MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2322874491 · doi:10.1093/fs/knv066

Le Voyageur aux mille tours: les ruses de l'écriture du monde à la Renaissance <i>Le Voyageur aux mille tours: les ruses de l'écriture du monde à la Renaissance</i> . Par <scp>Frédéric Tinguely.</scp> (Atelier des voyages, 10.) Paris: Honoré Champion, 2014. 244 pp.

2015· article· fr· W2322874491 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
James Helgeson

Bibliographic record

VenueFrench Studies · 2015
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTravel Writing and Literature
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTheme (computing)AsideGermanIdentity (music)ArtHospitalityReading (process)LiteratureHumanitiesArt historyHistoryPhilosophyAestheticsTourismArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This is an elegant book, in four parts and fourteen chapters, on sixteenth-century European travel literature. The structuring Odyssean theme is a capacious one, and it is primarily the concept of metis — ruse — that Frédéric Tinguely retains, although this theme is not central to all the essays. (Other Odyssean themes, such as personal identity, hospitality, nekyia, and nostos, are mostly set aside.) The first part, ‘Infléchir les modèles’, offers several careful analyses of how travel writing reworks previously existing material: especially absorbing is the discussion in Chapter 4 of Calvinist rewriting in Jean Cheneau's Voyage. The second part, ‘Tours oculaires’, addresses eye-witnessing (‘autopsy’). It heterogeneously combines appealing discussions of elephants, tapirs, the Aegean islands, and Montaigne's reactions to the Roman church. Tinguely's diagnosis of Montaigne's subtle reservations about Catholic pomp — usefully juxtaposed with his remarks about the Cannibals (though briefly, in a note) — is thought-provoking. The third part is devoted entirely to Jean de Léry: Tinguely's analysis in Chapter 10 of an encounter with a large Brazilian lizard, by way of Montaigne's cat, is particularly entertaining. A cognitivist might see this as useful material for a history of ‘mind reading’. The final part, ‘Devenir autre’, is arguably the most unified. The discussion in Chapter 12 of Montaigne's ‘anthropological circle’ (that is, of the ways Montaigne's critical faculties are transformed by his changing attitudes towards the cultures, especially German-speaking, that he encounters in his travels), carefully balances another discussion of Jesuit accommodatio in Japan and Canada (Chapter 14). These chapters frame a valuable addition to the discussion of protean identity shifts — notably sexual — in Montaigne. In the best tradition of Genevan criticism, the book is admirably non-parochial. Tinguely moves between classical, and Spanish-, French-, Italian-, German-, and English-language sources; his analysis navigates craftily between Reformist and Catholic theologies. I have one hesitation, since the word ‘cognitif’ comes up frequently, and since Tinguely does not hesitate to adduce, discreetly and effectively, modern analogies, generally in footnotes: a more rigorous discussion of what might fall under the term ‘cognitif’ might help, and recent cognitive work might open up these already excellent analyses to new perspectives. For example, the discussion of how we describe unfamiliar animals, contextualized carefully in the ancient historiographical tradition (in a broad Herodotean sense), might also be recast in terms of the repertory of strategies — perhaps transhistorical — that humans use to describe and cope with unfamiliar phenomena. It is hardly surprising that we might describe new creatures as composites of known ones, or improperly by familiar names whose sense is extended. (Voltaire's much later ‘moutons’, llamas encountered by Candide and Cacambo in Eldorado, come to mind.) These qualifications are not criticisms, but rather they indicate the book's capacity to engage; it is full of subtle observations and elegant close readings. I can only applaud Tinguely's closing defence of a careful, historically contextualized, patient, ‘slow reading’, of clear political relevance today. Indeed, his book is an erudite and sophisticated example of such reading.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrench StudiesSame topicTravel Writing and LiteratureFrench-language works237,207