MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1496205876 · doi:10.1353/hms.2007.a383366

The Clarendon Edition of Hume's Treatise : Book 1

2007· article· en· W1496205876 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
John Bricke

Notice bibliographique

RevueHume studies · 2007
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueHume's philosophy and hair distribution
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésExposition (narrative)PhilosophyCritical editionClassicsEpistemologyLiteratureHistoryArt

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Hume Studies Volume 33, Number 2, November 2007, pp. 297-304 The Clarendon Edition of Hume's Treatise: Book 1 JOHN BRICKE Those who have used David and Mary Norton's Oxford Philosophical Texts (hereafter abbreviated "OPT") edition of Hume's Treatise will have benefited substantially—whether in teaching and research, or in their novice or more advanced student encounters with Hume—from what the Nortons there did towards establishing a critical text of the Treatise, and towards the exposition and interpretation of that difficult work. Anyone, philosopher or other, with a serious research interest in the history of early modern philosophy, and in Hume's philosophy in particular, now stands indebted to this redoubtable team of scholars for the publication (Clarendon Press, 2007) of their finished critical edition of the Treatise, the Abstract, and the Letter From a Gentleman, and for the remarkable scholarly contributions revealed or constituted by the 740 pages of materials supporting the critical texts themselves. (For brevity's sake I will focus on the Treatise in what follows.) The supporting materials in this Clarendon edition comprise (amongst other things) : a brilliantly informed, engaging, and humanizing historical account of the Treatise "from its beginnings to the time of Hume's death" (2:433-588); an exhaustive rendering of the Nortons' derivation of critical text from copy text, together with an exhaustive register of both minor and major emendations to the copy text; nearly 300 pages of editors' annotations to the text; a four-part bibliography; and two indexes, the first focused on the historical account and the editing of the text, and the second directed to the text itself and to the editors' John Bricke is Professor of Philosophy in the Department of Philosophy, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, 66045, USA. E-mail: jbricke@ku.edu. 298 John Bricke annotations. The whole constitutes a masterly scholarly achievement, one which must have a profound effect on continuing efforts to grasp and assess the contents of Hume's demanding masterpiece. Ignoring more broadly historical, textual, and bibliographical matters, and dividing the more philosophical labor with my co-symposiasts, I shall focus on Book 1 of the Treatise. I shall attend in particular to the editors' annotations to Book 1 and to the second index, Index 2. My concern is to characterize and comment on the contributions the editors make therein, and—in a critical vein—to indicate a few important lacunae. The annotations of the Clarendon edition, the editors say, "provide materials intended to illuminate, but not interpret, Hume's texts" (2:685). For exposition or interpretative suggestions the reader is directed to the OPT edition. (There, of course, one finds David Norton's 90-page "Editor's Introduction," 150 pages of "Editors' Annotations" that include textual summaries "intended to be descriptive rather than interpretative" (421), and a "Glossary.") In just what ways are exposition and interpretation, on the one hand, and illumination, on the other, supposed to differ? If different, how are they related? The editors remark, with a suggestive caution, that the distinction between interpretation and illumination is one that, "however difficult to maintain in practice, provides a useful ideal" (2:685). The materials they offer in illumination, though abundant and generous, have, as we shall see, a striking and principled austerity. While presumably intended to contribute to the projects of exposition and interpretation of the Treatise (projects that are not, in the Clarendon edition, the editors' own projects) the annotations and accompanying index do not, themselves, constitute instances of exposition or interpretation. How precisely do they serve to illuminate the Treatise? How might they forward exposition and interpretation? To approach an answer to these questions let us turn to the annotations and to Index 2 themselves. I shall begin by registering the several purposes the Nortons explicitly intend the Clarendon annotations (complemented by the entries in Index 2) to serve. I shall also, as needed, look to linked annotations, annotations of an expository (and perhaps interpretative) sort, in the Nortons' OPT edition of the Treatise. Several sorts of Clarendon annotations serve one or other quite basic purpose: to explain some archaic, obsolete, or otherwise puzzling word or phrase; to provide translations of Hume's Latin...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,879
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,062
Tête enseignante GPT0,393
Écart entre enseignants0,330 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2007
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueHume studiesMême sujetHume's philosophy and hair distributionTravaux en français237 207