A Catholic Horace at the English Court: Paratextual Manipulations in Thomas Hawkins's Odes of Horace (1625-1638)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article addresses the ways in which Thomas Hawkins, a translator engaged in the cultural and literary activities of early Stuart court culture, but also in the transnational, Anglo-French Catholic networks of the time, appropriates certainOdes of Horaceto assert his cultural, literary, and ideological values at the courts of Charles I and Henrietta Maria. Focusing in particular on the paratexts of the printed volume in its various editions (1625-1638), which include a translator’s preface as well as a number of commendatory poems from contemporary writers and courtiers, this article revisits Theo Hermans’s (2014a [1985]) and André Lefevere’s (2006 [1992]) seminal methods for analyzing the ‘manipulation of literary fame’ in early modern England. While confirming Hermans’s and Lefevere’s attention to issues of patronage and cultural norms, as well as the pivotal importance of paratexts as markers of such factors, I argue that the strategies of ideological and political encoding at work in the productions of English seventeenth-century court culture are best understood when approached from an “enlarged” (Tymoczko, 2005, 2007) methodological stance. This means complementing well-established analyses of literary manipulation in terms of patronage and cultural norms with specific attention to the material conditions in which translations were produced and circulated; their significance to the complex and ideologically conflicted milieu of the early Stuart court; and the social, political, and religious networks in which translators operated, well beyond the immediate circles of courtly patronage and influence.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".