Shakespeare and the Elizabethan Reformation: Literary Negotiations of Religious Difference, By Dennis Taylor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The question of Shakespeare’s religious affiliations—or lack thereof—has long intrigued scholarship. Secular and religious critics alike have argued for evidence of the playwright’s Catholic or Protestant identity, while scholars such as Stephen Greenblatt have read the coexistence of multiple religious expressions within the plays. Noting an inclination in criticism towards theses for a solely Protestant or Catholic Shakespeare, however, Dennis Taylor in Shakespeare and the Elizabethan Reformation: Literary Negotiations of Religious Difference eschews sectarian conclusions by arguing for the playwright’s complex, ambiguous engagement with religion. This engagement Taylor theorizes as negotiation, a dialogue between old and new beliefs, written as a response to the trauma of the Reformation: grief over the loss of divine power in Richard II, attempted reconciliation in The Comedy of Errors, and the rise of nationalism to replace religion in Henry V. While the book covers only the Elizabethan portion of Shakespeare’s career, this range encompasses important distinctions of genre, with Taylor presenting a compelling thesis for a contrapuntal Shakespeare navigating religious change through juxtaposition.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".