Legal Affect in Fulbeck’s A Direction or Preparative to the Study of the Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The full title of William Fulbeck’s A Direction or Preparation to the Study of the Law gives a sense of the author’s general orientation: the volume is subtitled, wherein is shewed what things ought to be observed and used of them that are addicted to the Study of the Law, and what, on the contrary part, ought to be eschewed and avoided, and this concern about cultivating the right kinds of attitudes, habits, and practices makes Fulbeck’s text an unusual contribution to the list of books for aspiring law students. First published in 1600, his text was also the first such book to focus primarily on legal methods, rather than on a particular field of law (such as property or criminal law). Because of this combination—the book’s attention to the student’s disposition, and the treatment of methods and techniques, rather than subject matter—Fulbeck’s text offers an invaluable perspective on the history of legal emotions. This chapter proceeds by discussing the recent turn to affect and emotion in legal history, noting that much of this work focuses mainly on the explicit display of strongly marked negative emotions in the courtroom, particularly by way of witness testimony, in cases featuring disputes over matters such as homicide, divorce, breach of promise of marriage, and the like. Discussions of legal affect outside of the courtroom, and discussions of less intensely charged affective states, have been much rarer. The chapter seeks to explain this pattern, and to suggest ways of studying more muted affective states. In that spirit, the chapter offers an examination of Fulbeck's text both as a means of understanding the kind of legal affect that his book seeks to elicit from the reader, and as an example of how we might seek out other contexts for studying the history of legal affect.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".