Michelangelo’s Christian Mysticism: Spirituality, Poetry, and Art in Sixteenth-Century Italy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
metaphors of imitatio as metaphors.His deconstructive analysis of the literary mechanisms of imitatio marks his radical break with a broader cultural faith in the correspondence between human signs and transcendent realities.In the absence of stable, collective meaning, it becomes the responsibility of the reader to stir up the fallen affections and engage in a search for transcendent truth that can never be complete.The body does not gesture to the transcendent, but rather to the subject's desire for transcendence.One of the strengths of Perry's research is the attention she devotes to her contextual sources.Placing equal interpretive weight on martyrologies, polemical treatises, and devotional handbooks, her study offers fascinating revelations about the interplay between public and private, elite and popular, Catholic, Anglican, and Puritan-eliding traditional critical binaries.If Elizabeth Cary seems at first like the lone Catholic woman out, Perry's analysis demonstrates the usefulness of examining early modern women authors outside a universalizing gynocentric continuum.Her study also suggests directions for future research: What use (or misuse) did the multitude of unknown readers, so feared by Sidney and his successors, make of the imitatio Christi?amie shirkie
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".