The Idea of Anglo-Saxon England 1066–1901: RRemembering, Forgetting, Deciphering, and Renewing the Past, by John D. Niles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From the gossipy, and occasionally salacious, accounts of pre-Conquest England produced by historians of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, to the records of the inspectors tasked with demolishing England’s monastic establishment in the sixteenth, to the vibrant exchanges that ricocheted back and forth in the pages of society magazines in the nineteenth, the Anglo-Saxons were rarely too far from the popular and academic imaginations in the millennium that followed the Conquest of 1066. This interest was motivated by a range of factors: alongside antiquarian and scholarly curiosity, political and religious controversies, and even nineteenth-century racial theory (explored by the author, John D. Niles, in two fascinating chapters at the end of this book) all played their part in maintaining the Anglo-Saxons’ relevance. The modern Anglo-Saxonist’s interest in the more recent past, however, has been intensified by the effects of a single, devastating event which took place on 23 October 1731. That night, the ominously-named Ashburnham House, where the vast manuscript collection of Sir Robert Cotton (1571–1631) was kept, suffered a major fire, which tore through the library, destroying or damaging about a quarter of the manuscripts housed there. As a result, the transcripts and editions made of such works as ‘Beowulf’ (which was badly singed in places) and ‘The Battle of Maldon’ (which was completely destroyed) by early modern scholars, who saw them before the fire, have become essential to our understanding of those texts. Just as the historian or the literary critic might interrogate the palaeographical and codicological features of an Anglo-Saxon manuscript, or speculate about the backgrounds of Anglo-Saxon authors, so has it been necessary to subject the training, mentality and scholarly methods of these later collectors and transcribers to close scrutiny in order to focus more sharply the lens through which we, in the twenty-first century, are compelled to view our subjects. There is, therefore, a very great need for a book such as this, which charts the transmission and reception of Anglo-Saxon history and literature across the centuries in a single, highly accessible work.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".