Plato’s <b> <i>Phaedrus</i> </b> and <b> <i>Symposium</i> </b> in the <b> <i>Pseudo-Clementine Homilies</i> </b>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The presence of Plato and Platonic philosophy in the late antique Christian novel, the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies , has been underexamined. The present article takes a twofold approach: first, it discusses Platonic references and allusions in the disputes between Appion the grammarian and Clement, a follower of the apostle Peter ( Homiliae Clementinae 4–6), and links them to the rest of the Homilistic narrative. Plato’s dialogues of the Symposium and, in particular, the Phaedrus turn out to be insightful philosophical and literary frameworks by means of which the Homilist reflects on the value of eros , paideia , rhetoric and philosophy, the value of written discourse, and truth. Secondly, this article also compares the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies with (other) novels and narratives from the Second Sophistic that intertextually engage with similar Platonic motifs and passages. My analysis reveals how the Homilist, as a Christian novelist with strong philosophical (and one might say Sophistic) interests, is a remarkable member of the late antique, cultural dialogue, in which the reception of Plato’s dialogues took place.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".