‘The Precious Body of Christ That They Tretyn in Ther Hondis’: ‘Miraclis Pleyinge’ and the <em>Croxton Play of the Sacrament </em>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the Tretise of Miraclis Pleyinge, Christ's Passion, despite its fortunate result for humanity, emerges as the ultimate, condemning result of humans assuming an irreverent access to the divine--an irreverent access (resulting, in this case, in the torture of divine flesh at human hands) that both writers of the text describe as a chief characteristic of 'miraclis pleyinge.' Similarly, in the Croxton Play of the Sacrament, cursory treatment of Christian doctrines, disregard for Church leaders, and assumed access to the divine--embodied in the sacred object of the host--result in a bloody version of Christ's Passion, marked by human mishandling of sacred objects and topics. Offered in this paper as a point of comparison to the issues raised in the Tretise of Miraclis Pleyinge, the Croxton Play of the Sacrament stages and illuminates a number of the chief points of the Tretise writers. Carefully shepherded and controlled by Church representatives who invoke the very doctrines and embody the very structure that the writers of the Tretise see as threatened or undermined by 'miraclis pleyinge,' what seems an irreverent reenactment of the Passion becomes in the Croxton Play an opportunity for redemption. What the writers of the Tretise see as the dangerous precedent of 'miraclis pleyinge'—inappropriate human engagement of sacred objects and topics--the Croxton Play embraces as potential site for indulging spiritual desires and exploring religious belief, while reassuringly asserting the fundamental stability and authority of Christianity.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".