The Slaying of Sir William Pennington: Legal Narrative and the Late Medieval English Archive
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On 20 April 1532, near the king’s palace at Westminster, two gentlemen, Richard Southwell, esquire, and Sir William Pennington, faced one another in a sword fight, a quarrel that ended in Pennington’s death. The slaying came at a sensitive time in Henry VIII’s reign, when much attention was focused on ‘the King’s Great Matter,’ his divorce of Katherine of Aragon and projected marriage to Anne Boleyn. The killing of William Pennington was bound up in those issues, one version of events depicting the genesis of the quarrel in an alleged disparagement of Anne Boleyn’s virtue. The official version, however, recorded on the rolls of the Court of King’s Bench, told a different story, one that omitted the larger political issues that underlay the quarrel between these two men, giving us important indications about how legal records were composed and used in premodern England to manage politically sensitive issues. The records of this affair reveal the use of both formal and informal channels, from local juries to the king’s council, for dealing with acts of violence in Henrician England, particularly those with serious political repercussions. These official and unofficial processes, and the records they generated, were tightly imbricated; although in a legal sense the plea roll at King’s Bench was more or less sufficient unto itself, politically its record worked only in tandem with the unofficial negotiations and manoeuvres behind the scenes. In turn, the political imperatives demanded that the formal processes be massaged, that the official record read in particular ways and not others regarding the facts of the case — which were probably not the ‘facts’ at all.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".