Buku The Politics of Language: Byrhtferth, Aelfric, and the Multilingual Identity of the Benedictine Reform (Toronto Anglo-Saxon Series) by Stephenson Rebecca
Rp149,000.00 Tambah ke keranjang

Buku The Politics of Language: Byrhtferth, Aelfric, and the Multilingual Identity of the Benedictine Reform (Toronto Anglo-Saxon Series) by Stephenson Rebecca

Rp149,000.00

Free worldwide shipping on all orders over $50

  • 30 days easy returns
  • Order yours before 2.30pm for same day dispatch
Guaranteed Safe Checkout

Deskripsi

Jual Buku
The Politics of Language: Byrhtferth, Aelfric, and the Multilingual Identity of the Benedictine Reform (Toronto Anglo-Saxon Series) by Stephenson Rebecca

Author:Stephenson, Rebecca [Stephenson, Rebecca]

Language: eng

Format: azw3

Publisher: University of Toronto Press, Scholarly Publishing Division

Published: 2015-09-27T16:00:00+00:00

WE ONLY SELL HIGH QUALITY REPRINTED BOOKS, at AFFORDABLE PRICE

Ingin dalam bentuk ebook? Order disini>>

Kwalitas Reprint Book Bukan Buku Original (Kwalitas hampir setara)

Diprint dengan mesin terbaik, Mengunakan Lem Panas Press laminasi sehingga cover lebih lengket
#Ukuran B5 (Standart Buku Original)
#Kertas Bookpaper/HVS Lebih baik untuk mata, tidak menyebabkan mata cepat lelah,
#Mengunakan Kwalitas kertas terbaik
#Kwalitas tinta tajam dan bagus (mirip Original)
#Cover dengan Softcover, jika anda membutuhkan hardcover silahkan request
#Packing sudah include Bubble Wrap dan EXTRA SAFETY untuk Hard Cover, 100% AMAN

Ingin Buku Original yang tersedia cek disini>> 

Melayani Juga
Jual Buku Import Original
Jual ebook Buku
The Politics of Language: Byrhtferth, Aelfric, and the Multilingual Identity of the Benedictine Reform (Toronto Anglo-Saxon Series) by Stephenson Rebecca

Although the computistical material is visually appealing and ornamented, the text is corrupt and far less useful than it could be if it were copied with any care for the material. Furthermore, the Easter table (f. 16r) shows problems of careless and inadequate copying. According to McGurk, the table begins at 969. That date is written as “cccclxix” (469), since the roman numeral “D” (500) has been omitted. When the decennoval cycle is repeated in 988, the headings are renewed and the “D” is given for the first date only, which correctly reads, “Dcccclxxxviii.” It is likely that in the exemplar, the “D” was given only for the first date at 969 and assumed after that, but the scribe’s failure to copy it even for the first date presents serious problems of comprehension. More mistakes are introduced when the year 990 is reached, which reads “cccclxc.” The roman numeral “l” for fifty is maintained as if it were part of the 400 from the previous year “cccclxxxix” (489), even though ninety is then correctly written as “xc.” This intrusive “l” is maintained throughout the 990s, until 1000, which is blank rather than being an “M.”

Furthermore, most of this error-filled Easter table was probably out of date by the time it was copied. The table begins at 969, the beginning of a decennoval cycle, a date of computistical importance, but of little relevance to the manuscript. Henel was the first to suggest that the manuscript must have been composed later than that. He argued that references in the manuscript to King Æthelred indicate that the text is from the latter part of his reign, specifically between 991 and 1016. Since the Easter tables run from 969 to 1006, the entire first decennoval cycle which ended in 987 had already passed before the earliest possible date for its completion. If the manuscript were completed towards the end of Henel’s window, however, then the entire Easter table would have been exhausted by the time it was added to this manuscript.19 19 Ker dated the manuscript even later, assigning a date of “s. xi1,” or “about the middle of the first half of the eleventh century”; Catalogue, 255–6. McGurk, the editor of the facsimile of Tiberius B.v, assigned an even later date to the manuscript, suggesting it was “perhaps nearer to 1050 than to 1025”; Eleventh-Century Miscellany, 33. According to Faith Wallis, copying out-of-date computistical material is not unusual. The Peterborough Computus was written c. 1120; its Easter tables contain dates for 988–1006, which would have been more than 100 years out of date at the time that it was copied. “Location and Dating,” in The Calendar and the Cloister.

The incomplete lists of the archbishops of Canterbury and the abbots of Glastonbury may function in the same way, resulting from a scribe’s willingness to copy out-of-date and incoherent material from his exemplar without completing the information, rather than an early date for the manuscript.20 20 For the history of the lists in this manuscript, see David Dumville, “The Catalogue Texts,” in An Eleventh-Century Anglo-Saxon Miscellany, ed.

 

##Sample Book

[ux_instagram_feed username=”#kotabook”]

Jual Buku
The Politics of Language: Byrhtferth, Aelfric, and the Multilingual Identity of the Benedictine Reform (Toronto Anglo-Saxon Series) by Stephenson Rebecca

jual Buku
The Politics of Language: Byrhtferth, Aelfric, and the Multilingual Identity of the Benedictine Reform (Toronto Anglo-Saxon Series) by Stephenson Rebecca murah, jual ebook murah, jual ebook import, jual buku import, jual buku Buku
The Politics of Language: Byrhtferth, Aelfric, and the Multilingual Identity of the Benedictine Reform (Toronto Anglo-Saxon Series) by Stephenson Rebecca

 

Home

>

Literature & Fiction

The Politics of Language: Byrhtferth, Aelfric, and the Multilingual Identity of the Benedictine Reform (Toronto Anglo-Saxon Series) by Stephenson Rebecca

Author:Stephenson, Rebecca [Stephenson, Rebecca] , Date: June 6, 2019

,Views: 12

Author:Stephenson, Rebecca [Stephenson, Rebecca]

Language: eng

Format: azw3

Publisher: University of Toronto Press, Scholarly Publishing Division

Published: 2015-09-27T16:00:00+00:00
Although the computistical material is visually appealing and ornamented, the text is corrupt and far less useful than it could be if it were copied with any care for the material. Furthermore, the Easter table (f. 16r) shows problems of careless and inadequate copying. According to McGurk, the table begins at 969. That date is written as “cccclxix” (469), since the roman numeral “D” (500) has been omitted. When the decennoval cycle is repeated in 988, the headings are renewed and the “D” is given for the first date only, which correctly reads, “Dcccclxxxviii.” It is likely that in the exemplar, the “D” was given only for the first date at 969 and assumed after that, but the scribe’s failure to copy it even for the first date presents serious problems of comprehension. More mistakes are introduced when the year 990 is reached, which reads “cccclxc.” The roman numeral “l” for fifty is maintained as if it were part of the 400 from the previous year “cccclxxxix” (489), even though ninety is then correctly written as “xc.” This intrusive “l” is maintained throughout the 990s, until 1000, which is blank rather than being an “M.”

Furthermore, most of this error-filled Easter table was probably out of date by the time it was copied. The table begins at 969, the beginning of a decennoval cycle, a date of computistical importance, but of little relevance to the manuscript. Henel was the first to suggest that the manuscript must have been composed later than that. He argued that references in the manuscript to King Æthelred indicate that the text is from the latter part of his reign, specifically between 991 and 1016. Since the Easter tables run from 969 to 1006, the entire first decennoval cycle which ended in 987 had already passed before the earliest possible date for its completion. If the manuscript were completed towards the end of Henel’s window, however, then the entire Easter table would have been exhausted by the time it was added to this manuscript.19 19 Ker dated the manuscript even later, assigning a date of “s. xi1,” or “about the middle of the first half of the eleventh century”; Catalogue, 255–6. McGurk, the editor of the facsimile of Tiberius B.v, assigned an even later date to the manuscript, suggesting it was “perhaps nearer to 1050 than to 1025”; Eleventh-Century Miscellany, 33. According to Faith Wallis, copying out-of-date computistical material is not unusual. The Peterborough Computus was written c. 1120; its Easter tables contain dates for 988–1006, which would have been more than 100 years out of date at the time that it was copied. “Location and Dating,” in The Calendar and the Cloister.

The incomplete lists of the archbishops of Canterbury and the abbots of Glastonbury may function in the same way, resulting from a scribe’s willingness to copy out-of-date and incoherent material from his exemplar without completing the information, rather than an early date for the manuscript.20 20 For the history of the lists in this manuscript, see David Dumville, “The Catalogue Texts,” in An Eleventh-Century Anglo-Saxon Miscellany, ed.

Loading…

Download

The Politics of Language: Byrhtferth, Aelfric, and the Multilingual Identity of the Benedictine Reform (Toronto Anglo-Saxon Series) by Stephenson Rebecca.azw3

Copyright Disclaimer:

This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link
to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers
to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we’ll remove relevant
links or contents immediately.

Ulasan

Belum ada ulasan.

Jadilah yang pertama memberikan ulasan “Buku The Politics of Language: Byrhtferth, Aelfric, and the Multilingual Identity of the Benedictine Reform (Toronto Anglo-Saxon Series) by Stephenson Rebecca”

Alamat email Anda tidak akan dipublikasikan. Ruas yang wajib ditandai *