MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2077700527 · doi:10.1353/utq.2007.0155

John Stow (1525-1605) and the Making of the English Past (review)

2007· article· en· W2077700527 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Seth Lerer

Notice bibliographique

RevueUniversity of Toronto Quarterly · 2007
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueScottish History and National Identity
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPortraitHistoriographyNarrativeBiographyThe RenaissanceArt historyLiteratureHistoryArtClassicsArchaeology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reviewed by: John Stow (1525–1605) and the Making of the English Past Seth Lerer (bio) Ian Gadd and Alexandra Gillespie, editors. John Stow (1525–1605) and the Making of the English Past British Library 2004. xiv, 192. $60.00 This beautifully produced collection of essays on the life and work of the Elizabethan editor and antiquarian, John Stow, grew out of a conference held in 2001 at Corpus Christi College, Oxford. The editors have assembled a range of inquiries by both leading senior scholars and young researchers at the start of their careers, and the papers move between highly technical accounts of books and printing to general narratives of history, biography, and culture. The portrait that emerges from this book is of a man situated at the very heart of Renaissance English literary society. The chapters by Ian Archer, Oliver Harris, Ian Gadd and Meraund Fergusson, and Alfred Hiatt locate Stow among the antiquarians, booksellers, and historians of the mid-sixteenth century. From Harris, in particular, the reader can learn much about the larger antiquarian sensibility at mid-century – a blend of humanist philology and local archaeological and archival obsession. From Alexandra Gillespie, Anthony Bale, Andrew Gordon, and Helen Moore, the reader learns much about the shifting techniques of historiography in Stow's age. Emerging from these discussions are such large questions as: What is a valid source? How can one truly be the author of a history? Where does one draw the line between incorporation and 'counterfeiting' of material? These questions help shape writing about the past, from the annals and chronicles of the late medieval world to the more modern-looking histories of the Renaissance. I learned a great deal from this book about such matters. I learned less about Stow's role in English letters. A.S.G. Edwards and Derek Pearsall are largely content to rehearse approaches they have offered elsewhere, or [End Page 404] simply to direct the reader to previous scholarship. Martha Driver offers an essay that will be of interest only to the most technically adept of bibliographers. Joseph Dane seeks to survey the nature of 'Stow's Chaucer,' the 1561 edition of Chaucer's works which survives in copies so different in detail, either due to editorial intention or printer's error, that professional bibliographers have a hard time deciding just what these copies represent – different editions, different issues, different artifacts. Emerging from the copious details of Dane's inquiry is, nonetheless, the characteristic sceptical tone that marks the best chapters of his earlier books, Who Is Buried in Chaucer's Tomb? and The Myth of Print Culture. For me, the most distinctive and surprising essay in the volume is Bale's on the relationship of Stow's study of medieval history and attitudes towards Judaism in sixteenth-century England. This is an essay that should be of interest not simply to scholars of Anglo-Jewish history, but to those concerned with typography (the printing of Hebrew letters in English books deserves a chronicle of its own), the institutions of the English church, and the idea of historical narrative itself. Each essay in this volume is quite short (the longest is no more than a dozen pages), and the authors may have more to say in later publications. I hope so, because many of them represent the best of a new generation of book historians. Perhaps, in that future work, they may be able to answer some long-standing questions of my own: what was Stow's role in the assembly of British Library Manuscript Harley 78 (a weird pastiche of fragments running from Wyatt's prose, through Chaucer's poetry, bits of alliterative verse, and pieces of history)? What was, in detail, Stow's relationship to John Shirley's manuscripts and how can we compare Stow and Shirley as collectors and filters of the Chaucerian inheritance? How can we assess Stow's overall relationship, not just to individual playwrights of his day, but to the idea of Elizabethan theatricality and, in turn, to the culture of political performance that has generated, in our own time, nearly thirty years of New Historicist criticism? It will be worth following the work of...

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)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,005
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 enseignants0,030
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,100

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,005
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0030,007
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0040,005
Science ouverte0,0010,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0300,012

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 GPT0,193
Écart entre enseignants0,182 · 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
Publié2007
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueUniversity of Toronto QuarterlyMême sujetScottish History and National IdentityTravaux en français237 207