in 1948. [3] Rather, critical comments on this edition are dispersed throughout the introduction and the translation itself. Bliss next identifies the poem's main themes: the depiction of Edward, the portrayal of female figures; the characteristics of Edward's marriage; the mystical nature of the Nun's work; and the significance of the Nun's translation from Latin to medieval French. A few points in this discussion deserve comment. First, Bliss highlights the depiction of Edward as an imitator of Christ--something one might expect in a Christian hagiographical work. Second, she notes that all the female figures in the poem are enhanced to a greater or lesser extent (6). As others have also observed, [4] in this work Edith, Edward's wife, has a unique role; she even has a voice of her own (7). Third, Bliss refers to the mystical quality in the Nun's writing (10). This, too, is an element that others, including Bliss herself in a previous article, [5] have addressed. To make this quality clearer, one might like some definition of mystical or mysticism that distinguishes these terms from deeply-felt devotion...to God (10). Finally, when Bliss treats the Nun's move from Latin to medieval French, she anticipates her subsequent discussion of the poem's sources. As is well-known and as the Nun herself famously acknowledges La vie is, in a sense, a translation of Aelred of Rievaulx's Vita s. Edward (ca. 1163). However, another principal argument of Bliss's book is that the Nun's poem (Aelred's is a prose work) is much more than a mere translation of Aelred's Vita. Although this argument is not new, [6] it is forcefully made and well-documented. According to Bliss, the Nun has made significant alterations and additions to her main source (13); she handles biblical references differently from Aelred; and her treatment of dreams and dreaming differs as well. In this context, Bliss is also able to indicate that the Nun's version of Aelred's Vita differs from that preserved in Migne (PL 195: 737-790). In addition to Aelred, Bliss suggests that the Nun drew upon other sources, including perhaps Old English sources. Much this of this discussion (22-26) is necessarily speculative, but Bliss concludes that taken all together, these items add up to strong evidence that the Nun had several sources (26). In turning to La vie's author and her context, Bliss addresses four key points. First is Barking Abbey itself. Bliss's brief history of the abbey shows it to have had a series of formidable abbesses and close connections to the highest levels of royal and ecclesiastical power. Second is the question of the poem's date. Since it relies on Aelred's Vita, the terminus post quem (1163) is generally acknowledged, but the terminus ante quem remains disputed. Bliss sides with those who prefer an early date, probably during or soon after the abbacy of Adelidis, that is the late 1160s; and her arguments seem sound. Third, Bliss makes a persuasive case for the Nun rather than Clemence of Barking as the author of La vie. Here she presents new evidence (mainly lexical and syntactical) that reinforces the case made in her 2012 article. Finally, Bliss discusses the poem's audience observing that addresses to the audience are frequent (48). The Nun's occasional use of the term seignurs for her readers/hearers might suggest a noble or clerical audience, but Bliss also envisions a lay audience, even one outside Barking itself. Why the Nun's tendency to suppress or alter Bible references should constitute further evidence that the proposed audience included lay visitors (49) is, however, not entirely clear. Bliss's comments on her own translation are clear and valuable. She notes that the translation aims to reproduce the Nun's voice as closely as is consistent with readable modern prose (52). Here she indicates that she has relied mainly on Sodergard's edition but has also consulted online versions of the poem. [7] As regards presentation, the translation inserts chapter divisions that do not appear in the edition in precisely this form but that do closely parallel the capitula in Aelred's Vita. Each such chapter is preceded by a brief but illuminating introduction. Bliss's translation can indeed be characterized as readable modern prose. A comparison of random passages with Sodergard's edition suggests that it is also quite accurate. Where relevant, Bliss usually identifies dubious words or uncertain passages, as well as variant readings, in her notes (e.g., p. 81, n. 4, n. 6 and n. 7). Indeed, the notes are an especially valuable source of textual, historical, and bibliographical information. But one might still quibble with certain translations. For example, at p. 66 grew in bravery and bounty should read grew in bravery and goodness (see Bliss's own note at p. 212). At p. 98, despite Bliss's explanations and especially in light of the similarity between sene and sene (see AND), in this context synod is still better than Senate for sene. At p. 112, einz de lui is better read adverbially than prepositionally, so I dedicated it before he did rather than I dedicated it before him. And at p. 131, for l'ure...del mangier, meal-time is preferable to dinner-time, especially for an American audience. One might cite other such examples, but they would likely all be minor as these are. Bliss's book, which also includes a brief appendix on dreams and prophecy and a short glossary of Anglo-Norman terms, has made this important text available in an admirable translation. Her introduction assumes substantial familiarity with English history, with hagiographical writings, and with the scholarly literature pertaining to the Nun's poem, and thus might be challenging for newcomers or beginning students. However, her translation and accompanying notes give a new English voice to this anonymous but dynamic female author. -------- Notes: 1. See, e.g., Jennifer N. Brown, Translating Edward the Confessor: Feminism, Time, and Hagiography, Medieval Feminist Forum 43 (2007): 46-57; and the articles by Delbert Russell, Thelma Foster, and Jennifer N. Brown in Barking Abbey and Medieval Literary Culture: Authorship and Authority in a Female Community, eds. Jennifer N. Brown and Donna Alfano Bussell (York: York Medieval Press, 2012). 2. Frank Barlow, Edward the Confessor (London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1970), xxiv. 3. Osten Sodergard, La vie d'Edouard le confesseur: Poeme anglo-normand du XIIe siecle (Uppsala: Almquist-Wiksells, 1948). This was the author's doctoral thesis. 4. See, e.g., Brown, Translating Edward the Confessor, 53. 5. Jane Bliss, Who Wrote the Nun's Life of Edward?, Reading Medieval Studies 38 (2012): 77-98. 6. See, e.g. Brown, Translating Edward the Confessor, 47. 7. http://margot.uwaterloo.ca/campsey/CmpBrowserFrame_e.html (http://margot.uwaterloo.ca/campsey/CmpBrowserFrame_e.html) This translation will be a great introduction for those wishing to examine further the Anglo-Norman Life. This translation will be a great introduction for those wishing to examine further the Anglo-Norman Life.

"The twelfth-century La vie d'Edouard le Confesseur written in Anglo-Norman verse by a Nun of Barking Abbey is an important hagiographical work that has attracted growing scholarly attention in recent years. [1] Jane Bliss here presents the first translation of La vie into modern English. Scholarly interest in this text has largely focused on its significance as the work of a female author from one of the most influential and important abbeys in post-conquest England. Bliss's translation should serve to make this Life--one of a very small number of Anglo-Norman hagiographies composed by a woman--available to a wider audience, including students, who have no Old French. Although clearly a work of hagiography, La vie also sheds valuable light on Edward's times and on the Nun's own twelfth-century context. Bliss contends that this version of Edward's life ""can claim to be historical biography"" (4). In contrast, in his standard work on Edward, Frank Barlow writes that ""the hagiographical tradition [derived from Osbert of Clare via Aelred of Rievaulx] can be disregarded as an historical source for Edward's earthly career."" [2] One of Bliss's main arguments in presenting this translation of La vie is that this work develops that hagiographical tradition in new, independent, and even historically illuminating ways. The translation itself is preceded by a lengthy and informative introduction that addresses numerous pertinent questions. Although she briefly discusses the three principal manuscripts containing La vie, Bliss does not, in this context, provide an analysis of Osten Sodergard's critical edition published in 1948. [3] Rather, critical comments on this edition are dispersed throughout the introduction and the translation itself. Bliss next identifies the poem's main themes: the depiction of Edward, the portrayal of female figures; the characteristics of Edward's marriage; the mystical nature of the Nun's work; and the significance of the Nun's translation from Latin to medieval French. A few points in this discussion deserve comment. First, Bliss highlights the depiction of Edward as an imitator of Christ--something one might expect in a Christian hagiographical work. Second, she notes that ""all the female figures in the poem are enhanced to a greater or lesser extent"" (6). As others have also observed, [4] in this work Edith, Edward's wife, has a unique role; she even has ""a voice of her own"" (7). Third, Bliss refers to the ""mystical quality in the Nun's writing"" (10). This, too, is an element that others, including Bliss herself in a previous article, [5] have addressed. To make this quality clearer, one might like some definition of ""mystical"" or ""mysticism"" that distinguishes these terms from ""deeply-felt devotion...to God"" (10). Finally, when Bliss treats the Nun's move from Latin to medieval French, she anticipates her subsequent discussion of the poem's sources. As is well-known and as the Nun herself famously acknowledges La vie is, in a sense, a translation of Aelred of Rievaulx's Vita s. Edward (ca. 1163). However, another principal argument of Bliss's book is that the Nun's poem (Aelred's is a prose work) is much more than a mere translation of Aelred's Vita. Although this argument is not new, [6] it is forcefully made and well-documented. According to Bliss, the Nun has made significant ""alterations and additions to her main source"" (13); she handles biblical references differently from Aelred; and her treatment of dreams and dreaming differs as well. In this context, Bliss is also able to indicate that the Nun's version of Aelred's Vita differs from that preserved in Migne (PL 195: 737-790). In addition to Aelred, Bliss suggests that the Nun drew upon other sources, including perhaps Old English sources. Much this of this discussion (22-26) is necessarily speculative, but Bliss concludes that ""taken all together, these items add up to strong evidence that the Nun had several sources"" (26). In turning to La vie's author and her context, Bliss addresses four key points. First is Barking Abbey itself. Bliss's brief history of the abbey shows it to have had a series of formidable abbesses and close connections to the highest levels of royal and ecclesiastical power. Second is the question of the poem's date. Since it relies on Aelred's Vita, the terminus post quem (1163) is generally acknowledged, but the terminus ante quem remains disputed. Bliss sides with those who prefer an early date, probably during or soon after the abbacy of Adelidis, that is the late 1160s; and her arguments seem sound. Third, Bliss makes a persuasive case for the Nun rather than Clemence of Barking as the author of La vie. Here she presents new evidence (mainly lexical and syntactical) that reinforces the case made in her 2012 article. Finally, Bliss discusses the poem's audience observing that ""addresses to the audience are frequent"" (48). The Nun's occasional use of the term seignurs for her readers/hearers might suggest a noble or clerical audience, but Bliss also envisions a lay audience, even one outside Barking itself. Why the ""Nun's tendency to suppress or alter Bible references"" should constitute ""further evidence that the proposed audience included lay visitors"" (49) is, however, not entirely clear. Bliss's comments on her own translation are clear and valuable. She notes that the translation ""aims to reproduce the Nun's voice as closely as is consistent with readable modern prose"" (52). Here she indicates that she has relied mainly on Sodergard's edition but has also consulted online ""versions"" of the poem. [7] As regards presentation, the translation inserts chapter divisions that do not appear in the edition in precisely this form but that do closely parallel the capitula in Aelred's Vita. Each such chapter is preceded by a brief but illuminating introduction. Bliss's translation can indeed be characterized as ""readable modern prose."" A comparison of random passages with Sodergard's edition suggests that it is also quite accurate. Where relevant, Bliss usually identifies dubious words or uncertain passages, as well as variant readings, in her notes (e.g., p. 81, n. 4, n. 6 and n. 7). Indeed, the notes are an especially valuable source of textual, historical, and bibliographical information. But one might still quibble with certain translations. For example, at p. 66 ""grew in bravery and bounty"" should read ""grew in bravery and goodness"" (see Bliss's own note at p. 212). At p. 98, despite Bliss's explanations and especially in light of the similarity between sene and sene (see AND), in this context ""synod"" is still better than ""Senate"" for sene. At p. 112, einz de lui is better read adverbially than prepositionally, so ""I dedicated it before he did"" rather than ""I dedicated it before him."" And at p. 131, for l'ure...del mangier, ""meal-time"" is preferable to ""dinner-time,"" especially for an American audience. One might cite other such examples, but they would likely all be minor as these are. Bliss's book, which also includes a brief appendix on dreams and prophecy and a short glossary of Anglo-Norman terms, has made this important text available in an admirable translation. Her introduction assumes substantial familiarity with English history, with hagiographical writings, and with the scholarly literature pertaining to the Nun's poem, and thus might be challenging for newcomers or beginning students. However, her translation and accompanying notes give a new English voice to this anonymous but dynamic female author. --------Notes: 1. See, e.g., Jennifer N. Brown, ""Translating Edward the Confessor: Feminism, Time, and Hagiography,"" Medieval Feminist Forum 43 (2007): 46-57; and the articles by Delbert Russell, Thelma Foster, and Jennifer N. Brown in Barking Abbey and Medieval Literary Culture: Authorship and Authority in a Female Community, eds. Jennifer N. Brown and Donna Alfano Bussell (York: York Medieval Press, 2012). 2. Frank Barlow, Edward the Confessor (London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1970), xxiv. 3. Osten Sodergard, La vie d'Edouard le confesseur: Poeme anglo-normand du XIIe siecle (Uppsala: Almquist-Wiksells, 1948). This was the author's doctoral thesis. 4. See, e.g., Brown, ""Translating Edward the Confessor,"" 53. 5. Jane Bliss, ""Who Wrote the Nun's Life of Edward?,"" Reading Medieval Studies 38 (2012): 77-98. 6. See, e.g. Brown, ""Translating Edward the Confessor,"" 47. 7. This translation will be a great introduction for those wishing to examine further the Anglo-Norman Life."

The twelfth-century La vie d'Edouard le Confesseur written in Anglo-Norman verse by a Nun of Barking Abbey is an important hagiographical work that has attracted growing scholarly attention in recent years. [1] Jane Bliss here presents the first translation of La vie into modern English. Scholarly interest in this text has largely focused on its significance as the work of a female author from one of the most influential and important abbeys in post-conquest England. Bliss's translation should serve to make this Life--one of a very small number of Anglo-Norman hagiographies composed by a woman--available to a wider audience, including students, who have no Old French. Although clearly a work of hagiography, La vie also sheds valuable light on Edward's times and on the Nun's own twelfth-century context. Bliss contends that this version of Edward's life can claim to be historical biography (4). In contrast, in his standard work on Edward, Frank Barlow writes that the hagiographical tradition [derived from Osbert of Clare via Aelred of Rievaulx] can be disregarded as an historical source for Edward's earthly career. [2] One of Bliss's main arguments in presenting this translation of La vie is that this work develops that hagiographical tradition in new, independent, and even historically illuminating ways. The translation itself is preceded by a lengthy and informative introduction that addresses numerous pertinent questions. Although she briefly discusses the three principal manuscripts containing La vie, Bliss does not, in this context, provide an analysis of Osten Sodergard's critical edition published in 1948. [3] Rather, critical comments on this edition are dispersed throughout the introduction and the translation itself. Bliss next identifies the poem's main themes: the depiction of Edward, the portrayal of female figures; the characteristics of Edward's marriage; the mystical nature of the Nun's work; and the significance of the Nun's translation from Latin to medieval French. A few points in this discussion deserve comment. First, Bliss highlights the depiction of Edward as an imitator of Christ--something one might expect in a Christian hagiographical work. Second, she notes that all the female figures in the poem are enhanced to a greater or lesser extent (6). As others have also observed, [4] in this work Edith, Edward's wife, has a unique role; she even has a voice of her own (7). Third, Bliss refers to the mystical quality in the Nun's writing (10). This, too, is an element that others, including Bliss herself in a previous article, [5] have addressed. To make this quality clearer, one might like some definition of mystical or mysticism that distinguishes these terms from deeply-felt devotion...to God (10). Finally, when Bliss treats the Nun's move from Latin to medieval French, she anticipates her subsequent discussion of the poem's sources. As is well-known and as the Nun herself famously acknowledges La vie is, in a sense, a translation of Aelred of Rievaulx's Vita s. Edward (ca. 1163). However, another principal argument of Bliss's book is that the Nun's poem (Aelred's is a prose work) is much more than a mere translation of Aelred's Vita. Although this argument is not new, [6] it is forcefully made and well-documented. According to Bliss, the Nun has made significant alterations and additions to her main source (13); she handles biblical references differently from Aelred; and her treatment of dreams and dreaming differs as well. In this context, Bliss is also able to indicate that the Nun's version of Aelred's Vita differs from that preserved in Migne (PL 195: 737-790). In addition to Aelred, Bliss suggests that the Nun drew upon other sources, including perhaps Old English sources. Much this of this discussion (22-26) is necessarily speculative, but Bliss concludes that taken all together, these items add up to strong evidence that the Nun had several sources (26). In turning to La vie's author and her context, Bliss addresses four key points. First is Barking Abbey itself. Bliss's brief history of the abbey shows it to have had a series of formidable abbesses and close connections to the highest levels of royal and ecclesiastical power. Second is the question of the poem's date. Since it relies on Aelred's Vita, the terminus post quem (1163) is generally acknowledged, but the terminus ante quem remains disputed. Bliss sides with those who prefer an early date, probably during or soon after the abbacy of Adelidis, that is the late 1160s; and her arguments seem sound. Third, Bliss makes a persuasive case for the Nun rather than Clemence of Barking as the author of La vie. Here she presents new evidence (mainly lexical and syntactical) that reinforces the case made in her 2012 article. Finally, Bliss discusses the poem's audience observing that addresses to the audience are frequent (48). The Nun's occasional use of the term seignurs for her readers/hearers might suggest a noble or clerical audience, but Bliss also envisions a lay audience, even one outside Barking itself. Why the Nun's tendency to suppress or alter Bible references should constitute further evidence that the proposed audience included lay visitors (49) is, however, not entirely clear. Bliss's comments on her own translation are clear and valuable. She notes that the translation aims to reproduce the Nun's voice as closely as is consistent with readable modern prose (52). Here she indicates that she has relied mainly on Sodergard's edition but has also consulted online versions of the poem. [7] As regards presentation, the translation inserts chapter divisions that do not appear in the edition in precisely this form but that do closely parallel the capitula in Aelred's Vita. Each such chapter is preceded by a brief but illuminating introduction. Bliss's translation can indeed be characterized as readable modern prose. A comparison of random passages with Sodergard's edition suggests that it is also quite accurate. Where relevant, Bliss usually identifies dubious words or uncertain passages, as well as variant readings, in her notes (e.g., p. 81, n. 4, n. 6 and n. 7). Indeed, the notes are an especially valuable source of textual, historical, and bibliographical information. But one might still quibble with certain translations. For example, at p. 66 grew in bravery and bounty should read grew in bravery and goodness (see Bliss's own note at p. 212). At p. 98, despite Bliss's explanations and especially in light of the similarity between sene and sene (see AND), in this context synod is still better than Senate for sene. At p. 112, einz de lui is better read adverbially than prepositionally, so I dedicated it before he did rather than I dedicated it before him. And at p. 131, for l'ure...del mangier, meal-time is preferable to dinner-time, especially for an American audience. One might cite other such examples, but they would likely all be minor as these are. Bliss's book, which also includes a brief appendix on dreams and prophecy and a short glossary of Anglo-Norman terms, has made this important text available in an admirable translation. Her introduction assumes substantial familiarity with English history, with hagiographical writings, and with the scholarly literature pertaining to the Nun's poem, and thus might be challenging for newcomers or beginning students. However, her translation and accompanying notes give a new English voice to this anonymous but dynamic female author. --------Notes: 1. See, e.g., Jennifer N. Brown, Translating Edward the Confessor: Feminism, Time, and Hagiography, Medieval Feminist Forum 43 (2007): 46-57; and the articles by Delbert Russell, Thelma Foster, and Jennifer N. Brown in Barking Abbey and Medieval Literary Culture: Authorship and Authority in a Female Community, eds. Jennifer N. Brown and Donna Alfano Bussell (York: York Medieval Press, 2012). 2. Frank Barlow, Edward the Confessor (London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1970), xxiv. 3. Osten Sodergard, La vie d'Edouard le confesseur: Poeme anglo-normand du XIIe siecle (Uppsala: Almquist-Wiksells, 1948). This was the author's doctoral thesis. 4. See, e.g., Brown, Translating Edward the Confessor, 53. 5. Jane Bliss, Who Wrote the Nun's Life of Edward?, Reading Medieval Studies 38 (2012): 77-98. 6. See, e.g. Brown, Translating Edward the Confessor, 47. 7. The twelfth-century La vie d'Edouard le Confesseur written in Anglo-Norman verse by a Nun of Barking Abbey is an important hagiographical work that has attracted growing scholarly attention in recent years. [1] Jane Bliss here presents the first translation of La vie into modern English. Scholarly interest in this text has largely focused on its significance as the work of a female author from one of the most influential and important abbeys in post-conquest England. Bliss's translation should serve to make this Life--one of a very small number of Anglo-Norman hagiographies composed by a woman--available to a wider audience, including students, who have no Old French. Although clearly a work of hagiography, La vie also sheds valuable light on Edward's times and on the Nun's own twelfth-century context. Bliss contends that this version of Edward's life can claim to be historical biography (4). In contrast, in his standard work on Edward, Frank Barlow writes that the hagiographical tradition [derived from Osbert of Clare via Aelred of Rievaulx] can be disregarded as an historical source for Edward's earthly career. [2] One of Bliss's main arguments in presenting this translation of La vie is that this work develops that hagiographical tradition in new, independent, and even historically illuminating ways. The translation itself is preceded by a lengthy and informative introduction that addresses numerous pertinent questions. Although she briefly discusses the three principal manuscripts containing La vie, Bliss does not, in this context, provide an analysis of Osten Sodergard's critical edition published in 1948. [3] Rather, critical comments on this edition are dispersed throughout the introduction and the translation itself. Bliss next identifies the poem's main themes: the depiction of Edward, the portrayal of female figures; the characteristics of Edward's marriage; the mystical nature of the Nun's work; and the significance of the Nun's translation from Latin to medieval French. A few points in this discussion deserve comment. First, Bliss highlights the depiction of Edward as an imitator of Christ--something one might expect in a Christian hagiographical work. Second, she notes that all the female figures in the poem are enhanced to a greater or lesser extent (6). As others have also observed, [4] in this work Edith, Edward's wife, has a unique role; she even has a voice of her own (7). Third, Bliss refers to the mystical quality in the Nun's writing (10). This, too, is an element that others, including Bliss herself in a previous article, [5] have addressed. To make this quality clearer, one might like some definition of mystical or mysticism that distinguishes these terms from deeply-felt devotion...to God (10). Finally, when Bliss treats the Nun's move from Latin to medieval French, she anticipates her subsequent discussion of the poem's sources. As is well-known and as the Nun herself famously acknowledges La vie is, in a sense, a translation of Aelred of Rievaulx's Vita s. Edward (ca. 1163). However, another principal argument of Bliss's book is that the Nun's poem (Aelred's is a prose work) is much more than a mere translation of Aelred's Vita. Although this argument is not new, [6] it is forcefully made and well-documented. According to Bliss, the Nun has made significant alterations and additions to her main source (13); she handles biblical references differently from Aelred; and her treatment of dreams and dreaming differs as well. In this context, Bliss is also able to indicate that the Nun's version of Aelred's Vita differs from that preserved in Migne (PL 195: 737-790). In addition to Aelred, Bliss suggests that the Nun drew upon other sources, including perhaps Old English sources. Much this of this discussion (22-26) is necessarily speculative, but Bliss concludes that taken all together, these items add up to strong evidence that the Nun had several sources (26). In turning to La vie's author and her context, Bliss addresses four key points. First is Barking Abbey itself. Bliss's brief history of the abbey shows it to have had a series of formidable abbesses and close connections to the highest levels of royal and ecclesiastical power. Second is the question of the poem's date. Since it relies on Aelred's Vita, the terminus post quem (1163) is generally acknowledged, but the terminus ante quem remains disputed. Bliss sides with those who prefer an early date, probably during or soon after the abbacy of Adelidis, that is the late 1160s; and her arguments seem sound. Third, Bliss makes a persuasive case for the Nun rather than Clemence of Barking as the author of La vie. Here she presents new evidence (mainly lexical and syntactical) that reinforces the case made in her 2012 article. Finally, Bliss discusses the poem's audience observing that addresses to the audience are frequent (48). The Nun's occasional use of the term seignurs for her readers/hearers might suggest a noble or clerical audience, but Bliss also envisions a lay audience, even one outside Barking itself. Why the Nun's tendency to suppress or alter Bible references should constitute further evidence that the proposed audience included lay visitors (49) is, however, not entirely clear. Bliss's comments on her own translation are clear and valuable. She notes that the translation aims to reproduce the Nun's voice as closely as is consistent with readable modern prose (52). Here she indicates that she has relied mainly on Sodergard's edition but has also consulted online versions of the poem. [7] As regards presentation, the translation inserts chapter divisions that do not appear in the edition in precisely this form but that do closely parallel the capitula in Aelred's Vita. Each such chapter is preceded by a brief but illuminating introduction. Bliss's translation can indeed be characterized as readable modern prose. A comparison of random passages with Sodergard's edition suggests that it is also quite accurate. Where relevant, Bliss usually identifies dubious words or uncertain passages, as well as variant readings, in her notes (e.g., p. 81, n. 4, n. 6 and n. 7). Indeed, the notes are an especially valuable source of textual, historical, and bibliographical information. But one might still quibble with certain translations. For example, at p. 66 grew in bravery and bounty should read grew in bravery and goodness (see Bliss's own note at p. 212). At p. 98, despite Bliss's explanations and especially in light of the similarity between sene and sene (see AND), in this context synod is still better than Senate for sene. At p. 112, einz de lui is better read adverbially than prepositionally, so I dedicated it before he did rather than I dedicated it before him. And at p. 131, for l'ure...del mangier, meal-time is preferable to dinner-time, especially for an American audience. One might cite other such examples, but they would likely all be minor as these are. Bliss's book, which also includes a brief appendix on dreams and prophecy and a short glossary of Anglo-Norman terms, has made this important text available in an admirable translation. Her introduction assumes substantial familiarity with English history, with hagiographical writings, and with the scholarly literature pertaining to the Nun's poem, and thus might be challenging for newcomers or beginning students. However, her translation and accompanying notes give a new English voice to this anonymous but dynamic female author. -------- Notes: 1. See, e.g., Jennifer N. Brown, Translating Edward the Confessor: Feminism, Time, and Hagiography, Medieval Feminist Forum 43 (2007): 46-57; and the articles by Delbert Russell, Thelma Foster, and Jennifer N. Brown in Barking Abbey and Medieval Literary Culture: Authorship and Authority in a Female Community, eds. Jennifer N. Brown and Donna Alfano Bussell (York: York Medieval Press, 2012). 2. Frank Barlow, Edward the Confessor (London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1970), xxiv. 3. Osten Sodergard, La vie d'Edouard le confesseur: Poeme anglo-normand du XIIe siecle (Uppsala: Almquist-Wiksells, 1948). This was the author's doctoral thesis. 4. See, e.g., Brown, Translating Edward the Confessor, 53. 5. Jane Bliss, Who Wrote the Nun's Life of Edward?, Reading Medieval Studies 38 (2012): 77-98. 6. See, e.g. Brown, Translating Edward the Confessor, 47. 7. http://margot.uwaterloo.ca/campsey/CmpBrowserFrame_e.html This translation will be a great introduction for those wishing to examine further the Anglo-Norman Life. This translation will be a great introduction for those wishing to examine further the Anglo-Norman Life.

Author Information

Dr Jane Bliss is an independent scholar based in Oxford. The book based on her doctoral thesis (Naming and Namelessness in Medieval Romance) was published by D.S. Brewer in 2008; she has published two articles on medieval English romance, and one on Jehan de Saintré. Her essay on the Ancrene Wisse appeared in a collection published by Brewer, and she has also published on the early Breton saint Vignalis. She recently collaborated with Tony Hunt and Henrietta Leyser on a collection of hitherto unedited devotional material.

Tab Content 6

Author Website:  

Customer Reviews

Recent Reviews

No review item found!

Add your own review!

Countries Available

All regions