MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W745112464 · doi:10.1353/art.2004.0012

The Decameron: First Day in Perspective edited by Elissa Weaver (review)

2004· article· en· W745112464 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Benjamín Álvarez

Bibliographic record

VenueArthuriana · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedieval Literature and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReading (process)LiteratureMetaphorPhilosophyHistoryArtTheologyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

REVIEWS109 anaylsis ofthe pre-Galfridian Arthurian texts. When Warren writes 'every category becomes a border' (16), this will appeal to many adherents of postcolonial literary criticism, and make some historians nervous. Similarly, the drawn out sword metaphor—swords write borders and borders write swords—at times seems forced. But overall, this is a novel and needed approach to the Arthurian historiographie texts that offers much for both historian and literary critic alike. CHRISTOPHER A. SNYDER Marymount University Elissa weaver, ed., The Decameron: First Day in Perspective. Volume One of the Lectura Boccaccii. Toronto: University ofToronto Press, 2004. Pp. viii, 270. isbn: 0-8020-4454-9. $60. The present volume, edited by Elissa Weaver, is a long awaited collection of critical readings of Boccaccio's masterpiece sponsored by the American Boccaccio Association. The series, called the Lectura Boccaccii, takes its name and format from the academic tradition of reading and lecturing on individual cantos of Dante Alighieris Divine Comedy. Applying this practice to the Decameron alreadypresumes a certain critical supposition, namely, that each of the ten days may be treated like a canticle, as a thematic entity and, more specifically, that the Proem, Introduction, and ten tales ofDay One, constitute a thematic unitysimilar to a canto. The present volume treats each ofthe tales as part ofa complex structure as well as individually. Each ofthe essays addresses the Decameron as a whole, as an integral work, while acknowledging how its extraordinary complexity makes it difficult, and perhaps not advisable, to draw any totalizing generalizations. Readers of the Decameron have in various ways acknowledged the special importance of Day One as a metanarrative that may serve as an interpretive key to unlocking the rest of the work. Boccaccio's steady concern throughout the work with the act of reading and with his critics' reaction to his works, along with his theoretical musings on narrative strategies, in particular, allegory, and his sustained, although never explicit, dialogue with Dante ask us to gauge self-consciously our interpretations against his narrative process, which aims to remain free ofany absolute interpretive system. In addition, the author's ironic distance from his storytellers and from his readers would seem to deny us any one exegetical code breaker. The essays in this collection manage to illuminate, without limiting our understanding of the tales, by considering the stories in the context of the entire work, highlighting structural parallels, inter-textual connections, and textual associations both verbal and thematic. By juxtaposing tales in the fitst day, as well as to other days, we see how each functions in the larger narrative; and by following context preparations and extensions from one story to another through close readings, we gain a fresh perspective on tales that have been the subject of critical study for decades. Several ofthe essays carefully trace the context and function ofthe narrators' comments with respect to the tales they tell and reveal their careful strategy. These comments are structural rather than interpretive and may also be compared to Boccaccio's descriptive headings. This sort ofcareful reading, ofeach tale in relation HOarthuriana to what preceeds and follows it, the day in which it is told, its structural similarities to other days, as well as the teller and his audience and the teller's comments, along with Boccaccio's own synopsis and his narrative and literary concerns is thorough but not exhaustive. The Decameron's special appeal, its true character as a masterpiece, is its ability to yield a wealth of meaning and pleasute to the most demanding critical examination. Many of the scholars begin with summaries of previous studies relevant to the tale and, thus, locate their own particular readings within the tradition ofBoccaccio scholarship. The bibliography provides extensive reference to Boccaccio scholarship in both English and Italian. Ofspecial interest to this reader is Robert Hollander's reading ofthe Ovidian and Dantean subtext ofthe Proem and Thomas Stillinger's essay, which once and for all claims the Introduction's importance to the whole of the work. Of special pleasure, those essays that soberly and carefully examine rhe lesser known stories of Day One, often overlooked because of their apparent simplicity, brevity, or transparency. These diligent and fresh readings not only...

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.013

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.201 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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 venueArthurianaSame topicMedieval Literature and HistoryFrench-language works237,207