Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent Lessing scholarship has attempted to show that Lessing's objections to Racinian tragedy are less severe than they appear, and that his dismissal of Racine can be explained almost entirely by his efforts to decry the influence of French neo-classicism on German drama. It has been suggested that Lessing may have been aware of his many similarities to Racine, but realized that his polemical attack against the French would lose its forcefulness if he were to admit exceptions. The present study argues that scholars have wrongly minimized the substance of Lessing's criticisms of Racine in their exclusive emphasis on his polemical goals, and that they have also portrayed his judgment of Racine as more inconsistent – and favorable – than it actually is (Brown 263-65; Ritchie 129). An analysis of a misunderstood passage of Lessing's criticism will reveal similarities between Lessing and Racine that have not received sufficient attention in previous studies. But when read in its proper context, the passage also yields insights into why, even if Lessing actually did recognize his similarities to Racine, this recognition would presumably not have been strong enough to counterbalance his conviction that he is fundamentally dissimilar to Racine. As this study will show, Lessing's rejection of Racine stems both from his larger polemical goals and from his genuine inability to see in Racine anything but a gallant court poet. In the Conclusion to Letter 332 of the Briefe, die neueste Literatur betreffend, Lessing concurs with Johann Nikolaus Meinhard's explanation for why fifteenthcentury Italy produced few great writers despite the generous patronage of the Medicis. In a passage quoted by Lessing, Meinhard claims that there is no correlation between political sponsorship and literary achievement, since the genius needs no incentive to create. After all, Pietro Metastasio produced exceptional libretti as a poor baker's son, Shakespeare became ein groser Poet, ohne irgend eine Aufmunterung zu haben, ja so gar, ohne selbst es zu wissen, and Jean Racine would have produced better tragedies if he had not been obligated to please the government of Louis XIV:
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".