Performing the Noble Savage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the French court, as in its Spanish and English counterparts, there existed a fascination with the nation’s exotic colonial Others. Throughout the sixteenth century, a dazzling array of masques and pageants depicting encounters between Frenchmen and the indigenous peoples of Canada were performed both in France and in the New World. As we have seen in the previous chapter, these performances (whether theatrical or textual, as was the case with Fontenelle’s putative dialogue between Montezuma and Cortés) underwent a marked transformation at the end of the seventeenth century, with the locus of discursive (and consequently political and cultural) authority hotly disputed between the Old World and the New. In this chapter, in order to contexualize the emergence 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 1 2 3111 4 5 6 7 8 9 20111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 30111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 40111 both by Huguenot writers such as Marc Lescarbot and by the Jesuits to articulate and reinforce the notion of France’s Atlantic empire. I then look at one of the most influential performative texts in New World writing, Baron Lahontan’s Dialogues with Adario, and its construction of the Noble Savage. Finally, I analyse French playwright Louis-François de la Drevetière Deslisle’s drama Harlequin Sauvage, which draws heavily on Lahontan’s ideas and casts the Noble Savage as one of the characters in the genre of the commedia dell’arte.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".