MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1991550467 · doi:10.1353/art.2005.0028

Beasts of Love: Richard de Fournival's Bestiaire d'amour and a Woman's Response by Jeanette Beer (review)

2005· article· en· W1991550467 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kate Langdon Forhan

Notice bibliographique

RevueArthuriana · 2005
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueMedieval Literature and History
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPassionPassionsBestiaryMoresExplicationLiteratureBeautyArtAllusionArt historyPhilosophyHistoryAestheticsPsychologyPolitics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reviews Jeanette beer, Beasts ofLove: Richardde Fournival's Bestiaire d'amouranda Woman's Response. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2003. Pp x, 214. isbn: 0—80203612 —0. $50. Characteristic ofthe courtly culture ofthe thirteenth and fourteenth century was a love of complexity, of multiple allusions, of games, and of wordplay. Richard de Fournival's Bestiare d'amour typifies this passion for ambiguity and complexity. The Bestiaire is an elaborately self referential and rich work that provides a view of love as the ovetthrow ofreason by passion; a tale told through 'parole et painture.' Each 'beast' presents a different aspect oflove or passion, and is illustrated by illuminations of the wide variety of animals referenced. In recent yeats, much has been written about the uses of animals to represent the passions, vices, or other human characteristics, and theit role in revealing to us something about the medieval understanding of human psychology as well as the sexual mores of the era. The lavishly illuminated Bestiaire lends itself to this kind ofstudy. An evaluation ofthe work's reception by its audience is aided by the Response, a challenge presented to its misogynistic views from the pen ofa late thirteenth-century woman. Jeanette Beer, currently Professor of French at Purdue University, has written extensively on this ttadition, and has prepared translations ofboth the Bestiaire and The Response (1986; West Lafayette; 2000). The present work is a slim but densely argued explication ofthe Bestiary's position and ofthe critique found in the Response. The work is richly illustrated with fine teptoductions from the fourteenth-century manuscript, MS Douce 308. Beer's work is divided into six chapters, ofwhich the first four arc on the text of the Bestiaire. Chapter One, 'Love and Reason,' essentially discusses the well-worn theme ofthe sabotage ofreason by love. ChapterTwo, 'Love and the Senses,' evaluates Richard's lament on his role as victim, and Chapter Three discusses the presentation of possible remedies for Richard's plight. The most important remedy available to him is, very predictably, foresight, or prudence. Chapter Four, 'Love for Women,' stresses the metaphor of love as war, complete with pleas for mercy. The love of women, like warfare, cannot bring satisfaction to Richard. By Chapter Five, Beer has turned to an assessment of the Response. This short work is enigmatic, since neither the name of the author, nor even the date of the work are known. Beer speculates about these issues, describes the extant manuscripts, and finally summarizes its themes. In Chaptet Six, she discusses the legacy ofRichard's work in latet litetaty developments. While the scholarship is excellent within the very narrow scope the author has defined for herself, this work has several significant flaws. First, the genre of the ARTHURIANA 15.2(2005) 64 REVIEWS65 work, the bestiary itself, is a fascinating one, and Beer's expertise could have allowed much more discussion and evaluation of the gente as a whole. Where does the Bestiaire fit in to its tradition? Its rather shop worn views had an audience: who was it and why? What were its authot's sources? More development ofthe context ofthe work and discussion of its antecedents would have been useful and welcome. While these aspects may have been addressed in Beer's other wotks (she refers to them in notes), they are essential to her explication here, and their absence is notable and weakens both the utility and the interest of the work as a whole. Secondly, while 'parole et painture' is an important concept and the reproductions are very nicely handled by the publisher, rhere is no real explanation of analysis of the images. What is their context vis-à-vis the written text? Are all the 'beasts' illusttated? Are thete anomalies, exclusions, novel iconographies? A work so lavishly illuminated deserves to have its 'painture' taken as seriously as its 'parole,' in part, as art historian Robert Calkins has often pointed out, because the manuscript was intended to be experienced as a whole, senatum. The manuscript authot had it illuminated and went to considerable expense to do so. Why? What is the role of the images? What was the social and cultural role of the recipient? How and in what...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,011
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,024

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,004
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,001
Bibliométrie0,0020,003
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,002
Communication savante0,0030,004
Science ouverte0,0020,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0030,006
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0070,005

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,010
Tête enseignante GPT0,211
Écart entre enseignants0,201 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2005
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueArthurianaMême sujetMedieval Literature and HistoryTravaux en français237 207