Bibliographic record
Abstract
In his volume on The Fine Arts in Renaissance in Italy , published in 1877, John Addington Symonds maintains that “the spirit of Christianity and the spirit of figurative art are opposed, not because such art is immoral, but because it cannot free itself from sensuous associations”. Indeed, he goes on to identify “the difficult problem of the relation of the fine arts to Christianity” as “the most thorny question offered to the understanding by the history of the Renaissance”. Signifying the historical moment when, in Symonds's formulation, “Christianity and Hellenism kissed each other”, the Renaissance held a particular interest for aesthetic critics and cultural historians at the fin de siècle, such as Walter Pater, Vernon Lee and Michael Field, who were, like Symonds, grappling with the conundrum of the body and its legitimate and illicit pleasures and desires. Drawing on critical work over the last decade on the connections between late Victorian art and aestheticism and the emergence of the homosexual in the social and cultural arena, this article explores Symonds's highly embodied and erotic engagement with Renaissance art, and locates his corporeal aesthetic in relation to other late Victorian art historical investigations of the tactile imagination, embodied optics and physiological aesthetics.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".