Compromised Epistemologies: The Ethics of Historiographic Metatheatre in Tom Stoppard’s <i>Travesties</i> and <i>Arcadia</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tom Stoppard uses historiographic metatheatre to question the efficacy of historical narratives: plays such as Travesties directly address the constructed texture of history. However, partially because the 1809 scenes in Arcadia are naturalistic, critics generally accept Arcadia as presenting a “real” history. But taking anything in Stoppard’s plays at face value is a crucial mistake. Instead, we should read Arcadia as participating in a self-consciously destabilizing cultural project building a historiography of error – like Travesties, but through a less obviously constructed historiographic metatheatre – a reading that prompts us to reconsider standard narratives of Stoppard’s development as a playwright of epistemological uncertainty. Part of Stoppard’s joyous humour in Arcadia goes beyond satirizing Bernard and extends to the critical misreadings through which we, as critics, reproduce Bernard’s unreliable thesis and, like him, risk convincing ourselves that we are right. Taking Arcadia at face value undermines the ethical imperative to uncertainty and multiplicity inherent in historiographic metatheatre, an ethic that runs through both Travesties and Arcadia.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".