The Classical Commentary in Renaissance France: Bilingual, Mixed-Language, and Translated Editions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article analyzes the dynamic interactions of Latin and the vernacular in commentary editions of the Latin classics printed in France before 1600, addressing questions of readership, intended uses, and actual uses. Beginning with the output of Antoine Vérard, it explores the different possibilities for translating Latin commentaries in the early decades of French printing, and the reconfigurations of layout and commentary discourse between languages. There follows a discussion of bilingual and mixed-language editions intended for use in the Latin grammar class and beyond (Mathurin Cordier, Charles Estienne, Jean Herisson, Guillaume Durand, and Pierre Davantès). Particular attention is given to evidence for the uses of such texts in the form of contemporary readers’ annotations and marks of use.
 Cet article analyse les interactions dynamiques entre le latin et les langues vernaculaires dans les éditions commentées des classiques latins publiées en France avant 1600. Il aborde les questions de la lecture, des intentions d’utilisation visée et des utilisations effectives. En commençant avec l’oeuvre d’Antoine Vérard, on y explore les différentes possibilités de traduction de commentaires latins dans les premières décennies de l’imprimerie française, ainsi que les transformations de mise en page et de mise en regard des textes des deux langues. On poursuit en examinant les éditions bilingues et polyglottes développées à l’intention de l’enseignement du latin dans les classes de grammaire et au-delà (Mathurin Cordier, Charles Estienne, Jean Herisson, Guillaume Durand and Pierre Davantès). Une attention spéciale est accordée au témoignage que fournissent les annotations de lecteurs contemporains et les marques de leur utilisation des ouvrages.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".