Richard J. Moll, Ed.: William Caxton: The Book of Ovyde Named Methamorphose
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RICHARD J. MOLL, ED. William Caxton: The Book of Ovyde Named Methamorphose. Studies and Texts 182. British Writers of Middle Ages and Early Modern Period 4. Toronto, Canada: PIMS and Bodleian Library, 2013. 652 pp. It was William Caxton who first produced an English translation of Ovid's Metamorphoses, no doubt one of most influential classical texts in English literary world. Caxton--a merchant, diplomat, and publisher-printer--was also a prolific translator. He translated and published twenty-one works in English, mainly from French but also from Latin and Dutch. According to Wynkyn de Worde, Caxton's successor, Caxton was a diligent translator who fynysshed translating Lives of Fathers from French into English at laste daye ofhys lyff, a project de Worde completed by publishing and printing his master's translation (7). Caxton's translation of The Booke of Ovyde Named Methamorphose, however, does not exist as a printed edition. Only part of it, Books 10 to 15, was known to have survived for almost five hundred years, until 1966, when a manuscript containing Books 1 to 9 of his translation was rediscovered. The English literary world then had to wait almost another half a century before Richard J. Moll's eagerly awaited edition appeared in 2013. Moll's introduction opens an account of reunion of two volumes of single manuscript. Caxton's translation of Books 10 to 15, Cambridge, Magdalene College, Pepys Library 2124, has been known to be in Pepys library since 1688, while copy that contains Books 1 to 9 had been long lost as the very rubbish of Thomas Phillipps collection (2). The rediscovered Phillipps manuscript was put up for an auction in London in 1966 and initially sold to an American collector. Public appeals in United Kingdom managed to raise 22 percent of necessary matching funds needed to keep it in Britain, and Phillipps manuscript was about to be separated from other half of manuscript by Atlantic Ocean. Then George Braziller came up an idea to publish and sell facsimiles of manuscript as a way to raise funds. The first half of manuscript is now Cambridge, Magdalene College, Old Library F.4.32, and it sits together in a display case Pepys manuscript (2). Moll's edition is first critical edition of Caxton's entire translation. The text of single extant manuscript is presented a minimum of editorial interventions (48). Hence cases of Caxton's mistranslation, such as Daedalion to be transformed into an ostrich rather than a goshawk, are allowed to stand as they are (note to 11.732). The text, which was produced with a wide range of readers in mind ( 2), has modern capitalization and punctuation and hence is easy to read, particularly aid of an extensive glossary (577-609), a useful index of proper names, which gives both Middle English and modern forms (610-652), and an introduction to grammatical features of Caxton's language (36-41). The extensive introduction also invites further scholarly investigation into hitherto understudied areas. For example, Moll untangles some of complicated textual tradition of Ovid's works before Caxton. Caxton used French Ovide moralise in prose as text of his translation. This prose Ovide moralise was itself an adaptation of French verse Ovide moralise. The verse version contained multiple layers of interpretation and explanation of Ovid's original poem, but anonymous author of prose version reproduced only historical and moral interpretations of its verse source and removed Christian allegorizations (21). Three manuscripts of French prose version survive, although none of them was used by Caxton as abase text for his translation (22). The analysis of textual errors suggests that Caxton's text and London manuscript both derived from a now-lost common (a), while manuscripts now in Paris and Saint Petersburg derived from a different copy (b). …
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".