‘To make such things known in my Native Language’: acquiring, translating and disseminating Boehme’s writings in England and Wales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is significant that between 1645 and 1662 most of Boehme’s treatises and the majority of his letters were printed in English translation at London. Moreover, two shorter pieces were rendered from English into Welsh in 1655. Yet the question of why Boehme’s writings were translated into English and the mechanisms behind this process has never been adequately explained. Among Boehme’s followers there circulated a garbled story that Charles I had been the main patron of the venture before his execution on 30 January 1649. Some also maintained, probably correctly, that after the Restoration of the Stuart monarchy the remaining works were brought out under the auspices of Philip Herbert, fifth Earl of Pembroke. In their eyes this tradition of royal and aristocratic support gave the undertaking prestige. Yet it simplifies developments, obscuring the involvement of a number of people with common aims. Actually there were three overlapping phases. Firstly, before the outbreak of Civil War in August 1642 certain English speakers, who could also read Latin and sometimes German and Dutch as well, obtained Boehme’s writings both in manuscript and print through their associates in the Dutch Republic and Holy Roman Empire. Then manuscript translations were made primarily from German and to a lesser extent Dutch and Latin versions of Boehme’s works. Most of these texts were available in editions published at Amsterdam. These English translations, a few of which are anonymous, circulated privately in much the same way as did other mystical and prophetic writings during the period. Finally, there was an organised scheme for publishing the extant corpus in English. While some of the cost was met by the translators themselves, it is clear that Samuel Hartlib and members of his circle acted as intermediaries by using agents to purchase books, subsequently shipping them to England.
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 | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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.
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".