Book Review: Cameron Louis (ed). Sussex. <em>Records of Early English Drama</em>. Brepols and University of Toronto Press, 2000.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
theory' that pervades the argument results less from theory's shortcomings, I would submit, than from the inability of this slim volume to take into account much substantial theoretical work that goes beyond the binary of 'containment vs. subversion'.A related problem is the tendency of the argumentation to fall back on common sense formulations for interpretation of historical context, ignoring the very rich theoretical analysis of reception and appropriation in literary and cultural studies.In the two case studies that comprise chapters 3 and 4, Humphrey explores local records to interpret the notorious 'riding' of John Gladman in 1443 Norwich and an incident in which summer festival boughs were gathered from lands owned by the priory of Coventry.Both cases involve competing interpretations of the action, one by the civic authorities and one by the rival authority or property owner, and in each case the town records defend the riding or gathering as conforming to traditional holiday custom.After an in-depth examination of the various controversial issues surrounding these events, Humphrey concludes that such incidents of festive misrule were not inherently oppositional per se, but were politicized by their insertion into a specific historical context where they might be used to achieve a political goal.Although this study is in many ways too sketchy to be truly satisfying as cultural analysis, the incidents from Norwich and Coventry described by Humphrey do suggest that any approach to festive performance that does not embed it within the wide and specific social context must be understood to be incomplete.If we are to understand the politics of carnivalesque activity, it is important to research the historical situation framing such actions -on this point Humphrey's book is persuasive!
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 teacher head, 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".