Le plaisir des sens comme source de bonheur dans les <i>Stultiferae naves</i> de Josse Bade et l<i>'Éloge de la Folie</i> d'Érasme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The pursuit of happiness represents one of the major paradoxes of Erasmus' best-known work, Encomium Moriae (The Praise of Folly) (1511). While spiritual bliss is upheld as the ultimate form of happiness, the speaking subject celebrating it, who is no other than Folly herself, also argues for the superiority of the pleasures derived from the five senses. The narrative strategy which helps to maintain such an ambiguous position with regards to the ideal form of happiness, however, was scarcely Erasmus' invention, although he has been traditionally credited for it. As shown by the present comparative analysis, the praise of sensory pleasure through the mouth of Folly can be found in a nearly contemporary source, the Stultiferae naves (The Ship of Foolish Maidens) (1501). This work was probably well-known to Erasmus, since it belonged to the famous early-humanist printer, editor, commentator, and author Jodocus Badius Ascensius, who was also his principal Parisian editor until a regrettable event put an end to their relationship.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".