Oedipus the King: A Greek Tragedy, Philosophy, Politics and Philology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Oedipus the King: A Greek Tragedy, Philosophy, Politics and Philology — This study tries to show that the abundance of translations, imitations and radical re-interpretations of a genre like tragedy is due to various social discourses of target societies. Taking as an example Sophocles' Oedipus the King, the acclaimed tragedy par excellence, this essay discusses how the discourses of philosophy, politics and philology influenced the reception of this classical Greek tragedy by the French and British target systems (TSs) during the late 17th and early 18th century and the late 19th and early 20th century. The first section shows how, by offering Sophocles' Oedipus the King as a Greek model of tragedy, Aristotle's Poetics has formed the Western literary criticism and playwriting. The second section attempts to demonstrate why three imitations of Oedipus by Corneille (Oedipe), Dryden {Oedipus) and Voltaire {Oedipe) became more popular than any other contemporary "real" translation of the Sophoclean Oedipus. The third and final part holds that the observed revival of Oedipus the King in late 19th- and early 20th-century France and England was due to the different degrees of influence of three conflicting but overlapping discourses: philosophy, philology and politics. It illustrates how these discourses resulted in different reception of the Greek play by the French and British TSs.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".