Bibliographic record
Abstract
Encouraged by the recent renewal of interest in the relationship between Milton and Shakespeare, this essay focuses on that relationship in the light of the tension between the literalism of sola scriptura in reformed religion, on the one hand, and the countervailing insistence on imitation as the route to originality and individual agency in the studia humanitatis, on the other. This tension is central to all Milton’s thinking; at its core is the question, “How are we to reconcile God’s freedom with our own?” While God’s freedom is absolute, we are nothing more than puppets “in the motions” unless we find a way to define the contingency of our own. Milton is intoxicated with the majesty of God’s freedom but equally haunted by the memory of our own original freedom: “No man who knows ought, can be so stupid [as] to deny that all men naturally were borne free, being the image and likeness of God himself.” By concentrating on Milton’s representation of Shakespeare in his “Epitaph” on Shakespeare (1632) and Eikonoklastes (1649), my argument is that not only is Milton’s engagement with Shakespeare ongoing but that it allows us peculiar insight into the poet’s conflicted desire both to create enhanced space for human agency and to critique its overestimation, especially in the idealization of political virtù.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".