Empire, Shame, and Medieval Text Editing: The Case of <i>Beowulf</i> Line 1382a
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This essay applies the concept of postimperial melancholia, taken from the work of Paul Gilroy, to describe the affective undercurrents of medieval text editing in the latter half of the twentieth century and the first decades of the twenty-first through an example from Beowulf. The discussion is focalized through the emendations to line 1382a, where an ambiguous series of minims leads to different editorial choices in Klaeber's first three editions of the poem, in his second supplement to the third edition, in the fourth edition produced by R. D. Fulk, Robert D. Bjork, and John D. Niles, and in Kevin Kiernan's Electronic Beowulf. The emendation proposed by Klaeber in his second supplement is imbricated in the shameful history of Old English studies and the project of constructing legendary origins for whiteness. Kiernan and the fourth edition editors each reject Klaeber's reading without addressing this history, focusing attention instead on technological and methodological interventions that produce other readings which are then represented alongside Klaeber's. The result is representative of how the closed and nonrecuperative temporality of melancholia is manifest in the principal development of postwar medieval text editing more generally, which is the abandonment of the notion that scholarly interventions constitute progress toward a better representation of a text, in favor of imagining them as expansions of a spatialized critical field around nodes of dissent. The essay concludes that the best way forward for the field is to recognize its melancholia and its causes, so that it might contribute to more productive futures.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".