<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf8'?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.1 20151215//EN" "https://jats.nlm.nih.gov/archiving/1.1/JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article dtd-version="1.1" article-type="book-review">
  <front>
    <journal-meta>
      <journal-id>TMR</journal-id>
      <journal-title-group>
        <journal-title>The Medieval Review</journal-title>
      </journal-title-group>
      <issn pub-type="epub">1096-746X</issn>
      <publisher>
        <publisher-name>Indiana University</publisher-name>
      </publisher>
    </journal-meta>
    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">14.10.01</article-id>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>14.10.01, Rankovic, ed., Modes of Authorship in the Middle Ages (Jay
               Diehl)</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <name>
            <surname>Diehl</surname>
            <given-names/>
          </name>
          <aff>Long Island University - Post</aff>
          <address>
            <email>john.diehl@liu.edu</email>
          </address>
        </contrib>
      </contrib-group>
      <pub-date publication-format="epub" date-type="pub" iso-8601-date="2014">
        <year>2014</year>
      </pub-date>
      <product product-type="book">
        <person-group>
          <name>
            <surname>Ranković, Slavica, Ingvil Brügger Budal, Aidan Conti, Leidulf Melve, and Else
                  Mundal</surname>
            <given-names/>
          </name>
        </person-group>
        <source>Modes of Authorship in the Middle Ages, Papers in Mediaeval Studies, 22</source>
        <year iso-8601-date="2012">2012</year>
        <publisher-loc>Toronto</publisher-loc>
        <publisher-name>Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies</publisher-name>
        <page-range>Pp. viii, 427</page-range>
        <price>$90.00 (hardback)</price>
        <isbn>9780888448224 (hardback)</isbn>
      </product>
      <permissions>
        <copyright-statement>Copyright 2014 Trustees of Indiana University. Indiana University provides the information contained in this file for non-commercial, personal, or research use only. All other use, including but not limited to commercial or scholarly reproductions, redistribution, publication or transmission, whether by electronic means or otherwise, without prior written permission of the copyright holder is strictly prohibited.</copyright-statement>
      </permissions>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <p> "What is an author?" Foucault famously asked. His question was one of a number of
               signals that the author had been displaced from a virtually transcendental position
               to that of a culturally contingent construction. It runs throughout this volume in
               both citation and spirit. In the years since Foucault first posed the question, the
               vast varieties of authorial modes, tactics of authorial fashioning, and forms of
               authorial awareness have become fruitful areas for study. Medievalists, already the
               heirs to the notion that the Middle Ages had no conception of individual genius or
               creativity, took up the study of authorship with particular verve. Previous studies
               have demonstrated the medieval roots of modern, "Romantic" notions of authorship. But
               they have also insisted on the fundamentally creative nature of other modes of
               composition. Such insistence was often inspired by studies of orality and the New
               Philologists' insistence that each material instantiation of discourse be treated as
               its own text, which had the effect of separating works from the control of their
               primal author. Scholars adopting these perspectives examined such activities as
               compilation, memorization, and even what modern sensibilities would define as
               outright plagiarism as modes of authorship in their own right. </p>
    <p> This strong and engaging volume of essays situates its essays as responses to these
               questions, seeking to explore the links between individual authorship and
               "distributed" or communal authorship, which the editors note has become an issue of
               growing concern in an increasingly digital age. These questions also intersect with
               an emerging interest in the "posthuman" brought about by the trenchant questions
               posed by actor-network theory and recent turns toward the hard sciences for both
               epistemological models and evidence that might be applicable to the study of human
               culture. All of these developments can be witnessed in the more theoretical
               contributions to this volume. They converge on the problem of agency in textual
               production, which provides the central theme of the volume. As the editors state, the
               volume is intended to reopen the debate "concerning who should be credited with
               creativity--the talented individual, tradition/society, or the creative process
               itself" (1-2).</p>
    <p> Following a brief Introduction by Slavica Ranković, there are a daunting twenty-one
               essays in this volume. They vary in the degree with which they cohere to the stated
               theme of the volume (although some of the best contributions are those which diverge
               most from that theme). The volume consists of five parts. The opening section,
               "Models of Authorship, Authoring of Models," consists of three essays that survey
               previous theoretical stances and lay out new potential ways of theorizing authorship.
               Atle Kittang's opening essay provides a useful overview of concepts of authorship,
               moving (in only a few pages!) from antiquity to Barthes' famous declaration of the
               author's death, focusing on the somewhat paradoxical fact that the author is
               apparently "dead," yet remains forcefully present as an organizing principle for
               texts, criticism, and scholarship. </p>
    <p> Michael D.C. Drout's paper lays out a theory of authorship intended to reconcile
               three apparently disparate models of authorship: those developed for studying oral
               traditions, those emanating from postmodern literary theory, and the "common-sense"
               and Romantic notion of an actual person composing a text. His theory relies upon the
               idea of memetics, a model first developed by Richard Dawkins for the study of
               genetics that has since been extended to cultural studies. In brief terms, Drout
               suggests that texts be treated as assemblages of self-replicating memes that
               nonetheless require a "host" to assemble them, which permits a model of authorship
               that accommodates both the idea of the author as a unitary agent and the idea of the
               author as a "bricoleur." As a model, it is attractive, but according to my
               understanding of Drout's theory, it explains any act of discursive production.
               Indeed, one of his examples is a child who mutates a nursery rhyme by exclaiming
               "Pop! goes the diesel" instead of "Pop! goes the weasel!" In this case, it does not
               seem to account for one of Foucault's central issues when he asked, "What is an
               Author?" which is that cultures prioritize certain forms of discursive production by
               labelling their creators "authors," while other forms gain no such recognition (a
               personal diary, for instance). In other words, a theory of textual production is not
               quite the same as a theory of authorship, and it seems to me that Drout has produced
               the former. </p>
    <p> Slavica and Miloš Ranković conclude this opening section with a piece that extends
               Drout's interest in genetics and networks to problematize the notion of creativity.
               Based on a thought experiment involving a pair of identical twins who were separated
               at birth and raised in two different milieus--one a rural, oral family and the other
               an urban, literate family--the Rankovićs argue that modalities of tradition create
               different forms of agency and creativity. Although perhaps relying too much on
               outdated ideas about the differences between oral and literate cultures, an issue
               they acknowledge toward the conclusion of the piece, they nonetheless propose a
               nuanced way to think through the problem of creativity in a world of distributed
               agency.</p>
    <p> From here, the volume dives into a multitude of case studies of medieval authorship.
               The second section is titled "Medieval Authorship: Theories and Practices" and serves
               as a bit of a catch-all for essays that did not fit in other sections. P.M. Mehtonen
               examines the multiple "I"s operating in the sermons of Meister Eckhart, finding that
               their power lies in their abstraction, rather than their narrow delineation of
               identity. Farkas Gábor Kiss, in an essay that echoes the work of A.J. Minnis,
               examines the construction of authorship in late medieval Psalm commentaries from
               Central Europe, focusing on the implications of the multiple authorial figures that
               characterize such texts. Sigbjørn Sønnesyn, in a paper that nicely complements his
               recent monograph on William of Malmesbury, examines the seemingly paradoxical
               position of William of Malmesbury, who was apparently just as proud of his ability to
               compile the works of others as he was of his ability to compose new texts. Sønnesyn
               resolves this paradox by situating William in an ethical tradition that prioritized
               the search for wisdom, accomplished by contributing to a shared set of disciplines.
               In this context any form of contribution to that tradition, whether novel or
               derivative, would represent an authoritative act of literary agency. Liedulf Melve
               focuses on the polemical literature associated with the Investiture Conflict,
               demonstrating the ways in which it produced a need for public, authoritative opinions
               from private individuals, thus leading to the construction of individual authorities
               to complement the authoritative force of tradition. Mia Münster-Swendsen conducts an
               elegant reading of the role of irony in the idiosyncratic <italic>Dialogue</italic>
               of Lawrence of Durham--a figure whom she rightly points out deserves more attention
               than he has thus far attracted--and finds remarkable layers of complexity and
               ambiguity in his self-presentation of literary authority. Greti Dinkova-Bruun
               examines the authorial awareness of Aegidius of Paris in his additions and revisions
               to Peter Riga's <italic>Aurora</italic>, a late medieval versified Bible and
               discovers a potential shift in the meaning of "author," away from an authoritative
               figure and toward a writer who self-consciously displays his own creative powers.
               Margareth Hagen's examination of <italic>Orlando Furioso</italic> sits on the cusp
               between medieval and early modern Europe. It argues that Ariosto used his text as a
               staging ground for deconstructing medieval notions of authorship. It is perhaps
               overly reliant on A.J. Minnis' work and deploys a somewhat monolithic understanding
               of "medieval authorship," particularly given the variety illuminated by the rest of
               the volume, but skillfully evokes the layers of authority and authorial voice at play
               in the poem.</p>
    <p> The volume then turns to a quartet of essays that mutually inform each other on
               "Modes of Authorship in Old Norse Literature" (although many of the other essays in
               the volume also deal with Scandinavia). Else Mundal provides a welcome overview of
               textual genres and their related forms of authorship in Old Norse culture that
               usefully orients readers who are not already familiar with this source material. Many
               of the issues she addresses recur in the subsequent essays, including the
               relationship between skaldic poetry with named authors and anonymous Eddic poetry,
               the question of orality and literacy in Norse poetry, and the links between poetic
               and prose texts. Gísli Sigurðsson continues this line of inquiry, demonstrating the
               layered varieties of textual production in medieval Norse literature, from poet to
               performer to scribe, and arguing against the imposition of modern notions of
               authorship on its genre. Sverrir Tómasson examines how Old Norse writers themselves
               categorized and conceptualized various forms of composition and provides a useful
               comparison with the rest of Europe. Bernt Thorvaldsen concludes this part of the
               volume with a study of <italic>The Lay of Ƿrymyr</italic> and <italic>Skírnir's
                  Journey</italic>, echoing the conclusion of both Ranković and Sigurðsson that such
               works cannot be considered to be the work of a single author, but are the products of
               creativity distributed across tradition and history.</p>
    <p> The fourth section turns to a topic that is now well-known among medievalists and
               much studied among those who took up the call of New Philology, namely "Scribes,
               Redactors, Translators, and Compilers as Authors." Aidan Conti's intriguing essay
               takes the familiar stance of proposing to look at the active role of scribes in
               shaping texts via their role as copyists. But he proposes to advance our
               understanding of this phenomenon through an empirical and scientific study of the
               sorts of changes that scribes made and the rationales behind these changes,
               essentially doing for copying and scribal labor what scientific studies of the
               cognitive aspects of reading did for Paul Saenger's <italic>Space Between the
                  Words</italic>. Jonas Wellendorf examines a single manuscript, the late medieval
               collection of saints' lives from Iceland known as <italic>Reykjahólabók</italic>,
               analyzing the changes to the text introduced by Björn Ƿorleifsson introduced into his
               translation of John the Deacon's <italic>vita</italic> of Gregory the Great. Ingvil
               Brügger Budal's contribution examines the Norse translation of Old French stories
               known as <italic>Strengleikar</italic>, a text preserved in a single manuscript. By
               pointing out evidence of multiple redactions still present in the text's single
               exemplar, Budal argues for the limitations of the New Philology, which she sees as
               unconcerned with the prehistory of a work. Although it is a salutary reminder of the
               importance of textual transmission, this seems an overly stringent reading of the New
               Philology, whose most vocal proponents would probably still acknowledge the value of
               knowing a work's prehistory, but argue that each material instance of a work also has
               a textual history of its own. Svanhildur Óskarsdóttir takes the opposite stance by
               piecing together the multiple contributors and underlying rationale of a complex
               composite manuscript of historical texts she terms <italic>Reynistaðarbók</italic>,
               thereby pointing out the limitations of traditional philology's concern with an
               "original" text. Emily Lethbridge concludes this section by meditating on authorial
               anonymity in Icelandic sagas, suggesting that it may not have been a quirk of
               transmission, but a requisite feature intended to inscribe sagas within "tradition."
               By studying alternate processes of authorship witnessed in the titles and rubrics of
               a manuscript of the <italic>Eggertsbók</italic>, she finds evidence of anonymous
               individuals contributing actively to the text, apparently without any notion of an
               original text or author, and yet maintaining their anonymity so as never to displace
               the text from its secure position within an established tradition.</p>
    <p> The volume concludes with two essays on "Medieval Authorship: Arts and Material
               Culture." Henrik von Achen provides a remarkable investigation into the ways in which
               medieval artists might be considered authors or creative agents, suggesting that
               style in medieval art was the sign of human agency in the creation of art, indicating
               its earthly nature. But by drawing attention to the terrestrial status of the
               artistic object, style also served to evoke the divine reality of which the art was
               itself a sign. As a result, convention and creativity intersected to determine the
               function of art, the former maintaining its connection with changeless reality, the
               latter highlighting the image's status as a temporal sign of the eternal. Kristel
               Zimmer draws the volume to a close with a fascinating look into the levels of agency
               and potential for creativity in Scandinavian rune stones, commemorative monuments
               that might seem to be the epitome of convention and tradition, but in fact suggest
               considerable potential for creative input, collaboration, and variety.</p>
    <p> As this summary demonstrates, this volume is a dense and rich collection of
               scholarship. The focus is clearly on the north of Europe, often the far north, with
               Scandinavian topics making up a disproportionate, but not unwelcome percentage of the
               volume. With a few important exceptions the essays exemplify familiar methodologies
               that have been used to study medieval authorship, rather than propose new question.
               Layered authorship or single texts with multiple authors, scribes or compilers as
               authors, the role of tradition in textual production--these are all issues that have
               previously been well-established as important for understanding medieval literary
               culture. But the application of these questions to the variety of new sources and
               figures represented in this volume has greatly expanded their scope and, in many
               cases, led to remarkable new insights that point the way forward. </p>
    <p/>
  </body>
</article>
