MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975413644 · doi:10.1353/pgn.0.0031

Saints and the Audience in Middle English Biblical Drama (review)

2008· article· en· W1975413644 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueParergon · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedieval Literature and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDramaSophisticationRhetorical questionLiteratureInterpretation (philosophy)RhetoricCharacter (mathematics)ArtSociologyMedia studiesHistoryAestheticsTheologyPhilosophyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Saints and the Audience in Middle English Biblical Drama Rosemary Dunn Scoville, Chester N. , Saints and the Audience in Middle English Biblical Drama, Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 2004; cloth; pp.140 ; R.R.P. C$50.00; ISBN 0802089445. Our understanding of medieval drama has developed considerably in the last hundred years, and few would blithely dismiss such plays as simplistic fodder for the peasants. The artistic and theological sophistication has been acknowledged, but the academic interpretation has, at times, favoured the sinners over the saints, and has tended to see complexity and development of character in the subversive and interesting sinners. Chester Scoville sets out to argue, neatly and persuasively, that medieval drama incorporated rhetorical strategies to encourage the audience to respond positively to the good and negatively to the bad. In sum: 'This book argues that the techniques used by medieval playwrights to create characters were rhetorical in nature, that the central characters of the plays are the saints, the heroes and the virtuous; and that the function of these central characters was, as already discussed, to unite the community of the audience in its desire for holy living' (p. 7). By examining characters through these rhetorical strategies, Scoville raises interesting questions about the intention of the playwrights, and also about the intelligence of the audience who are not, in his view, simply told what to believe, but are encouraged to think through the emotional responses and are persuaded, not bludgeoned, into appreciating and therefore committing themselves to, the life of the good. The four characters he chooses are four saints: Thomas, Mary Magdalene, Joseph and Paul, who must all deal with the conflict of doubt and faith. [End Page 252] A re-evaluation of Thomas produces a reevaluation of the sophistication of the Towneley play and the interrelationship in the play of logos to ethos and pathos. Thomas as Doubter is the sceptic and rationalist, but his transformation to knower and believer is achieved, not just through empirical demonstration but also through the manipulation of the audience's evaluation of the value of logos. Logos, as represented in the Law of Paul, is shown as inadequate and Scoville argues that the characters, indeed, 'had to come painfully to grips with the inability of argument, logos or speech to convey belief in the resurrection' (p. 18). The play draws the audience through the inadequacy of pure logos, through faith (sensorial) and ethos (in the speeches) to a new understanding of knowledge itself which is embodied in the eloquent body of Christ rather than in the words. Thomas encapsulates the notion of transcending ethos and logos through pathos to develop a Christian rhetoric that is more responsive to the whole human. Mary Magdalene is viewed through the ethos of her physical appearance; her beauty is not merely a temptation to sin but an indication of her worthiness and of her as a vehicle of grace. Here beauty reflects De Doctrina Christiana's dictum that the role of rhetoric is to teach, to delight and to persuade. Mary speaks in a high style rhetorically, which verbally manifests her authority. The Digby Mary is not a prostitute but a lady who, as Apostle to the Apostles, speaks truth and that truth is reflected in her words. By contrast, the pagans' language descends into gobbledygook. Language and signs refer to far more than themselves. In the flawed, but repentant, eloquent and moving character of Mary, the audience has a figure not only 'to admire, imitate and follow, but also a bridge between themselves and the Church of the Apostles'. Joseph is a more shadowy character, who is introduced through rhetorical strategies, particularly pathos. Although often considered a comic character, Scoville describes a more complex figure who, through his words, actions and quiet but persistent faith, is a challenge to the viewers. They, confronted with the sceptical and all too human questions of Joseph, must query the strength of their own faith. As Joseph struggles with juridical understandings of righteousness, the rhetorical limitations of a purely human structure become apparent to the audience. Paul is both supreme rhetorician and, initially, sceptic. In the Digby play his roles are many; as...

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.802
Threshold uncertainty score0.719

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.175 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it