IX * Milton and Poetry, 1603-1660
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter has four sections: 1. General; 2.Donne; 3. Herbert; 4. Milton. Section 1 is by David Ainsworth; section 2 is by Holly Faith Nelson; section 3 is by Paul Dyck; section 4 is by Alvin Snider. The year 2007 saw rather little published on those poets represented by the general category, but most of what appears offers broader application to the study of poetry, both within and beyond the immediate period of 1603–60. In the spirit of comprehensive complexity, Su Fang Ng's Literature and the Politics of Family in Seventeenth-Century England mixes historicist and materialist approaches to texts with discourse theory to argue for a dynamic association between family structures and political structures in England. Ng suggests that the language of family associated itself with political discourse in contentious ways, complicating patriarchal interpretations of this discourse by arguing that the language of family can undermine as well as reinforce kingship. While Ng focuses on prose works and masques, she also considers the poetry of John Dryden, James I and John Milton. Her presentation of familial discourse as a common language of political disagreement could open up interpretative possibilities in readings of other poets and poems in the period. In particular, her attentiveness to social dimensions, class concerns and religious discourse might productively propagate itself into narrower readings of poets in the period.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".