The Body and Figurative Language in Ben Jonson's <i>Epigram</i> CXXV, “To Sir William Uvedale”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This essay argues that the relationship between the body and figurative language is central to Ben Jonson's epideictic poetry. In his poetry of praise, Jonson attempts to anchor a disembodied speaking voice in the bodies of those to whom his poetry is addressed. Generated by the bodies of others, Jonson's figurative language asserts and even depends for its success upon the speaker's incorporeality. Yet, I will argue, in Jonson's poetry in general and his epideictic poetry in particular, the body is not just the object of discourse but also the subject of discourse; the interplay between the two shapes Jonson's figurative language even in the case of a poem, such as epigram CXXV, “To Sir William Uvedale,” that seems to have very little to do with the body. The epigram is neither Petrarchan love poem, satire, nor an indulgence in the grotesque. Nonetheless, it is structured by Jonson's attempt to deny the male body as the ground of its figurative language, a denial that is itself rooted in bodily metaphors. The failure of the attempted denial reveals at once the figurative, back-constructed nature of the ostensibly literal object of the poem, Uvedale's body, and the very embodied nature of the supposedly disembodied, transcendental speaker.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".