Moveable text: Mutability, monumentality, and the representation of motion in British Renaissance literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The representation of movement and change in English Renaissance literature was a site of negotiation between conflicting views of the value and efficacy of motion.Renaissance poets made motion visible by referring to other arts, discourses, practices, and disciplines of study where motion was either highly relevant or a topic of debate.Such visibility reveals the fraught nature of motion for Renaissance minds: in the epics of Spenser and Milton, objects move that should be motionless or are described as static when they should be mobile.Such unexpected reversals are appropriate for a period when the whole status and value of motion and stillness was in question.During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, motion was seen concurrently as a force of mutability, bringing eventual ruin to all human monuments, as a force of progress, improving all things, and as a force of equilibrium, maintaining a continual cycle of decay and renewal.Motion gave Renaissance poets, including Edmund Spenser and John Milton, a subject not only to think about, but to think with, as motion provided a unifying framework for disparate ideas.The three parts of the dissertation, each consisting of two chapters, consider motion in increasingly larger dimensions of space and human experience.Part I explores the puzzling frequency with which static artwork in Spenser's Faerie Queene appears to move.Chapter One argues that motion was a chief feature of the classical rhetorical practice of "ekphrasis" (meaning "description"), and as Renaissance poets adapted ancient forms for English verse, they incorporated motion as an essential element of description.Yet they also To my supervisor, Ken Borris, I owe a tremendous debt of thanks.Since my arrival at McGill, he has provided
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".