Book Review: Jacqueline Vanhoutte. <em>Strange Communion: Motherland and Masculinity in Tudor Plays, Pamphlets, and Politics</em>. Newark: University of Delaware Press, 2003.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
the author finds King Lear troubling because his representation of the context or 'occasion' in which the play was produced and performed affords no other reading.'The occasion', Schwyzer writes, 'was a court performance in the midst of the unionist campaign, when writers of all stripes and talents, from bishops to hacks, were bubbling over with prince-pleasing effusions in favour of a reunited Britain' (158).The problem with such a description of the 'occasion' of King Lear's performance is its limited and limiting representation of Union literature as the work of prince pleasers who have no intention of thinking through questions of Union.Schwyzer offers Samuel Daniel's Panegyrike Congratvlatorie to His Kings Maiestie (1603) as an example of such prince-pleasing; however, he elides not only the moments in Daniel's poem in which the poet admonishes the monarch not to meddle with things English but also Daniel's intriguing reference to the 'Republicke', which seems out of place for royal panegyric.Jacobean texts, such as Daniel's Panegyrike, highlight the need for a critical vocabulary that goes beyond a pro-and anti-Union binarism.Schwyzer's description of King Lear as 'so cagey and ambiguous on the union question that it admits of flatly contradictory readings' (160) forecloses fruitful investigation into ideological contradictions.Ironically, this book ends a narrative (on Britishness) at a point in time when British subjects were responding -imaginatively, ambivalently, critically -to the emergence of a multi-national British state.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".