STEPHEN BARDLE. The Literary Underground in the 1660s: Andrew Marvell, George Wither, Ralph Wallis, and the World of Restoration Satire and Pamphleteering.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stephen Bardle defines the literary underground in the 1660s narrowly, with a view to investigating George Wither, Ralph Wallis and Andrew Marvell, the three writers in whom his prosopography centres. Bardle does well to make something of Wither and Wallis’s robust voices in opposition. Their roles as Restoration writers deserve such attention, and Bardle explains the continuities between their participation in the English Revolution and their challenging the Restoration settlement, especially of an English national church. With Marvell he achieves less. Heir to works especially by N.H. Keeble and Sharon Achinstein on the literary culture of nonconformity, Bardle benefits from recent historiography that lends higher resolution to his tighter focus on the 1660s. The ‘world of Restoration satire and pamphleteering’ that Bardle’s title advertises soon contracts to satire, as he states his interest chiefly in the ‘literary’ rather than print underground. With Wallis, the generic constraint is relaxed, though the question then arises why not speak further to the pamphleteers’ arts, if indeed ‘this is not a book about the underground press as an industry; rather it is concerned with the question of oppositional authorial agency, and in particular the projection of political and religious opposition in both literary content and literary form’ (p. 5). Thus, to circumscribe the literary is to resist the scholarly trend of recent decades, not least since Robert Darnton’s influential studies of the literary underground of the ancien régime, with the clandestine circulation in Restoration England of works in manuscript and print proving a rich area for enquiry, notably by the late historians of the book D.F. McKenzie, Michael Treadwell and Harold Love.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it