University of Groningen
Dulce et Utile Kuipers, Nadine
DOI:
10.33612/diss.131640944
IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from it. Please check the document version below.
Document Version
Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record
Publication date: 2020
Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database
Citation for published version (APA):
Kuipers, N. (2020). Dulce et Utile: The (Im)practicality of agricultural texts in middle english manuscripts and printed husbandry books. University of Groningen. https://doi.org/10.33612/diss.131640944
Copyright
Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).
Take-down policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.
Propositions
1. It is time that agricultural texts, which for a long time belonged to the domain of historical and linguistic analysis, are acknowledged as primarily literary products.
2. Network analysis has the capacity of advancing our thinking about the circulation of texts within a specific socio-cultural context, revealing what kinds of texts were commonly read by a certain audience, and indicating parallel transmission of texts or the sharing of exemplars.
3. Without appreciation of the cultural context of their classical antecedents, we cannot make any assumptions as to the practical utility of agricultural texts.
4. Books of (secret) knowledge, including those on grafting, allowed gentry readers to associate themselves as part of an erudite in-group.
5. The gentrification of medieval texts was not limited to literary genres.
6. The co-occurrence of didactic and agricultural texts in manuscripts illustrates how younger members of the medieval gentry were readied for landownership through the written word.
7. Most medieval grafting texts were unfit for practical use: rather than “practical books for the gentleman”, they should be considered “impractical books for the gentleman”.
8. Considering the proximity between grafting texts and books of secrets, ‘magical’ recipes and charms, prognostications, and alchemy can provide us with a more accurate sense of what kinds of literature medieval readers did or did not use practically.
9. The images of knights combating snails, archers shooting at butterflies, and victims of violent rabbits, which frequently adorn the margins of medieval manuscripts, represent frustrated gardeners trying to rid their vegetable patches of hungry intruders.
10. “Botanisch Twistgesprek”, a poem by the Dutch author Drs. P, can be read as a modern sequel to John the Gardener’s “Feate of Gardening”.
11. If John Skelton were to be teleported to the present day, he would surely have an opinion on the fact that his legacy lives on in Diss rather than Westminster.
12. The taboo on writing in books should be lifted, as it will help ensure the livelihoods of future book historians.
