"Now is hell landed here upon the earth": Renaissance Poverty and Witchcraft in Thomas Middleton's <i>The Black Book</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
En 1604, le pamphlet The Black Book de Thomas Middleton a été publié en deux éditions à Londres. Middleton y répond au Pierce Penniless His Supplication to the Devil (1592) de Thomas Nashe et au The Black Booke's Messenger (1592) de Robert Greene, dans le cadre du débat concernant le Londres interlope des escrocs, des petits voleurs, et des pauvres de la ville. Il y réplique également au mythe de Faust, et contribue ainsi au débat portant sur la sorcellerie et le diable. En examinant The Black Book dans le contexte de ces deux débats apparentés, l’auteur avance que le pamphlet de Middleton met en lumière les fondements et les implications économiques de la représentation qu’avait la culture de la Renaissance des démons, sorcières, mendiants et escrocs. The Black Book propose un Lucifer qui prend la parole pour répondre à l'appel à l'aide désespéré de Pierce Penniless. En faisait endosser le rôle de la Charité à l'ennemi ultime de l'humanité, Middleton remet en question et démystifie les notions contemporaines de sorcellerie et de pauvreté urbaine. Son pamphlet offre un unique commentaire favorable sur la pauvreté et la sorcellerie dans la littérature de la Renaissance.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".