MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2604526687 · doi:10.1353/scb.2006.0039

A Commentary on Mr. Pope’s Principles of Morality, Or Essay on Man (A Translation from the French) by Samuel Johnson

2006· review· en· W2604526687 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Robert G. Walker

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe Scriblerian and the Kit-Cats · 2006
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMoralityCriticismPoetryClassicsPublishingLiteratureArt historyArtHistoryPhilosophyEpistemology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

56 These are quibbles, and we are grateful to Mr. Brack and Ms. Chilton for reminding us of the place of the Devil upon Crutches in the busy years between 1748 and 1751. And any scholarly edition that comes with its own guide to pharmaceuticals (this being Smollett, many of them laxatives and aphrodisiacs) has an additional reason to recommend itself. Neil Guthrie University of Toronto SAMUEL JOHNSON. A Commentary on Mr. Pope’s Principles of Morality, Or Essay on Man (A Translation from the French), ed. O M Brack, Jr. New Haven and London: Yale, 2004. Pp. lvi ⫹ 441. $75. ‘‘A less happy confrontation of minds and methods could hardly have been imagined .’’ Thus Maynard Mack describes the situation when the Swiss theologian Jean Pierre de Crousaz set out to write a critical commentary on Pope’s Essay on Man. To make matters worse, Crousaz admittedly knew no English, so his work was based on a French verse translation of Pope by Du Resnel, which increased the number of lines from 1300 in the original to 2000, while omitting many sections and rearranging many others. Pope’s cleverness in publishing his poem anonymously had allowed a largely favorable reception in England, but the continental criticism sparked an interest among English booksellers to the extent that more than one translation of Crousaz’s attacks (the 1738 Commentary and another work a year earlier, based on a prose French translation of Pope) were offered almost immediately. Mr. Brack has provided a scholarly edition of the translation made by Samuel Johnson, now appearing as Volume XVII in The Yale Edition of the Works of Samuel Johnson. Two related short pieces round out the volume, more notably Johnson’s ‘‘Review of Soame Jenyns’ Free Inquiry into the Nature and Origin of Evil.’’ Mr. Brack’s Introduction provides a vade mecum for anyone who would undertake the long hard slog of reading every word of Johnson’s translation. He first discusses the circumstances surrounding the publication of the book, a discussion that will give readers familiar with his 1995 SB essay a sense of déjà vu, as he repeats large sections of that essay virtually verbatim. (A note on p. xxxiii cites the essay, but the selfborrowing begins as early as p. xx.) Mr. Brack then provides a useful analysis, acknowledged to be based on the work of John Lawrence Abbott, of Johnson’s translation idiosyncrasies (for example, his tendency to introduce doublets); and he concludes by discussing ‘‘Johnson’s major contribution to the Commentary,’’the footnotes . Johnson frequently defends Pope when Crousaz’s attack depends on words or concepts original with Du Resnel and not found in Pope. He sides with Crousaz, as we would expect, on the problem of evil, the ruling passion, and the necessity of free will. ‘‘From these scattered observations it is clear that Johnson comes down firmly on the side of orthodoxy, believing that God created man for happiness but that both physical and moral evil entered the world because of Original Sin and, hence, that many of the miseries of life are mankind’s own fault.’’ This sentence repeats one at the end of the first paragraph of Mr. Brack’s Preface so he must think it important, 57 and it is. But it is hardly novel. This brings me to perhaps the overall problem with this volume, a justification of its raison d’être. Mr. Brack clearly envisions an audience of Johnsonians, and bilingual ones at that: ‘‘Annotations for a translation differ significantly from those for an original composition . No attempt has been made here to annotate Crousaz’s or Du Resnel’s work; rather the focus of the annotations is on Johnson’s translation. The assumption has been that this edition is for a scholarly audience with a reading knowledge of French.’’ Repeatedly, however, a reader comes upon a passage which cries out for annotation, such as when Crousaz points out that Pope’s rhetorical questions will sometimes not receive their expected answer: ‘‘But ask the opinion of young libertines, such as are to be met with in the army and great cities, and such as are described by Mr Du Pin in...

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)0,004
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,020
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: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,050
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,099

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0040,020
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0130,009
Communication savante0,0070,004
Science ouverte0,0020,003
Intégrité de la recherche0,0170,022
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0080,004

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 Opus0,114
Tête enseignante GPT0,354
Écart entre enseignants0,240 · 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
Publié2006
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe Scriblerian and the Kit-CatsMême sujetAmerican Constitutional Law and PoliticsTravaux en français237 207