Bibliographic record
Abstract
Philosopher, translator, fiction writer, and editor: it is virtually impossible to pin down one authorial or scholarly identity for Marie de Gournay (b. 1565–d. 1645). Over the course of an extraordinary career that spanned over forty years, the autodidact Gournay created an extensive body of work, remarkable both for its range of genre and subject and for the painstaking care with which she returned repeatedly to her texts, reworking them and recasting them in different editorial contexts for different publics. Gournay is increasingly studied and valued by scholars for the writings of her late career, particularly for her work on gender and equality, on moral philosophy, on language and poetry, and for her monumental editions of her collected works. But for most of the 350 years since her death, she was known principally as the editor of Michel de Montaigne’s Essais. Gournay did much to foreground her identity as Montaigne’s fille d’alliance (or “covenant daughter”), which is a term meant to capture a friendship between the two writers —the older, male essayist, and the younger female one—that appears to have been as historically founded as it was textually cultivated. Until the late 20th century, popular and scholarly opinion has generally been unkind to Gournay. Although during her career she had her supporters and correspondents (Montaigne himself, it appears, and, notably, scholars such as Justus Lipsius and Anna Maria Von Schurman), during her lifetime Gournay was also mocked as a bluestocking, made the butt of various pranks, and ridiculed in print. Scholarly disdain for Gournay continued into the 19th and early 20th centuries. With the rediscovery of the “Bordeaux Copy” of Montaigne’s Essais in the early 19th century—with additions and comments in Montaigne’s hand that differed from those that appeared in Gournay’s 1595 edition—Gournay’s reputation as a “faithful” editor was called into question. Critics also cast doubt on the mutuality of the friendship with Montaigne and suggested that Gournay was little better than an obsessive fan. This disdainful attitude toward Gournay has altered radically in the last thirty years. Gournay’s essays and treatises, in addition to her work on the Essais, have become the subject of several volumes of essays and monographs as scholars have increasingly made Gournay-as-author the subject of critical inquiry; in addition, scholars have sought greater purchase on the mutually informative relation between her editorial work and her writing. Gournay’s complete works have also been reproduced carefully in excellent critical editions. Strikingly, the debate over her work on Montaigne’s Essais has also come full circle, as the 1595 text has been re-adopted as the definitive version of the Essais for the recent Pléiade edition. The quickened scholarly interest in Gournay over the past twenty years—much of which defends her as editor and author—no doubt played a role in that editorial decision.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".