Traduire la <i>Philanira</i> de Claude Roillet, ou, le laboratoire de la forme poétique théâtrale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Claude Roillet, professeur de lettres aux collèges de Bourgogne et de Boncourt, fit paraître en 1556 le recueil de ses oeuvres de poète et de dramaturge sous le titre Varia Poemata (Paris: Guillaume Julien). Cette collection contient notamment quatre tragédies latines, intitulées Philanira, Petrus, Aman et Catharina. De ces quatre pièces, seule la première, Philanira, devait faire l’objet d’une traduction française publiée en 1563 aux presses parisiennes de Richard Thomas, puis rééditée, toujours à Paris, chez Nicolas Bonfons en 1577. La présente étude examinera les détails de cette version française quant à (1) l’adaptation en vernaculaire des formes métriques latines variées dont use l’auteur et (2) l’équivalence des formulations lexicales, voire les stratégies d’imitation, dans un texte français qui fait preuve d’une tendance à l’amplification à partir de la composition latine originelle. In 1556, Claude Roillet, a literature professor at the Collège de Bourgogne and Collège de Boncourt, published a collection of his works as a poet and dramatist under the title Varia Poemata (Paris: Guillaume Julien). This collection notably contained four Latin tragedies, which were titled Philanira, Petrus, Aman, and Catharina. Of these four works, only the first, Philanira would become the subject of a French translation published in 1563 by the Parisian press of Richard Thomas, then republished—again in Paris—by Nicolas Bonfons in 1577. This paper will examine the particulars of this French version in terms of (1) the conversion into the vernacular of the various Latin metrical forms that the author uses and (2) the equivalency of lexical expressions, and even the strategies of imitation, in a French text that demonstrates a tendency to amplify the original Latin composition.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.009 |
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".