Discovering and (Re)Covering the Seventeenth Century Religious Lyric
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The seventeenth century gave rise to the greatest flowering of the religious lyric in the English language. While the whole range of the devotional verse of the period is distinguished by its nuanced complexity concerning issues of theology, politics, and the historical circumstances of the individuals who produced these lyrics, modern criticism has neglected the vast majority of these works and their authors. The purpose of this volume, therefore, is to discover and (re)cover the devotional lyricists who have historically been overlooked altogether or dismissed as not belonging to the first order of poets. Precisely focused on that end, this collection contains 15 original essays that broaden our understanding of the seventeenth century religious lyric by examining the contributions of writers such as Robert Southwell, Aemilia Lanyer, William Alabaster, William Drummond, William Austin, Patrick Carey and others. Our view of seventeenth century literature cannot be complete or accurate unless we account for these neglected writers and their cultural roles in the development of the religious lyric. To that end, each of the essays in this volume seeks either explicitly or implicitly to make the canon more inclusive rather than exclusive.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".