MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996540756 · doi:10.1353/pgn.2006.0091

The Romance Epics of Boiardo, Ariosto, and Tasso: From Public Duty to Private Pleasure (review)

2006· article· en· W1996540756 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueParergon · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicRenaissance and Early Modern Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRomanceLiteratureIdeologyArtPleasureBourgeoisiePoliticsLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: The Romance Epics of Boiardo, Ariosto, and Tasso: From Public Duty to Private Pleasure Dosia Reichardt Cavallo, Jo Ann , The Romance Epics of Boiardo, Ariosto, and Tasso: From Public Duty to Private Pleasure, Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 2004; hardback; pp. x, 294; RRP US$75.95; ISBN 0802089151. The northern Italian Renaissance romance epics of the chivalric poets Boiardo, Ariosto and Tasso tend to be given short shrift in university courses, but they fill an interesting space between Malory and Spenser, and their influence extends beyond the Renaissance to the poets and dramatists of the Stuart court in the seventeenth century. English writers were familiar with continental literature (often in the original), but this inter-textuality is lost when texts such as those examined by Jo Ann Cavallo are ignored by current commentators. Cavallo's aim is ambitious: she sets out to examine key episodes in the poems and to focus on how each poet creatively reworks the romances of his predecessor. These poets use genre, she argues, to construct ideology. The principal narrative mode of the day was the romance epic, within which political issues could be raised. By arguing for the poets' deliberate engagement with their societies, Cavallo avoids a narrowly determinist Marxist view of the relation [End Page 140] between class and ideological superstructure through which hegemonic values are passively transmitted. Boiardo (1441-1494), Ariosto (1474-1533), and Tasso (1544-1595) were the 'three crowns of Ferrara', all in the service of the Este family in the span of more than a century from 1471 to 1597. Boiardo's achievement is his Orlando Innamorato of 1482-3; Ariosto's the better known Orlando Furioso (1516), which modern readers sometimes prefer to Tasso's La Gerusalemme Liberata (1581). All of these have inspired countless operas and paintings – which makes their neglect all the more surprising. Cavallo divides her study into three parts to correspond with the works of these three writers although in the second and third sections she does include some lesser lights: Cieco da Ferrara, Trissino, and Bernardo Tasso. She begins by re-instating Boiardo as an innovator in the history of Italian chivalric literature and by looking at the political dimensions of his romance. Boiardo's epic contrasts the good and bad behaviour of rulers through a series of didactic episodes and a movement from romance, through history, to epic. In this she breaks new ground for although Boiardo was involved in politics in his minor works and in his life, scholars generally assume that his romance writing involves avoidance of political engagement. Cavallo provides some detailed analysis of the poetry of the three books of the unfinished Orlando Innamorato and a welcome summary of the action. In Book One, she points out, although there are many fabulous adventures involving giants and maidens and these take place in Eastern, non-Christian kingdoms, their rulers are plagued with the same problems of legitimacy and maintaining power that were occurring in the feudal systems of Christian countries. Boiardo also examines the expansionist ambitions of rulers through his re-telling of the history of Alexander the Great. In the course of this book there also develops a contrast between a hero neglecting duty for passion and a new type of hero who upholds the values of chivalry, while in Book Three this hero, Ruggiero, becomes a peace-maker. Ariosto's creative remaking of Boiardo's work is the focus of the middle section of Cavallo's book. It was a complex undertaking due to Ariosto's successive revisions of his poem between 1516 and 1532. Here the issue of public duty versus private pleasure becomes more obvious as the hero, Ruggiero, is repeatedly seduced to abandon duty, but then extricates himself into a morally improved state. Cavallo argues that the Orlando Furioso is a response to a loss of humanist belief in the individual's and the prince's duty to act for the good of society under the aegis of an increasingly repressive state. In his addition of four [End Page 141] new episodes for the 1532 version of the poem, Ariosto merges novellas of civic virtue with allegorical episodes of moral education. Courtesy...

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.343
Threshold uncertainty score0.409

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.187 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it