«Ne sai comment ot non mon père»: rapports lignagers et écriture romanesque dans le Conte du graal et ses continuations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Conte du graal (1190), Chrétien de Troyes' last romance, was left unfinished by its author. Its four Continuations (1190 to 1235) form a narrative cycle of over 60 000 lines – far beyond the 10 000 lines of the original text. Remarkably, the authors of the Continuations show little regard for the rule of unobtrusiveness, which Gérard Genette considers a corollary of the art of continuation (Genette, 1982). In betraying Chrétien's narrative legacy, his unfaithful successors paradoxically ensure its continued relevance. The theme of lineage suggests the idea of a heritage shared by a community of individuals and, as such, serves as a metatextual tool, allowing the authors of the Continuations to reconcile – in sometimes playful manner – two conflicting aims: the urge to form a family (a synchronic narrative whole) with the Conte du Graal, and the need to question the legacy and diachrony of its composition – each step of which mirrors a specific moment in the history of literature throughout the 12th and 13th centuries. This paper combines jaussian reception theories with the theories of paratextuality and « New Philology », in order to define the poetic distinctness of the entire body of work, from conception to reception. We shall see that the various authors of the Continuations seek to defy their readers' expectations regarding the codes of continuation and, more generally, of the romance genre, but that the copyists may adapt the narrative cycle to the particular fashion of their time. Since both authors and transcribers use the metaphor of filiation profusely as a form of mise en abyme of their own act of rewriting or codicological manipulation, the dynamics of lineage constitute the main thread of this paper, which aims to capture the imagination of a XIIth century French writer (Gallais, 1988) and of his future audience for centuries to come.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".