MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2610124638 · doi:10.1353/mln.2017.0034

Ficino in Spain by Susan Byrne

2017· article· en· W2610124638 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueMLN · 2017
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueEarly Modern Spanish Literature
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMAGIC (telescope)AstrologyBaroqueMysticismContext (archaeology)HistoriographyPoetryLiteratureClassicsIntellectual historyHistoryArtMotleyArt historyPhilosophy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Ficino in Spain by Susan Byrne Gabrielle Piedad Ponce-Hegenauer Susan Byrne, Ficino in Spain. U of Toronto P, 2015. 364 pp. With Ficino in Spain Susan Byrne has made a long overdue intervention in the "purist, all Spanish approach" to intellectual—and therefore, literary— history of Spain. Her revision covers four major centuries, 1500-1900, and a broad range of disciplines: theology, astrology, political philosophy, mysticism, medicine, magic and poetry (both verse and prose). In this groundbreaking study, Byrne combines meticulous research into the textual and circulation history of Ficino's texts with equally attentive close-readings and analysis of the ways in which his writing and thought were transposed, reiterated and reimagined by Spanish authors. Byrne illuminates the Ficinian presence in authors such as Miguel de Cervantes, Francisco Aldana, John of the Cross, Luis de León and Juan de Pineda in such a way that she both augments the scholarly understandings of the Italian philosopher, and creates new hermeneutical insights into Spanish Golden Age authors. Due to the dearth of true comparatist studies of this kind focused on the Spanish context, Byrne's study will be difficult to situate within intellectual and literary discourse on early modern Spanish Letters. Her study is and should be viewed as an exemplary and pioneering work which resituates the motley culture of Renaissance and Baroque Spain within a comparative European context. She opens a door which consistently has been closed by hegemonic readings of this period through the historiography of a strictly Counter-Reformation—often deceptively modern—and Nationalistic perspective. Bryne's study is divided into six chapters which document and examine Ficinian texts from ownership and readership through authorship and influence. Chapter 1 undertakes the nearly quixotic challenge of cataloguing and studying the holdings in Spanish libraries of texts by Ficino or related to Ficinian readership. In chapter 2 Byrne examines the ways in which several of the Ficinian texts chronicled in chapter 1 appeared either in direct citation or in reformulations by Spanish authors. Chapters 3 and 4 expand the Ficinian corpus to Hermes Tirsmegistus and other Neoplatonic texts which were inextricably woven into the fabric of Ficinian thought. Chapter 5 more closely examines Ficino as a figure in the Spanish imagination, frequently allied with the creative faculties of the poet in important thinkers such as Juan Huarte de San Huan and Lopez Pinciano, both of whom have been noted for their remarkable influence on Cervantes. Chapter 6 augments the core [End Page 523] of this study by exploring the place of Ficino's Neoplatonism in the development of political philosophy in Spain. In doing so, Byrne implicitly recovers a historiography which nuances and complicates the standard approaches to the Spanish empire and its articulation as a historical phenomenon. Of remarkable breadth and depth, Byrne frequently surmounts the unappreciated challenge of writing on an author whose range of influence demands an interdisciplinarity which few contemporary scholars have demonstrated. Byrne should be commended particularly for the recovery of circulation, readership, expurgation and commentary. In doing so Byrne informs us not only of the varied manner of Ficinian readership, but also peers, as though from behind a curtain, into the increasingly evident divide between religious orthodoxy and imaginative or intellectual practice. She shows not only that Ficino was a foundational thinker in early modern Spain, but also how and in what ways. For example, the library of Columbus's son, Hernando Colón, held a non-expurgated 1567 edition of Plato's Opera omnia which ironically had belonged to Don Eugenio Nicolás de Guzmán, self-identified as Censor for the Inquisition. Guzmán's annotations partake in the debate over the validity of Solon's story in Plato's Timaeus—one of Plato's most circulated texts throughout the medieval period. I underscore Byrne's inclusion of such details both because they reveal distance between Counter-Reformation discourse and readerly discourse, and because throughout her study Byrne is acutely sensitive to the ways in which various Platonic, Neo-Platonic and Hermetic texts were not only synthesized by Ficino, but also accompanied readership of his texts and translations of his texts in Spain. Ficinian readership did not simply...

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.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,451
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

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 Opus0,022
Tête enseignante GPT0,232
Écart entre enseignants0,210 · 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