MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2901042035 · doi:10.1353/scb.2018.0015

Bathsua Makin and Mary More with a Reply to More by Robert Whitehall: Educating English Daughters: Late Seventeenth-Century Debates ed. by Frances Teague and Margaret J. M. Ezell

2018· review· en· W2901042035 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Elizabeth Mackay

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe Scriblerian and the Kit-Cats · 2018
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueMulticultural Socio-Legal Studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésThe RenaissanceReading (process)HistoryClassicsLiteratureArt historyArtPhilosophyLinguistics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Bathsua Makin and Mary More with a Reply to More by Robert Whitehall: Educating English Daughters: Late Seventeenth-Century Debates ed. by Frances Teague and Margaret J. M. Ezell Elizabeth Ann Mackay Bathsua Makin and Mary More with a Reply to More by Robert Whitehall: Educating English Daughters: Late Seventeenth-Century Debates, ed. Frances Teague and Margaret J. M. Ezell. The Other Voice in Early Modern Europe: The Toronto Series, 44. Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies. Vol. 491. Toronto: Iter Academic, 2016. Pp. xvi + 201. $34.95. The three early modern documents in this collection present some available options for the education of early modern women—going to school, learning at home from one’s mother, teaching the self through reading and writing. The collection also demonstrates a few ways early modern English women and men thought about and responded to women’s education and its consequences. The collection’s tight focus, together with its neatly edited, accessible primary texts, makes this a worthwhile collection, one best suited for novice readers of early modern texts, upper-level undergraduates, and graduate students in the disciplines of history, literature, education, and/or women’s studies. Two of the texts in this collection—Bathsua Makin’s published treatise, An Essay to Revive the Ancient Education of Gentlewomen (1673), and Mary More’s manuscript pamphlet, The Woman’s Right (c. 1674)—have appeared in previous anthologies, usually in excerpts. Educating English Daughters is especially valuable because it presents both women’s texts in their entirety; both texts are also newly revised by Mss. Teague and Ezell (who have previously edited these texts). The collection also introduces readers to Robert Whitehall’s manuscript response to More, The Woman’s Right Proved False (c. 1674). In the engaging, informative general introduction to the collection, readers will profit from ways that the editors contextualize early modern women’s reading and writing with details about the traditional humanist education designed for boys and men. At times they challenge current critical discussions about women’s education. For instance, they question historical notions of “literacy” that have been used to discount women’s learning and intellectual productions. They also include details about several other women educators who were not members of the royal family or the elite class but “ordinary” women such as Elizabeth Jocelin, Susannah Perwich, Mary Ward, and Mary Astell. The introduction also shows that not all men in this period were opposed to women’s learning, a [End Page 69] point often forgotten. However, the introduction tends to ignore more nuanced readings of early modern gender, gendered education, and women’s writing produced by historians and critics such as Katharine Gillespie, Patricia Pender, Eve Rachele Sanders, and Wendy Wall. Mss. Teague and Ezell have shaped some of the most instrumental, influential scholarship in early modern women, women’s roles, and women’s education, but here they do not seek to intervene in more recent and ongoing conversations. Even as they bring some attention to “voices that attempt to change what a culture believes about education, about rights, and about gender,” the editors have restated much of their earlier work, presented here as standard, basic information about women’s education and women’s writing. Ultimately, the greatest strength of the general introduction is how it encourages readers to make connections between early modern and twentieth- and twenty-first-century texts and artifacts, while also arguing that issues of a gendered education are still relevant and complicated sites of contest today. For instance, readers are reminded that we live “in a century when many girls are still denied education for political, religious, or economic reasons.” Mss. Teague and Ezell take note of Malala Yousafzai, a Pakistani children’s and women’s rights activist and the youngest Nobel Prize recipient, who was “shot for boarding a school bus” when she defied the Taliban to attend school. This general introduction, then, lends itself to our instruction of students: it offers instructors concrete ideas about the kinds of texts or artifacts that we can put into conversation with early modern texts, whether we choose to use its suggestions (such as Woolf’s Room of One’s Own, Joanna Russ...

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 candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Études des sciences et des technologies
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 enseignants0,490
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,002
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
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 Opus0,017
Tête enseignante GPT0,296
Écart entre enseignants0,279 · 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
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
Publié2018
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe Scriblerian and the Kit-CatsMême sujetMulticultural Socio-Legal StudiesTravaux en français237 207