Érasme, pédagogue du bonheur, dans les <i>Colloques</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1518, Erasmus published The Colloquies (Colloquia), a lively Latin conversation primer, which acquainted European youths with a variety of subjects, including that of happiness. This article examines several of The Colloquies, but most notably the Senile Colloquium, to assess Erasmus' response to the question of the changing interrelationship of the two felicities-celestial and earthly-during the Renaissance. He asserts that personal happiness is no longer scorned upon as in the Middle Ages provided that honestas and voluptas walk hand in hand and philautia steer away for the sake of balance between individual and collective happiness. In addition, The Colloquies, which include pleasure seekers from all walks of life, exposes young readers to a moral discourse, wherein pagan and Christian models mingle, while avoiding the moralizing tone of earlier medieval morality texts. As for the Senile Colloquium, published in 1524 (while Erasmus wrote his Diatribè sive Collatio de libero arbitrio), it distinguishes true and false happiness and adapts the classical models of the conduct of life (voluptuous, active, contemplative) to a Christian society. Erasmus considers, as did Aristotle, that mankind is responsible for its happiness but makes the philosophia Christi the best way to achieve it.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".