In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Reviews 199 The translation is described as 'literal but not word-for-word' (p. 22) and is clear and comprehensible, albeit somewhat stilted. There are some jarringly modem expressions throughout the text; such as, 'if m y father loses his cool' (p. 33), 'the old guy's a real die-hard' (p. 36), 'Itellthem all to get stuffed' (p. 48) and 'so his son doesn't go completely off the rails' (p. 80). The informal register established by these expressions (as well as the occasional use of 'dad' and 'mum' is not matched by the rather awkward literal rendition of the rest of the text. This volume of the Carleton Renaissance plays in translation is almost without enor in presentation, 'overhead' for 'overheard' on p. 15 and some unexplained superscripts in the bibliography apart. Altogether, this volume meets the objectives of the series in offering Bristo in m o d e m English translation for thefirsttime and presenting to the modem reader one of the more celebrated works of the Renaissance in Portugal. Jane Morrison School of Spanish and Latin American Studies University of N e w South Wales Fleming, Robin, Kings and lords in Conquest England, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1991; cloth; pp. xxi, 257; 35 figures, 7 tables; R.R.P. AUS$99.00. Professor Fleming examines land holdings and land holders in England from the later Anglo-Saxon period until Domesday Book, thus covering the conquests of both the Dane Cnut and the Norman William. She stresses the point that these matters are essentially political in nature, since land meant power, and the relationship between the king and the landed aristocracy determined the government of the country. Obviously Domesday Book is an incomparable source of information, confidently handled here, while the sparser pre-1086 material is capably and profitably pressed into service. A steady hand is required to gather and digest the evidence of holdings, family relationships, conflicts and ambitions. Some notion of the author's success in controlting the complexities and tangles of the story may be seen in a highly complicated, indeed daunting, diagram (p. 119) setting out the disposition of Anglo-Saxon land holdings to Norman lords. The events of the latetenthand eleventh centuries and of 1066 and after are shown to have had a common feature, that is the supplanting and dispossession of the established aristocracy. This had evidently begun even before Cnut's appearance, and was intensified thereafter. Thus Godwin and his famtiy achieved a pre-eminence of power and wealth, despite the lack of a substantial pedigree. The arrival of the Normans, the author argues, was the second stage of 'violent tenurial discontinuity' which affected both lay and ecclesiastical lordships and 200 Reviews was a far more drastic reorganization of land holding than has ordinarily been acknowledged. There are several misprints which cause no bother, but one wonders whether profferment (p. 6), proported (p. 86), Graem (p. 16, for Graeme) and parimeter (p. 195) were not in fact intentional. There are also numerous editorial failures which need amendment Thus: p. 26, footnote 28,1. 5 remove the apostrophe s; p. 60,1. 17 remove 'of; p. 131,11. 23-24 insert 'of before Robert and remove 'of after Malet and BerUng; p. 135,1. 13 for 'had' read 'was'; p. 151, footnote 34,1. 4 insert divisione before alique; p. 158,1. 25 for 'Osbert' read 'Osbern' (and enter the reference in the index, p. 254); p. 172,1. 5 for 'antecession' read 'succession'. Footnote 64 on p. 30 repeats (with a slight difference) what already appears in the text. Footnote 6 on p. 218 refers to 'thistext'without previous identification. O n p. 202, 11. 31, 33 the word 'temerity', as a translation of Latin timor is used as if it meant duress. On p. 126,1. 17 'he' should read 'him' and on p. 34,1. 16 and p. 48,1. 9 many would prefer 'whom' rather than 'who'. Are colloquialisms or slang acceptable in a learned work, even in this age of decay? Thus we find 'pinched' (p. 190,1.16) and 'grab a . . . chunk' (p. 196,11. 28-29). The Cambridge University Press has evidently wished to...

pdf

Share