Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This diachronic onomastic study reveals cultural trends in Poor Robin’s Almanack, highlighting shifts in narrative roles and satire.
This study quantifies the internal semantics of the mock-saint calendars that appeared annually in Poor Robin’s Almanack between 1664 and 1674, the most widely circulated comic almanac of Restoration London. From ten digitized issues a corrected onomastic corpus of 2728 tokens was compiled; every name is time-stamped by month and year, classified under one of eight narrative roles — Heroes & Knights, Lovers, Magic & Supernatural, Notorious Women, Outlaws & Rogues, Sages & Satirists, Tricksters & Fools, and Tyrants & Traitors — and tagged for cultural provenance (Greek myth, broadside ballad, contemporary pamphlet, etc.). Token frequency serves as an historical production norm; the category concentration and intra-class typicality translate that frequency into prototype strength. Results reveal a graded folk taxonomy. Lovers and Heroes & Knights form tight, myth-anchored nuclei dominated by a handful of classical and romance figures, whereas Tricksters & Fools and Tyrants & Traitors display deliberately flat profiles open to continual topical additions. Provenance tags show a strong correlation between lexical concentration and cultural homogeneity: categories with high concentration draw most of their tokens from a single narrative pool, while diffuse categories recruit names from five or more source domains. Diachronically, the calendar’s centre of gravity first shifts toward political invective, then toward jest-book humor, quantifying how popular print renegotiates the sacred–profane boundary in step with shifting political climates and the taste for novelty. Methodologically, the article demonstrates that fixed-format onomastic satire can be mined much like production norms: name extraction, semantic tagging, prototype metrics and diachronic slicing together provide an alternative for historical cognitive linguistics.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
A. Karaban (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: