MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4392219563 · doi:10.1017/9789048542963.005

‘The fruits of my pen’: Esther Inglis's Translation of Georgette de Montenay’s Emblemes ou Devises Chrestiennes

2023· other· en· W4392219563 on OpenAlexaff
Kirsten Inglis

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical and Literary Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

: Chapter 4 considers the work of calligrapher and copyist Esther Inglis. Inglis created a manuscript gift book titled Cinquante Emblemes Chrestiens for Prince Charles (later Charles I) in 1624. The work is a handdrawn copy – with alterations – of Georgette de Montenay's Emblemes ou Devises Chrestiennes , and this chapter argues that Inglis's version should be considered as a work of translation. The chapter situates the work within the larger political and religious contexts of early modern emblem books and argues for its participation in the patronage and gift economies of the early seventeenth century. Finally, the chapter offers a reading of particular emblems to demonstrate how Inglis's alteration at the level of both word and image worked to articulate specific political allegiances and desires. Keywords : Charles I; emblem books; Esther Inglis; gift books; portraiture; translation [R]epetition, in those who write, is very badly received […] The painter has the right to repeat until water lilies become divine sparrows. – Hélène Cixous Esther Inglis's 1624 version of Georgette de Montenay's Emblemes ou Devises Chrestiennes is, on its surface, a work of repetition. Inglis's writing life was spent creating manuscript copies of existing print books – books like the Psalms , Ecclesiastes , and Proverbs – and dedicating them to prominent figures in Elizabethan and Jacobean England. These copies were unsolicited repetitions of familiar books that were readily available in print; they were a luxury and an excess, unnecessary and unbidden. Hélène Cixous's meditation in ‘The Last Painting’ on the grief and lack experienced by the writer ‘who must paint with brushes all sticky with words’ seems particularly apposite in thinking about Inglis's lifelong work of repetition. Somehow, in folio after folio of calligraphic repetition of ‘phrases already heard a thousand times’, Inglis approaches in writing what Cixous ascribes to the painter who ‘dares to stalk the secrets of light with the help of a single object, armed only with a few water lilies’.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHistorical and Literary Studies→French-language works237,207→