Inversion comique ou critique satirique ? La vue du Capitole de Hieronymus Cock (1562)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hieronymus Cock’s view of the Capitoline Hill, published in his 1562 series on Roman ruins, has long been considered a useful document by historians of art and architecture for the key historical and topographical information it contains on one of Rome’s most celebrated sites during the Renaissance. Beyond its documentary nature, which, as will appear, was essentially rhetorical, the view also offers much information as to how a mid-sixteenth-century Flemish artist might perceive Rome’s illustrious topography and celebrated ancient statuary. In other words, Cock’s engraving enables us to put into practice what may be called an “archaeology of the gaze.” Through previously unnoticed details, Cock invents a comical—verging on the satirical—vision of the antique sculptures proudly displayed on the famous piazza. Such an ironical reversal of Italian classical dignity is typical of the attitude of some contemporary Flemish artists, such as Pieter Bruegel the Elder, who was then close to Cock, and exposes the ambivalent position of some Northern European artists towards the classical tradition and Italian art theory. Finally, the analysis of other engravings of ruins by Hieronymus Cock where two emblematic characters—the draftsman and the kakker (the one who defecates)—appear side by side, sheds light on the origin and possible significance of these comical and subversive details.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".