Mythodologies: Methods in Medieval Studies, Chaucer, and Book History
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mythodologies challenges the implied methodology in contemporary studies in the humanities. We claim, at times, that we gather facts or what we will call evidence, and from that form hypotheses and conclusions. Of course, we recognize that the sum total of evidence for any argument is beyond comprehension; therefore, we construct, and we claim, preliminary hypotheses, perhaps to organize the chaos of evidence, or perhaps simply to find it; we might then see (we claim) whether that evidence challenges our tentative hypotheses. Ideally, we could work this way. Yet the history of scholarship and our own practices suggest we do nothing of the kind. Rather, we work the way we teach our composition students to write: choose or construct a thesis, then invent the evidence to support it.This book has three parts, examining such methods and pseudo-methods of invention in medieval studies, bibliography, and editing. Part One, “Noster Chaucer,” looks at examples in Chaucer studies, such as the notion that Chaucer wrote iambic pentameter, and the definition of a canon in Chaucer. “Our” Chaucer has, it seems, little to do with Chaucer himself, and in constructing this entity, Chaucerians are engaged largely in self-validation of their own tradition. Part Two, “Bibliography and Book History,” consists of three studies in the field of bibliography: the recent rise in studies of annotations; the implications of presumably neutral terminology in editing, a case-study in cataloguing. Part Three, “Cacophonies: A Bibliographical Rondo,” is a series of brief studies extending these critiques to other areas in the humanities. It seems not to matter what we talk about: meter, book history, the sex life of bonobos. In all of these discussions, we see the persistence of error, the intractability of uncritical assumptions, and the dominance of authority over evidence.TABLE OF CONTENTS //Part I. Noster ChaucerusChap. 1. How Many Chaucerians Does it Take to Count to Eleven? The Meter of Kynaston’s 1635 Translation of Troilus and Criseyde and its Implications for Chaucerian MetricsChap. 2. Chaucer’s “Rude Times”Chap. 3. Meditation on Our Chaucer and the History of the CanonCoda. Godwin’s Portrait of ChaucerPart II. Bibliography and Book HistoryChap. 4. The Singularities of Books and Reading .Chap. 5. Editorial ProjectingChap. 6. The Haunting of Suckling’s Fragmenta Aurea (1646)Coda. T. F. Dibdin: The Rhetoric of BibliophiliaPart III. Cacophonies: A Bibliographic RondoFakes and Frauds: The “Flewelling Antiphonary” and Galileo’s Sidereus NunciusModernity and Middle EnglishThe Quantification of ReadabilityThe Elephant Paper and Histories of Medieval DramaThe Pynson Chaucer(s) of 1526: Bibliographical CircularityMargaret Mead and the BonobosReading My LibraryABOUT THE AUTHORJoseph A. Dane is Professor of English at the University of Southern California. His books on book history and bibliography include Blind Impressions: Methods and Mythologies in Book History (Pennsylvania, 2013), Out of Sorts: On Typography and Print Culture (Pennsylvania, 2011), What is a Book? The Study of Early Printed Books (Notre Dame, 2012), and The Myth of Print Culture: Essays on Evidence, Textuality, and Bibliographical Method (Toronto, 2003).
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 | 0.016 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".