MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4375906495 · doi:10.1353/phx.2021.0040

Cicero and the Early Latin Poets by Hannah Čulík-Baird

2021· article· en· W4375906495 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jesse Hill

Bibliographic record

VenuePhoenix · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedieval European Literature and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCiceroPoetryLatin literatureArtClassicsLiteratureContext (archaeology)Art historyPhilosophyHistoryArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Cicero and the Early Latin Poets by Hannah Čulík-Baird Jesse Hill Cicero and the Early Latin Poets. By Hannah Čulík-Baird. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2022. Pp. 306. Cicero has long been pillaged for his quotations of early Latin poetry, with editors from Stephanus to Skutsch digging precious scraps of republican verse out from the orator's prose, setting the former in big print in their editions of Ennius and relegating [End Page 378] the latter to their footnotes and back-of-the-book commentaries. But Latinists of recent years have begun to feel a bit uneasy with this practice of frosty excerption (for a fragment of Ennius embedded in Cicero can only dangerously be discussed without thought of Cicero). As a result this century has seen an uptick in scholarship that emphasizes the reception and transmission of fragmentary Latin and stresses the importance of the context in which our fragments are preserved.1 Hannah Čulίk-Baird's new book emerges from this trend. Though far from the first scholarly work on Cicero the citer of early Latin poetry (indeed, its title almost translates that of Wilhelm Zillinger's classic Cicero und die altrömischen Dichter [Würzburg 1911]),2 Cicero and the Early Latin Poets distinguishes itself as the first comprehensive monograph to focus squarely on how citation works within the orator's corpus. That is, Čulίk-Baird, unlike Zillinger, is adamantly not interested in trying to dig out "new" fragments of early Latin verse; she rather stays with Cicero in the first century b.c.e., analysing, in admirably accessible prose, the various uses to which he puts republican poetry across his speeches, letters, philosophica, and rhetorica. The result is an ambitious, sensitive, and convincing book, which will be useful both to specialists of republican Latin (though perhaps few of its conclusions will really surprise them) and to anyone generally interested in literary quotation and fragmentation, whether within the discipline of Classics or without. The reasons why Cicero embedded snippets of Latin poetry into his texts are many and various. Rightly, then, Čulik-Baird does not advance one central thesis, but rather offers a discursive and wide-ranging study that allows Ciceronian practice its full, unwieldy complexity. To impose some order on this chaos, she has divided her book into an introduction, five chapters (the last three focus on different poetic genres; the first two are more meandering), a brief envoi, and three appendices that, building on the work of Zillinger, catalogue all of the perceptible moments of poetic citation in Cicero's prose corpus. As is the case with some other recent monographs in the field of fragmentary Latin,3 these appendices are themselves almost worth the price of admission. The Introduction, "All Minds Quote," nicely prepares a reader for what is to follow. Drawing on an eclectic range of thinkers, from Petrarch to Emerson to Butler, Čulίk-Baird here set outs her theoretical position on citation and fragmentation. Prominently, amidst the theorizing of this Introduction, the author conceptualizes Cicero's act of embedding republican poetry in his writings "as a kind of textual embrace rather than an act of shattering" (11). This is a compelling shift in metaphor, inviting us, as it does, to focus on the positive new meaning that the citation of a now-fragmentary author generates instead of the loss that such citation might evoke. Of course, as suggested above, and as Čulίk-Baird's meticulous footnotes themselves make clear, Latinists who work on fragments already are broadly interested in focusing on the meaning generated by reception and transmission, and so the theorizing of her introduction is less a call to arms than it is a defense of what is already being done in the discipline. But it is [End Page 379] an elegant, clear, and powerful defense, which will be useful to many readers; indeed, I suspect this opening section of the book would work well in a seminar on practically any fragmentary author or genre. With Chapter One, "Cicero and the Poets," Čulίk-Baird turns from her own theoretical position to Cicero's, exploring...

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.595
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.175 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhoenixSame topicMedieval European Literature and HistoryFrench-language works237,207