Temple in 1 Kings 6), and the historical interactions between East and West as critical in the proliferation of foliate friezes in France (p. 186). An afterword cogently describes the use of real plants within churches, during Holy Week, and throughout the year. This brief outline attests to the breadth of Doquang’s project: she has taken a singular element present in some buildings and attempted to contextualise it from a number of different angles, particularly those that were as available to the medieval viewers of these friezes as they are to present-day scholars. Perhaps most ambitious of all, though, is Doquang’s effort throughout to reconceptualise the status of ornament, which has remained on the losing side of unfair matches between ‘structure’ and ‘meaning.’ She argues that such problematic dichotomies have ‘hinder[ed] rather than enable[d] the study of non-figural motifs in medieval art’ (p. 19), which have suffered largely due to the lack of associated texts that have stunted traditional iconographic analysis. Doquang’s multipronged efforts might be used as an exemplar of how to move beyond the iconographic and facilitate a more sophisticated analysis of that non-figural imagery in media which has been dismissed previously as merely ‘decorative.’ Although primarily concerned with the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, Doquang frequently draws from later medieval examples and the related literature, which sometimes seems to flatten the richness of the monuments that she centralises. However, this serves to invite further scholarship on the role of foliate decoration in medieval art and architecture more broadly. It also introduces German-language scholarship in the area to an Anglophone audience and contextualises the high medieval material. The volume is wellproduced and illustrated, though one might argue that the ‘central’ object, the Amiens frieze, deserves more photographic coverage than it receives. These critiques are minor, however. The Lithic Garden offers a fresh perspective on some of France’s most well-trodden medieval monuments, and is an inspiring art historical contribution to the so-called ‘ecological turn’ in the humanities.

中文翻译：

---

都铎家族

1王6中的圣殿），以及东西方之间的历史互动对法国叶形fr的扩散至关重要（第186页）。后记有力地描述了在圣周期间以及全年在教堂内使用真实植物的情况。这个简短的轮廓证明了Doquang项目的广度：她采用了某些建筑物中存在的奇异元素，并尝试从多个不同角度对它进行情境化，尤其是中世纪的观众对这些带状装饰的了解现今的学者。不过，也许最雄心勃勃的是Doquang在整个过程中重新构想装饰状态的努力，这仍然是“结构”与“含义”之间不公平匹配的失败方面。“她认为，这种有问题的二分法“阻碍了而不是使人们无法研究中世纪艺术中的非图形图案”（第19页），这在很大程度上是由于缺乏相关联的文本所致。传统的图像分析。Doquang的多方面努力可以用作示例，以说明如何超越图像，并促进对媒体中的非数字图像进行更复杂的分析，该图像先前被视为“装饰性”。尽管主要与十二世纪和十三世纪有关，但多昆经常引用后来的中世纪例子和相关文献，有时似乎使她集中的古迹的丰富度变得平坦。然而，这有助于就叶面装饰在中世纪艺术和建筑中的作用提供更广泛的学术机会。它还向该地区的英语学习者介绍了该地区的德语奖学金，并结合了高级中世纪资料。该卷制作精良并有插图，尽管有人可能会认为“中央”物体亚眠带状物应获得比其所获得的更多的摄影覆盖率。但是，这些批评是次要的。锂花园为法国一些最受人尊敬的中世纪古迹提供了崭新的视角，并且对人文科学的“生态转向”做出了令人鼓舞的艺术历史贡献。尽管有人可能会争辩说，“中心”物体亚眠带状物的摄影覆盖范围要比所获得的要多。但是，这些批评是次要的。锂花园为法国一些最受人尊敬的中世纪古迹提供了崭新的视角，并且对人文科学的“生态转向”做出了令人鼓舞的艺术历史贡献。尽管有人可能会争辩说，“中心”物体亚眠带状物的摄影覆盖范围要比所获得的要多。但是，这些批评是次要的。锂花园为法国一些最受人尊敬的中世纪古迹提供了崭新的视角，并且对人文科学的“生态转向”做出了令人鼓舞的艺术历史贡献。