The Mystagogical Senses in the Homeric Cento of the 1st Redaction (1HC)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper explores some intertextual connections in the Homeric cento of the 1st redaction (1HC). This particular version is the most interesting from this point of view. The text can be read on three levels of meaning. The first level is the narrative one, or a macrotext (a paraphrase of Gospel stories about Jesus). The second could be called a microtext. This is “stylistic”, or “epic” level, because the author imitates the style of Homer with his cliches, epic formulas and fixed epithets. The third level is philosophical, or even “mystagogical” one; it involves intertextual connections. One of the main intertextual Odyssey motives is that of the way to the Heavenly Motherland. For example, there are healing episodes where the main characters not only are healed by Jesus but they get the opportunity to return to their motherland. This idea is Neoplatonic as well. Another example of the “mystagogical” intertextuality is represented in the Cento scene of the Wedding at Cana, where two entrances to the cave are mentioned. The Cento probably alludes to the Porphyry’s treatise and reveals the “secret sense” of the scene: Jesus is the Creator of cosmos and he knows all the secret ways and entrances of Nature. The author of the article suggests that this comprehension was inspired by Neoplatonic idea that Homer is concerned in the mysteries of the universe. It was based on the decontextualisation of Homeric text and its allegorical interpretation.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".