MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4236288967 · doi:10.1353/cor.2020.0032

Cultures of the Fragment: Uses of the Iberian Manuscript, 1100-1600 by Heather Bamford

2020· article· en· W4236288967 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nicole G. Corrigan

Notice bibliographique

Revue˜La œcorónica/˜La œCorónica · 2020
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueEarly Modern Spanish Literature
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésFragment (logic)EPICArtFragmentation (computing)HistoryMiddle AgesClassicsAncient historyLiteratureComputer science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Cultures of the Fragment: Uses of the Iberian Manuscript, 1100-1600 by Heather Bamford Nicole G. Corrigan Bamford, Heather. Cultures of the Fragment: Uses of the Iberian Manuscript, 1100-1600. U of Toronto P, 2018. xi + 257 pp. ISBN: 978-1-4875-0240-9. Heather Bamford's book examines fragments of medieval Spanish manuscripts, looking at their production and circulation in the Middle Ages, the sixteenth century, and the present day. Her objects of study are diverse—ranging from fragments of chivalric romances to Morisco literature—as she considers how and why these fragments were originally made and the impact that their fragmentation had on how they are studied today. The three main types of fragments that she addresses are physical fragments (manuscripts re-used as book bindings or covers), spiritual fragments (talismans and magical objects), and intellectual fragments (compilations). She aims to show that the creation of most fragments was intentional rather than accidental and to open up engagement with fragments in ways that go beyond questions of legibility. The first chapter, "Fragment and Fragmentary in the Iberian Epic," is the longest in the book, and it lays out her method for interpreting textual fragments, taking epics as her case study. All surviving medieval Spanish epics, she observes, are fragmentary, missing anywhere from a few to hundreds of lines; this condition is rather unusual for the corpus of epics in medieval Europe. Her main examples in this chapter are the Cantar de mío Cid, the Roncesvalles, and the Mocedades de Rodrigo, which she sees as existing on a continuum from fragmentary to fragment. This distinction is key to the chapter. "Fragmentary" implies a more complete text, for which it is easier to reconstruct what is missing, while "fragment" implies a text defined by what it lacks. Although both fragmentary texts and fragments tend to be the focus of reconstructive projects, Bamford notes that fragments less frequently feature as objects of literary study, something that she seeks to remedy in this book. The chapter broadly considers why fragments are made and how their status as a fragment impacts how they have been studied. She first addresses the historiography of fragments, pointing out that a great deal of scholarship around fragments has been dedicated to "restoring" them, or hypothesizing [End Page 159] about what is missing. In general, Bamford urges us to resist the temptation to restore a fragment, although she acknowledges it is difficult to do so. According to the author, "this piecing together of facts and conjecture of lost plot points, while interesting and successful in drawing some attention to the work, does not restore it to something that better resembles the whole" (31). This is one of her more thought-provoking contributions: the encouragement to find value in the fragment as a fragment, rather than to go searching for what could ultimately never be recovered. Bamford concludes the chapter by asking why fragments were created, both generally and in the specific case of the epic poems. While she pushes against the common desire to speculate over the original contents of a fragment, she does speculate over the intentions behind making a fragment, although her conclusions are often rooted in the material surface of the surviving text. She emphasizes that textual fragmentation was rarely a matter of censorship, but rather due to more practical reasons. Sometimes the scribes of a codex may not have had a complete model themselves; at other times, palimpsests were created simply because the text appeared to be out of date, was written in a rarely used language, or no longer seemed useful to the present user. Chapter Two, "From Bound to Metonym: Early Modern Disuse of Chivalric Fragments," looks at chivalric texts that were re-used as binding materials in the early modern era. The aim of this chapter is to call attention to how disuse of a manuscript in the early modern era (leading to its fragmentation and use in bindings) has led to its subsequent disuse in modern scholarship. She here applies the method she laid out in the first chapter: rather than searching for "missing symbolic codes" of fragments, she more productively engages with the fragmented texts and...

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)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,556
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0020,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,000

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 Opus0,019
Tête enseignante GPT0,207
Écart entre enseignants0,188 · 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
GenreAutre

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
Publié2020
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revue˜La œcorónica/˜La œCorónicaMême sujetEarly Modern Spanish LiteratureTravaux en français237 207