Κραδίᾳ γνωστὸς ἔνεστι τύπος (Meleager, Anth. Pal. 5.212.4): Self-Reflexive Engagement with Lyric Topoi in Erotic Epigram
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sarah Mace, in a 1993 article, brilliantly traced the usage of δηὖτε in Archaic lyric, where the widespread topos of “Love . . . yet again” not only evoks the speaker’s personal experience of repeated erotic desire, but also the recurrence of love’s overwhelming onset throughout the genre. When Hellenistic epigrammatists write about their eros several centuries later, they manifestly engage with this and other lyric topoi, marking their experience of love as something well-known from the erotic tradition: it is not least the knowledge of their lyric models that enables them (and their readers) to correctly diagnose amatory symptoms and identify erotic symbols as such. Although such metapoetic play is something we readily associate with Hellenistic poetry, the potential for self-conscious evocation of the poetic tradition and generic conventions is already inherent in Archaic lyric itself. The present article looks at these earlier instances of self-reflexivity in comparison with the modes of allusion we encounter in erotic epigrams. By delineating similarities and differences in the generic and/or intertextual self-awareness of Archaic and Hellenistic poets, it hopes to shed new light on the inner workings of allusion in different literary contexts.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".