Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation examines the spiritual poetry of Michelangelo Buonarroti (1475-1564) in light of three distinct but related contexts: Italian Evangelism of the Catholic Reformation, the Italian lauda tradition, and Renaissance Augustinianism. After reviewing the reception and critical history of Michelangelo’s poetry, chapter one presents the anthropological approach of the present study as an effective means of illuminating the poet’s spiritual verses by considering what they may have meant – collectively and individually – to the poet himself. \nChapter two analyzes Michelangelo’s lyrics inspired by Vittoria Colonna with respect to the Spirituali of the Ecclesia viterbiensis in general and to the Beneficio di Cristo and personal letters of Vittoria Colonna in particular. It shows that the portrayal of Vittoria Colonna in this poetry as an instrument of grace effecting Michelangelo’s spiritual refashioning, rebirth, and renewal reflects a theology of the Holy Spirit that was dear to the Italian Evangelical community and central to their self-perception. \nThe third chapter presents the Italian lauda tradition and its mystical verses addressing Christ and the Holy Spirit as an inspiration for Michelangelo who, in a later spiritual sonnet, borrowed directly from one of Lorenzo de’ Medici’s laude. This chapter shows how Michelangelo’s verse is informed by a long, popular Christian tradition in the vernacular. \nThe discussion in chapter four centres on Dante’s Commedia and on the Augustinian allegoreses that permeate Landino’s Comento to the grand epic. These two works, it is argued, constitute sources as important as Petrarch’s Canzoniere for Michelangelo’s Augustinian vision of a mystico-moral ascent through conversion. \nThis dissertation concludes that for Michelangelo poetry became an instrument of spiritual devotion. His mystical verses reveal a Catholic intellectual versant in Italian rhetoric of the Catholic Reformation and a poet inspired by Paul, Augustine, and the Italian lauda tradition.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".