MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077700527 · doi:10.1353/utq.2007.0155

John Stow (1525-1605) and the Making of the English Past (review)

2007· article· en· W2077700527 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Seth Lerer

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Toronto Quarterly · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicScottish History and National Identity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPortraitHistoriographyNarrativeBiographyThe RenaissanceArt historyLiteratureHistoryArtClassicsArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: John Stow (1525–1605) and the Making of the English Past Seth Lerer (bio) Ian Gadd and Alexandra Gillespie, editors. John Stow (1525–1605) and the Making of the English Past British Library 2004. xiv, 192. $60.00 This beautifully produced collection of essays on the life and work of the Elizabethan editor and antiquarian, John Stow, grew out of a conference held in 2001 at Corpus Christi College, Oxford. The editors have assembled a range of inquiries by both leading senior scholars and young researchers at the start of their careers, and the papers move between highly technical accounts of books and printing to general narratives of history, biography, and culture. The portrait that emerges from this book is of a man situated at the very heart of Renaissance English literary society. The chapters by Ian Archer, Oliver Harris, Ian Gadd and Meraund Fergusson, and Alfred Hiatt locate Stow among the antiquarians, booksellers, and historians of the mid-sixteenth century. From Harris, in particular, the reader can learn much about the larger antiquarian sensibility at mid-century – a blend of humanist philology and local archaeological and archival obsession. From Alexandra Gillespie, Anthony Bale, Andrew Gordon, and Helen Moore, the reader learns much about the shifting techniques of historiography in Stow's age. Emerging from these discussions are such large questions as: What is a valid source? How can one truly be the author of a history? Where does one draw the line between incorporation and 'counterfeiting' of material? These questions help shape writing about the past, from the annals and chronicles of the late medieval world to the more modern-looking histories of the Renaissance. I learned a great deal from this book about such matters. I learned less about Stow's role in English letters. A.S.G. Edwards and Derek Pearsall are largely content to rehearse approaches they have offered elsewhere, or [End Page 404] simply to direct the reader to previous scholarship. Martha Driver offers an essay that will be of interest only to the most technically adept of bibliographers. Joseph Dane seeks to survey the nature of 'Stow's Chaucer,' the 1561 edition of Chaucer's works which survives in copies so different in detail, either due to editorial intention or printer's error, that professional bibliographers have a hard time deciding just what these copies represent – different editions, different issues, different artifacts. Emerging from the copious details of Dane's inquiry is, nonetheless, the characteristic sceptical tone that marks the best chapters of his earlier books, Who Is Buried in Chaucer's Tomb? and The Myth of Print Culture. For me, the most distinctive and surprising essay in the volume is Bale's on the relationship of Stow's study of medieval history and attitudes towards Judaism in sixteenth-century England. This is an essay that should be of interest not simply to scholars of Anglo-Jewish history, but to those concerned with typography (the printing of Hebrew letters in English books deserves a chronicle of its own), the institutions of the English church, and the idea of historical narrative itself. Each essay in this volume is quite short (the longest is no more than a dozen pages), and the authors may have more to say in later publications. I hope so, because many of them represent the best of a new generation of book historians. Perhaps, in that future work, they may be able to answer some long-standing questions of my own: what was Stow's role in the assembly of British Library Manuscript Harley 78 (a weird pastiche of fragments running from Wyatt's prose, through Chaucer's poetry, bits of alliterative verse, and pieces of history)? What was, in detail, Stow's relationship to John Shirley's manuscripts and how can we compare Stow and Shirley as collectors and filters of the Chaucerian inheritance? How can we assess Stow's overall relationship, not just to individual playwrights of his day, but to the idea of Elizabethan theatricality and, in turn, to the culture of political performance that has generated, in our own time, nearly thirty years of New Historicist criticism? It will be worth following the work of...

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)0.005
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.100

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0300.012

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.182 · 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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Toronto QuarterlySame topicScottish History and National IdentityFrench-language works237,207