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
Reviewed by: Wolsey by Glenn Richardson Sally Fisher Richardson, Glenn, Wolsey (Routledge Historical Biographies), New York, Routledge, 2020; ebook; pp. 338; 5 b/w illustrations; R.R.P. AU $60.29; ISBN 9781003056263. John Skelton's satirical poem directed against the rise of Thomas Wolsey, Why Come Ye Nat to Court (1521–22), asks: 'Why come ye nat to court? To which court?'(ll. 398–99). Surely the residence of the butcher's son from Ipswich could not be mistaken for that of the English king? Skelton's lines feature in Glenn Richardson's recent contribution to scholarship on the English cardinal who fell so spectacularly from grace, drawing attention to material display at the Tudor court and the inherent danger in seeking to rise above one's allotted station in life. [End Page 251] Richardson is well established as an historian of the Tudor court and Renaissance monarchy, having explored the 1520 diplomatic meeting between Henry VIII and Francis I in The Field of Cloth of Gold (Yale University Press, 2013) and analysed the reigns of Henry VIII, Francis I, and Charles V in Renaissance Monarchy (Bloomsbury Academic, 2002). This latest offering is an obvious successor to his study of the Field of the Cloth of Gold, across which Wolsey is omnipresent. Richardson acknowledges that Wolsey has endured as a popular and often polarizing figure for historical enquiry and literary representations. His historiographical survey deftly moves from George Cavendish's contemporary biography of Wolsey (1556–58) to recent scholarship, noting growing interest in Wolsey's role in foreign affairs. After an overview encompassing A. F. Pollard's biography Wolsey (Longmans, 1929), J. J. Scarisbrick's discussion of Wolsey within his biography Henry VIII (University of California Press, 1968), and Peter Gwyn's biography The King's Cardinal: The Rise and Fall of Thomas Wolsey (Barrie & Jenkins, 1990), Richardson confronts the inevitable question: why another book on Wolsey? He argues that the justification for this work lies in its dialogue between past research and contemporary thought and his own research on Wolsey's European diplomacy. The book is structured chronologically, around three major themes: Wolsey's role in international affairs, with attention to his management of the relationship between Henry, Francis, and Charles; Wolsey's governmental, secular, and sacred activities within England; and his political, cultural, and educational patronage. Chapter 1 traces Wolsey's early life and career trajectory as Wolsey's ascent is connected to his support of war against France and his treatment of Henry as a young man and as a king. By chapter's close, Henry has gained experience on a European battlefield and Wolsey is Archbishop of York. Chapter 2 explores Wolsey's involvement in foreign affairs, celebrated in the 1520 meeting at the Field of the Cloth of Gold, by which time he was a cardinal and a papal legate a latere. On Wolsey's use of material display, Richardson discusses the arrival of Wolsey's cardinal's hat in a slightly different and credible light, drawing attention to Wolsey's rise and the associated elevation of Henry and England. The third chapter concentrates on English events, with a focus on Wolsey in council and court. Tensions between the king, his nobles, and Wolsey are recognized as ongoing concerns, as Richardson outlines how Wolsey worked to limit opportunities for nobles to advise Henry. His speculative term 'the cardinal-courtier' suggests the problems and opportunities presented to Wolsey by proximity to the king. Chapter 4 assesses Wolsey as cardinal legate, concentrating on his working relationship with Rome and the English church. Richardson highlights Wolsey's belief in education as critical to the defence of orthodoxy. The fifth chapter examines Wolsey's cultural and educational patronage, his wealth, and his household. If the reader seeks to ask how one might think there were two royal courts in England, the answer is here. [End Page 252] Chapter 6 returns to Wolsey's peacekeeping efforts. As transitions from war to peace are charted, Richardson shows how easily one could lose the king's favour, hinting, too, that events on the European stage would be shaped by Henry's desire to annul his marriage with Katherine. The seventh chapter...
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 | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
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