The Anxieties of Encounter and Exchange: Saracens and Christian Heroism in <i>Sir Beves of Hamtoun</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As Edward Said, Norman Daniel, and Dorothee Metlitzki have pointed out, the purportedly Muslim figures who appear in medieval western literature usually bear little or no resemblance to historical Muslims of the period. Said states, "we need not look for correspondence between the language used to depict the Orient and the Orient itself, not so much because the language is inaccurate but because it is not even trying to be accurate" (71). Similarly, Daniel and Metlitzki identify repeated stereotypical misrepresentations of Islam in medieval literary texts, such as the depiction of Islam as a polytheistic religion or the depiction of alcohol-drinking Muslims (Daniel 3-4, 49-51, 72-73, 81, 133-54; Metlitzki 209-10). It is certainly true that there is little or no mimetic relationship between literary Saracens and historical Muslims, but it should be noted that literary Saracens, despite their inaccuracies, did connote for the West an extremely powerful, technologically advanced Muslim civilization, which both impressed medieval Christians with its scientific knowledge and immense wealth, and menaced them militarily with its many victories over crusaders and its capacity for territorial expansion. Thus, while the Saracens of western literature may not offer us a historically accurate vision of medieval Islam, they can occasionally offer us some insight into the anxieties historical Islam posed for the West. This essay examines moments in the fourteenth-century Middle English romance Sir Beves of Hamtoun when the text’s depiction of one knight’s assimilation into a Saracen world communicates historical anxieties about how life in a Saracen enclave might compromise the Christian heroism of an English knight. The essay argues that Beves of Hamtoun both conveys a fear of Christian assimilation into a non-Christian world, and defines a model of heroic action to counteract such assimilation and re-establish the borders between Christianity and Saracenness. However, the text also indicates the ways in which heroic efforts to reconstruct such borders might ultimately fail.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".