法律知识文化的特征:培根、科克和十七世纪的英格兰

IF 1.5 1区 历史学 Q2 ECONOMICS
Peter Grajzl, Peter Murrell
{"title":"法律知识文化的特征:培根、科克和十七世纪的英格兰","authors":"Peter Grajzl, Peter Murrell","doi":"10.1007/s11698-020-00202-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>A characterization of the ideas of Francis Bacon and Edward Coke, two preeminent English lawyer-scholars, provides insights into the nature of the legal–intellectual culture of early seventeenth-century England. This emerging culture remains underexplored, even though it immediately preceded and provided essential input into the ‘culture of growth,' the eighteenth-century cultural paradigm viewed as a catalyst for England's historically unprecedented technological advance and economic growth. To develop insights, we employ a methodology not previously used in this context, applying structural topic modeling to a large corpus comprising the works of both Bacon and Coke. Estimated topics span legal, political, scientific, and methodological themes. Legal topics evidence an advanced structure of common-law thought, straddling ostensibly disparate areas of the law. Interconnections between topics reveal a distinctive approach to the pursuit of knowledge, embodying Bacon's epistemology and Coke's legal methodology. A key similarity between Bacon and Coke overshadows their differences: both sought to build reliable knowledge based on generalizing from particulars. The resulting methodological paradigm can be understood as reflecting a legacy of common-law thought and constituting a key contribution to the era's emerging legal–intellectual culture. More generally, our analysis illustrates how machine learning applied to primary texts can aid in exploration of culture.\n</p>","PeriodicalId":44951,"journal":{"name":"Cliometrica","volume":"5 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Characterizing a legal–intellectual culture: Bacon, Coke, and seventeenth-century England\",\"authors\":\"Peter Grajzl, Peter Murrell\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11698-020-00202-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>A characterization of the ideas of Francis Bacon and Edward Coke, two preeminent English lawyer-scholars, provides insights into the nature of the legal–intellectual culture of early seventeenth-century England. This emerging culture remains underexplored, even though it immediately preceded and provided essential input into the ‘culture of growth,' the eighteenth-century cultural paradigm viewed as a catalyst for England's historically unprecedented technological advance and economic growth. To develop insights, we employ a methodology not previously used in this context, applying structural topic modeling to a large corpus comprising the works of both Bacon and Coke. Estimated topics span legal, political, scientific, and methodological themes. Legal topics evidence an advanced structure of common-law thought, straddling ostensibly disparate areas of the law. Interconnections between topics reveal a distinctive approach to the pursuit of knowledge, embodying Bacon's epistemology and Coke's legal methodology. A key similarity between Bacon and Coke overshadows their differences: both sought to build reliable knowledge based on generalizing from particulars. The resulting methodological paradigm can be understood as reflecting a legacy of common-law thought and constituting a key contribution to the era's emerging legal–intellectual culture. More generally, our analysis illustrates how machine learning applied to primary texts can aid in exploration of culture.\\n</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":44951,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cliometrica\",\"volume\":\"5 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-03-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cliometrica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11698-020-00202-5\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cliometrica","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11698-020-00202-5","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

对弗朗西斯-培根(Francis Bacon)和爱德华-科克(Edward Coke)这两位杰出的英国律师学者的思想特征的分析,为我们了解十七世纪早期英国法律知识文化的性质提供了启示。尽管这种新兴文化紧随 "增长文化 "之前,并为 "增长文化 "提供了重要的输入,但这种文化仍未得到充分探索。"增长文化 "是十八世纪的文化范式,被视为英国历史上前所未有的技术进步和经济增长的催化剂。为了深入探讨这一问题,我们采用了一种以前从未在此背景下使用过的方法,对培根和科克的大量作品进行结构主题建模。估计主题涵盖法律、政治、科学和方法论主题。法律主题证明了普通法思想的高级结构,跨越了表面上不同的法律领域。主题之间的相互联系揭示了追求知识的独特方法,体现了培根的认识论和科克的法律方法论。培根与科克之间的主要相似之处掩盖了他们之间的不同之处:两人都试图从特殊性中归纳出可靠的知识。由此产生的方法论范式可以被理解为反映了普通法思想的遗产,是对那个时代新兴法律知识文化的重要贡献。更广泛地说,我们的分析说明了将机器学习应用于原始文本可如何帮助探索文化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Characterizing a legal–intellectual culture: Bacon, Coke, and seventeenth-century England

A characterization of the ideas of Francis Bacon and Edward Coke, two preeminent English lawyer-scholars, provides insights into the nature of the legal–intellectual culture of early seventeenth-century England. This emerging culture remains underexplored, even though it immediately preceded and provided essential input into the ‘culture of growth,' the eighteenth-century cultural paradigm viewed as a catalyst for England's historically unprecedented technological advance and economic growth. To develop insights, we employ a methodology not previously used in this context, applying structural topic modeling to a large corpus comprising the works of both Bacon and Coke. Estimated topics span legal, political, scientific, and methodological themes. Legal topics evidence an advanced structure of common-law thought, straddling ostensibly disparate areas of the law. Interconnections between topics reveal a distinctive approach to the pursuit of knowledge, embodying Bacon's epistemology and Coke's legal methodology. A key similarity between Bacon and Coke overshadows their differences: both sought to build reliable knowledge based on generalizing from particulars. The resulting methodological paradigm can be understood as reflecting a legacy of common-law thought and constituting a key contribution to the era's emerging legal–intellectual culture. More generally, our analysis illustrates how machine learning applied to primary texts can aid in exploration of culture.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Cliometrica
Cliometrica Multiple-
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
18.80%
发文量
16
期刊介绍: Cliometrica provides a leading forum for exchange of ideas and research in all facets, in all historical periods and in all geographical locations of historical economics. The journal encourages the methodological debate, the use of economic theory in general and model building in particular, the reliance upon quantification to buttress the models with historical data, the use of the more standard historical knowledge to broaden the understanding and suggesting new avenues of research, and the use of statistical theory and econometrics to combine models with data in a single consistent explanation. The highest standards of quality are promoted. All articles will be subject to Cliometrica''s peer review process. On occasion, specialised topics may be presented in a special issue. Officially cited as: Cliometrica
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信