“Mine anger hath beene just”: Feeling Familicide in the Early Modern Ottoman Court in Thomas Goffe’s The Raging Turk and The Courageous Turk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article offers an analysis of Thomas Goffe’s portrayal of Turkish persons in his plays The Raging Turk (1618) and The Courageous Turk (1619), which represent specific English understandings of Ottoman beliefs about proper sensorial behaviour in political and religious contexts, in particular those concerning law and justice. The article offers a counter to the “Othering” narrative by arguing that specific characters are represented in sensorially positive manners to protect English political interests, especially related to murders within the family that are portrayed in the national interests of Ottoman leaders. The article seeks to facilitate this aim by examining Goffe’s portrayals of Ottoman rulers and the role that sensory elements played in his representations of their power and legitimacy. In particular, the article focuses on death rituals of official violence—executions—and how the senses were involved in their depiction. It grows out of historiographical debates on perceptions of the Other and stereotypes of Ottoman Islam and Orientalism. In doing so, the article seeks to demonstrate that Goffe’s work provides an alternative view of “the Turk” from that of many contemporaries—one that is less about brutality and barbarism and more about the constraints of law in a regulated polity. It arrives at the consensus that Goffe’s representation of male Turkish rulers is demonstrative of an emerging Turkish stereotype that is less about violence for its own sake and more about lawful, justified violence within the bounds of Ottoman culture and legal institutions.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".