MLR, 96.I, 200I MLR, 96.I, 200I pedagogy of the literal sense overstepped orthodox bounds to grasphermeneutical and political agency. One of the longer contributionsin the volume is a richlythoughtfuldiscussionby Nicholas Watson of the way the English vernacular, far from denigrating the religious matter for which it increasinglyserved as a vehicle, was on the contrary ennobled by it, and became, as it were, a stylisticsite for a vernaculartheology of kenosis. Indeed, only in thevernacularcould 'homely'theologyfinditsvoice. Shorter than Watson's,but equally well pondered, is Ruth Evans'sdeliberationon how the modes of addressof stagedbodies areable to constructidentitiesfortheiraudiences. In particular, she is interested in the possible positions assumed by medieval Yorkaudiences in relation to the performance of Mary's body. (The evidence for earlyaudience responseto plays, though it is indeed sparse,is, however, fractionally more than she allows, but this does not spoil her general argument.)Finally, Bruce Holsinger peels away the familiarview of music as token of harmony and stability to reveal 'a host of spectacularly violent musical practices'. This essay, chiefly focusing on The Prioress'sTale, had severalstrikingapperfus, althoughforme it was in places insecure. For example, is stotiandon page I8o really to be glossed as 'stuttering'?I would have thought 'studying' more likely. And does the young clergeon really go through theJewish ghetto 'bellowing' the Almaredemptoris mater? That seems to me tendentious;there is matter enough in Holsinger'sargumentnot to warrant lapses into overstatement. And I missed any reference to the highly germane studybyJohn Stevens of Words andMusicintheMiddle Ages. Speakingof ghettos,were thisnew seriesto end up as one for the enfants terribles of medieval Englishstudies,thatwould be a pity. It has begun splendidly,and itwould be sad were it not to follow through on the initial promise it shows. Perhaps any ghettoizing might be resisted if it really adheres to the policy that Scase has ennunciated:the essaysarejustifiedin and of themselves.This would mean that the gates ofNewMedieval Literatures would ideallyclose againstany singleand totalitarian partyline and be open, conversely,to pluralism,to contributionsof allcomplexions, including, dare it be said by someone who has writtenwearing various hats, those of a traditionalcast. In thisway it would provide a hospitablethreshold,welcoming and wide enough to facilitatethe crossingof categoryboundariesat everylevel, and in thisway trulyto do medieval studiesa service. UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN ALANJ. FLETCHER Literacy in MedievalCelticSocieties. Ed. by Huw PRYCE. (Cambridge Studies in Medieval Literature,33) Cambridge,New York,and Melbourne:Cambridge University Press. I998. xiii + 297 pp. ?40; $59-95. The aim of this importantvolume of thirteen studiesis to examine the evidence for literary and pragmatic literacy in Celtic communities from c.400 to c.1500 in the light of contemporary discussions. The concept of 'medieval Celtic societies' as a culturalentity is a doubtful one, and though there are some points of comparison, the dissimilaritybetween these societies, at least as far as present evidence goes, is more marked. Several of these studies make telling comparisons not so much between early Celtic communities as with European patterns in England and France. Almost all the authorsof these essaysmake the caveat that the evidence that has survivedmay not be representativeof the range and purposes of literacy in society (the issues raised in the papers are, of course, themselves selective), so that there is the danger of readingboth too much and too little into the existence or the absence pedagogy of the literal sense overstepped orthodox bounds to grasphermeneutical and political agency. One of the longer contributionsin the volume is a richlythoughtfuldiscussionby Nicholas Watson of the way the English vernacular, far from denigrating the religious matter for which it increasinglyserved as a vehicle, was on the contrary ennobled by it, and became, as it were, a stylisticsite for a vernaculartheology of kenosis. Indeed, only in thevernacularcould 'homely'theologyfinditsvoice. Shorter than Watson's,but equally well pondered, is Ruth Evans'sdeliberationon how the modes of addressof stagedbodies areable to constructidentitiesfortheiraudiences. In particular, she is interested in the possible positions assumed by medieval Yorkaudiences in relation to the performance of Mary's body. (The evidence for earlyaudience responseto plays, though it is indeed sparse,is, however, fractionally more than she allows, but this does not spoil her general argument.)Finally, Bruce Holsinger peels away the familiarview of...