<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?>
<!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">21.08.02</article-id>
            <title-group>
                <article-title>21.08.02, Bynum, Dissimilar Similitudes</article-title>
            </title-group>
            <contrib-group>
                <contrib contrib-type="author">
                    <name>
                        <surname>Michael Randall</surname>
                        <given-names/>
                    </name>
                    <aff>Brandeis University</aff>
                    <address>
                        <email>randall@brandeis.edu</email>
                    </address>
                </contrib>
            </contrib-group>
            <pub-date publication-format="epub" date-type="pub" iso-8601-date="2021">
                <year>2021</year>
            </pub-date>
            <product product-type="book">
                <person-group>
                    <name>
                        <surname>Bynum, Caroline Walker</surname>
                        <given-names/>
                    </name>
                </person-group>
                <source>Dissimilar Similitudes: Devotional Objects in Late Medieval Europe</source>
                <year iso-8601-date="2020">2020</year>
                <publisher-loc>Brooklyn, NY</publisher-loc>
                <publisher-name>Zone Books</publisher-name>
                <page-range>Pp. 343</page-range>
                <price>$32.95 (hardback)</price>
                <isbn>978-1-942130-37-6 (hardback)</isbn>
            </product>
            <permissions>
                <copyright-statement>Copyright 2021 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>Caroline Walker Bynum makes the case, in <italic>Dissimilar Similitudes: Devotional
                Objects in Late Medieval Europe</italic>, that we should concentrate on the
            "thingness" of objects in order to see their true natures. We need, she says, to get
            beyond thinking of objects of devotion from the late European Middle Ages in contexts
            that make us mistake their real meaning. In order to do this, we need to try to
            understand how they were used. Bynum illustrates this idea by referring to an exhibit
            held at the Detroit Museum in 1960 that described a fifteenth-century cradle as
            furniture. Bynum explains that this sort of object needs to be understood from a
            performative point of view. By concentrating on the practice of the women like the
            Beguines who dressed Christ figures in cribs like the one in the Detroit exhibition we
            are able to understand the complex nature of this object. He was both divine and human.
            The crib and the figures in it point to a more complex nature than that of a piece of
            furniture. The performative aspect of objects such as this crib, which was too often
            ignored in earlier scholarship, allows use to understand how things such as the crib are
            not mere pieces of furniture. </p>
        <p>The example of this crib illustrates how the nuances of an object's meaning are revealed
            through its being understood as part of a practice. Dressing the Christ figure in the
            crib shows how the object could be understood as both divine and human, and literal and
            analogical. The handling of the Christ child in the crib brings into focus the dual
            nature of any object of devotion--it was human and divine and played on both earthly and
            heavenly registers. Bynum studies the same kind of ambiguity in relation to crowns that
            nuns at a convent in Wienhausen in Germany made for statues of the Virgin Mary. The
            crowns function on both literal and allegorical levels. The nuns' awareness of the
            distance between heaven and earth meant that the crown maintained the same sort of
            ambiguity that the Beguine cribs had. They were signs of how humans were both like and
            different from the divine. The practice of dressing the Christ child figure and the use
            of the crowns on the statues of the Virgin Mary are what reveal their true meaning. </p>
        <p>One of the most important issues in the book regards the distinction between relic and
            image. If the latter were dependent on a supposed likeness with a divine referent, the
            former needed to be understood very differently. Relics were the thing itself and did
            not need to be considered as like or unlike anything else. The distinction between
            relics and images is crucial to Bynum's overall argument. Too often, as she states,
            modern scholars do not grasp how certain objects were not supposed to be understood as
            like something else, but were, in fact the thing itself. </p>
        <p>In this regard, she quotes David Freedberg who explained that images were not
            consecrated, whereas objects such as altar vessels, cemeteries, and oil, water, bread
            and wine used in the sacraments were. The problem is that often we do not grasp the
            importance of this distinction. The idea is that what seems an image might not
            necessarily be one. When dealing with relics, for instance, it is important t to
            understand that they do not function as images do. Where images might depict something,
            the relic represents that thing itself, in the sense that it makes it present again. </p>
        <p>To help illustrate this point, Bynum refers to Johannes Bremer, a fifteenth-century
            German Franciscan, who describes items such as the clothing of Christ, the cross and the
            instruments of the passion as precious relics. As Bynum points out, none of the things
            Bremer lists are images: they are all relics that re-present the humanity of Christ
            rather than depict him or resemble him in some way. Bynum deepens her argument by
            explaining that it is not necessarily true as some cognitive scientists,
            anthropologists, and art historians have said that an anthropomorphic focus on the human
            body as a locus of the divine is a necessary stage in the evolution of religions. She
            cites examples from Hinduism and the Eucharistic host to counter such conclusions. These
            examples show that a depiction of the human body is not necessary for devout individual
            to attain salvation or knowledge of the divine. The relic, which is the thing itself,
            rather than an image of a divine figure is the more vital link between heaven and
            earth.</p>
        <p>The distinction between relic and image is central to some of the most crucial arguments
            Bynum develops. Bynum makes the case, for example, that medieval objects of devotion
            cannot simply be digitized and/or made parts of a narrative in modern museum exhibits.
            She singles out paintings of host desecration that are part of an exhibit at the Jewish
            Museum in Berlin. At the moment, these paintings are only presented as digitized images,
            or referred to as parts of historicizing narratives. The author makes the case that the
            modern museum-goer needs to see these objects since they are not simply images in a
            modern sense. Medieval images are objects in a way that Renaissance or modern artworks
            are not. Because of the medieval image's near iconic nature, we need to confront these
            objects themselves.</p>
        <p>In one of the most telling developments of her argument concerning the need to understand
            how an object of devotion functions within a context of social practice, Bynum compares
            what at first seem two similar objects of devotion in Hindu and Christian religious
            traditions. Alluding to Marc Bloch's call for a comparative history in 1928, Bynum
            compares a Hindu religious procession to Christian processions. She begins by explaining
            that the Durga Puja processions (the term <italic>puja</italic> means "the ritual of
            worship") in India would seem to offer a promising parallel to the processions of
            statues of the Virgin Mary often found in Christian countries. In both Hindu and
            Christian practices, statues of female deities are processed through the streets in acts
            of public devotion. One major difference, nonetheless, Bynum notes, concerns the end of
            the procession. At the end of these Christian processions, the statues of the Virgin
            Mary are returned to their churches. At the end of the Hindu processions, the statue of
            Durga Puja is immersed in the sacred water of the river Ganga. The statue falls apart
            and is transformed back into a more elemental state in the water of the river. This is,
            Bynum explains, typical of the transformational status of Hindu gods. </p>
        <p>Bynum uses this example to illustrate the problem with what she calls "pseudomorphism"
            which would see likeness where in fact there is none. In this case, the comparison of
            the processions devoted to the Virgin Mary and the Durga Puja processions in India is
            based on the misleading superficial resemblance of the statues involved in the
            processions. A better comparison would be between these images of transformative gods
            and the Christian Eucharistic communion wafer. Although the communion wafer might not
            bear the same sort of visual resemblance with the Durga Puja procession as do the
            processions of the Virgin Mary, it does share the same kind of transformative function.
            Simply because things might look alike does not mean that they are actually alike. It is
            only by working through that surface-level resemblance and revealing how these objects
            are used that we can understand their true meaning. </p>
        <p>The author uses a talk she gave at a symposium on "xenophilia," or the love of the other,
            as the basis of the final chapter of the book, which also serves as its conclusion.
            Bynum explores how images of Christ's footprints from European Middle Ages function as
            proof of both absence and presence. By looking at how characters in depictions of
            Christ's ascension looked at the figure of the ascendant Christ, the author shows how
            these images bear witness to the gap between the present and the absent. She uses this
            image finally as a kind of conclusion to the book: we as scholars, she says, look at the
            gap between cultures. Scholars need to make sure that they understand how the objects
            they study were used if they are to understand the true nature of the gap between now
            and then, and between different cultures. In this way, we will avoid misunderstanding
            the meaning of objects and mistake the cribs described in chapter one, for example,
            simply as pieces of furniture. </p>
        <p><italic>Dissimilar Similitudes</italic> is a fascinating study of devotional objects in
            the late European Middle Ages by a remarkable historian at the top of her game. The
            theoretical breadth of the study is brilliantly backed up with myriad examples that the
            author lines up almost like a prosecutor might in a court case to prove to a jury the
            guilt or innocence of a person accused of a crime. In this instance, Bynum does a very
            good job of prosecuting the case that objects of devotion from the late Middle Ages need
            to be understood in all their singular beauty. The prime suspects in the case that Bynum
            brings are those scholars who have lost sight of the thingness of the devotional
            objects.</p>
        <p>Scholars need finally to understand not only what objects looked like, but also how they
            were used. Morphological resemblance can lead scholars astray and Bynum's point that we
            need to understand the singularity of the objects we study in their singularity is well
            taken. This book also will be of interest to historians, art historians, and even
            literary scholars, especially those interested in how language can also have an
            equivocal nature, much like many of the objects studied here. All in all, Bynum's book
            is like the work of a deft restorer who carefully wipes awaythe varnish of an earlier,
            and perhaps overly invasive restoration, and allows us to see objects from the late
            Middle Ages in fresh and sometimes unexpected ways.</p>
    </body>
</article>