La Lumere as Lais by Pierre D'Abernon of Fetcham (review)

Reviews 243 to engage the relationships between the orality of action and the literacy ofrecord in medieval society and also a misleading statement of focus in the title seriously detractfromits value. John H. Pryor Centrefor Medieval Studies University of Sydney Hesketh, Glynn, ed., La Lumere as Lais by Pierre D Abernon ofFetcham, Vol. Ill (Anglo-Norman Texts 58), London, Anglo-Norman Text Society, 2000; cloth; pp. vii, 218; R R P £30; ISBN 0905474392. La lumere as Ms, a thirteenth-century Anglo-Norman text known to specialist as a kind of theological encyclopaedia loosely based on the Elucidarium of Honorius of Autun, is one of three texts attributed to Pierre d'Abernon of Fetcham, alias Pierre de Peckham, described in 1950 by M . Dominica Legge as 'one ofthe most well-meaning but stupendously dull writers in Anglo-Norman'. Pierre's other two texts (Le Secre de Secrez and La Vie seint Richard evesque de Cycestre) have both been published in the A N T S series, in 1944 and 1995 respectively. Volumes I and II, containing the complete text of the Lumere as Lais, were published in 1996 and 1998. The Lumere is a sort of lamp for the laity, cast in the form of a scholastic catechism. The text is structured as a series of comments made and questions posed by a pupil, designated in the text as [D], to a master [M] who replies and illustrates. Please refer to m y review of Volume II (Parergon, vol. 17, no. 2, 2000, 252-54) for a more detailed discussion of Professor Hesketh's text of the Lumere. Volume IH, which appeared in 2000, gives Hesketh's introduction, notes, glossary and indexes, to facilitate scholars' consultation ofthis mysterious AngloNorman writer's work. In a brief 'Preface', Professors Rothwell and Short are thanked for their guidance to the editor. The evidence on the 'Author and Date' of the Lumere is then summarised, without the continuing uncertainties surrounding the author's double identity (Peter d'Abernon of Fetcham/Peter of Peckham) being much elucidated, although a terminus ad quern of 1267 is established for the date of composition. A valuable section on the background of the Lumere then sets our text in its proper context with important influences highlighted. Concerning the 244 Reviews content of the work, Hesketh emphasises the importance as a background to the Lumere of those edicts of the fourth Lateran Council (1215-16) related to the examination of ordinands and the regular instruction of parishioners in the vernacular. Other Anglo-Norman instructional manuals composed with similar intentions, such as the Mirour de Seinte Eglyse, the Chasteau d'Amour and the Manuel des Peches, are mentioned and shown in relationship with the Lumere. Concerning the form of our text, the editor establishes that the Lumere partakes of elements of the two principal teaching methods of the European universities in the Middle Ages, namely the lecture and the disputation. The Lumere as Lais is shown to be part of the encyclopaedic Aristotelian movement of the 13th century, mention being made by Hesketh ofits larger Latin analogues, Vincent of Beauvais's Specula, for example, or the works of Thomas de Cantimpre and Bartholomaeus Anglicus. In the section on sources, w e learn that the Elucidarium is followed fairly closely for thefirstbook ofthe Lumere and a little ofthe second, but then is abandoned in favour of the much larger work ofPeter the Lombard's Sentences. The editor suggests other texts Peter may have used as sources, although there is quite a large section ofthe Lumere whose sources have not been definitively identified. Whilst further research may well discover other sources, Hasketh puts forward tentatively that Peter may even have been the author for certain sections of 'sermonising' material, marked by very concrete and worldly subject matter. There are clues in the text, cited by Hasketh, which do in fact strongly suggest that Peter is claiming authorship of certain material. The necessarily highly technical and precise section on the recension and description ofmanuscripts is most competently done by our editor, and his 'Editorial Practice' is equally clearly and concisely described. The introductory remarks are concluded with a long section on language, subdivided into...