Comment remotiver un cliché historiographique ? Poésie du xviiie siècle et baroque des anthologies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Today, eighteenth-century poetry is undervalued by readers and scholars alike, still the victim of a persistent bias among French literary historians who consider this period as rationalist and antipoetic, an era of unfortunate verse that was fortunately ushered out by Romanticism. By reading a corpus of anthologies of seventeenth-century French poetry published in the twentieth century, this article investigates a particular modality of this invalidation: how the aesthetic merits of the Baroque are elaborated against highly critical readings of eighteenth-century poetry. “Baroquist” anthologists deliberately (mis)read Enlightenment-era poetry as insipid in order to value and define “their” object of study more forcefully. Should we believe these critics, the Baroque and the Enlightenment periods would seem to be wholly antithetical to each other: the former rife with orphic creative flare, celebrated as the cradle of modern poetry, and the latter suffering from a total lack of poetic artistry. The aim of this article is to show the ways in which Baroquist anthologies see eighteenth-century poetry as “post-classic” at best, and to offer a rationale for their damaging historiographical strategy.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".