India and the Antiquarian Image: Richard Payne Knight’s A Discourse on the Worship of Priapus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
À l’aide du livre infâme de Richard Payne Knight, A Discourse on the Worship of Priapus (1786), cet article révèle les moyens entrepris par les antiquaires pour lutter à l’échelle mondiale contre la culture matérielle ancienne. Knight se sert du corpus classique et des techniques de création d’images des antiquaires pour interpréter de manière emblématique les actes sexuels représentés sur les artefacts rapportés en Grande-Bretagne par les employés de la Compagnie britannique des Indes orientales, dont un fragment sculptural associé aux grottes d’Elephanta. En collaboration avec son graveur, Knight transpose le fragment du temple fait de grès en une gravure, un processus qui donne à l’exotique un caractère familier par le recours au langage visuel néoclassique. Knight impose également au lecteur/spectateur de reconsidérer le sens et le mérite esthétique d’oeuvres d’art sexuellement explicites. Bien que son livre Discourse ait renforcé les partis pris coloniaux envers l’Inde et son patrimoine culturel, la méthode comparative de Knight confère une base philosophique à l’érotisme caractérisant l’architecture sacrée en Asie du Sud et souligne l’importance du désir sexuel dans les traditions artistiques anciennes, tant orientales qu’occidentales.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".