Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gender, Theatre and the Origins of Criticism from Dryden to Manley provides a historical account of criticism's emergence between 1660 and 1714 by looking at the critical writings of John Dryden and those of the women of the following generation whose writings his example shaped. Aphra Behn, Catharine Trotter and Delarivier Manley are not the usual figures through whom the history of criticism has been charted; but Dryden himself, while often mentioned, is equally often relegated to the margins in those histories that have taken the periodical essays of Joseph Addison and Richard Steele as criticism's point of discursive origin. The first part of this book examines the critical enterprise as Dryden undertakes it when he rewrites his Jacobean precursors, in order to argue that, in Dryden's hands, criticism is historical in orientation; this historicism serves in his production – itself an intensely theatrical affair – of a national literary tradition that is transmitted as a lineal inheritance in the vocabulary of poetic genealogy. The second part then looks at the writings of Behn, Trotter and Manley as they claim access through Dryden to this native literary tradition and to the critical discourse whose subsequent histories have written them out. I would thus reconfigure our sense of who contributes to the early development of criticism, and, by redefining the conditions of its emergence, make accessible to observation hitherto overlooked aspects of criticism's legacy.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.045 | 0.008 |
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".