“A subject dead is not worth presenting”: Cromwell, the Past, and the Haunting of Thomas Carlyle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This essay examines Thomas Carlyle’s painful struggle to write a book on Oliver Cromwell and the Puritan era in the years 1838 to 1845, and seeks to discover why this otherwise prolific author found it so difficult to produce a history of the man who occupied the central place in his pantheon of heroes. It does so by examining his metaphoric conception of the past as a body that could, if treated correctly by the historian, be presented “alive” rather than “dead,” and his feeling that the past and the voices of its “dead heroes” were haunting him like ghosts. The metaphoric construction and progress of this haunting is explored using critical approaches derived from Jacques Derrida and Paul de Man. By placing Carlyle’s crisis of authorship in conversation with these thinkers, I attempt to cast a new light on his relationship to the past and his sense of the difficulties involved in giving voice to the dead. It was only through a subjugation of his own authorial voice to that of his dead subject that Carlyle was able to bring an end to the haunting that had threatened to silence him in the early 1840s.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".