Pamphlets, Printing and Political Culture in the Early Dutch Republic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The last quarter-century has seen considerable research attention devoted to the impact the invention of printing had on the political, social and cultural history of Europe in the early modern period.Professor Marline's monograph is a useful addition to this literature, with a narrow focus on three specific features: geographi- cal locus, time frame and type of printed material.It examines the printing and distribution of pamphlets {libelli, little blue books, pasquils) between 1565 and 1650 in what its author calls "that most curious early modern state, the Dutch Republic" (p.ix).Marline's aim is to investigate the purposes and consequences of pamphleteer- ing in the first century of the Dutch Republic, as well as the prevalence, practi- tioneers (i.e.authors, printers and distributors) and readership of this print medium, and to assess the attitude and response of political and ecclesiastical authorities to the very widespread phenomenon.A mass of this pamphlet material exists in libraries in the Netherlands and Belgium: Marline suggests there are as many as Renaissance et Réforme / 71day must have noticed the apparent incongruity of the Dutch authorities subscribing in practice to the view that the pen is mightier than the sword.This monograph is a worthwhile addition to the distinguished internationalArchives of the History of Ideas, and to the collection of specialized titles in early modern European history.The fact that its cost ($78 US) reflects the continuing inability or unwillingness of European academic publishers to control prices, however, probably means that many more copies will find their way onto library shelves than into personal collections.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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.
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".