Hunt, Byron, and The Story of Rimini - A Literary Challenge to “the Public Mind”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article situates the genesis of second generation Romanticism around the writing, publication, and reception, of Leigh Hunt'sThe Story of Rimini. It will focus on the period 1814-1816, to find the first expressions of the experimentation which characterise this group. This development has been analysed in Jeffrey Cox's influential Hunt-centred work. Taking a later chronology for his study, Cox claims that these writers were “questing for a position beyond the hegemony of the official culture”. This article disagrees with Cox's positioning of these poets, their works, and “hegemony” (Cox 12). I do not view the poetical works questing for a position “beyond the hegemony”, because of theseparationfrom “official culture” which this articulates. I instead believe that in 1814-1816 Hunt and Byron were constructing poems toconfrontofficial culture. Byron's neglectedParisinawas written at the same time asRimini,and I believe that this work was influenced by Hunt. It is a relationship about which criticism is conspicuously silent, preferring instead the “Turkish” tales andChilde Harold. 1 This influence provides a reason for Byron's move from the successful tales, to the more formally and thematically radical work of his exile. There will then be a close-reading of both poems’ experiments in genre (the metrical romance) and form (the heroic couplet). The aim is to view Hunt's poem as a confrontation with two established, and establishment, literary modes while appreciating the social repercussions of such a move. The final section will analyse the organs of “public opinion”, by studying the works’ reception in conservative periodicals. The aim of this analysis will be to challenge critical praxis and appreciate the texts, rather than just their authors' politics, as a threat to the newly formed “public mind”. 2
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".