The Fama: A Posthumous Imaging and Imagining of Sor Juana
Bibliographic record
Abstract
: This chapter describes the Fama ’s contents, structure and organization. It also traces the designs of the volume’s editor; specifically, his actions in transforming manuscript into print in order to influence potentially powerful readers in his endeavor to recast Sor Juana’s lifetime celebrity into posthumous renown. In conjunction, the intricate frontispiece and lengthy prologue set up editor Juan Ignacio María de Castorena’s framing of the Fama for his contemporaries, highlighting its Baroque intricacies that both underscore and undermine preserving Sor Juana for posterity. The chapter also explores a private dialogue between Sor Juana and the editor of her Fama that, once published, renders public their ties to one another and her role as author, a recognizable albeit unlikely figure for a seventeenth-century woman. Keywords : Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz; Juan Ignacio María de Castorena; Fama y obras póstumas ; fame; Hispanic Baroque; frontispiece In romance #51, “En reconocimiento a las inimitables Plumas de Europa” [To the matchless pens of Europe], her poem left unfinished yet published in the Fama , Sor Juana asks “¿Tanto pudo la distancia / añadir a mi retrato?” (OC 1.158:78) [Has distance really the power / to magnify my likeness? (Juana Inés de la Cruz 1988, 103)]. Although the query regarding her ill-wrought renown was most likely intended for the panegyrists of the Segundo volumen (SV), the writer’s newly exaggerated “distance” in death nuances the meaning of the verses published within the Fama . As a posthumous volume, the Fama imbues the literary (and visual) retrato or likeness that Sor Juana alludes to in romance #51 with a significance it could not have had while she was alive. By presenting its reader with a portrait of Sor Juana as they open its pages, the 1700 edition of the Fama offers its first indications of how and why the posthumous volume hopes to preserve the memory of the Mexican nun (see fig. 1). Befitting its role as a frontispiece, the emblematic engraving introduces the volume’s themes and concerns and constitutes the reader’s first encounter with its considerable task of figuratively recreating and recasting Sor Juana posthumously.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".