Sion and Elizium: National Identity, Religion, and Allegiance in Anthony Copley’s <i>A Fig for Fortune</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article uses Anthony Copley’s poem A Fig for Fortune (1596) to examine Elizabethan constructions of national identity. Acknowledging that religious and national identities were symbiotic in the Reformation era, it argues that the interdependency of Protestant and Catholic narratives of “nationhood” must be appreciated. Analysis of Copley’s text engages with previous critiques, including those of Clare Reid, Alison Shell, and Susannah Monta, in order to propose a more coherent interpretation of Copley’s engagement with Spenser’s The Faerie Queene. Copley did not merely defend Catholics as loyal subjects; he moved beyond debates about loyalty to reconsider ideas of nation, England, and Englishness more broadly, challenging the premises as well as the conclusions of Protestant statesmen and writers. Cet article examine les constructions de l’identité nationale de l’Angleterre élisabéthaine à travers le poème d’Anthony Copley A Fig for Fortune (1596). En considérant que les identités religieuse et nationale étaient liées de façon symbiotique pendant la période de la Réforme, on avance que l’interdépendance des versions catholique et protestante des récits de nationalité devrait être mieux prise en compte. L’analyse du texte de Copley met à profit différents commentaires critiques, en autres ceux de Clare Reid, Alison Shell et Susannah Monta, afin de proposer une interprétation plus cohérente du travail de Copley sur The Faerie Queene de Spenser. Copley ne s’est pas contenté simplement de défendre les catholiques en tant que sujets loyaux, il en a également profité pour dépasser les débats au sujet de la loyauté, pour remettre en question les idées de nation, d’Angleterre, et plus généralement de ce que c’est que d’être anglais, et par conséquent aussi, les prémisses et conclusions des écrivains et hommes d’État protestants.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".