Editing Arden: The <i>Dramatis Personae</i> List in <i>As You Like It</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The first printed dramatis personae list for As You Like It appeared in Nicholas Rowe’s 1709 Works of Mr. William Shakespear. That list included an incomplete entry that described Rosalind’s father as the ‘Duke of ’, leaving a tantalising blank space where a geographical qualifier might be expected to appear. In a second issue of the edition of 1709, the incomplete entry was revised to read ‘Duke of Burgundy’. Yet, in a second edition of the play, printed later in 1709, the incomplete ‘Duke of ’ appeared again, and it appeared for a third time in 1714, in the revised third edition of Rowe’s Works. The 1714 dramatis personae list included another bold editorial revision: it contained an entirely new entry for a second ‘Clown’, suggesting that this second clown was distinct from the character we have come to know as Touchstone. This article traces the changes made to the dramatis personae lists of 1709 and 1714. It argues that these lists offer insights into early eighteenth-century critical responses to the play. The paper also shows that these lists, though often overlooked by modern editorial historians, anticipated later eighteenth-, nineteenth-, and twentieth-century debates about the play’s geography and about Touchstone.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.068 | 0.020 |
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".