A Companion to Anglo-Saxon Literature ed. by Phillip Pulsiano, Elaine Treharne, and: Satan Unbound: The Devil in Old English Narrative Literature by Peter Dendle (review)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MLR, 99.2, 2004 449 A Companion toAnglo-Saxon Literature. Ed. by Phillip Pulsiano and Elaine Tre? harne. (Blackwell Companions to Literature and Culture) Oxford and Malden, MA: Blackwell. 2001. xviii + 529pp. ?80; $124.95. ISBN 0-631-20904-2. Satan Unbound: The Devil in Old English Narrative Literature. By Peter Dendle. Toronto, Buffalo, NY, and London: University of Toronto Press. 2001. xiii + 196 pp. $50; ?30 (pbk $22.95; ?12). ISBN 0-8020-4839-0 (pbk 0-8020-83962 ). Two books, two indices as to the health of a discipline: in a sense, the books under review represent different ends of Anglo-Saxon studies. The Companion is selfconsciously oriented to teaching, to introducing the neophyte and non-specialist to the best the field currently offers,rather than breaking new ground as a primary goal. As a scholarly monograph (an endangered species, given the state of university presses), Satan Unbound represents what new questions and answers the field is producing. The Blackwell Companions focus on 'orientingthe beginning student in new fields of study and providing the experienced undergraduate and new graduate student with current and new directions, as pioneered and developed by leading scholars in the field'. In Anglo-Saxon studies, this type of introduction/summation/state-of-the-field project is currently a growth area: M. Lapidge and M. Godden, The Cambridge Com? panion to Old English Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991); H. Aertsen and R. Bremmer, Companion to Old English Poetry (Amsterdam: VU Univer? sity Press, 1994); R. Bjork and J.Niles, A 'Beowulf' Handbook (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1997); M. Lapidge and others, The Blackwell Encyclopedia ofAngloSaxon England (Oxfordand Malden, MA: Blackwell, 1999); M. Alexander, A History ofOld English Literature (Peterborough, ON: Broadview Press, 2002); R. Liuzza, Old English Literature: Critical Essays (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002); A. Orchard , A Critical Companion to 'Beowulf (Woodbridge, Suffolk, and Rochester, NY: Brewer, 2003); R. Fulk and C. Cain, A History of Old English Literature (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2003); P. Baker, Introduction to Old English (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2003); the ongoing series of classic reprinted essays, 'Basic Readings in Anglo-Saxon England' (7 vols to date, New York: Garland and Routledge, 1994-2002). In Chapter 1 the editors of the Companion explain that 'A volume such as this is designed to inform and stimulate' (p. 9). Every one of the twenty-seven chapters in this volume informs with absolutely up-to-date surveys ofthe field; however, not all of the essays stimulate. Rather than rehearse the titles and contents ofthe various essays, I will concentrate here on overall impressions. In general, the Companion places what had been considered 'non-canonical' texts over the traditionally 'canonical'. What this means is prose over verse, extending even beyond prose authors such as i^lfric and Wulfstan to scientific and legal texts and other relatively neglected forms. Even when poetry makes an appearance, as a general rule one is more likely to find a contributor reaching fora riddle or maxim as an illustration rather than a passage fromBeowulf or the elegies or the Dream oftheRood. Is this a good thing ?On the one hand the picture of the Anglo-Saxon textual world presented here is undeniably broader and more com? plex than heretofore, with chapters, for example, on 'Legal and Documentary Writ? ings' and 'Prayers, Glosses and Glossaries', among others. On the other hand, in 529 pages there is really no sustained discussion ofBeowulf', the most extensive being Fred Robinson's four pages of well-chosen comments inhis chapter ('Secular Poetry'). To be sure, one can go to many places for good introductions to the poem, but it does feel as if the Companion moves too overwhelmingly far away from what generations of reader have feltto be the most compelling specimens of Anglo-Saxon literature. In another sign of the volume's salutary engagement with the field's most productive research in recent years, manuscript context is given pride of place throughout. Most contributors place their subjects fullywithin the context of manuscript produc- 45 o Reviews tion and dissemination; no fewer than four essays in Part I ('Contexts and Perspec? tives') address the role of manuscripts in Anglo-Saxon literary culture...
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.054 | 0.028 |
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".