In modo guerrino: change and continuity in English elite conceptions of violence, 1450-1560
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Debates over the issue of violence in late medieval and early modern England tend to focus on ways that the legal system and institutions attempted to control it, or on the influence of wider political or economic forces that generated violence and criminality. This overlooks, or minimises, the cultural and social meaning of violence, particularly as it was performed by members of the social elite. This thesis re-evaluates the meaning of violence for socially elite performers of violence, their victims, and their audiences through a survey of case studies drawn from the records of the central Court of King's Bench and other sources. Using research drawn from criminology, anthropology, and sociology, meaning is found in the performances of violence and their contexts. This method contrasts with previous attempts at studying violence quantitatively or through the lens of the civilizing process. Violence is a form of communication and the way violence is performed communicates meaning and intent. This survey of cases shows how much these performances were influenced by the deeply ingrained values of martial culture and right-violence amongst socially elite performers. As the value and meaning of martial culture changed, so too did the ways in which those elites chose to perform violence. This thesis tracks some of those changes from the militarised, public, and communal performances of the last half of the fifteenth century towards the less militarised, more private and individualistic performances of violence in the first half of the sixteenth century, foreshadowing the duelling craze that followed.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".