MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379624070 · doi:10.1353/mlr.2004.a827577

Écriture et pouvoir à Taube des temps modernes by Joël Blanchard, Jean-Claude Mühlethaler (review)

2004· article· fr· W4379624070 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Catherine Emerson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Modern Language Review · 2004
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicReformation and Early Modern Christianity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoliticsHumanitiesArt historyArtHistoryPhilosophyClassicsLiteratureLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

484 Reviews point Clarke mentions 'the Anglo-Quebecois critic Louis Dudek' (p. 76). Can anyone be 'Anglo-Quebecois'? Clarke and Walcott seldom agree on anything, but their books have a similar prob? lem. Instead of a milestone such as The Black Atlantic, both Black Like Who? and Odysseys Home are cobbled-together miscellanies. These two fine thinkers did not take the time to write books but instead accepted assemblages, bits of fabric with all kinds of threads hanging out. Yet still, both books should be purchased, in Canada and elsewhere. Clarke and Walcott are thinking the thoughts which must be thought and saying the things which must be said. Now if only they would write the books which must be written. York University of Toronto Terry Goldie Ecriture etpouvoir d I'aube des tempsmodernes. By Joel Blanchard and Jean-Claude Muhlethaler. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. 2002. iv + 230 + vipp. ?19.50. ISBN 2-13-052398-6. The ambition and scope ofthis book can be judged by the chronology which itpresents in an appendix, stretching from 1261 to 1521, and it is surely no coincidence that this period corresponds to that examined in Johan Huizinga's Herfsttij der Middeleeuwen (Haarlem: H. D. Tjeenk Willink, 1919), whose title is echoed in Joel Blanchard and Jean-Claude Muhlethaler's work. In contrast with Huizinga's overtly polemical work, this examination of medieval political writing lets its conclusions emerge over the course of six chapters dealing with differentaspects of writing on politics in the Middle Ages. At firstthese chapters appear to present a bibliography of their respec? tive fields, hom miroirsdesprinces to the writing of historians such as Commynes, but, as the book progresses, it becomes apparent that the authors are documenting chang? ing concerns in political writing from theological conceptions of the body politic to an emergent awareness of economic relations. The order of the chapters is roughly chronological, which is in keeping with the authors' view that trends can be identified in medieval political writing but that conceptual frameworks do not totally supersede each other. The book moves to the conclusion that political writing existed in the later Middle Ages?a conclusion that has been amply demonstrated in the course of the work?but also to a more elaborated analysis ofthe relationship between poetics and politics, between poet and prince. In a book that attempts to describe so many works, it is inevitable that those who have engaged in detailed study of the texts in question may feel that readings have been simplified. Nevertheless, this is an authoritative sur? vey which rarely does an injustice to the texts it addresses. Occasionally readers may feel that more detailed footnotes would have allowed the authors to expand on matters of debate or to document their sources more fully. In fact, supplemental information is kept to a minimum, in accordance with the desire ofthe authors to present a seamless work of collaboration. In general they have been successful in this aim, although there are some conflicting statements, especially with regard to whether one can speak of propaganda in a medieval context, and it is tempting to regard such inconsistencies as the product of the interaction of two authors. Overall, this is an impressive survey which is best read as a whole rather than as a reference work. It can serve to contextualize the works that it describes and there is a comprehensive index to authors and works, allowing the reader to pick out individual sections. However, as Blanchard and Muhlethaler suggest, the domain of medieval political writing is a complex one and the force of their analysis is in the range of material used to portray it. National University of Ireland, Galway Catherine Emerson ...

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.559
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.252 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Modern Language ReviewSame topicReformation and Early Modern ChristianityFrench-language works237,207