Bibliographic record
Abstract
The recent publication of the “Brothers Poem” (P. Sapph. Obbink 1–20) reminds us that Sappho is more than a love poet. The stories of Sappho’s two brothers, Charaxus and Larichus, were well known in antiquity and are attested in a number of sources. Several accounts imply that Sappho’s brothers were mentioned repeatedly in her poetry, a claim that appears to be supported by fr. 15, which may represent a separate poem about Charaxus. Unlike the ancients, we modern scholars need not assume that these “biographical” snippets reflect a poet’s lived experience, and rather than simply claiming that Sappho had two brothers, we must consider the reasons for this focus on brotherhood and sibling relationships in her work. This article discusses the role of brotherly relationships in archaic poetry and the use of the brother to shed light on moral issues. It considers famous brother-pairs such as Hector and Paris and Agamemnon and Menelaus in the Iliad, and Hesiod and Perses in Works and Days. It argues that brothers are characteristically used to explore ideas to do with preserving the oikos and familial duty and shows how Charaxus and Larichus fit into this pattern. It further suggests that Sappho adapts this trope by creating a sibling triangle, rather than the traditional pairing of two brothers. By including herself (and possibly also her mother) in this scenario, she explores domestic morality from a different, female-oriented perspective, showing the responsibilities that men bear toward their female dependents.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".