MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2887845090 · doi:10.33137/rr.v41i1.29522

“Till I in hand her yet halfe trembling tooke”: Doctrines of Justification in Edmund Spenser’s <i>Amoretti</i>

2018· article· en· W2887845090 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lauren Shufran

Bibliographic record

VenueRenaissance and Reformation · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical Legal Studies and Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophyRighteousnessProtestantismHumanitiesFaithPoetryTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article claims there is an underlying soteriological conceit in Spenser’s Amoretti (1595) concerning the roles that “works” and “grace” play in the beloved’s requital: roles with theological analogues in justification, the means by which people were declared righteous before God. I show how Spenser’s lover struggles with works-righteousness, and how Spenser betrays “Protestant” thought about the inadequacy of works even as his lover insists upon them. Spenser’s lover fails repeatedly in his labours until grace comes to him, unwilled, in a moment of concession. His “works” afterward become meaningful—but only according to the reformed understanding by which good works come after faith. Still, a doctrinal line cannot be perfectly drawn, since requital is effected through poetic labour. I propose this irresolution is a consequence of Spenser’s attention to Paul’s Epistles, and their occasional affirmations of the usefulness of law despite their overwhelming insistence on grace. It also stems from the lack of a reformed doctrinal consensus about the role of works after justification. Cet article avance qu’il y a une dimension sotériologique sous-jacente dans l’Amoretti de Spenser (1595), en se basant sur le rôle des « oeuvres » et de la « grâce » dans la recompense du bien-aimé, rôle trouvant des correspondances théologiques dans la justification et les moyens par lesquels on est déclaré juste devant Dieu. On montre comment l’amoureux de Spenser lutte avec la notion de vertu par les oeuvres, et comment Spenser lui-même fait paraître des idées protestantes au sujet de l’insuffisance des oeuvres, même lorsque son personnage insiste sur leur utilité. Ainsi, le personnage de l’amoureux échoue systématiquement dans ses oeuvres, jusqu’à ce que la grâce lui soit octroyée, sans qu’il l’ait cherchée, et dans un moment de concession. Ce n’est qu’après cela que ses oeuvres trouvent une signification, mais seulement selon l’idée réformée que les bonnes oeuvres sont une conséquence de la foi. Toutefois, on ne peut déduire une ligne doctrinale parfaitement claire de l’oeuvre de Spenser, puisque la récompense y passe par le travail poétique. On propose d’expliquer cette ambivalence par l’attention que Spenser prête aux épîtres de Paul, lesquelles affirment occasionnellement l’utilité de la Loi malgré leur insistance répétée sur l’importance de la grâce. On peut également l’expliquer par l’absence de consensus doctrinal chez les Réformés quant au rôle des oeuvres après le salut par la foi.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.036
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.259 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRenaissance and ReformationSame topicHistorical Legal Studies and SocietyFrench-language works237,207