"lc augt ƥolye more": Models of Sanctity in two legends of Saints Chrysanthus and Daria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Among the didactic and devotional genres of the Middle Ages, vitæ and passiones of the saints offer particular advantages to the study of medieval holy pedagogy. Collections such as the Old English Ælfric's Lives of Saints and the Middle English South English Legendary reflect contemporary didactic concerns in a focused, even intimate, pedagogical genre. Throughout the Middle Ages proliferating redactions of the legends of saints attest to the evolving role of the saints in Christian pedagogy and devotion. If we compare the redactions of a particular vita or passio, we find one group of pedagogical concerns stands out in relief against another version's specific, historically-contingent concerns. This is precisely the case when the late tenth-century Old English Passio Chrisanti et Darie sponse eius, found in Ælfric's Lives of Saints, is compared to its fifteenth-century counterpart Seint Crissaunt and Darige, found in only one of the late manuscripts of the South English Legendary. From the earlier to the later English version, the shape of sanctity foregrounded for readers undergoes a considerable shift. While suffering, quite predictably, plays a crucial role in each passio's representation of sanctity, the versions reflect very different attitudes towards suffering, consequently offering different pedagogical models for the saints' sufferings. The Middle English version concentrates upon a desire for suffering that wholly differs from the fundamental feature of the Old English saints' faith and sanctity, their married chastity.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".