Pangallo, Matteo. Playwriting Playgoers in Shakespeare’s Theater
Bibliographic record
Abstract
comptes rendus 205 signals their political collaboration.The inextricability of the two, in fact, is so undeniable that Nazarian appears to conflate their characteristics, speaking of "the Petrarchan politics of the sonnet sequence and the political Petrarchism of the long poem" (234) but also claiming that "the sonnets' Petrarchism is political, and the long poem's politics are Petrarchan" (181).Despite this minor inconsistency, Nazarian meets her goal of both problematizing and contributing to feminist and political criticism of Spenser's work, ultimately pointing up what she calls the "double tyranny at the heart of Petrarchan politics" (213), that of the authoritarian beloved but also of the poet's own desire.By means of a conclusion, Nazarian discusses the limits of Petrarchism due to the genre's inherent contradictions, which Nazarian terms "paradoxes of pain" (237): the problem of authenticity versus loquacity and the ethical dilemma of violence used for art's sake.The subtitle of this section highlights "Shakespeare beyond Petrarchism, " and offers the bard's comedy Venus and Adonis as a demonstration of the disempowerment that occurs when desire is dissociated from vulnerability.Hopefully, Nazarian will continue her perspicacious probe into the interrelationships between poetry and politics, particularly as experienced by women writers.In the introduction, the author admits to having excluded them because she has not yet been able to identify all of the necessary countersovereign requirements.With any luck, Nazarian will be able to do so, for this reviewer would welcome the opportunity to read her analysis of Du Guillet's rhetorical countersovereignty alongside Scève's, particularly in their respective rewritings of the Acteon myth, and to be able to see the tyrant/martyr dichotomy come full circle.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".