Bibliographic record
Abstract
Benjamin Britten’s War Requiem sets nine of Wilfred Owen’s war poems alongside the words of the Missa pro defunctis, allowing these texts to interrogate and comment on each other. Owen’s poems describe the horrors of trench warfare, and often, harshly indict both church and state for their complicity in war-mongering. Scholars such as Philip Rupprecht, Heather Wiebe, David B. Greene, and George D. Herbert have explored how Owen’s texts work to subvert the text of the Mass, and deny religious and musical consolation. Such readings place the War Requiem in line with Owen’s preface to his Collected Poems, in which he rejects consolatory mourning. This article, however, suggests that moments in the War Requiem work to deconstruct Owen’s preface. Britten’s juxtaposition of Owen’s poems with the text of the Missa pro defunctis, specifically in the Agnus Dei and Libera me, works to undermine Owen’s poetic goals as outlined in the preface, bringing out irony not immediately apparent in Owen’s work. This article closely examines Owen’s poems in the context of Britten’s settings and compares Owen’s poems to their Latin counterparts. It reveals moments in which Britten’s text setting alters the implications of Owen’s words to allow moments of consolatory mourning that directly contradict Owen’s purported poetic goals and cast doubt on the possibility of completely non-consolatory mourning. It concludes that the War Requiem offers a new kind of consolation, in which the acknowledgement of the impossibility of musical and poetic consolation becomes a tool to confront grief.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".