Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This chapter takes the ‘Discourse concerning the original and progress of satire’ that prefaced John Dryden’s translations of Juvenal and Persius (1692) as the starting point for a consideration of the relationship between two kinds of criticism: the vernacular English criticism of the early Enlightenment, and the Latinate scholarship of the late Renaissance. Dryden’s later critical prose, and particularly his ‘Discourse’, was self-consciously erudite and historical, based on heavy documentation provided by Dryden’s deep reading in the late humanist commentary tradition, such as Lipsius, Isaac Casaubon, and Daniel Heinsius. Studying Dryden’s uses of late humanist models can therefore help us to answer broader questions about post-Restoration literary criticism. In what ways would it have seemed innovative to contemporary readers? How much did it owe to continental precedents, both past and present? And what uses did it make of new intellectual movements that had challenged the hegemony of humanist scholarship?
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".