Seul dans l'Orient lointain: les voyages de Nerval et de Du Camp Seul dans l'Orient lointain: les voyages de Nerval et de Du Camp. By L <scp>ise</scp> S <scp>chreier</scp> . (CIEREC, Travaux, 127, ‘Lire au présent’). Saint-Étienne: Publications de l'Université de Saint-Étienne, 2006. 174 pp. Pb €23.00.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lise Schreier's study of Gérard de Nerval's and Maxime Du Camp's writings about the Near and Middle East and Egypt is a welcome addition to the growing body of scholarship dealing with Orientalism. She has identified an important and hitherto overlooked aspect of the subject: the tendency of French writers to portray their travels as having been undertaken alone, in a heroic confrontation by a courageous and solitary Western traveller with an exotic and alien Orient. Schreier notes that most nineteenth-century French travellers were accompanied by a close friend. Nerval travelled with the journalist Joseph de Fanfrède, and later with the painter Camille Rogier; Du Camp with Flaubert, but previously, to Algeria, with Lottin de Laval. Lamartine travelled with his wife Marianne and his secretary Charles Alexandre, both of whom contributed to his Voyage. Edmond About (Le Fellah: souvenirs d'Égypte, 1869) travelled with Lucien Prévost-Paradol, Jean-Jacques Ampère (‘Voyage en Égypte et en Nubie’, Revue des deux mondes, 1846–49) with Paul Durand, Théophile Gautier (L'Orient, 1884) with Noël Parfait, Eugène Fromentin with Armand Dumesnil, and Auguste Mariette with Ernest Renan. Only Joseph Michaud and Joseph Poujoulat, travelling together, openly recorded their shared experiences, in alternating chapters of their seven-volume Correspondance d'Orient (1830–31). Most writers simply eliminated their travel companions from their narratives. Schreier notes that critical studies have also tended to ignore reality: Les études ayant pour thème l'autre et le double en Orient ne prodiguent pas plus d'informations sur la question: pour Jean-Claude Berchet, Véronique Magri ou encore Sarga Moussa, l'autre, c'est en effet toujours ‘l'Oriental’. On ne s'imagine donc pas qu'il puisse être français et capable de tenir une plume. (p. 11)
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".