MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2604238500 · doi:10.33137/rr.v38i1.22780

Barthélemy Aneau’s <i>Alector ou le coq</i> and the Paradox of Renaissance Cosmopolitanism

2015· article· en· W2604238500 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jenny Meyer

Bibliographic record

VenueRenaissance and Reformation · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical and Literary Analyses
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersErasmus+
KeywordsCosmopolitanismHumanitiesArcadiaHumanismNationalismArt historyArtHistoryPhilosophyPolitical scienceTheologyLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Barthélemy Aneau’s histoire fabuleuse, Alector ou le coq (1560) epitomizes a burgeoning sixteenth-century awareness of the globe and its scope. New possibilities for envisioning global space went hand in hand with the development of cosmopolitan sympathies among Renaissance humanists; namely, enthusiasm for the ideal of a world republic. In this article, I show how Aneau’s fictional narrative demonstrates an idealized vision of the French monarch’s global role. I argue that Alector is written in the spirit of the princely manual, with a singular emphasis on the monarch’s obligatory mastery of spatial navigation that evinces sixteenth-century awareness of geography’s relevance to governance. Aneau creates a pastiche of French foundation myths and of geographical sources in order to emphasize both the French monarch’s preeminence and his worldwide reach. Elements of the hermetic tradition are manifest in Alector, where space is allegorized to illustrate Aneau’s conception of France’s place in the cosmos; in this way, his work is similar to that of his contemporary, the self-described cosmopolitan Guillaume Postel. Ultimately, there is a discord between the real geography evoked in Alector and the fictional genre that houses it. This dissonance emphasizes the paradoxical nature of a cosmopolitanism that strives to incorporate nationalism, and illustrates an unresolved complexity for would-be Renaissance world citizens. L’histoire fabuleuse de Barthélemy Aneau, Alector ou le coq (1560) illustre la conscience grandissante de la Renaissance pour le globe terrestre et son espace. Les nouvelles façons de voir l’espace global se sont développées en même temps que les sympathies cosmopolites de certains humanistes de la Renaissance, en particulier en ce qui concerne leur enthousiasme pour la république mondiale. Dans cet article, l’auteur montre comment la trame narrative d’Aneau illustre une vision idéalisée du rôle global du roi de France. On y analyse qu’Alector est écrit dans l’esprit du manuel du prince, en mettant l’accent particulièrement sur l’obligation qu’a le roi de maîtriser l’espace de navigation, illustrant l’idée au XVIe siècle que la connaissance géographique se situe au cœur de la gouvernance. Aneau crée un pastiche de mythes de fondation française et de sources géographiques afin de souligner à la fois la prééminence du roi de France et son rayonnement mondial. Certains éléments de la tradition hermétique peuvent également être retracés dans Alector, puisque l’espace y fonctionne comme une allégorie de la conception d’Aneau de la place de la France dans le cosmos. De cette façon, son œuvre est similaire à celle de son contemporain, Guillaume Postel, qui se décrivait lui-même comme un cosmopolite. Enfin, un décalage s’observe entre la géographie réelle évoquée dans Alector et le cadre fictionnel qui l’abrite. Ce décalage souligne à son tour la nature paradoxale d’un cosmopolitisme voulant intégrer les nationalismes, ce qui représente bien une question complexe et non résolue pour les citoyens du monde en devenir de la Renaissance.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.123

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 studies0.0070.010
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.197 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRenaissance and ReformationSame topicHistorical and Literary AnalysesFrench-language works237,207