Mythodologies: Methods in Medieval Studies, Chaucer, and Book History
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.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Mythodologies challenges the implied methodology in contemporary studies in the humanities. We claim, at times, that we gather facts or what we will call evidence, and from that form hypotheses and conclusions. Of course, we recognize that the sum total of evidence for any argument is beyond comprehension; therefore, we construct, and we claim, preliminary hypotheses, perhaps to organize the chaos of evidence, or perhaps simply to find it; we might then see (we claim) whether that evidence challenges our tentative hypotheses. Ideally, we could work this way. Yet the history of scholarship and our own practices suggest we do nothing of the kind. Rather, we work the way we teach our composition students to write: choose or construct a thesis, then invent the evidence to support it.This book has three parts, examining such methods and pseudo-methods of invention in medieval studies, bibliography, and editing. Part One, âNoster Chaucer,â looks at examples in Chaucer studies, such as the notion that Chaucer wrote iambic pentameter, and the definition of a canon in Chaucer. âOurâ Chaucer has, it seems, little to do with Chaucer himself, and in constructing this entity, Chaucerians are engaged largely in self-validation of their own tradition. Part Two, âBibliography and Book History,â consists of three studies in the field of bibliography: the recent rise in studies of annotations; the implications of presumably neutral terminology in editing, a case-study in cataloguing. Part Three, âCacophonies: A Bibliographical Rondo,â is a series of brief studies extending these critiques to other areas in the humanities. It seems not to matter what we talk about: meter, book history, the sex life of bonobos. In all of these discussions, we see the persistence of error, the intractability of uncritical assumptions, and the dominance of authority over evidence.TABLE OF CONTENTS //Part I. Noster ChaucerusChap. 1. How Many Chaucerians Does it Take to Count to Eleven? The Meter of Kynastonâs 1635 Translation of Troilus and Criseyde and its Implications for Chaucerian MetricsChap. 2. Chaucerâs âRude TimesâChap. 3. Meditation on Our Chaucer and the History of the CanonCoda. Godwinâs Portrait of ChaucerPart II. Bibliography and Book HistoryChap. 4. The Singularities of Books and Reading .Chap. 5. Editorial ProjectingChap. 6. The Haunting of Sucklingâs Fragmenta Aurea (1646)Coda. T. F. Dibdin: The Rhetoric of BibliophiliaPart III. Cacophonies: A Bibliographic RondoFakes and Frauds: The âFlewelling Antiphonaryâ and Galileoâs Sidereus NunciusModernity and Middle EnglishThe Quantification of ReadabilityThe Elephant Paper and Histories of Medieval DramaThe Pynson Chaucer(s) of 1526: Bibliographical CircularityMargaret Mead and the BonobosReading My LibraryABOUT THE AUTHORJoseph A. Dane is Professor of English at the University of Southern California. His books on book history and bibliography include Blind Impressions: Methods and Mythologies in Book History (Pennsylvania, 2013), Out of Sorts: On Typography and Print Culture (Pennsylvania, 2011), What is a Book? The Study of Early Printed Books (Notre Dame, 2012), and The Myth of Print Culture: Essays on Evidence, Textuality, and Bibliographical Method (Toronto, 2003).
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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