Adriana and the Discontents of Companionate Marriage; Apostolic Marina
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Following the preceding Prologue outlining the thematic and dramaturgical connections of Chapters 3 and 4 with Pauline and Bakhtinian rhetoric of heteroglossia, this chapter frames Adriana’s equitable reinterpretation of the duties of wives and husbands in Ephesians 5 with Dorothy Leigh’s early seventeenth-century advice book, The Mother’s Blessing. Both texts question the Protestant theory of companionate marriage based on Paul’s ideal of ‘one flesh’. Yet in speeches combining timely interventions (kairos) and bold speech (parrhesia) of the kind approved by Paul, Adriana exposes the subversion of his ‘one flesh’ trope by modern venereal infection because of her husband’s infidelity. I briefly trace Shakespeare’s idea of marital ‘pollution’ to The Rape of Lucrece before returning to The Comedy of Errors to discuss how Adriana becomes a tragic-comic figure because her crisis is displaced by the play’s joyful revelations of fraternal and parental identity, and in the absence of a scripted reconciliation with her husband. In Pericles, Marina’s transgressive role as a female preacher in the Mytilene brothel, and her use of Pauline kairos and parrhesia first to thwart Lysimachus’s rape and then to convert him, allows her to avoid Lucrece’s tragedy or Adriana’s tragicomic limbo. Afterwards, Marina’s Mytilene community of economically self-sustaining women aligns her symbolically with the female leadership of first-century house churches acclaimed by Paul and rediscovered by Erasmus’s Paraphrases. Like her scriptural predecessors, Marina joins the truth of her creaturely body with female public works in the community. She then applies this regenerative energy to the nearly broken Pericles and secures the fully inclusive reunion that was missed in The Comedy of Errors.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| 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".