‘In stede of harme inestimable good’: A Dialogue of Comfort against Tribulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CIRCUMSTANCES In consequence of refusing the Oath of Succession on 13 April 1534, Thomas More was incarcerated in the Tower of London for the final fourteen months of his life (above, 121–3). Yet imprisonment did not prevent him from writing, with a fluency approaching that of his anti-Lutheran polemics of the immediately preceding years. He composed, in addition to a series of letters and other brief writings, the main ‘Tower Works’: A Treatise on the Passion (begun before his imprisonment but perhaps completed during it), A Dialogue of Comfort against Tribulation and, finally, the unfinished De Tristitia Christi . In differing ways, these last compositions reveal More’s transmuting of personal experience into enduring monuments of faith. The Dialogue of Comfort was More’s third major work in dialogue form, after Utopia (1516) and A Dialogue Concerning Heresies (1529). In those previous works he represents himself as a speaker in the dialogue. By contrast, the Dialogue of Comfort , divided into three ‘books’, presents two voices in a fictional dramatic setting distanced in both place and time from the author. A disconsolate young Hungarian, Vincent, has turned to his sick uncle, Antony, for counsel in the face of imminent Turkish persecution of Christians, following the calamitous Hungarian defeat at Mohács on 28 August 1526 by the forces of the Ottoman Empire under its sultan, Suleiman the Magnificent. Vincent complains, ‘me thynketh the gretest comfort that a man can haue, ys when he may see that he shall sone be gone’ ( CW 12:3). It is against such despair and the temptations of fear that the Dialogue is ostensibly addressed, and in so doing artfully interweaves fact with fiction, and the present with the recent past.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".