Aesthetics and the Staging of Sexual Violence in Cervantes and Lope
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: The goal of this paper is to analyze how works by Cervantes and Lope position the aesthetics of romance, or courtly love, and by extension, the poet, in relation to sexual violence in early modern Spain. The main works in question are Lope’s Peribáñez y el Comendador de Ocaña and the Tosilos episode at the palace of the duke and duchess in the second book of Don Quixote. Where Lopeframes the potential sexual violence and theatrical chaos set in motion by the Comendador as the work a deceitful, heretical, and dishonorable aberration/abomination who needs to be eliminated so that an inherently just and natural society can function as God intended, Cervantes locates the source of sexual violence in the hierarchical power structure of the aristocracy per se as well as its use of theatrical spectacles to simultaneously entertain and legitimize their political privilege and economic superiority. In other words, for Cervantes, the image of terror that is brought to the stage in a figure like Lope’s don Fadrique is not external to the monarchical-seigniorial apparatuses of social and political containment, as Lope would have it, but is rather a product of its hierarchical structure. The hope is that this essay will further discussions sparked by the #MeToo movement concerning analogous debates about the relation between culture and sexual violence.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.043 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".