Dramatic texts in the Tudor curriculum: John Palsgrave and the Henrician educational reforms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In 1540, the English humanist scholar, schoolmaster, and royal chaplain John Palsgrave (d. 1554) published a bilingual Latin‐English annotated edition of the Dutch humanist and reformer Wilhelm Gnapheus’ (1493–1568) widely popular play Acolastus (1529). Palsgrave's Acolastus reflects a growing trend in England and on the continent to Christianize Terence for classroom use, to expurgate or simply move away from the morally ambiguous classical playwrights. More importantly, the English edition of Acolastus was meant to form part, as a proposed standardized text, of the educational reforms of the late 1530s initiated by the government in accordance with the Protestant policy to reorganize grammar schools and unify their curriculum. As part of these reforms, Palsgrave elevated the educational function of dramatic texts by selecting a contemporary neo‐Latin play as a model for textual exegesis in class and by making it the main source of Latin language practice. Palsgrave's extensive annotations reveal how dramatic texts were taught, analysed, and applied not only to practical rhetorical training performed on stage, but also to the grammatical and ethical reading of literary texts in the lower forms of English grammar schools. Furthermore, Palsgrave's annotations attest to a much broader pedagogical application of English translations, highlighting a conscious vernacularization within the humanist curriculum that took place considerably earlier in the sixteenth century than has been hitherto assumed.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.019 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".