The Original Salisbury Court Players of Richard Brome's The Antipodes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
TWO seldom observed aspects of the legal battle between Richard Brome and the players of Salisbury Court are that (1) Brome testifies to the financial success of his Antipodes and that (2) the legal dealings record the state of the Salisbury Court players at two distinct instances in the development of the troupe’s company.1 In regard to the first of these points, Brome endorses the stage success of his Antipodes after a more overt promotion of his Sparagus Garden. He claims that he had intended a play—his Antipodes—for William Beeston but that the playing company of Salisbury Court ‘had it and acted it and by comon estimacon gott a Thousand pounds and vpwards by it’.2 In regard to the second point, the bill against Brome records the group of players associated with Salisbury Court both around 20 July 1635, when Brome initially signed over his services to the company, and the state of the company around 12 February 1640, when the suit was finalized by the players for settlement against Brome.3 These two aspects of the contract proceedings help to set the scene for an important new discovery of a cast list for the staging of Brome’s Antipodes.4 This cast list, which appears as a series of written names in a copy of the 1640 printing of The Antipodes, helps to illuminate the state of the Salisbury Court players in 1638, directly following the reopening of the theatres after several months of closures due to outbreaks of plague.5
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.167 | 0.035 |
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".