Marguerite de Navarre, a Nicodemite? <i>Adiaphora</i> and Intention in <i>Heptaméron</i> 30, 65, and 72
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article situates Marguerite de Navarre’s Heptaméron within the reformist debate over adiaphora, or theologically indifferent matters made righteous or sinful by the believer’s intentions and conscience. It discusses how adiaphora and their implications for Christian liberty and Catholic devotional practices are understood differently by the schismatic reformers (Luther and Calvin) and the non-schismatic reformers (Erasmus, Lefèvre, Roussel), and how Marguerite ultimately sides with the latter in Tales 30, 65, and 72 of the Heptaméron, which emphasize the primacy of intention and conscience over external ceremony. Through the debates among the discussants, Marguerite also uses the opacity of intention to counter the refusal of Calvin and his followers to recognize as adiaphora Catholic practices they regarded as idolatrous, such as placing votive candles in front of statues.
 Cet article situe l’Heptaméron de Marguerite de Navarre dans le débat réformiste sur les adiaphora — les choses indifférentes au niveau théologique, qui sont rendues bonnes ou mauvaises par l’intention et la conscience du croyant. Il démontre que les adiaphora et leurs conséquences pour la liberté chrétienne et les rites catholiques prennent un sens tout à fait différent chez les réformateurs schismatiques (Luther et Calvin) de celui que lui donnent les réformateurs non schismatiques (Érasme, Lefèvre, Roussel), parmi lesquels Marguerite se range avec les Nouvelles 30, 65, et 72 de l’Heptaméron, où l’intention et la conscience l’emportent sur la cérémonie externe. À travers les disputes entre les devisants, Marguerite se sert également de l’opacité de l’intention afin de s’opposer au refus de Calvin de reconnaître comme des adiaphora les rites catholiques qu’il croyait idolâtres, notamment les cierges votifs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".