that a debate soon emerged about the permissibility of ministers making the sign of the cross with their hands during baptism—here an image became central to debates between Puritans and the Church. The chapters ends with a detailed treatment of the fate of the Cheapside Cross which highlights how easily iconoclasm could become a platform for debate about other issues—royal authority, national memory, popular politics to name only three. Each of the book’s nine chapters treats its themes in equivalent chronological scope and forensic detail. Throughout readers are shown that debates about images were emblematic of debates and contradictions within the Reformation itself. Images were central to the Protestant protest against Rome because they encapsulated the divisions over spirit, matter and authority between the old faith and the new. Putting that protest into practice raised a host of other issues—the nature of representation, the relationship between word and image, the boundaries of authority in the church, the legitimacy and seemliness of violence—which made images central to the Reformation, state and belief in subsequent generations. The problems posed by iconoclasm were unresolved and ever potent. This is an important book by a very fine scholar. One wishes, however, that Aston had integrated her work more closely into the historiography of the Reformation. Doing so would have done her remarkable scholarship justice. We learn a great deal here about the debates surrounding images and their destruction, and we are shown the huge variety in the practice of iconoclasm and the old and new uses of imagery in post-Reformation society. How this relates to current post-revisionist debates about the reception of the Reformation, to emerging work on the role of the senses (Milner/Hallet) and the emotions (Ryrie/Karant-Nunn) in both Catholic and Protestant piety, or to the vibrant body of scholarship which is demonstrating the vitality of the many strains of Catholicism in English society after the Reformation is not spelt out, however. Aston has created an important and fascinating account of images and their destruction: it will be for future scholars to place her insights in a wider context.

中文翻译：

---

Salvador Ryan和Clodagh Tait编辑。爱尔兰城市的宗教与政治，c。1500–c。1750年：以纪念科尔姆·列侬的论文，都柏林：四个法院，2016年，第288页，55欧元，ISBN：978-1-84682-574-3

不久就出现了关于大臣们是否可以接受洗礼的迹象的辩论—在这里，形象成为清教徒与​​教会之间辩论的核心。本章最后以对Cheapside Cross命运的详细处理作为结尾，其中强调了圣像侵害如何轻松地成为辩论其他问题的平台，包括王室权威，国家记忆，大众政治等等。这本书的九章中的每一章都以相等的时间范围和法医细节来对待其主题。整个读者都看到，有关图像的辩论是宗教改革本身内部辩论和矛盾的象征。图像是新教徒针对罗马的抗议活动的核心，因为它们封装了旧信仰与新信仰之间在精神，物质和权威方面的分歧。将抗议活动付诸实践提出了许多其他问题，例如表征的性质，文字与图像之间的关系，教堂中权威的界限，暴力的合法性和外在性，这些使图像成为宗教改革，国家和信仰的核心在后代。由圣像破坏所造成的问题尚未解决，而且一直很有效。这是一位非常优秀的学者的重要著作。但是，人们希望阿斯顿把她的工作更紧密地融入到宗教改革的史学中。这样做将使她的学术成就斐然。在这里，我们对围绕图像及其销毁的争论了解很多，并且向我们展示了在圣像崇拜的实践中以及在改革后社会中图像的新旧用途方面的多样性。这与当前的后修正主义者关于接受宗教改革的辩论，与在天主教和新教虔诚中的感官作用（米尔纳/哈利特）和情感作用（瑞丽/卡兰特-南恩）的新兴工作或与然而，并未阐明改革之后的充满活力的学术体系，说明了英国社会天主教的许多派别的生命力。阿斯顿创造了一个重​​要而有趣的图像及其销毁方法：将来的学者将把她的见解放在更广阔的背景下。或充满活力的学术体系，这表明了改革之后并未阐明天主教在英国社会中的许多派别的生命力。阿斯顿·阿斯顿（Aston）对图像及其破坏创造了重要而有趣的描述：将来的学者将把她的见解放在更广阔的背景下。或充满活力的学术体系，这表明了改革之后并未阐明天主教在英国社会中的许多派别的生命力。阿斯顿创造了一个重​​要而有趣的图像及其销毁方法：将来的学者将把她的见解放在更广阔的背景下。