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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.842
Threshold uncertainty score0.807

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

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