Poétique et création littéraire en Grèce antique: La découverte d'un « nouveau monde » by Françoise Frazier
Bibliographic record
Abstract
432 PHOENIX of Athenian males' misunderstanding of women, women's inferior status in Athens, male violence against women, and other problematic issues raised in the plays. It is true that Menander's scripts—unlike those of Aristophanes—do not stage explicit transformations of the societies depicted. This does not mean that audience members would not have been capable of responding in different ways to the problems, especially given the frequent use of tragic conventions to signify the seriousness of the issues and the potential for situations to end in disaster (an issue which Traill discusses very effectively). Although the author acknowledges an "enormous debt" to feminist scholarship, she does not consider the possibility of either ancient or modern women interpreting these plays differently. The fact that in comedy problems are usually resolved does not erase those problems, especially given their repetition from one play to another. Instead of focusing on the satisfaction of male fantasies, Traill might well have concentrated on how these plays demonstrate again and again male blindness, prejudice, and violence, and see in such representations at least the potential for critique. My final reservation is the most important. Traill pays almost no attention to the performance dimension of these plays. The bibliography contains only a handful of entries on performance. In a one-paragraph discussion of props, costume, and masks (174-175) she acknowledges that such items would have gready influenced the plays' meanings, but that is as far as she goes; indeed, she seems ill at ease even mentioning "the un-Aristotelian device of spectacle" (174). Obviously Traill did not set out to write a book about performance. Yet when so much good scholarship on performance is now available, including Wiles's crucial book on New Comedy,4 concentrating on Menander's plays as literary rather than performance texts seems to me a seriously limited methodology. In sum, this is a very valuable and useful book, though stronger in its particular analyses than in its conclusions.5 University of California, Santa Cruz Mary-Kay Gamel Poétique et création littéraire en Grèce antique : La découverte d'un « nou veau monde ». Par Françoise Frazier. Besançon : Presses universitaires de Franche-Comté. 2009. Pp. 244. La question de la littérarité revient régulièrement dans le débat des études littéraires : elle constitue un casse-tête de la réflexion sur les différents aspects de la textualité qui ne cesse d'exiger sa mise à jour. Si la quête d'une différence spécifique caractérisant la littérature ne peut que résulter en une multiplication des réponses esquissées, le retour aux fondamentaux qu'est la lecture des textes séminaux de l'antiquité grecque demeure un défi majeur. C'est exactement ce que Françoise Frazier s'attache à faire dans son ouvrage Poétique et création littéraire : La découverte d'un « nouveau monde », divisé en cinq chapitres, dont les trois premiers sont consacrés à la lecture du « théoricien » Aristote et les deux autres à celle des « littéraires » Euripide et Théocrite. Le premier chapitre est intitulé « Penser la littérature » (35-48). L'auteure y discute en détail la question de classification des arts, en soulignant le fait qu'Aristote donne la 4D. Wiles, The Masks ofMenander: Sign and Meaning in Greekand Roman Performance (Cambridge 1991) is included in Traill's bibliography but not used. 5 Many thanks to Sharon James for help with this review. BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS 433 priorité à la façon dont chacun d'entre eux utilise ses propres moyens ; puis elle montre bien comment Aristote, dans sa recherche des « causes natureËes de l'art poétique », prend en compte non seulement la tendance humaine à l'imitation mais aussi le plaisir pris aux objets de celle-ci. Le deuxième chapitre porte le titre « Une analyse 'intellectuelle' de l'œuvre littéraire » (49-71). En examinant l'esthétique du mythos et certaines fonctions de la mimêsis, Frazier remarque que l'œuvre littéraire est « la source d'un plaisir cognitif légitime, répondant au désir de l'esprit humain...
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".