Mythology, Value-Judgements and Ideology in Northrop Frye's "Anatomy" and Beyond
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hamlet plays with difference in comparing a hawk and a handsaw as if they should be mentioned in the same breath and thought of in the same comparison in a way that would make John Donne wonder whether his metaphysical conceits, such as the lovers as a compass, had not gone far enough. Some comparisons stretch the point because of their disparateness. Others are based on more similarities. Making distinctions can be difficult, as in the case of mythology and ideology. But there is a middle ground. Let us take the comparison between music and poetry. The American composer, Aaron Copeland, was pleased to be appointed the Charles Eliot Norton Professor of Poetry at Harvard in 1951, but wondered in his lectures why he was asked. As a young man, he had commiserated with poets because they "were trying to make music with nothing but words at their command," yet in time he saw that behind the music of both arts they were joined in "an area where the meanings behind the notes and the meaning beyond the words spring from some common source" (Copeland 1). Copeland was poetic about music just as Northrop Frye considered the music of poetry and even of theory. The composer said: "The music of poetry must forever escape me, no doubt, but the poetry of music is always with me" (2). Whereas the song of literature preoccupied Frye, that of music was the concern of Copeland: "It signifies that largest part of our emotive life -the part that sings. Purposeful singing is what concerns most composers most of their lives" (2). In the spirit of the times, Copeland also added:
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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".