How to get from A to B: <em>Fulgens and Lucres</em>, Histrionic Power, and the Invention of the English Comic Duo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While clearly a product of humanist education, Henry Medwall’s Fulgens and Lucres wears its learning very lightly, even satirically. It relegates a formal debate for the marriage favour of Lucres, daughter of Roman senator Fulgens, to an inset play performed by recognizably retrograde actors, as opposed to the unpredictably inane—but much more dramatically interesting—actions of A and B. In so doing Fulgens and Lucres constantly opposes the cultural input of its own interior Roman debat play, unsettling preconceived moral forms to assert instead its own ludicrous significance as English comedy. Hereby, the play makes a vital and previously unexamined incursion into one of the most significant effects of metadrama. It foregrounds a sense of insecurity through the crossing of boundaries between audience(s) and performer(s) to inform a wider consciousness of class, authority, and autonomy. Indeed, the very title Fulgens and Lucres masks the real emphasis of the play on a newly emergent, nameless English comic duo, two masterless men—unemployed, ineffectual, well-meaning, and clever—who constantly place the emphasis of this play where it really belongs: in the farcically energetic now of comic performance.
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".