MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1991463654 · doi:10.1353/esc.2007.0047

Fantasies of Troy: Classical Tales and the Social Imaginary in Medieval and Early Modern Europe (review)

2005· article· en· W1991463654 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Lauren Kathleen Kiefer

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish studies in Canada · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicFolklore, Mythology, and Literature Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThe ImaginaryThe RenaissanceEarly modern EuropeMythologyTheme (computing)ClassicsHistoryLiteratureEarly modern periodArtArt historyAncient historyPsychoanalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Fantasies of Troy: Classical Tales and the Social Imaginary in Medieval and Early Modern Europe Lauren Kiefer Alan Shepard and Stephen D. Powell, eds. Fantasies of Troy: Classical Tales and the Social Imaginary in Medieval and Early Modern Europe. Toronto: Centre for Reformation and Renaissance Studies, 2004. xi + 306 pp. Of the fifteen essays contained in this volume, thirteen were originally presented as papers at "The Fall of Troy in the Renaissance Imagination," a two-day conference held at the Centre for Renaissance and Reformation Studies at the University of Toronto in 2002. The relationship between the backward-looking Renaissance in the conference title with the forward-looking early modern in the book title underscores an important theme that runs through both: the evolution of a period's view of itself and its relationship to the past, a view embedded in its peoples' social imaginaries. Just as early modern looks back to sixteenth-century Europeans as our glorious ancestors (an attitude whose scholarly significance Stephen Guy-Bray elaborates in his essay), so in this volume many Renaissance writers predictably imply that they are superior to their immediate progenitors, that they resemble instead a more impressive, ancient people. [End Page 240] The essays in Fantasies of Troy also complicate this received wisdom in persuasive and satisfying ways. For example, several of the essays show how societies use the Troy myth not merely to look backwards but to look sideways to their contemporary neighbours. Because we are like the Trojans, we are not like Rome, say the Venetian writers in Sheila Das's essay. Because we are descended from the Trojans, French is descended from Greek, not Roman, say the linguists in Paul Cohen's essay. We feel related to both the Trojans and to our native Gaelic tradition, say the Irish writers and scribes in Brent Miles's. Because we are like the Trojans, we shall create a society based on virtuous love, says Spenser in James Carscallen's essay, while Elizabeth Bellamy and Rebecca Helfer each argue that Spenser's use of Troy actually undercuts such patriotic fervor. In Scott Schofield's essay, Anthony Munday relies on the persistence of England's Trojan founder myth in the public mind to celebrate James I in an age when contemporary historians have already rejected the myth as fictitious. The editors' use of the title Fantasies of Troy in place of the conference's Fall of Troy underscores the self-aggrandizing impulse implicit in many early modern uses of the Troy myth. Das's Venetian chroniclers and Cohen's French linguists do not envision a defeated people when they posit a Trojan ancestry; at minimum, they envision survivors, handing down their noble legacy to a people who can sustain and cherish it. Michael Ullyot's essay cites numerous early modern English writers who associate London (Troynovant) with "Troy's glory before its fall, necessarily omitting the myth's more cautionary elements," and Stephen Guy-Bray finds in scholarship on early modern England a similar notion, "that Troy is a precedent for England only in a good way." However, Section Two of Fantasies of Troy, "Rhetoric, Translation Imperii, and Trojan Legacy," undermines this received notion, as well. Here, the Elizabethan Troynovant is replaced in Guy-Bray's, Johnson's, and Andrew Hiscock's essays by a much darker sixteenth-century view. Guy-Bray shows that for the Earl of Surrey, even Virgil's Aeneid is less about empire-building than about death and painful memories. Johnson's essay on Shakespeare's The Rape of Lucrece and Hiscock's on Hamlet suggest that Surrey's view is not unique but fairly representative of sixteenth-century English writers, not so much celebrating their country as "mourning for a lost integrity." In Hiscock's essay, Hamlet shares with the citizens of Troynovant the wish to affiliate himself positively with the Troy story, but "interpretative crises" consistently prevent him from doing so. Troy's fall also dominates Stéphanie Bélanger's essay, where we see Robert Garnier use the story (in his La Troade) to elucidate the horror of wars and the injustices perpetuated [End Page 241] by the powerful ("l'horreur des guerres et...

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish studies in CanadaSame topicFolklore, Mythology, and Literature StudiesFrench-language works237,207