Bibliographic record
Abstract
As early as the fifth century, Anacreon was the poet of wine, love, and song; even his death—choking on a pip—is attributed to the grape. The fact that the symposion looms large in the extant fragments is, therefore, hardly surprising. In this article, I examine Anacreon’s sympotic verse and its moral quality. While the ethical character of Xenophanes’ and Theognis’ sympotic fragments has been acknowledged, most scholars consider Anacreon as a poet of love, rather than of moral instruction. Recently, Lear and Hobden have begun to address the moral and instructive character of Anacreon’s verse. I build on these analyses by examining the Anacreontic speaker’s presentation of moral value through his own person; there are 46 first-person statements in Anacreon, an important fact considering the narrative and psychological potency of “I” statements in early Greek lyric. In contrast to gnomic statements that purport to be generalized prescriptions, Anacreon’s performative “I” offers an alternative mode of moralizing delivery. These first persons, however, are not the same person: Anacreon gives a multitude of perspectives on appropriate sympotic behaviour. I read the Anacreontic speaker’s diverse and changing persona as a challenging and embodied moral perspective, which destabilizes the idea of a true self, and consequently denies the stereotyping of ancient poetic biography. By enunciating Anacreon’s songs, the speaker puts his own body and individuality into play in the “educative” space of the symposion. In Anacreon’s verse, the self itself becomes the space on which sympotic instructions—moral imperatives—are inscribed and displayed to others.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".