MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4386904169 · doi:10.1353/chy.2020.0030

Compelling God: Theories of Prayer in Anglo-Saxon England by Stephanie Clark (review)

2020· article· en· W4386904169 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jodi Grimes

Notice bibliographique

RevueChristianity & Literature · 2020
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueMedieval Literature and History
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPrayerLiturgyWorshipReligious studiesChristianityHistoryClassicsTheologyPhilosophySociology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Compelling God: Theories of Prayer in Anglo-Saxon England by Stephanie Clark Jodi Grimes Compelling God: Theories of Prayer in Anglo-Saxon England. By Stephanie Clark. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2018. ISBN 978–1–4875–0198–3. Pp. x + 318. $88.00. Not only is Stephanie Clark's first monograph an important academic study on Anglo-Saxon theories of prayer, and therefore of interest to medievalists and scholars of Christianity, but also it is valuable for anyone interested in prayer and spiritual formation more generally. Clark, an associate professor at the University of Oregon, contests modern, post-Reformation conceptions of early and medieval Christian prayer, and her work may also indirectly challenge those who pray to think more deeply about their own beliefs and spiritual practices. Studies on prayer in Anglo-Saxon England tend to focus on sources and manuscript contexts or "later forms of devotion" (53), although a few concentrate more broadly on prayer in the Western tradition, such as Roy Hammerling's A History of Prayer (2008) and Paul F. Bradshaw's The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship: Sources and Methods for the Study of Early Liturgy (2002). Clark's analysis is unique in its consideration of Anglo-Saxon texts on prayer through the application of gift theory, which derives from the anthropological studies of Marcel Mauss (The Gift: The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies, 1925) and Claude Lévi-Strauss (Elementary Structures of Kinship, 1969); and later developed in works like Jacques Derrida's Given Time I: Counterfeit Money (1994), Jacques Godbout's The World of the Gift (1998), and Maurice Godelier's The Enigma of the Gift (1999). Clark argues that gift theory is particularly useful for her analysis since Anglo-Saxon authors tend to view prayer as a highly relational, reciprocal "gift exchange with God" (20). Modern readers may misunderstand this view because they are inclined to "conflate reciprocity," which focuses on the relationships between "the persons involved in the exchange" with "transactionality," which focuses on the things involved in the exchange (41). Clark proposes, however, that the "reciprocal gift gives community, communication, and identity" (45). The first chapter, "The Anglo-Saxon Inheritance," begins with a discussion of two early Christian approaches to prayer vis-à-vis Origen of Alexandria, who identifies prayer as a gift to God, and Tertullian, who claims that only prayer can "conquer God" (50). Clark exposes the "central problem of will" highlighted by these teachings: does prayer change God's will, or does it show human willingness to submit to God's will? If prayer is a gift, is it "a response in gratitude, an act of submission, or is it an attempt to produce a response, a return gift?" (54). [End Page 328] To clarify how early Christians reconciled such doctrinal paradoxes, Clark masterfully surveys the extant sources. Heavily represented in early teachings about prayer are "literal explication[s]" of the Paternoster, which is featured in the "four major treatises on prayer" (66) that precede the Anglo-Saxon era: Tertullian's De oratione (turn of the third century), Origen's Peri euches ("On Prayer," early third century), Cyprian's De dominica oratione (middle of the third century), and John Cassian's Conlationes 9 and 10 (early fifth century). Also referencing Augustine, Ambrose, Jerome, Bede, and Benedict, Clark explains that for these authors, "humans are not praying for God's benefit" (69) but "as a reminder of their obligation—what they pray for should have effect in them and should make a real difference in their own actions and disposition . . . humans cannot obligate God to act by praying the prayer; the teaching preserves God's agency by reminding precators [that is, those who pray (11, note 29)] of their obligations" (71). Clark stresses that in these texts, along with early teachings on other biblical passages, "proper prayer . . . involves discipline of the mind and body and forms part of a moral framework of Christian behavior as well as enacting a position of dependence upon God" (76). Although post-Reformation thinkers may be inclined to reject the idea of reliance on recited prayers in favor of extemporaneous prayers, early Christian writers do not privilege spontaneity...

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 candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,952
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

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

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 Opus0,015
Tête enseignante GPT0,214
Écart entre enseignants0,198 · 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
GenreEmpirique

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 revueChristianity & LiteratureMême sujetMedieval Literature and HistoryTravaux en français237 207