conclusion that could synthesize its larger argument and point readers to new directions for study. This is a shame because there really are many good lines to follow that readers must tease out for themselves. Second, while I appreciate that one cannot cover all aspects of a topic one might like to, when Thomas frames ‘reinvention’ as something poetical, it is the more surprising that he habitually reads Piers Plowman as if it were a treatise. I hear echoes of the late, great Derek Pearsall saying, ‘you wouldn’t know it was a poem.’ You wouldn’t know it was an allegory much, either, because Thomas treats characters as seemingly interchangeable participants in penitential acts; with the partial exception of Mede, he tends not to consider how the poem enacts or explores the central nature of abstractions or faculties that people it. He doesn’t often look at how this passage relates to that one, either, which is so central to the poem’s amazing poetics. Passages and persons seem pinned to the page like specimens rather than being shown to be fluid in their shifting natures, which is more characteristic of the poem. In noting that Contricion can no longer cry, for instance, Thomas treats Contricion like any penitent not performing to script (p. 60). But genuine tears exemplify the essence of contrition; in an allegory the loss of self means a change into something else, or stupefaction of the sort Contricion becomes lost in. Contricion’s inability to cry prompts us to ponder what contrition is, not just what Contricion does. Thinking more systematically about poetics and allegory might help Thomas to come to stronger conclusions about what the poem is doing, too. Finally, again with the greatest respect for the serious learning the book displays, whole areas of Piers Plowman scholarship that would have been useful to Thomas remain untapped, and many scholars whose arguments could have made a difference— particularly with regard to poetics, allegory, figuration, metaphor, and the Charters of Christ—are not engaged. The good news is that while work may remain undone, Thomas has nevertheless achieved much as well. A product of time-intensive preparation, Thomas’s book offers an innovative model for framing arguments about law and literature, and leaves much to ponder.

中文翻译：

---

书评：牛津圣诞手册

结论可以综合其更大的论点，并为读者指明新的研究方向。这是一种耻辱，因为确实有许多好的台词可供读者自己梳理。其次，虽然我理解人们无法涵盖一个人可能喜欢的主题的所有方面，但当托马斯将“再发明”描述为一种诗意的东西时，更令人惊讶的是，他习惯性地把皮尔斯·普洛曼 (Piers Plowman) 当作一篇论文来阅读。我听到已故伟大的德里克·皮尔索尔的回声说，“你不会知道这是一首诗。” 你也不会知道这是一个寓言，因为托马斯将人物视为看似可以互换的忏悔行为的参与者。除了梅德（Mede）的部分例外，他倾向于不考虑这首诗如何制定或探索抽象的核心本质或赋予它的能力。他也不经常关注这段经文与那段经文的关系，这对这首诗的惊人诗学至关重要。段落和人物似乎像标本一样固定在页面上，而不是在其变化的性质中表现出流动性，这更符合这首诗的特征。例如，在注意到 Contricion 不能再哭时，Thomas 将 Contricion 视为任何不按剧本执行的忏悔者（第 60 页）。但真正的眼泪体现了忏悔的本质；在一个寓言中，自我的丧失意味着变成了别的东西，或者是那种 Contricion 迷失在其中的麻痹。更系统地思考诗学和寓言可能有助于托马斯对这首诗的作用得出更强有力的结论。最后，再次以对本书所展示的严肃学习的最大尊重，对托马斯有用的皮尔斯·普洛曼学术的整个领域仍未开发，许多学者的论点可能会有所作为——特别是在诗学、寓言、形象化方面，隐喻和基督宪章——没有参与。好消息是，虽然工作可能仍未完成，但托马斯也取得了很多成就。托马斯的书经过大量时间准备，为构建有关法律和文学的论点提供了一个创新模型，并留下了很多值得思考的地方。许多学者的论点本可以产生影响——尤其是在诗学、寓言、形象、隐喻和基督宪章方面——并没有参与其中。好消息是，虽然工作可能仍未完成，但托马斯也取得了很多成就。托马斯的书经过大量时间准备，为构建有关法律和文学的论点提供了一个创新模型，并留下了很多值得思考的地方。许多学者的论点本可以产生影响——尤其是在诗学、寓言、形象、隐喻和基督宪章方面——并没有参与其中。好消息是，虽然工作可能仍未完成，但托马斯也取得了很多成就。托马斯的书经过大量时间准备，为构建有关法律和文学的论点提供了一个创新模型，并留下了很多值得思考的地方。