Academic literature on the topic 'Bible., N.T. - Manuscripts, Greek'

AbstractThe so-called Caucasian Albanian Palimpsest kept in St. Catherine's Monastery on Mt. Sinai for the first time allows to draw a comprehensive picture of one of the languages (probably the state language) of the third medieval Christian kingdom in Transcaucasia, namely (Caucasian) Albania. The relevant parts of the two palimpsest manuscripts (Sin. N 13 and N 55) covering roughly 120 pages (that is two thirds of the two manuscripts) have been deciphered, interpreted, and translated in the course of an international project running since 2003. The Caucasian Albanian texts comprise a) fragments of a Lectionary, and b) parts of the Gospel of John, written by a different hand in a different style. A number of both text-internal and text-external arguments suggest that the original manuscripts were produced in the 7th century A.D. The analysis of the texts clearly argues in favour of the assumption that the translators relied upon corresponding Old Armenian sources. Nevertheless, it can be shown that the texts in parts deviate from those Old Armenian Bible texts that have survived to our days, so that Georgian, Greek, and Syriac sources must also be taken into account. The readable passages of the two texts furnish us with roughly 8,000 word tokens (some 1,000 lemmatised lexical entries). Hence, the Caucasian Albanian palimpsest gives a considerable insight into the lexicon, grammar, and phonology of its language, which can now safely be identified as an early variant of Udi (East Caucasian, Lezgian). Caucasian Albanian (or Old Udi) differs from present-day Udi in a number of features, including an additional set of palatalised consonants, a more conservative system of local case markers, gender distinction within the set of anaphoric pronouns, and a stronger tendency to construe larger clitic chains. The lexicon is marked for three aspects: a) the preservation of Lezgian terms lost in present-day Udi; b) a set of loans from Armenian and (less prominent) from Georgian; c) loan translations especially from Armenian. The syntax of the texts comes close to that of its sources; however, the texts also exhibit a number of syntactic features alien to both Armenian and Georgian. This suggests that the translators tried to find a balance between the preservation of the original wording of the sources and the necessity to meet the needs of the Caucasian Albanian speaking audience.

Language contact in translation: The initial stage in the development of the definite article in the light of the Gothic text of the Bible. Summary: Definiteness (weak determination) is a characteristic of grammatical constructions whose base is a name, and whose formative is an article (a weak determiner). In definiteness, we distinguish between exponents (which are formatives of the mentioned grammatical constructions), e.g. the, a(n), functives (or determinants), and formal values (viz. definite, indefinite, and bare). Functives are the factors which, at the stage of encoding, determine the occurrence of particular exponents. They are either formal (e.g. the target role of the article as an exponent of nominalization) or logico-semantic. The latter make a system whose components are the actual scope values of a countable common name, viz. α1 = unique, α2 = identifying, β = free, γ1 = universal, γ2 = existential, and δ = species-oriented. They correspond to the subsets of the scope of the name which, at the stage of encoding, are those to be conveyed in the message, and, at the stage of decoding, are recognized as actually conveyed. The types of functives mentioned are applied to the analysis of the use of the simple demonstrative sa (m.), sō (f.), þata (n.) ‘this, that’ in the Gothic translation of the Bible. It is shown that this demonstrative can be qualified as an article or article-like determiner when it appears as (a) an exponent of co-reference, i.e. when the actual scope value of the name it precedes is α2 (identifying), e.g. hundafaþs … sa hundafaþs ‘a centurion … the centurion’ (b) an exponent of nominalization, e.g. sa saiands ‘the (one) sowing’, ‘the sower’, and as (c) an element connecting the components of an appositive construction, e.g. sunus meins sa liuba ‘my son the beloved (one)’. Such types of the use of the demonstrative are treated as the initial stage in the development of the definite article in Gothic. It is probable that in a similar way, and especially as an exponent of co-reference, this article started to develop also in other languages. The influence of the Greek original upon the use of the Gothic simple demonstrative as a counterpart of the definite article ὁ, ἡ, τό is indubitable but it is not so strong as to violate the morpho-semantic rules of Gothic. Thus, in the case of the actual scope value α1 (unique) and γ1 (universal), a simple name in Gothic is preceded by the zero determiner although (but not always) in the Greek original it is accompanied by the definite article, e.g. in the case of α1: sauil ὁ ἥλιοϛ ‘the sun’, and in the case of γ1: skalks ὁ δοῦλος ‘the servant’. S t r e s z c z e n i e: Określoność słaba (ang. definiteness) przysługuje konstrukcji gramatycznej, której podstawą (bazą) jest nazwa, a formatywem ‒ określnik słaby, czyli adimek (ang. article), którego odmianą jest przedimek. Na określoność słabą składają się wykładniki (które są formatywami we wspomnianych konstrukcjach gramatycznych), np. ang. the, a(n), funktywy (czyli determinanty) i wartości formalne (mianowicie: określona, nieokreślona i zero-określnikowa). Funktywy to czynniki, które w procesie kodowania determinują występowanie poszczególnych wykładników. Dzielą się one na formalne (np. docelowa rola przedimka jako wykładnika nominalizacji) i logiczno-semantyczne. Te ostatnie stanowią system, na który składają się aktualne wartości zakresowe pospolitej nazwy policzalnej, a mianowicie: α1 = unikatowa, α2 = identyfikująca, β = wolna, γ1 = uniwersalna, γ2 = egzystencjalna i δ = rodzajowa/gatunkowa. Odpowiadają one podzbiorom zakresu nazwy, które na etapie kodowania występują jako docelowe, a na etapie dekodowania są rozpoznawane jako faktycznie obecne. Wymienione rodzaje funktywów są wykorzystane do analizy użycia demonstrativum prostego sa, sō, þata ‘ten, ta, to’, ‘tamten, tamata, tamto’ w gockim przekładzie Biblii. Ukazano, że to demonstrativum ma tu charakter przedimkowy lub przedimkopodobny, gdy występuje jako (a) wykładnik współodniesienia (koreferncji), czyli gdy aktualną wartością zakresową nazwy jest α2 (identyfikująca), np. hundafaþs … sa hundafaþs ‘setnik … (ten) setnik’ (b) wykładnik nominalizacji, np. sa saiands ‘[ten] siejący’, ‘siewca’, oraz (c) element łączący składniki konstrukcji apozycyjnej, np. sunus meins sa liuba ‘syn mój [ten] umiłowany’. Tego rodzaju użycia demonstrativum traktowane są jako początkowy etap rozwoju przedimka określonego w gockim. Jest prawdopodobne, że w podobny sposób, a szczególnie jako wykładnik współodniesienia, przedimek ten zaczął się rozwijać także w innych językach. Wpływ oryginału greckiego na użycie demonstrativum jako odpowiednika przedimka określonego ὁ, ἡ, τό jest niewątpliwy, lecz nie tak silny, aby gwałcić reguły morfosemantyczne języka gockiego, o czym świadczy fakt, że w przypadku aktualnej wartości zakresowej α1 (unikatowej) i γ1 (uniwersalnej) nazwę prostą poprzedza w gockim określnik zerowy, mimo że (choć nie zawsze) w greckim oryginale występuje przedimek określony, np. w przypadku α1: sauil ὁ ἥλιοϛ ‘słońce’, a w przypadku γ1: skalks ὁ δοῦλος ‘sługa’.

Мета цього дослідження – проаналізувати можливість використовувати погляди Р. В. Ленекера на когнітивну семантику як семантико-текстологічну модель перекладознавчого аналізу. Матеріалом для розгляду обрано твір «Слово некоего калугера о чьтьи книг» із «Ізборника Святослава» 1076 р. та його три переклади: два переклади сучасною українською мовою (повний – В. Яременка, частковий – Є. Карпіловської й Л. Тарновецької) та один переклад англійською мовою (В. Федера). Теорія когнітивної семантики Р. Ленекера орієнтується здебільшого на граматичні проблеми й опис мови через параметри простору. Параметрам опису образности, які пропонує когнітивна семантика, бракує чіткости, які мають аналітичні методи структуралізму. Однак, вони виконують головну аналітичну функцію: вони дозволяють усвідомити наявні в перекладі порушення й відхилення від першотвору та намагатися усвідомити їхню природу й межі. Література References Бычков В. 2000 лет христианской культуры sub specie aesthetica : в 2 т. Т. 2 :Славянский мир. Древняя Русь. Россия. Москва; Санкт-Петербург : Университетскаякнига, 1999.Bychkov, V. (1999). 2000 let khrystyanskoi kultury sub specie aesthetica. T. 2: Slavianskyimyr. Drevniaia Rus. Rossyia. [2000 years of Christian culture sub specie aesthetica. Vol. Slavonic world. Old Rus. Russia]. Moscow; S.-Petersburg: Unyversytetskaya Kniga. Божилов И. Цар Симеон Велики (893–927): Златният век на СредновековнаБългария. София: На отечествения фронт, 1983.Bozhylov, Y. (1983).Tsar Symeon Velyky (893–927): Zlatnyiat vek na SrednovekovnaBalgariya. [Czar Simeon the Great (893–927): the golden epoch of the MedievalBulgaria]. Sofia: Na Otechestvenyia Front. Великий тлумачний словник сучасної української мови / уклад. і гол. ред. В. Т. Бусел.К.; Ірпінь: ВТФ «Перун», 2005.Velykyi tlumachnyi slovnyk suchasnoi ukrainskoi movy. [A great comprehensivedictionary of the contemporary Ukrainian language]. (2005). Busel, V. T. (comp.). Kyiv;Irpin: Perun. ЕСУМ: Етимологічний словник української мови. – К.: Наукова думка, 1982.Etymolohichnyi slovnyk ukrayinskoyi movy. [An etymological dictionary of the Ukrainianlanguage]. (1982). Kyiv: Naukova Doumka. Изборник 1076 года. М.: Наука, 1965.Izbornik 1076 goda. [A synaxarion of 1076]. (1965). Moscow: Nauka. Золоте слово / упорядн. : В. Яременко, О. Сліпушко. Київ: Аконіт, 2002.Zolote slovo. [Golden word] (2002). Yaremenko, V., Slipushko, O. (comp.). Kyiv: Akonit. Каждан А. П. Книга и писатель в Византии. Москва: Наука, 1973.Kazhdan, A. P. (1973). Kniga i pisatel v Vizantii. [Books and writers in Byzantium].Moscow: Nauka. Київський псалтир : Давида пророка и царя пhснь. Київ, 1397. Зберігається:Российская Национальная библиотека (Санкт-Петербург). Шифр: ОЛДП F 6.Kyivskyi psaltyr: Davyda proroka i tsaria pisn. [The psalm book of Kyiv] (1397). Kyiv.Manuscript. Stored at: Russian National Library (Saint-Petersburg). Code: OLDP F 6. Книга правил святих апостолів, Вселенських і Помісних Соборів і святих Отців.К.: Видання Київської Патріархії Української Православної Церкви КиївськогоПатріархату, 2008.Knyha pravyl sviatykh apostoliv, Vselenskykh i Pomisnykh Soboriv i sviatykh Ottsiv. [Abook of rules of Saint Apostles, Ecumenical and Local Councils and Holy Fathers].(2008). Kyiv: Vydannia Kyivskoyi Patriarkhiyi Ukrayinskoyi Pravoslavnoyi TserkvyKyivskoho Patriarkhatu. Малоруско-нїмецкий словар / уложили Є. Желеховский, С. Недїльский. Львів : Т-воім. Шевченка, 1886.Malorusko-nimetskyi slovar. [A Ukrainian-German dictionary]. (1886). Zhelekhovskyi,Ye., Nedilskyi, S. (comp.). Lviv: Tovarystvo im. Shevchenka. Настольная книга священнослужителя. Т. 4. Москва, 1983.Nastolnaia kniga sviashchennosluzhytelia. T. 4. [A priest’s handbook. Vol. 4]. (1983).Moscow. Пиккио Р.Slavia Orthodoxa: Литература и язык. Москва : Знак, 2003.Piccio, R. (2003). Slavia Orthodoxa: Literatura i yazyk. [Slavia Orthodoxa: Literature andlanguage]. Moskcow: Znak. Православная энциклопедия. Т. 16. Москва : Церк.-науч. центр «Православнаяэнциклопедия», 2007.Pravoslavnaia Entsyklopediia. T. 16. [Orthodox Encyclopedia. Vol. 16]. (2007). Moscow:Church and Scientific Center “Pravoslavnaia Entsyklopediia”. Сивокінь Г.М. Одвічний діалог: (Українська література і її читач від давнини досьогодні). Київ : Дніпро, 1984.Syvokin, H. M. (1984). Odvichnyi dialoh: (Ukrainska literatura i yiyi chytach vid davnynydo sohodni). [The eternal dialogue: Ukrainian literature and its readership from the oldtimes till nowadays]. Kyiv: Dnipro. Словарь древнерусского языка (XI–XIV вв.) / гл. ред. Р. И. Аванесов. Москва: Рус. яз., 1988.Slovar drevnerusskoho yazyka (XI–XIV vv.). [A dictionary of the Russian language of the11th–14th centuries]. (1988). Avanesov, R. Y. (ed.-in-chief). Moscow: Russkiy Yazyk. Словарь русского языка ХІ–XVII вв. Москва: Наука, 1975.Slovar Russkogo Yazyka ХІ–XVII vv. [A dictionary of the Russian language of the 11th-17th centuries]. (1975). Moscow: Nauka. Slovar Staroslavianskogo Yazyka. [A dictionary of the Old Slavonic language]. (2006).Saint-Petersburg. Словарь української мови / упор. з дод. влас. матеріалу Б. Грінченко. Київ, 1907–1909.Slovar Ukrayinskoyi Movy. [A Dictionary of the Ukrainian language]. (1907–1909).Hrinchenko, B. (comp.) Kyiv. Срезневскій И.И. Матеріалы для словаря древне-русскаго языка по письменнымъпамятникамъ. Санктпетербургъ, 1893–1912. Sreznevskiy, I. I. (1893–1912). Materialy Dlia Slovaria Drevne-russkago Yazyka poPismennymPpamiatnikam. [Materials for the Dictionary of the Old Rus Language asBased on Written Monuments ].Saint-Petersburg. Словник української мови. Київ : Наукова думка, 1970–1980.Slovnyk Ukrayinskoyi Movy. [A Dictionary of the Ukrainian language]. (1970–1980).Kyiv: Naukova Doumka. Словник староукраїнської мови XIV–XV ст. Київ: Наук. думка, 1977–1978.Slovnyk Staroukrayinskoyi Movy XIV–XV st. [A Dictionary of the Ukrainian Language ofthe 14th–15th centuries]. (1977–1978). Kyiv: Naukova doumka,. Словник української мови XVI – першої половини XVII ст. Львів, 1994.Slovnyk Ukrayinskoyi Movy XVI – Pershoyi Polovyny XVII st. [A Dictionary of theUkrainian Language of the 16th to the first half of the 17th centuries]. (1994). Lviv. Українська література ХІ–ХVІІІ століть / упоряд. Є. А. Карпіловська,Л. О. Тарновецька. Чернівці : Прут, 1997.Ukrayinska Literatura ХІ–ХVІІІ stolit. [Ukrainian Literature of the 11th–18th Centuries].(1997).Ye. A. Karpilovska, L. O. Tarnovetska (Eds.). Chernivtsi: Prut. Франко І. Із лектури наших предків ХІ в. // Франко І. Додаткові томи до Зібраннятворів у п’ятдесяти томах / І. Франко. Київ : Наук. думка, 2010. Т. 54. С. 911–922.Franko, I. (2010). Iz lektury nashykh predkiv ХІ v. [From the Readings of our Ancestors inthe 11th century]. In: Dodatkovi Tomy do Zibrannia Tvoriv u Pyatdesiaty Tomakh . Vol. 54(pp. 911–922). Kyiv: Naukova doumka. Цейтлин Р.М. Лексика старославянского языка: Опыт анализа мотивированныхслов по данным древнеболгарских рукописей Х—ХІ вв. Москва: Наука, 1977.Tseitlin, R. M. (1977). Leksika Staroslavianskogo Yazyka: Opyt Analiza MotivirovannykhSlov po Dannym Drevnebolgarskikh Rukopisei Х—ХІ vv. [Lexis of the Old SlavonicLanguage: A Case Study of Derived Vocabulary in the Old Bulgarian Manuscripts of the10th–11th centuries]. Moscow: Nauka. The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary: Complete Text ReproducedMicrographically. (1971). Oxford: Oxford University Press. The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary: Complete Text ReproducedMicrographically. (1987). Burchfield, R. W. (ed.). Oxford u.a.: Clarendon Press. The Edificatory Prose of Kievan Rus' (1994). Veder, W. R. (trans.). Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press. Henry, M. (1972). Commentary on the Whole Bible: Complete and Unabridged in 2Volumes. Wilmington, Delaware: Sovereign Grace. Langacker, R. (1988). A View of Linguistic Semantics. In: Topics in CognitiveLinguistics (pp. 49–89). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Stanford CA: StanfordUniversity Press. New Catholic Encyclopedia. (2002–2003). Detroit: Thomson/Gale. Sophocles, E. A. (1914). Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine periods: (fromB. C. 146 to A.D. 1100). Cambridge : Harvard University Press ; London: HumphreyMilford. Stockwell, P. (2002). Cognitive Poetics: An Introduction. London: Routledge. 17. Словарь старославянского языка. СПб, 2006.

Let us work backwards from what we know, from personal experience: the photograph of which we have each been the subject. Roland Barthes says of this photograph that it transforms "the subject into object": one begins aping the mask one wants to assume, one begins, in other words, to make oneself conform in appearance to the disguise of an identity (Camera Lucida 11). A quick glance back at your most recent holiday gathering will no doubt confirm his diagnosis. Barthes gives to this subject-object the title of Spectrum in order to neatly join the idea of spectacle with the fearsome spectre, what he calls that "terrible thing which is there in every photograph: the return of the dead" (Camera Lucida 9). Cathy Davidson points out that in "photocentric culture, we can no longer even see that we see ourselves primarily as seen, imaged, the photograph as the evidential proof of existence"; photocentric culture thus generates "a profound confusion of image and afterlife" (669 672). Andre Bazin announces that the medium "embalms time, rescuing it simply from its proper corruption" (242), while Susan Sontag points out that it may "assassinate" (13). What photography mummifies, distorts and murders, among other things, is the sense that the reality of the self resides in the body, the corporeal and temporal boundaries of personhood. The spectral haunting of the photograph is familiar to anyone who has ever looked at snapshots in a family album. How much more present it was to the producers and consumers of early photography who engineered the genre of the memento mori, portraits taken of the dead or in imitation of death. Despite the acknowledged 'eeriness' of our own recorded and vanished pasts, such pictures seem grotesquely morbid to us now -- for what we cannot recover is the absolute novelty of photography in its early days, or the vehicle that it provided in the nineteenth century for a whole set of concerns about selfhood that begin, ironically, with death. Those early photographs bring to mind another death, that of the author. Re-enter Barthes, for it is he who definitively announces the new textual paradigm in which the author disappears. In "Death of the Author," Barthes calls the author tyrannical and adopts liberationist rhetoric in unseating him. But what cult is Barthes actually countering? His essay begins and ends with Balzac, and includes Baudelaire, Van Gogh and Tchaikovsky, while his heroes are Mallarmé, Valéry and Proust. Barthes' notion of the author is implicitly a nineteenth-century construction, to be undone by modernist writing against the grain. And what distinguishes the nineteenth-century author from his predecessors? His portrait, of course. Thanks to the surge of visual and reproductive technologies culminating in the mechanised printing process and photography, the nineteenth-century author is suddenly widely available to readers as an image. The author literally becomes a face hovering above the text; it is this omnipresence that Barthes objects to. Photography gives new momentum to the cult of the author, but this is not mere historical coincidence -- that the photograph is developed at a point in history when authorship is particularly mobile: in between the Romantic individualism that transforms authorship from a craft to a calling, and the modernist interrogation of ontology and representation that explodes such notions from within. However, the opposite is also true. Photography as we know it is a product of the institution of authorship. Photography is founded on and makes available, through the democratisation and dissemination of a certain technology, a concept of public selfhood that hitherto had been reserved for those in charge of textual representation, of themselves as well as of other subjects. Primarily this is because the ideological, technological and material vehicles of the photograph -- identities, characters, scenes, the properties of chemical interaction, the invention of specialised apparatus, poses, props, and photo albums -- were closely related to book culture. How did photography change the notion of the author? It did so by commandeering truth claims -- by serving as the scientific illustration of divinely-ordained natural laws. The art of chemically fixing the image obtained through a camera obscura was perfected in 1839 by Louis Jacques Mandé Daguerre and William Fox Talbot, separately, with different techniques.1 Daguerre's method caught on quickly, partly because his daguerreotype recorded such exquisite detail. The daguerreotype surface was reflective and sharply etched; inspection with a magnifying glass disclosed minutiae -- insects, eyelashes, objects in the far distance. The daguerreotype, popularly nicknamed "the pencil of the sun," seemed like a miniaturised and complete mirror of the world, a representation without human intervention.2 In 1839, and throughout the 1840's and '50's, photography transparently supported the notion that the discoveries of science would help reveal God's secrets, not disprove them -- a view that suffered but continued on after the publication of The Origin of the Species in 1859. Its presumed objectivity and comprehensive truthfulness made photography immediately appealing as a scientific and artistic tool. Although it was used to record geologic formations and vegetation, the bulky apparatus of the early photographic methods meant that it was better suited to the indoor studio -- and the portrait, in which the truth of human character could be made visible. It served as a means of defining normality and deviation; it was central to the project of identifying physical characteristics of the insane and the criminal, and of classifying racial features, as in the daguerreotypes made of slaves in the United States by J. T. Zealy in 1850, which the natural scientist Louis Aggasiz used as independent evidence of the natural differences between the races in order to endorse the doctrine of "separate creation" (Trachtenberg 53) So perceptive and penetrating did the photograph seem, it was even deemed capable of revealing vice and virtue, and it was in this way that the photographer moved onto the terrain of the author. The truth-telling properties of photography seemed to corroborate the authorial estimation of character that was a central element of nineteenth-century fiction. In texts where photography is itself on display this property is especially obvious -- in Nathaniel Hawthorne's The House of the Seven Gables, for example, where true and secret characters are only discerned in daguerreotype portraits. But photography did more than divinely and scientifically confirm fictional character; the venerated author's ability to delineate moral qualities made him, or her, an exemplary character as well. The Victorians prized "sincerity," the criterion by which they measured their authors. Especially in the influential pronouncements of Carlyle, the Victorian notion of sincerity "makes man and artist inseparable" (Ball 155). An exemplary moral life was particularly powerful in the form of an author. Indeed, it was through authorship of some kind that such lives could take the public form they needed in order to fulfill their function as models. And so photography appears not just in the text but on its margins, framing and qualifying it: the portrait of the author, already a bibliographic convention, gains additional authority through the objective lens of the camera, in which the author's character is exhibited as a kind of testimony to his or her truth-telling abilities. The frontispiece guarantees the right of the author to moral leadership. As literacy and readership expanded and exceeded former class distinctions, the nineteenth-century author began to need to market himself in order to find and keep an audience. But since the source of the author's authority was sincerity, the commodification of the authorial self presented a dilemma. Some writers, such as Dickens, embraced this role; others withdrew from the task of performing a public self, but their refusal of the public's gaze was itself often dramatised, as for Tennyson, Elizabeth Barret Browning and, after her death, Emily Dickinson. The photograph portrait of the artist, as well as other likenesses of his visage, was a particularly convenient piece of authorial paraphernalia because it sustained the idea of the author as moral exemplar, but in fact it was only one of the many ways in which nineteenth-century readers kept the author before their eyes. Souvenirs such as autographs, original manuscripts and other tokens testifying to the presence of the author's body, as well as gift books and precious editions designed to generate and satisfy fans, were mainstays of Victorian keepsake culture. The photograph as corporeal souvenir signals the point where we must turn around and consider the question of photography and authorship from the other direction: that is, how the institution of authorship constructs photography. Given that photography as an art developed out of the desire to eliminate the human hand, to trace directly from nature, it seems ironic that photography could have an author. And yet it was the notion of a public and visible self, associated primarily with authorship, which accounted for the widespread popularity of photography. When the daguerreotype was introduced in 1839, enterprising amateurs in Europe and the United States transformed it from a tricky chemical procedure into a practical art, a livelihood. Daguerrean saloons appeared in the cities and in rural areas, itinerant daguerreotypists set up temporary headquarters. But every daguerreotype studio had two purposes, whether it was the high-end urban atelier of Southworth and Hawes in Boston or a peddler's rented room: it was the place where one went to have one's picture taken and it was also a public gallery, where the portraits of former customers were displayed. In an urban gallery, those portraits might include the poets, ministers and politicians of the day, but even in a village studio, one could see exhibited the portraits of the local beauties, the town big-wigs. Entering the studio as a customer or a spectator, anyone could imaginatively take his or her place among an assembly of eminent personages. More importantly, the daguerreotype and later forms of photography made portraiture accessible to the middle and working classes for the first time. The studio was a democratic space where one could entertain the fantasy of a different self, and in fact one could literally enact that fantasy through the props and accessories of identity that the studio provided. In borrowed hats and canes, sitting stiffly in chairs or standing against painted backdrops, holding books, flowers, candles, and even other daguerreotypes, the sitter could assume the persona he or she would like others to see. Often the sitter composes an obvious gender performance, other times the sitter exhibits himself as the master of a certain occupation. With the invention of the wet plate collodion process in 1851, which made it possible to reproduce quantities of images from a single negative, the public went in for the carte-de-visite, on which one's very own portrait was imprinted and handed out like a postcard souvenir. The carte-de-visite necessitated a new way of keeping and displaying multiple photographs, and thus the photo album was born. But in fact the paradigm of the book already governed photographic display and the storage of the personal collection. When the Bible was the only book a family might own, it served as the cabinet of memorable dates and events. Other kinds of mementoes were stored in lockets and books: locks of hair, painted miniatures, pressed flowers. Daguerreotypes were kept in small codex-like cases or in hinged lockets. The souvenir and its symbolic connection to the body (one's own or that of a beloved) was of course not limited to the cult of the author but was available as a mode of identity to anybody who read novels. The culture of the souvenir, the keepsake, the personal precious object stored in a book, offered a means of articulating the self that readily accommodated the photograph, and in that context, the photograph took on the properties of a personal talisman. In the wake of photography, the scrapbook, the flower album, the signature album -- all those vehicles for collecting and displaying the ephemera of a lifetime -- flourished. Books were no longer mainly devoted to dense layers of print but could consist of open space to be filled in by their owners, who would thereby become authors of their own works and incidentally of their own identities. The popularity of the album was partly due to developments in printing, which was changing from a text-based industry to one increasingly concerned with images, a shift that culminated in photo-offset printing and photoduplication. But the popularity of the album and other biblioform containers for the personal collection also has something to do with the culture of the souvenir, which prepared the way for the photograph as personal talisman and then accomodated the tremendous expansion photography offered to the self. Via the photograph, a self that was allied with its own mementoes would be transformed: selfhood formerly attached to an object intended for private contemplation was subsequently attached to an object intended for exhibition. Via the photograph, the same publicity attendant on the circulation of the author was incorporated into the stuff of the ordinary subject, who regarded his or her own image and offered it up to history. The reflexive spectacle of visible selfhood brings us back to the return of the dead, that feature of the photograph which seems to persist, and perhaps illuminates the difference between the kind of death it spooks us with now and the kind of 150 years ago. For our ancestors, the photograph was a way to cheat death, to manipulate the strict boundaries of identity, to become memorable, to catch a heady glimpse of absolute truth; but for us it is different. We can see how much we are the creations of photography, and how much we surrender to the public self it burdens us with. Notes 1. The technological history of photography is of course much complicated by issues of competition, technological "prehistory" and intellectual property—for example, there is the matter of the disappearance of Daguerre's partner Niepce. However, Daguerre is generally credited with "inventing" the medium. See Gernsheim, Greenough et al and Newhall. 2. The phrase and others like it were not only popularised by influential critic-practitioners of photography such as Oliver Wendell Holmes, Fox Talbot, in The Pencil of Nature, and Marcus Aurelius Root, in The Camera and the Pencil, but were perpetuated in the everyday language of commerce—for example, the portrait studio that advertised its "Sun Drawn Miniatures" (Gernsheim 106). References Ball, Patricia. The Central Self: A Study in Romantic and Victorian Imagination. London: Athlone Press, 1968. Barthes, Roland. Camera Lucida: Reflections on Photography. Trans. Richard Howard. New York: Hill and Wang, 1981. ---. "The Death of the Author." Image, Music, Text. Trans. Stephen Heath. New York: Hill and Wang, 1977. Bazin, André. "The Ontology of the Photographic Image." Classic Essays on Photography. Ed. Alan Trachtenberg. New Haven, Conn: Leete's Island Books, 1980. 237-244. Davidson, Cathy N. "Photographs of the Dead: Sherman, Daguerre, Hawthorne." South Atlantic Quarterly 89.4 (Fall 1990): 667-701. Gernsheim, Helmut. The Origins of Photography. London: Thames and Hudson, 1982. Greenough, Sarah, Joel Snyder, David Travis and Colin Westerbeck. On the Art of Fixing a Shadow: One Hundred and Fifty Years of Photography. Boston: Little, Brown, 1989. Newhall, Beaumont. The History of Photography, From 1839 to the Present. New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1982. Sontag, Susan. On Photography. New York: Dell, 1977. Trachtenberg, Alan. Reading American Photographs: Images as History, Mathew Brady to the Present. New York: Hill and Wang, 1989. Citation reference for this article Substitute your date of access for Dn Month Year etc... MLA Style Dean, Gabrielle. "Portrait of the Self" M/C: A Journal of Media and Culture 5.5 (2002). [your date of access] < http://www.media-culture.org.au/mc/0210/Dean.html &gt. Chicago Style Dean, Gabrielle, "Portrait of the Self" M/C: A Journal of Media and Culture 5, no. 5 (2002), < http://www.media-culture.org.au/mc/0210/Dean.html &gt ([your date of access]). APA Style Dean, Gabrielle. (2002) Portrait of the Self. M/C: A Journal of Media and Culture 5(5). < http://www.media-culture.org.au/mc/0210/Dean.html &gt ([your date of access]).