MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1987990398 · doi:10.1353/mou.0.0015

A Companion to Greek Tragedy (review)

2007· article· en· W1987990398 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

venuePublié dans une revue dont le pays d'attache est le Canada.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueMouseion Journal of the Classical Association of Canada · 2007
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueClassical Antiquity Studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésTragedy (event)Context (archaeology)Greek tragedySkepticismHistoryLiteraturePityArtPhilosophyClassicsEpistemologyArchaeology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reviewed by: A Companion to Greek Tragedy C.W. Marshall Justina Gregory, ed. A Companion to Greek Tragedy. Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World. Maldon, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2005. Pp. xviii + 552. $186.99. ISBN 978-1-4051-0770-9 (cloth). The thirty-one papers in this collection form the richest single-volume introduction to an aspect of the ancient world that I have read. The range of contributions is immense, and each paper could be used as a starting-point for further study of Athenian tragedy (each chapter possesses a bibliography of “further reading”). The book is divided into four parts—“Contexts,” “Elements,” “Approaches,” and “Reception”—and it is helpful to consider the papers within these groups. The wide-ranging nature of the volume—and the limitations of the academic review—means that only superficial comment is possible for most contributions. The first part, “Contexts,” consists of seven chapters. Three represent generalist summaries of the author’s previously published views. Scott Scullion (23–37) provides a well-argued account that is honest [End Page 253] about the marginality of the perspective expressed but rigorous in its clear articulation of key aspects of the origin of tragedy. Jocelyn Penny Small (103–118) offers a skeptical view on the relationship between vase illustrations and tragic performance, arguing against the views of Taplin and Green. While additional context from the so-called phlyax vases would, I think, offer helpful counter-evidence, this is a very useful summary. I remain unconvinced, however, by Neil Croally’s defense of tragedy’s didacticism (55–70): he shifts between two senses of “teaching” (as a function of the genre, and as a choice by the playwright), so that the point becomes trivial; everything teaches in this sense. Much stronger is William Allen (71–82) on the philosophical tradition, which (with Halliwell; see below) covers much of the same ground as Croally. Christopher Pelling’s discussion of the role of rhetoric (83–102) demonstrates how performance culture blurs tragedy into the lawcourts, and vice-versa. These two papers are both excellent summaries. Other papers are less compelling. Paula Debnar (3–22) opens the volume with a historical overview of fifth-century Athens, placing selected tragedies in this context, though general readers will be misled by several claims, including the certainty with which the opening paragraph affirms Euphorion’s production of Prometheus in (specifically) 431 (a play treated as Aeschylean at 105, 216, and 326, and inauthentic at 3, 199, and 254). Bernd Seidensticker (38–54) gives a general account of satyr drama, but the description of dithyramb, important for understanding tragic choruses, is minimal. The core of the second part, “Elements,” consists of four discussions on structural aspects of Greek tragedy. Deborah H. Roberts on beginnings and endings (136–148) discusses how the content of tragedy is bounded. For her, the play is the unit of interpretation, and one misses a sense of how the satyr play provides its own kind of ending to the dramatic experience. Michael R. Halleran’s paper on episodes (167–182) describes specific types of scenes and is attuned to the implications for performance. Peter Wilson’s solid, short, provocative discussion of music (183–193) rightly emphasizes the performative implications and the foreignness of Greek music. After carefully defining his vocabulary and terms, Luigi Battezzato (149–166) summarizes the function of lyric and challenges conventional (Aristotelian) views. All four papers are excellent, and together provide a kind of Bauformen der griechischen Tragödie “lite” that will be incredibly useful to English-speaking undergraduates. Less successful is Michael J. Anderson on myth (121–135), which is a bit flat since it does not engage with larger and often misunderstood issues of what myth is. The final paper in this section, John Davidson on performance (194–211), is in the awkward position of having to cover too much ground within a single chapter; as a result, the [End Page 254] discussion is compressed at key points, and alternative possibilities remain under-explored. While many of the papers more than touch on issues of performance, there is too much here to provide a consolidated view, and issues such as the theatre space itself are not...

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.

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)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,947
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,753

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,005
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
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 Opus0,018
Tête enseignante GPT0,278
Écart entre enseignants0,260 · 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