MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3049736570 · doi:10.1093/fs/knaa143

<i>Experimental Selves: Person and Experience in Early Modern Europe</i> . By <scp>Christopher Braider</scp> <i>Experimental Selves: Person and Experience in Early Modern Europe</i> . By BraiderChristopher. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2018. 448 pp.

2020· article· en· W3049736570 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Emilia Wilton-Godberfforde

Notice bibliographique

RevueFrench Studies · 2020
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueRenaissance and Early Modern Studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPeriod (music)PhenomenonPsychologyPortraitRelation (database)AestheticsEpistemologyHistoryArtArt historyPhilosophyComputer science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

In this book, Christopher Braider grapples with the complex way selfhood was conceptualized and articulated in the early modern period across Europe. He underscores the manifold nature of the self, ‘or to use the word early moderns more freely chose, the person’, which was ‘modelled for them in the avalanche of portraits that signalled its newfound primacy and ubiquity’ (p. 5). Braider ambitiously suggests that we need to rethink a number of key problems concerning not just the nature of self, or the language used to describe this, but also of knowledge and of experience. He undertakes this task by positing that the early modern concept of person was an ‘experimental’ phenomenon. By exploiting the dense semantic range the term ‘person’ enjoyed in early modern usage, he demonstrates its four-dimensional quality (as a composite of mind, body, and social relation over time). Furthermore, he suggests that, like the experiments in the field of science occurring across the period, ‘person too is an experiment, a precipitate of the process of trial and error through which it comes to know itself’ (p. 23). Through the case studies that span the following seven chapters, he then determines to put this hypothesis of experimental selves to the test. In so doing, he also deftly demonstrates that art itself is inherently experimental at its heart: texts and pictures not only represent the world, ‘they intervene in it, changing it, and changing us even as we in turn change them by asking the questions we ask and by performing the trials and committing the errors that are integral to all acts of reading, viewing and thought’ (p. 334). The chapters on the theatre offer particularly original readings and view the theatrical space as a unique laboratory. In Chapter 5, which looks at what he calls ‘the poetics of agency’, the distinction drawn between the considerable freedom Corneille affords his characters, as opposed to the more constrictive position imposed by Racine, is arguably rather overstated. However, Braider demonstrates a crucial difference between tragedy versus comedy when he argues that Molière’s plays and actors underscore the experimental and thus open-ended aspect of all types of action. Overall, this study examines an impressive range of authors from the late-fifteenth-century Neoplatonist Pico della Mirandola to the eighteenth-century philosopher Kant. The case studies are drawn from a wide range of cultural and disciplinary contexts. In addition to theatre, the chapters discuss the early novel (focusing on La Princesse de Clèves), the art of portraiture, pictorial experiments in vision and perception, theory of knowledge, and the experimental scientific work of the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. This engaging book certainly covers much ground, but Braider is also keenly aware of what is not included. He regrets the lack of a chapter on autobiography, the limited space afforded to fiction (particularly picaresque and epistolary novels), and to the eighteenth-century cult of sensibility. There is ample material for a second volume. In the absence of Braider penning one, he has, nonetheless, drawn attention to a range of topics that are sure to inspire many other scholars within the field.

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 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 candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: Qualitatif
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,319
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,002
Communication savante0,0000,002
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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 Opus0,053
Tête enseignante GPT0,251
Écart entre enseignants0,198 · 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 tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

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
Publié2020
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueFrench StudiesMême sujetRenaissance and Early Modern StudiesTravaux en français237 207