The Quest for <i>Cardenio</i>: Shakespeare, Fletcher, Cervantes, and the Lost Play
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Documentary evidence of the lost play Cardenio, now thought to have been written collaboratively by Shakespeare and John Fletcher, is relatively slight.The Cardenio-plot derives from episodes in Cervantes's 1605 Don Quixote, translated into English in 1612 by Thomas Shelton.The adaptation of these episodes into a play may be witnessed by two payments to the King's Men for performances in 1613.On May 20, the King's Treasurer paid the King's Men for their performance of six plays, among which was "Cardenno." Another payment was made some weeks later on July 9 for performance of a single play, this time identified as "Cardenna." Forty years later "The History of Cardenio, M r Fletcher.& Shakespeare" (12) was entered, along with forty-two other titles, into the Stationers' Register by Humphrey Moseley.After Moseley's death, his copyrights were sold in 1718, and as "The History of Cardenio" was among these, a manuscript of the play may also have been part of the exchange.In December 1727, Lewis Theobald staged Double Falsehood; or, The Distrest Lovers, a play whose action is similar to the Quixote episodes.Theobald
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 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".