Stephen Partridge and Erik Kwakkel, Eds.: Author, Reader; Book: Medieval Authorship in Theory and Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STEPHEN PARTRIDGE AND ERIK KWAKKEL, EDS. Author, Reader; Book: Medieval Authorship in Theory and Practice Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2012. ix + 305 pp., 11 plates In introduction Author, Reader, Book, Stephen Partridge characterizes this collection of essays that he co-edited with fellow Early Book Society member Erik Kwakkel as a conversation responding to two related phenomena of recent scholarship on Middle (1). Alistair Minnis's Medieval Theory of Authorship is first as well as source of much of theory underlying essays. According Partridge, joining history of a set of ideas developed largely in medieval Latin tradition with illustrations of that tradition's contact with vernacular writing, Minnis's book helped enable an increased sophistication in studies of medieval literature (1). Partridge goes on identify an increase in scholarly work on practical manifestations of medieval theories of authority, author, and authorship as second related phenomenon. Partridge continues by categorizing how essays respond these phenomena: some of essays read texts such as prologues and epilogues where authorial self-representation is an important enabling practice; others analyze ways in which ideas about authors manifest themselves in codices, construction of a single author manuscript collection, for instance, while still others examine author s interactions with her readers. Finally, Partridge identifies two persistent themes in essays: relationships between authors and readers, and between authorship and book. Alistair Minnis's essay, Trouble with Theology: Ethical Poetics and Ends of Scripture, opens collection. Minnis begins with observation that many crucial theoretical issues regarding exegesis of texts were developed and defined within exposition of Bible and only later applied secular literary texts whether in Latin or a vernacular. Theological thinking was not antithetical literary criticism, but rather a stimulus it, and, Minnis says, the converse was also true (20). Herein lies trouble. If end of both theology and poetry was drive men away from vice towards good, and both discourses used figurative techniques, then anxiety arose that theology, queen of sciences, was in danger of pertaining ethics, one of its handmaiden disciplines. Minnis proceeds trace this theological trouble through Prohemia poetarum of Thomas Walshingham, The Middle Commentary of Averroes on Aristotle's Poetics as translated into Latin by Hermann German, and poetics of Roger Bacon among others. He concludes that the fraught relationship between poetry and theology in late medieval thought has led us major underlying question of what sort of pedagogy great medieval schoolmen believed be appropriate Christianity (34), an issue that remained troublesome within history of church far beyond that time. Erik Kwakkel contributes Late Medieval Text Collections: A Codicological Typology Based on Single-Author Manuscripts volume in which he examines compilation in specific material context of Middle Dutch manuscripts. Kwakkel's essay takes as a touchstone Malcolm Parkes's suggestion in Influence of Concepts of Ordinatio and Compilatio that focused compilations, which Kwakkel terms collections, were produced in greater numbers in later Middle Ages than they had been previously. Kwakkel's primary interest is categorize composite manuscripts, which he defines partially as books that consist of multiple production units, a concept that has similarities with oft cited booklet, but which places greater emphasis on diachronic aspects of production. …
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.009 |
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".