MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Literary Criticism

2014· reference-entry· en· W4234434778 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueRenaissance and Reformation · 2014
Typereference-entry
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPoetry Analysis and Criticism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVernacularPoeticsPoetryLiteratureCriticismHumanismLiterary criticismImitationArtPhilosophyTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A product of the revival of classical Greek and Roman culture known as humanism, Renaissance literary criticism took root in defenses of poetry and dialogues on language and literary imitation in Italy in the 14th and 15th centuries. It reached maturity, however, and first achieved independence as a discourse in 16th-century Italy, where the recovery of Aristotle’s Poetics occasioned a series of commentaries that extended to the elaboration of comprehensive theories of poetry, such as that of Lodovico Castelvetro (b. 1505–d. 1571), and to the application of these theories to vernacular works by Dante, Ariosto, Tasso, and others. The influence of Italian criticism meanwhile spread swiftly across Europe, where such figures as Joachim Du Bellay (b. 1522–d. 1560) and Philip Sidney (b. 1554–d. 1586) enlisted it, along with the other resources of humanism, in the establishment of vernacular traditions of literature and criticism. Fundamentally classical, Renaissance criticism showcases its debts to Horace, Aristotle, and Plato, roughly in that order. But it was the questions left unanswered by these authorities that crucially led Renaissance critics to synthesize, adapt, and extend classical poetics to meet the demands of contemporary Christian writers and readers. Going back to Dante, their first priority was the defense of poetry against the incursions of its ancient and modern opponents and the defense of the vernacular as a poetic medium. Defending poetry entailed defining it and establishing its formal criteria, both of which hinged on imitation. Following Aristotle, critics tended to define poetry itself as an imitation, the status, source, and purpose of which they debated with recourse to other classical philosophers, critics, and rhetoricians. Invoking Horace and plying the formalism of Aristotle and such rhetorical treatises as the Institutio oratoria of Quintilian, ambitious critics such as Julius Caesar Scaliger (b. 1484–d. 1558) composed encyclopedic artes poeticae that sought in unprecedented ways to systematize the art of poetry with standards of prosody, figure, and genre derived from classical models. The question of which models to imitate, and how, gave rise to heated disputes over the imitation of Cicero, the employment of quantitative meter and rhyme, and the relative merits of romance and epic. Renaissance literary criticism thus reflects the intellectual culture of the age by confronting at every turn the complex dynamics of imitation, both practically and theoretically.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.566
Threshold uncertainty score0.931

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.219 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRenaissance and ReformationSame topicPoetry Analysis and CriticismFrench-language works237,207