Finding T.S. Eliot’s “Little Devils”: Marionettes and <i>Sweeney Agonistes</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Taking its cue from T.S. Eliot’s early marionette poems, this article argues that the puppet, and the puppet-like, played a vital but critically neglected role in the development of Eliot’s early dramaturgy and its practical, though partial, realization in his first play, Sweeney Agonistes (1926–27). Eliot’s penumbral evocations of the marionette in his reviews of human performers from the early 1920s point to his fascination with grotesque and inhuman styles of performance. This critical stance, along with modernist theatre’s broader preoccupation with puppets, shaped Eliot’s first foray into writing for the stage, resulting in a work that behaves like a puppet play, both on the page and in performance. Drawing on archival materials, the article goes on to consider the stylistic and thematic features of Sweeney Agonistes in light of their resonances with puppet performances and discusses how certain stage productions, especially those directed by Hallie Flanagan and Rupert Doone in the 1930s, made these connections explicit. It concludes that despite Eliot’s departure from this dramaturgy in his later plays, his turn to drama had significant but unacknowledged, because largely renounced, roots in an aesthetics of performance whose ideals were best manifested by the puppet.
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 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".