THE POETRY OF THE<i>POETRIA NOVA</i>: THE<i>NUBES SERENA</i>AND<i>PEREGRINATIO</i>OF METAPHOR
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Geoffrey of Vinsauf'sPoetria novamust be studied as a poem in its own right as thoroughly as it has been studied as a technical rhetorical treatise; although many scholars have acknowledged the brilliance of his style, few analyses thereof exist. This imbalance in criticism limits our understanding of his ideas and the appeal they held for medieval poets. This study, therefore, focuses on two images in the section onornatus graves, or weighty ornamentation, the category of figures defined by its reliance ontransumptio. In describing its moving effects, Geoffrey uses the imagery of a pilgrimage (peregrinatio) and of a “clear cloud” (nubes serena). Both help him explain how transumptive language at first displaces or hides meaning beneath something that is deceptively ordinary. When that meaning becomes clear to the reader, however, the recognition can be delightful, intoxicating, or even wondrously transporting. The images are not original to Geoffrey, nor are they drawn from the discourse of formal rhetoric. Rather,peregrinatioand thenubes serenahave a rich history in liturgical drama, biblical commentary, and iconography where they signify a kind of spiritual transport remarkably similar to Geoffrey's conception oftransumptioin terms of process and quality. Thus, thePoetria novaleverages the spiritual significance of the images to make a decisively literary point about the wondrous power of subtle, transumptive language. Only by recognizing the resonance of these images can we fully appreciate just how highly Geoffrey valuestransumptio. Approaching thePoetria novawith a poet's eye expands the range and scope of likely influences on the treatise and, more importantly, deepens our appreciation for his remarkable commitment as a poet to the affective potential of transumptive language.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".