Medieval Travel and Travellers, The Voyage from <i>Pietas</i> to <i>Curiositas</i>
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While early medieval travel might have been allowed or even encouraged because of its spiritual connotations, with emphasis on the uplifting nature of pilgrimage or missionary activity, reports of late medieval travellers suggest that curiosity played a growing part in their wanderings. This raises significant questions since medieval theologians like Augustine and Bernard of Clairvaux argued that curiosity provided the “occasion of sin.” Even if curiosity was not a sin in and of itself, its suspect moral status meant that it was not enough to justify travel, even in the form of pilgrimage. Instead, medieval pilgrims initially turned to concepts of piety to undergird their desire to wander. By the end of the Middle Ages, however, curiosity had been redeemed as an accompaniment, not a challenge, to piety. This article explores that change, focusing especially on how ideas about curiosity, piety, and travel developed during the period between 1100 and 1500. Drawing evidence from a range of representative medieval texts (e.g., the Voyage of St. Brendan, the Divine Comedy, the Canterbury Tales, and the Book of John Mandeville) and travellers (e.g., Godric of Finchale, Othon de Grandson, Henry of Grosmont, and Ghillebert de Lannoy), this article points out some of the influences which first formed the medieval outlook on the relationship between curiosity and travel, and then those which helped to modify it.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 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 it