Érasme, l’Arétin et Boccace dans l’invention du discours comique-burlesque d’Annibal Caro
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article considers Annibal Caro’s religious sentiments during the years of his most intense comic and paradoxical production: the pre-Tridentine period from 1536 to 1543, a time of tense expectation in Rome for significant Church reform. Although Caro’s religious beliefs never raised suspicions of heterodoxy, we shall see that both his paradoxical prose in Berni’s style, and his only comedy (which he conceived at the request of the Duke Pier Luigi Farnese but was never authorised by Caro to be represented or published in his lifetime), show that Erasmian influences and suggestions from Boccaccio and Aretino allowed him to safely engage in a discourse of religious dissent.
 Cet article analyse la position religieuse du lettré Annibal Caro durant les années de sa plus intense activité comique-burlesque : la période pré-tridentine de 1536 à 1543, où il composa des proses paradoxales à la manière de Berni, et son unique comédie, conçue à la demande du duc Pier Luigi Farnèse. Caro n’autorisa pas, de son vivant, la représentation de celle-ci, et la comédie ne fut publiée que de manière posthume. Nous verrons que, bien que les sentiments religieux de Caro n’aient jamais suscité de soupçons d’hétérodoxie, ce furent des influences érasmiennes, ainsi que des suggestions venues de Boccace et de l’Arétin, qui lui permirent d’élaborer un style discursif masquant sa polémique contre les faiblesses morales de l’Église.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".