“Real versus ideal”: <i>Utopia</i> and the Early Modern Satirical Tradition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Building on previous studies of satire in Thomas More’s Utopia, this article aims at situating More’s founding text of utopian literature more firmly in the early modern satirical tradition, a tradition that gradually dissociated itself from its conventional generic definition informed by classical Roman verse satura. Key concerns of the analysis touch on the pedagogical function, the dialogic engagement with the reader, and the social reforming spirit that transform satire into a mode and help it incorporate the utopian mindset into its characteristic juxtaposition of blame (of a heavily flawed reality) and praise (of a desirable ideal state of existence). More’s masterpiece is essential in illustrating and promoting this development of early modern satire, as references to an immediate predecessor—the Ship of Fools corpus—as well as a famous successor—François Rabelais—demonstrate. À partir d’études de la satire dans l’Utopie de More, cet article cherche à ancrer plus solidement ce texte utopique dans la tradition satirique de la première modernité, tradition qui s’est graduellement dissociée de la définition générale du genre satirique basée sur la satire classique romaine. Les points principaux de l’analyse mettent en lumière la fonction pédagogique, l’engagement dialogique avec le lecteur et l’esprit de réforme sociale, qui transforment la satire en y intégrant la pensée utopique en tant que façon d’exprimer le blâme (d’une réalité sérieusement déficiente) et la louange (d’un mode hautement souhaitable d’exister). Le chef-d’oeuvre de More occupe une place centrale dans ce développement de la satire des débuts de la modernité, lorsqu’il est situé dans les contextes qui le précèdent immédiatement — le corpus de la Nef des fous —, et le suivent glorieusement — l’oeuvre de François Rabelais.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".