“As Inspiring as the Muses, as Righteous as the Supreme Court”: <i>The Trial of the Catonsville Nine</i> and Jurisprudential Drama
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Daniel Berrigan’s The Trial of the Catonsville Nine is based upon the transcript of a 1968 trial, during which Berrigan himself – Jesuit priest, prolific poet, and peace activist – and eight other members of the Catholic clergy and laity were indicted after incinerating over three hundred Vietnam draft files in protest against the war. A documentary verse drama, noteworthy for its complex, allusive structure, the play is traversed by a network of quotations from texts including Jean-Paul Sartre’s The Condemned of Altona, Bertolt Brecht’s The Life of Galileo, Heinar Kipphardt’s In the Manner of J. Robert Oppenheimer, Peter Weiss’s The Investigation, Jean Anouilh’s Becket, and Sophocles’ Antigone. Berrigan’s play thus engages with, and positions itself within, a rich tradition of legal or jurisprudential drama, a trans-historical mode of dramatic expression structured around juridical performance, jurisdictional conflict, and jurisprudential enquiry. Reading these interpolated passages alongside the versified trial transcript and Berrigan’s own library, this article interrogates the function and significance of this intertextual network, both as an act of genre formation and as an alternative jurisdiction for the readjudication of the Catonsville proceedings.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".