Bibliographic record
Abstract
The poetry of Guillaume de Saluste Du Bartas (1544-90) was the most-read text in early modern England and Scotland after the Bible, as Peter Auger states at the beginning of this elegant, accessible, and well-researched book full of suggestive analyses.Yet Du Bartas's verses fall short of the rhetorical ornamentation and intellectual ingenuity of Renaissance writing.There was hardly a poet more significant than Du Bartas in the European Renaissance, but to a modern critic his "descriptive couplets [resist] close reading" (1) and his "works demand minimal interpretative labour in order to apprehend their divine meaning" (9), as is the case with his most influential Semaines (Weeks), a work to the English translation of which Auger devotes the most critical attention in his absorbing book.While Du Bartas was widely imitated by writers and copiously commented upon by readers and early critics, modern criticism-though not ignoring him entirely-has addressed his work primarily as an object of imitation throughout the early modern period, and as the subject of literary history rather than as the focus of criticism that might illuminate the internal quality and achievement of his writing.If Du Bartas's poetry "is worthwhile only in helping us understand how better poets wrote" (7), as Auger writes, then Auger's book is a study of an extraordinary instance of a poet of limited aesthetic achievement with an astonishingly big influence: a writer who shaped the wider literary culture in which both male and female writers in Scotland and England found their poetic voices, and who engaged with France indirectly but profoundly.Auger interprets nuances of this connection between Du Bartas and the burgeoning culture of England and Scotland with a keen critical ear for subtleties in both the original and the translation.This book is both about literary reception and about the theory and practice of literary translation in the early modern period.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".