Mythology, Value-Judgements and Ideology in Northrop Frye's "Anatomy" and Beyond
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RILCE 25.1 (2009) Collingwood said that the past is never empirical but is mediate, inferential or indirect and that the historian, when trying to discover the past, looks at relics that contain words and has to discover what the person who wrote them meant: "To discover what this thought was, the historian must think it again for himself " (Collingwood 233, see 282).The historian is re-enacting in his own mind the experience of the writer.Frye also gravitated to moments of recognition or discovery and to recreation of literature in the mind.Collingwood, Copeland and Frye also posed the question of identity in difference, of the relation between interpretation and reinterpretation.This interest in recreation and re-enactment in the interpreter might be called the drama of meaning.The question of interpretation and recognition relates to central concerns in the work of Frye that touch on language, story and argument.In a number of my earlier works on Northrop Frye, I discussed the various relations among myth, metaphor and ideology, but I will try to shape and reshape my discussion in a new context (see Hart 1992Hart , 1994). 1 "Myth," "mythos" ("muthos") and mythoi are terms that Northrop Frye used in the first decades of his career.One of the cruxes over the term "myth " is how it shifted from the nineteenth to the twentieth centuries, from myth as fable, fiction and invention to myth as understood in archaic societies, or, as Mircea Eliade once said, myth as "true story" or one "that is a most precious possession because it is sacred, exemplary, significant" (Eliade 1).Frye explored this interface in myth.His influence was wide-spread, and one such well-known effect on a student was Margaret Atwood's transformation of Frye's concern with myth and Canadian literature and culture into her own interests, especially in Survival (see Howells 13).
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.072 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".