Poetic Discourse, Rhetoric, and Augustus in Horace's Regulus Ode (Hor. <i>Carm</i>. 3.5)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Horace's fifth Roman Ode has often been taken as a push for war with Parthia and thus interpreted as an uncomfortable insertion of Horace's voice into politics. This article argues for a profoundly different take on the ode's rhetoric and thus on its political relevance. The analysis brings to bear a theoretical perspective recoverable from ancient rhetorical handbooks, which saw analogy, exemplarity, and some form of visual comparison as three aspects of a single argumentative or stylistic figure: comparison. The ode—structured as a movement through these forms of comparison—aims at nothing less than the articulation of a vision of Rome's, and Augustus’, place in the establishment of a new cosmic order along with a return to the old Roman virtues. Within the ode, oratorical figures of style and thought work together with a poetic strategy—Horace's deployment of an intricate and previously undetected ring composition—to produce meaning on many levels, embracing aesthetic and literary practices, rhetorical and ancient theoretical approaches, and political, religious and cosmological, and philosophical concerns.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".