“The Lantern of Typography”: “Christabel,” “Kubla Khan,” and Poetic Mediation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the complex performance and publication histories of Samuel Taylor Coleridge's “Christabel” and “Kubla Khan” in order to explore how the transition from manuscript and memory to print could affect the reception of a poem within coteries of Romantic-era readers. These poems make good case studies for examining this question for two principal reasons. First, both circulated for nearly two decades between “the summer of the year 1797” when Coleridge claimed to have written “Kubla Khan,” and May 1816 when John Murray published Christabel, Kubla Khan & The Pains of Sleep. Second, a number of Coleridge's contemporaries left detailed and revealing accounts of the performance and reception of both poems prior to and after their publication. William and Dorothy Wordsworth, Clement Carlyon, Walter Scott, Henry Crabb Robinson, Lord Byron and William Hazlitt are all on record having heard or recited one or both of the poems.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".