Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation examines the relationship of the Latin poet Catullus to the preceding Latin poetic tradition, particularly to the pre-eminent figure of that tradition, pater Ennius. Classical scholarship has long thought the nature of this relationship settled: in a surge of revolutionary force (so goes the story), Catullus and his poetic peers (the “neoterics”) broke violently away from Ennius and the dominant Ennian tradition, turning instead to the recherché Greek poetry of the Hellenistic period for their inspiration. My study complicates this dominant narrative: Ennius, I argue, had a foundational, positive influence on Catullus; Catullan poetry was evolutionary, not revolutionary at Rome. Chapter 1 sets the stage by redefining neotericism: this was a broad poetic movement that included, not just Catullus and his friends (“the neoteric school”), but a majority of the Latin poets writing c. 90-40 BCE. Neotericism, moreover, was an evolutionary phenomenon, an elaboration of second-century Latin poetry. Chapters 2-4 attend to specific Catullan poems that engage closely and allusively with Ennius. Chapter 2 shows how, in poem 64, Catullus reinvents Roman epic on the model left to him by Ennius. Chapter 3 takes up poem 116, which I read as a programmatic statement of its author’s Ennian-Callimachean poetics. Chapter 4 turns to poems 1 and 68: here I demonstrate how Catullus draws on Ennius qua complex cultural authority in order to defend, question, and think through his own identity as a Transpadane-Roman.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".