MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2040653601 · doi:10.1353/utq.0.0078

Northrop Frye's Notebooks on Renaissance Literature (review)

2008· article· en· W2040653601 sur OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Gordon Teskey

Notice bibliographique

RevueUniversity of Toronto Quarterly · 2008
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueShort Stories in Global Literature
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésLiteratureCriticismRenaissance literaturePoetryDramaThe RenaissanceLiterary criticismArtEPICHistoryArt historyPhilosophyClassics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Northrop Frye's Notebooks on Renaissance Literature Gordon Teskey Northrop Frye . Northrop Frye's Notebooks on Renaissance Literature. Edited by Michael Dolzani. Volume 20 of The Collected Edition of the Works of Northrop Frye. University of Toronto Press. lix, 494. $100.00 In the preface to Anatomy of Criticism (1957), Northrop Frye says that his synoptic study of literature and its criticism began as a study of Edmund Spenser's traditional symbolism so as to complement his study, in Fearful Symmetry (1947), of the private symbolism of Blake. As he addressed some preliminary theoretical issues, these expanded to become a different book. The original project on Spenser was reduced to an article, 'The Structure of Imagery in The Faerie Queene,' a brilliant scherzo on the original design. [End Page 368] This picture, although accurate in outline, is complicated when we follow Frye's labours from the late 1940s to the mid-1950s as they appear in this volume, which collects six notebooks and five sets of typed notes on Renaissance literature, divided into three parts: a running commentary on two-thirds of The Faerie Queene, notes on the symbolism of Shakespeare's plays and on the dramatic tradition from Aristophanes to Shaw, and notes on lyric poetry and non-fiction prose. The intellectual framework is partly disclosed (more elaborate ones appear in the notes) in the first item in this volume: the Guggenheim Fellowship Application Frye submitted in 1949, which proposed to complete three books – on epic, drama, and prose – amounting, as the editor, Michael Dolzani, says, 'to a complete study of literature up to about 1600.' A fourth volume on 'the breakdown of the literary synthesis that culminated in the Renaissance' was planned to follow, now published as Northrop Frye's Notebooks on Romance, volume 15 of the Collected Works. We're not done yet. These four volumes were to be half of an eight-volume synthesis of modern thought on the model of Spengler and Toynbee, which Frye referred to, with a touch of self-mockery, as an 'ogdoad.' What happened to these vast designs? After Anatomy of Criticism, Frye wrote the many smaller, more accessible books that these labours made possible: on romance, on Shakespearean comedy and tragedy, on Milton, on education, on creativity, etc., plus the major essay collections, Fables of Identity and Spiritus Mundi. The plans concocted in Frye's late thirties ran up against a life of increasing responsibility and fame, and these classically elegant studies, most of them based on public lectures, resulted. Even so, Frye struggled mightily throughout the 1960s and early 1970s with what he called a 'Third Book' (volume nine of the Collected Works), which was abandoned when he turned to the final major effort of his career: the two-volume study of the Bible, The Great Code (1982) and Words with Power (1990). The materials in this volume require painstaking editing and copious annotation, an immense labour Dolzani has accomplished triumphantly. The introduction is perhaps less detached from Frye's manner and style of thinking than is ideal for this purpose, but it communicates the enthusiasm one will need for the hard slogging to follow: 385 pages of tightly packed cerebration struggling to organize itself from within. We watch Frye engaged in the laborious process of hammering his thoughts – which are consistently, often explosively brilliant – into a unity that is still a long way off. We are thus looking at unfinished – and sometimes, as with the Spenser commentary, unfinishable and unfocused – writing; but each of the paragraphs is polished into near-publishable form. Still, Frye talks a good deal to himself – he even tells himself once to shut up. He writes some very funny passages and throws out good zingers – 'the public does not know what it wants, but it knows what [End Page 369] it expects' – of the kind we have come to enjoy in his books. And there's a small but welcome dose of swearing and bad attitude. The erudition is even more impressive than it is in the published books, where he's trying hard to tone it down, and his command of the primary texts is amazing. Throughout the Shakespeare commentary, for...

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 machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut 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: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,079
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,265

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,012
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,001
Bibliométrie0,0110,018
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,002
Communication savante0,0040,005
Science ouverte0,0030,003
Intégrité de la recherche0,0030,004
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0790,032

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 Opus0,011
Tête enseignante GPT0,194
Écart entre enseignants0,183 · 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

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
Publié2008
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueUniversity of Toronto Quarterly→Même sujetShort Stories in Global Literature→Travaux en français237 207→