Book Review: <em>Medieval and Renaissance Drama in England</em>, vol 14. Madison, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2001.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
time the biblical drama enjoyed a brief 'revival' in the 1590s, the incidents depicted were selected with an eye to popular taste and treated in the manner of historical material.Lost from these plays were the emphases on embodiment, on the incarnation, and on the affective bond with the audience.These concerns would instead be transferred to the secular stage.For Elizabethan playwrights, an anxiety about visual representation complicated the legacy from the medieval theater.O'Connell's conclusion considers the effects of this anxiety on Jonson and Shakespeare, both of whom used meta-theatrical devices to reflect on the visual aspect of theater.Despite his defenses of the theater in works like Bartholomew Fair, Jonson's insistence on his plays as poems reveals his humanist privileging of text and his ambivalence about visual effects.Although Much Ado also stages the reformation distrust of the idolatrous eye through its central courtships, Shakespeare's other plays provide more confident accounts of the visual image and its power to mediate truth.O'Connell reads the final scene of A Winter's Tale as a 'legitimation of a way of knowing asserted against the humanist claims for an exclusive, or near exclusive, truth in language' (144).What is most compelling about this interpretation is that it enables O'Connell to suggest that, in the end, Shakespeare embraced his status as a visual artist.Closely argued, clearly written, and winningly confident in its mastery of its subject, The Idolatrous Eye makes important connections between religious and secular drama, and between religion and drama more broadly speaking.The book's major flaw is that it leaves us wanting more: its brevity prevents it from always doing justice to the breadth of its topic.This reader, for one, would have appreciated a more leisurely substantiation of the central claims.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.119 | 0.074 |
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".