Some Comments on Iterative Thematic Imagery in Quevedo's <i>Heráclito christiano</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A copy of Quevedo's Heràclito christiano was sent to Dona Margarita de Espinosa, the poet's aunt, on the third of June, 1613.^It seems to have been composed when the author was in the thirty-third year of his life, at a time of grave personal crisis.^It is not clear why Quevedo chose such a signifi- cant title for this work, but it is possible to speculate that he associated Heraclitus-known to the Spanish Renaissance as el llorente, the weeping philosopherwith the tears and lamentations present in his own poetry.^Heràclito is presumably christiano because the poems are motivated by a Christian outlook that depaganizes, so to speak, the pre-Socratic phil- osopher.Although it is commonly known as the Heràclito christiano, Quevedo's title does not stop there; it continues "y segunda harpa a imitacion de David."James O. Crosby has noted that David is the "primer rey de la dinastia de Judea" of whom it is said that he played the harp skillfully and that he "se arrepintiô de sus pecados."He had committed adultery with Bathsheba and arranged for the death of her husband, Uriah.Crosby also tells us that "a David se le han atribuido diversos Salmos del Antiguo Tes- tamento, como, por ejemplo, el «miserere» del pecador que pide mis- ericordia de Dios" (Psalm 51).Other psalms express similar sentiments and run parallel to the poems of Quevedo.Crosby suggests as ejtamples psalms 37, 38, 50 and 51.^Even a quick reading ofthese psalms shows that the similarities between them and Quevedo's poetry are not to be found at the surface level of sim- ple repetition for Quevedo's Heràclito christiano is deeply imbued with the spirit of the psalms.And it is this "spirit" which the investigator must pin- point.John McKenzie's classification of the psalms into five distinctgroups may help.He distinguishes between the following types, each with its own different structure and style: 1) Royal Psalms; 2) Hymns; 3) the Lamentation or Supplication which is itself divided into Collective amentations and Individual Lamentations; 4) Individual Songs of Confidence; and 5) Thanksgiving Songs.^^^^^," ,.^^^^^",,^.j" ".^..B^r^iin?^j
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 | 0.009 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.002 |
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".